Baptismal Efficacy and the Incarnation

by Grover Gunn
pastor, Grace Presbyterian Church
Jackson, Tennessee

The Westminster View of Baptismal Efficacy

The Westminster Shorter Catechism Questions 88 and 91 speak clearly to the issue of sacramental efficacy:

These WSC answers teach

A key statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith regarding baptismal efficacy is WCF 28.6:

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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.
This statement indicates that there are various possibilities regarding the timing of baptismal efficacy. The adult baptized on the basis of a valid profession is regenerate before his baptism. The Holy Spirit could use the message of his baptism to confirm and strengthen his faith as he anticipated his baptism, as he experienced his baptism and afterward as he remembered his baptism. In the case of the baptism of elect infants, the Holy Spirit, after first working faith in their hearts after they have reached the age of discretion, could strengthen that faith through their knowledge that they were baptized. As to the timing of regeneration in relation to infant baptism, there are a few possibilities. Archbishop James Ussher expressed in his Body of Divinitie the view most common among the Puritans:
"But what is to be thought of the effect of Baptism in those elect infants whom God hath appointed to live in yeers of discretion?

"In them we have no warrant to promise constantly an extraordinary work to whom God intends to afford ordinary means. For though God do sometimes sanctify from the womb, as in Jeremy and John Baptist, sometime in Baptism, as he pleaseth; yet it is hard to affirm (as some do) that every elect Infant doth ordinarily before or in baptism receive initial regeneration and the seed of faith and grace . . . .. But we may rather deem, and judge that baptism is not actually effectual to justifie and sanctifie, until the party do believe and embrace the promises."1

Some others believed there is also a subconscious work of grace that occurs before the age of discretion and involves "the seed of faith and grace." The Holy Spirit can put within the heart of the elect infant a regenerative disposition toward believing the gospel that lies there latent until the age of discretion is reached when the gospel can be comprehended and responded to with faith. John Calvin, for example, mentioned the possibility that the elect can be regenerated in their infancy:

But how (they ask) are infants, unendowed with knowledge of good or evil, regenerated? We reply that God's work, though beyond our understanding, is still not annulled. Now it is perfectly clear that those infants who are to be saved (as some are surely saved from that early age) are previously regenerated by the Lord. For if they bear with them an inborn corruption from their mother's womb, they must be cleansed of it before they can be admitted into God's Kingdom, for nothing polluted or defiled may enter there.2

...infants are baptized into future repentance and faith, and even though these have not yet been formed in them, the seed of both lies hidden within them by the secret working of the Spirit.3

Still others believed that this subconscious work of grace for the elect normally occurs at the time of their infant baptism. This was the position of Westminster Divine Cornelius Burges, one of the two assessors at the Assembly:

That the outward element hath not in it any physical force, either by vertue of the consecration, institution, or administration to conferre the Spirit to any at all: but the Spirit is communicated immediately from Christ himselfe, when the sacrament is administered, if then it be at all conferred.4

These three possibilities all fall within the doctrinal parameters of the Westminster Standards on baptismal efficacy. What is important is that all three of these positions agree that baptism is efficacious for salvation only for the elect and only in a context of faith. They differ only over the timing of regeneration as it relates to baptism, which is not really a major issue.

I don't believe it is humanly possible to know what the timing will be in any individual case. All I need to know is that the covenant child has the promise and obligations of the covenant. The promise sealed to the child in his baptism is that God will save him when he meets the obligations of the covenant, which are faith, repentance and new obedience. If the child is elect, he will, by God's efficacious grace, meet the obligations of the covenant. As to whether a seed of faith and grace was planted through regeneration in his infancy, or whether regeneration occurred after the age of discretion when faith was first consciously exercised, this is a secret which I believe only God knows. I am to view and treat the covenant child as one of God's people until he demonstrates otherwise and is cut off from God's covenant people.

