A Response To Steve Macias

A very real threat to the body of Christ is the redefinition of biblical terms. We see it with the Dispensationalists when they redefine God's people, we see it with the Emergent crowd when they redefine almost every attribute of God and the Gospel, we see it with the New Perspective on Paul when they redefine justification by faith alone and we also see it with the Federal Vision when they redefine the word Christian (among other terms but here we are concerned with this one term). All these redefinitions  have caused mass confusion in the Church. We do not glorify Christ by allowing these types of problems to persist without dealing with them. These aren't minor issues, they're big ones that have serious consequences if not biblically dealt with. The issue here is the Federal Vision definition of "Christian."

Now this article is in response to Steve Macias (a Federal Visionist) over on his blog found here. His general thesis is straight from Federal Vision playbook. He writes: "A Christian, in another sense, is anyone who has been baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost by an authorized representative of the Christian church." In Federal Vision language this means entrance into the Christian faith is objective, hence baptism. In the words of Doug Wilson, "Membership  in the Christian faith is objective-it can be photographed and fingerprinted" (Reformed Is Not Enough P.21. Found free here.) This is what Mr. Macias is communicating but note what is alarmingly missing is faith. For Mr. Macias faith is something secondary, if needed at all, for one to be a "Christian" by his definition of the word. That is why he can make the claim that "Christians" can go to hell. Now I recognize that he believes the "decreetally elect" will be "covenantally faithful" and repent, believe in Christ and never be lost. Lest I be accused of "straw-manning" him I feel it appropriate to acknowledge it. Yet, his sweeping redefinition of the word "Christian", as applied to the unregenerate Trinitarian baptized person, is just scripturally wrong.

One of his problems is that he is prone to make assertions and then read them back into Scripture. This is seen in his stringing together a list of proof-texts and reading back into them his preconceived ideas (that which is not there also known as eisegesis, the exact opposite of the all important exegesis) especially in the passages of he cited. This is quite astounding given that the Bible nowhere calls anyone apart from repentance from sin and faith in Christ alone a Christian. There is just not one iota of evidence in the Bible to support the idea that anyone apart from faith is a Christian. However, because a string of texts were cited, I will interact with a one to show there is enough doubt with the handling of it to seriously question Mr. Macias' use of the rest.

Romans 6:3-4 was cited and what is assumed is that Paul's mention of baptism in this text is only in reference to water baptism apart from faith. He offered no exegesis of the passage just emphasized the mention of baptism (not quite exactly sure what he is saying since the heading of his paragraph states: "A Christian is an individual who has been baptized." Yet, he seems to be using it as baptism, alone, for assurance?) in verses 3-4. What he fails to account for is how Romans 6 follows what came previously in chapters 1-5 and how they all come together. Unless he is willing to advocate baptismal regeneration (something I believe he denies) his understanding of the text makes no sense. A brief summary of Romans chapters reveals that in chapters 1-3 he is confining all of mankind under sin (both for personal sins committed and on account of our federal head Adam), condemnation and the wrath of God. Starting in 3:21- to the end of chapter 5 the Apostle Paul is declaring how a guilty, condemned sinner can be justified before a perfectly Holy God and this chiefly through the perfect law keeping life and penal substitutionary death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. This acceptance before God is on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ (and Him alone) to be received though faith in Him. In theological terms Christ is the basis for our justification and faith, in Him, is the instrumental cause of our justification. This is what our Reformed fathers held because it's precisely what Paul is teaching in Romans 1-5. Also notice how much Paul is emphasizing faith in Christ for our justification: " For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. For if it is the adherents of the law who are to be the heirs, faith is null and the promise is void. For the law brings wrath, but where there is no law there is no transgression. 
 That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring—not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all..."(Ro 4:13–16).  Note especially the purpose clause in v. 16 ( "in order that") which teaches that justification before God must come through faith for it to be a promise of grace  and in 5:1 he proclaims that his audience have already been justified by faith in Christ. This concept of faith in Christ as a prerequisite for one to be a Christian (although he doesn't use that term) is key to Paul's whole foundation on justification but it is completely lacking in Mr. Macias' exegesis of 6:3-4. He (Steve Macias) seems to be implying that faith can be separated from baptism for one to be indentified as a "Christian." Of course Paul doesn't use the word "Christian" here but it is certainly appropiate to understand he is teaching how one becomes a Christian (it is fitting to acknowledge that he doesn't exclude baptism as no first century Christian would have understood the concept of an un-baptized Christian).

