Let us know, that the Apostle does not simply exhort us to imitate Christ, as though he had said that the death of Christ is a pattern which all Christians are to follow; for no doubt he ascends higher, as he announces a doctrine, with which he connects, as it is evident, an exhortation; and his doctrine is this — that the death of Christ is efficacious to destroy and demolish the depravity of our flesh, and his resurrection, to effect the renovation of a better nature, and that by baptism we are admitted into a participation of this grace. This foundation being laid, Christians may very suitably be exhorted to strive to respond to their calling. Farther, it is not to the point to say, that this power is not apparent in all the baptized; for Paul, according to his usual manner, where he speaks of the faithful, connects the reality and the effect with the outward sign; for we know that whatever the Lord offers by the visible symbol is confirmed and ratified by their faith. In short, he teaches what is the real character of baptism when rightly received. So he testifies to the Galatians, that all who have been baptized into Christ, have put on Christ. Thus indeed must we speak, as long as the institution of the Lord and the faith of the godly unite together; for we never have naked and empty symbols, except when our ingratitude and wickedness hinder the working of divine beneficence.
(HT: Horne: Calvin on how we speak of baptism to the faithful)
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Baptism. Show all posts
Friday, July 6, 2007
Friday, June 29, 2007
Calvin on Baptism
"All then that Ananias meant to say was, Be baptized, Paul, that you may be assured that your sins are forgiven you. In baptism, the Lord promises forgiveness of sins: receive it, and be secure" (Institutes, Book 4, Ch. 15, Sect. 15).
"But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude, by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.
"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" (Institutes, Book 4, Ch. 14, Sect. 7).
"But from this sacrament, as from all others, we gain nothing, unless in so far as we receive in faith. If faith is wanting, it will be an evidence of our ingratitude, by which we are proved guilty before God, for not believing the promise there given.
"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" (Institutes, Book 4, Ch. 14, Sect. 7).
Leithart on Assurance & Baptism
If some of the baptized end up in hell, how can baptism be an instrument of assurance?
Might as well ask the same question about the word: If some who hear the Word end up in hell, how can the Word be an instrument of assurance?
In both cases, the answer is: Baptism and the Word failed to assure because those who received the promise did not believe it, or did not continue to believe it. They made God a liar.
The problem occurs when we're looking for some ground of assurance more solid, certain, well-grounded than the promise of God.
But there is no better ground for assurance than the mercy of God.
Baptism is God's promise to me, personally, by name. I know that God has promised Himself to me. I'm just supposed to believe that, rely on it. That's the way of assurance.
If I'm looking for some way to peek over God's shoulder (or my own) and see if He really promised Himself to me, I'm looking for something more solid than the promise of God that I can rely on. If I look for something else, I'm looking for the real God behind the God-who-promises.
But there is no other God. And there is no backdoor entrance to His presence. He faces us in Jesus, the Face of the Father, gives promises, assures us in Word and water of His self-commitment to us. We have only to believe it.
Leithart: Assurance
[HT: Borg Blog: Finding Assurance in Baptism]
Might as well ask the same question about the word: If some who hear the Word end up in hell, how can the Word be an instrument of assurance?
In both cases, the answer is: Baptism and the Word failed to assure because those who received the promise did not believe it, or did not continue to believe it. They made God a liar.
The problem occurs when we're looking for some ground of assurance more solid, certain, well-grounded than the promise of God.
But there is no better ground for assurance than the mercy of God.
Baptism is God's promise to me, personally, by name. I know that God has promised Himself to me. I'm just supposed to believe that, rely on it. That's the way of assurance.
If I'm looking for some way to peek over God's shoulder (or my own) and see if He really promised Himself to me, I'm looking for something more solid than the promise of God that I can rely on. If I look for something else, I'm looking for the real God behind the God-who-promises.
But there is no other God. And there is no backdoor entrance to His presence. He faces us in Jesus, the Face of the Father, gives promises, assures us in Word and water of His self-commitment to us. We have only to believe it.
Leithart: Assurance
[HT: Borg Blog: Finding Assurance in Baptism]
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
Garver on Baptism
As found here:
"I can assume, then, that you agree with Hodge that, in the believing reception of baptism, the Holy Spirit reconveys and faith reappropriates the forgiveness of sins, ingrafting into Christ, the Spirit himself, and, in general, the benefits of Christ's mediation?
If so, then that is the primary point I was trying to affirm in my quotation of Hodge, in agreement, I think, with FV authors and certainly with my own views.
The real sticking point for you then seems to be "regeneration" and its relationship to baptism.
Let me try to say something constructive here.
First, let's stipulate that by "regeneration" we mean the result of effectual calling, a sovereign work of the Spirit, renewing and renovating the heart, so that a person is enabled to put actual faith in Gospel so to receive and rest upon Christ for salvation.
Second, I want to be absolutely clear that I believe that this regeneration can be enjoyed quite apart from baptism and that there are many who are baptized who are never regenerated.
