Recently I have participated in a Bible class having to do with presenting simple, biblical Christianity to those who have “subscribed” to (accepted) various creeds and confessions. Sometimes we who try to stick with the Bible don’t realize just how different we are from those who submit to these documents. In order to reach them and converse with them, we need to understand the nature of the writings that they accept. I want to give my readers a specific example of such documents, using the Westminster Confession of Faith (“WCF”).
As Wikipedia notes, “In confessional churches, office-bearers (such as ministers and elders) are required to “subscribe” (or agree) to the church’s confession of faith. In Presbyterian denominations, this is the Westminster Confession of Faith, while in Confessional Lutheranism it is the Book of Concord. The degree to which subscribers are required to agree with the confession varies from denomination to denomination”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confessional_subscription
Regarding the WCF in particular, hear the words of Nick Batzig of Ligonier Ministries, which R. C. Sproul founded. Batzig writes, “… church history reveals that the Christian church has long perceived a need for creedal doctrinal statements (e.g., the Nicene Creed, the Apostles’ Creed, the Athanasian Creed, etc.). During the era of the Protestant Reformation, there was an increasing need for doctrinal clarity on account of the spurious teaching of the Roman Catholic Church. The Westminster Confession of Faith has long been the most well-known and most frequently appealed to Protestant confession of the seventeenth century. There are numerous reasons why believers should commit to a diligent study of the Westminster Confession of Faith. The first is its historical background; the second, its biblical priority; the third, its doctrinal fidelity; and the fourth, its spiritual applicability. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/why-read-westminster-confession
It’s important to remember, as we study the Bible with those from these “confessional churches,” that they may (at least to some degree) have accepted such man-made, uninspired declarations of doctrine. So, are such creedal statements as the WCF really that different from the Bible itself?
To answer that question in part, I have chosen the section from the WCF on baptism. Here it is.
Chapter XXVIII—Of Baptism
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, (Matt. 28:19) not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; (1 Cor. 12:13) but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, (Rom. 4:11, Col. 2:11–12) of his ingrafting into Christ, (Gal. 3:27, Rom. 6:5) of regeneration, (Tit. 3:5) of remission of sins, (Mark 1:4) and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. (Rom. 6:3–4) Which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world. (Matt. 28:19–20)
2. The outward element to be used in this sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto. (Matt. 3:11, John 1:33, Matt. 28:19–20)
3. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but Baptism is rightly administered by pouring, or sprinkling water upon the person. (Heb. 9:10, 19–22, Acts 2:41, Acts 16:33, Mark 7:4)
4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, (Mark 16:15–16, Acts 8:37–38) but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized. (Gen. 17:7–8, Gal. 3:9, 14, Col. 2:11–12, Acts 2:38–39, Rom. 4:11–12, 1 Cor. 7:14, Matt. 28:19, Mark 10:13–16, Luke 18:15)
5. Although it be a great sin to condemn or neglect this ordinance, (Luke 7:30, Exod. 4:24–26) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it: (Rom. 4:11, Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated. (Acts 8:13, 23)
6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; (John 3:5, 8) yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time. (Gal. 3:27, Tit. 3:5, Eph. 5:25–26, Acts 2:38, 41)
7. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person. (Tit. 3:5)[1]
Let’s review these paragraphs one by one.
A “sacrament” is defined as “a sign or symbol of a spiritual reality”. This word is not found in the New Testament (“NT”), nor is baptism ever called a sign or a symbol.
The WCF views baptism as a sign or seal of a prior covenant relationship that one already has with God. Because Old Testament (“OT”) circumcision was such a sign and seal for Abraham (Rom 4:11), the WCF claims that baptism fulfills the same role in the NT. The passage cited, Col 2:11-12, does not refer to baptism as a sign or seal of a previous covenant relationship with God. It simply notes that, while OT circumcision was the removal of the flesh, in baptism God by grace removes one’s personal sins.
The WCF is correct in noting that the element in which baptism occurs is water. However, note the scriptures that are excluded. These include “born again of water and spirit (John 3:3-5)”, the Ethiopian beginning to rejoice after his baptism (Acts 8:26-40), the mention of “washing away sins” with baptism (Acts 22:16), and “the washing of rebirth (Tit 3:5)”. These scriptures are omitted in the WCF because its authors denied any connection between baptism and one’s actual, personal rebirth and reception of the remission of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38; Tit 3:5).
The WCF says that one is to be baptized by “a minister of the Gospel, lawfully called thereunto”. One may assume from this that so-called “laymen” who are not ordained as “clergy” are not authorized to baptize. The scriptures noted (Matt. 3:11, John 1:33, Matt. 28:19–20) do not stipulate anything like this.
The WCF dictates that dipping (immersion) in water as the mode of baptism is not necessary, but that it’s equally right simply to pour or sprinkle water on an individual. Please read each of the sources that are cited, to see if the biblical text affirms this.
Heb 9:10 … since they relate only to food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until a time of reformation.
Heb 9:19 For when every commandment had been spoken by Moses to all the people according to the Law, he took the blood of the calves and the goats, with water and scarlet wool and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book itself and all the people, 20 saying, “This is the blood of the covenant which God commanded you.” 21 And in the same way he sprinkled both the tabernacle and all the vessels of the ministry with the blood. 22 And according to the Law, one may almost say, all things are cleansed with blood, and without shedding of blood there is no forgiveness.
