Here is another interesting conversation from the Wrightsaid Group on the subject of baptism. PCA Pastor and Federal Visionist Jeffrey Meyers states very clearly his doctrine of baptism in a discussion with another PCA Pastor, Chris Hutchinson. Hutchinson wrote:
And in fact, most of our churches do not us allow us to practice private baptisms except in extraordinary cases. But an earthquake and the presence of an apostle is an extraordinary case.
Then, Jeffrey Meyers replied:
Nah. Ananias, for example, wasn’t an apostle, just a pastor; and he baptized Paul immediately (Acts 22). After Paul’s experience on the road to Damascus, Pastor Ananias says to him, “Arise, be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.” It’s pretty certain that the reason baptism was offered immediately is because the forgiveness of sins is attached to the action. When were Paul’s sins forgiven? When was he “converted”? On the road to Damascus or in Damascus when Ananias poured water over his head in the name of the triune God? The text is pretty clear.
Meyers concluded by saying:
Sure. Let God take care of the exceptions. We don’t do theology by exceptions. Normally God forgives sins and grants new life in baptism.
What else can Matt. 28, Acts 22:16, John 3, Rom. 6, 1 Cor. 12, Col. 2, 1 Peter 3, etc. mean? By the way, NTW is pretty consistent about this.
All emphases mine.
This strong affirmation of baptismal regeneration may surprise some, but it is quite in line with what the Joint Federal Vision Profession says and what other Federal Visionists have said, as you can read here. I can also testify that this basically describes the view I held when I was a Federal Visionist (I repented of my Federal Vision views in February 2003).
HT: God’s Hammer
Tags: baptismal regeneration, Christopher Hutchinson, Federal Vision, Jeffrey Meyers, Wrightsaid group
Seems like pretty good argumentation to put before the SJC when writing one’s complaint.
Okay, so Pastor Meyers says “It’s pretty certain that the reason baptism was offered immediately is because the forgiveness of sins is attached to the action. When were Paul’s sins forgiven? When was he “converted”? On the road to Damascus or in Damascus when Ananias poured the water over his head in the name of the triune God? The text is pretty clear.” and “Sure. Let God take care of the exceptions. We don’t do theology by exceptions. Normally God forgives sins and grants new life in baptism.”
So what’s the problem here? I don’t see one, not confessionally and certainly not biblically. If that’s baptismal regeneration, then both Scripture and the Westminster Standards teach some form of it. First, look at the passage that Meyers cites and another one from the Book of Acts:
Acts 22:16. “And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”
Acts 2:38. Then Peter said to them, “Repent, and let every one of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
The physical act of baptism and the forgiveness of sins are plainly connected in the text. The physical act of baptism and regeneration are also connected according to Titus 3:5. Does that automatically mean it must be ex opera operato? Of course not, and the confession says why:
WCF 27:2. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
WCF 28:6. VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.
There is a mystical union between the sign and the thing signified just as there is between Christ and the Church, so that when Paul persecutes the Church, Christ can confront him and ask, “Why are you persecuting me?” Is sub-confessional to say that we merely call the thing signified (Christ and his benefits) by the name of the sign (baptism); some sort of union exists between them. According to WFC 28:6, the physical act of baptism is actually efficacious. The physical act is somehow where the efficaciousness comes from or occurs. But when baptism’s efficaciousness manifests itself in time (before, during, or after the act) is another matter. The right use of this ordinace conferred the grace promised.
Is “forgiveness of sins attached to the action” of preaching the gospel? Sure it is; look at Romans 10 and elsewhere. How is that any different? We talk plainly about people being saved by the preaching of the gospel. Can’t we equally well talk about people being saved by baptism, especially when Scripture makes such claims (Mark 16:16; 1 Peter 3:21)? Or how about the physical act of hearing (again Romans 10)? “Faith comes by hearing?” Really? Isn’t faith the result of some supernature work of the Holy Spirit? Then how can Scripure say this? Scripture connects the physical act of baptism to union with Christ in death and resurrection (Romans 6), to being clothed by Christ (Galatians 3), and to circumcision (crucifixion) with Christ (Colossians 2). Why can’t we talk this way? Would it mean that we don’t actually believe in Sola Gratia or Sola Fide? Of course not. We believe in mediated grace. The acts of preaching, baptism, and the supper are all secondary instruments; they are means.
If we can’t just say what Scripture says without quickly and nervously rushing to add some sort of codified explanation from our systematics, are we really trusting the Word of God to do the work more than we trust the imperfect and incomplete smoothed-over explanations we’ve come up with?
Repent and be baptized for the forgiveness of your sins (Acts 2). You have been united to Christ’s death and resurrection by baptism (Romans 6). You have been circumcised with Christ in baptism (Colossians 2). You are clothed with Christ in baptism (Galatians 3). You are saved by baptism (Mark 16 and 1 Peter 3).