Third, I would whole-heartedly affirm that this regeneration is something ordinarily wrought by the Spirit through the preaching of the Word.
None of that is in dispute in what I am saying nor, as far as I can see, in what FV proponents are saying.
None of that, however, is in the least conflict with the following affirmations:
[1] While infants are incapable of experiencing actual regeneration and the exercise of faith in particular acts, infants are nonetheless capable of having the seed and root of regeneration and faith, that is to say, the Holy Spirit at work in their lives.
[2] In infant baptism, faithful parents should have the hopeful expectation that the Holy Spirit is present and active, so that, whatever prior operations of the Spirit may have been present in the infant, the Spirit ordinarily (re)conveys himself to our children in baptism as the seed and root of their regeneration and faith.
[3] We should, therefore, also expect that in the ordinary process of Christian nurture of children by faithful parents, the Spirit will use the preaching and teaching of Word to bring the seed and root of regeneration and faith to fruition in actual regeneration and the exercise of faith. That's to say, even our baptized children need to hear the Gospel and be called to repentance and faith, as do all God's people.
[4] Thus, following from the previous points, it is perfectly natural to say, with respect to our children, that "we baptize in order that the one who is baptized be made regenerate." That is to say, baptism is among the ordinary means at God's disposal by which he works in the lives of our children along the way to regeneration and faith, which are properly and ordinarily wrought by the Word.
[5] In the case of adult converts, they are presumably already believers before they come to baptism and thus are already regenerate.
[6] Nonetheless, as Hodge says, "the benefits of redemption, the remission of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and the merits of the Redeemer, are not conveyed to the soul once for all. They are reconveyed and reappropriated on every new act of faith, and on every new believing reception of the sacraments."
[7] That's to say, in baptism, faith is strengthened and increased so that we more and more die to sin and walk in newness of life, which is the progress and increase of regenerating grace (WCF 31.1; WLC 167).
[8] Thus, following from these points, it is perfectly natural to say, with respect to an adult convert, that "we baptize in order that the one who is baptized...might grow in his regeneration." That is to say, baptism is among the ordinary means at God's disposal by which he works in the lives of converts to strength and increase their faith unto newness of life.
[9] There are other complicating cases, of course, such as the adult who is baptized in unbelief but subsequently comes to faith or the child who dies in infancy prior to being able to be called through the preaching of the Word. But I'll set those aside for present purposes.
[10] Since we cannot look upon the heart, we extend the judgment of charity to all the baptized who profess faith and who are not living scandalously. That is to say, we have a hopeful expectation that what God has signified and sealed sacramentally is actually true in fact. Thus we speak to and about such baptized professors as "regenerate." Moreover, this judgment of charity is grounded in what Reformed theology has typically termed "regeneration" in a "merely external, sacramental, and conditional" sense.
Okay, I hope that is all relatively clear.
Now, how does all of that intersect with what you quoted from Hodge and Miller?
First, I certainly do not at all affirm that "baptism regenerates" in the sense that Hodge denies that "baptism regenerates." We are coming at the question and terminology from different angles and with different meanings.
Second, I don't know the details of Hodge well enough to say, but I suspect he probably would not agree with what I believe about baptized infants of faithful parents. The way he speaks of baptized children as needing to "ratify that covenant by faith" suggests this perhaps, though I certainly could agree with that statement in the sense that children need to grow up into repentance and faith through the preaching of the Gospel.
Third, I'm convinced that my probable disagreement with Hodge here is part of a historic and ongoing difference of opinion within the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, going back to the Westminster Assembly itself and before. There were conservative 19th century American Presbyterians who essentially agreed with what I've said above and there were those who didn't. All of our views are well within the bounds of the Westminster Standards and this is historically demonstrable.
Fourth, I fail to see how what I have outlined above bears any direct relationship to the kind of Anglo-Catholic sacerdotalism that Hodge describes and opposes. I'm not an Anglo-Catholic and my views come largely out of the Puritans and 17th century Reformed scholastics - not Pusey or Newman.
"I can assume, then, that you agree with Hodge that, in the believing reception of baptism, the Holy Spirit reconveys and faith reappropriates the forgiveness of sins, ingrafting into Christ, the Spirit himself, and, in general, the benefits of Christ's mediation?
If so, then that is the primary point I was trying to affirm in my quotation of Hodge, in agreement, I think, with FV authors and certainly with my own views.
The real sticking point for you then seems to be "regeneration" and its relationship to baptism.
Let me try to say something constructive here.
First, let's stipulate that by "regeneration" we mean the result of effectual calling, a sovereign work of the Spirit, renewing and renovating the heart, so that a person is enabled to put actual faith in Gospel so to receive and rest upon Christ for salvation.
Second, I want to be absolutely clear that I believe that this regeneration can be enjoyed quite apart from baptism and that there are many who are baptized who are never regenerated.
Third, I would whole-heartedly affirm that this regeneration is something ordinarily wrought by the Spirit through the preaching of the Word.
None of that is in dispute in what I am saying nor, as far as I can see, in what FV proponents are saying.
