What Does Baptism Accomplish?

After going back and retracing my studies on the question of baptismal efficacy, I can confidently say that there are both objective and subjective elements involved. Here is what I found:

I. On the objective side, baptism is the means by which a person becomes a Christian. This seems incontrovertible since it serves as the rite of initiation whereby a person is united to Christ and enters the discipleship process. "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body" (1 Cor. 12:13). “Go, therefore, and disciple the nations [by] baptizing them and [by] teaching them to observe all things I have commanded you” (Mat. 28:19).

But this is no small thing. Already we are dealing with a radical, life-changing experience that takes place every time a person is baptized. In this sense, we can say that baptism is effectual in the same way that a wedding ceremony is effectual: it always accomplishes what it's designed to accomplish.

When a man and his fiancé show up on their wedding day, they always come in as two single individuals. But by the time they leave they are united together in the holy estate of marriage. By virtue of the wedding ceremony, their identities have been changed in real and significant ways. Each of them now has a new set of concrete relationships—not just with one another but with countless other people as well. Together they have new privileges and new responsibilities. Today, they can do things that were morally unacceptable just the day before.

While marriage is not a sacrament, it gives us a good picture of how baptism works: Baptism is a divine ceremony, a God-ordained ritual act that changes the objective status and identity of the person who is baptized. Like the newlywed, he has now been grafted into a new set of relationships and circumstances, the difference being that he now has access to all the privileges and responsibilities of the Covenant of Grace. Thus, the most important point to see here is that, like the wedding ceremony, the baptismal rite always does exactly what it's designed to do, and there is no exception to the rule.

II. But that’s not all that happens in baptism, there is also a subjective side to consider. If we wish to take the Bible seriously, we must affirm that in baptism there is a sovereign communication of salvific blessings to the person baptized. Among these are regeneration (Tit. 3:5), the washing away of sins (Acts 22:16), and the giving of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). And though this is where a lot of people stumble, we have to be very firm about what the Bible actually teaches. Therefore, regardless of whatever previous theological commitments one may have, the most important thing about “doing theology” is that he remains faithful to the Word of God. His job is to follow Scripture no matter where he thinks it might lead. As I've tried to do that, here are three propositions I feel bound to affirm:

  • First, it is unmistakably clear that the saving benefits of Jesus Christ are, in fact, delivered to us in Holy Baptism.

This is something that is so clearly stated that we should avoid every temptation and resist every inclination to undermine the force of the biblical language. For example, when the Jews asked Peter what they should do about their participation in the murder of Christ, he commanded them: Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, specifically, “for the forgiveness of your sins.” Then, in the very same breath, he told them: "And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

Truly, if all we had was this one passage, the teaching would be clear and secure. But we have many other passages that speak in similar terms. When Ananias was preparing to baptize Paul, he said: "Arise and be baptized and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16). Later, Paul himself went on to describe the act of baptism as the "washing of regeneration and renewing of the Holy Spirit” (Tit. 3:5).

These passages should be left just the way they are, rather than explained away. In the latter one, the term "washing" is λουτροῦ and literally means "laver"—referring to the vessel in which ceremonial washings take place. Thus, when Paul uses this word he is saying that the baptismal font is the "laver of regeneration" or the place where new life in Christ is received.

  • Second, it is unmistakably clear that a man can receive these salvific blessings before he is actually baptized.

Naturally, this proposition might throw some people for a loop. And yet, that's exactly what the Bible teaches. This, too, must be accepted and accounted for in whatever theological system we are seeking to build from the Word of God. Just as we should take the previous passages at face value, so we should take these at face value as well.

As Cornelius was listening to the preaching of the Word by Peter, the Bible says he received the gift of the Holy Spirit right then and there (Acts 10:43, 44). Then, in response to that event, Peter asked: “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” (v. 47).

Here we see that the Holy Spirit was given to Cornelius, not in his baptism but prior to it. According to the text, he received the Spirit through the preaching of the Word alone! This is something that many people experience. That's why Peter could later say: You were born again "through the word of God” (1 Pet. 1:23). And that's why Paul could say to the Galatians: "This only would I learn from you: Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" (Gal. 3:2).

