14. Is Baptism a Work?
I was raised to believe that this pretty rarified version of sola fide is part and parcel of the Gospel, wherein the Gospel excludes, among other things, baptism as an efficacious means of justification (baptism being characterized as “works”). The thing is, and I can remember the exact moment that this dawned on me, I cannot think of a single New Testament instance in which, where the subject is the person to be baptized, the verb “baptize” is in the active voice–it is always passive (so far as I can tell). That seems like some prima facie evidence that baptism is not fundamentally something that one does–it is something that is done to one, something that is really wonderful, judging by what Scripture says about the effects of baptism. If the exclusion of works and the corresponding preservation of “free giftedness” are among the criteria of the true Gospel, then the sacrament of baptism is a perfect fit, at least along such lines. So there must be some other reason for excluding baptism from justification, or else one could accept the Catholic Faith.
Interestingly, Protestantism, especially in its Lutheran and some of its Reformed strains, has insisted that saving faith is essentially passive (this is one of the reasons why Luther could sometimes accept baptismal justification). I suppose that this has something to do with (among other things) the desire to keep justification free from the taint of works. However, even if we grant the passivity of faith (flying in the face of much biblical evidence, it seems to me), it remains the case that there are certain works that one must do before he can believe; i.e., learn a language and (closer to the action at hand) try to understand what is being said in the Scriptures, or taught from the Scriptures concerning justification offered to sinners as a free gift. This understanding requires some effort, maybe a good deal of effort, but it seems to be, on your showing, necessary for justification.
So I seem to detect some inconsistency (internally and with Scripture) in your comments concerning baptism, believing, and works.
21. Is Baptism Excluded where it is Not Explicitly Mentioned?
(I went back and numbered these paragraphs just to help distinguish between the loosely related points that I am trying to make.)
(1) I looked at the post you linked to at the end of comment #19, but did not see anything about faith not being a work. Faith is characterized as a work in Scripture, John 5, for example. Also, St. Paul refers twice to the “obedience of faith” in his Epistle to the Romans, and St. John equates faith with obedience at the end of John 3. Faith is active. It is, in fact, a good action.
(2) It is particularly common in the Book of Acts to find “repent,” with no mention of “believe,” as the condition placed upon sinners who would be reconciled to God. Of course, there are occasions in which “believe,” with no mention of repentance, is the condition for salvation. Furthermore, there are occasions in which “be baptized” and “repent” are used with no mention of faith. In short, repent, be baptized, and believe are all conditions laid down in Acts for the forgiveness of sins, apparently in the sense of original justification. This does not mean that these actions are reducible one to the other, but it does seem to imply that one cannot simply assume that when only one or two of these actions is mentioned, the others are ipso facto excluded.
(3) In baptism, by faith, and through repentance, we do indeed put on Christ. This is a mysterious action, and in the cases of adults who receive initial justification, it is an intentional one, in which we purpose to do good. This purpose, which is, in the action of believing unto justification, always present with mental assent, we might call surrendering oneself to Christ, or submitting to his rule. Clearly, such good actions are not inconsistent with St. Paul’s proscriptions concerning works, since it is Paul himself who recommends these actions to us.
(4) I have already pointed out that baptism is passive in an obvious way, even more so than faith. You responded that there is an active dimension to this sacrament as well, considered from the aspect of the subject. I agree, particularly when the subject to be baptized is an adult. What I was moving towards is a kind of parity between baptism and faith, in the sense that the subject is passive in receiving something from God, but active with respect to rendering obedience to the divine command to repent, believe, be baptized. If the action of the subject in connection with being baptized disqualifies baptism as the condition for initial justification apart from works, then faith, which involves an action of the subject who believes, is disqualified as a condition for initial justification apart from works.
Anyone who tries to drive a wedge between faith, baptism and repentance with respect to the forgiveness of sins in initial justification is steering for troubled hermeneutical waters: witness the tendency of some evangelicals to read key “baptism” passages as referring to something, anything, other than baptism.
25. Justification by Faith Occurs in Baptism (Which Unites Us to Christ)
You wrote:
If justification occurs at the time of faith, prior to baptism and other works, as I’ve argued, then calling faith a work and referring to it as obedience do nothing to establish that justification is received through baptism.
