Baptismal Efficacy: A Catechetical Presentation, Pt. 1

One of the things I keep hearing from friends and Facebook friends alike is, Paul, I’m confused about what you’re actually saying about Baptism.

The more I think about it, that can be an indication that in my recent attempts to articulate my position,[1] I haven’t been as clear as I’ve tried to be. Another possibility is that some of the things I’m saying are new and unfamiliar, and those who are trying to understand me simply lack the necessary theological categories to process my material. 

Whatever the case may be, I have a desire to make myself as clear as possible. As a pastor, it’s my job to make sure that my teaching is understood by all. True, I can’t make people agree with me, but if they go away disagreeing with what I’m not saying, I’ll be the only one to blame.  

In this series, I want to explain my position on Baptismal Efficacy as clearly and forthrightly as I can. To help with that, I'll be presenting this material in “catechetical” form. First, I will pose the most pressing and relevant questions, and then proceed to answer those questions to the best of my ability.

Questions About Baptismal Efficacy

1. You have said that the sacraments are “effectual means of salvation.” Where did you get that terminology from and what exactly does it mean?

I get this terminology directly from the Westminster Standards. In Question 91 of the Shorter Catechism, we read: “The sacraments become effectual means of salvation not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them.”

In order to grasp this, you have to know what it means to say that something is a “means of grace.” In simple terms, a means is a medium, instrument, or vehicle through which something is communicated. To be clear then, I affirm that God communicates the benefits of redemption to us through various appointed means, including the preaching of the word and the administration of the sacraments.[2]

It’s important to keep in mind, however, that in the sacraments (just like the word) God's grace is communicated in an objective manner. In order for it to become effectual unto salvation, the recipient must receive it by faith.

• To state it concisely: Baptism is an objective means by which God communicates His grace, and Faith is the subjective means by which that grace is received. 

The basis for this position can be seen in two examples from Scripture. In Hebrews 4:2, we learn that much of the Exodus generation perished in the wilderness but not because God withheld His grace from the people (indeed they all heard the preaching of the word). Rather, the people perished because they didn’t receive it by faith: “The word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.” 

The same thing can be seen with Baptism. When a baptized person fails to obtain salvation, the reason is not that God somehow withheld His grace. The problem is that the person did not receive what God had given him by the hand of faith. This is why Jesus said, “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned.” 

So, yes, I believe that in and through Baptism there is always a real and objective giving or communication of saving grace. But it is only when we receive it by faith that we can benefit from it in a saving way. This is what we might call the “objective-subjective paradigm,” or as other theologians might prefer, the “gift-reception paradigm” of Holy Baptism:

“In baptism, God offers, and we receive; God promises, and we believe; God acts, and we respond. God wraps up the gift of Christ in the means of grace; we receive and open the gift by faith.”[3]

---

Notes

[1] To get an idea of what I’ve been saying on this subject, see HERE for my article and HERE for the podcast interview about my article.

[2] Question 85 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism says: “To escape the wrath and curse of God due to us for sin, God requireth of us faith in Jesus Christ, repentance unto life, with the diligent use of all the outward means whereby Christ communicateth to us the benefits of redemption.” In Question 88, it says: “The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of redemption are his ordinances, especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; all which are made effectual to the elect for salvation.”

[3] Rich Lusk, Baptismal Efficacy and Baptismal Latency: A Sacramental Dialogue, found HERE. It is clear that Lusk is saying nothing different from what Calvin taught when he said: “From this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, except insofar as we receive in faith.” John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 339.

Biblical Case Law: Unmasking Mask Mandates

With all the different arguments that are set forth in favor of a universal mask mandate, none of them is grounded in the principles of biblical law. At least not from our perspective.

Besides an appeal to the bare authority of the state (which is inexplicably common in our day), there's probably one common thread that runs through the rest of the popular arguments—namely, the concept of criminal negligence.