Now, as we gather the biblical data and put these two propositions together, it raises an important question: Does this mean that when Cornelius was baptized his baptism was nothing more than a "symbol" of what he already experienced? Or, as a friend of mine recently put it: If a person has already been regenerated, and his sins have been washed away, and he has received the gift of the Holy Spirit, what exactly is there left for him to receive in his baptism?

To this question, I think we can say: Much in every way! In fact, I think we can even say that a man like Cornelius still receives these (and other) salvific blessings in and through his baptism.

Notice that in my statement above I said that in baptism there is a sovereign communication of salvific blessings to the person baptized. The word “sovereign” is important here because it not only means that God can communicate His blessings whenever, wherever, however, and upon whomsoever He pleases (that's certainly true); but even more simply it means that God is able to differentiate between what a man has, and what a man needs. On that basis, He blesses each person according to his individual need. Essentially, this translates into saying that the experience of the grace of God varies from person to person, and this brings us to the final proposition.

  • Third, it is unmistakably clear that the same saving benefits can be given to, and received by, the very same person on more than one occasion.

Here, since we're talking specifically about regeneration, the washing away of sins, and the giving of the Holy Spirit, this last proposition should be established by three more points, one for each of the blessings in view.

  • First, the Bible uses the term “regeneration” in both objective and subjective senses (compare Mat. 19:28 and Tit. 3:5). But even in its subjective sense, when it refers to the inward work of the Holy Spirit, regeneration is a continuum. This means it begins with the definitive transformation we call “conversion” and continues with the progressive transformation we call “renewal.”

In fact, it’s very possible that both of these dimensions appear side by side in Titus 3:5. It may be that the “washing of regeneration” and “renewing of the Holy Spirit” are two sides of the same coin. It's possible that there is an overlapping relationship between the two so that Paul is referring to one and the same thing from two different vantage points.

In either case, the term Paul uses for “renewing” in that passage is ἀνακαινώσεως, and he uses it elsewhere to describe the ongoing process of spiritual renovation in the life of the Christian. Note that it's to Christians that he says: Put off the old man, put on the new man, "and be renewed (ἀνανεοῦσθαι) in the spirit of your minds” (Eph. 4:22, 23). Likewise, it's to Christians that he says: "Be transformed by the renewing (ἀνακαινώσει) of your minds” (Rom. 12:2). This demonstrates that the work of regeneration, which indeed begins at the point of our conversion, continues on in the lifelong process of renewal or “progressive sanctification.”

But how does that relate to baptism? The answer is easy: Even if a person has already been regenerated (in the sense of conversion) by the preaching of the Word, he can still be regenerated (in the sense of renewal) by the sacrament of Holy Baptism. In this case, the person baptized receives "grace upon grace" even from the fullness of Jesus Christ (Jn. 1:16).

  • Second, the same thing can be said about the washing away of sins—namely, that it is not a one-time occurrence, but a repeatable saving grace in the life of the believer.

Certainly, there is the initial washing that takes place at conversion, but Scripture also teaches that after conversion we have an ongoing need for spiritual cleansing. In fact, Jesus himself made this distinction when he told Peter that even after a man has received the (definitive) washing of his head, he is still in need of the (continual) washing of his feet (Jn. 13:6-11)!

To add to this, we might also note that if the washing away of our sins is but a one-time event, never to be repeated again, then Jesus would not have commanded his disciples to pray for the daily forgiveness of their sins in the Lord's Prayer (Mat. 6:12). Nor would the apostle John have spoken in the present tense when he declared: "But if we walk in the light as He is in the light, we have fellowship with one another and the blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanses us from all sin” (1 Jn. 1:7). In the next two verses, he adds: “If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness” (vv. 8-9)!

But again, how does that relate to baptism? The answer is the same as before: Even if a man has already been washed from his sins at the time of his conversion, he can still be washed again at the time of his baptism. Going back to what I said before, this is why Ananias, speaking to the newly but already converted Paul, could still say: “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins” (Acts 22:16)!

