Baptism, Conversion, And Grace Reflections On The Underlying Realities Between Pentecostals, Methodists, And Catholics

Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

Baptism, Conversion, and Grace: Reﬂ ections on the

“Underlying Realities” Between Pentecostals,

Methodists, and Catholics

Dale M. Coulter

Regent University School of Divinity, Virginia Beach, VA 23464, USA

Abstract

The past four decades of dialogue between Methodists and Catholics as well as Pentecostals and Catholics reveal a shared soteriological substructure between each communion that is grounded in pneumatology. This article explores the shared substructure in order to point out the inherent tensions it raises with respect to baptism and conversion and then oﬀ er a possible solution as a way to advance the dialogues. The initial claim being made is that a tension exists in each communion between their commitment to the prevenient activity of the Spirit and their com- mitment to the sanctifying activity of the Spirit. This tension points toward a need for greater clarity on the modalities of the Spirit’s presence in conversion. By reﬂ ecting on these modali- ties, a second claim is made that Pentecostals, Catholics, and Methodists may ﬁ nd agreement on the bestowal of the Spirit in infant baptism or infant dedication as part of the conversion process for those whose physical birth places them within the family of believers. The speciﬁ c point of agreement would center on the Spirit’s bestowal of the “will for faith” as a particular manifestation of sanctifying grace that serves to separate infants within the church from those outside the church who, nevertheless, still beneﬁ t from the Spirit’s prevenient activity.

Keywords

infant baptism, pneumatology, grace, Pentecostal/Catholic dialogues, Methodist/Catholic dialogues

Although with diﬀ erent aims, the respective dialogues between the Catholic Church and Methodists, on the one hand, and the Catholic Church and Pen- tecostals, on the other, have made signiﬁ cant progress. Any casual perusal of the ﬁ nal reports given over the past four decades reveals the fruitfulness from the, at times, demanding tasks the committees set before them. The texts bespeak the courage of the participants, no doubt grounded in their faith, hope, and mutual bonds of charity, which one would be remiss not to acknowledge.

190

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

The task of unearthing the “underlying realities on which our churches are founded” that brackets the Methodist/Catholic dialogues serves as a method- ological guide to an important dimension of ecumenical dialogue that ﬁ nds its echo in the serendipitous, and no less providential, discoveries in the Catho- lic/Pentecostal dialogue that “in reality, what unites us is far greater than what divides us.”1 As these same participants would themselves acknowledge, chal- lenges to union or mutual understanding remain, and in the interest of the “continuing development of faith”2 to which the Spirit gives birth amidst such dialogues, it is prudent at this juncture to assess this progress and oﬀ er a pro- posal that may point toward further agreement.

With due consideration to the unresolved issues that remain between these respective groups, a close reading of the ﬁ nal reports underscores a deep bond of kinship that reveals itself in a shared soteriological substructure enunciated through a carefully articulated pneumatology. Indeed, close attention to the pneumatology presented in these documents illumines the “underlying reali- ties” that connect each communion to the other in fundamental ways. The connection between pneumatology, sanctiﬁ cation, and the call to holiness at the center of the spiritualities of each tradition suggests a shared soteriological synergism that conceives of salvation as participation in the triune life through the liberating eﬀ ects of the Spirit. Inherent to this synergism is an emphasis on a via salutis punctuated by events that propel each stage of a transformational process. It is this common emphasis on the Spirit’s sanctifying and charismatic activity that provides a shared soteriological substructure even if Catholics, Pentecostals, and Methodists tease out its implications in very diverse ways. Out of this substructure all parties may ﬁ nd the theological resources to dis-

Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, Evangelization, Proselytism and Common Witness, Report from the Fourth Phase of the International Dialogue Between Roman Catholic Church and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1997, http://prounione.urbe.it/ dia-int/pe-rc/doc/e_pe-rc_pent04.html (accessed Feb. 27, 2008) (hereafter EPC, 1997), §130; Joint Commission Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, Growth in Understanding, Dublin Report, 1976, http://prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/m-rc/ doc/e_m-rc_dublin.html (accessed Feb. 5, 2008) (hereafter Dublin Report, 1976), §17; Joint Commission Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, The Grace Given You in Christ, Seoul Report, 2006, http://prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/m-rc/doc/ e_m-rc_seoul.html (accessed Feb. 5, 2008) (hereafter Seoul Report, 2006), §97.