Basically, that translates as:

// You have to wear a mask even if you look and feel great because so long as there is, in the world, a virus with the potential to kill, you are always a threat to human life //

Is this a strawman? I wish it was, but let us state it more precisely:

// If you happen to contract a virus, pass it on to another person, and they end up dead, you would be responsible for that death. This would be an act of criminal negligence on your part because you failed to take the precautionary measures //

Now, obviously, there are many problems with this kind of reasoning but, again, the biggest problem is that it's not based on the principles of God's law. In fact, we would go further and say that this argument is in direct conflict with God's law, and the best way to see that is by examining the various case laws of the Old Testament. In this post, we can use Exodus 21:28-29, otherwise known as the Ox Law.

Now, the Ox Law was provided to help us determine whether any act of criminal negligence had been committed by the owner of a deadly ox. In this passage, Moses lays out the details of two possible situations wherein a man is killed by another man's ox, and he shows us what level of guilt (if any) accrues to the owner in each case. Clearly, the general equity of this law applies to the current, universal mandate to cover up our deadly faces.

Exodus 21:28-29

• Case 1: If an ox gores a man or a woman, and they die: then the ox shall surely be stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten, but the owner of the ox shall be blameless.

• Case 2: But if the ox was known to push with his horn in time past, and it has been testified to his owner, and he has not kept him in, so that he kills a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.

Okay, so we can see what the text says, but the questions are: What does the text mean? and How does the text apply? Here are some really basic observations:

In the first case, the owner is free from all guilt because he had no reason to believe that his ox was a threat to human life. To be sure, every ox is potentially a danger to men, but the truth is, most of them are not. In fact, there are other passages of Scripture in which it's assumed that, as a general rule, oxen are not much of a danger at all.

Exodus 21:1, for example, says that if a man sees an ox wandering around on its own, it is his duty to bring that ox back to its owner. From this, we should conclude that while every ox has the potential to kill, very few of them actually do.

The thing to note here is that there's nothing in our text that requires a man to automatically treat his ox as if it's an actual threat to human life. This means that, if an ox gets loose, its owner will not be chargeable with guilt, even in the extreme case that it happens to kill another man.

Again, verse 28 says: If an ox gores a man or a woman, and they die: then the ox shall surely be stoned, and his flesh shall not be eaten but the owner of the ox shall be blameless.

Now, in the second situation, spelled out in verse 29, the owner is in fact liable for the death of the man and, in this case, he is guilty of criminal negligence. So here, we need to ask the all-important question: What makes the difference?

Moses shows us that there are at least three things that contribute to the owner's guilt, i.e. three factors that differentiate the two cases.

The first factor is that the owner has personal knowledge about the tendency of his ox to attack men. In other words: this particular ox has a record of violent behavior and his owner knows it. Moses says: but if the ox was known to push with his horn in time past.

The second factor is that the owner had also received outside confirmation of the fact. In other words: He's received a report that confirms his own experience. Moses adds: and it has been testified to his owner.

The third factor is that the owner—now in the face of irrefutable evidence about his ox—refuses to take the necessary precautions. In other words: Here is a man who knows that he owns a deadly ox. He knows it by personal experience and he knows it by additional outside confirmation. And yet still, this man is so careless that he refuses to corral his animal. Moses says: and he has not kept him in.

So altogether, we see that the second case is very different from the first. From this passage, we learn that it's only when there is sure and certain knowledge of an actual threat, along with a refusal to act accordingly, that any charge of criminal negligence can be brought against a man.

The text is clear as a bell. And the way it applies to the universal mask mandate should be equally clear. If a man is experiencing Covid-like symptoms, he may want to get tested. If he tests positive, he should take precautionary measures; either by wearing a mask in certain situations or staying home altogether.

However (and here's the point), when a man looks and feels great, and has no reason to believe that he's infected with Covid-19, that's a completely different situation. There is nothing in this text, or anywhere in the Word of God, that requires him to live as if he's a constant threat to human life.

Therefore, whoever requires other people to cover their faces in the name of "potential danger" is acting independently of the Word of God. This is true regardless of whether he's a doctor, politician, or the pastor of a local church. Unless he can prove that they're infected and have knowledge of their own infection, he is standing on shaky ground. Or, in the words of Job 38:2, this man is "darkening counsel by words without knowledge."