That clears something up. I was thinking that your idiosyncratic references to baptism as a “work” were somehow designed to indicate that, as such, baptism could not be considered as conferring justification. It seems that this was not your intention.
It looks like your objection to baptismal justification depends upon reading those promises conjoined to baptism as promising something other than justification. This is a really difficult position to be in, especially when it comes to interpreting Galatians 3.23-29 and Titus 3.4-7, where justification is explicitly linked to baptism. I see that you are already having that conversation with T Ciatoris, so I will only observe that at the end of your last comment you inadvertently (I think) open the door upon a major issue in biblical studies, namely, why wouldn’t we conclude that unity in Christ is at the heart of justification by faith? I don’t know if anyone is saying that unity in Christ is a means of justification, but such unity might be of the essence (though not the whole essence) of justification. This is indeed a very easy and natural reading of the passage, in which verse 28-29 are correlated with verse 26 (“you are all sons of God through faith”; therefore, unified), which is how Paul explains the significance of being “justified by faith” (v. 24).
The question “How is one justified?” is clearly answered: “by faith.” The further question, “How is one justified by faith?” is just as clearly answered: “By being united to Christ, and everyone in Christ, through baptism.” The still further question, “Exactly what difference does this make, and how significant is it?” is the really important one, and I suggest that the bulk of St. Paul’s Epistles are given to answering it, in terms of ontology, ethics and covenant theology–categories that ought not be placed in opposition one to another (as though, for example, a genuinely Pauline covenant theology could dispense with specifically ontological and moral questions).
On my reading of St. Paul, and Galatians 3 in particular, the ontological (union with Christ) and ethical (peace with one another) benefits of baptism are not reasons to see the latter as conferring something other than justification. Again, any reading which requires 3.28 to be about something other than justification is going to have fits with the context, and is probably based on something else.
Furthermore, as I also noted earlier, repentance is something that occurs within the heart, so passages that refer to justification as occurring through a means in the heart can include repentance, but they can’t include baptism. When the paralytic of Mark 2, the tax collector of Luke 18, or Cornelius in Acts 10 is justified prior to or without baptism, we can conclude that baptism is excluded, but we can’t conclude that repentance is excluded.
I am glad that we at least agree that a thing not being mentioned is not the same thing as its being excluded. However, the visible objectivity of baptism is no reason to suppose that it, unlike repentance, is excluded wherever it is not mentioned. Since we know from Scripture what is promised in baptism, and since we know from Scripture that this promise is associated with justification, it seems like we ought to err the other way, and just assume that baptism is included in instances of justification where it is not expressly excluded, such that those individuals who receive infusion of the Holy Spirit by subjective faith prior to baptism do so proleptically, in anticipation of the gift of baptism.
27. Salvation by Faith and Baptism: A Synthetic Reading of Scripture
You wrote:
Rather than describing how justification is attained, Galatians 3:28, like verse 27, is about the implications Christian unity has for how justification is attained.
I think that there is something to this claim, only leaving off the “Rather….” Thus, Paul begins with the fact of unity, one body, and reasons back to the cause of this state of affairs, to wit, justification by faith, and not by the works of the law. The thing is, justification by faith seems to mean, in this context, identity with Christ, and its corollary, peace and brotherhood with those who are likewise in Christ. And Paul explains that this state of affairs has come about because of baptism: “for as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.” So this is not an either / or (how justification is attained or how a certain state of affairs implies something about how we are justified). Baptism causes the state of affairs from which Paul works back to justification by faith, which is itself explained in terms of baptism.
As for the rest, I do not think that we need to choose between say, Acts 2.38 and Acts 10.47 as to which is “normative.” It is enough that both are true. The gift of the Spirit, so closely tied to baptism, can be enjoyed before baptism, but not apart from the sacrament. I think that Bryan has made this point, and it is what I was referring to by the Spirit being given proleptically, in anticipation of baptism, wherein he is promised, and given (since God cannot break his promise). You seem to be assuming that if the Spirit is given before baptism, then he is not given in baptism. But this seems unnecessarily reductive, and has untoward exegetical side effects (i.e., viz Acts 2.38).
