THE REFORMERS’ VIEW OF BAPTISM & THE LORD’S SUPPER
Life Bible Presbyterian Church: Reformation Lecture

27 October 2004 

Introduction

Sacraments are a means of grace and also serves as signs and seals of the covenant of grace instituted by God to represent Christ and his benefits and to confirm our interest in him and also to put a visible difference between those who belong to Christ and those who do not. The grace which is exhibited by the sacrament is not conferred by any power by man nor by the efficacy of the sacrament depends on the piety of them who  administer it but upon the work of the Spirit and the word of institution.  

There are only two sacraments (not seven in baptism, eucharist, penance, confirmation, matrimony ,holy orders,  and anointing of the sick  as taught by the catechism of the Catholic church. See http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/paschal.html#SALVATION, oct 2004 ) namely the Lord’s Supper and Baptism and they are to be properly dispensed by an ordained minister of the gospel of Christ. The reformers  sees the sacraments as signs of the covenant  to be administered  to God’s  people and the reformation church always has a special place for the Lord’s Supper and baptism .The Westminster assembly  gives us a definitive understanding of this biblical ordinance and  The Westminster Confession of Faith (1643-48) on the sacraments is noteworthy here (see below). 

Admittedly the magisterial reformers had differing views when it comes to the sacraments especially the Lord’s Supper and we shall consider and discuss the various views and appreciate them in the light of scripture. Let us consider first the  prevailing view of the church at that time and then the reformers’ differing views on the Lord’ s Supper and the reasons for the particular (correct) view that one ought to take today. 

The Theological Views Concerning the Lord's Supper 

1.         The Defective View of Transubstantiation

The medieval  church system is sacramental and sacerdotal The Roman Catholic Church teaches this doctrine of Transubstantiation.,promulgated in the 4^th Lanteran Council in 1215 by Innocent III. It means that a miracle happens during the Mass by which the substance of the ordinary elements of bread and wine transforms into the substance of the actual body and blood of Christ. At the funeral of Mother Teresa in 1997 televised world wide by CNN, this was still the  practice and belief  by the Roman Catholic  Church today. Robert Raymond critique this view for its implicit attack on Christ finished work at Calvary in its character as  the bloodless propitiatory sacrifice and its magical character ” (“A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith”, 959) RC Sproul commented that "Roman Catholics believe that although the elements still look like bread and wine, taste like bread and wine, smell like bread and wine, etc, they become the actual flesh and blood of Christ." History indicates that "the official Roman Catholic position on the Lord's Supper [which is Transubstantiation] was spelled out at the Council of Trent (1545-1563)." 

To understand the importance of the sacrament ,consider the Catholic catechism,  written under the heading  THE SACRAMENTS OF SALVATION , 

“The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation "Sacramental grace" is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament. The Spirit heals and transforms those who receive him by conforming them to the Son of God. The fruit of the sacramental life is that the Spirit of adoption makes the faithful partakers in the divine nature  by uniting them in a living union with the only Son, the Saviour.”

( see http://www.christusrex.org/www1/CDHN/paschal.html#THE, oct 2004) 

 Another implication within this doctrine is that the Lord's Supper involves a sacrificial act. In the mass a real sacrifice is again offered by Christ in behalf of the worshippers. What is wrong with this teaching? 

The first point is that Matthew 26:26-29 says "And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is my body. And he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; For this is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." It is observed that Jesus was physically present with His disciples while ministering the elements of the Lord's Supper. His corporeal body was right there, beside the elements. There is no way it can be asserted that those elements changed into real body and blood of Christ, for that would mean that his flesh and blood were in two places simultaneously. 

Four Reasons Why "This Is My Body" Does Not Mean Jesus' Physical Body Materializes in the Bread

(i)   The natural way of understanding “This is My Body”.

First, consider the reason why "This is my body" (v. 24) does not mean that the physical body of the incarnate Christ materializes in or under the bread through priestly consecration.

The most natural way to understand the words, "This is my body", it represents Christ’s body. It is very telling that in the modern Catholic Catechism the word "represents" is used but it is regularly hyphenated: re-presents. The implication seems to be: there is a real physical re-presenting of Christ. His physical body is presented again at the mass which is an unnatural way of reading these words. 

(ii) The Parallelism Between Bread/Body and Cup/New Covenant

If the words, "This [bread] is my body" was intended to mean, "This [bread] has turned into my physical body," then we would expect the same meaning to hold for the statement about the cup. In verse 25 he says, "This cup is the new covenant in my blood." Here the words "This cup is the new covenant" are not forced to mean: The cup has turned into a covenant. The cup stands for its contents, and the blood secures or purchases or guarantees the blessings of the covenant and they are not the same .  "This cup is the new covenant" does not mean that "This cup has turned into the new covenant," therefore,  "This bread is my body" does not mean  that "This bread has turned into my body." as well 

(iii) Jesus Explains That He Is Speaking Figuratively (John 6:63)

John 6:63 points away from seeing Christ's physical body in the bread of the Lord's Supper. Those who believe that Christ's physical body is there materially in the form of bread often base this on John 6:48-63. There Jesus foreshadows the meaning of the Lord's Supper and says publicly in the synagogue (v. 48), "I am the bread of life." Then he talks about eating this bread. He says in verse 51, "I am the living bread that came down from heaven. If anyone eats of this bread, he will live forever. And the bread that I will give for the life of the world is my flesh." The Jews question how he might give them his flesh to eat (v. 52). Jesus responds (v. 53), "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you."