Why can’t we just say these things? Are we really so embarrased by this sort of language? If Scripture can casually make these statements without explanation, why can’t we in everyday speech? We cannot be committed to the ethos of a particular systematic more than we are committed to Scripture itself, including all the rough spots we’d like to smooth out.
From what I have read of Meyers, he does seem to affirm Chapter 28 on Baptism in our Westminster Confession of Faith. Our Confession does associate the forgiveness of sins with Baptism, while denying that all baptized persons are undoubtedly regenerated or that the efficacy of baptism is necessarily tied to the moment of its administration. Those who argue that God “normally” forgives sins and grants new life in baptism seem to be merely speculating about timing, and may indeed be wrong; but their view certainly fits within the teaching of Westminster Ch. 28. Some FV guys may indeed affirm that all baptized persons are undoubtedly regenerated or that the efficacy of baptism is always tied to the moment of its administration. (And if that was your view at one time I am glad you have since repented of it.) But the Federal Vision Join Profession, signed by Meyers in 2007, indicates, to my relief, that he denies “that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church”, and that he denies “the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an “effectual call” or rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized”. Furthermore, Meyers Presbytery, to which he is accountable and in submission, has judged that they do not believe that Meyers is teaching contrary to the Westminster Standards in regard to his views on baptism. If Missouri Presbytery and/or Meyers is in error in the way they understand and/or teach the Doctrine of Baptism, they can be corrected by proper church courts and be given time to adjust their view as necessary. Until then, and for the peace and purity of the church, it may be prudent to refrain from speaking ill of Meyers’ view of Baptism.
Hi Aaron, the problem with your viewpoint is that you are not simply taking Scripture at face value. You are interpreting it. I think Meyers’ interpretation is incorrect. The whole Reformed Church does. We believe that the sacraments are signs and seals, that is, confirmatory of a reality that already exists not conferring one that doesn’t. In other words, people are forgiven of their sins, and baptism is a seal or confirmation of that forgiveness to the believer. It does not confer forgiveness to those who do not have it.
We derive that understanding of the sacraments from the Old Testament. The Bible explicitly says that circumcision was a sign and seal of the justification that Abraham already had before he was circumcised. It did not confer justification to Abram but confirmed what he already had. Genesis 17 indicates that this is the very nature of the sacrament. It confirms pre-existing blessings.
This statement is so strong that all sacramentalists (including Meyers) seek to make a disjunction between baptism and circumcision. If they work essentially the same way, then baptism is confirmatory of forgiveness of sins and does not confer it.
But this is precisely how baptism is described in the New Testament. The verses cited here do not say what Meyers is saying. The phrase baptizomai eis in the Greek does not denote conferring something that does not exist but confirming something that does. If we start reading our New Testaments in Matthew, then we find this phrase in John’s baptism. It says that it is a baptism for repentance. However, baptism does not confer repentance. Confession of sins was required to receive baptism. Then, those who confessed their sins were baptized. They confirmed their repentance outwardly in receiving baptism. Similarly, in 1 Cor. 10, the Israelites are said to be baptized “into Moses.” This did not mean that they didn’t have Moses before. It means that they were confirmed in his leadership as the parallel and source for this idea, Ex. 14:31, indicates. Christ is confirmed to us in baptism. This is the meaning in all the passages that you mentioned. Thus, our baptism teaches us that we have all the benefits of Christ, since He is the one who is confirmed to us.
The notion of being “buried with Christ” is simply a reference to the outward sign by which it was shown to them that they were buried and raised with him. It is derived from the common method of immersion that was used in the ancient near east.
This is explicitly confirmed in 1 Pet. 3:21, which says that baptism “saves us.” It says that it is not the washing of water that saves us but the answer of a good conscience toward God. As with John’s baptism, being baptized symbolizes not only God’s promises but also our repentance. It is the faith and repentance that is confirmed in baptism that saves us. Baptism saves insofar as it is representative of the answer of the good conscience. Thus, it is confirmatory not conferring a benefit that does not already exist.
As for Acts 22:16, it does not say that baptism itself washes away sin. It refers this to calling on the name of the Lord, for anyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved (Rom. 10:13). However, if someone does call upon the Lord for salvation, it makes sense to baptize such a person as the outward confirmation of what God has already done inwardly. This is exactly how Calvin interprets this passage, as you can read in his commentary on Acts. This is also the same reason that baptism is said to be “for (eis)” remission of sins.
It is the misunderstanding of these passages, taking them out of their linguistic and Old Testament context that led to my former errors which I once shared with Jeffrey Meyers.
Hello Andrew, Federal Vision must be of big interest to you because you always seem to show up whenever I post on it.:)
Please note that the WCF states that baptism is a sign and seal of forgiveness of sins. Forgiveness of sins is conferred by faith in justification (cf. WCF 11.1). Forgiveness is confirmed in true believers in baptism.