So you see that your claims about “dismissing” certain passages and “exceptions to a rule” are simply misplaced. I am not claiming anything about exceptions or rules, as to pick out some portions of Scripture as being more weighty than other bits. Furthermore, it is strange for you to claim that passages that do not mention baptism in connection with justification and the gift of the Spirit, and thus contain no explicit instruction about baptism, should be taken as “contrary evidence” to what Sacred Scripture explicitly says about baptism. This is actually quite a lot, and has to do with our identification with Christ, the gift of the Spirit, forgiveness of sins and justification.
So, despite your claim about what we ought to be doing, I think that I will continue to (1) go to passages that say something about something in order to learn about that something, and (2) not use passages that say nothing about something as my primary sources of understanding that something.
Since we already know that something can remain unmentioned in the great majority of justification by faith passages (i.e., repentance), and yet be necessary for justification by faith, the burden of proof falls upon anyone who would use such passages as evidence against a position that is built upon passages in which a promise is explicitly connected to baptism, i.e, forgiveness of sins, the gift of the Holy Spirit, identification with Christ and justification.
Thus, when it comes to building a habit of Bible interpretation, in which we compare all kinds of things, and seek out many relations, I will abide by the negative principle of not denying anything, least of all when it is only “contradicted” by silence.
31. Does Faith Exclude Baptism? And the (Relative) Importance of Time
You wrote:
You keep ignoring what I’ve said about “passages in which a promise is explicitly connected to baptism”, and you keep ignoring what I’ve said about distinctions between repentance and baptism. You’re raising objections I’ve already addressed, without interacting with what I said.
I haven’t tried to ignore anything you have said. Rather, I have tried to discern what principles underlie many of the things that you have said, and interact with those principles. In particular, I have tried to focus on the items that have been explicitly raised in our exchange, though not ignoring (as in failing to read and consider before commenting) what you have said to Bryan and T Ciatoris.
Judging from your MO here, the alternative would be to make terse claims about a large number of select sentences from your comments. On the surface, this seems more like interacting, but I do not think that it is very profitable, and often reduces to taking bits of comments out of context and providing a one sentence “rebuttal” in lieu of a considered argument. And of course one’s interlocutor is tempted to respond in kind, and so on and so on, which is, in my opinion, dreadfully dull conversation.
So no, I have not responded to everything you wrote, but I will try to respond to those claims, and positions implied thereby, that appear to be most fundamental to your position. This gives you, among other things, the opportunity to correct me if I am misunderstanding your basic position, as happened in the exchange about baptism being a “work.” I will also keep trying to state my position in a clearer way, and in a way that interacts with some of your primary concerns.
I would like to look at your handling of some passages that you point to as “suggesting” (though not actually claiming) the “exclusion of baptism” (from initial justification/reception of eternal life):
The context of Luke 18:10-14 suggests the exclusion of baptism, since it’s unlikely that a baptism occurred in the Jewish temple. In Acts 10:44-48, we’re told that baptism occurred after the reception of the Spirit. Galatians 3:2 tells us the context of when justification occurred (“hearing”), and that context is one in which baptism is unlikely to have been occurring. 1 Peter 3:21 mentions baptism and its non-justificatory function.
Such appeals exemplify the importance of the principle of going, in the first place, to passages that say something about something in order to understand that something. Here are my comments on the passages to which you allude:
If Our Lord intended a New Covenant context for his story of the tax collector, then we know, based upon our knowledge of the New Covenant, that the tax collector in Luke 18 would be expected to receive New Covenant baptism. When baptized, he would receive all of the gifts promised in baptism (and we know what these are from reading the passages on baptism), including whatever baptismal gifts he had received by his act of contrition.
Baptism is explicitly included in Acts 10.44-48. Cornelius and his household received, in baptism, the same Spirit they had received before baptism. We know this because we know that the Spirit is promised in baptism (Acts 2.38). Furthermore, based upon all that we know to be promised in baptism, identification with Christ (Romans 6), rebirth (John 3), forgiveness of sins/justification (Gal 3, Titus 3, Acts 2), salvation (1 Pet 3), we can conclude that the Spirit is given in baptism as a beginning of our identification with Christ in his mystical body, and all that this entails, which includes initial justification.
Baptism is explicitly included in Galatians 3. “Hearing with faith” is, therefore, not exclusive of baptism. This is further underscored (again) by the fact that Scripture explicitly teaches that “the Spirit” (Gal 3.2) is conferred by baptism (Acts 2.38). In 1 Peter 3, the topic is salvation by means of the death and resurrection of Christ. Insofar as this includes justification, then justification is not excluded in St. Peter’s teacing about salvation by baptism.
