Further Clarification on the Belgic Confession’s Article 34

Dr. Clark, thank you for reaching out to me regarding my comment on your blog with a link to my initial response to you. As that brief comment may not get approved, I will post some more clarification here. Hopefully this will further underscore the point that my original post regarding The Belgic (and Westminster) Confession of faith was intended to make.

In reading through your post, this statement of mine is where you began to focus on my supposed allegation that “the Belgic teaches baptismal union with Christ.” In my post, I stated the following (the sentence in bold was left out in your post):

However, I would argue that the Three Forms of Unity in The Belgic Confession from 1561, Heidelberg Catechism, and Canons of Dort are indeed united and actually may go further than the WCF on the point of baptism and union with Christ. Something that I’ve wanted to do here for a while is discuss the efficacious blood of Christ as it relates to Hebrews, especially 10:29. This post can be considered a primer on that discussion

That sentence is where I hoped that you and my other Presbyterian and Reformed brothers would see that I was clear about what the Reformed Confessions do teach about the substance of union with Christ. You (and we) teach that “being washed with Christ’s blood is the forgiveness of sins. It is union with Christ.” That’s what I said in my original post.

From what I have seen, you don’t have a problem with my assessment of the efficacy of the shed blood of Christ for a person. But you seem to have misunderstood the point of my post completely. Perhaps I should “own up” to not being as clear or detailed as I possibly should have or could have been? But, again, let me clarify my point.

The Belgic clearly does not teach that union with Christ is conveyed through baptism. But it does state that for all of the children of believers that Christ’s blood was shed. If one does not have Christ’s blood applied to them efficaciously, that person cannot come to faith. I also quoted from the Canons of Dort in my original post and it expresses my previous statement. Allow me to post a section from there again. In your response, you honed in on faith. But in my initial post, I was more concerned with what we all confess about the blood of Christ. Here is the passage from the Canons of Dort:

For it was the entirely free plan and very gracious will and intention of God the Father that the enlivening and saving effectiveness of his Son’s costly death should work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith to them only and thereby lead them without fail to salvation. In other words, it was God’s will that Christ through the blood of the cross (by which he confirmed the new covenant) should effectively redeem from every people, tribe, nation, and language all those and only those who were chosen from eternity to salvation and given to him by the Father; that Christ should grant them faith

As we are in the Passion week, it’s fitting that we are discussing the “enlivening and saving effectiveness” of Christ’s death and blood. It is effective to “work itself out in all the elect, in order that God might grant justifying faith.” And only those who have been effectively redeemed may be granted faith.

This is where, again, we may part ways. You stated the following in your post (bold emphasis mine)

“Christ has shed his blood for the elect among the visible covenant community. That includes children. They receive Christ and his benefits sola gratia, sola fide but we do not wait until they profess to put the sign upon them. We put the sign and seal on them in hope that they will receive all that is promised to believers in baptism. It is a sign to all and a guarantee to those who believe.”

I can read your statement above and I see a limited, qualifying factor on what the Belgic leaves as an unqualified statement with regards to which children of believers Christ has shed his blood. Here is the statement in question from Belgic 34 again:

“And truly, Christ has shed his blood no less for washing the little children of believers than he did for adults. Therefore they ought to receive the sign and sacrament of what Christ has done for them“

Your statement says they should be baptized due to a future hope that they will be among the elect for whom Christ shed his blood. However, the Belgic Confession turns that around – it is because of “what Christ has done for them” (i.e. the shedding of his blood for children of believers) that they ought to be baptized.

You also said:

Baptism neither regenerates nor justifies. It is a sign of what Christ does for those to whom he has given new life and true faith. It is a seal, a promise of what is actually true, to those who believe. Paul denies preaching “circumcision,” effectively denying baptismal regeneration and baptismal union with Christ and baptismal justification.

and…

We do not say that baptism regenerates nor do we say that baptism unites us to Christ. By baptism we are received, outwardly, into the visible church and outwardly set apart from the world.

Amen! Baptism doesn’t regenerate, unite one to Christ, or justify. None of the Reformed confess this. Neither you nor I teach or believe this. However, if you have followed along closely with my argument, I am saying that Belgic 34 appears to teach, in a sense, some sort of inverse (for lack of a better word) of baptismal union with Christ. Belgic 34 says that it is because Christ has shed his blood for them that the children of believers should be baptized. You stated that they are baptized with the hope that they’ll receive the benefits. Belgic 34 implies that because they have had Christ’s blood shed for them (i.e. the benefits!) that for that reason they should be baptized. These benefits of the shed blood of Christ have been clearly demonstrated through my citations of the Three Forms of Unity.

The definition of baptismal union with Christ would be that baptism effectively confers grace or union with Christ to the recipient of Baptism.

The Belgic Confession does not teach this. I have never alleged or even implied that it does so.

My concern, and the concern of others, is with the language used that it is because Christ’s blood has been shed for an unqualified group – stated to just be “children of believers” – that the sign of baptism should be given to them. There is a nuance here that you may not be picking up on in what I have asserted, so I am not sure how much more clear I can be. But allow me to ask this final question. You have already qualified the following question in your post by stating that Christ’s blood has been shed for the elect in the visible church, including children. Your explanatory statement has qualified, and drawn in, what Belgic 34 left unqualified and, in my opinion, has gone too far in its statement.

Is it best stated that the blood of Christ has been shed for all children of believers (in an unqualified manner) and that this is, therefore, the reason for which they should be baptized?

 

Further Reading:

The Belgic Confession and the True Church W. Robert Godfrey