Baptism and the inheritance of God's promises

Update: I have now written a second post on baptism expanding on the views expressed here.

Over at Ad Trinitatem a discussion has arisen relating in part to the effects of baptism. By way of background, the author of that illustrious blog is desirous of writing an evangelistic tract that includes mention of the need to be baptised. Most (almost all?) modern evangelistic tracts make no mention of baptism. While they invite people to repent of their sin and submit to Christ as Lord they make next to no mention of the requirement of baptism. The author therefore wanted to say a word or two in his proposed tract about baptism -- an aim to which I am sympathetic. I firmly believe that God commands Christians not only to repent of their sin and turn to Christ but also to be baptised (cf Acts 2:38), and that "unbaptised Christians" are an anomaly. I certainly agree that a person who believes in the Triune God and has repented of his sin and submitted to Christ as Lord ought to be baptised. What's more I am also sympathetic to the view that in explaining the gospel we should mention the requirement of being baptised alongside repentance and faith in Christ.

But of course the devil is always in the detail. What is the exact nature and effect of baptism? What is baptism for? And what does it do? Most readers will be aware that among Christians there are differing views on baptism. One difference of opinion concerns the question of who baptism is for. Is baptism only for those who have professed faith in Christ or is it for them and their household (including infants who have not yet professed faith)? The former is the Baptist position while the latter is the position of most other Christians (including other Protestant groups such as Anglicans, Presbyterians, Lutherans as well as Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians). This is not a debate that concerns us here (but for what it's worth as an Anglican Christian I adopt the latter view). A second -- and arguably more important -- difference of opinion concerns the question of what baptism is for. The divide here is partly on denominational lines but not exclusively. We can make a broad distinction between Roman Catholic and Protestant views of the effects of baptism, but then there are also differences within Protestantism and these don't always neatly fall along denominational lines.

Anyway, back to the comments on Ad Trinitatem. The original wording the author was proposing for his tract was this:

Baptism is the ceremony in which the gifts of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit are officially given to you and you officially become a Christian.

Perhaps due to the fact that I'm a lawyer this raised all kinds of questions in my mind. I thought that his statement about the gifts being "officially" given in baptism here was imprecise. It wasn't clear to me what this meant (for reasons which I will go into below). So I asked a series of questions in order to help clarify what he meant by this statement:

What do you mean here by “officially”? And is the implication that after you repent but before you are baptised the gifts are unofficially given to you and you unofficially become a Christian? Can you answer me the following two questions:
(1) What happens when someone repents of his sin and submits to Jesus as Lord? Is he given the gift of forgiveness? Has he received the Holy Spirit? If so, in what way? If not, why not?
(2) What happens when someone is baptised (in/ with water) in the name of the triune God after repenting and professing faith? (In other words we’re talking about plain ol’ adult “credo-baptism”.) Is he given the gift of forgiveness at his baptism? Does he received the Holy Spirit at his baptism? Yes/how, no/why not?

The author responded as follows:

By “officially” I mean “officially”.

When someone repents of his sins and submits to Jesus as Lord he is given the gift of forgiveness and has received the Holy Spirit. If he dies there and then, without being baptised then he will be raised up on the last day. They are his, he enjoys them, but they are not officially and formally made over to him.

I certainly agree with the notion that someone who has repented of his sins and submitted to Jesus Christ as Lord is given the gift of forgiveness and has received the Holy Spirit (indeed that was the motivation behind asking my clarificatory questions). The outcome for the unbaptised person who has repented and submitted to Christ is the same as the outcome for the baptised person who as repented and submitted to Christ. Both enjoy forgiveness and the Holy Spirit now and both will be raised up on the last day. So what is baptism for, you ask? Well the author says that while the unbaptised person who has repented and submitted to Christ has and enjoys these gifts, they have never been "officially and formally made over" to him. The clear implication of this is that baptism is for (or at least one of the things it is for -- bearing in mind that this was an answer to a specific question of mine and was not purporting to be exhaustive) 'formally and officially making over' the promises of forgiveness and the Holy Spirit.

To my mind it still wasn't perfectly clear what he meant by this and the author was considerate enough to add the examples of a student/graduate and a person involved in non-marital cohabitation:

It’s like the gap between passing exams and graduating. Having passed the exams, one demonstrated the knowledge and skills appropriate to that degree. The graduation confers no new knowledge and skills (although it brings many benefits). People can even informally refer to one by the style to which that degree entitles one. But until the ceremony, you are not admitted to that degree and cannot enter into the privileges it confers or call yourself by that title.

