Confessional Teachings With Which To Consider Infant Baptism

From the British side of the Channel... 

1.  The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion

XVII. Of Predestination and Election
Predestination to Life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby (before the foundations of the world were laid) he hath constantly decreed by his counsel secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind, and to bring them by Christ to everlasting salvation, as vessels made to honour. Wherefore, they which be endued with so excellent a benefit of God, be called according to God's purpose by his Spirit working in due season: they through Grace obey the calling: they be justified freely: they be made sons of God by adoption: they be made like the image of his only-begotten Son Jesus Christ: they walk religiously in good works, and at length, by God's mercy, they attain to everlasting felicity...

XXV. Of the Sacraments
Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him...

XXVI. Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacraments

Although in the visible Church the evil be ever mingled with the good, and sometimes the evil have chief authority in the Ministration of the Word and Sacraments, yet forasmuch as they do not the same in their own name, but in Christ's, and do minister by his commission and authority, we may use their Ministry, both in hearing the Word of God, and in receiving the Sacraments. Neither is the effect of Christ's ordinance taken away by their wickedness, nor the grace of God's gifts diminished from such as by faith, and rightly, do receive the Sacraments ministered unto them; which be effectual, because of Christ's institution and promise, although they be ministered by evil men...

XXVII. Of Baptism
Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ.

_______________________________________

2.  Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 3. Of God's Eternal Decree
1. God, from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass: yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

3. By the decree of God, for the manifestation of his glory, some men and angels are predestinated unto everlasting life; and others foreordained to everlasting death.

6. As God hath appointed the elect unto glory, so hath he, by the eternal and most free purpose of his will, foreordained all the means thereunto. Wherefore, they who are elected, being fallen in Adam, are redeemed by Christ, are effectually called unto faith in Christ by his Spirit working in due season, are justified, adopted, sanctified, and kept by his power, through faith, unto salvation. Neither are any other redeemed by Christ, effectually called, justified, adopted, sanctified, and saved, but the elect only.

Chapter 5. Of Providence

2. Although, in relation to the foreknowledge and decree of God, the first Cause, all things come to pass immutably, and infallibly; yet, by the same providence, he ordereth them to fall out, according to the nature of second causes, either necessarily, freely, or contingently.

Chapter 10. Of Effectual Calling

2. This effectual call is of God's free and special grace alone, not from anything at all foreseen in man, who is altogether passive therein, until, being quickened and renewed by the Holy Spirit, he is thereby enabled to answer this call, and to embrace the grace offered and conveyed in it.

3. Elect infants, dying in infancy, are regenerated, and saved by Christ, through the Spirit, who worketh when, and where, and how he pleaseth: so also are all other elect persons who are incapable of being outwardly called by the ministry of the Word.

Chapter 11. Of Justification

4. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect, and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification: nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.

Chapter 27. Of the Sacraments
3. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

Chapter 28. Of Baptism
1. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church; but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life. Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.

6. 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.

The Dog That Didn't Bark - Cranmer, Bucer, Vermigli, and Baptismal Regeneration

For those unfamiliar with Sherlock Holmes mysteries the phrase 'the dog that didn't bark' comes from one of Holmes’ cases. In the story there's been a murder and apparently the killer was able to commit that crime without the nearby guard dog barking and raising an alarm. For Holmes this was the crucial clue that led to the identity of the murderer. The reason the dog didn't bark was that the canine was familiar enough with the killer as to not be alarmed. This clue pointed to the owner of the dog as the killer and thus another case was solved!

In the following excerpts Rev. Arthur Roberts points out the key clue that directs us to the position held by the Church of England on baptismal regeneration, 1549-1552. But as J.I.Packer writes, 

because of the caution with which the Prayer Book and Articles were phrased back in the sixteenth century--so as not to give offense to people who believed in baptismal regeneration--an ambiguity is there.

The book containing the clue is: 

A Review of The Book of Common Prayer, Drawn Up At the Request of Archbishop Cranmer by Martin Bucer, Reg. Professor of Divinity at Cambridge

Briefly Analyzed and Abridged 

Arthur Roberts, M.A.  

Rector of Woodrising, Norfolk

1853

The prayer book under review was the 1549 version. Martin Bucer's and Peter Vermigli's (nonextant) separate documents of criticisms and suggestions greatly helped in Cranmer's revision which led to the more Reformed 1552 BCP.

