The Westminster Confession of Faith and Baptismal Regeneration

[Tomyris]

I would nope that neither you nor any other Reformed Christian thinks that a person is saved by saying “Calvin was right”. It’s surely neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for salvation.

Agreed.

Am I not correct that in the Reformed view, a person who is once regenerate continues to be regenerate even while “fallen away”? At any rate, my main point was that the final perseverance of such a person is guaranteed–thus baptism can’t regenerate because we all agree that the final perseverance of all the baptized is not guaranteed.

While he is regenerate, that may only be known to God.

No doubt the Neo-Reformed are. I was thinking primarily of Zwingli (the importance of the Platonic elements in Calvin and other early Reformed theologians is a bit more open to dispute, but those elements are certainly present). Jonathan Edwards was also, in many respects, a Neo-Platonist.

I can’t address this - insufficient knowledge.

I’m talking about the roots of the tradition, not modern figures like Horton and Schaeffer. Nor am I denying the importance of physical creation in Reformed theology. But there is a sharp distinction made between the physical and the spiritual. This is a kind of Neo-Platonism, but it’s opposed to the more orthodox form of Neo-Platonism which you find in Athanasius.

While he sometimes seems to be using platonic language, I am not convinced he was a neo-platonist. I do not find him arguing against neo-platonism. I wonder how much the claim that he was influenced by neoplatonism is eisegetical. Perhaps I don’t understand this well enough to spot it in Athanasius. But then if he is not neoplatonic, what is he? Not sure. IN the sixteenth-century figures, Neo-Platonism and the Old Testament play off each other and create something that isn’t really either, and which has shaped (and in my view distorted) Reformed theology and exegesis ever since.

Insufficient data

I don’t think it’s an either/or, but you’re right that the “divine glory” argument is primary. The basic problem that runs through Reformed theology is the penchant for either/or thinking.

I see a good bit of both-and. To cite, we dedicate and baptize infants, we affirm both free will and predestination (which comes as a shock for some reason to some who believe the Reformed believe in robots)

I would argue, in fact, that the Reformed view of God has seriously idolatrous elements, because the Reformed see God as being in competition with His creation, which is far too limited a view of God. It’s a mistaken, quasi-Islamic understanding of what God’s glory means.

I think the competition is not God versus creation but what is the proper object of worship, which is of course, God, and man tries to substitute everything but God (including himself) for God as a result of the fall. That goes back to the 10 commandments.

And I didn’t say that. I was trying to describe why it’s important for the Reformed to deny baptismal regeneration even if, in practice, the “efficacious sign” view looks a lot like a nuanced version of Catholic baptismal regeneration.

No, you didn’t say that. Sorry. As if it needs saying again, the Reformed reject baptismal regeneration because it implies it is human-initiated and anthropocentric.

Right. The original confessional texts probably have adult converts less in mind than a you do, because in their world everyone was baptized as an infant. It’s an interesting question: how would the “efficacious sign” theory work for an adult convert, who presumably is already regenerate? I think that in some ways infant baptism is more central to the Reformed view than the Catholic!

But certainly my description works for infants, right?

The sticking point is “offers”. Now I have to backtrack and say two things about that: one is that election is unconditional, the second is that salvation is the free choice of man. Many freely accepts the offer of God’s unconditional election, which he has no choice about. But he does. Everyone I have talked about this with: pastors, teachers, even a seminary prof I ambushed, agrees with the existence of the paradox.

Well, that’s another indication of the differences between the Reformed tradition as you are experiencing it and the sixteenth-century origins of the tradition.
.
Edwin

I think the Catholics call it “doctrinal development”.

 

[Tomyris]

That’s getting at the very heart of the Reformation! Catholics believe that baptism washes away the stain of Original Sin and considers that the moment of justification. However, we also believe that in order to maintain salvation (which I must emphasize for clarity, we believe is a cooperative act between God and the Christian, i.e. “synergism”) the Christian must follow a lifetime of obedience to Christ and continue along the path. So baptism as an objective reality washing away Original Sin is entirely God’s work, BUT maintaining our lives in accordance with God’s plan is our work, albeit with tremendous assistance from God in the form of the sacraments of the Church.

In contrast, the classical formulations of Reformed doctrine subscribe to an exclusive monergism, in which God is the beginner and finisher of salvation with no part played by the Christian. Hence we get the I and P of TULIP, the Irresistibility of Grace and the Perseverence of the Saints, or as they are (not always helpfully) often summed up, “Once Saved, Always Saved.”