  • Finally, what about the giving of the Holy Spirit? Is that also a repeatable grace? The answer is, Yes, and we can understand this in the same way as the others since we also see different aspects of this gift in the Bible.

At one time, we are "sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise” (Eph. 1:13). At another time, God might “give us the Spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of Him” (Eph. 1:17). At another time still, like a Father giving good gifts to his children, Jesus says: "He gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him” (Lk. 11:13). What this shows us is that the receiving of the Holy Spirit is not a one-time occurrence in the life of the believer. It certainly happens at his conversion but it, too, is a repeatable blessing that he experiences again and again throughout the course of his life.

By this time, the position should be well-established in our minds. Just like we saw with other saving benefits, the gift of the Holy Spirit is also delivered to us in Holy Baptism—and not just to those who have not yet received Him. Rather we can say that He is given to every man who believes and is baptized, according to his individual need.

To say it differently: just because a person has received the Holy Spirit doesn't mean that there is now nothing left of the Holy Spirit for God to give him. Instead, we can say that God gives to such a man a new and fresh filling of the Spirit when He baptizes him into Christ. Truly then, there is nothing inconsistent with saying that such a man receives another filling, another cleansing, and another measure of regenerating grace for godly living!

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 2

One of the best ways to overturn an undesirable conclusion is to deny one or more of the premises on which it depends. In my experience, this is what the bulk of the paedocommunion debate has been reduced to. Some deny the primacy of the sacramental connection between the Passover and the Lord's Supper, while others deny that children partook of the Passover in the first place.

In this post, I want to address the second of these denials since it’s a lot more common among the people I know. At some point down the line, I can deal with the first one, even if it's just to reinforce what should be a very obvious connection.

A Definitional Argument

A few months ago, I taught a four-week crash course on the doctrine of Infant Baptism, from a distinctly Reformed perspective. When it came time to make a positive case for the practice, I used what I called at the time, a definitional argument. 

This means, instead of trying to prove that there were children present in at least one of the households baptized in the book of Acts, I began by asking the more fundamental question: What is the definition of a household, according to the Bible? 

Interestingly, everyone in the room (Baptists and Presbyterians alike) agreed on this point, and here is what I said: Every man living on his own constitutes a household of one. If and when he takes a wife, it becomes a household of two; if and when they have a child, it is then a household of three. Therefore, the biblical definition of a household always includes the children, if and when they are present.

Now, to show that this definition is correct, consider just two passages from the word of God. In Genesis 45:18, Pharaoh commanded Joseph and his brothers to bring their “households'' back to Egypt. Then, when he repeats that command in verse 19, he defines their households as their “little ones and wives.”  Likewise, in 1 Timothy 3:4, Paul requires an Elder to rule his own “household” well. Then, when he explains what that means, he says that he must have his “children” in submission with all reverence. 

From these two passages (and there are more) it is abundantly clear that children are members of the biblical household—by definition. 

In terms of baptism, this means that, even if our Baptist friends could prove (which they cannot) that every member of the baptized households in the Book of Acts was a believing adult, those particular situations could never become the standard for households with covenant children. 

In other words, one household may have no children and another may have five. When the first household is baptized, children would not be included, but when the second household is baptized, the children would be included, and that by necessity. This is because, even though the situation may vary, the definition never changes: children are always included in the biblical household—if and when they are present.

Definitions at the Passover

As we move the discussion, now, from New Testament Baptism to the Old Testament Passover, we need to keep in mind that the same line of argumentation applies. Thus, it is nothing more than an act of unjustified presumption to think that we can rightly understand the import of the Passover instructions without first defining the terms that are being used.

For example, in Exodus 12:3, the LORD tells Moses to speak to all the “congregation” of Israel, and to instruct every man to take a lamb according to the “house of his father.” Then, He specifies even further, saying that it shall be “a lamb for a household.”

Now, unless the LORD is using completely different definitions here than He uses in the rest of His word, it is virtually impossible to exclude the covenant children from the Passover meal. Why? Because children are not just members of the biblical household; they were also members of the congregation of Israel.

