1.21 blog

Yesterday I preached about baptism from Romans 6.1-11. In the sermon I noted that Paul speaks of baptism as though it actually does something. He says that all who are baptized into Christ are baptized into his death, and that through baptism, we are buried with Christ.

Most evangelicals get nervous when they hear that sort of language. Isn’t baptism just a symbol? Isn’t salvation by grace alone, through faith alone, because of Christ alone? The answer to the first question is no. Baptism is not just a symbol, it’s a sacrament. The answer to the second question is yes.

Let’s just be clear and unequivocal: our salvation depends entirely on God’s grace and the work of Jesus in our place. We appropriate this salvation by faith alone. Alright, now let’s move on.

The fact is, the Bible uses language like the language we saw in Romans 6, or like we see in Colossians 2.11-12; or Galatians 3.25-29; or Acts 2.38; or Acts 22.16, which depicts baptism as bringing about forgiveness of sins, union with Jesus in his death and resurrection, and the gift of the Holy Spirit. We have to deal with this and take it seriously.

There have been several unsatisfactory attempts to do so. For example, the Roman Catholic view holds that baptism is necessary for salvation, and brings it about simply by being applied (ex opere operatum). However, when faced with the fact that in the Bible some people are saved without being baptized (e.g., the penitent thief), they come up with categories like “baptism of intent,” where the person would have been baptized if they’d known about it. That’s not a very satisfying explanation.

On the other hand, evangelicals have developed a category of Holy Spirit baptism as separate from water baptism (not to be confused with the Pentecostal view). In this view, the effects of baptism listed in the Scriptures are linked to “Spirit baptism,” while water baptism merely testifies to Spirit baptism. So, basically every time baptism is depicted as doing something, we are to understand that water baptism isn’t in view. It must simply mean Spirit baptism. Again, it’s not an especially satisfying explanation, and seems forced and artificial.

However, there’s another option open to us: the Reformed view (for whatever reason a lot of people talk about Reformed theology as if it simply means predestination, or the “five points of Calvinism,” but there’s so much more to it). In this view we understand that while there is a distinction between the sign (the application of water in the name of the Trinity), and the thing signified (new life in Christ, forgiveness of sins, reception of the Holy Spirit), so that a person can be baptized but not be saved, or be saved without being baptized; there should not be a separation of them. They are closely related and mysteriously united. This view allows us to maintain the Bible’s language about God accomplishing something through baptism without losing sight of the fact that salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone. It has the benefits of the Spirit baptism view without devaluing and regulating baptism to a mere symbol.

It’s more than a symbol. It’s a sacrament. A sign and a seal of God’s promises in the gospel.

For more detail about how this plays out, see questions 65-73 of the Heidelberg Catechism.

Posted by: Gene Schlesinger