Basically, the Christian believer is only saved because God chose them for salvation → Salvation is achieved by Grace Alone with no part played by Man, and Faith is only the gift of Grace-> no matter what, even if they should struggle against the will of God (e.g. Jonah) God will prevail and all those he has chosen will be saved.

So Salvation is a one way track with no detours or exits. All the Elect, and thus, all of those for whom baptism is efficacious, will be saved.

So to return to your question, a Catholic sees baptism as efficacious for all to whom it is administered, but stresses that it is only the foundation of salvation, not the end. In this way, it can be an objective reality for all who receive it but does not guarantee salvation since that would depend upon the response of the recipient.

A Reformed sees baptism as efficacious only for the Elect of God, those whom He has chosen from before the foundation of the world to be saved. In this way, it must necessarily be a subjective or at least limited reality, with its spiritual component restricted only to those who are among the Elect. Otherwise as Tomycris noted, it would seem to be a waste of time.

At least that’s how I understand it!

Election,[initial] justification, gift of faith -God’s sovereign choice and operation

sanctification [what Catholics call justification] - man cooperates in the power of the Holy Spirit. He can only cooperate as God helps him cooperate. We say sanctification is synergistic, because man works with God. But while it is synergistic, it is also God alone. There is that paradox again.

You cannot really separate justification and sanctification. They are separate only for the sake of analysis.

And we all struggle and fight against the grace of God. We don’t like our medicine even though we are desperately ill. We are all Jonah, lost sheep, sinners, doomed to die unless God chooses to save us. And only He can save us. Jesus is the “author and perfecter of our faith”. No “I did it my way” only “thy will be done.”

 

[PRmerger]

But I also know Catholics believe that baptism does not guarantee salvation.

This is incorrect. Baptism does indeed guarantee salvation, as long as mortal sin is never committed subsequently.

 

[ltwin]

This is incorrect. Baptism does indeed guarantee salvation, as long as mortal sin is never committed subsequently.

I understand that. But this happens in exceptional situations, like the death of a child before the age of accountability, since anyone who lives long enough will commit a mortal sin.

 

[PRmerger]

I understand that. But this happens in exceptional situations, like the death of a child before the age of accountability, since anyone who lives long enough will commit a mortal sin.

This is also incorrect.

You have been duped into believing that it’s impossible to live your life without committing a mortal sin.

I want to profess here that it is NOT IMPOSSIBLE to avoid mortal sin!

Yes, we all have a tendency to be attracted to sin–that is called concupiscence. However, when we have a life filled with the Spirit, and make ourselves available to the grace that is infused into us through the Sacraments, we may not give in to this sin nature and commit actual sin.

 

[Tomyris]

This is incorrect. Baptism does indeed guarantee salvation, as long as mortal sin is never committed subsequently.

Hi PR!

I am looking at the contrasts of your statement with the WCF, per the thread, and seeking out commonalities between us. It is possible that there is more agreement than appears on the surface.

I read your statement as “It works, unless it doesn’t work.”

Hmm.

A Reformed type entity would say that if the Holy Spirit acts and regenerates someone, it would be 100% effective, without condition. A Reformed type entity would need a definition of mortal sin. It would be interesting if you could define mortal sin using WCF terminology. Hmmm.

 

[PRmerger]

Hi PR!

Hiya, doll! :hug1:

Love to see you back on the patio, having some cocktails and munching on something deliciously unhealthy, as we chat about religion. At least, that’s how I see the dialogue here on the CAFs.

I am looking at the contrasts of your statement with the WCF, per the thread, and seeking out commonalities between us. It is possible that there is more agreement than appears on the surface

Indeed. There is little that separates us, to be sure!

I read your statement as “It works, unless it doesn’t work.”

I think a better synopsis is, “It works, until we blow it.”

 

[PRmerger]

A Reformed type entity would say that if the Holy Spirit acts and regenerates someone, it would be 100% effective, without condition.

The Catholic position is that the grace infused is always sufficient. But it is not always efficacious. Why? Because we leak.

A Reformed type entity would need a definition of mortal sin. It would be interesting if you could define mortal sin using WCF terminology. Hmmm.

I don’t know how to do this given the parameters of the WCF. But perhaps an analogy for mortal sin would be that of a husband and wife…(how utterly Scriptural is that! )

…in which their relationship is mortally wounded when the husband turns away completely by committing adultery. While they are, of course, still married, he has ruined it by so egregiously assaulting the integrity of their relationship. He can only repair it through complete and utter repentance.