Then he realizes that his own disciples were confused about what he was saying (v. 60): "When many of his disciples heard it, they said, 'This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?'" So Jesus says to them the key interpreting word in verse 63 to help them avoid the very mistake that the synagogue was making: "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is of no avail. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life." It means: Don't get it wrong  on my references to my flesh being eaten and my blood being drunk. I am speaking figuratively. I am referring to a spiritual action, not a physical one. Verse 63 is aimed at  keeping the disciples from the very misunderstanding. 

(iv) Jesus Says That Eating and Drinking Are Spiritual Acts (John 6:35)

Finally, John 6:35 points us to the positive meaning of eating and drinking Christ. Jesus says, "I am the bread of life; whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." Here he gives himself to us to be received by eating and drinking. Hunger and thirst will be quenched by this Christ. And what is this eating and drinking?  "Whoever comes to me shall not hunger, and whoever believes in me shall never thirst." In other words, the eating and drinking refer to spiritual acts of the soul drawing near to Christ, and receiving him, and trusting him, and having the hunger and thirst of our souls be satisfied.  In conclusion, from the teachings of Christ (and the apostle Paul on the Lord’s Supperin cor 11:23-30 ), it is inconceivable that scripture could support or teach the doctrine of transubstantiation  

2.         The Deficient View of Consubstantiation

Martin Luther is the German reformer famed for his stand on the doctrine of justification by faith, the universal priesthood of believers and the authority of the Bible.  But as a redeemed man who is imperfect like us, there is one aspect of his theology of the sacraments that probably leaves much to be desired. Luther apparently had not got the complete and proper understanding of the Lord Supper and might have not fully left the crutches of the medieval church in his understanding of this sacrament. The Lutheran Catechism gives an answer to the question regarding the Lord's Supper by saying that, "The Sacrament of the Altar is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, in and under the bread and wine which we Christians are commanded by the Word of Christ to eat and to drink." This statement is definitive, in essence, of what is known us Consubstantiation, which actually is a wrong understanding of the sacrament in its relation to the presence of Christ. The theology of Lutheranism in the 16th century unequivocally affirmed the real presence of the body and blood of Christ "in, with, and under" the bread and wine in the Eucharist. The term "Consubstantiation", although not officially approved by Lutheran theologians, did summarize the Lutheran alternative position to the idea of transubstantiation." 

In 1529, friends of Martin Luther and Zwingli, concerned over doctrinal and political differences that had developed between the two Protestant leaders, arranged a meeting between them. At this meeting, held in Marburg Ander Lahn and known since as the Marburg Colloquy, to the question, of whether the true body and blood of Christ be corporeally present in the bread and wine, Luther and Zwingli clashed over the Lord's Supper quite seriously (although they agreed on 14 other points of doctrine).  Zwingli denied any real connection between the bread and wine and the actual body and blood of Christ. He believed that at the celebration of the Supper, which recalls to worshipers the words and deeds of the Lord, Christ is with them by the power of the Holy Spirit. According to Zwingli, the bread and wine recall the Last Supper, but no metaphysical change takes place in them. Luther taught the real presence of Christ can be seen in his urging, with much vehemence, the text of Matthew 26:26: hoc est corpus meum--"this is my body". Over against Zwingli, Luther argued that "est" must be understood to mean "is identical with." Consequently, "this is my body" must be interpreted literally. "This bread is identical with my body." As we will see shortly, Zwingli thought otherwise, insisting that, "this is my body" should not be interpreted literally anymore than Christ's words “I am the Bread of Life” should be interpreted literally as meaning that Christ claimed to be a loaf of bread.  (cf. Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol VII, 637-650.)  

The conference failed to reconcile the two leaders and they parted ways so that the Protestant Reformation has different strands and were not united as one. As said by William Cunningham in his  book “The Reformers and the Theology of the Reformation” (218),

“Four men in Luther and Melancthon, Zwingli and Oecolampadius met together in one room and at the same table discussing the great doctrines of theology Luther’s refusal to shake hands with Zwingli which led that truly noble and thoroughly brave man to burst into tears was one of the most deplorable and humiliating and at the same time most solemn and instructive exhibitions of the deceitfulness of sin and of the human heart that world has ever witnessed”.  

Redeemed Men in theological debates must learn to exercise Christian charity less the devil gets a upper hand on us.  It is a seasonable lesson for all to learn to be humble, gracious and benevolent even in disagreements over theological concerns.    

3.         The Zwinglian View

To the Zwinglians, (not necessarily Zwingli) the Lord's Supper was primarily a token of God’s faithfulness and a God sanctioned occasion to remember the benefits purchased by Christ's death. His discussions with German Protestants about the Lord's Supper led him to doubt Luther's belief in a sacramental real presence of Christ in Communion, and even Martin Bucer's belief in a real spiritual presence, in favor of a nearly memorialistic view. The problem with this view is that the Bible specifically reveals that there is an on-going spiritual effect in the observance of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. 1 Cor 11:29-30 says, For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. This implies that there was a divine chastisement that came upon the abusers of this sacred sacrament, and this in effect is a spiritual effect. Therefore, Zwinglian view cannot be reconciled to this testimony. If it is only a commemoration, then why is there this spiritual effect coming upon the partakers? There must be more than commemoration in the observance of this sacrament. There is indeed spiritual presence and blessings that comes from the Lord upon its observance. It is instructive to note that Robert Raymond added this insight  in his book, New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith (921), quoting Zwingli and Bullinger in the library of Christian Classics, (Philadelphia Press, Westminster, 1953) says,

“Zwingli has no intent of denying the spiritual presence of Christ in the sacrament of the Lord Supper. This presence certainly means that the communion is no more than a bare sign an any rate to the believing recipient, for in the sacrament we have to do not merely with activity but with the spiritual presence of Christ and the sovereign activity of Holy Spirit”. If this statement is true, then there is little difference between the Zwinglian view and the Reformed view except for the spiritual benefits for believers which Calvin emphasized. 