So I don’t think people should call themselves Christians if they haven’t been baptised. If they do, it’s like calling yourself a husband when you live with a woman but you’re not married. [...]

With this I cannot agree (well at least if by 'should not' he means 'cannot' or 'may not'!). I would say that the unbaptised person who has repented and submitted to Christ is and can call himself a Christian: one does not need to undergo baptism either to be or call oneself a Christian. Now obviously in saying this my position differs from the author of Ad Trinitatem's. Within the framework we are working in I really only see two alternatives to my view (correct me if I'm wrong) and to my mind it's not entirely clear to me from these examples which of these the author of Ad Trinitatem believes (although from his marriage example I would be more likely to go with the second possibility): either (1) such a person is but cannot call himself a Christian (because he hasn't gone through the official ceremony) or (2) such a person is not and cannot call himself a Christian but is (at least in some respects) still treated as one on account of God's promises (i.e. because God promises forgiveness, the Holy Spirit and being raised on the last day to all who have repented and put their faith in Christ regardless of whether they have undergone the ceremony of baptism).

What's the difference you ask? Well, interestingly the author of the blog himself suggested a different example in a subsequent comment. He suggested the Queen's coronation. To my mind that is actually a fundamentally different example from the graduation or marriage examples he initially cited and one which illustrates well what is really going on with baptism. The student who has passed his final exams but not yet gone through the graduation ceremony is not and cannot (formally) call himself a graduate. The man who is living together with a woman he is not married to is not and cannot (formally) call himself a husband. Unlike these two examples a monarch (at least the sovereign of the sixteen Commonwealth Realms -- since succession and coronation practices can differ according to the laws and customs of each particular monarchy) is and can (formally) call himself king before his coronation. Under the law of succession for the Commonwealth Realms there is no such thing as an interregnum. As soon as one king dies someone else (the heir apparent) takes his place on account of the rights he enjoys under (or expressed slightly differently the promises made to him in) the law of succession. Queen Elizabeth II "legally" and "formally" became queen regnant upon the death of her late father King George VI. She was not "informally" queen between the death of her father and the date of her coronation. She really was already queen. The coronation ceremony is exactly that: a coronation -- i.e. a crowning of what is already the case. But graduation and marriage ceremonies don't work like that. Each of those makes a real and formal difference to someone's status. The coronation ceremony, however, seals and publicly declares what is already the case. That is a rather important difference which I hope to explain in terms of the law and how that then applies to baptism.

For those who are familiar with legal concepts the difference is that between vested and non-vested rights. The difference is this: a non-vested right is something you're entitled to (or expressed slightly differently something you have been promised) but which has not yet accrued. A vested right on the other hand is something you're entitled to (or again in less legalistic language something you have been promised) and which has already accrued. The position of the student before his graduation ceremony (or a man and a woman before their marriage) and the Queen before her coronation are clear examples of the difference between these.

In the graduation example, the student who has passed his final exams indeed has a "right" to to be recognised as a graduate (i.e. it has been promised to him by the university -- and what's more this is a legally enforceable promise) but this right is non-vested. In other words, it has not yet accrued to him and something has to happen before it does accrue. That "something" is having the degree conferred at a graduation ceremony. Unless and until he undergoes the ceremony of graduation he is not and cannot call himself a graduate. In other words, while the university has promised to make him a graduate it has not yet come good on that promise and until it does he is not and cannot call himself a graduate. In the event that the university refuses to perform the ceremony the student could take the university to court and have it order the university to perform the ceremony. But the court cannot admit the student to his degree or confer on him the status of "graduate". Only the university can do that. All a court can do is order the university (under threat of imprisonment to university officials for contempt of court) to come good on its promise, to give the student what it promised it would give him (i.e. admission to a degree and the status of graduate). Unless or until that happens he is not a graduate. Similarly if a student dies without having undergone the ceremony he dies a student (or graduand) and not a graduate. (Of course the university can, and and as a rule does, confer degrees post-mortem on those who have fulfilled all formal requirements but die before graduation.)