Joint Commission Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Coun- cil, The Word of Life. A Statement on Revelation and Faith , Rio de Janeiro Report, 1996, http:// prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/m-rc/doc/e_m-rc_rio.html (accessed Feb. 5, 2008) (hereafter Rio Report, 1996), §45

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

191

cover new syntheses that better express their own doctrinal heritage even while leading them closer to the realization of Jesus’ high-priestly prayer for unity.

On the basis of the ﬁ nal reports from both dialogues, I wish to return to the shared soteriological substructure between each communion in order to point out the inherent tensions it raises with respect to baptism and conversion and then to oﬀ er a possible solution as a way to advance the dialogues. More spe- ciﬁ cally, the argument is that a tension exists in each communion between their commitment to the prevenient activity of the Spirit and their commit- ment to the sanctifying activity of the Spirit. This tension points toward a need for greater clarity on the modalities of the Spirit’s presence in conversion. It may be that by reﬂ ecting on these modalities, Pentecostals, Catholics, and Methodists can ﬁ nd agreement on the bestowal of the Spirit in infant baptism or infant dedication as part of the conversion process for those whose physical birth places them within the family of believers. The speciﬁ c point of agree- ment would center on the Spirit’s bestowal of the “will for faith” as a manifes- tation of sanctifying grace that separates infants within the church from those outside the church who, nevertheless, still beneﬁ t from the Spirit’s prevenient activity. The article proceeds ﬁrst by delineating the common soteriological substructure, then establishing the tension between prevenient and sanctifying grace, and ﬁ nally, oﬀ ering a proposal to bring each communion together.

Pneumatology and a Soteriological Substructure

The shared soteriological substructure unfolds through a number of points that emerge as one follows the ﬁ nal reports’ chronological development. While pneumatology functions as the foundational pillar of the substructure, it arches out into several shared emphases. In brief, the shared emphases are: (1) salva- tion concerns a participation (koinonia) in the triune life of God through the regenerating activity of the Spirit; (2) salvation also concerns a liberation or deliverance from sin; (3) the ultimate goal of salvation remains the complete transformation of the person and the created order, which underscores the priority of sanctiﬁ cation as a theological model for conversion; (4) the priority of grace is understood as the prior activity of the Spirit in bringing about conversion; (5) there needs to be cooperation on the part of the individual in order to complete the process of conversion; and (6) a connection exists between personal faith and ecclesial faith. Each of these will brieﬂ y be expanded upon in order to get a clear glimpse of the substructure.

192

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

As corollaries of each other the initial two commitments mutually reinforce each other. The early phases of the Catholic/Methodist dialogue deﬁ ned salva- tion negatively as deliverance from 1) the constant threat of the failure of the means of survival, 2) the wretchedness of mere subsistence, and 3) the anxiet- ies arising from human life that material goods cannot remove.3 The work of Jesus answers this need for deliverance by releasing “the people from captivity to the powers of evil, sin and death and to heal their suﬀ ering and wounds.”

4 Pentecostals and Catholics both agree that the proclamation of the gospel is necessary “for the liberation of humanity from sin and the attainment of salva- tion” and that “deliverance from oppression and domination of the ‘princi- palities and powers,’ including exorcism in certain cases, is an important part of Gospel proclamation.”5 The purpose of this deliverance is to share in the koinonia of God’s own life and the ground of this sharing is the Spirit who decisively liberates persons.6

At the heart of this general conception of salvation is the sanctifying activity of the Spirit. The pursuit of holiness and its end in the perfection of the human person anchors all three traditions. In the Denver Report, Methodists and Catholics began with this important dimension of their respective bodies as a “vast area of agreement.”7 Despite the diﬀ erences between Wesleyan/Holiness and Keswick streams of Pentecostalism “advocates agreed that personal sancti- ﬁ cation and lives of holiness were serious matters.”

Moreover, sanctiﬁ cation extends beyond the individual to the entire created order in all of its dimen- sions. T us there is continuity in God’s activity between humans and the rest

Dublin Report, 1976, §13.

Rio Report, 1996, §77. The report continues that Jesus “set those free who were possessed by evil spirits and released those who suﬀ ered from guilt and alienation.”

EPC, 1997, §24. See also Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, On Becoming a Christian: Insights from Scripture and the Patristic Writings, Report of the Fifth Phase of the International Dialogue Between Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders and the Catholic Church, 2006 (hereafter OBC, 2006), §§153, 159, in which Pentecostals and Catholics both state that conversion “involves turning from sin and deliverance from evil.

Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, Perspectives on Koinonia, Report from the T ird Quinquennium of the Dialogue Between the Pontiﬁ cal Council for Promoting Christian Unity and Some Classical Pentecostal Churches and Leaders, 1989, http://prounione.urbe.it/ dia-int/pe-rc/doc/e_pe-rc_pent03.html (accessed Feb. 27, 2008) (hereafter PK, 1989), §70.

Joint Commission Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Coun- cil, Christian Home and Family, Denver Report, 1971, http://prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/ m-rc/doc/e_m-rc_denver.html (accessed Feb. 1, 2008) (hereafter Denver Report, 1971), §50. See also §7.

OBC, 2006, §252.

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

193

of creation.9 The healing of the body, acts of mercy, and sanctiﬁ cation of the elements all underscore the transformation of creation.

The ﬁ nal three points of agreement deal with how the Spirit brings about transformation in the life of the person. It is striking that justiﬁ cation only makes an appearance once in both sets of dialogues.10 Instead, the focus has concerned conversion as transformative event and process and the role the church plays in that process. Even though there is fundamental agreement that “God’s grace operates in advance of our conscious awareness,” at the center of the process is a soteriological synergism that all three communions strongly afirm.

Referring back to the controversy over the relationship between grace and human freedom during the Reformation, the Seoul Report states that “Methodists believe, as Catholics do, that we truly cooperate with God’s grace and participate in God’s life.”12 In many ways, this statement summarizes a concern to articulate a clear stand on “graced participation” that occurs in the Methodist/Catholic dialogues.13 Such participation requires an “expectancy” in which the individual earnestly seeks the Spirit or a faith that tirelessly works itself out in love, becoming fruitful in good works.14 Ultimately because of the synergism, believers can always fail to discern the Spirit and even the spiritual “instinct” they might develop does not preserve them from error, which is why the church must shape their consciences and guide them in the pursuit of holi- ness.15 What one can discern in these emphases is a common soteriological substructure with its focus on the regenerating and sanctifying activity of the Spirit.

See EPC, 1997, §40.

Joint Commission Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Coun- cil, Authority, Moral Decisions, Marriage, Honolulu Report, 1981, http://prounione.urbe. it/dia-int/m-rc/doc/e_m-rc_honolulu.html (accessed Feb. 5, 2008) (hereafter Honolulu Report, 1981), §§13, 15.

Pentecostal-Roman Catholic Dialogue, Understanding of Both Traditions in T eir Confes- sional Identities, Dialogue Between the Secretariat for Promoting Christian Unity and Some Classic Pentecostals, 1976, http://prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/doc/e_pe-rc_pent01.html (accessed Feb. 27, 2008) (hereafter Final Report, 1976), §23.

Seoul Report, 2006, §123.

See Denver Report, 1971, §55; Joint Commission Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Council, Teaching the Truth in Love: Teaching Authority Among Catho- lics and Methodists, Brighton Report, 2001, http://prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/m-rc/doc/e_ m-rc_brighton.html (accessed Feb. 5, 2008) (hereafter Brighton Report, 2001), §52.

See Final Report, 1976, §40.

On the relationship between conscience and the church, see Denver Report, 1971, §104; Honolulu Report, 1981, §§43-44.

194

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

Tensions Between Prevenient and Sanctifying Grace

In light of the common substructure, it is possible to begin to make connec- tions about the relationship between baptism and Christian initiation that may provide a way forward for Pentecostals, Catholics, and Methodists. When one considers that virtually every ﬁ nal report of the Pentecostal/Catholic dia- logue addresses the topic of water baptism and its relation to the process of conversion as well as the implicit tensions between a Methodist and a Catholic notion of prevenience and water baptism, the importance of the topic for both dialogues becomes apparent. T ere are two shared theological commitments that form the basis for a discussion of the topic: (1) conversion involves con- scious awareness of the workings of grace precisely because cooperation cannot occur apart from it; (2) the workings of grace precede this conscious awareness and give rise to it.16 Tese two commitments create theological dificulties for each communion’s distinctive approaches to conversion and thus oﬀ er stimu- lus for further theological reﬂ ection.

