Pastoral Position Paper - Jason Farley

          Is Roman Catholic baptism an effectual Christian Baptism or an ineffectual sub-Christian rite whose spurious mark must be replaced by the mark of true evangelical baptism?  It is a question we must answer.  Being in the Presbyterian tradition, there are certain questions that have been answered for us.  Questions concerning infant baptism, baptism by sprinkling, the necessity of baptism and the federal nature of the sacraments have been dealt with elsewhere and since I am going to speak into the Presbyterian tradition, I will begin the hike at the Presbyterian base camp.

What is Baptism?

          It is important to start with what a true baptism does, because a false baptism, like a false gospel, is no baptism at all.  Baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant (Rom. 4:11 compared with Col 2:11-12).  It is admission into the church historical, which is the body of Christ, the bride of Christ, the kingdom of God and the new Israel .  By our baptism we are engrafted into the life, death and resurrection of Jesus (Gal 3:27, Rom 6:3-11).  Baptism now saves us by the resurrection and ascension of Christ (1 Pet. 3:21-22).  It is the seal of our regeneration and the remission of our sins (Tit. 3:5, Mark 1:4).  It is the answer of a clean conscience toward God (1 Pet. 3:21).  And baptism is effectual in anointing the recipient a king and priest as a citizen of the new Israel (1 Pet. 2:5-9, Rev. 1:6-7, 5:9-10).

Argument

          We are not made citizens of the kingdom of God by the church acting on its own, or by implicit power or by power that God has separated from himself and given to the Church.  Instead, in our baptism we are engrafted into Christ by the Spirit working directly, by the power of the resurrection in the baptism (1 Cor. 12:13, Jn. 3:5-8, Col. 2:11-12, 1 Cor. 3:6-7, Acts 2:38, Eph 4:2-5, Rev. 1:5, Tit. 3:5, Eph. 5:26).  The Westminster Larger Catechism agrees, “The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or in any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted” (A. 161).  The Westminster Confession states that, “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” (WCF 28.6). 

          The Grace of baptism then, is not dependent upon the person that is performing the baptism for its efficacy.  Instead, Jesus is present Spiritually[1] in the rite of Baptism.  He is present truly, yet sacramentally only, so that we can truly say that it is God that has baptized us.  Not as if he is being controlled by our actions in baptism in a magical “ex opere operato” way, but because he controls the world.  Through His providential hand, he distributes the grace of baptism to each and every individual He wishes, overcoming the mark of the beast through His mark, namely Baptism.  The Holy Spirit, whom we cannot control, has withheld from us the power of making the mark effectual.  The wind bloweth were it listeth, and anywhere the Holy Spirit reveals himself, anywhere the wind sounds, we can only glorify God, for we do not control Him.  The Lord is no tempest in a teacup, even if the teacup is the size of a baptismal font.  Instead, Jesus makes it clear that the Holy Spirit will not blow where we have decided He can.  Instead, The Holy Ghost will blow restrained only by the freedom of God and His submissiveness to the other members of the Godhead.

          The question then arises, what ought to be defined as baptism then?  We must begin by asking which direction do we look?  First of all, we must not look at the building, temporal location or denomination or the creeds of the baptizer.  We must not look at the baptizer or at his hat.  Nor can we look at the invisible part of the individual receiving the baptism (since it is invisible).  Instead, we must look to the promises of God.  God promises that at the application of water in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost in the presence of two or three witnesses, He will be present in Grace.  Our eyes then must be focused clearly where God tells us to look, and that is at the ritual.  We must look at the ritual if we are to decide if it is a true baptism.  If it is done in another name, (as with the Mormons), or done without water (as with the Unitarians, Gnostic sects, and some splinter’s of Anabaptists), then we can conclude that no baptism was performed.  If on the other hand, the ritual performed is of the biblical prescription, then, regardless of the size of the hat or of the surroundings, or of the amount of water, we must believe that all of God’s promises now apply.  All of God’s promises, both His promises to bless the faithful and His promises to curse, cut out and destroy the faithless.