When Joshua read the Book of the Law to the people on Mt. Ebal, the Bible says he read it before “all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones” (Jos. 8:35). Again, when Joel called for a national day of fasting, his command was to “gather the people and sanctify the congregation.” When he specified who was included, he said, “Assemble the elders, gather the children, and the nursing babes” (Joel 2:15-16).

So then, am I right, or am I right? If the definitional argument is good, then it's good, and we need to think more carefully before we say that children did not partake of the Passover meal.

A Road Map for What's Ahead

At this point, my primary task is to respond to the various questions and objections that arise, and as of right now, I have five of them in view:

  1. The Passover diet was unsuitable for small children

  2. Admission to the Passover required catechesis 

  3. The language of the text disproves child-participation

  4. Later attendance to Passover was restricted to adult males

  5. Jesus attended Passover at the age of twelve

From what I've seen, these are some of the most common arguments employed against child participation in the Passover meal. There may be others, but these will be my focus in this particular series especially because, again, each of these has been used by those whom I personally know.

In this post, however, I can only start the process, so I'll use this opportunity to address just the first objection. The rest will have to wait for a later time.

Objections & Answers

  1. The Passover Diet Was Unsuitable for Small Children 

Normally, those who raise this objection have two of the dietary items in mind; the roasted lamb and the (alcoholic) wine. The argument is that these items are, by the very nature of the case, unsuitable (if not impossible) for children to consume. Therefore small children did not partake of the Passover meal.

Roasted Lamb

In answering this objection, I want to begin with the obvious admission that small children are incapable of eating roasted lamb, depending, of course, on what we mean by small. There is little question that the Bible makes a distinction between those who can eat meat and those who are still in need of milk, with the latter consistently referred to as “babes” (1 Cor. 3:1-2 cf. Heb. 5:12-13; 1 Pet. 2:2). 

But—and here's my answer: this fact was not overlooked in the Passover meal, and you can see that by the specificity of the instructions found in Exodus 12. 

When the LORD told Moses that there was to be a lamb for a household, which, again, includes the children (v 3), He also specified that the size of the lamb should be chosen “according to the number of the persons” in each home (v 4). That all the children who were physically capable of eating that meal were included, is made clear because the instructions become even more precise: “each man, according to the mouth of his eating, shall make the count for the lamb” (v 4b). [1]  

Obviously, we always need to take into consideration, what this objection calls, “the nature of the case.” But this only means that an exception to the rule is based upon the natural limitations of God’s creation design. And really, that’s just common sense. If eating meat requires teeth, and by nature children are not born with teeth, then who can deny that they're entitled to a temporary exemption from eating the covenant meal?

Alcoholic Wine 

The second aspect of the Passover meal that causes some concern is the drinking of the wine. This objection says that, since wine is an intoxicant, it is inconceivable that this was ever intended for a child. My answer is at least twofold.

First, I agree that the intoxicating factor of wine should be taken into account. And yet, I would hasten to add that this presents a caution no less to the worshipping adult than it does to the little child. After all, there is no age in Scripture at which intoxication becomes an appropriate, or even acceptable, state of mind. When Paul says, “Do not be drunk with wine” (Eph. 5:18), he’s speaking to the entire church, not just the kids. Therefore, I would argue that, in the end, this objection proves too much.  

My second answer is that, even though the Bible prohibits drunkenness, it nevertheless commands the drinking of wine. What’s more, is that there are at least two clear sets of instructions that required children to partake of wine as members of the worshipping community.

To be specific, not only did they partake of the sacrificial meals of the peace offerings (Deut. 12:6, 7, 11), but they were also to partake of the tithe offerings, which often included wine. 

Deuteronomy 12:17, 18

// You may not eat within your gates the tithe of your grain or your new wine… but you must eat them before the LORD your God in the place which the LORD your God chooses: you, and your son, and your daughter //

Deuteronomy 14:23, 26

// And you shall eat before the LORD your God, in the place where He chooses to make His name abide, the tithe of your grain and your new wine... You shall eat there before the LORD your God, and you shall rejoice: you and your household //

Without stretching these passages to say more than they do, we can at least see that the intoxicating factor of wine was not a sufficient reason to bar children from any of these sacrificial meals. This being the case, the point should be clear: Why would it, then, have barred them from the meal of the Passover? Moreover: Why should it bar them now from the meal of the Lord’s Supper? 