First some background laid out in the first part of the introduction, Roberts writes:

[W]hen Cranmer contemplated an improved edition of the Liturgy, he was anxious to consult the judgments of two learned foreigners, Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr. These pious and highly gifted men had been drawn over to our shores by Cranmer's importunities, and promoted through his means, to the two chairs of divinity in our two Universities – Martyr to that of Oxford, and Bucer to that of Cambridge. A high proof, undoubtedly it was, of the confidence which he reposed in their theological ability when he submitted a work of such national importance, and which he and his colleagues had so carefully compiled, to their revisal and correction; but it was more — it was a proof of his own modesty and self-distrust, and of the unfeigned anxiety he felt to retain nothing in his Liturgy but what was thoroughly scriptural and sound...

First, that it may be said to exhibit Peter Martyr's views and sentiments as well as those of Bucer; for, as Strype observes, — “Martyr agreed clearly in judgment with Bucer about the book, as he wrote to him..."

Roberts lays a bit of groundwork to enable the reader to see the clue that speaks so loudly from its silence:

II . The reader will observe that the emendations proposed by Martin Bucer in the First Prayer - book of King Edward VI. were neither few nor unimportant, but involved, on the other hand, some fundamental points of doctrine.

His concluding introductory remarks give us the clue that I am characterizing as the 'dog that didn't bark'.

III. It cannot but be regarded as a singular circumstance that not a word is said in these strictures upon that language of our Church in her Baptismal Service, which has occasioned so much controversy — especially as both Bucer and Martyr, during the time of their Professorships, delivered their minds so strongly as to the separableness of the outward sign and inward grace in infant, as well as adult, baptism; which (strong Calvinists as they both were) was of course to be expected. This circumstance, therefore, can only be accounted for by their considering our service to express nothing more than the language of charity and hope. It will be observed that, in dealing with the Confirmation Service, Bucer imagines the case of the catechumens being unregenerate, which sufficiently indicates his view of the subject. Doubtless had he so understood our formularie as divines of what are called, though not very correctly, the High - Church school, he would have taken great exception to them. As it is the men who think with him on the baptismal question may acquiesce as he in our baptismal forms though it were well, perhaps, if they were less capable of misapprehension.

Does this settle the matter among Anglicans? No way, after all we're talking Anglicans here. But in my mind this bit of actual history adds some weight to the Reformed Anglican position on baptism. 

Also see:

Anglican Baptismal Regeneration: Yes or No?

Anglican Baptismal Regeneration: Yes or No?

 J.I. Packer's excellent new and final book, The Heritage of Anglican Theology, shows the value of putting theology in its proper historical context. An example is the selection below (pp 282-285) which helps bring clarification to often contentious debates over the Anglican doctrines of infant baptism and baptismal regeneration:

"A word must be said also about the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. In the early 1800s, the final court of appeal in matters of dispute about the doctrine of the Church of England was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Now, the Privy Council was a company of people who were thought of as the monarch's most intimate advisers. This committee was a subcommittee of that larger body consisting of experts in the law who functioned as the highest court of judicial appeal in England when legal questions arose about the meaning of the law. These were legal experts, all laymen, but competent at interpreting documents and checking the precedents of case law and so forth.

One case that eventually came before the Judicial Committee involved a scholarly clergyman named George Cornelius Gorham. The case was brought by a High Church bishop in Exeter named Henry Phillpotts. Gorham had been nominated to a pastorate in Brampford Speke, Devon. Phillpotts suspected that Gorham was an evangelical, and indeed he was. Phillpotts asked him some questions at the bishop's discretion, which Phillpotts expected would expose Gorham's evangelicalism and allow Phillpotts to pronounce him unfit to minister in the Church of England and therefore to refuse to institute him to the pastorate for which he had been nominated in that diocese.

One of the questions was whether Gorham believed in baptismal regeneration. Gorham said no. Phillpotts replied, in effect, "Then I am not going to institute you because the Prayer Book affirms baptismal regeneration, and the Articles do also."

Gorham, the learned man, replied that, on the contrary, that is an interpretation of the Articles and Prayer Book that some hold, but it is not the only possible interpretation, and it is not the interpretation that the authors of the Prayer Book and Articles--the sixteenth-century Reformers--held themselves. Phillpotts thought this was nonsense, but Gorham appealed the verdict of Phillpotts against him. Gorham was confident he could prove his case.

