Romans 6 and baptism
First, a word about sacramental language. Oftentimes in Scripture, what is said of the sign actually refers to the thing signified (WCF 27.2). This is often missed in FV discussions, and in many discussions of Romans 6. For what Romans 6 is talking about is the thing signified by baptism, not so much the sign. This is evident, because the benefits described here are elsewhere attributed to the time-point of faith. For instance, faith-union with the risen Christ is described as being united with Christ in His resurrection in Colossians 2:5 together with 3:1 (and the entire passage in between is talking about the state of faith, not of baptism). Philippians 3 is even more clear: to be found in Him (vs 9) is functionally equivalent to faith in Christ (vs 9-10), which is functionally equivalent to participating in Christ's death and resurrection (vs 10-11). Now, I do not want to draw too sharp a distinction between the sign and the thing signified. Certainly, faith and regeneration can happen at the time-point of baptism. But I would argue that if it does, it is because faith is also present. Therefore, baptism all by itself, that is, the sign all by itself does not confer the blessings. This is clear from the language of the WCF 27:3, wherein there is a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. That implies by necessity that there is no promise of benefit to unworthy receivers. That follows logically and indisputably. As a matter of fact, baptism becomes condemnation to unworthy receivers. Of course, it is understood that we are all unworthy receivers of baptism, and can only be made worthy by God, just as faith also is a gift. The point of my argument here is that sacramental language (of ascribing the thing signified to the sign) does NOT mean that the thing signified actually occurs at the time point of the sign. It occurs when the baptism is improved, which can be simultaneous, but does not have to be. It should also be noted that faith is clearly in the context of Romans 6 in 5:17, where receiving the free gift of righteousness has to be defined by the time-point of faith. Then also, the main point of Romans 6 is sanctification, as is clear from verses 12ff, which no longer speak of baptism. Baptism then has a function in sanctification. I trust no one would deny this. However, in order for baptism to have its effect, it must be joined with faith, as 5:17 demonstrates. I should also say a word about Galatians 3:27, which has also been quoted as saying that baptism puts us into union with Christ. Again, this is sacramental language that must also be interpreted in the immediate context. The immediately preceding verses all mention faith in its two-fold definition: the references in verse 23 and 25 refer to THE faith, as in the Christian religion in its eschatological revealing. That definition of faith, however, is closely connected to the personal definition of faith, which we see in verses 24 and 26, where we are said to be justified by faith, and that we are said to be sons of God (note especially the plural here) by faith. So faith most certainly qualifies the statement about baptism, since verse 27 is explicitly connected with what comes before by the particle gar. Baptism (the thing signified, not the bare sign) is then defined by faith. So, contrary to Todd Harris's assertion (which was given without any exegesis at all), neither of these passages encourages the FV, but they both support the traditional Reformed view of baptism in its relationship to faith.
posted by Mr. Baggins @ 9/24/2006 02:44:00 PM
links to this post
14 Comments:
The Westminster divines use Romans 6 and Galatians 3:27 in their prooftexts for the chapter on baptism. Why? Are they confusing the sign with the thing signified?
Lane, can you give some instances when Paul really is talking about water baptism in his letters?
Also, tell us which of the reformers believe that Paul is not talking about water baptism in Romans 6 and Galatians 3. Calvin? Knox? I'm interested in how far back your kind of exegesis can be found.
Speaking of Knox. Scots Confession: "And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted." This refers to water baptism, right?
Todd, I am not going to respond to your legitimate questions until you actually answer my exegesis. It is quite unfair of you to require me to continually provide more information (since no amount is ever enough), while all you do is sit around and take pot-shots at what I say. I provided a quite detailed exegesis, with which you have interacted not one whit. In fact, it is little short of theft of time.
If you have no answers, no problem. My response to your exegesis, though, probably goes like this. The fact that the NT connects union with Christ to both faith and baptism does not imply that something other than water baptism is in view when Paul says baptism. You have asserted this, but not proven it. I'll take this kind of exegesis more seriously if you can demonstrate that the reformers did anything like what you're doing with these texts. I know this is Dunn's view, but is it Calvin's?