You will of course want to say (or point to where you have said) some things about what the NT says about baptism, but it is important to begin by simply affirming whatever it says about baptism, as in just reading and saying “yes, Lord, I believe your testimony concerning baptism.” It seems to me that this action is fundamental to further exegetical endeavors. No good holding certain bits at arm’s length.
Finally, it is pretty obvious that one fundamental concern of yours is the timing of justification/eternal life/new birth/etc. (in sum, the event in which a non-Christian comes to be personally identified with Christ). That is understandable, so long as one’s thoughts about chronological sequence of the supernatural event of union with Christ does not lead to imposing that concern upon a text or texts that are not addressing a matter from that angle. And it seems to me that the temporal sequence involved in an adult who believes and is baptized cannot be the determining factor in assigning specific kinds of causality (or inefficiency) to faith and baptism. After all, anything done in time can be broken down into any number of moments, such that it becomes difficult to identify any event in its totality. A single event can span any number of moments, and yet be unified. This consideration is all the more important when the event being considered involves that which is eternal (i.e., not bound by time).
So the “proleptic” justification position that I am taking does not pit justification by faith against justification by baptism, because the gifts of initial union with Christ (the Spirit, forgiveness of sins, new birth, etc.) seem to be promised in baptism, and the temporal sequence involved in repentance/faith/baptism is not sufficient reason to disassociate the gifts given in baptism from the salvific gifts given prior to baptism, such that what seems to be promised and given in baptism must be interpreted as something else.
Some of this might indicate why “justification by faith”, on my consideration of Scripture, does not denote an event that is fundamentally mental (thus potentially including other purely mental actions, but excluding anything else), but one that is fundamentally spiritual, having an ontological dimension that is inclusive of the external world, in terms of the causes and ends that belong to justification by faith.
37. Recapitulation, Effects of Assumptions brought to the Baptism Passages, the Question of Continuity
Your claims in #33 about what I am assuming or not considering are off the mark. E.g., If you look more closely at my comments on Luke 18, you will see that I have not assumed anything about whether this is more or less “continuous” with something else. I have considered your interpretations, or appeals to interpretations, of these various passages. I have held similar views myself, for some of the same reasons. What I am trying to do is get to the heart of why we are now reading these passages so differently.
I can pick out three fundamental differences in the way that we approach some of the data under consideration.
(1) We variously evaluate the significance of the fact that the gift of the Spirit in justification can precede the reception of baptism.
(2) This (among other things) leads to different readings of “faith” passages that do not say anything about baptism. You read them as excluding baptism. I see no logical reason to do so, given what Sacred Scripture says about baptism, in particular, baptism in relation to faith and the gifts of initial salvation. This leads to the third difference:
(3) I recommend a synthetic reading of both (a) the justification by faith and benefits of baptism passages and (b) the Spirit & forgiveness of sins given before baptism and the Spirit & forgiveness of sins given in baptism passages. In my approach, the “faith” passages are not automatic pretexts for interpreting the “baptism” passages as merely symbolizing indwelling/forgiveness/union/justification, rather than actually conferring the same. Conversely, your construal of the faith passages as excluding baptism becomes a premise in your interpretation of the baptism passages. Without this premise, you would, I think, interpret the baptism passages differently, and more naturally, in accordance with their respective contexts. You would also feel less pressure to exclude the actual sacrament of baptism from those passages that ascribe some spiritual efficacy to “baptism.”
I think that if you were convinced that the faith passages do not automatically exclude baptism then you would read the baptism passages differently. I have tried to facilitate such a reading on your part in a variety of ways, including invoking the principle of not judging the nature / efficacy of something based upon passages that do not mention that thing. Rather, we should form our views about baptism based upon what Scripture says about baptism. And the same for faith. Then, we can bring these understandings together in a synthetic reading whereby we seek out the relationships that exist between subjective faith and the sacrament of baptism. This approach, I think, is reasonable, and it yields (or at least allows for) different results than the approach you are taking, which does not seem to be as reasonable (amounting to arguments from silence, and subsequent question-begging).
