One of the earliest controversies in the early church was known as the Donatist controversy. In a nutshell, this controversy arose because certain ordained bishops had “betrayed” the church during times of persecution (specifically, by turning over copies of the Scriptures to the Roman authorities who had outlawed them). When persecution ended, many of these bishops were allowed remain in their positions within the church, but the Donatists protested that such actions essentially rendered these bishops unfit for ecclesiastical office, and that baptisms, ordinations, etc. performed by them were therefore invalid. The chief opponent of the Donatists was Augustine, who argued that the validity of these practices went beyond the individual priest and rested upon the office itself. Hence, the validity of one’s baptism, for example, did not rest on the spiritual condition of the one performing it. To put it another way, if you were baptized (as an adult for sake of argument), and you discovered years late that the pastor who had performed the baptism had renounced Christianity and left the church, that would not mean you had been “un-baptized” all these years and need to undergo the practice again. The Westminster Confession of Faith states:
The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers. (27:3)
We can learn much from this controversy, because it still has ramifications today. Over at the Puritan Board, one of the members asked a question involving a situation where a baptized infant, whose parents were unquestionably unbelievers, becomes convinced (as a teenager) that his/her baptism was not valid (please note that this is coming from a Presbyterian/Reformed perspective; credo-baptist objections to paedobaptism are not the real issue here). Here was the incredibly thoughtful response by one of the admins. I am reposting it here because it is a great examination of the sacrament of baptism in Reformed theology:
Let God be true and every man a liar.
The efficacy of baptism is not in the mode of administration, who administered it, how sincere the person was who was baptized, or when it was administered.
The Promise of God is everything.
The saving work of God is everything.
As I’ve reflected increasingly on Reformed theology a pretty consistent refrain seems to arise from those that struggle with the Christian faith: how much X do I need to exhibit to be saved?
Where X might be:
1. Faith: How sincere must I be? What propositions must I understand and grasp? What if my understanding is imperfect?
2. Repentance: What if I’m repenting out of fear? What if I’m not fully turning from my sin?
3. Sanctification: How dedicated am I to the Lord? What kind of indwelling Sin can I still have and still be a Christian?I want to be clear that there are important things that are connected to union with Christ. We are not to completely ignore fruit but, at the heart of God’s promise is this: While we were still Sinners Christ died for the ungodly. While we were at the bottom of a pit, Christ rescued us. We didn’t climb to Christ by our faith and repentance but He came down from heaven because we were powerless. Every evangelical fruit flows out of that glorious Truth.
The Reformed view of baptism is that grace precedes faith. We bring people into the visible Church because that is the place where the means of grace are found. That is where Christ is held forth. It is the nurse mother for faith that God might do His work that He has ordained beforehand.
The Church is not a place where the already converted, apart from the means of grace, come forward to note their intellectual and sanctified sense of maturity so they can announce to the Church that they weren’t “saved enough” at the time of their baptism as a child for God’s Promise to “take.”
A short way to answer him might simply be this: Have you ever thought of thanking God that He promised to save all who put their trust in Him? Isn’t it wonderful that you now believe by His grace? Isn’t that Promise that God made to you wonderful? You believe and you are saved because God Promised. Praise be to God.
I read the Pastors blog. The article does not blanket my heartfelt questions on the Sacrament of Baptism. Here are my thoughts on this issue.
This is copied from Pastor’s Blog; the reposted, Puritan board…
Prior to the posting this verse is printed:
“Let God be True and every Man a Liar,” Romans 3:4
This verses application puts a lot of authority on the comments to follow, it puts the comments following, on the same level as Inspired scripture. I really don’t see any middle ground.
The Reformed view of baptism is that grace precedes faith. We bring people into the visible Church because that is the place where the means of grace are found. That is where Christ is held forth. It is the nurse mother for faith that God might do His work that He has ordained beforehand.
The Church is not a place where the already converted, apart from the means of grace, come forward to note their intellectual and sanctified sense of maturity so they can announce to the Church that they weren’t “saved enough” at the time of their baptism as a child for Gods Promise to “take.”
The Author says that the infant was “saved enough” (saved enough for what?) prior to the Act of Baptism, this is very troubling, for me. I am sure the author would take exception and allow our intellectually sense of maturity to come forward in church and confess our sins to one another,
(If If We claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. 9If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. 10If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives.(John1)
I understand or at least I want to understand the dedication of an infant, by the parent to The LORD
through infant Baptism by the sprinkling of water. Not to be used as a Salvationist tool, but as a covenant between us, as parents, to bring the child up in our house and in the House of the LORD that will lead our children to His soul saving mercy and grace.
A persistent nagging at my spirit is what to do when the child reaches, for a lack of a better term, the age of accountability. To tell a child that he/she is covered from all accountability due to an act of a sacrament, performed on them at an age that they cannot remember and then they just evolve as a believer in the body of Christ is troubling. If Baptism is to be but once, and I find there is no scripture limiting its use, could not the child at this accountability age choose or make his own profession of faith by identifying with Christ in water baptism? I find in Scripture that repentance and confession are always a prerequisite for Baptism,
That to me is what makes Baptism what it is.
I will continue my study, as I find great comfort and understanding in the Words of Wisdom tucked away in Holy Scripture.
Chuck
Gal. 6:9-10
Repentance and confession may be prerequisites in cases of adult baptism, but it is disputable that this is the case for all members in the case of household baptisms in the NT (e.g., in Acts 16). It may be assumed, but it is not explicit in the text. And of course, the case for infant baptism is not made by only examining the NT Scriptures (written in a largely missionary context) but the whole of Scripture, including the practice of membership within the covenant community. Circumcision was, of course, performed upon infant males (et al) under the old administration, and the NT does not overturn this inclusion of children within the covenant community.
In Presbyterian churches, children who have received baptism as infants are required to make a public profession of faith before the church before they can become communicant members (i.e., full membership, which would include partaking of the Lord’s Supper, among other things such as voting at congregational meeting). There is no magical age when this takes place. So, there is already a procedure in place for this; one difference is that baptism is not repeated. As far as the NT goes, there is no case to be made for “repeating” baptisms (the only possibility is in Acts 19, with the men in Ephesus, but it is very clear from the context that they had not received a Christian/Trinitarian baptism, so there is no “repeat” — they had never been baptized into Christ). A perfect opportunity would have been earlier in Acts in the case of Simon Magus, who was baptized but soon thereafter showed a still-sinful heart; however, there is no indication that he need to get “re-baptized” because of this. The text is strangely silent.
For further reading, I would suggest this summary of the position: http://tinyurl.com/ygaqqe5
If you require a more detailed approach: http://tinyurl.com/yz3x2vb and http://tinyurl.com/ygla9kl
Also, this article is very helpful, written someone who “changed positions”: http://thirdmill.org/newfiles/den_johnson/TH.Johnson.Baptism.html
This article addresses many questions, including the one on re-baptisms: http://www.wordmp3.com/files/gs/baptism/baptisminthebible.htm