So he took Phillpotts to court, demanding to be instituted to the pastorate to which he had been nominated. The case ended up before the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It took two years for the case to get there. During that time, an evangelical scholar named William Goode wrote a learned treatise canvassing all the Reformers who had ever hon into print on this subject. Goode's treatise was called The Effects of Infant Baptism, and the hinge of its argument was that all these Reformers had insisted that salvation is through being justified by faith alone, and without faith no one is justified.

That, of course, does not match baptismal regeneration. In all that the Reformers said about the effects of infant baptism they did not go as far as affirming baptismal regeneration. They did celebrate the fact that the rite of baptism--water on the forehead, representing going under the water--symbolizes, signifies, and personalizes the promise of Christ, the promise of new life to those who will receive it through faith. In baptism, that promise is personally delivered to the candidate. This includes infant baptism, which Anglicanism has always regarded as consistent with the institution of Christ.

As the infant grows up, he or she has to learn to exercise the faith that was in the hearts of the parents and godparents when they brought the child to baptism. Their faith was that God would work in their child's heart to bring that child to faith, and that God would sanctify the rite of baptism whereby, in his mercy, God would personalize the promise to this child. This would be explained to the child as soon as he or she were old enough to understand it. God then sanctifies all that as a means of grace to bring the child to a living, personal faith.

William Goode demonstrated all this in The Effects of Infant Baptism, and in 1850 the Judicial Committee found that Gorham's view was a permitted interpretation of Anglican doctrine. His claim was vindicate, and Phillpotts had to institute him. Otherwise, Phillpotts would have been breaking the law.

The Gorham case--decided in this way against a cherished Anglo-Catholic doctrine and decided by a company of laypeople, rather than by the clergy or by bishops--became a great cause of offense to High Churchmen and Anglo-Catholics who disagreed with the verdict (and with Gorham's view). Furthermore, they thought the church should settle its own legal problems, and that bishops and clergy--not secular lawyers--should be having the last word. One of the effects of the Gorham decision was quite a flurry of Anglican-Catholics becoming Roman Catholics. For the Church of England to settle matters of faith this way destroyed Anglican credibility, in their minds.

Today Anglo-Catholics who know about the Gorham judgment will smile and shake their heads and basically say, "It ought not to have been done that way." Remember, the verdict was only that George Gorham's interpretation of the church's foundational documents was possible. Certain of the Catholic clergymen will counter that is not the interpretation one ought to embrace. Thus, Anglican-Catholics go on maintaining baptismal regeneration.

Evangelical Anglicans, as you would expect, go along with the Gorham judgment, and they are backed by quite a bit of writing. But because of the caution with which the Prayer Book and Articles were phrased back in the sixteenth century--so as not to give offense to people who believed in baptismal regeneration--an ambiguity is there. It is a matter of fact, and some of us feel that this is a pity."

Relevant portions of The Thirty-Nine Articles of Religion [emphasis added]:

XI. Of the Justification of Man.

We are accounted righteous before God, only for the merit of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by Faith, and not for our own works or deservings. Wherefore, that we are justified by Faith only, is a most wholesome Doctrine, and very full of comfort, as more largely is expressed in the Homily of Justification.

XXV. Of the Sacraments.

Sacraments ordained of Christ be not only badges or tokens of Christian men's profession, but rather they be certain sure witnesses, and effectual signs of grace, and God's good will towards us, by the which he doth work invisibly in us, and doth not only quicken, but also strengthen and confirm our Faith in him.

There are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism, and the Supper of the Lord.

XXVII. Of Baptism.

Baptism is not only a sign of profession, and mark of difference, whereby Christian men are discerned from others that be not christened, but it is also a sign of Regeneration or New-Birth, whereby, as by an instrument, they that receive Baptism rightly are grafted into the Church; the promises of the forgiveness of sin, and of our adoption to be the sons of God by the Holy Ghost, are visibly signed and sealed, Faith is confirmed, and Grace increased by virtue of prayer unto God.

The Baptism of young Children is in any wise to be retained in the Church, as most agreeable with the institution of Christ. 

Baptism signifies deliverance from guilt of sin... Christ's death - our death (5)

Robert Haldane continues to unpack the gospel as presented by the apostle Paul's as the defense against the false charge that justification by grace will produce the result of more sin in the lives of believers.

Ver. 3. — Know ye not, that so many of was were baptized into Jesus Christ, were baptized into His death? 