4.         The Calvinistic(or Reformed) View

The reformed doctrine with regards to the nature of Christ's presence in the administration of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper finds its very foundation in the Word of God. The Lord Jesus Christ Himself, as the Head of His Body, the Church, promised to be present whenever believers worship and bestows spiritual benefits upon the participants. He promised saying, For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. (Matt 18:20). When He instituted the sacrament of baptism, while giving the Great Commission in Matthew 28:18-20, He categorically sealed it with a promise of His presence by saying, and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen (v20).

God used the great theologian of the 16^th century reformation, ie John Calvin, to formulate the reformed Biblical teaching on this subject. Zwingli saw the sacraments merely as acts of confession and commemoration which do not impart any spiritual graces to the recipients. However, Calvin asserted the spiritual presence of Christ. He noted that Christ is spiritually present during the administration of the sacraments to confer spiritual blessing and benefits to the recipients who partake of it worthily. Loius Berkhof rightly comments that, "God communicates this grace only to believers by nourishing and strengthening their faith. The writer concludes by observing that the Calvinistic view, which is the Reformed view, is the Biblical view as given in the WCF below, our Reformed creed and confession

Heart Preparation for the Lord’s Supper

Every second Sabbath Day of the month, our Churches have the Lord’s Supper administered. The Holy Communion is one of the two Sacraments instituted by our Lord (the second being water baptism). As believers, we ought to prepare each time we come before the Lord’s Table. What are the benefits of partaking of the Lord’s Supper? The answers to Questions 96 and 97 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism help.

Qn 96: What is the Lord’s Supper?

Ans: The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament, wherein, by giving and receiving bread and wine, according to Christ’s appointment, his death is showed forth; and the worthy receivers are, not after a corporal and carnal manner, but by faith, made partakers of his body and blood, with all his benefits, to their spiritual nourishment, and growth in grace.

Qn 97: What is required to the worthy receiving of the Lord’s Supper?

Ans: It is required of them that would worthily partake of the Lord’s Supper, that they examine themselves of their knowledge to discern the Lord’s body, of their faith to feed upon him, of their repentance, love, and new obedience; lest, coming unworthily, they eat and drink judgment to themselves.

The Things Symbolised

The Lord’s Supper symbolises the believers’ participation in the crucified Christ. In the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, believers not only look at the symbols but receive them as well. Figuratively speaking, they appropriate the spiritual benefits secured by the sacrificial death of Christ. It represents not only the death of Christ as the object of faith, but also the effect of the death in giving life, strength and joy to the redeemed soul. The sacraments also symbolised the union of believers with one another as members of the mystical body of Christ. 1 Cor 10:16–17 says,

The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many are one bread, and one body: for we are all partakers of that one bread.

In receiving the elements, one exercise intimate communion with our Lord and with one another. It also ratifies to the believer the rich promises of the gospel and assures us of the blessing of salvation in His Word. As one partakes of the bread and wine, the soul is ever more refreshed through faith more abundantly.

Finally, the Lord’s Supper is a reciprocal seal. It is a badge of profession on the part of those who partake of it, whereas we eat of the bread and drink of the wine, we profess our faith in Christ as our Saviour and our allegiance to Him as our King, and solemnly pledge a life of obedience to His divine commandments. This are the things signified and sealed in the Lord’s Supper.

The Effects of Partaking the Lord’s Supper

All baptised believers should regularly come before the Lord’s Table to remember the Lord’s death till He comes (1 Cor 11:26–30). There are great spiritual benefits to be derived from a reverential commemoration of the death of Christ, to the strengthening and refreshing of our souls.

Firstly the right reception of the Lord’s Supper has a humbling effect on the soul. These signs or emblems remind us of how sinful and heinous our sins must be. We are soberly reminded of our depravity and wretchedness and the great work of the vicarious atonement of our Lord Jesus at Calvary’s cross.

Secondly, the right reception has a comforting and encouraging effect on the redeemed soul. The Lord’s Supper reminds us that our salvation is wrought completely by Christ, and we have nothing to fear for our Saviour has paid it all, and we are fully justified by Christ’s death.

Thirdly, the right reception of the Lord’s Supper has a sanctifying effect on our souls. The bread and wine remind us how great is our debt of gratitude to our Lord. It strengthens us to resolve towards holiness, righteousness and piety, following the example of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

Finally, it has a restraining effect on every justified soul. We are to examine our selves that we partake of it worthily (1 Cor 11:26-30) confess and repent of our sins and to take up our cross, deny self and follow Christ. It is a stimulant to greater love and to follow the supreme example of our Saviour. It is a strong summon to us to forgo the pleasures of the world and to serve Christ sacrificially, for He has purchased us with His precious blood.

In three phrases one would summarise the reasons for taking the sacrament as follows.