A related issue is that you seem tempted to read certain “baptism” passages, including the “born of water” and “washing of regeneration”, as excluding the sacrament–which would be a really strange way to teach rebirth/justification by faith sans baptism, especially since the sacrament figures so prominently in Christian initiation in the NT and beyond. I have not focused on this tendency of yours, primarily because it seems motivated by the more fundamental tendency to read the faith passages as exclusive of baptism. I have given some reasons for not doing that, e.g., it is an argument from silence, such an approach seems to be pretty clearly falsified in the case of, e.g., repentance, and, yes, the most straightforward reading of the baptism passages seems to indicate that they really are about baptism, and that the effects of this sacrament are truly foundational to life in Christ, in terms of both inward changes and new relationships.
Now, to revert to the timing issue: My position here is the result of my synthetic reading of the passages in question, in which there is no need to pick one or another passages as “normative.” In any event, questions about the timing of the effects of the sacrament of baptism and the moment of a conscious act of faith depend greatly upon the subject of baptism, such as whether the subject is an older child/adult or an infant, or, in cases of the former, whether or not the sacrament is received with the right disposition.
If Scripture does not make a major issue of the timing of the gift of the Spirit/justification and the reception of baptism, then neither should we, at least, not in the interpretation of those scriptures. There are passages in which the timing of justification is central to an argument, but these are not addressing baptism. For instance, St. Paul makes a big deal of the timing of Abraham’s justification viz circumcision:
We say that faith was reckoned to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it reckoned to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received circumcision as a sign or seal of the righteousness which he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised. The purpose was to make him the father of all who believe without being circumcised and who thus have righteousness reckoned to them, and likewise the father of the circumcised who are not merely circumcised but also follow the example of the faith which our father Abraham had before he was circumcised. (Romans 4.9b-12)
One reason that this is not parallel to the timing of justification and the (non)efficacy of baptism is that faith and baptism both belong to the New Covenant (“for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ….”), whereas circumcision did not belong to the covenant that God made with Abraham when he was initially justified. Baptism, however, does belong to the covenant in which we are justified, the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. So faith and circumcision, in the covenantal theology of Romans 4, can be temporally distinguished in a way that faith and baptism cannot.
According to St. Paul, baptism is the means by which we are identified with Christ, the foundation of our new life in the Spirit (Romans 6–8). Of course, I do not assume that this baptism passage is exclusive of faith. But I do not on that account read “baptism,” in cases were baptism is portrayed as efficacious to salvation, as something other than the sacrament, or as merely symbolizing what is given to faith. Paul simply says that we are identified with Christ by baptism, and he goes on to trace the significance of this along the lines of life in the Spirit. Thus, when I see the Spirit given prior to baptism, I conclude, not that this isn’t normative, but that this is not exclusive of baptism as the sacrament by which we receive the Spirit. This is why I speak of a “proleptic” gift of the Spirit. When an event is bound up with something eternal, its efficacy need not be in every way bounded by its temporal placement. Christian initiation, centering upon the sacrament of faith, Holy Baptism, is just such an event. Again, such considerations are brought on by the weight of the baptism passages themselves.
There is also a sense in which the full effects of initial salvation await the actual reception of baptism, without which one is not, for example, inwardly configured to participate in the Eucharist. This is a further claim, but it indicates one of the reasons that Catholics can hold that there is a distinct and foundational effect in the actual conferral baptism, even when spiritual life has already begun prior to baptism, in anticipation thereof.
41. Is the External World Excluded by Faith? Continuity, Continued
I have not tried to address every comment you have made in this, or any other, combox. Some of my reasons for such selectivity have already been stated. On the other hand, here are the issues that you have raised which I have tried to address, viz the Gospel and the Catholic Church. These, I judged, were sufficiently fundamental to your other claims (and the topic in general) to warrant further attention:
(1) Baptism is a “work.” You raised this issue in comment #8:
A faith that will later result in works isn’t equivalent to a combination between faith and works. Genesis 15:6 tells us what the Biblical authors meant by faith, and what they meant wasn’t belief accompanied by baptism or belief accompanied by any other work….
I would argue that there’s even an upfront fee as well in the form of baptism. Your view of justification begins with the work of baptism and requires a lifetime of further works for maintaining and increasing justification immediately thereafter. That’s far from the most natural way to take the Biblical references to the freeness of justification and eternal life.
