INTRODUCTION
This post looks at the statements on baptism in the Belgic Confession (BC) and asks questions about the logic or coherence of statements that appear inconsistent with other statements in the BC, or which misapply or misunderstand the cited scriptures, or which lack scriptural support, or which appear problematic on other grounds. This post does not address paedobaptist vs credobaptist positions, but looks only at the internal consistency and coherence of the arguments made in the BC. The questions and issues discussed herein are NOT intended to undermine or attack Reformed views, but are rather intended to promote Biblically-based thinking about the basis for such views. Questions as to what a sacrament is or how it functions are not addressed in this post.
A slightly modified version of this complete post can be downloaded as a PDF file here:The (In)Coherence of the Belgic Confession on Baptism_bv
Please post your comments – questions, challenges, refutations, etc. so that readers can gain the benefit of a variety of opinions.
The statements relevant to baptism in the BC are contained in Article 34. Only the portions of the statements discussed, and only the Scripture citations used in the discussion, are quoted. The BC’s scripture citations are expanded at times to provide context. All Scripture quotes are from the NASB. There are various editions of the BC. The text of the statements quoted here are taken from the current Canadian Reformed Church online version.
The critiques on this blog of statements and claims in the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism are NOT directed primarily at the original authors of those documents. I believe that the original authors did their best to summarize the main Christian doctrines, based on their concerns and priorities, the extent of their knowledge, and the theological assumptions and paradigms of their time and place. What I am critiquing is the apparent failure of today’s Reformed community to review, update, revise and reform these documents to reflect the current state of knowledge in the various fields of Biblical studies (see also the ABOUT ASKING QUESTIONS page).
A second follow-up post will look at the statements on baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism (HC).
BC Article 34: The Sacrament of Baptism
Statement 1
“We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law (Rom 10:4), has by His shed blood put an end to every other shedding of blood that one could or would make as an expiation or satisfaction for sins. He has abolished circumcision, which involved blood, and has instituted in its place the sacrament of baptism.1”
=======================================
God instituted circumcision as an everlasting sign of His covenant with Israel and the Jewish people – see the quote from Genesis 17:7 and the discussion under Statement 8 below. Neither Jesus nor the Scriptures anywhere state that circumcision was ever abolished.
The BC appears to be making the argument that circumcision was abolished because (a) it involved blood, and (b) that such shedding of blood somehow functioned to expiate for sins. No Scripture text citation is provided in support of Point (b), evidently because no such text exists. The argument therefore fails. What then is the basis for the claim that circumcision was abolished?
The book of Acts demonstrates that circumcision was NOT abolished, and that Jewish believers including Paul continuing to practice circumcision:
Acts 21:17-24: 17 “….we arrived in Jerusalem… 18 And the following day Paul went in with us to James, and all the elders were present……And they said to him, “You see, brother, how many thousands there are among the Jews of those who have believed, and they are all zealous for the Law; 21 and they have been told about you, that you are teaching all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children nor to walk according to the customs. 22 What, then, is to be done? They will certainly hear that you have come. 23 Therefore do this that we tell you. We have four men who are under a vow; 24 take them and purify yourself along with them, ………and all will know that there is nothing to the things which they have been told about you, but that you yourself also walk orderly, keeping the Law. “
Acts 25:7-8: 7 “After Paul arrived, the Jews who had come down from Jerusalem stood around him, bringing many and serious charges against him which they could not prove, 8 while Paul said in his own defense, “I have committed no offense either against the Law of the Jews or against the temple or against Caesar.”
Acts 28:17: 17 “After three days Paul called together those who were the leading men of the Jews, and when they came together, he began saying to them, “Brethren, though I had done nothing against our people or the customs of our fathers, yet I was delivered as a prisoner from Jerusalem into the hands of the Romans. ”
Scripture Citation 1 – Colossians 2:11 – is intended to provide scriptural support for the claim that circumcision was abolished and baptism was instituted to replace it.
Colossians 2:11 11 and in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ; 12 having been buried with Him in baptism, in which you were also raised up with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.
Colossians 2:11 describes the circumcision of Christ as being “a circumcision made without hands” effecting “the removal of the body of the flesh”. Evidently this is the “circumcision of the heart” spoken of by Moses in Deuteronomy 30:6 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live”, and which is reflected in the descriptions of the promised new covenant in Jeremiah (31:33-34) and Ezekiel (36:24-28). Thus the “circumcision of Christ” cannot be baptism which is an external rite performed with hands.