Now, certainly, common sense has a definite role to play. There’s no question that, even in the various sacrificial meals, only small portions of wine would have been given to a little child. Likewise, today, only a sip of wine is received in the Lord’s Supper. And so, while it’s a good thing to be concerned for the little ones God has entrusted to our care, we need to remember that ultimately, they belong to Him. And, as we see from the pages of His word, He invites them—and even commands them—to partake of His covenant meal. [2]


NOTES:

[1] A second objection here is that the term “man” in the phrase “every man according to the mouth of his eating” refers to adult males only. However, one does not have to be a Hebrew scholar to know that such a grammatical appeal is a stretch at best. In fact, this same phrase is found in only one other context (Exod. 16) where it’s used to describe the apportioning of the manna to each household (vv 16, 18, 21). Without a doubt, the phrase in that context shows that the distribution included the children, that is, all who were physically capable of eating the manna. How do we know that? Because there was nothing else for them to eat (!) 

[2] Another significant passage is found in Lamentations 2, where Jeremiah describes his sorrow for the suffering of God’s people. In verse 11, he says, “My eyes fail with tears, my heart is troubled. . . . because of the destruction of the daughter of my people; because the children and the infants faint in the streets of the city.” The mention of their “fainting” here is probably a reference to their hunger in a time of famine. Interestingly, as he articulates the cry of these little ones, he says in verse 12: “They say to their mothers, Where is grain, and where is wine?” Thus, this passage not only demonstrates that children can and do eat solids well before they’re weaned, but it also shows that wine itself was something they were known to consume.

Access Granted: Studies on Covenant Communion, Pt. 1

In this series, I want to respond to the many questions and objections that were (and still are) being raised against me for my transition to the practice of Covenant Communion.[1]

For the record, my hope is that the material I publish here will be received in the spirit in which I write it. It is not my purpose to hurt, harm, belittle, or insult the people who disagree. Rather, my only desire is to gain a fair and charitable hearing, first, among those who know and love me, and second, among those who happen to stumble across my blog. 

My purpose is to use this series as a way to explain my reasons for adopting a practice that, in my opinion, has been superficially dismissed on the basis of Reformed tradition, i.e. for falling outside of what we might call “confessional orthodoxy.” 

An Institutional Conundrum

As many of you know, I spent seven years in a traditional Reformed church and, therefore, one that practices the Rite of Confirmation to mark the change of status that covenant children undergo when they confess their faith publicly, before the entire congregation. 

Ironically, though, long before this “confirmation” these covenant children were baptized into the body of Christ as a sign and seal (i.e. confirmation) of their inclusion in the covenant of grace. Thus, in the directory of worship we used, the theological basis for their baptism is spelled out in clear, covenantal language:

// In the New Testament no less than in the Old, the children of the faithful, born within the church, have interest in the covenant by virtue of their birth, and right to the seal of it and to the outward privileges of the church. This is because the covenant of grace is the same in substance under both Testaments, and the grace of God for the consolation of believers is even more fully manifested in the New Testament //

At the time of their baptism, it is declared that the Triune God claims these covenant children “as His very own.” The congregation is reminded that our Savior “admitted little children into his presence, embraced and blessed them, saying, Of such is the kingdom of God.” It is also said that their baptism is the means by which they are “distinguished from the children of unbelievers and solemnly received into the visible church.”

All in all, this institution of infant baptism is beautiful and biblical at every point, and it’s not my purpose to detract from it in any way. Rather, my purpose is to show that when we take the wording of the institution seriously, it raises a number of questions that call for a more careful consideration.

For example, what does it mean that our children are included in the covenant of grace? If it simply means they have a right to the outward privileges of the church, then the question becomes: Where do the sacraments fit into that? Are we saying that Baptism is an outward privilege of the church while the Lord’s Supper is an inward privilege (whatever that means)? 