§          Looking Backwards

Just as the Passover was to be a commemorative celebration of the Israel’s  redemption from Egypt (Exod 12:11-14, 24-27; 13:8-10; Deut 16:1-8), so also the Lord's Supper, its New Testament antitype, is to be a commemorative celebration of the church's redemption which "Christ our Passover" (I Cor 5:7; see Exod 12:46) accomplished when he died as our perfect once and for all sacrifice at the time of the Passover (John 18:28; 19:36). By it the church looks back to the historic Christ's cross work and remembers (I Cor 11:24), not reenacts, and proclaims (I Cor 11:26) Christ's sacrificial death for the church. Christ's summons to "remember" here is addressing as  a man may forget something he has learned or need to know or remember by. 

§         Looking Forward

The sacrament is designed for members to both look back to the historical reality of Christ's death, and the Lord's Supper also looks forward to the coming of the eschatological kingdom. Jesus specifically linked the Lord's Supper with the eschatological perspective of the kingdom of God when he informed his disciples that he would not eat the Passover again with them "until it finds fulfillment in the kingdom of God" (Luke 22:16), and then, after taking the cup, he gave thanks and said: "I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes" (22:18). Paul's assertion that "whenever you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes" (I Cor 11:26) also gives to the Lord's Supper an eschatological orientation. 

The Lord's Supper is given to the church on its pilgrimage through the world and is intended to rekindle the eschatological hope that then, in the second coming of Christ  ,  The "worthy" communicant also anticipates that glorious time in the second  of Christ, when the church as the perfect Bride of Christ will sit down  at the "wedding supper of the Lamb" (Rev. 19:9) and drink anew with Christ of the fruit of the vine in his Father's kingdom (Matt. 26:29; Mark 14:25; Luke 22:18).

§         Looking Inwards

We are to consider soberly and examine our selves when we partake of the elements and repent and confess our sins if any (1 Cor 11:26-30). It is a time for sober reflection of ourselves too as we remember the lord death we also remember our own sins and depravity and seek the Lord for forgiveness and gracious pardon. Some I n the old days were punished (i.e. sickness or death) by the Lord for not doing that and hence taking it unworthily in the first century. That is the full meaning of the partaking of the Lord’s Supper.  

Conclusion

The Lord’s Supper is a sacrament that delivers a powerful spiritual lesson to the Church each time we commemorate the Lord’s death. Each believer is to examine himself that he partakes of it worthily (1 Cor 11:30–34). Believers are not to miss coming before the Lord each month in the partaking of the Holy Communion. The sacraments are means of grace for our spiritual nourishment and benefit. The next time we come before the Lord’s Table, We need to contemplate upon these vital concerns and be richly blessed and nourished by the meaningful commemoration of our Lord’s death, through the sacraments to the spiritual health and vitality of our souls.  

The Medieval church view of baptism 

The medieval church view on baptism is best summarised by The Roman Catholic Church when it published a new Catechism in 1992 in Latin and the English translation was completed in 1994. (This is given below partially .)

 By Baptism all sins are forgiven, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. The Lord himself affirms that Baptism is necessary for salvation. ... The Church does not know of any means other than Baptism that assures entry into eternal beatitude; this is why she takes care not to neglect the mission she has received from the Lord to see that all who can be baptized are "reborn of water and the Spirit." God has bound salvation to the sacrament of Baptism... Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte "a new creature," an adopted son of God, who has become a "partaker of the divine nature," member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.

( see http://www.rapidnet.com/~jbeard/bdm/Cults/Catholicism/catechism.htm, oct 2004) 

The Reformers’ Views on Baptism 

General Introduction

The reformers saw baptism as obedience to the word of God given in Mt 28:18-20 and taught in other portions of scriptures. (Mk 16:16, Acts 2:38-39, Rom 6:1-4, Col 2:11,12)  Calvin defines a church as one that preaches the pure word and the gospel, administers church discipline to its members and the two sacraments. He also stressed that this sacrament is to be administered by an ordained minister that is sanctioned by God and by the church.  The people of God have regarded their children as "a heritage from the Lord" (Ps 127:3) and as a blessing from Him (Ps 128:3-4). This is true of adult adherents of the Reformed faith as well as infants defined in the Reformed creeds. According to these Reformed creeds, not only are believing parents to regard their children as blessings from God, but also they are to regard them as bonafide members of both the covenant of grace and the church of God (see Heidelberg Catechism, Question 74; Westminster Confession of Faith, XXV/ii). Christian parents are to recognize that certain privileges, including the privilege of baptism, accrue to their children which do not pertain to the offspring of unbelieving parents. These same parents are also to recognize that to deny their children these God-ordained privileges is virtually to forego the blessing of God given in the covenant which God himself gives to them.  

a.         Luther.

Luther did not accept the Roman idea of "sacredotalism" as salvation conferred by the act of water baptism, but applied his new definition of grace to the content of baptism in order to establish the fact that baptism possesses validity for the whole life. Luther's idea of baptism was identical with his idea of the sacraments in general that they make plain and confirm the "Word." Like the Word, baptism can be efficacious with faith by its generating power. And in faith, one can always look back on it and knows that he possesses God's grace. For this reason he also believed and practiced the baptism of infants. This sacrament is not a demonstration of faith possessed  but a mode of generating faith. The faith by which we are justified is God's gracious gift   to the individual, and it comes by the hearing of the gospel promises. Since the sacraments mediate the Word of God, and "his Word cannot be without fruit," baptism can be seen as generating, rather than presupposing faith. In baptism, "A child becomes a believer if Christ...speaks to him through the mouth of the one who baptizes." Hence, Luther sanctioned the practice of infant baptism, for a peculiar cause, though his reasons for doing so are different from the medieval church. Luther would also affirm the following:

1.      That Christ commanded us to bring the children to Him.

2.      That infants acquire faith as a gift of God through the faithful intercession of parents.

3.      That this faith is a personal faith for salvation (not one of intellectual understanding, comprehension or facts, but the gift of God, Ephesians 2:8-9).

