Perhaps the intent is being lost on me due to my own emphasis on the matter, but it looks like the views presented here come dangerously close to the view that baptism saves ex opere operato rather than its saving efficacy being a means of grace. Neither one of these is the current Protestant add-on, but they do differ significantly from each other. A key point, under the second heading, says, "The scriptural writers clearly talk about baptism as being the moment when we receive the forgiveness of sins promised to us by the Gospel." However, such a tie to a moment in time cannot be derived from any of the texts provided ( nor, I would argue, from any text at all.)
The WCF XXVIII.6 maintains the real efficacy of baptism apart from any specified time, "The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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."
Keeping this in mind would have avoided the answer to this question:
"Q: So do you mean that I wasn’t saved when I prayed that prayer?
A: You certainly weren’t joined with the body of Christ, cleansed of your sins, and filled with the Holy Spirit then."
I'm not that a big fan of the sinner's prayer; however, to the extent that it is calling upon the name of the Lord, it is evidence of faith. The implication here is that faith routinely occurs without being joined to the body of Christ, being cleansed of one's sins, or being filled with the Holy Spirit. I don't buy it. All of these must occur in the presence of faith because faith is always preceded by regeneration. What does regeneration have to do with it? To see, consider two things:
1) WCF XXVII.1 calls sacraments "holy signs and seals." I don't believe that this is a just a hendiadys; rather, it anticipates section 2, "There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other." A sacrament, then, is composed of two parts- the sign and the thing signified.
2) The fourth point of Calvinism; namely, Irresistible Grace. [I will make the connection.] Many people ae familiar with Ephesians 2:8, "For by grace you have been saved through faith." But what about its context? Backing up to 1:19, 20 and 2:5,6, it becomes apparent that this grace is equated with our being raised up with Christ. In the first passage, Paul wants the Ephesians to know "what is the immeasurable greatness of his power toward us who believe, according to the working of his great might that he worked in Christ when he raised him from the dead and seated him at his right hand in the heavenly places..." There is a power that raises Christ from the dead. This translation (ESV), as do many others that I checked, obscures the meaning by inserting a comma after "believe." However, the idea, which will be born out in the second passage, is that the same power that raised Christ from the dead causes us to believe.
In the next passage, we are being raised with Christ. Note, though, how Paul breaks the flow of the passage to insert a familiar phrase, "[God,] even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ-by grace you have been saved-and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus..." What is being raised up together with Christ if not regeneration? In context, then, the grace by which we are saved goes far beyond a mere description of God's goodness or kindness toward us. This grace is the power of resurrection. It is that which brings us alive with Christ and places us in heaven.
Bearing this in mind, consider the passages in which baptism unites us to Christ in his death and resurrection (Romans 6:3,4; Colossians 2:12) and note the relationship: Whereas baptism is the sign, regeneration is the thing signified. To forget this distinction is to confuse the means of grace with the grace itself. The one is more basic than the other. In a sense, all who are regenerated have been baptized into Christ. Which is not to suggest that water baptism is just a sign, such that it may be neglected with impunity by those who evidence faith. It is still that true means of grace whereby saving faith is made possible. Don't get hung up on the timing. It is no less difficult to believe that God can grant salvation before baptism than it is to believe that he granted salvation to the OT saints before the work of Christ. God is not trapped in a bottle waiting for us to say, "When." Even more so, just as God can show his grace when he pleases, he may also show it if he pleases. WCF XXVIII.5, "Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
Not only is baptism not necessarily tied to the moment of forgiveness, it is not necessarily tied to forgiveness at all. Otherwise, all who receive the sign of baptism would be saved and those who are saved could lose their salvation. Peter offers this perspective in I Peter 3:21, where he says, "Baptism, which corresponds to this, now saves you." He is not making the blanket statement that baptism, considered in itself, is a salvific act. The emphasis is not so much on save as it is on you (Peter is speaking to the elect [1:1]). The end of the verse indicates that baptism saves through the resurrection of Christ, which fits in with what we've already seen. The interesting part is the previous verse, which presents what saving baptism through the resurrection of Christ is being compared to; namely, the flood and Noah's ark, which "was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through the water." Salvation is not proper to baptism itself, for baptism is the water ordeal. It is the flood that destroyed the ancient world. It is also that which threatens those in the ark, but through which both they and the ark are safely carried. Only those who are in the ark came out of the flood alive.
Baptism is that which leads to the final sancitification of the Bride. It is union with Christ. It is unthinkable that, after such a consummation, this Groom could grant, much less desire, a bill of divorcement. We must conclude then, that not all baptism is baptism into Christ. Neither, however, is it just an empty sign. Baptism brings one into a covenantal relationship with God, which relationship is not necessarily synonymous to union with Christ. Just as with the elect, the curses of the covenant are truly threatened and the blessings given, so with the others in the covenant, the blessings are truly offered and the curses executed. Consider what the sign of the covenant is. It is being cut off; it is passing through the waters of judgment; it is the cross. The covenant demands that all go through this ordeal. Only those who are in Christ come out their baptism alive.
Thanks for the comments, Kevin. I don't know exactly how far apart our views are, so I'd like to clarify some things.