All the previous paragraph to say that Paul has already laid the ground work for reminding the believer that they have been justified by grace, through faith, in Christ alone. He then deals with a forseen objection that if it is all of grace and grace reign's in righteousness (the gift of righteousness) then does that lead to anti-nomianism? He responds with a resounding "by no means!" He answers why a Christian cannot be dominated by a life of sin in verses 2-14 of chapter 6. What I find interesting is that Mr. Macias only quoted v.3-4 which, has a context that he left unotouched, in his presentation of his understanding of those verses! We will get to the issue of why Paul mentions baptism (I concede that it does include water baptism) but first I would like to point out that when he does remind them of their baptism what is true of their baptism is also true of verses 1-11. That is those baptized are dead to sin (v.2), baptized into Christ and his death (v.3), raised with Him and will walk in a newness of life and united to Him in His resurrection (v. 4-5), the old man was crucified and no londer in bondage to sin and will live with Christ (v.6-11). When Paul uses the indicative verb "ἐβαπτίσθημεν" (baptized) he is saying that, for the believer (he's made it clear in chapter 1:6-7 that they are believers) that has been baptized, all those things are a reality, not a potentiality. This puts Mr. Macias in a strange predicament. He believes that anyone baptized, irregardless of faith in Christ, in the Name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit by an "authorized" representative in the Chrsitian church is a Christian (remember he used Romans 6:3-4 as his supporting text). Again, unless he is willing to stake his cards on baptismal regeneration, his position is nonsensical. He has baptized unregenerates experiencing all things mentioned of only a Christian. Is he really saying that a person devoid of faith in Christ, baptized in a Trinitarian formula is really dead to sin, freed from it's bondage and walks in a newness of life in Christ? Yet, that is what Paul says of those believers in their baptism. Or is Steve Macias saying that a person baptized in the Name of the Triune God does have these things but must remain "covenantally faithful" (which would include repenentance, faith and obedience) to keep these realities? Since he has left faith optional for a "Christian" and has used Rom. 6:3-4, he has no third option other than the two mentioned above. I know that he will lament he is being misunderstood or misrepresented but let the reader decide where his assertions and proof-texts lead. How is his position any different than the classic Arminian?

Geerhardus Vos writes this about Romans 6:3-5: " Romans 6:3-5 has nothing to do with the mode of baptism, which is not there under discussion; the subject under discussion is sanctification, not baptism; baptism is introduced into the argument to prove a point about sanctification" (The Westminster Large Catechism:A Commentary).

For the sake of time, I turn to the commentary of Thomas Schreiner on Romans 6:3-4: "Indeed, baptism itself is not the central theme of the text; the main theme is the believer’s participation with the death and resurrection of Christ (cf. Schnackenburg 1964: 58; Frankemölle 1970: 10; Siber 1971: 217). Nonetheless, union with Christ in his death and burial and his resurrection becomes a reality for believers through baptism...The reference to baptism is introduced as a designation for those who are believers in Christ. Since unbaptized Christians were virtually nonexistent, to refer to those who were baptized is another way of describing those who are Christians, those who have put their faith in Christ.  Thus Paul is saying here that all Christians have participated in the death and burial of Christ, for all Christians had received baptism" (Vol. 6: Romans. Baker exegetical commentary on the New Testament (305–306)). 


Now is this only the position of the credobaptist in regards to who is a Christian? Most defintely not. Heidelberg Catechism Q.32 reads: "But why art thou called a Christian?
Answer. Because I am a member of Christ by faith, and thus am partaker of his anointing, that so I may confess his name, and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him: and also, that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life, and afterwards reign with him eternally, over all creatures." 

And one if its authors writes this on his commentary of the HC: "The name Christian, was first given to the disciples of Christ at Antioch, in the time of the Apostles. Prior to this they were called Brethren and Disciples. The name Christian is derived from Christ, and denotes one who is a disciple of Christ—one who follows his doctrine and life, and who, being engrafted into Christ, has communion with him. There are two kinds of Christians; some that are only apparently such; and others that are really and truly such. Those who are Christians merely in appearance, are those who have been baptized, and who are in the company of those who are called, and profess the Christian faith; but are without conversion, being nothing more than hypocrites and dissemblers, of whom it is said: 'Many are called, but few are chosen.' 'Not every one that saith, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven,' &c. (Matt. 20:16; 7:22.) Those are true christians who are not only baptized and profess the doctrine of Christ, but who are also possessed of a true faith, and declare this by the fruits of repentance; or, they are those who are members of Christ by a true faith, and are made partakers of his anointing. All true Christians are such also in appearance, because it is said, 'Let your light so shine before men that they may see your good work, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.' 'Show me thy faith by thy works.' (Matt. 5:16. James 2:18.) But it is not true, on the other hand, that all who are apparently Christians are also such in reality; because it will be said of many, 'I never knew you'” (Matt. 7:23.) ( The Commentary of Dr. Zacharias Ursinus on the Heidelberg Catechism (176–177). 

It is true that Ursinus does recognize two kinds of Christians (I don't disagree with him). The true Christian is baptized and professes faith in Christ and bear fruits in keeping with repentance. The other Christian is the baptized person that professes faith in Christ and are part of local churches or gathering saints but are hypocrites. There is a huge difference between calling a person that professes faith in Christ a "Christian" than calling someone who is just simply baptized with the right formula, regardless of faith, a "Christian." Not only do the Scriptures not agree with Mr. Macias but the confessions he's bound to do not agree with him either! Now I suspect that the same way Mr. Macias reads the Scriptures is the same way he'll read the confessions- reading back into them his own ideas and theological construct.


Time will not permit me to deal with all the passages he used but I do believe that based on his misuse of Romans 6:3-4 it is sufficient enough, on the severity of the error, to call into questions his other understandings of his proof-texts. His arguments aren't new and neither are my answers and obejections. Many books have been written from both sides of the baptism spectrum dealing with this kind of error. I encourage others to read those books written in defense of the historic Christian faith.

On a final note I find it rather silly and confusing, as others have pointed, to claim that assurance of ones "Christianity" is found soley on the "obejectivity of the covenant" in baptism and then turn around and say that not all baptized persons ( "Christians") will end up in the presence of God. How does that assure anyone? And furthermore, it gives sinners false assurance.

I stand with the Apostle Paul: "I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me" (2 Ti 1:12). Christians perish in hell? Away with such a thought! Unbelievers professing faith will perish, yes, but never Christ's people. Soli Deo Gloria


For His Glory,
Fernando