4.      That the Lord's standard is not that of adult intellectual faith, but that adults must become as little children.

5.      That this faith appropriates the blessings of Baptism.

6.      That this baptism is the same baptism for children and adults.

7.      That no one is to be baptized without the belief that they have a personal faith in Christ as Savior but only those we believe to have faith should be brought to Christ.

8.      That there is no salvation apart from a personal faith in Christ, even with baptism. Faith is the hand that reaches into the waters of baptism and retrieves the pearl of salvation.
[Note: Luther teaches that true baptism is water connected with the Word of God. When properly administered in connection with the Word, it is meaningful even if the candidate lacks faith. The lack of faith, however, means the benefits of baptism are not appropriated to him. When that person genuinely believes, the benefits of baptism are applied to him.  How can we know if an infant has faith? We cannot know with certainty, just as we cannot know whether an adult profession is genuine. With an adult we look at his life and hear his confession, his testimony and on that basis we believe he has faith. With an infant we look at the parents, as Luther puts it the "alien faith" and trust God's promises that He receives the children brought to Him and brings them into the Kingdom Of God as He promised.]

b.         Zwingli  

Like Luther, Zwingli sees baptism as a means of grace given by God  and  maintained the legitimacy of the practice of infant baptism, but his reasons for doing so were quite different. After an initial period of doubting the legitimacy of the practice (during the late 1510s and early 1520s), Zwingli laid a  foundation for the doctrine of infant baptism based upon the Old Testament circumcision as the sign of the covenant. There is a continuity of covenant identification in the Old and New Testaments. ) Zwingli said, Circumcision among the ancients (so far as it was sacramental) was the same as baptism with us {quoted by McNeill / Battles, v. 2, 1326; from the primary source, Refutation of the Tricks of the Baptists}

 Circumcision functioned as the outward sign in the Old Testament. It was a physical sign demonstrating the child's inclusion within the covenant community of Israel. In the New Testament, baptism takes the role previously played by circumcision. Baptism is a sign of belonging to the Christian community in the New Testament. Notice here Zwingli opposes Luther's infant faith theory, for (in line with Zwingli's general view of the sacraments) the water of baptism has no inherent power or significance. The significance of infant baptism is derived from it being a teaching of scripture and practice within and for the Christian community of the elect.  .( cf.Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol VIII, 93-97).

c.         Reformed

Zwingli and Calvin devoted some of their teachings and writings to the question of baptism. Zwingli, who became interested in it especially through the Anabaptists, (who did not believe in infant baptism but rebaptism and only by immersion) wrote several special treatises on it. In the Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.16.9, 4.16.32, Calvin argued strongly  for a case of infant baptism based on the OT covenantal sign of circumcision which is to be applied today t o covenant children .  According to him, it is not the function of baptism to mediate grace, since that could be accomplished only internally and immediately through the Spirit of God; but baptism has its value as a means of setting children apart for God, and as a sign for them that they belong to the congregation of Christ and are bound to his service. Martin Bucer, his successor said, “Baptism stands at the beginning of the Christian life just as it stands at the beginning of the Gospel, a prophetic sign of what that life will be namely, a turning away from the ways of the world, and an entering into the life of the Spirit, a sign and seal of our conversion.” (Encyclopedia of the Reformed Faith, 21

Calvin in , Institutes of the Christian Religion, 4.15.20 added : “God pronounces that he adopts our infants as his children, before they are born, when he promises that he will be a God to us, and to our seed after us. ”

Clearly, if circumcision was a literal sign, we must estimate baptism to be the same. For the apostle, in the second chapter of Colossians, makes neither more spiritual than the other. For he says that we were circumcised in Christ not by a circumcision made with hands, when we laid aside the body of sin which dwelt in our flesh. This he calls the 'circumcision of Christ' [Col. 2:11]. Afterward, to explain this statement, he adds that in baptism we were 'buried in Christ' [Col 2:12]. What do these words mean, except that the fulfillment and truth of baptism are also the truth and fulfillment of circumcision, since they signify one and the same thing? For he is striving to demonstrate that baptism is for the Christians what circumcision previously was for the Jews.{John Calvin,  Institutes of the Christian Religion 4.:16:11,  }

Calvin was much in agreement with Zwingli In this aspect especially in connection with the baptism of both adults and covenant children. He sees it as signs and seals of the covenant of grace which the elect of God do enjoy and are spiritually blessed by observing them.  A child, numbered among the elect, who dies without baptism, suffers no harm in God's sight. (i.e. no baptismal regeneration) It is evident that Calvin counts infant baptism as among the normal means of grace of the covenant which bind the elect to the Church and to God, as they undergo their spiritual development on earth; but not salvation per se.  The reformed churches generally would only recognised the administration of the sacrament by an ordained minister of the gospel to prevent its abuse or misuse. Reformed churches have generally been generous in recognising baptism administered by other Christian churches and believed that the sacrament is to be administered once only. 

The Westminster Confession of Faith (below) properly represents the Reformed  perspective  of this sacrament.

Why Baptise Infants?

The answer is, why not? The Westminster Confession of Faith, our Presbyterian Creed (1643-48), Chap XXVIII para IV on Baptism has this to say: “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,⁵ but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptised.”⁶

⁵ Mark xvi.15,16; Acts viii.37,38.