Salvation has both a subjective and an objective component--to this I think that we'd both agree. I also agree that the subjective part of salvation does not need to begin at any particular moment in time, much less baptism. It may come before baptism, after baptism, or during baptism. I said this in my post, although perhaps not perfectly clearly. However, when we're talking about the objective evidence of salvation--what I can point to other than my personal religious experience--that demonstrates my salvation, baptism is the key. Thus we say that baptism is when and how the blessings of salvation are given to us.
I think we may disagree over the significance of regeneration, though. I do not subscribe to the Calvinist view of regeneration as an instantaneous, unmediated act, and so I don't have trouble saying that the Holy Spirit can work in someone before baptism without having to call that work "regeneration" (and thus separate regeneration from baptism). There is a clear mandate from Scripture and Tradition to say that the New Covenantal blessings are conferred via baptism, and there is no logical reason to insist that subjective experiences before or after baptism are the "real" moment of salvation apart from baptism.
But, like I said in my post, God is still sovereign, and can save apart from baptism when He so wills--but this is Scripturally abnormal.
As a final point, I don't subscribe to the Calvinist understanding of perseverance, which figures largely in the last half of your argument. But that's a topic that's been rehashed repeatedly by people smarter than me, so I'm not going to try and defend it here.
Posted by: JS Bangs at fevereiro 21, 2005 8:16 PMWe do agree to the existence of subjective and objective components in salvation, but we seem to have a difference on what these are and how they are divided. First, some more clarification is in order. You speak of both subjective and objective components, but then go on to confuse objective evidence with an objective component. Distinctions need to be made between subjective vs.objective components and subjective assurance vs.objective evidence. The separation between personal religious experience (PRE) and baptism presents a false dichotomy. It is not that PRE is the subjective component and baptism the objective component/evidence. Rather, PRE in the context of baptism counts as both the objective evidence and the subjective component of salvation. Insofar as PRE in the context of baptism counts as objecitve evidence of salvation, it is the basis for subjective assurance thereof.
Peter speaks in terms of this subjective assurance when in II Peter 1:10 he writes, "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to make your calling and election sure, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall." If we back up, the epistle is addressed to those who have faith. The qualities, listed in vs.5-7, are added on to faith. They are virtue, knowledge, self-control, steadfastness, godliness, brotherly affection, and love. The absence of these qualities leaves no ground for assurance of salvation even if one has been baptized. "For whoever lacks these qualities is so nearsighted that he is blind, having forgotten that he was cleansed from his former sins" (v.9). Baptism, since, elsewhere, it is said to wash away sins, is implied here in the cleansing of former sins. Baptism provides the context in which these qualities should exist. Note, however, that baptism alone is insufficient objective evidence to provide subjective assurance of salvation. Sufficient objective evidence is found in the qualities plus baptism.
PRE in the context of baptism is also the subjective component of salvation. This function as component is more basic than its function as evidence. In fact, it is possible that it not function as objective evidence at all if the qualities are missing (these qualities are required to evidence salvation, not for the salvation itself). PRE could be limited to faith (and I would say that this implies regeneration). The subjective component of salvation would then be faith in the context of baptism. The subjective component obtains whether or not the individual in question has assurance of salvation.
The objective component of salvation is found in our personal union with Christ in his death and resurrection. And I don't mean this merely in the sense that, in our baptism, we died and rose again just like Jesus did. It's a bit more radical than that. I mean that all who have been and will ever be believers are actually in union with Christ such that, when he died, we were there at that time being crucified with him and, when he rose from the dead, we were resurrected on that very same day. The objective component is more basic that the subjective component. For instance, we both recognize that God can save apart from baptism if he wills it. As to faith, it is possible for infants or the mentally handicapped to be saved. I believe that they have the third component of faith, fiducia, while lacking noticia and assensus. However, I am open to the suggestion that faith cannot be so divided and that faith is required only of those with the natural capacity to exercise faith. If so, then the subjective component of salvation, though normative, is not necessary for salvation if God so wills it. But it is not the case that God could have willed salvation in the absence of its objective component. Perhaps he could have willed not to save at all, in which case there would be no need of any component to salvation. Yet, once having willed to save, his nature dictates that it must be in accordance with justice. Christ had to die and be raised to life.
About regeneration. It is not an unmediated act. In the objective component of salvation, regeneration occurs because we are united with Christ in his physical resurrection. Our regeneration is mediated by the fact of the historical physical resurrection of Christ. In the subjective component of salvation, our regeneration is mediated by our baptism. It is our PRE in the context of baptism. Nevertheless, this mediation does not require that the medium be temporally linked to the moment of baptism. Regeneration can occur before, during, or after baptism.
Also, by its very nature, regeneration must be instantaneous. One is either dead or alive; there is no tertium quid. Having said this, it is not the case that regeneration should be identified with a personal salvation experience (such as occurs with the sinnner's prayer). One's awareness of regeneration can come in a moment, or it can be the result of a gradual process. In sum, regeneration is instantaneous; the moment of regeneration is not identical to when we become aware of it; regeneration is mediated objectively in the resurrection of Christ and subjectively in baptism; the moment of regeneration does not need to equal the moment of its subjective medium; God can, if he so desires, bypass the subjective medium.
Just one thing on the Calvinist understanding on perseverance: are you possibly confusing it with the easy-believism rendition of "once saved always saved"? They are not the same thing.