In the verse before us, the Apostle proves that Christians are dead to sin, because they died with Christ. The rite of baptism exhibits Christians as dying, as buried, and as risen with Christ. Know ye not. — He refers to what he is now declaring as a thing well known to those whom he addresses. Baptized into Jesus Christ. — By faith believers are made one with Christ: they become members of His body. This oneness is represented emblematically by baptism. Baptized into His death. — In baptism, they are also represented as dying with Christ. This rite, then, proceeds on the fact that they have died with Him who bore their sins. Thus the satisfaction rendered to the justice of God by Him, is a satisfaction from them, as they are constituent parts of His body. The believer is one with Christ as truly as he was one with Adam — he dies with Christ as truly as he died with Adam. Christ’s righteousness is his as truly as Adam’s sin was his. By a Divine constitution, all Adam’s posterity are one with him, and so his first sin is really and truly theirs. By a similar Divine constitution, all Christ’s people are one with Him, and His obedience is as truly theirs as if they had yielded it, and His death as if they had suffered it. When it is said that Christians have died with Christ, there is no more figure than when it is said that they have died in Adam... 

Ver. 4. — Therefore we are buried with him baptism into death: that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in newness of life.

The death of Christ was the means by which sin was destroyed, and His burial the proof of the reality of His death. Christians are therefore represented as buried with Him by baptism into His death, in token that they really died with Him; and if buried with Him, it is not that they shall remain in the grave, but that, as Christ arose from the dead, they should also rise. Their baptism, then, is the figure of their complete deliverance from the guilt of sin, signifying that God places to their account the death of Christ as their own death: it is also a figure of their purification and resurrection for the service of God. 

As many of you as have been baptized...

From John Calvin's commentary on Galatians 3:27. 

"The greater and loftier the privilege is of being the children of God, the farther is it removed from our senses, and the more difficult to obtain belief. He therefore explains, in a few words, what is implied in our being united, or rather, made one with the Son of God; so as to remove all doubt, that what belongs to him is communicated to us. He employs the metaphor of a garment, when he says that the Galatians have put on Christ; but he means that they are so closely united to him, that, in the presence of God, they bear the name and character of Christ, and are viewed in him rather than in themselves. This metaphor or similitude, taken from garments, occurs frequently, and has been treated by us in other places.

"But the argument, that, because they have been baptized, they have put on Christ, appears weak; for how far is baptism from being efficacious in all? Is it reasonable that the grace of the Holy Spirit should be so closely linked to an external symbol? Does not the uniform doctrine of Scripture, as well as experience, appear to confute this statement? I answer, it is customary with Paul to treat of the sacraments in two points of view. When he is dealing with hypocrites, in whom the mere symbol awakens pride, he then proclaims loudly the emptiness and worthlessness of the outward symbol, and denounces, in strong terms, their foolish confidence. In such cases he contemplates not the ordinance of God, but the corruption of wicked men. When, on the other hand, he addresses believers, who make a proper use of the symbols, he then views them in connection with the truth -- which they represent. In this case, he makes no boast of any false splendor as belonging to the sacraments, but calls our attention to the actual fact represented by the outward ceremony. Thus, agreeably to the Divine appointment, the truth comes to be associated with the symbols.

"But perhaps some person will ask, Is it then possible that, through the fault of men, a sacrament shall cease to bear a figurative meaning? The reply is easy. Though wicked men may derive no advantage from the sacraments, they still retain undiminished their nature and force. The sacraments present, both to good and to bad men, the grace of God. No falsehood attaches to the promises which they exhibit of the grace of the Holy Spirit. Believers receive what is offered; and if wicked men, by rejecting it, render the offer unprofitable to themselves, their conduct cannot destroy the faithfulness of God, or the true meaning of the sacrament. With strict propriety, then, does Paul, in addressing believers, say, that when they were baptized, they "put on Christ;" just as, in the Epistle to the Romans, he says,

"that we have been planted together into his death, so as to be also partakers of his resurrection."(Romans 6:5.)

"In this way, the symbol and the Divine operation are kept distinct, and yet the meaning of the sacraments is manifest; so that they cannot be regarded as empty and trivial exhibitions; and we are reminded with what base ingratitude they are chargeable, who, by abusing the precious ordinances of God, not only render them unprofitable to themselves, but turn them to their own destruction!"

Baptism, Early Church Fathers - Questions and Thoughts...