I thought, quite understandably, that this rather idiosyncratic manner of referring to baptism might have been part of an effort to exclude baptism from salvation/justification on a “not by works” basis. It now looks like you do not want to pursue that line, so, progress made.
(2) In comment #23, you moved from baptism being disqualified on the grounds of its being in some sense a “work” to its being disqualified on the basis of its being both subsequent to faith (infants excepted) and extra-mental:
If justification occurs at the time of faith, prior to baptism and other works, as I’ve argued, then calling faith a work and referring to it as obedience do nothing to establish that justification is received through baptism. My argument doesn’t depend upon denying that faith can be considered a work or denying that faith is obedience….
Thus, as I pointed out earlier, people are often referred to as getting baptized after coming to faith. Furthermore, as I also noted earlier, repentance is something that occurs within the heart, so passages that refer to justification as occurring through a means in the heart can include repentance, but they can’t include baptism.
Bryan has already addressed your assumption that “justified by faith” refers to a purely subjective reception of Christ. (See comment #11). Your response was to appeal to the definitions of “faith” and “baptism.” The thing is, “repentance” is not part of the definition of “faith,” but you would not on that basis exclude it from the believing reception of justification. So the appeal to the lexicon is clearly insufficient to establish that “justified by faith” is exclusive of baptism.
You note that I have not responded to your query concerning how, if something is not explicitly excluded in a passage, I could take it to be implicitly excluded. I believe that the example was foot-washing. But the answer is obvious: If we have independent reasons to think that foot-washing might be an essential aspect of receiving initial salvation, then we might consider the question of whether such an act could be implicitly included in a statement about believing unto salvation. Apart from such reasons, there is no need to consider whether foot-washing, or frisbee-throwing, is part and parcel of initial salvation.
So this leaves the temporal objection, which I have already addressed.
(3) You complain that I have not addressed your efforts to explain the baptism passages. But the reason why should be evident–in fact I have stated the reason: Until more fundamental issues are resolved, or at least thoroughly addressed, we will continue to talk past one another on the baptism passages.
I have not addressed your argument from continuity between the testaments, in part because Bryan has already addressed it. It seems like you are saying that Abraham was justified in the exact same way that (e.g.) Paul was justified, such that anything that was essential to receiving justification for Paul was essential for Abraham. But that seems obviously wrong. For one thing, the objective content of saving faith was not the same thing for each man. Paul confessed “Jesus is Lord.” There is no indication that Abraham confessed the name of Jesus. If the objective content of saving faith changes, yet both men are justified by faith in Jesus Christ, thus maintaining continuity, then we can reasonably maintain that the mode of reception, i.e., how faith is exercised, also can change without prejudice to the continuity between Paul and Abraham viz justification by faith.
I think you mentioned some arguments from non-silence for the non-efficacy of baptism in initial salvation. Have I missed one that does not depend upon the notions that I have been addressing hitherto?
53. Is the External World Excluded by Faith? Continued. The Significance of Foot-Washing. What I am Assuming for the Sake of Argument
I think that we are making some progress, little though it may seem.
Your objection to the efficacy of baptism in initial salvation is not that it can be considered a work, but that it can be considered a particular kind of work.
Likewise, your objection to the efficacy of baptism in initial salvation is not that it introduces some differences between the justification of Abraham the justification of Paul, but that it introduces a certain kind and amount of difference.
It is good to see these further qualifications of your views.
I also notice that you are refusing to interact with many of the things that I have said. Since I am doing the same with many of your comments, this gives us something in common. I have (more than once) stated the reason for my own selectivity (these statements, by the way, are among the things you are refusing to interact with).
After further qualification, it seems that your basic objection to baptism is that it necessarily occurs in a place that is external to the mind, i.e., the material world. Something about this fact renders baptism, in your mind, an unacceptable “work” (as regards initial salvation). I wonder if, on your criterion, confessing with the mouth that “Jesus is Lord” is an unacceptable work for purposes of initial salvation? After all, this is an outward manifestation of an inward faith, having a tangible existence in the external world through producing “a traveling wave which is an oscillation of pressure transmitted through a solid, liquid, or gas, composed of frequencies within the range of hearing and of a level sufficiently strong to be heard” (from Wikipedia).