⁶ Gen xvii.7,9; Gal iii.9,14; Col ii.11,12; Ac ii.38,39; Rom iv.11,12; I Cor 7:14; Mt 28:19; Lk 18:15.

Some churches do not believe in or practice infant baptism.  They say that since the recipients (infants) do not understand the significance of baptism, it should not be administered to them.  Secondly, they assert that there is no evidence for the baptism of infants in the Bible. 

In addressing the subject of infant baptism, we must seek to understand the doctrine of covenant theology.  Covenant theology is a biblical system of redemption, which teaches that God deals with His people according to His sovereign, unilateral, gratuitous perpetual covenant He had established with them in the Lord Jesus Christ.  In this covenant of spiritual benefits, blessings are promised to a chosen generation according to His sovereign will and good pleasure. When one is asked: "Upon what ground do you baptize infants," they should understand that it is sufficient to answer: "Because our infants are covenant children, and God has commanded that covenant children receive the sign of the covenant."

When God gave His covenant to Abraham in Gen 17:7-14, He required Abraham to circumcise himself and his male children as a sign and token of His covenant to them.  Subsequently, Abraham obeyed and circumcised himself and his son Ishmael and all the men of his house (Gen 17:24-27).  Infants that are 8 days old are to be circumcised according to the law of the Lord.  The sign of circumcision from henceforth will be applied to the children of the covenant people, Israel.  A physical sign of circumcision is what God required of them in the OT.

Then the question is asked, why is circumcision not practiced today?  The answer is: baptism fulfills circumcision.  Every doctrine in the NT has its roots in the OT.  The Lord’s Supper is to take the place of the Passover after the death of Christ.  We now look to Calvary and remember the atonement of the paschal lamb, which is offered once and for all for the sins of many.  Col 2:11,12 is one clear verse that illustrates how baptism has taken the place of OT circumcision.  “In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead.”  NT circumcision is water baptism ie “the circumcision of Christ.”  God has specially instituted this means of grace as a sign of covenant blessing and influence in the life of believing parents and their children.

The Unity and Continuity of Covenants in both the NT and OT

As John Murray clearly declares:

The basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church.

The gracious covenant God established with man is the basis for which infant baptism is practised.  The covenant God made with Abraham was familial in nature (Gen 17:9-13).  The infants born to Abraham were to be circumcised as a sign of the covenant.  Not only did Abraham belong to the covenant, his children were also under it. They were recipients of the covenant promises too.  Therefore infants of Christian parents are baptised without preceding faith and repentance.  They belong to the covenant.  They are heirs of the promises.  However salvation cannot be inherited. They are to affirm the covenant promise with personal profession and confession of their faith in Jesus Christ.  Like circumcision, baptism has a spiritual significance. Baptism is an outward and sensible sign of both inward and outward spiritual grace.  In the Shorter Catechism in Q94, the answer given is ‘Baptism is a sacrament wherein the washing with water in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost doth signify and seal our ingrafting into Christ and partaking of the benefits of grace and engagement to be the Lord’s.’  Circumcision and baptism represent that they have obtained the benefits by their true profession of faith in Christ and receiving Him as their Saviour.  For the infants of believers, it signifies that they are part of the covenant of grace  and  they are  to confirm the covenant by an act of personal faith in Christ in the fullness of time.

Paul reiterated this same principle in Rom 4:12-13 “And the father of circumcision to them who are not of the circumcision only, but who also walk in the steps of that faith of our father Abraham, which he had being yet uncircumcised.  For the promise, that he should be the heir of the world, was not to Abraham, or to his seed, through the law, but through the righteousness of faith.”  This means of grace promised to Abraham is not to him alone but also to his seed that they may walk in the steps of that faith.  Godly parents are to bring up their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.  They commit their children while they are yet in their tender years to the Lord in baptism, asking and praying for atoning mercies upon their lives while committing themselves to responsible Christian parenthood.  This is fitting, acceptable and glorifying to the name of God and consistent with the covenantal teachings of the Bible.

New Testament  Examples

It is important to understand Ac 2:38,39 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptised every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.  For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call.”  Peter called upon the crowd at Pentecost to repent and be baptised and he included children of believing parents.  He knew that children of believing parents have a special place in God’s divine economy of grace.  Did not Jesus said, forbid not the little children to come to me (Lk 18:15,16)?

We see household baptism practised in the NT.  Paul baptised Lydia’s family (Acts 16:15) and Stephanas’ family (1 Cor 1:15).  The Philippian jailer experienced the joy of his family coming to the Lord (Acts 16:31). The word, which is translated “household”, normally would have included children and even servants or slaves in the first century.

A Point of Clarification

Some have erroneously misunderstood that infant baptism is synonymous with salvation or the error of baptismal regeneration.  For the record, so that the question need not be asked again, Reformed churches do not believe that when an infant is baptised, he is saved for the same reason that adult baptism does not also automatically guarantee the salvation of that individual who is baptised. As believing parents, we follow the scriptural injunction, and come before the Lord and commit ourselves to diligent Christian parental upbringing and the privilege and joy of covenant influence and blessing within the will of God.  Covenant influence and covenantal blessing is not synonymous with salvation.  There are Israelites who are circumcised (perhaps some Pharisees and Sadducees) but who never truly believe and embrace the faith.  The same can be said of adult baptism. In Act 8:13,23, Simon the sorcerer was baptised by Philip but was found out by the Apostles Peter and John that he is still in the bond of iniquity (8:23).  He as assessed to be an unbeliever even after baptism.