T rough a comparison of three sets of statements that appear throughout the dialogues, the dificulties will emerge. The ﬁrst set concerns faith as involv- ing conscious awareness and its necessity for synergism. Methodists and Catho- lics together afirm that “the Holy Spirit is present and active within us through the entire experience of conversion which begins with an awareness of God’s goodness and an experience of shame and guilt” (my emphasis).17 T us faith “involves assent to the truths of the Gospel” because the act of belief is “insep- arably a free act and an attitude of grateful reception of God’s grace and revela- tion and of self-commitment to the living Lord.”18 Pentecostals fundamentally agree with these statements when they assert the necessity of a “conscious faith response,” but they see this conscious response as a precondition for baptism rather than ﬂ owing from baptism.

In dialogue with the Pentecostal claim, Catholics point out that a “later personal appropriation, or acceptance, of one’s baptism is an absolute necessity,” which no doubt encompasses a con-

See Honolulu Report, 1981, §§13, 23; Final Report, 1976, §23; PK, 1989, §§43, 45, 47, 48; OBC, 2006, §§40, 49, 60, 140.

Honolulu Report, 1981, §13. See also §23, which speaks of “faith’s awareness of the Holy Spirit’s initiative.”

Joint Commission Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Coun- cil, The Apostolic Tradition , Paris (Singapore) Report, 1986, http://prounione.urbe.it/ dia-int/m-rc/doc/e_m-rc_paris.html (accessed Feb. 5, 2008) (hereafter Paris Report, 1986), 1991, §39; Rio Report, 1996, §31.

PK, 1989, §§45, 47. See also EPC, 1997, §13, in which Pentecostals emphasize “a per- sonal, conscious acceptance and conversion of an individual.”

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

195

scious awareness of the presence of grace in one’s life.20 The most recent Catholic/Pentecostal dialogue ﬁ nds common ground by dealing with con- scious encounters under the topic of religious experience, which faith “norms” or gives birth to.21 Tese statements converge on the conscious appropriation of the ﬁ des quae as a necessary part of conversion.

The second set of statements concerns the universal activity of the Spirit in humanity. On the basis of their doctrinal commitment to prevenience, Catho- lics and Methodists both afirm that the Spirit is at work in non-Christians even if this action is “mysterious” and “hidden.”22 Indeed, it is this appeal to prevenience that underscores the theological principle that grace precedes and gives rise to faith in all cases. Together Pentecostals and Catholics agree “that the Holy Spirit prepares individuals and peoples for the reception of the Gospel, despite the fallen condition of humankind.”23 In addition, this prepa- ration occurs in the realm of conscience through which the Spirit “convicts,” although Pentecostals remain uneasy about asserting the Spirit’s activity in other religions. For all, the Spirit is preveniently at work within the created order drawing all humans to Christ.

The ﬁ nal set of statements concern the nature of baptism as a sacrament, that is, a guaranteed means of grace. In the Nairobi Report, Catholics and Methodists afirm that baptism initiates “the individual into the koinonia of the church” and that sacraments are “eﬀ ective signs” that produce the fruit of sanctiﬁ cation in the life of the individual. It is important to note that at this stage of the dialogue Methodists registered a concern over the eficacy of bap- tism in infants while joining with Catholics in afirming that the ﬁ nal perse- verance of the baptized person is by no means certain.24 This concern seems to remain for Methodists throughout subsequent reports although later state- ments remain somewhat ambiguous. For example, Methodists agree with Catholics that baptism is “a sign of that new life which the Father gives us through Christ in the Spirit” and then subsequently deﬁ ne the new life as a life of love and a sharing in the inner life of God. Tese commitments, however, follow a paragraph in which faith is deﬁ ned as “assent to the truths of the

PK, 1989, §48.

OBC, 2007, §§139-141.

Honolulu Report, 1981, §14; Paris Report, 1991, §32.

EPC, 1997, §§20-21.

Joint Commission Between the Roman Catholic Church and the World Methodist Coun- cil, Towards a Statement of the Church, Nairobi Report, 1986, http://prounione.urbe.it/ dia-int/m-rc/doc/e_m-rc_nairobi.html (accessed Feb. 5, 2008) (hereafter Nairobi Report, 1986), §§12-16 and endnotes pertaining to those paragraphs.

196

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

Gospel,” which could imply a need for personal faith.25 The strongest state- ment on baptism asserts that it is “an action of God by which the baptized begin their life with Christ the Redeemer and participate in his death and resurrection. As Christ is received in faith, original sin is erased, sins are for- given, the baptized are justiﬁ ed in the eyes of God and become a new cre- ation.”26 While this statement could register agreement on the regenerating work of the Spirit in baptism, ambiguity surrounds the meaning of Christ being received in faith. Is this personal faith or ecclesial faith?