Baptismal Efficacy and the Incarnation

I believe the views on baptismal efficacy found in the Westminster Standards can be explained and defended by considering the implications of the Incarnation as God's supreme revelation. It is common to use the principles of the Incarnation in explaining by analogy the relationship of the human and the divine in the written inspired Word, the Bible. Since the sacraments are related to the gospel promise as signs and seals, it only follows that this analogy would also be helpful in regard to them. I believe we can find helpful analogies regarding the validity and efficacy of the sacraments by considering the Person of Jesus, and helpful analogies regarding the extent of sacramental efficacy by considering the work of Jesus.

The basic orthodox teaching on the Incarnation is that Jesus is one Person with a human nature and a divine nature, which are not to be separated and divided nor merged and confused. To separate the two natures and to deny their unity in the one Person is a serious error. To merge the two natures into a new third nature that is partly divine and partly human is also a serious error.

As to the work of Jesus, the Reformed view is that Jesus accomplished the work the Father sent Him to do in terms of the decree of election. Thus Jesus died as an atoning Sacrifice only for the elect. Many in the Reformed tradition also believe that God's common grace which has universal benefits is also rooted in the atoning work of Christ. As it says in 1 Timothy 4:10, "God ... is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe."

Let's begin by applying these principles by analogy to the preaching of the gospel. I would suggest that an example of a view of the gospel which errs on the side of separation is the multi-cultural idea that the gospel is true for the Christian only because he believes it. This view fails to see that the gospel's validity is rooted in its being a genuine word from God. This view separates and divides the human and the divine in the gospel message.

The opposite error would be a view of the gospel which merges and confuses the human and the divine elements. I would suggest an example of this would be the view that people who can't understand Latin can spiritually benefit from preaching in Latin. A similar error would be the notion that God will bless someone just because he has a Bible even though he never reads it or consults it. According to these views, there is something special, even salvific, about the human words themselves even when considered apart from the divine message they are intended to convey. These views merge and confuse the human and the divine in the gospel message.

The proper view is that the preached gospel is a divine message in human words. The gospel's validity as a true word from God does not depend on people's response to it, just as Jesus is divine whether people believe this or not. Yet hearing the gospel does not automatically save, just as people were not saved who came into historical contact with Jesus without believing in Him. The extent of gospel efficacy is analogous to the work of Christ. Just as Christ accomplished the atonement in terms of the decree of election, the Holy Spirit applies the atonement in terms of the decree of election. God efficaciously works through this message unto salvation only in the hearts of the elect. It is efficacious for salvation only in the context of a faith that first comprehends the message, and then gives assent to that message and trusts in it for salvation. Yet even for the non-elect, the gospel offer is sincere and genuine. The Holy Spirit sometimes uses the gospel message in the hearts of the non-elect such that they are "almost persuaded." The non-elect can respond to the gospel with some temporary show of spiritual life. Yet human depravity is such that only an irresistible grace will truly save. The depraved heart always successfully resists resistible grace.

Let's now try applying the analogy of the Incarnation to baptism. An example of a view of baptism which errs on the side of separation would be the idea that the validity of baptism is dependent upon the human will. It says that a person's baptism is valid only if his faith is genuine. This fails to see that the validity of baptism is rooted in its being the sign and seal of a genuine word from God. God's message that is signed and sealed in baptism is valid and true whether the person being baptized believes it or not. This view confuses the validity of baptism with its efficacy, and separates the human elements from the validating divine word inherent in the sacrament.

A view of the sacraments which errs on the side of merging the human and divine would be one where the elements are so identified with the grace they represent, that they are considered able to infuse grace even in the absence of faith. The elements of the Lord's Supper become in substance the literal body and blood of Jesus, and baptismal water becomes a holy water that objectively washes away sin independent of the subjective disposition of the one being baptized. This view confuses the efficacy of a sacrament with its validity, and merges and confuses the human ritual (the sign) and the divine grace (the thing signified) in the sacrament.