Thus, two types of circumcision are compared and contrasted – the external circumcision of the flesh made with hands, and the internal circumcision of the heart made without hands. Paul does NOT say that the former has been abolished or that the latter has replaced the former.
Colossians 2:12 does connect baptism with the internal experience and/or event of being born again, in that baptism (by immersion) symbolizes burial and resurrection and so also symbolizes the putting off of the old man via the spiritual circumcision of the heart. Thus it can be argued that baptism is an outward sign or symbol of the inner heart circumcision.
Statement 2
“By baptism we are received into the church of God and set apart from all other peoples and false religions, to be entirely committed to Him whose mark and emblem we bear. This serves as a testimony to us that He will be our God and gracious Father for ever.”
=======================================
Since both the “true” church and various “false” churches practice baptism, how does baptism set the “true” church apart from “false religions”?
What is the definition of the “church of God”? Presumably it is the community of all true born again (regenerate) believers, as stated in BC Article 27: “We believe and profess one catholic or universal church, which is a holy congregation and assembly of the true Christian believers “….Thus it is the spiritual reality of being born again rather than the external rite of baptism that makes one a member of the “church of God”. Unless there are several classes of members? But where is that taught in the Scriptures?
What is the meaning of “peoples”? Is the church not made up of believers from all peoples, tribes and nations? In other words the true distinction is between believer and unbeliever – being baptized or unbaptized does not define who is or is not a true believer and member of the “church of God”.
The quoted statement could be interpreted to claim that baptism makes the one who is baptized to be “entirely committed to” and to bear the “mark and emblem” of Jesus, i.e. baptism is what makes you a Christian, as there is no reference here to prior faith as a requirement. Baptism is thus implied to be something more than an external symbol or sign of a prior inner spiritual reality. Yet it is evident from other statements in the BC that faith is the fundamental requirement for becoming a Christian – e.g. Articles 22 and 24. Nevertheless the wording here (as well as elsewhere – see the discussion on Statements 4 and 5 below) may lead to confusion as to exactly what baptism does and does not accomplish.
Statement 3
“For that reason He has commanded all those who are His to be baptized with plain water into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19).”
=======================================
Jesus nowhere specifies what kind of water is to be used for baptism. Why does the BC here specify that “plain water” is required? Actually the original 1561 text specifies “pure water” – as the current 2011 Christian Reformed Church text also does. Why was “pure water” changed to “plain water”? If a change was considered desirable then why not just say “water”?
Statement 4
“By this He signifies to us that as water washes away the dirt of the body when poured on us, and as water is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled on him, so the blood of Christ, by the Holy Spirit, does the same thing internally to the soul. It washes and cleanses our soul from sin and regenerates us from children of wrath into children of God This is not brought about by the water as such but by the sprinkling of the precious blood of the Son of God……”
=======================================
This is clearly Scriptural – a parallel is drawn between the external action of the baptismal water and the internal effects of the blood of Jesus, and it is emphasized that the external water has no effect on anything happening internally and spiritually. However the external act and the internal spiritual working are so closely connected by the wording of this statement that it seems to imply that the internal work occurs in direct conjunction with the external act. Surely the inner spiritual reality must preceded the external act, otherwise the latter is an empty symbol and has no significance.
Why is it said “…as water is seen on the body of the baptized when sprinkled on him…”? Is an analogy intended between the external visible water on the baptized body and the blood of Jesus sprinkled on the soul? The latter action is immaterial, invisible and spiritual, so what is the analogy? Or does it have something to do with justifying the practice of sprinkling as the mode of baptism? Is the powerful scriptural symbolism of burial and rising again with Christ when baptism is done by immersion not mentioned here because it does not fit with “washing” and “sprinkling”?
Statement 5
“ Thus the ministers on their part give us the sacrament and what is visible, but our Lord gives us what is signified by the sacrament, namely, the invisible gifts and grace. He washes, purges, and cleanses our souls of all filth and unrighteousness, renews our hearts and fills them with all comfort, gives us true assurance of His fatherly goodness, clothes us with the new nature, and takes away the old nature with all its works.”
=======================================
As discussed under Statements 2 and 4 , the above Statement lacks clarity. Although a distinction is made between what happens externally and internally, the two operations are described as so closely conjoined that they can easily be understood to occur more or less simultaneously as two aspects of one event.
Statement 6
“We believe, therefore, that anyone who aspires to eternal life ought to be baptized only once.11 Baptism should never be repeated, for we cannot be born twice…..”