I have dealt thoroughly with the quotations from the JFVP in the link at the end of this post. I would challenge you to find a theologian who believes that being baptized guarantees that one will be in heaven. The Federal Visionists are just playing a shell game when they deny that. You accuse them of saying that all who are baptized get forgiveness of sins. They reply by saying that they do not all go to heaven. This is not the question. The shells have been switched. See my critique of the Joint Federal Vision Profession for more.
As for the idea that we should “take it to the courts,” I’ll reply with Meyers’ own words:
I do have to agree with Meyers on this one.
Why must we believe anything about baptism that we do not confess about circumcision prior to the New Covenant?
Why does Paul so frequently recall an instance when he was still dead in trespasses and sins? In Acts 26, he recalls the happening at Damascus, but not the baptism. It seems that he would recall his conversion, or at least mention the importance of Baptism in his life…
In Acts 10, surely we would not say that those who were filled with the Holy Spirit were not converted, even though their baptism had not happened yet… Seems like for them that baptism was a sign and seal of the righteousness that they had by faith, while they were yet unbaptized… (Rom. 4:11).
Thank you for your reply, Wes. I will ruminate on it further.
Hi Wes,
I have a follow-up question or perhaps a compacted cluster of them. I found much of what you described as being quite agreeable and fitting the Scripture as you expounded upon it. I’m familiar with the position you’re outlining and have advocated it myself in years gone by, but the time in life at which I did so was when I was a strict and exclusive credobaptist — believer’s baptism only and by immersion only. So, given the strong (exclusive?) emphasis you’re placing on baptism as a confirmatory sign and seal, how is it that you can approve of baptism for the infants of believers when there is no faith or repentance present to confirm? I know the confession explicitly teaches it, but why does it do so given the logic of what you’re saying?
Thanks,
Aaron
Wes, I’m not familiar with the ancient Near Eastern method of immersion. All I know is the biblical sprinkling, and so I interpret the baptism accounts in this context as referring to baptism by sprinkling. Do you have some other data which leads you to the conclusion that immersion was practiced?
Aaron, I have a paper on it that I will try to get back up in the days to come. It got nuked when I transferred to WordPress.
However, what I would say is that I view the function of baptism as exactly the same as that of adults. It is meant to confirm and increase saving grace to them. We baptize professors because we expect that the grace of God is present; the same is true in children of believers. However, in both cases, there are exceptions. In the meantime, we view them with the judgment of charity, expecting that they are believers until they depart.
Riley, I don’t mind referring it to sprinkling either. However, I think it’s more likely that this came from the immersion practice. Remember that the Standards approve all three modes. The Didache speaks of immersion. Read Turretin; he simply takes it for granted that this was the case.
Riley,
I have not found a single Reformed theologian or exegete (out of several hundred I have read or heard referenced on the issue) prior to the 19th century who denied that immersion was the normal, or at least a common mode of baptism in the apostolic church.
The vast, vast majority of those who directly expounded on the issue at any length explicitly affirmed it. I have actually collected about two hundred quotations from biblical scholars from every church era, geographical location, and theological tradition that firmly believed the Pauline expression “buried by baptism” (Rom:6:4; Col. 2:12) was a pedagogical allusion to the practice of baptism by immersion.
So Wes is in in absolutely impeccable company on this matter. I would be glad to provide a selection of the quotes I mentioned if so requested.
Correction with regard to the 1st part of my previous post:
“I have not found a single Christian theologian or exegete (out of several hundred I have read or heard referenced on the issue) prior to the 18th century – including several dozen of the most eminent Reformed scholars – who specifically denied that immersion was the normal, or at least a common mode of baptism in the apostolic church. The vast, vast majority of those who directly expounded on the issue at any length explicitly affirmed it.”
JJM writes, “It’s pretty certain that the reason baptism was offered immediately is because the forgiveness of sins is attached to the action [of water baptism].”
OK, I’m pretty certain JJM is putting his pretty certain conclusion into the text, since nowhere is the reason for the timing of Ananias’ exhortation disclosed by the Holy Spirit in the text. Further, that something (forgiveness of sins) is associated with something else (water baptism) does not mean that the two are necessarily “attached” in the way that JJM implies but does not actually state. Associating two things without further data just means they are, well, associated in some way. However, I am happy to award JJM some cleverness points for rhetoric that sounds good but is simply not well-founded.
JJM writes, “When were Paul’s sins forgiven? When was he “converted”? On the road to Damascus or in Damascus when Ananias poured water over his head in the name of the triune God? The text is pretty clear.”
