Pages

Sunday, November 01, 2009

Saving Faith Prior To Baptism

From the discussion at Justin Taylor's blog, linked earlier:

Bryan Cross wrote:

"If what you were saying were true, then every catechumen who died prior to his baptism would be damned. But the Church has never believed that. A person who claims to have faith, and knows that Jesus Christ has established baptism as the sacrament of faith through which we are born again, and yet refuses to be baptized, does not have faith. But faith comes *through* the sacrament of baptism, even when the reception of faith precedes the reception of the sacrament of baptism."

I said, earlier in this discussion, that I was addressing the normative means of justification in Catholicism. Catechumens who die prior to baptism, a category I mentioned as an exception before you mentioned them, are an exception, not representatives of what's normative.

Your assertion that faith comes through baptism is a claim you don't support, and it's one that's contradicted by the evidence. Nobody in the Biblical era is described as having faith, yet needing to wait until baptism to have that faith enhanced in some manner and thereby attain justification. Rather, people are justified as soon as they come to faith, and every instance in which it's narrated for us occurs prior to baptism (Mark 2:5, Luke 7:50, 18:10-14, Acts 10:44-48, Galatians 3:2, Ephesians 1:13-14, etc.). Even in the unusual context of Acts 19:1-6, the people in question receive the Spirit at the time of the laying on of hands, not at the time of baptism, and Paul's question in verse 2 suggests that he considered it normative to receive the Spirit at the time of faith, not at the time of baptism. To dismiss one of these passages as an exception to the rule would be unreasonable. To dismiss all of them as exceptions would be even more unreasonable. Some of the passages occur in contexts that are treated as normative (Acts 11 and Acts 15 treat the method of receiving justification in Acts 10 as normal; it's doubtful that all of the Galatians and Ephesians to whom Paul was writing were exceptions to a rule; etc.). And even the passages that aren't described as normative can't be dismissed as exceptions unless we have evidence to that effect. And we don't.

Furthermore, asserting that these passages are including baptism when they mention faith, or are assuming baptism without mentioning it, would also be an insufficient argument. We don't normally assume that the term faith includes baptism, and some of the relevant contexts can't reasonably include such a ceremony. There wouldn't have been a baptism in the Jewish temple in Luke 18. The people in Acts 10 are described as being baptized after receiving the Spirit through faith. Etc. Even in a passage like Galatians 3 or Ephesians 1, where reading baptism into the passage would be less unreasonable, it's still unreasonable to do so. Not only is baptism not mentioned (despite being mentioned explicitly in so many other contexts), but Paul even tells us that these people were justified at the time when they heard the message and believed. He's referring to the preaching of the gospel, and to interpret that as a reference to people being baptized as they hear the preaching would make little sense. Rather, the image Paul presents us with is reminiscent of what we see in Acts 10 and elsewhere in Acts, where people believe a preached message prior to baptism. Those who hear the preached word in Acts and accept it are said to believe, even though they haven't yet been baptized (15:7-9). Baptism is sometimes mentioned, but it's distinguished from faith (Acts 8:12-13, 18:8). It's not just assumed that any mention of faith includes baptism.

Baptism does unite us to Christ. But so do other activities that occur after the attaining of justification (Romans 13:14, 2 Corinthians 4:10-11, Philippians 3:10-12).

2 comments:

  1. The Romish doctrine of baptism contains so many 'exceptions', they disprove their own 'rule.' Or, to put it another way, it dies the death of a thousand qualifications. That's because even the Romanists can't stomach the implications of their own belief in the necessity of baptism for justification. Even they can't, for instance, countenance the damnation of someone who dies on the way to their baptism ceremony (thus, the 'baptism of desire').

    Bryan Cross (like all good sacramentalists) wants to even credit baptism for working faith in those who come to faith *before* baptism. This is surely a kooky metaphysic - believing that something can be causal or instrumental in an event that pre-dated it. How else can one prop up this superstition?

    I think its easier just to trust in the finished work of Christ, received with the emtpy hand of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jason--

    Catholics also speak of Mary, before her birth, being redeemed of her sins (which she would never actually commit) by the blood of a Savior she herself would bear. They like to play really fast and loose with time!!

    For adult baptism, even for Catholics, faith ahead of time is not only normative but mandated. And for infants, the faith of at least one parent is requisite. So faith ALWAYS precedes baptism!

    Catholics don't often speak of "conversion" anymore. And when they do, I can never tell what they're talking about. "Regeneration" for them is synonymous with baptism, but beyond that I'm clueless. Baptism infuses sanctifying grace into the believer...even though he already had it. Conversion to faith brings with it a desire for baptism, which by itself is as good as baptism (and thus, must impart sanctifying grace without the need to get wet).

    In his conversion, Augustine speaks of infusion and illumination and enduring faith:

    "No further would I read, nor did I need; for instantly, as the sentence ended — by a light, as it were, of security infused into my heart — all the gloom of doubt vanished away."

    He talks of conversion and regeneration as if they were two separate things. But to me it rings of convention, nothing more. He is used to speaking of baptism as the initiatory rite. In its waters one is washed clean. In its waters one is born again. When he does get around to describing his own baptism, it is perfunctory. He has already made all of Monica's prayers come true. He has already rejoiced with her. Baptism is just a tasty icing and not the cake itself.

    Even "New Advent" puts the cart before the horse in summarizing Augustine's conversion experience:

    "[H]e is, after a severe struggle, renewed in his whole mind, and is converted unto God."

    If Augustine is already "renewed in his whole mind" in conversion, then what in heaven's name is left for the baptismal waters to effect in him?

    ReplyDelete