To say it differently: If the “covenant of grace” is a reference to the administration of the covenant rather than its substance, does that imply Baptism is for the visible church while the Lord’s Supper is for the invisible church? I doubt that anyone would affirm that but it’s certainly a valid question, given that we administer baptism to and withhold communion from the very same people.

So then, here’s the deal. I believe if a person is willing to wrestle with this discrepancy from a true and sincere heart, he will be forced into the following conclusion:

// If I want to take the wording of this institution seriously, I must affirm that my children were (by baptism) received into the visible church. Therefore, the only way the elders can now exclude them from the Lord’s Table, is if they either (1) Divide the Sacraments—by saying that Baptism is, but the Lord’s Supper is not, for the visible church, or (2) Divide the Visible Church—by saying that there are two levels of membership within it, and baptism only gets you to level one //

Apparently, most Reformed churches have chosen option number two (as strange as it all may sound). But this explains why the Rite of Confirmation has become a necessary tradition. It serves as the instrument by which our baptized children make it to level two. This is seen by the fact that, in the very last words of the rite itself, the minister declares to the one being confirmed: “Beloved, I now welcome you to full communion with the people of God.”

A Confessional Conundrum

I’m known as the guy who likes to repeat himself. Maybe it’s just the way my mind works, but I often feel like any point worth making is worth making again, in a slightly different way.

As a follow-up to the Institutional Conundrum we create when we bar covenant children from the covenant meal, there’s a Confessional Conundrum as well. And let me just be upfront with it: I would contend that in the interest of protecting a traditional practice, the Westminster Confession ends up creating an unnecessary tension between the principles of its sacramental theology and the application of those principles when it comes to the Lord's Supper.

For example, the Westminster Confession of Faith defines the visible church as "those that profess the true religion, together with their children" (25:2). It defines the sacraments as "signs and seals of the covenant of grace” and says that they’re designed to “put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church and the rest of the world" (27:1). It also maintains that the sacraments of the Old Testament “with regard to the spiritual things signified, were, for substance, the same with those of the New" (27:5).

Now, if you’re Reformed, then you know as well as I do that it’s upon these principles that we base the practice of paedobaptism. But the question is: On what application of these same principles can paedocommunion be invalidated?[2]

It seems clear that to avoid the undesirable conclusion that children have a right to Communion as members of the covenant community, the meaning and purpose of this sacrament has to be changed.

  • Rather than the Lord’s Supper being a sign and seal of the covenant of grace (which includes our children), it must be changed into a sign and seal of the benefits that come with being “confirmed.”

  • Rather than the Lord's Supper being used to put a visible difference between those that belong to the church (which includes our children) and the rest of the world, it must be used to mark the difference between the church and the true church in her midst.

  • Rather than the Lord's Supper being the same in substance with regard to the spiritual things signified in the sacramental meals of the Old Testament (which always included children), it has somehow become a sacrament of such a different spiritual nature that the children must now be excluded. 

The fundamental question here is, How did this happen, and what is the biblical basis for such major theological discrepancies? In the end, it seems that we are driven to a similar conclusion as before, and again we must decide between two options, not unlike the options I mentioned above:

// If we accept the general sacramental theology of the Westminster Confession as biblical, we must either apply these principles consistently to both of the church's sacraments or provide a sound, biblical basis for suspending these principles when it comes to the Lord's Supper //

Obviously, Christians in traditional Reformed churches will opt for number two. Therefore, in the next post on this particular topic, we'll begin looking at the scriptural arguments they use in trying to prove their position and disprove mine.


NOTES:

[1] I like the term Covenant Communion because it distinguishes the Reformed practice from other traditions that serve children at the Lord’s Table. However, I am also perfectly okay with the term Paedocommunion as well, and often use them interchangeably with no intended difference in mind.

[2] For the record, I took this line of reasoning, and much of the wording, from Robert Rayburn’s, A Presbyterian Defense of Paedocommunion. That article was published in, The Case for Covenant Communion, edited by Greg Strawbridge.