In the coronation example, the person first in line to the throne has a "right" to become (and call himself) king (i.e. it has been promised to him in the law of succession). While his father is still alive this right is "non-vested", in other words he has a right to become (and call himself) king at some time in the future but that right has not yet accrued to him. He is not yet king (and cannot call himself such) but one day he will be. Something first has to happen before he is king (and can call himself such) and that something is the death (or exceptionally the abdication) of his father the king. That is the occasion whereupon the heir apparent's right to be (and call himself) king "vests". As soon as that happens there is nothing he has to do to become king. From that point in time he is king on account of inheriting the promise made to him in the law of succession by virtue of his father's death. The coronation ceremony (if there is one -- and there normally is) takes place after he has inherited the promise (and thereby become king). By the time of the coronation the right og the heir apparent to be and call himself king has already vested. At his coronation he is already really, fully and worthy of the name king. The coronation ceremony doesn't turn the heir apparent into the king. Nor does it make the king "any more" king than he already was (if such a thing were indeed possible). No, what it does is "crown" "the king". It is a ceremony which takes a man who is already king by virtue of the fact that he has already inherited the promise to him that he would be king and then seals and publicly declares the fact that the right of the heir apparent to be and call himself king has vested. Unlike the graduation ceremony, the coronation ceremony does not vest the right; rather, it is a sign and seal of the fact that the right has already vested. In the coronation ceremony the promises made in the law of succession to once-heir-apparent-now-king are formally declared and "brought home" in both word and deed. And these words and deeds speak to (1) the king himself, (2) the people of his own realm and (3) foreign powers and other people not subject to him. It speaks to the entire world -- himself, his subjects and aliens -- that he is the king of the realm. But importantly he was already king (anc could call himself such) before his corontation. The right had already vested. An uncrowned king is still king with all rights and privileges (and obligations under the law) thereunto appertaining (including the name and title of king). The uncrowned king is still "officially" -- and in an important sense "formally" -- king. In the sense that he already is king and already has the kingdom, he does not need a coronation ceremony to "officially" or "formally" give it to him. For example King Edward VIII abdicated before he was crowned as king but was nevertheless fully, legally, "officially" and "formally" king from the moment of his father's death until the time of his abdication. He never underwent a formal ceremony of coronation but he really was (and had the right to call himself and be called) king.

In the graduation example the ceremony effects the change in status (from student to graduate); in the coronation example the ceremony seals and publicly declares a change in status which has already taken place. At a graduation ceremony you turn up as a graduand and leave as a graduate. At a coronation one person turns up as a king (albeit an uncrowned king) and leaves as a king (albeit a crowned king). Both before and after the coronation he was and is king. Coronation doesn't change that. Coronation rather is the outward sign and symbol of the inward reality of his already being king. The reason Elizabeth II is and can call herself queen regnant is not (causally speaking) because she was crowned as Queen at her coronation. Rather it is (causally speaking) because she is the heir to the promises made in the law of succession. If she (like her uncle Edward VIII) never happened to be crowned she would still be queen and could rightfully call herself such. And, moreover, if someone other than the rightful heir to the promises in the law of succession were to turn up at Westminster Abbey and have the Archbishop of Canterbury "crown" him as "king" he would not thereby be king. No, he would be a crowned impostor.

And so, I would submit, it is with baptism. Someone who has repented of his sin and put his faith in Jesus Christ has already inherited the promises made to him in Christ Jesus. He is and can call himself a Christian on account of these. But he is an unbaptised Christian -- similar to an uncrowned king. He has not yet undergone the sign and seal -- the public declaration, and crowning glory if you will -- of the fact that he is already the rightful inheritor of these promises. The unbaptised person who has repented and put his faith in christ has inherited the promises made to him in Christ Jesus and baptism doesn't speak to that.

Coming back to our distinction between "vested" and "non-vested" rights, a person's right to inherit the promises including the right to call oneself a Christian "vests" (at least humanly speaking) upon the exercise of faith and repentance. At the time of one's baptism this "right" has already "vested". The ceremony does not "vest" the right. Rather it is a sign and seal of the fact that the right already has vested. And like the king's coronation baptism speaks to (1) the baptised Christian, (2) the body of Christian believers and (3) non-Christians. It is an outward sign and seal which speaks to each of those three categories of persons that the baptised person person has undergone the inward and spiritual reality of regeneration by the Holy Spirit and is thereby an inheritor of the promises made to him in Christ Jesus. Like the king's coronation, the Christian's baptism does not give him any greater claim to the inheritance of the promises that are his; if he has come to repentance and faith then these promises are his and fully his. But like the king's coronation baptism is the public declaration and crowning glory of the fact that the Christian is the inheritor these promises. And just as the king who one day wakes up and asks himself "Am I really King? Have I really inherited the promise of kingship?" can look back to his coronation and answer "My coronation declares it so" the Christian who doubts whether he really has inherited the promises that are made to him in Christ Jesus can look back to his baptism and answer just as confidently "My baptism declares it so".