Scripture Citation 11 – Matthew 28:19; Ephesians 4:5.
———————————————————
Matthew 28:19 “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit.”
Ephesians 4:5 ” 1 Therefore I, the prisoner of the Lord, implore you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, showing tolerance for one another in love, 3 being diligent to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all.“
=======================================
The Matthean text does not address the question of whether baptism could ever be repeated or not.
The Ephesian text implores the believers to be tolerant of one another and to preserve the unity of the Spirit. In that connection the text references the unity of all believers which includes a unity of faith and of baptism. The “one baptism” that is referenced is the type of baptism – i.e baptism in the name of Jesus – not the necessary singularity of the act of baptism. When Paul first went to Ephesus he found disciples who had been baptized but had not received the Holy Spirit, and he then re-baptized them in the name of Jesus: Acts 19: 1-6: ” 1 It happened that while Apollos was at Corinth, Paul passed through the upper country and came to Ephesus, and found some disciples. 2 He said to them, “Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?” And they said to him, “No, we have not even heard whether there is a Holy Spirit.” 3 And he said, “Into what then were you baptized?” And they said, “Into John’s baptism.” 4 Paul said, “John baptized with the baptism of repentance, telling the people to believe in Him who was coming after him, that is, in Jesus.” 5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 6 And when Paul had laid his hands upon them, the Holy Spirit came on them, and they began speaking with tongues and prophesying.”
The rationale for the claim that “…baptism should never be repeated…” is that “…we cannot be born twice….” The logical implication of that rationale is that baptism effects regeneration, which the BC rightly elsewhere denies – confusing!
Incidentally, why throughout the book of Acts, do the apostles NOT follow Jesus’ command in Matthew 28:19 to baptize “…in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit….“, and instead baptize in the name of Jesus only? Is it possible that the Trinitarian formula was inserted by the early church, as was probably done with the long ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20) and the Johannine Comma inserted into 1 John 5:7-8?
Statement 7
“For that reason we reject the error of the Anabaptists, who are not content with a single baptism received only once……“
=======================================
This statement misrepresents the Anabaptist position (why? out of ignorance? or by intention?) which position was and still is that baptism should be administered only to those who have first repented and believed. Their position is not that they are “not content” but that they in good conscience cannot accept as valid their (or anyone else’s) baptism as infants, and that only the baptism of believers meets the Scriptural conditions. Therefore those who had been baptized as infants did as Paul did when he found that the disciples at Ephesus had not been baptized according to the Scriptural conditions – they were “re-baptized”. This is not a defense of the credobaptist position but simply recognizes that the credobaptists are brothers in Christ and that their view is at least as defensible from Scripture as the paedobaptist view.
Statement 8
” We believe that these children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as infants were circumcised in Israel on the basis of the same promises which are now made to our children.12 “
Scripture Citation 12 – Genesis 17:10-12; Matthew 19:14; Acts 2:39
———————————————————
Genesis 17:10-12 ” 10 This is My covenant, which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: every male among you shall be circumcised. 11 And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin, and it shall be the sign of the covenant between Me and you.12 And every male among you who is eight days old shall be circumcised throughout your generations, a servant who is born in the house or who is bought with money from any foreigner, who is not of your descendants.13 A servant who is born in your house or who is bought with your money shall surely be circumcised; thus shall My covenant be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. “
=======================================
The cited Genesis text does not mention any promises, although the adjacent text Genesis 17:7 does promise that God will be the God of Abraham and his descendants for ever (see below). No Scripture is cited to show what is promised at baptism, so it is difficult to compare what is promised at circumcision to what (if anything) is promised at baptism. The statement further neglects to mention that significant differences between circumcision and baptism include the following: circumcision was only applied to male infants; it had to occur on the eighth day, it was defined as the “sign of the covenant…. in the flesh”; and not only the male descendants but also all male non-descendants in the household such as male servants and slaves and foreigners had to be circumcised.
There is no mention here or elsewhere in the Hebrew Scriptures that circumcision was a “seal” of the covenant. There is one mention in the New Testament that circumcision was a seal – in Romans 4:11-12. There Paul says of Abraham (and only Abraham): “ …and he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had while uncircumcised, so that he might be the father of all who believe without being circumcised, that righteousness might be credited to them, 12 and the father of circumcision to those who not only are of the circumcision, but who also follow in the steps of the faith of our father Abraham which he had while uncircumcised.” This text states that circumcision was a seal of the righteousness of the faith of Abraham. This then applies only to Abraham, because all his covenant descendants were circumcised on the eighth day before they could have had faith.