Ac 2:41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized; and that day there were added about three thousand souls.
Ac 16:33 And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.
Mk 7:4 (… and when they come from the market place, they do not eat unless they cleanse themselves; and there are many other things which they have received in order to observe, such as the washing of cups and pitchers and copper pots.)
Did you find anything above that authorizes pouring or sprinkling for baptism?
The fact is that sprinkling or pouring of water of infants was first introduced by the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformers (in this case, John Calvin) were formerly Catholics, already accustomed to this practice. John Calvin had already overruled the Bible’s teaching on immersion. Note what Calvin himself had written.
“Whether the person baptized is to be wholly immersed, and that whether once or thrice, or whether he is only to be sprinkled with water, is not of the least consequence: churches should be at liberty to adopt either according to the diversity of climates, although it is evident that the term baptize means to immerse, and that this was the form used by the primitive Church”. (John Calvin and Henry Beveridge, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 3 (Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society, 1845), 344).
So, Calvin understood that the Greek term baptize meant to immerse! He further knew that the first-century church practiced immersion as “the” form of baptism! Yet he also said that the mode of baptism was “not of the least consequence” and that “churches should be at liberty to adopt either (mode)”.
Hence lies a root problem of any man-made confession such as the WCF. These confessions take the conclusions of fallible men and then write them in stone. Leaders in these confessional churches are then required to “subscribe to” (agree with) them.
Of course, the Protestant movement clearly declared its commitment to sola scriptura (“scripture alone”). Yet it was the uninspired confessions – not scripture alone – which further defined their beliefs and practices.
One more thought. If the NT actually did authorize pouring and/or sprinkling for baptism, there would be no controversy. But it does not. The same is true of the next claim made by the WCF, that infants of one or more believing parents are to be baptized.
Again, please read the scriptures cited in support of infant baptism. These include Gen. 17:7–8, Gal. 3:9, 14, Col. 2:11–12, Acts 2:38–39, Rom. 4:11–12, 1 Cor. 7:14, Matt. 28:19, Mark 10:13–16, and Luke 18:15. If any of these scriptures, even one, clearly taught that infants are to be baptized – and only the infant children of believing parents! – that would settle the question. There is no such scripture. For that reason, confessions such as the WCF were designed to declare and enforce beliefs and practices that were not clearly taught in the Bible.
Based on their mistaken belief that NT baptism was parallel to OT circumcision in every way except one* (see below), the WCF authors actually used Gen 17:7-8 to justify infant baptism. Since circumcision was administered to every newborn male as a sign of the covenant, they surmised that baptism fulfilled the same purpose in the NT.
In this way, they disconnected baptism from personal faith, personal repentance, and personal confession of Jesus Christ. None of these elements was to them a necessary part of baptism, because these elements were not necessary for OT circumcision.
*Obviously, OT circumcision was only for males. If NT baptism were parallel, it would logically follow that only newborn males are to be baptized. This discrepancy is not resolved or even mentioned in the WCF.
The WCF maintains that it is a “great sin” to “neglect this ordinance” (of baptism). This is based in part on Ex 4:24-26, which notes that Moses had failed to circumcise his son. Again, this is based on the alleged circumcision/baptism parallel. Ironically, for Moses not to circumcise his son was not just a “great sin;” it was a matter of life or death! The parallel with baptism – if it were accurate – would necessarily mean that baptism is also a matter of life or death.
However, the WCF, in the very next paragraph, denies that baptism is necessary for one to be regenerated or saved. Strangely, it cites the record of the conversion of Cornelius in Acts 10, in which God took extraordinary steps to show Peter and his companions that Cornelius and his companions had to be baptized. After the Holy Spirit fell miraculously, Peter recognizes this necessity. He says, “Surely no one can refuse the water for these to be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we did, can he?” And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:47-48).
By citing Acts 8:13, 23, the WCF implies that Simon the sorcerer, though he believed and was baptized, was not actually saved at that point. Why not? After he was baptized, he sinned so as to be back in “the bondage of iniquity.” In other words, according to the WCF, if Simon had truly been regenerated, he could not have been later bound by his personal sin.
The sixth paragraph is hard to process, at least for me. It mentions the “efficacy” of baptism, but how can a mere “sign” or “seal” (as previously claimed) baptism have any real efficacy? Then the WCF says that this “efficacy” is not tied to the moment at which one is baptized. Yet it also says, “by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost.” So, the “efficacy” seems to be “the grace promised” to one who is baptized. In that case, the WCF connects the reception of God’s grace to baptism! Yet the WCF had just said that baptism was not necessary! So this one left me confused.
In the final paragraph, the WCF says that one is to be baptized only once. Read carefully the scripture cited. It is an important one.
Tit 3:5 He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit …
Note the words “on the basis of” and “by”. God saves us according to his mercy to sinners, not “on the basis of” our own righteous deeds. Nothing we do pays any part of our salvation. It comes based on God’s grace and the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.
While God saved only and always “one the basis of” his mercy, note the “by”. God saves us “by” the washing of regeneration (new birth) and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” The WCF is correct in seeing this as a reference to baptism.
So, why don’t we all set aside the WCF (and other confessions and creeds) as an authoritative document and just go back to the Bible teaching about baptism? It’s simple. It’s clear. It’s from God and not man.
Acts 22:16 “Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.”
