Of Baptism, XXVIII:5

Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

Our Lord has commanded baptism--as we go out into the world and make disciples of all nations, we are commanded to baptise them in the Triune Name of God. So to avoid or neglect baptism is indeed a great sin. Yet it is very important to distinguish obedience to the Lord's ordinance and the salvation through grace that he has accomplished for his people. Baptism in itself does not save; it does not regenerate, and here the divines implicitly deny the (false) doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Baptism is not the agency of regeneration, for that would usurp the role of the Holy Spirit, who moves and works as he wills. Nor does baptism guarantee salvation, as if all who receive it are automatically saved. It is quite possible--although irregular and not desirable--that a Christian could go through life unbaptized and yet be saved.

Tomorrow: More on the relationship between baptism and salvation.

Of Baptism, XXVIII:4

Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

And here we have arrived at one of the more contentious statements in the Confession. The dispute between conscientious Christians over the proper recipients of baptism that has been conducted in earnest since the early days of the Protestant Reformation is not easily resolved. Both sides (it tends to be a polar debate) claim to have the weight of Scripture. In this regard, it is helpful to point out that there are three types of baptism described in the New Testament: Baptismal accounts naming no individuals; baptismal accounts where the individual has no identifiable household; and accounts of household baptisms. Only nine persons are specifically mentioned as recipients of baptism in the New Testament, and of those two did not have households and two we know nothing more about, while the remaining five persons had households that received baptism. Infants are not specifically mentioned, one way or the other. So both sides argue from silence when it is claimed, on the one hand, that Scripture does not command the baptism of infants, and, on the other hand, that Scripture does not forbid the baptism of infants.

Covenant theologians, in which category the Westminster divines belong, have looked to the parallel between circumcision and baptism (see the previous post on the correlation and continuity between the ordinances of the old and new covenants) as favoring including infants as recipients of baptism. If one does not accept this parallel/continuity then the argument is harder to sustain. Persons interested in learning more about the paedobaptist position should consult John Murray's elegant discussion.

Tomorrow: Is baptism essential to salvation?

Of Baptism, XXVIII:3

Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person.

Much ink has been spilt over the controversy on the mode of Christian baptism. I do not propose to rehearse that controversy here. Suffice to say that the divines taught that many forms of baptism are valid, preferring the pouring or sprinkling mode that would allow administration of the sacrament in any facility and not just those equipped with a full-sized font.

A friend and Christian brother has laid out the argument for the superiority of the sprinkling mode thus:

1. Christ's blood is sprinkled on us in the imagery of Hebrews 9:13-14.

2. Sprinkling cleanses according to the Old Testament (Leviticus 14:1; see also Hebrews 10:22).

3. Blood sprinkled marks out God's people (Ezekiel 36:25ff.).

4. In the new covenant, no more sprinkling of blood is necessary, but the sprinkling or pouring of water symbolizes the finished work of Christ purifying us and marking us out as his people.

I think it's an interesting argument but for the moment I have a more latitudinarian position. I do believe, however, the Westminster divines would be sympathetic to it.

Tomorrow: The proper recipients of baptism.

Of Baptism, XXVIII:2

The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

This short paragraph sets out that baptism is to be done by water (as opposed to some other material--just what one would use as a substitute I'm not sure) and according to the Triune God, just as our Lord set forth in Matthew 28. And, as established in the previous chapter that introduced the sacraments, the one celebrating baptism is to be an ordained minister of the gospel.

Tomorrow: The mode of baptism.

Of Baptism, XXVIII:1

Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament [new covenant], ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.

The Confession starts its consideration of baptism by reviewing some of the characteristics of a sacrament discussed in the previous chapter:

1. Directly ordained by Jesus Christ.

2. A sign and seal of the covenant of grace

Here baptism is also said to be a sign and seal of the recipient's union with Christ, of his spiritual regeneration, of the remission of his sins, and his sanctification. These are heady statements that will need careful consideration as the discussion of baptism proceeds further.

Baptism as a new covenant ordinance is commanded to be observed perpetually until the return of our Lord.

Tomorrow: The method of baptism.

Of the Sacraments, XXVII:5

The sacraments of the Old Testament in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the new.

Being good covenant theologians, the Westminster divines drew a direct correlation between the ordinances of the old covenant (circumcision and the Passover) and the new covenant (baptism and the Lord's Supper). Accordingly, with respect to what each ordinance is supposed to signify and display to us, these two sets of ordinances accomplish the same purpose for the people of God. Circumcision and baptism are the outward marks of inclusion in the covenant people, while Passover and the Supper are the visible, tangible, gustatory dramatization of God's redemptive work on behalf of his people.

Many more things will be said about the sacraments as we discuss each in turn over the next several days.

Tomorrow: Introduction to Christian baptism.

Of the Sacraments, XXVII:4

There are only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the Gospel; that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord: neither of which may be dispensed by any, but by a minister of the Word lawfully ordained.

This paragraph affirms the Protestant view of the number of Christian sacraments and distinctly denies the Roman Catholic formulation. From the Protestant perspective, a sacrament is an ordinance directly inaugurated and established for perpetuity (until he returns) by Christ himself. None of the other five observances that Rome defines as a sacrament meets this criterion.

The Confession also limits the authority to perform or dispense sacraments to the ordained ministry. This is a more controversial point than I would have thought, having encountered sincere questions when teaching this chapter. It likely goes to orderliness and seemliness, especially in the context of Paul's admonition regarding the right observance of the Supper. But I will admit to not having settled my thoughts on the matter as a whole.

Tomorrow: The continuity of sacraments.