The New Testament nowhere mentions that baptism is a “seal” of the New Covenant. What is identified in the New Testament as a “seal” is the seal of the Holy Spirit. Thus Ephesians 1:13-14: ” 13 In Him, you also, after listening to the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation—having also believed, you were sealed in Him with the Holy Spirit of promise, 14 who is given as a pledge of our inheritance, with a view to the redemption of God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory. ” And Ephesians 4:30: ” Do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption.” BC Article 27 says the same thing: “We believe and profess one catholic or universal church, which is a holy congregation and assembly of the true Christian believers, who ….. are sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit.” Yes – correct! But then why allow the other statements about baptism being “the seal” of the New Covenant to stand? Confusing!
It is only the inner spiritual working of the Holy Spirit through faith that can effect a sealing of the believer, and that is said to occur after believing. An infant cannot listen and believe and an external rite cannot function as a seal in the sense used by Paul.
———————————————————
Matthew 19:14 ” 13 Then some children were brought to Him so that He might lay His hands on them and pray; and the disciples rebuked them. 14 But Jesus said, “Let the children alone, and do not hinder them from coming to Me; for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these.” 15 After laying His hands on them, He departed from there. “
=======================================
The Matthew text does not mention promises or baptism. Yes, Jesus cares about children, but the instruction to not hinder children from coming to Jesus would not seem to have application to the baptism of infants. Mark’s version indicates that the children Jesus is speaking of are at least old enough to “receive the kingdom” – Mark 10:15: 15 Truly I say to you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God like a child will not enter it at all.”
———————————————————
Acts 2:39 ” 33 Therefore having been exalted to the right hand of God, and having received from the Father the promise of the Holy Spirit, He has poured forth this which you both see and hear….36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made Him both Lord and Christ—this Jesus whom you crucified.” 37 Now when they heard this, they were pierced to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, “Brethren, what shall we do?” 38 Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39 For the promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off, as many as the Lord our God will call to Himself.”……41 So then, those who had received his word were baptized. “
=======================================
Peter’s statement in vs. 39 is made to the House of Israel: when he says “to you and your children” he is referring to the physical descendants of Israel. Peter includes the “children” i.e. descendants because Abraham’s descendants were specifically included in the covenant, an inclusion that extended to the New Covenant circumcision of the heart:
Genesis 17:7: “ I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your descendants after you.”
Deuteronomy 30:6 “Moreover the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your descendants, to love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, so that you may live.”
Thus, when Peter refers to the “children” of his audience he means their descendants (as per Genesis 17:7 and Deuteronomy 30:6, NOT their infant children.
Further, the “promise” referred to in Acts 2:39 was not a promise of salvation as such – Peter’s auditors were already part of the covenant people of God – rather the promise was of the gift of the Holy Spirit and entry into the New Covenant promised to Israel (Jeremiah 31: 31) through the forgiveness of sins. The promise is however extended to “all who are far off” (i.e. the Gentiles) but not specifically to their “children” i.e. descendants (why not?).
It seems that the Gentile Church of the Reformation has seized upon the promise given to physical Israel and appropriated it for itself without Scriptural justification. It is noteworthy that those of the House of Israel who were baptized were those who had “received his word” (vs. 41) i.e. those who could understand and act on Peter’s message – which evidently did not include small children. Thus, even though “the promise” is for all the House of Israel – “you and your children/descendants” – that promise still had to appropriated through individual repentance and act of faith. When his hearers ask Peter what they should do he says: “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins …..” (vs. 38). Peter does NOT tell them to bring their infant children for baptism.
The very next baptismal event in Acts, involving Philip’s ministry in Acts 8, also included only those who believed – men and women, but not children. Thus Acts 8:12: “But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.” If the Jewish children who were specifically identified as recipients of “the promise”, nevertheless had to wait until they were old enough to understand the gospel and exercise faith, how much more the children of Gentiles who were not specifically so identified?
Statement 9
” Indeed, Christ shed His blood to wash the children of believers just as much as He shed it for adults.13
=======================================
Did not Christ shed his blood for the whole world, which would include all adults and children? However each has to individually believe in order to avail themselves of Christ’s sacrifice: John 3:16 – ” 16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.“
———————————————————
Scripture Citation 13: 1 Corinthians 7:14 ” 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy.”