The proper view is that the sacraments are creaturely signs and seals of the divine gospel message. As such, they are valid regardless of the recipients' subjective attitude toward their message. Their efficacy, however, is always and only in the context of faith. The Holy Spirit first uses the gospel message to work faith in us and to enable us to embrace Jesus Christ freely offered to us in the gospel. The Holy Spirit then uses the sacraments, including the covenant child's infant baptism, to confirm and to strengthen that faith. The Holy Spirit so uses the sacraments only in the lives of the elect. And the saving work which the Holy Spirit begins in the lives of the elect, He will finish to the end (Philippians 1:6). God who has begotten us to a lively hope will keep us by His power (1 Peter 1:3-5). Yet even the non-elect within the covenant community in history are in a place of privilege. When God puts someone in the windy place (the church), this is a work of sincere and genuine grace, even if the Holy Spirit does not sovereignly and efficaciously blow with life giving power upon that person's heart. God's grace is sincere and genuine even when it is not grace that is efficacious to salvation.

Just as Jesus accomplished the atonement in terms of the decree of election, so the Holy Spirit applies the atonement in terms of the decree of election from beginning to end. I am not saying that the church administers the covenant in terms of the decree of election. That is not possible. The church administers the covenant in terms of God's revealed principles of covenant administration that are illustrated by the olive tree of Romans 11. We are, however, talking here not about human administration but about the sovereign working of the Holy Spirit.

Interpreting Scripture with Scripture

We need next to consider how to interpret Scriptural language on baptismal efficacy. I am arguing against the view that water baptism automatically puts one into a state of salvation. A helpful verse to consider in this regard is Matthew 3:11, where John the Baptist said:

The verse literally says that the water baptism of John the Baptist baptized people into a state of repentance. We know that the Baptist wanted the adults coming to him for baptism to be already in a state of repentance (cf. Matthew 3:7-8), so he couldn't have here been referring to the initial state of repentance. He must have been referring to water baptism as a means of grace which God could use through faith to strengthen one's repentance. William Hendriksen comments on this verse:
... by means of baptism, true conversion is powerfully stimulated and increased. The person who in the proper manner - that is, with a pledge to God proceeding from a clear conscience (1 Peter 3:21) - receives baptism, understanding the meaning of the outward sign and seal, will all the more heartily out of gratitude yield himself to God. Moreover, how could reflection on the adopting, pardoning, and cleansing grace of God, as symbolized by the sign and seal of baptism, have any different effect? For such a person the outward sign and seal applied to the body, and the inward grace applied to the heart, go together.5

We could use this insight, for example, in interpreting Acts 2:38:

Peter would be saying, "Repent and be baptized, which will strengthen your conversion faith, which faith is the instrument God is using to put you into Christ and thus into a state of forgiveness." He wouldn't be saying that water baptism is what initially and immediately puts one into remisssion of sins.

I believe it is also helpful to consider the statements on old covenant sacrifices found in the book of Hebrews. From reading statements in Leviticus and Ezekiel, one would think that the old covenant sacrifices literally atoned for sin. Yet according to the book of Hebrews, the blood of bulls and goats never actually took away sins (Hebrews 10:4), though they did sanctify for the purifying of the flesh (Hebrews 9:13). That is, the old covenant cleansing rituals did automatically provide a ceremonial cleansing, transferring the recepient from a state of ceremonial defilement to a state of ceremonial purity. Yet in regard to true atonement for sins, the rituals pointed to the only sacrifice that could take away sins, the sacrifice of Christ. The rituals provided atonement only as they pointed beyond themselves to Christ and only as the recepient responded to that message in faith.

There is a parallel with new covenant baptism. Water baptism does automatically put a person into a new state; he is officially enrolled as a member of God's covenant people. Yet water baptism also points beyond itself and functions as a means of grace only when there is a faith response to its message.

Sacramental Language

As we consider the Scriptural language on baptismal efficacy, I believe the analogy between the Incarnation and the sacraments will help us here too. The Westminster Confession of Faith gives a crucial guiding principle for interpreting Scriptural language about the incarnate Christ. This is found in WCF 8.7:

Christ, in the work of mediation, acts according to both natures, by each nature doing that which is proper to itself; yet, by reason of the unity of the person, that which is proper to one nature is sometimes in Scripture attributed to the person denominated by the other nature.
Based on this principle, it is legitimate to call Mary "the Mother of God." And it is legitimate for Charles Wesley to write a hymn with the words, "Amazing love! How can it be that Thou, my God, shouldst die for me?" Based on this principle, we should not argue based on Acts 20:28 and Zechariah 12:10 that the divine nature bled on the cross or to argue based on John 3:13 that Jesus' human nature came from heaven as opposed to being derived from the womb of the Virgin Mary.