Given the Reformed covenantal understanding of padobaptism as Biblical teaching (Reformed also teach believer baptism), how would one explain the historical data that a number of Early Church Fathers were born into Christian families and yet were not baptized until later in life (e.g. Augustine, Ambrose, Athanasius, Basil, Gregory of Nanzianzus)? Was the practice/understanding of baptism mixed in such a way that the covenantal practice of the early church diminshed after the time of the apostles? Was practice mixed in the first century? Just wondering how to interpret the historical record and what challenges that record presents.

Some initial thoughts:  

1) It's historical evidence such as the above regarding some of the ECFs, employed by credobaptists and lending weight to their assertion, that Scriptural baptism is only adult or believer baptism. This would seem obvious.

2) The historical record is problematic for the Roman Catholic.  They claim a direct doctrinal line from the apostles, and an unbroken tradition/practice as the one true church since Pentecost.  If in the 3rd and 4th century the RCC as the only true church taught infant baptism and that baptism regenerates and infuses righteousness (as RCs explicitly have since Trent) then this historical record is problematic.  Especially when one considers that Gregory's father was a bishop before Gregory was even born and that the others mentioned were raised by Christian parents.

3) On its face this would also seem problematic for the Reformed.  He must answer the credobaptist claim and evidence.  And that evidence would seem to undermine the Reformed teaching and practice of infant baptism visa-vis God's covenant with his people, baptism being the sign and seal of entrance to the church for children of believers as well as the blessings of the covenant of grace (WCF 28).

I think the Roman Catholics have the more difficult defense to make. Reformed have never attributed regeneration and justification directly to the act of baptism. It isn't hard to imagine that a weakening of the the covenantal understanding of baptism had occurred over a couple centuries after the apostles while at the same time the understanding that salvation received through faith in the gospel generally held firm.  Thus Augustine and others were catechized in the the teachings of the gospel with a view to a profession of faith while the practice of baptism for infants receded, at least as practiced in some parts of the church.  Without the covenantal understanding of baptism, the church is left with a weak rationale for infant baptism.  

Though an understanding of regeneration/grace-infused baptism is found in the ECFs, yet at least as shown by these examples, it wasn't the universal practice of the church to baptize infants for that or any other purpose. The ECFs mentioned above (Augustine, et al) weren't baptized until as adults they came to faith. Rome proudly owns the ECFs as corroborating evidence of their claim to Christ's only visible church.  This, it would seem, presents a challenge to Rome's claim of one continuous, infallible church regarding doctrine and practice since the apostles.  Its claim to be "The One True Infallible Church" is based on its interpretation of Scripture and its so-called unbroken apostolic tradition/practice.  The church's practice of baptism is clearly at variance with that claim in the 3rd and 4th century.

I think the Reformed have an easier case to make. Reformed admit the church, at times, does err and has erred.  Yet it remains the Lord's church.  Since the Reformation of 16th century there has been a reformed catholic church, one always reforming according to the Word of God. In fact that is the story of the Church from the time of the apostles.  To flip around the old 7UP commercial line, "Always has, always will..."  Biblical faith and practice have at different times been under assault within the church and thus the church has found itself in need of necessary reform/correction.  That's the back story to many of the epistles in Scripture and the front story to the justification controversy addressed in the Galatians' letter.  So, it shouldn't be considered an anomaly that the covenantal doctrine and practice of infant baptism weakened in the two centuries following the apostles (or even here and there during their own time). The Reformed church rest upon the doctrines of Scripture alone.  If practice/tradition deviate at times, that doesn't undermine the doctrine of Scripture or the legitimacy of the church.  What it does is to necessitate a more faithful contending for the faith by the church -  'the faith once delivered' - in its teaching and practice. In other words... the church in this age always has been and always is to be the Church Militant.

The Reformation's Debate continues... Justification By... What?

Another bit from an ongoing discussion on a Roman Catholic blog:

My Roman Catholic interlocutor quotes me and then adds his comment:

“Baptism if not accompanied by faith ultimately avails nothing as regards the salvation of the soul.” – [Jack]

God always accomplishes what He promises. So baptism always results in justification. Man can be a covenant breaker – but God never can. – [DH]

My response:
Two things -
1. Of course we disagree with RCs that baptism is the instrument of justification. One might be able through a verse to infer that it is, but Scripture (OT and NT) in many places positively states that God justifies the ungodly through faith, even calling it the “faith of righteousness”… not the baptism of righteousness.