Again, it’s pretty clear that the text pretty clearly does not establish what JJM says it pretty clearly does. Actually, the text does not tell us when Paul was “converted” (the scare quotes around “converted” are by JJM.) But the text does tell us that Paul, prior to his vision of the resurrected Lord on the Damascus Road, was a murderer of those who called Jesus of Nazareth “Lord.” After seeing and hearing the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, Paul in response to that called Him “Lord” as well. I think that this is a much more plausible point at which to place Paul’s conversion than when he received baptism. Probably because I’m a pietistic and gnostic conversionist, I find JJM’s scare quotes “interesting.”
Regarding the mode of Paul’s water baptism, the text is not specific–a fact which does not deter JJM from inventing a narrative to support his invented theology. I don’t know about the entire ANE, but there were various kinds of ceremonial cleansing rituals practiced by the Jewish community which included sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. You can see many mikveh pools at the southern side of the temple mount in Jerusalem which date from the time of Paul at least.
JJM writes, “Sure. Let God take care of the exceptions. We don’t do theology by exceptions. Normally God forgives sins and grants new life in baptism. What else can Matt. 28, Acts 22:16, John 3, Rom. 6, 1 Cor. 12, Col. 2, 1 Peter 3, etc. mean?”
Here’s a great example of using emphatic language to obscure the utter lack of evidence for an assertion. It’s also a great example of using language which is an attempt at intellectual intimidation. In spite of his assertion that the only possible meaning in the texts he cites are the meanings he assigns, I’m pretty certain that JJM is pretty certain that there are plenty of folks who are pretty certain that the texts he cited do not say what he says they pretty certainly say.
JJM writes, “By the way, NTW is pretty consistent about this.”
I’m pretty certain that saying that Bishop Nicky Tommy’s is pretty consistent on this point pretty certainly settles the matter for any sentient being. Although, out of an abundance of caution, I really need to read what James B. Jordan says about this, because he is also pretty consistent about having some pretty interesting takes on the text of Scripture, and he is pretty certain he’s got it all figured out.
Thank you, Wes. I will keep my eyes peeled for that paper.
Wes, I have a high regard for Turretin, as you know, but simply taking a thing for granted is not one of his most convincing arguments! Calvin did the same on this topic, which is maybe where Turretin got the idea from.
Phil, I’m not too much interested in knowing what the prevailing views were on this topic. It is natural that most of Calvin’s pupils followed his thoughts on it. And he probably read it somewhere. I’m more interested in knowing why they thought immersion was practiced. Consensus is nice. But what is the evidence?
Immersion doesn’t seem to get the visual of being buried by being carried into a hewn rock tomb any better than sprinkling does. I am more impressed with the biblical data in favor of sprinkling and pouring, and so when I come to passages like the baptism of Jesus, which don’t specify the mode, I think of it as sprinkling, in biblical context.
I’m at a conference this week, with access only to my iPad. Keeping up with great threads, though.
At the Grrenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary conference last month, Dr. Joseph Morecraft quipped, “At our church, we’re so liberal that we accept baptism AND immersion.”
Riley,
I, along with many of the early reformer – who often considered and exegeted the issue at considerable length – believe the biblical evidence for apostolic immersion is overwhelming.
But it seems your mind is pretty much made up already on the issue of mode. So rather than further distracting from the more important issues being addressed in this thread, I won’t plunge further into the matter… (And, no, I’m not all wet…)
Pastor Barnes,
I agree with you. I think that once again MOP will just shrug and say, in effect, “I don’t care. Meyers is awesome” when confronted with yet more plain but uncomfortable evidence that he is not what he claims to be.
There is never sufficient evidence nor reasoning to convince someone of something they do not want to accept, because acceptance of the truth would entail unacceptable consequences. The “I don’t care. Obama is Awesome” viralvid captures this phenomenon quite well and matches my experience with folks in FV churches regarding their doctrine and pastors and also with some folks in non-FV churches regarding their pastors. Truth and facts are irrelevant and totally beside the point because other considerations are far more important (!), and the Narrative must be maintained at all costs.
The response from which the above was lifted was probably the clearest and most concise explanation of the function of baptism that I’ve read anywhere. I’d like to repost it if you don’t mind?
Thank you, Sean. I’m glad it was helpful. Please feel free to re-post it.
Blessings, Wes
Phil,
I do believe that all three common modes are valid, as the Westminster confession states. However, the question I’m raising is not, which modes are valid?, but, is there any evidence that immersion was practised during Bible times, Scriptural or otherwise? I haven’t seen any Scriptural evidence. As for other evidence, it could be pertinent to the subject. You may feel free to email me on this topic, if you have evidence that you would like to share. I am open to the possibility that immersion could have been practised in Bible times. I just haven’t seen any evidence for that.
Wes,
Would you mind posting the date that TE Meyers made these comments? It might also be helpful if posted his comments from the MICR Q and A in which he addresses these issues far more recently. Thanks!
I have reformatted the paper, and it is available here