The ambiguity for Methodists may arise from the constant tension between their emphasis on prevenient grace and their acceptance of baptismal grace. One can detect it in a number of early Methodist theologians. In his debate with Reformed thinkers, John Fletcher articulates a justiﬁ cation of infants that he grounds in the prevenient activity of the Spirit, which automatically bestows forgiveness for original sin on all infants and brings grace to the conscience, thereby preparing them for heaven.27 Francis Asbury explicitly grounds the practice of infant baptism in a universal bestowal of the Spirit.28 Wesley him- self clearly locates the initial awakening of conscience in “preventing” grace that leads the person to conscious conversion. Attempting to articulate a dif- ference between the Spirit’s prevenient presence in the created order and the Spirit’s regenerating presence in baptism presents dificulties for these theolo- gians. What is the modality of grace that might diﬀ erentiate one from the other? Indeed, Wesley’s own practical approach to theology prevents him from oﬀ ering any close analysis, preferring instead simply to call for the conversion of the baptized individual who no longer displays any signs of grace. He states,

Paris Report, 1991, §40.

Rio Report, 1996, §§100-101.

John Fletcher, “T ird Check to Antinomianism,” in The Works of the Reverend John Fletcher , vol. 1 (Salem, OH: Schmul Publishers, 1974), 160-62. Also see “Fourth Check to Antionomian- ism,” in Works of Fletcher, vol. 1, 283-84, where he talks about the justiﬁ cation of infants on the basis of preventing grace. Justiﬁ cation by faith comes from those who reach the age where they can exercise belief. Also, “The Fictitious and Genuine Creed,” Preface.5, in Works of Fletcher, vol. 1, 399, in which Fletcher asserts that the only kind of irresistible grace is that applied to infants in their infancy. Infants who die before the age of accountability are “irresistibly saved.” according to Fletcher.

Francis Asbury, The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury 1794-1816 , vol. 2, ed. E. T. Clark, J. M. Potts, and J. S. Payton (London and Nashville: Abingdon and Epworth, 1958), 369. In answer to the question of who should be baptized, Asbury states, “men, women, children, and infants. . . .The claim of children, it was stated, arose out of the general love and benevolence of God, and the general and universal inﬂ uences of the Spirit.”

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

197

This beginning of that vast, inward change, is usually termed, the new birth. Baptism is the outward sign of this inward grace, which is supposed by our Church to be given with and through that sign to all infants, and to those of riper years, if they repent and believe the gospel. But how extremely idle are the common disputes on this head! I tell a sinner, “You must be born again.” “No,” say you: “He was born again in baptism. T erefore he cannot be born again now.” Alas, what triﬂ ing is this! What, if he was then a child of God? He is now manifestly a child of the devil; for the works of his father he doeth. T erefore, do not play upon words. He must go through an entire change of heart. In one not yet baptized, you yourself would call that change, the new birth. In him, call it what you will; but remember, meantime, that if either he or you die without it, your baptism will be so far from proﬁ ting you, that it will greatly increase your damnation.29

Wesley’s desire not to dispute over the precise location of the new birth while calling all, baptized and unbaptized, to be born again, clearly indicates the conceptual dificulty of articulating the Spirit’s presence in infant baptism in relationship to prevenience and conversion.30 It is this tension that seems to be behind a reluctance on the part of some Methodists to assert unequivocally the regenerating activity of the Spirit in infant baptism.

In its statement on baptism adopted in 1996, “By Water & the Spirit,” the General Conference of the United Methodist Church sought to recover the sacramental understanding of water baptism and redress the imbalance between evangelicalism and sacramentalism within Methdodism.31 In the section that addresses infant baptism, the document begins by claiming that baptism is a sign of God’s saving grace, which is experienced as “initiating, enabling, and empowering,” and is the same grace for both infants and adults. The subse- quent paragraph, however, contains the statement that “infant baptism rests ﬁ rmly on the understanding that God prepares the way of faith before we request or even know that we need help (prevenient grace).” T is statement echoes Asbury’s own theological rationale for infant baptism. In the conclusion

John Wesley, “A Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion,” I.5, in The Works of John Wesley, vol. 11, ed. Gerald R. Cragg (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989), 107.