For better exegesis from a better exegete, I'd recommend Leithart's series in Credenda, "Baptism Is Baptism." Have you read it?
I'm eager to test your claim that your treatment of these passages "support the traditional Reformed view of baptism in its relationship to faith." Which of the reformers see these passages the way you see them, Lane? My challenge: How far back does your view go? Who's the "oldest" commentator or theologian who teaches that Paul is speaking of something other than water baptism in Romans 6:3 and Galatians 3:27?
BOQ If you have no answers, no problem. EOQ Don't kid yourself, Todd. If this is the best twisting that you can do of my words, then just don't say anything.
First of all, I never said that the rite of baptism doesn't even enter Paul's mind in Romans 6 or Gal 3. The question here is one of emphasis: does Paul talk about the sign, the thing signified, both, or in what degree both? Here is Hodge on the matter: "Paul does not design to teach that the sacrament of baptism, from any inherent virtue in the rite, or from any supernatural power in him who administers it, or from an uniformly attending Divine influence, always secures the regeneration of the soul. This is contrary both to Scripture and experience. No fact is more obvious than that thousands of the baptized are unregenerate. It cannot be, therefore, that the apostle intends to say, that all who are baptized are thereby savingly united to Christ. It is not of the effecacy of baptism as an external rite, that he assumes his readers are well informed: it is of the import and design of the sacrament, and the nature of the union with Christ, of which baptism is the sign and the seal" (Romans, pg 193). Haldane says this: "By faith believers are made one with Christ: they become members of His body. This oneness is represented emblematically by baptism" (Romans, pg 244, commenting on the phrase "Baptized into Christ Jesus"). Plainly Haldane and Hodge think of the thing signified by baptism as being the main idea in Paul's purview, not the bare, naked sign by itself without faith. That is my point. Don't mis-state my position by saying that I am denying that Paul is talking about the rite. I said that Paul is talking about the thing signified by baptism, *not so much* the sign. I do not mean to exclude the sign. I am saying that it is a matter of emphasis. He is talking about the rite, but only insofar as it refers to the reality, which is faith-union, which only happens to the elect. Paul is not talking about the bare sign. Nor is he saying that the rite always confers union with Christ (as Hodge also asserts).
Calvin on Galatians 3:27: "In this case, Paul makes no boast of any false splendour as belonging to the sacramnets, but calls our attention to the actual fact represented by the outward ceremony...the truth comes to be associated with the symbols." This is just after a marvelous discussion on the same page in which Calvin distinguishes the two ways in which Paul talks about sacraments: to hypocrites, Paul "proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol...When on the other hand, he addresses beleivers, who make a proper use of the symbosl, he then views them in connexion with the truth-which they (the sacraments) represent." Obviously, in the Galatians 3 passage, Paul is not dealing with hypocrisy, and so emphasizes the connection of the sign and the thing signified. But elsewhere, for instance in the discussion regarding true circumcision of the heart, Paul makes sure to distinguish between the sign and the thing signified.
Do not, Todd, put me in the same box as a Zwinglian empty sign theologian. That is where I feel most FVer's pushing guys like me. I don't fit that mold, and never will. But I also distinguish between the sign and the thing signified, which distinction is pretty much lost in the FV.
And Todd, since you didn't interact specifically with my exegetical arguments, I can only assume that you didn't read it carefully enough, or you would have come across several specific arguments for why Paul is talking primarily about the thing signified. The arguments about how Colossians 2:5-3:1 and Philippians 3 influence our reading of Romans 6, the argument from Romans 5:17, where faith is clearly present, and the terms of the passage itself. In regard to Romans 6 and Galatians 3, you claimed "How soon should Paul mention faith in Romans 6 before you accuse him of heresy? He proabably should have fit it into Galatians 3:27, too. By itself, it's encouraging the FVers. Paul does not modify the *baptism* statement anywhere in his letter." I have abundantly shown these claims to be false, since Paul mentions faith in Romans 5:17, and in Galatians 3:26, thus providing the very modification that you said didn't exist.