I notice that you are attempting to ground this criterion (outward manifestation of faith = work unacceptable in initial salvation) on Abraham’s works in James 2. I still have not seen how you move from a particular affirmative, some S (external works) is P (excluded from initial salvation) to the universal affirmative, all S (external works, including the external “work” of baptism) is P (excluded from initial salvation).
You have appealed to the fact that we “put on” Christ in baptism as indicating that it is a work (falling in your sub-category of works unacceptable for initial salvation). However, I notice that St. John claims that “our faith” is “the victory that has overcome the world.” Now that is a “work.” So, the notion that putting on Christ makes baptism a work (unacceptable in initial salvation) really doesn’t do any work (pardon the pun) in your argument against the efficacy of baptism in initial salvation. The real objection is that baptism occurs in the external world. Since I do not have anything against the external world, including matter, this objection just doesn’t register at all.
Your further comments concerning the continuity of justification admit that a certain discontinuity obtains. You stipulate that the propositional content of faith (and there is no faith without content) can change, but the manner in which faith is exercised unto initial salvation cannot change. I see no reason why not. The content of faith is even more critical than the mode in which faith is exercised. Thus, if the former can change without introducing an unacceptable amount of discontinuity, then so can the latter. As to the change in the mode of faith, i.e., baptism as an exercise of faith that receives the gifts given in initial salvation, so long as baptism is still a mode of faith, there is continuity between Abraham and Paul viz faith. The fact that this constitutes one more difference does not entail that it constitutes an unacceptable difference, unless one is presupposing that receiving baptism is not a mode of believing unto salvation.
That leads me to the discussion about repentance. You got a little hasty there. I did address your counter-argument. Your response suggests that John 13 could plausibly be mistaken as a reference to justification by foot-washing:
For one thing, there are reasonable alternatives to a justificatory interpretation of John 13:8, even though Jesus does use strong language there and a justificatory interpretation would make sense if we had no other evidence to go by.
Here is what Jesus said about what he was doing:
Peter said to him, “You shall never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him, “If I do not wash you, you have no part in me.” Simon Peter said to him, “Lord, not my feet only but also my hands and my head!” Jesus said to him, “He who has bathed does not need to wash, except for his feet, but he is clean all over; and you are clean, but not every one of you.”
Our Lord clearly expected Peter to receive foot-washing, and he attached great significance to the event. If Jesus does not wash us, we have no part in him. But the Scripture-references to foot-washing are significantly different than the baptism passages and the faith passages. Our Lord explicitly stated that the benefits of foot-washing depend upon the previous, and greater, benefits bestowed in another kind of washing (i.e., baptism). We are given definite commands and instructions about baptism and faith, with definite promises attached thereto. It is salutary to inquire into the significance of foot-washing for all persons who wish to have a part in Christ. But the data is too limited, and the applications thereof too implicit, to draw any definite soteriological conclusions from exegesis alone.
I need to clarify a misunderstanding on your part (for which I am partly to blame): I am not assuming a certain interpretation of the baptism/water/washing passages as a part of my argument. I am assuming a certain interpretation of these numerous passages for the sake of argument. Scripture undeniably, in many places, says initial salvation-like things about baptism, and even correlates baptism with faith (Gal 3, Col 2), which you admit to be a means of receiving justification.
My approach has been this: What arguments or assumptions is my interlocutor making whereby, in each and every case, he interprets these passages as not teaching the spiritual efficacy of baptism in initial salvation? I am trying to see what common factors crop up in your explanations of these passages, and then addressing those factors in their own right. Thus, I am interacting with your interpretations, just not in a drive-by commentor sort of way. I do assume as a part of my argument that the passages which speak of baptism, water or washing could plausibly refer to washing with water in the sacrament of baptism. This does not seem like a huge stretch, even if it is actually a wrong step.
Last thing: Contrary to your assertion, I addressed your claim that salvation by baptism in 1 Peter 3.21 is “non-justificatory.” So I am doing better than you think, even where you think that I am doing badly.
67. What Kind of “Work” is Baptism? The “Proleptic” Aspect(s) of Scripture. John Chapter 3.
I appreciate your affirmation of the goodness of the material world. And I am glad to find that your comments about putting on Christ in baptism were not said in the context of trying to prove that baptism is a work. I thought that that was the context in which you raised the point, and that it was intended to help substantiate that claim.
