Some see these views as a cop out but I am not so sure. The Lutherans use of ministerial reason vs the Reformed use of magisterial reason seems more in accord with the whole of scripture and its paradox. They seem more willing to accept the paradox than the Reformed who must have it make logical sense. I am not opposed to logic, nor are Lutherans, inasmuch as that logic doesn’t supplant revelation.

Both stances are admirable. Which is correct? Which accepts the full weight of the texts without trying to pigeon hole it into a system? I am not settled, yet I find the Lutheran view more scripturally compelling at the moment. Regarding baptism and the Supper, I find the NT witness to be much more soteriological than their typological counters of circumcision and passover meal. I do not see a one to one identification in their meaning. The witness of the NT seems much more substantive.The Reformed is compelling from a more watertight theological system but I am not so sure our systems must make anymore sense than the revealed truths of the Trinity or the hypostatic union do to be valid.

Michial,

Baptism is a tricky subject. I’ve been seriously wrestling with it for around 15 years. Don’t give up. Keep studying the texts of scripture and reading good theological literature. I want to commend to you The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century by Hughes Oliphant Old. That book really helped me to understand the Reformed doctrine of baptism.

I think it’s important to remember that when Paul treats the subject of baptism in his letters, faith is often presupposed even he may not explicitly mention faith. In other words, when Paul explains the efficacy of baptism, he’s considering the efficacy of the sacrament when faith is present. Presbyterians believe that a child can be baptized prior to faith, but we do not believe that baptism conveys any saving benefits apart from faith.

The efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of its administration. The administration of the rite may be separated in time (and often is) from the saving efficacy of the right. There is a connection between the baptism of an elect person and his regeneration, but those two things might be separated in time.

If a non-elect infant is baptized, he becomes a member of the visible church, even though he will never be regenerated by the Spirit. Our doctrine of baptism is inseparable from our doctrine of the church. We make a distinction between the visible and invisible church. Baptism makes us members of the visible church, and as a member of the church, we are numbered among God’s holy people.

However, not every member of the visible church is an elect person. Not every member of the visible church is or will be regenerate. Non-elect members of the visible church will not be regenerated and will not, therefore, persevere in faith. Their baptism does not secure their salvation, so a baptized person (though a member of the visible church) may be lost. That’s what texts like Heb. 6 and 1 Cor. 10 have in mind.

The people of Israel who were delivered from slavery in Egypt were all baptized into Moses (a typological parallel for baptism into Christ); they all ate the same Spiritual food and drank the same Spiritual drink. Nevertheless, God was not pleased with most of them. They perished in the wilderness (never making it to the promised land) because of their idolatry.

Paul uses that story in 1 Cor. 10 to warn the Christians at Corinth to flee from idolatry. If they fail to do so, they may suffer the same fate as their forefathers. I.e. they cannot rely on their baptisms to save them. They must persevere in faith if they are to be saved.

Cullmann was in the Lutheran tradition.