Belgic on Baptism

The Belgic Confession (Article 34) has a simply wonderful statement on baptism: “We believe and confess that Jesus Christ, who is the end of the law, made an end, by the shedding of His blood, of all other shedding of blood which men could or would make as a propitiation or satisfaction for sin and that He, having abolished circumcision, which was done with blood, has instituted the sacrament of baptism instead thereof; by which we are received into the Church of God, and separated from all other people as strange religions, that we may wholly belong to Him whose mark and ensign we bear; and which serves as a testimony to us that He will forever be our gracious God and Father.”

Several observations: First, the whole statement is set within an old/new context, just what one needs to do sacramental theology. Second, the ecclesiological import of baptism is highlighted – “received into the Church of God” – and the “political” dimension too, in the separation from other people and strange religions. Third, the accent in the last clauses is on the claim that baptism makes on us, or more precisely, the claim God makes in baptism. That turns many common understandings inside out: What matters is not what I come to possess in baptism, but the fact that I am possessed; not the benefits received, but that I am claimed by my faithful Savior Jesus. The primary thing about baptism is not how the baptized responds but the fact that the Triune God laid a “mark and ensign” on the baptized, calling him to “bear” it.

That emphasis helps us grasp the logic of infant baptism: In infant baptism, God places His mark and name on the infant, regardless of the fact that the infant has no faith. It also helps us grasp what effect baptism has on those who eventually fall away: The reprobate and eventual apostate received the mark and ensign of baptism, and they belong to Jesus. To turn from Him, then, is to steal what God claims, to steal His property. Apostasy is not a common thing reverting to commonness. Apostasy profanes a holy thing, something claimed by God. Apostasy is sacrilege.

Fourth, the statement leave little room for the kind of dualism that infects some Protestant statements on baptism. The Thirty-Nine Articles state the effect of baptism in a “not only . . . but also” format – not only badges or token of profession, but also signs of grace. The Belgic is cleaner, smoother, insofar as it implies that baptism is a sign of grace precisely in marking us and claiming us as God’s possession. It doesn’t fall into a nature-grace dualism: “not only a sign of inclusion in the visible society of the church but also a sign of grace.” Rather, inclusion in the visible society is the effectual sign of grace.

Which leads, finally, that last wonderful statement: Baptism testifies that God is our gracious Father. Baptism doesn’t place the baptized neutrally in a covenantal structure. Baptism is a pledge and testimony, and a necessarily truthful one, of the Father’s gracious regard for us. (Begone, Klineans!) If the baptized turns away, he turns away not from a faceless unknown God, but from the Father who claimed him.