Some may say, “there are some who were wayward in their lives.  So what is the point of baptising them as infants in the first place?” The fact that there are negative examples does not negate or nullify biblical injunction and practice of infant baptism.  The fact that there are accidents does not mean we do not drive cars any more.  Human experience must not supplant or supersede doctrine. Since Simon the sorcerer was baptised and was found to be a sinner still (and many modern day negative examples too) should we also discard adult baptism? God forbid.  Infant baptism just like adult baptism is in obedience to God’s expressed commands in the Scriptures (Mt 28:19,20).  While the age differs, the principle is that it is a sign and seal and a means of grace for that person to grow in the grace and knowledge of God.

If asked, should we baptise an infant if only one of the parents is a believer?  The answer is given in 1 Cor 7:14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy.”  The sanctifying influence here does not mean salvation. IT means a covenantal blessing or spiritual influence in the home due to the presence of the saved spouse. Mal 2:14 puts it as seeking a godly seed. It is not wrong for the believing spouse to want to honour God and seek the Lord’s blessing upon his/her child through infant baptism.  We have many testimonies of how the Lord enables one believing parent to bring up their children in the fear and nurture of the Lord (NB. This does not sanction the marrying of non-Christians.  Paul was referring to one spouse embracing the faith after marriage).

Baptism Only Once

According to the Westminster Confession, the sacrament of baptism is to be administered only once to any person.  Hence the young child when he comes to maturity (usually about 12 years of age), he is not to be baptised again, but should affirm his faith before the Lord and the congregation.  This even the more confirms and affirms his baptism as an infant by his parents and is a glorious testimony of the covenantal grace and mercies of the Lord.  He must understand the doctrine of grace, being carefully taught in catechism class on the Westminster Confession of Faith (Shorter Catechism) and profess faith in Christ publicly.  This testimony of covenantal grace in our children who have grown in their faith in due time is proper and right before the Lord 

Mode of Baptism

Whether baptism should be administered by immersion or sprinkling has aggravated protestant churches for centuries. There are generally two schools of thoughts here, one that believes in immersion (normally the Baptists though not all) only as a valid form of baptism (if not some will even rebaptise believers who are already baptised by sprinkling) and the other who practice sprinkling and sees the mode as a thing indifferent.  The contention that immersion alone can be baptism is usually based on the presumption that baptism was originally administered by immersion which is debatable.  Its assumption throws baptism out of analogy with all other Christian usages, with the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. No one would insist that the validity of the Lord's Supper if the Supper depends upon painfully conforming in the mode of its celebration to all the circumstantial details. The Lord's Supper was instituted at an evening meal, as a part of a household feast which was itself the Passover.  Even the use of unleavened bread, which might be thought a more intimate circumstance, is treated as a matter of indifference by a large part of Christendom. In the midst of so much freedom in the circumstantials of Christian ordinances, the mode of applying the water must be treated as of the same essence of the elements of the sacrament. (J.Oliver Buswell makes a strong and credible case for sprinkling in baptism in his book, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Religion, 245-249, which is noteworthy.)

To Sprinkle or Immerse?

It is claimed by some that the etymology of the word for “baptism” means to submerge totally only (which is debatable and inconclusive).  It is instructive to note that the word in the NT times  was also used to refer to a number of different Jewish rites of purification involving washing or sprinkling (Eze 36:25, Mk 7:3-4, Lk 11:38, Heb 6:2) . Let us take a closer look a the etymology of this word 

If there is  one instance where baptizo does not mean immerse, the whole case of the immersion only argument by the use of the word baptizo must be dismissed once and for all, Consider  Luke 11:37-38 where we find Jesus invited to dine with a Pharisee. Jesus goes in and sits down to eat. The Pharisee marvels that He had not first bathed himself before eating. The word used? Baptizo! Were the  Pharisee  surprised Jesus did not immerse himself before He sat down to eat? Absolutely  not for the word can mean washing as well which was what He did. Check out Hebrews 9:8-10 . The Jews had many washings and purifications, but no immersions, though the word is rendered  properly as washings(ie the Greek is baptizmois.) in the KJV.

The immersionist’s  main argument is  from the Greek word baptizo. While it is true this word gives us the name of the sacrament, it does not give us the mode. The word for the Lord’s Supper, the second sacrament signifies a full meal to fill the hungry man. The church at Corinth fell into this error of the meaning of a word, rather than what it symbolized, Paul dealt with their error. (1 cor 11 :20- 22) So it is  in the Lord’s supper we do not have a literal feast, in baptism we do not need to  have a physical bath either. Both have a physical sign for a spiritual truth. If a little bread and wine are sufficient for one sacrament , so is a little water for another .  

A Study of the Etymology of the word “baptizo”

 (This section is adapted and summarised from http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/encyc/encyc01/articles/baptism.html, Sep 2004)