Objections of the Romophobic

1)    But the Roman Catholics are not a “True-Church”

A.    It is the Roman Catholic doctrine that only the "true church" can distribute baptism effectually.  We believe that baptism is NOT dependent upon the Church for its efficacy.  “The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them, but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of His Spirit in them that by faith receive them.” (Shorter Catechism Q. 91).  This puts us in the position of accepting many baptisms that were perhaps not done under ideal circumstances (a father who baptized his own children in the bathtub, baptisms done at city hall, baptisms done by heretical lesbian Hell’s Angel Bishop, etc.).  It is, however, the only way to place all our hope squarely on the promises of God rather than the works of men.  Secondly, does not the Holy Spirit regenerate unto salvation some that are of the Roman Catholic fold?  If the Holy Spirit is making His presence known within that fold, He is setting it apart as His in spite of their wickedness.[2]  If the Holy Spirit has not abandoned them completely, then our claims that they are no church at all are condemnations of the Holy Spirit’s works of grace.

2)    But their definition of Baptism is heretical, and, being a false gospel, it is anathema.

A.     Amen, yet it is not the propositions, either in the head or in the creeds of the denomination of the person performing the baptism.  Rather, it is the presence of Jesus Christ, by the Holy Spirit in the rite of Baptism that makes baptism effectual, thereby signifying and sealing the covenant.  A broken covenant is not an annulled covenant.  Adultery is not the same thing as divorce.

3)    If I accept their Baptism, I will have to allow my congregants to transfer membership to the Catholic Church in order to be consistent.

A.    If someone were to be born into an American family with a history of Presidential Assassination attempts, no one would say that they were not an American.  Even if there were not a patriotic bone in their body, you would not require them to get a green card to work.  If they renounced their family and joined the secret service, you would not expect them to become a citizen because they are only recently a true patriot.  If, on the other hand, the eldest son of a republican Senator were to renounce his family in order to join this notoriously anti-American family, his patriotism would be more than just a little suspect.  In other words, it would be a sin to purposely leave a church where the gospel is clearly preached and join yourself to a church where the Gospel is knowingly condemned and anathematized

4)    If we accept Roman Catholic Baptism, then we have to say that papists are Christians.

A.    To say that Korah was an Israelite, saved out of Egypt by passing through the Red Sea is not a complement.  Instead, it is the basis for the accusation.  It is the foundation for the claim that the earth ought to swallow him.  To say that the Romish sect are Christians is to set up the grounds of their condemnation; it is anything but a complement.  “Well he’s sleeping with half the girls in the office, but at least he’s got a wife at home.”

5)    Isn’t this just ritualism, and isn’t ritual what the protestants were trying to escape when they left the catholics.

A.  First of all, ritual is not a bad word, though outward ritualism, that has no anchor in our heart motives (loving God with our lips when our hearts are far from Him), is condemnable, God has given us rituals.  Instead, we must be careful to keep only our biblically justifiable rituals.  The heart needs rituals; the sinful heart does not want God’s prescribed rituals.  Throwing a pinecone in the fire at camp is not a biblically prescribed ritual.  Neither is coming forward at a revival, or signing a card having checked the “I want to go steady with Jesus” box.  We will have rituals.  God created us that way.  We must never confuse God’s condemnation of faithlessness with a condemnation of the ritual itself.  For example, “Sacrifices and burnt offerings I have not required” is not a condemnation of the God given sacrificial system.  It was a condemnation of the attempt to replace faith with the ritual.  But faithful sacrificing, by its very nature, heaps burning coals on this sacerdotalistic mindset.  Whether in the old economy or the new, God calls obedience without faith no faith at all and faith without obedience dead, meaning of course, no faith at all.  We must seek to heap faith upon faith in our performing of the God given sacraments and condemn all ritualistic approaches to baptism in word and deed.