=======================================
The argument from 1 Corinthians 7:14 is not clear, but it is assumed that the BC considers this text as support for infant baptism. The unstated connection seems to be that since the children are not unclean but holy, they must have been baptized. If that is indeed the argument, then that assumes baptismal regeneration, because an external act cannot otherwise make anyone holy. However baptism is not mentioned in this text.
Paul bases his argument that the children of a “mixed” marriage are holy on the fact that the unbelieving spouse is sanctified (made holy) through the believing spouse. Since the unbelieving spouse, although made holy, is not “saved” (see vs. 16), then the holy children are also not necessarily “saved”. Further, in such mixed marriages, the children are NOT children of “believers” (plural) as per Statement 9.
Statement 10
” Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them, as the Lord commanded in the law that a lamb was to be offered shortly after children were born.14 This was a sacrament of the suffering and death of Jesus Christ.”
Scripture Citation 14 – Leviticus 12:6
———————————————————
Leviticus 12:6 2 When a woman gives birth and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean for seven days, as in the days of her menstruation she shall be unclean. 3 On the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised. 4 Then she shall remain in the blood of her purification for thirty-three days; she shall not touch any consecrated thing, nor enter the sanctuary until the days of her purification are completed. 5 But if she bears a female child, ………. 6 ‘When the days of her purification are completed, for a son or for a daughter, she shall bring to the priest at the doorway of the tent of meeting a one year old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a turtledove for a sin offering.“7 Then he shall offer it before the Lord and make atonement for her, and she shall be cleansed from the flow of her blood. This is the law for her who bears a child, whether a male or a female. 8 But if she cannot afford a lamb, then she shall take two turtledoves or two young pigeons, the one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering ……”
=======================================
The offering of a lamb was part of the rite of purification for the ritual uncleanness contracted by the mother due to the blood associated with giving birth, comparable with the blood of menstruation. There was no moral impurity or sin involved in giving birth and the lamb was not a sacrifice to expiate or cover sin. This offering therefore had/has nothing to do with Jesus suffering and death, and it is a gross error to identify this offering as a “sacrament of Christ”.
Thus the attempt of the above statement to make an implied identification with the lamb of the purification offering and baptism by seeking to define both as the “sacrament of Christ” must be considered a failure. But – if baptism really is the replacement for circumcision – then how could the lamb of the purification offering connect with that?
Luke’s account of Mary’s purification after the birth of Jesus in Luke 2:22-24 speaks of “their purification”: 22 “And when the days for their purification according to the law of Moses were completed, they brought Him up to Jerusalem to present Him to the Lord 23 (as it is written in the Law of the Lord, “Every firstborn male that opens the womb shall be called holy to the Lord”), 24 and to offer a sacrifice according to what was said in the Law of the Lord, “A pair of turtledoves or two young pigeons.”
Some older commentators have concluded that Luke had an incorrect knowledge of the Mosaic Law, as Leviticus addresses only the mother’s impurity, and/or that he assumed that both mother and father were impure. Some modern translations – in keeping with the former strategy, and based on some textual support from later manuscripts – select the pronoun “her” instead of “their”. Recent studies of Second Temple Jewish texts (e.g. Jubilees) have shown that both mother and child were considered to have contracted impurity during the birth process as both would have had contact with blood (see Matthew Thiessen, Luke 2:22, Leviticus 12, and Parturient Impurity, Novum Testamentum, 54 (2012) 16-29). That position is consistent with the understanding the the Mosaic Law is not comprehensive or exhaustive but illustrative of the legal principles which had to be applied to individual cases.
If that interpretation is correct then Luke states that both Mary and her sinless child Jesus were ritually impure and both had to undergo purification – i.e. the stipulated offering of the lamb was for both Mary and Jesus. According to Statement 10 Jesus would then have been purified by his own “sacrament of suffering and death”, which is confusing if not contradictory to say the least.
Luke’s account in this passage reflects his great care in composing his Gospel to show that Jesus did not contravene the Mosaic Law but was ritually purified before he was brought into the Temple (Thiessen, Luke2:22).
Statement 11
” Because baptism has the same significance for our children as circumcision had for the people of Israel, Paul calls baptism the circumcision done by Christ (Col 2:11).”
=======================================
The cited text of Colossians 2:11 does not support the claim that baptism is the circumcision done by Christ. At most it says that the external rite of baptism symbolizes the internal spiritual heart circumcision of Christ. See the discussion above under Statement 1 .
What About the Heidelberg Catechism?
The statements on baptism in the Heidelberg Catechism will be looked at in the next post.
Pro Sola Scriptura