There is a similar statement in the Westminster Confession of Faith about sacramental language. This is found in 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.
The Bible talks about the church which God redeemed with His blood (Acts 20:28). I believe that, but I know it doesn't mean that the divine nature shared by all three Members of the Godhead can bleed and die. The Bible also talks about one baptism (Ephesians 4:5) into remission of sins (Acts 2:38), about water baptism which washes away sin (Acts 22:16). I believe that, but I know it doesn't mean that baptismal water washes away sin as literally and automatically as water washes away loose dirt. The human nature and the divine nature of Christ must be distinguished in the Incarnation even though they are united in a hypostatic union. Similarly the symbol and the thing symbolized must be distinguished in the sacraments even though they are united in a sacramental union.

I will close with some observations of Scriptural teachings that relate to baptismal efficacy. Though the basic principles apply to both infant baptism and proselyte baptism, I will express them here from the perspective of proselyte baptism. I believe sacramental language must be interpreted consistent with the following principles:

  1. The person who truly believes in Jesus has eternal life, as taught by John 3:16 and many other verses. Paul in Romans 4:4-8 teaches that God justifies the ungodly through faith and apart from works, including religious works such as submitting to baptism. Let's say a Moslem in some fanatical Islamic state listens to the gospel on his radio and believes. He wants to be baptized, but before he can find a church, his neighbors learn about his new faith and have him arrested. He refuses to deny Christ even under torture, and so the Islamic government executes him in accordance with strict Islamic law. Because he believed in Christ, he is going to heaven.

  2. Even though a person enters into a saving covenant relationship with Christ at the time of his conversion, this covenant union with all its saving benefits is publicly portrayed at the time of baptism.

  3. Baptism is the God appointed way to publicly identify with Jesus. Jesus said, "Confess Me before men, and I will confess you before My Father in heaven." A fruit of faith is a desire to obey Jesus and to do what He says pleases Him. Submitting to baptism is an act of obedience that confirms that one's faith is genuine.

  4. God uses water baptism to strengthen and confirm a person's faith. A person hears the gospel and believes. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Then he comes for baptism, and the gospel is symbolically applied to him as an individual. Baptism is not only a sign but also a seal, not only a picture but also a pledge. It is God's way of assuring a believer that just as surely as water cleanses away dirt, just as surely as water gives life to the dry desert, so surely God saves all those who put their trust in Jesus for salvation.

  5. The baptism with the Spirit into a saving covenant union with Christ is not tied to the time of the baptism with water which symbolizes this. We see this clearly in the experience of Cornelius. Jesus publicly baptized Cornelius with the Holy Spirit before Peter baptized Cornelius with water.

  6. 2 Peter 2:21-22 contains two graphic illustrations of the apostate who abandons the church. The first illustration has to do with eating and the second has to do with washing. The sacraments have no real spiritual benefits for those who never believe, no more than a pig can be made to appreciate being washed or a dog can be made to appreciate gourmet food. Though the apostate has been baptized, his inner nature has never been really changed. Though he has eaten sacramental food, he has never obtained a true appetite for the things of God.

Footnotes

1 James Ussher, A Body of Divinitie, or the Summe and Substance of Christian Religion . . . (London, 1658), p. 417.

I received this quotation in an e-mail from Bob Vincent (bob@rbvincent.com).

Although Archbishop Ussher declined his invitation to attend the Westminster Assembly, his views were influential and representative.
2 John Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.17.
3 John Calvin, Institutes, 4.16.20.
4 Cornelius Burges, Baptismall Regeneration of Elect Infants, Professed by the Church of England, according to the Scriptures, and Primitiue Church, the Present Reformed Churches and Many Particular Divines Apart (Oxford: Printed by I. L. for Henry Curteyn, 1629), pages 19,20.

I received this quotation in an e-mail from Bob Vincent (bob@rbvincent.com).
5 William Hendricksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1973,1977), page 207.