Therefore, my argument runs like this: Paul does not refer to baptism in Romans 6 without reference to faith. This is proved not only by the reference in 5:17, but also by the entire sweep of Romans, wherein chapter 6 *follows* chapters 4-5, which speak of our justification by faith, followed by the explicit connector "oun" in 6:1. The entire discussion of the benefits of baptism is conditioned then by the discussion of justification in chapters 4-5. This is irrefutable, being based on grammar. Galatians 3:26 *conclusively* proves that baptism is not being seen as divorced from faith in 3:27. It therefore follows that Paul is not talking primarily about the bare rite, but about the truth to which the rite points. Baptism does *not* bring the non-elect into faith-union with the risen Christ. Romans 6 does not *work* for the non-elect.
Cool. What about Knox and the Scots Confession? "And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs. No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted." Could you subscribe?
Well, there again you have quoted the Scotch Confession out of context. The purpose of the sacraments, according to the Scotch Confession is "not only to make a visible difference between his people and they that are without the covenant: but also to exercise (exerceret) the ***faith*** of his children and...to seal in their hearts the assurance of his promise, and of that most blessed conjunction, union and society which the elect have with their head Jesus Christ." This is what comes immediately before the quotation you have provided. So there again, faith is not divorced from the sacrament. Instead, they are reacting to those who say that the sacrament really doesn't mean anything. So the ingrafting that occurs happens as baptism is joined to faith, whenever that is. I notice that they are not as careful as the WCF to delineate the different possibilities of regeneration and baptism (see WCF 28.5).
Not quite an answer, Lane. Are you comfortable with Knox's language, even in the context of the faith mentioned? With faith presupposed, by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus, to be made partakers of his justice, by the which our sins are covered and remitted. You like it?
I would be more comfortable saying that baptism was a sign and seal of ingrafting, than that it was the actual ingrafting itself. Faith is what unites us savingly to Christ: nothing else. I like the WCF a bit better. But properly understood, I think the Scotch Confession is not really saying anything different, unless the holes in its formulations are read in a certain way. I stand by my interpretation of it.
"I would be more comfortable saying that baptism was a sign and seal of ingrafting, than that it was the actual ingrafting itself."
But the Scots Confession's language is so much closer to the simple, straight-forward language of the NT. There's trouble when we fnd ourselves more comfortable with ST formulations than with the language of the Bible itself. Don't know if that describes you accurately or not, but it's a real danger.
This is because you are not confortable with "good and necessary consequence" being equally binding on the believer. That is all that true ST is. Therefore you comment is quite wide of the mark. The language of sign and seal is biblical language. Nowhere does Scripture say that the bare rite confers union with Christ. I deny that formulation utterly. I have given ample Scriptural argumentation (consisting entirely of straightforward exegesis) that Romans 6 and Galatians 3:27 are talking primarily about the thing signified. You have not even begun to contest this. I have proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that faith modifies the statements on baptism in those two passages. You have not contested that.
You need to completely rework your notion of good and necessary consequence, as you are wrongly applying your wrong notion to my formulations here. I am straight confessional here. You are twisting the words of the confession to say things that it doesn't. I even argued that the Scotch Confession doesn't say what you are intending it to say. Faith is not divorced even from the Scotch Confession language. So to say that sign and seal language is not biblical is a bit rich, don't you think?
If you were to ask the Westminster divines whether their language of sign and seal were biblical language, what exactly do you think their answer would be? "Oh, no, it's not biblical, it's just something we dreamed up so that later so-called biblical theologians could dream up ways of contesting and negating what we say, by saying that it isn't biblical." If you prefer the Scotch Confession to the WCF, which it is pretty clear that you do, that's fine. But if you take an oath supporting the WCF, but then don't support the WCF, I shall know what to think.
"So to say that sign and seal language is not biblical is a bit rich, don't you think?"
Quite rich. But I didn't say it.
"Nowhere does Scripture say that the bare rite confers union with Christ."
I think Knox would want us to say that there is no such thing as baptism as a bare rite. Remember: "We utterly damn."
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home