The pressing question about baptism (in this regard) is not whether it is a work in some generic sense–there is a loose sense in which it can be so considered (i.e., having the good intention to be baptized, stepping into the baptismal pool). The question is whether it is a work in some sense specifically proscribed as being a means of initial salvation. James 2 gives us an example of external and socially verifiable works (which are not, of course, the only kinds of good works), but these are not in that context excluded from justification (quite the opposite).
In Galatians and Romans, the kinds of works that are explicitly excluded as a means of initial justification are the “works of the law” (specifically circumcision) and works that demand a commensurate wage as a matter of strict justice (Romans 4). Baptism does not appear to be anything of the kind. Christian baptism is not part of the law. It is nowhere recommended as a means of earning a wage.
Since baptism is not disqualified merely because of its use of matter, and since it is unreasonable to consider baptism a proscribed work, that interpretive dispostion whereby salvation-like “baptism” passages must refer to something other than baptism and / or something other than initial salvation, is driven to seek grounds in the timing of baptism relative to inward faith in the cases of those who did not receive the gift of baptism before making an intentional act of faith.
Allow me to respond and re-respond to some points that you have raised and repeated along those lines.
I maintain that (1) some of the gifts given in baptism can be enjoyed through inward faith prior to baptism, and (2) the sacraments of the New Covenant can be discussed and even celebrated prior to Pentecost. As to (1): Some events in Scripture have a proleptic aspect. The entire Church dispensation is often understood as a present enjoyment of that which is yet to come (i.e., the eschaton). So it is entirely commensurate with biblical thought patterns to understand some gifts of initial salvation as enjoyed (already) by inward faith and conferred (not yet) by baptism. Also consider that Our Lord gave his disciples “my Blood which is poured out for many” even though his Blood had not yet been poured out. (2) We do not know exactly when the sacrament of Christian baptism was instituted, but it is reasonable to suppose that Our Lord, who is in himself the substance of the New Covenant, could have conferred this gift, or commissioned his disciples to confer this gift, at any time after his own baptism. Thus, the baptisms performed by the disciples in John 3 could have been Christian baptisms. I am not entirely sure if there is a definite teaching on when, after Jesus’ baptism, we first find Christian baptisms.
Our Lord’s conversation with Nicodemus does not necessarily indicate that he expected him to pick up on the reference to the sacrament of baptism (but remember that Our Lord’s discourses, mediated through the evangelists, are intended for more than a single audience). Rather, Nicodemus’ question “How can this be?” expresses incredulity at the very possibility of rebirth, not about the instrumental cause of rebirth. In this case, Jesus is indicating that Nicodemus should have been aware of the necessity (hence, possibility) of rebirth in order to enter the Kingdom of God.
The wind * blows where it wills, and you hear the sound of it, but you do not know whence it comes or whither it goes; so it is with every one who is born of the Spirit.” 9 Nicodemus said to him, “How can this be?” 10 Jesus answered him, “Are you a teacher of Israel, and yet you do not understand this?
The specific mode of rebirth is alluded to in John 3 and the OT passages from which Jesus draws, but it is not explicitly revealed to Israel before the coming of Christ.
That, in brief, is my take on what I think are the fundamental concerns that are driving your interpretation of the disputed baptism passages. Such reservations are understandable, but unfounded. Rarified or non-soteriological interpretations of these baptism passages are not required by anything we have considered from other Scripture passages concerning faith, works and salvation.
I really enjoyed Sean’s comments on John 3. I would like to register my own exegetical comments about some of the key baptism passages at some point. That will probably have to be a new post.
70. A Summary of My Argument
The thing I was trying to do was to establish the possibility that, given what we know elsewhere, the key “baptism” passages can refer to the sacrament of baptism. Thus, we have a greater range of interpretive options in those passages than is often allowed by non-sacramental sola fideists. It is the data found in those passages themselves that renders my analysis of the various faith passages more plausible than not. Kind of like a symbiotic relationship thing going on.
I am pretty sure that I have not expressed my intentions, or made my arguments, as clearly as I would like. Sorry about that. These holidays have me all befuddled in general. I was glad to interact with some of your arguments, at least those bits that I found most crucial. Like I said earlier, my take on the various baptism passages will have to occur in another post, someday future. I would like to work in an occasional “exegetical moment” on this site, just interacting with various interpretive views and throwing in a few opinions of my own. Some of the baptism passages would be a great place to start.