If he does not repent, then their relationship is severed. He is not invited back into the marital bed. Ever.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

Nice way to ask for help: “please explain this, as I do not understand it, but you are speaking out of both sides of your mouth”. Wow. I will try to rise above this and attempt an answer from a Reformed perspective. Next time, though, I suggest you think about how you are coming across when you ask for someone to explain something and then insult the authors of the material.

I apologize if I came across that way, but your quote isn’t my words. I said it may be that the authors were speaking out of both sides of their mouth, in that they affirm baptismal regeneration here but would deny it elsewhere as nearly all Reformed Protestants now do. Since I am no expert about the circumstances in which the WCF was drafted, I can’t feel certain saying what the WCF teaches on baptismal regeneration one way or the other, much less make a judgment about it being dishonest, and I am assuming complete coherency and honesty unless I have compelling evidence to believe otherwise. That’s why I made this thread.

In any event, thanks to everyone for their iunput. I have been following the responses, and have tried to read through a few times, and they have helped but I’m still not sure I completely understand. Let me offer a proposition and tell me if it is consonant with the teaching of the WCF.

The grace of regeneration is truly conferred through baptism for those members of the elect who receive it, though not necessarily simultaneous to the performance of the sacrament.

If that is an acceptable statement, then I think it would not be incorrect to say that the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration, even if there are big differences in what that entails. But those differences are natural because of the issues of the “perseverance of the saints.” The thing that really makes me lean toward the opinion that the WCF has to be said to teach baptismal regeneration in some sense is the phrase, “the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and confirmed.” If a member of the elect receives the sacrament of baptism, was the grace of regeneration conferred in any sense through the sacrament according to the WCF? If so, how? If not, why not?

It seems to me that some quibbles are of lesser consequence than rhetoric would imply. For example, as PatriciusRex said, the Reformed have a subjective view of the sacraments where the grace is only received by those who receive with faith. As Contarini noted, Catholics believe similarly that one who receives baptism without faith does not receive the salutary effect until the obstacle (the lack of faith) is removed. This may seem like a major difference, and it is in a sense, because the Catholic sacrament leaves its imprint at the time of administration. However, the WCF seems to imply more or less the same, given that it says in the seventh paragraph," The sacrament of baptism is but once to be administered unto any person."

 

[Tomyris]

The Catholic position is that the grace infused is always sufficient. But it is not always efficacious. Why? Because we leak.

We leak, agreed, but God’s grace always exceeds our sin. Romans 5:20ff, I think.

I don’t know how to do this given the parameters of the WCF. But perhaps an analogy for mortal sin would be that of a husband and wife…(how utterly Scriptural is that! )

…in which their relationship is mortally wounded when the husband turns away completely by committing adultery. While they are, of course, still married, he has ruined it by so egregiously assaulting the integrity of their relationship. He can only repair it through complete and utter repentance.

If he does not repent, then their relationship is severed. He is not invited back into the marital bed. Ever.

One place this breaks down for me is the idea that somehow the believer and God are on the same level. We are not.

I think the Scriptural analogy is more parent/child. Little Suzy may tell Mommy she hates Mommy because Mommy won’t give her a pony. Mommy realizes the limits to Suzy’s understanding of the situation and does not throw her out in the cold just because Suzy got really mad about it and slapped brother Billy with the lamp. Discipline follows, yes, but not eternal rejection. We also have to be trained by Mommy and Daddy in how to repent, and that requires a gift of grace in order to effectively repent. No gift, no grace, no repentence. It is not up to us in the end. It is up to God.

We have all already irreparably harmed our relationship with God. He died to reconcile us to Himself. Now we are reconciled (Rom 5:10) and already have been justified (Rom 5:9) and there is no condemnation for the believer (Romans 8:1). He fixed the relationship. It is actually beyond the power of the elect to change their eternally predestined status to damned. Those who go to heaven always were predestined to go. If they have to repent to do so, God will make sure it happens. If you have to go to Pittsburgh playing a sax to go to heaven, God will arrange it so that you do so.

You probably will say I have forgotten the justice of God in the situation. I have not. Jesus, on the cross, met that for me. And you. If you believe, you are forgiven. Eph 1:7FF.

 

[PRmerger]

We leak, agreed, but God’s grace always exceeds our sin. Romans 5:20ff, I think.

Amen! God’s grace is, indeed, infinite.

However, unless we persevere to the end, the leaking we have may cause us to turn away eternally.

Sin abounds and grace can overcome it. But we must always apply that grace–not let it seep out.

That we (can) fail is no indictment at all on the sovereignty of God.

 

[PRmerger]

One place this breaks down for me is the idea that somehow the believer and God are on the same level. We are not.

I think the Scriptural analogy is more parent/child.