2. God always accomplishes what he, in the counsel of his will, purposes. In order for His promise to be effectual according to the Roman Catholic one must be baptized and not commit mortal sin, and [add in other things here]. And if he does commit mortal sin then he seeks restoration via penance to return to a justified state. If he doesn’t do that then God’s promised justification in baptism passes him by. Works and justification are very much linked here.

We maintain that Scripture teaches (for those of age) God’s promise of salvation is made effectual by grace alone through faith alone in – the One who fulfilled that promise for sinners – Jesus Chris alone, who died for their sins and fulfilled the demands of the Law for their justification. If man refuses to believe, then the promise of salvation is refused.

John 3: 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God.

… Jesus says that whoever believes (faith) is “not condemned”… to be “not condemned” under the law is to be justified under the law. So whoever has faith in him is justified and whoever has not faith in him is not justified, i.e. condemned.

What is at issue is the instrument of justification. Is it baptism or faith? And Paul makes it clear to all who are willing to hear and consider and believe the good news he teaches:

Justification:

Romans 3:21-23 But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus

Romans 4: 4-5 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift but as his due. And to the one who does not work but believes in him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is counted as righteousness

Romans 11: 5-6 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.

Eph. 2: 8-9 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast.

Sanctification:

Eph. 2:10 For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them.

Phil. 2:12b-13 work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.

When it comes to justification Paul rules out works, even grace-assisted works. “Righteousness through faith”, not righteousness by baptism. Of course you reject this, as RCs see baptism and sanctification (grace-assisted works) as means to justification. We agree with Paul that sinners are justified through faith in Christ apart from any kind of works and that that one who is justified by grace will and does bring forth good deeds (sanctification built upon justification) through the gracious work of God’s Spirit (Eph. 2:10; Phil 2:12b-13).

I’m content to agree to disagree with you. I’m not content to disagree with the apostle Paul. And by the way, this is not my personal interpretation, but the teaching of those churches which hold to the reformed confessions and catechisms.

cheers…

Baptism...

Excerpts from the Commentary of Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism Q.67 and Q. 70:

Baptism is a sacred rite instituted by Christ in the New Testament, by which we are washed with water in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, to signify that God receives us into his favor, on account of the blood which his Son shed for us, and that we are regenerated by his Spirit ; and that we, on the other hand, bind ourselves to exercise faith in God, and to perform new obedience to him...

There is in baptism a double washing: an external washing with water, and an internal washing with the blood and Spirit of Christ. The internal is signified and sealed by that which is external, and is always joined with it in the proper use of baptism. This internal washing is again two-fold, being a washing with the blood and Spirit of Christ. Both are specified in the answer of the Catechism, and may take place at the same time. To be washed with the blood of Christ, is to receive the pardon of sin, or to be justified on account of his shed-blood. To be washed with the Spirit of Christ, is to be regenerated by the Holy Spirit, which consists in a change of evil inclinations into those which are good, which the Holy Ghost works in the will and heart, so as to produce in us hatred to sin, and a desire to live according to the will of God...

Baptism is, therefore, the sign of both these forms of washing, or benefits of Christ, which include the forgiveness of sin, and the renewing of our nature ; and that not only because it has some resemblance to both, but also because these two benefits are inseparably connected, so that neither one can be without the other. If Christ do not wash us we have no part in him, and he who has not the Spirit of Christ is none of his. These benefits, however, differ from each other. Justification, which is by the blood of Christ, is complete and perfect in this life by imputation, for " there is no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus." (Rom. 8:1.) Regeneration, on the other hand, which is effected by the Spirit of Christ, and which consists in a change of our evil nature to that which is good, is not perfected, but only begun in this life ; yet in such a manner that this beginning does really take place in all the godly, and is experienced by them as long as they are in this life, because they truly and heartily desire to obey God in all things, and are greatly grieved on account of their defects, and remaining corruption...

He that believeth: The condition of faith is joined to the promise ; for those who are baptized do not receive that which is promised and sealed by baptism unless they have faith, so that without faith the promise is not ratified, and baptism is of no profit. In these words we have expressed in a concise manner the proper use of baptism, in which the sacraments are always ratified to those who receive them in faith ; whilst the sacraments are no sacraments, and profit nothing in their improper use...