None of that, however, is in the least conflict with the following affirmations:
[1] While infants are incapable of experiencing actual regeneration and the exercise of faith in particular acts, infants are nonetheless capable of having the seed and root of regeneration and faith, that is to say, the Holy Spirit at work in their lives.
[2] In infant baptism, faithful parents should have the hopeful expectation that the Holy Spirit is present and active, so that, whatever prior operations of the Spirit may have been present in the infant, the Spirit ordinarily (re)conveys himself to our children in baptism as the seed and root of their regeneration and faith.
[3] We should, therefore, also expect that in the ordinary process of Christian nurture of children by faithful parents, the Spirit will use the preaching and teaching of Word to bring the seed and root of regeneration and faith to fruition in actual regeneration and the exercise of faith. That's to say, even our baptized children need to hear the Gospel and be called to repentance and faith, as do all God's people.
[4] Thus, following from the previous points, it is perfectly natural to say, with respect to our children, that "we baptize in order that the one who is baptized be made regenerate." That is to say, baptism is among the ordinary means at God's disposal by which he works in the lives of our children along the way to regeneration and faith, which are properly and ordinarily wrought by the Word.
[5] In the case of adult converts, they are presumably already believers before they come to baptism and thus are already regenerate.
[6] Nonetheless, as Hodge says, "the benefits of redemption, the remission of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and the merits of the Redeemer, are not conveyed to the soul once for all. They are reconveyed and reappropriated on every new act of faith, and on every new believing reception of the sacraments."
[7] That's to say, in baptism, faith is strengthened and increased so that we more and more die to sin and walk in newness of life, which is the progress and increase of regenerating grace (WCF 31.1; WLC 167).
[8] Thus, following from these points, it is perfectly natural to say, with respect to an adult convert, that "we baptize in order that the one who is baptized...might grow in his regeneration." That is to say, baptism is among the ordinary means at God's disposal by which he works in the lives of converts to strength and increase their faith unto newness of life.
[9] There are other complicating cases, of course, such as the adult who is baptized in unbelief but subsequently comes to faith or the child who dies in infancy prior to being able to be called through the preaching of the Word. But I'll set those aside for present purposes.
[10] Since we cannot look upon the heart, we extend the judgment of charity to all the baptized who profess faith and who are not living scandalously. That is to say, we have a hopeful expectation that what God has signified and sealed sacramentally is actually true in fact. Thus we speak to and about such baptized professors as "regenerate." Moreover, this judgment of charity is grounded in what Reformed theology has typically termed "regeneration" in a "merely external, sacramental, and conditional" sense.
Okay, I hope that is all relatively clear.
Now, how does all of that intersect with what you quoted from Hodge and Miller?
First, I certainly do not at all affirm that "baptism regenerates" in the sense that Hodge denies that "baptism regenerates." We are coming at the question and terminology from different angles and with different meanings.
Second, I don't know the details of Hodge well enough to say, but I suspect he probably would not agree with what I believe about baptized infants of faithful parents. The way he speaks of baptized children as needing to "ratify that covenant by faith" suggests this perhaps, though I certainly could agree with that statement in the sense that children need to grow up into repentance and faith through the preaching of the Gospel.
Third, I'm convinced that my probable disagreement with Hodge here is part of a historic and ongoing difference of opinion within the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, going back to the Westminster Assembly itself and before. There were conservative 19th century American Presbyterians who essentially agreed with what I've said above and there were those who didn't. All of our views are well within the bounds of the Westminster Standards and this is historically demonstrable.
Fourth, I fail to see how what I have outlined above bears any direct relationship to the kind of Anglo-Catholic sacerdotalism that Hodge describes and opposes. I'm not an Anglo-Catholic and my views come largely out of the Puritans and 17th century Reformed scholastics - not Pusey or Newman.
Repent and Be Baptized
These thoughts from Upsaid
"To my mind, Acts 2:38 is not even primarily addressing the question of individual sins and individual forgiveness. Peter's stunning peroration in 2:36 is that "all the house of Israel" -- very emphatically corporate! -- should know that God has made Lord and Christ this Jesus "whom you (pl.) crucified."
The command to repent and be baptized is Peter's answer to his audience's question about this horrible, nation-destroying sin of Messiah-rejection ("They were cut to the heart" and asked "What shall we do?" , 2:37). They are thinking, "Oh no. This guy that our leaders executed was actually the Messiah after all. We're screwed!"
"To my mind, Acts 2:38 is not even primarily addressing the question of individual sins and individual forgiveness. Peter's stunning peroration in 2:36 is that "all the house of Israel" -- very emphatically corporate! -- should know that God has made Lord and Christ this Jesus "whom you (pl.) crucified."
The command to repent and be baptized is Peter's answer to his audience's question about this horrible, nation-destroying sin of Messiah-rejection ("They were cut to the heart" and asked "What shall we do?" , 2:37). They are thinking, "Oh no. This guy that our leaders executed was actually the Messiah after all. We're screwed!"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)