The Scriptures are abounding in references to God as our Beloved. The marriage icon is the perfect metaphor for our relationship with God.

 

[PRmerger]

If you believe, you are forgiven. Eph 1:7FF.

I don’t think so, Tomy.

This is what Ephesians 1:7 says:
[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 1:7[/BIBLEDRB]

Forgiveness comes with repentance, confession, and forgiveness of others.

 

[PRmerger]

It is actually beyond the power of the elect to change their eternally predestined status to damned.

I think the fact that God’s CHOSEN people,* the* elect, the ones predestined from eternity, were given the freedom change their eternally predestined status is testimony to the error in the above statment.

If you have to go to Pittsburgh playing a sax to go to heaven, God will arrange it so that you do so.

Yes. And yet if you do not play the sax, of your own volition, you won’t go to heaven.

God sets the stage. He made it so that when we play the sax, it is effective. (Prior to God setting the stage the only thing that happened when we played the sax was that it let out some music akin to your 7th grade band tapes (that you are not afraid to post –haha! I still remember one of your posts in which you threatened, “I have 7th grade band tapes, and I am not afraid to use them!”)

But we still have to play.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

In addition to Father-child (and husband-wife) imagery, Christ also calls us his friends.

“Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you. Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.”
(John 15:14-15)

But this is conditional: if ye do whatsoever I command you.

 

[Tomyris]

Amen! God’s grace is, indeed, infinite.

However, unless we persevere to the end, the leaking we have may cause us to turn away eternally.

Sin abounds and grace can overcome it. But we must always apply that grace–not let it seep out.

That we (can) fail is no indictment at all on the sovereignty of God.

And where does that perseverance come from? From God. He is the author and the perfecter of our faith. He finishes what He starts, and He does not lose any of the sheep the Father has given Him.

We fail. We fail from first to last. Our salvation is not our own, not our own work, not a wage to be paid but a gift that is given.

Those who wind up in heaven are those who were predestined from before the creation of the world to do so. They will, by the grace of God, persevere. No one else will or can.

 

[Tomyris]

The Scriptures are abounding in references to God as our Beloved. The marriage icon is the perfect metaphor for our relationship with God.

He is OUR Father, OUR Beloved, etc., yes. But I, individually, am not the bride of Christ. I am a member of His body. . A marriage is between two equals - for me to be married to Him would be an unequal yoking, and would make Him a polygamist. Like all metaphors, this one has its limits.

 

[Tomyris]

I don’t think so, Tomy.

This is what Ephesians 1:7 says:
[BIBLEDRB]Ephesians 1:7[/BIBLEDRB]

Forgiveness comes with repentance, confession, and forgiveness of others.

Check out the following verses.

And God first forgives us, so that we can give others forgiveness. Otherwise He demands us to give what He has not given us. I think you are expressing a works-based forgiveness rather than one based on grace.

 

[Tomyris]

I think the fact that God’s CHOSEN people,* the* elect, the ones predestined from eternity, were given the freedom change their eternally predestined status is testimony to the error in the above statment.

Please supply an authoritative source for this. I believe Thomas Aquinas stated the number of the elect is fixed. The Reformed have a view of predestination that, as far as I can tell, is very close to that of STA,

Yes. And yet if you do not play the sax, of your own volition, you won’t go to heaven.

God sets the stage. He made it so that when we play the sax, it is effective. (Prior to God setting the stage the only thing that happened when we played the sax was that it let out some music akin to your 7th grade band tapes (that you are not afraid to post –haha! I still remember one of your posts in which you threatened, “I have 7th grade band tapes, and I am not afraid to use them!”)

But we still have to play.

There is a tension at work between the free will of man and the sovereignty of God. I deny neither. If you need to play the sax to get saved, you will play the sax of your free will, and God will see to it that you do. There is a mystery at work, and we can deny neither free will nor predestination. We can only play the sax by the grace of God.

Did I post about the band music threat? I don’t remember. It might have been Tina. But it could have been me.

 

[PRmerger]

Please supply an authoritative source for this. I believe Thomas Aquinas stated the number of the elect is fixed. The Reformed have a view of predestination that, as far as I can tell, is very close to that of STA,

I am speaking of the Jews, God’s original CHOSEN people.

There is a tension at work between the free will of man and the sovereignty of God. I deny neither. If you need to play the sax to get saved, you will play the sax of your free will, and God will see to it that you do. There is a mystery at work, and we can deny neither free will nor predestination. We can only play the sax by the grace of God.

This is very Catholic.

Did I post about the band music threat? I don’t remember. It might have been Tina. But it could have been me.

Ah, yes. I think it was Tina.