It is not easy to be sure what the mode of applying the water employed by the apostles was; or whether indeed it was uniform. No mode of applying the water is prescribed in the New Testament. In the record the New Testament gives of acts of baptism, the mode in which the water was applied is never described. It is never even implied with a clearness which would render differences of interpretation impossible. Nor does what we may think the most natural suggestion seem in all instances to be to the same effect. If we are inclined to fancy the phrase "to baptize in water" (Gk. baptizein en hydati, Matt. iii, 11; John i, 26, 31, 33) suggestive of immersion, we can not fail soon to recall that it may just as well mean "with water" and that it is varied, even in parallel passages, to the simple dative of cause, manner, means, or instrument (Mark i, 8; Luke iii, 16; Acts i, 5; xi, 16). If "baptizing in the river Jordan" (Matt iii, 6; Mark i, 5), varied even to what some unidiomatically render "baptizing into Jordan" (Mark i, 9), strikes us as intimating immersion, we are bound to bear in mind that both phrases may just as well be translated "at Jordan" (Thayer's Lexicon, s.v. iv, I, l,c; cf especially Luke xiii, 4,); just as we are bound to bear in mind of those passages which, in our English Bible, speak of going "down into the water" to be baptized and coming "up out of the water" after baptism (Mark i, 10; Acts viii, 38, 39), that they may just as well be rendered going "down to the water" and "coming up from the water"; and just as we are bound to bear in mind in the presence of all such passages that there are other manners of baptizing besides immersion (i.e. pouring), which require for their accomplishment going into and coming out of the water. If we read of a locality being selected for baptizing "because there was much water," or, possibly better, "because there were many waters," that is, numerous pools, or springs, or rivulets there (John iii, 23), we read also of the administration of baptism in circumstances in which there is no likelihood that "much water" was available-for example, in a private house (Acts x, 47, where the water almost seems to have been something to be brought and expended in the act; cf. Acts ix, 18; xxii, 16), or even in the noisome jail at Philippi (Acts xvi, 33).There no stress laid in the New Testament on the exact mode of applying the amount of water in baptism, but that all the allusions to baptism in the New Testament can find ready explanation on the assumption of any of the modes of administration which have been widely practised in the  churches. 

At least that term occurs in the New Testament only once of a ceremonial lustration, and then only in connection with baptizein as explaining its effects, while baptizein occurs quite naturally in this sense (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38; Heb. ix, 10) and is the term adopted, probably from such a preceding use, to designate the symbolical washing or pouring proclaimed by John the Baptist, and the Christian rite which is called " baptism." In these circumstances it seems very rash to assume that the word was applied to the Christian rite in its primitive meaning of "to dip"; or indeed that any implication of that primitive meaning still clings to it in this application. The presumption is very strong that even in its preliminary use of the Jewish lustrations, it had already "lost its earlier significance of `dipping,' or `immersing'" and " acquired the new religious significance of `ceremonial cleansing by water" (J. A. Robinson, ut sup.; cf. EB, i, 473; DB, i,.238).  

In any event, the stress of the word in its application to the Christian rite is not upon the mode in which the water is applied in it, but to its effect as a symbolical cleansing. Consider . "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water." (Hebrews 10:22 )

In conclusion, the etymology of the word, in short, throws no clear light on the mode of applying the water in baptism in the usage of the apostles and none should be dogmatic about it for it is a thing indifferent.

Conclusion

Reformed  and other Churches (other than anti-paedobaptist) churches practise infant baptism and sprinkling  in obedience to God’s holy Word. Infant baptism is a sing of the  covenant and entails spiritual influence which involves the commitment of the parents in bringing up their children in the saving grace of the Lord.  This is a covenantal concept and principle that was taught in the OT as circumcision (Acts 7:8) and in the NT as well as in Acts 2:38,39 .One sees also in the NT the practice of household baptism which in all likelihood  includes children in Ac 16:15 in Lydia’s and in 1 Cor 1:15 in Stephanas’. It is the duty of the parents to bring up the child in the fear and nurture of the Lord and to also let  the child come in confirmation of his or her personal faith when he or she reaches an age of understanding. Infant baptism is a great blessing to Christian parents. It is proper and right for parents to bring their children before God and in the solemn act of baptism and dedicate them to the Lord and take explicit vows for the fulfilment of the sacred duties of Christian parenthood.  Many parents have been strengthened and edified by the vows of commitment to the Lord taken when their children were baptised.  Many Christians has testified that the knowledge of his parents dedicating him to the Lord in baptism during their infancy and took solemn vows upon themselves in reaffirmation, have constituted a strong factor in his individual faith and continued faithfulness in his Christian faith and profession.  It must be added that infant baptism clearly does not equal or mean salvation of the infant but covenant blessing and influence within a Christian family as the parents prayerfully seek God to bring up the child in the fear and nurture of the Lord. In conclusion , the  view  of adult and infant baptism  and sprinkling as a mode  was held by the three major branches of the early Protestant movement: Calvinist, Lutheran, and Zwinglian. In all likelihood, such practices  could probably be adopted  in Anglican, Independent  and Methodist and other churches  as well  It would be denied  by the Anabaptists (and  later some anit paedo-Baptists), who espoused only believers’ baptism for those persons attaining the age of reason .

Jack Sin

Maranatha Bible Presbyterian Church

www.maranatha-bpc.com 

NB:  For a deeper study on this subject, read

§         William Cunningham, The Reformers & the Theology of the Reformation.  Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1979.

§         Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church Vol VII and VIII,  603-682.  Grand Rapids:  Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1994.

§         Donald McKim and David Wright , Encyclopaedia of  the Reformed Faith, Louisville: John Knox Press, 1992.

§         Robert Raymond, A New Systematic Theology  of the Christian Faith, Nashville: Thomson Nelson Publishers, 1998.

§         Timothy Tow, An Abridgment of Calvin’s Institutes  of the Christian Religion , 414-460, Singapore :Far Eastern Bible College Press, 1997

§         Westminster Confession of Faith and Subordinate Standards Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons Ltd ,1973

§         JD Douglas, The New International Dictionary of the Christian Church, 101-103, Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House 1978

§         William Cunningham, Historical Theology, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1994.121-144.

§         Louis Berkhof, The History of Christian Doctrine, 242-254,Grand Rapids: Baker Book  House, 1996,