Shall be saved, that is, he that is baptized may know that he enjoys the benefits which are signified by this sacrament, which consist in justification, and regeneration if he believe. For the promise is not ratified without faith, neither is baptism of any profit when thus received. The promise of salvation is added both to faith and baptism, but in a different respect. It is added to faith, as the necessary means by which we receive salvation ; and to baptism, as the sign which seals that which faith receives.

A Thought: Apostolic Pre-credo baptism?

The Scriptural record: The Twelve Apostles were baptized by John the baptist before they were yet called by Jesus and had first believed in Him.  They hadn't even been introduced to the Lamb of God!  Their's was a pre-faith baptism and their only baptism as far as we know. There is no record of their re-baptism post-faith. That given, their one-time, pre-faith baptism, by God's grace, was indeed effectual unto their salvation through faith.  It seems their subsequent faith in Jesus confirmed the sign and seal of their baptism given by God under John, which flowed from God's sovereign and wholly gracious election in Christ. They didn't choose Jesus and then announce their choice and commitment via baptism.  They were baptized... and Jesus their Savior having already chosen them, effectually called them to Himself (John 15:16; Eph. 1:4).

Some thoughts on Romans 6:1-5

^{Romans 6-
1} What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?
² God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein?
³ Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?
⁴ We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.
⁵ For if we have become united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection; [ASV]
⁶ knowing this, that our old man was crucified with him, that the body of sin might be done away, that so we should no longer be in bondage to sin
⁷ for he that hath died is justified from sin.

     When speaking of our having "died to sin" and having been "baptized into his death" - this is to be understood, as John Stott writes in his Romans commentary, in a 'legal sense'.  It is self-evident that we did not literally die when Christ was crucified on the cross.  Rather, in that God "chose us in him before the foundation of the world" [Eph. 1:4], our life and destiny, by God's gracious will, are irrevocably connected to Christ our Head.  We have been made party to God's covenant of promise, i.e. salvation in Christ, by God's choosing; a covenant that Christ alone fulfills.  And he, as our representative head, accomplished this through the death he died to sin once for all who are in him (Rom. 5:15-18).  So then it follows that the ultimate death penalty for sin no longer has a claim on us.  We are set free from the reign of sin and death by Jesus' propitiatory sacrifice on the cross.
     Therefore in real time, through baptism and faith, we were united with Christ in the "likeness of his death"; a penalty bearing death that is effectual for us according to God's promise.  So that through Jesus' death on our behalf the "body of sin" (the evidence of our guilt before the Law) has been put away.  It cannot touch us in that the evidence and guilt of our sin was imputed to Christ and borne by him on the cross (2Cor. 5:21a).  God's justice is completely served and satisfied.  Paul speaks of this having been accomplished through baptism, and this is true inasmuch as water baptism is truly an effectual sign and seal of the inward Holy Spirit-powered grace of God through faith in Christ Jesus.
     United to Christ through faith, Jesus is our means or ark (for safe passage through seas of death, 1Pet. 3:20-21) of dying to sin and death, having been buried with him.  Death could not hold him, for in his own person he fully met all the just requirements of God's holy law.  Having died for the sins of his people, he was raised by the Spirit in keeping with the justice of God (Rom. 2:13b).  And also we who are united with him have risen with him out of death into newness of life.  And we have the down payment of that resurrection having been given the blessing of regeneration, a new heart and "right-will" inclined to righteousness and love (Rom. 5:5; 6:17-18).  Jesus Christ rose from the dead fully justified by his law-keeping and by faith in him alone we, for whom he died, are now "justified from sin", declared as righteous before God through Christ's merit only (2Cor. 5:21b; Rom. 4:5).
     This is the ground floor upon which we rest, walk, and stand as Christians.  As Edward Mote, 1797-1874, wrote "All other ground is sinking sand."  So, in a manner of speaking, we look backward to what Jesus accomplished for us helpless sinners through his death and resurrection in order that we may move forward, living for him as we are led by his Spirit.  Any other ground of merit and service before God will see us devolve into the subtle yet deceitful box canyon of attempting to establish a false merit through our works in order to attain some measure self-justification.  For we yet remain helpless inasmuch as being able to truly do anything that is free from the stain of sin.  And we should not deceive ourselves into taking refuge in our good works, our "spiritual" experiences, our epiphanies, or our godly intentions, even as the Holy Spirit faithfully leads us into those good works "which God prepared beforehand that we should walk in them." [Eph. 2:10]