See also Ted Campbell, “Conversion and Baptism in Wesleyan Spirituality,” in Conversion in the Wesleyan Tradition, ed. Kenneth J. Collins and John H. Tyson (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 2001), 160-74. Campbell surveys the struggle between Catholic and evangelical elements within Wesley’s thinking and its outworking in Methodism. He notes that the uneasy tension between evangelical conversion and sacramental grace continues in contemporary Methodism as a debate between evangelical and Catholic spiritualities (172-73).

This was the intention of the Committee to Study Baptism as given in the introduction to “By Water & the Spirit.” See “By Water & the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of Baptism,” at the General Board of Discipleship of the United Methodist Church, http:// gbod.org/worship/articles/water_spirit/ (accessed August 15, 2008).

198

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

to her account of the struggle over how best to understand baptism within American Methodism, Gaye Carlton Felton registers agreement with the doc- ument, stating, “Baptism is the quintessential celebration of the prevenient grace of God which was so foundational to Wesley’s entire theology. . . . God’s love precedes each child into life and in baptism claims that child as God’s precious one. . . .”32 Given that prevenient grace is a particular manifestation of God’s saving grace in Wesleyan thought, it is unclear what speciﬁ c working of grace occurs in the baptized infant (prevenient or sanctifying).33 A later state- ment that an unbaptized child who dies “is received into the love and presence of God because the Spirit has worked in that child to bestow saving grace” obscures even more the distinctions between prevenient and sanctifying grace as two manifestations of saving grace. Both the baptized and the unbaptized infant are the recipients of God’s saving grace because of the universality of prevenient grace. Without further explanation as to the diﬀ erence between the “saving grace” received by the baptized infant and the “saving grace” that the unbaptized infant receives the document falls short of the intention of its authors to explicate how baptism involves the regenerating activity of the Spirit. In claiming that infant baptism “rests” upon the Spirit’s prevenient activity, the statement retains a tension between prevenient grace and baptis- mal grace.

When one turns to Catholic theology, the same tension emerges. As a Pentecostal, let me oﬀ er a brief summary of the Catholic Catechism’s under- standing of the sacrament of baptism and its relationship to the process of con- version. As a sacrament, it is a guaranteed transmission of the regenerating activity of the Spirit to the candidate (adult or infant).34 It also shares with other sacraments the designation “of faith,” which presupposes the Word of

Gaye Carlton Felton, This Gift of Water: The Practice and T eology of Baptism Among Meth- odists in America (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1992), 178.

Although “By Water & the Spirit,” does not invoke all the forms of grace, it should also be noted that following Wesley Methodists distinguish between prevenient, justifying, and sanc- tifying grace. Justifying grace refers to the reconciling activity of God through the remission of sins. One can ﬁ nd this distinction in various oficial publications of the United Methodist Church. For example, see Steven W. Manskar, Opening Ourselves to Grace: The Basics of Christian Discipleship (General Board of Discipleship, 2005), at the General Board of Discipleship of the United Methodist Church, http://gbod.org/homepage/new_home/mog/page_1.htm (accessed August 15, 2008); Kenneth L. Carder, Who Are We?: Doctrine, Ministry, and the Mission of the United Methodist Church, Leader’s Guide (Nashville, TN: United Methodist Publishing House, 1998), 42-50; Ted A. Campbell, Methodist Doctrine: The Essentials (Nashville, TN: Abingdon, 1999), 53-63.

Catechism of the Catholic Church (New York: Doubleday, 1995), §§1127-1128, 1213, 1262 (hereafter CCC).

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

199

God and the ﬁ des qua or assent to this Word.

Since this assent cannot be made apart from the Church, who transmits the faith, it requires assent to the ﬁ des quae and thus always presupposes a communal context. Baptism holds a special place among the sacraments “of faith,” however, because it marks the entry into the “life of faith.” T rough the regenerating activity of the Spirit, forgiveness is granted and realized in an interior cleansing that breaks the dominion of original and personal sins. This work of deliverance has its coun- terpart in the creation of a child of God, a new creation who partakes of God’s own life, thereby binding the candidate to the koinonia of the Church. Finally, although mortal sin attacks and destroys sanctifying grace, excluding the per- son from the kingdom by its presence, it does not remove the “indelible mark” or seal of the Spirit that baptism communicates.36 For the infan t, baptism inau- gurates the life of faith by bestowing sanctifying grace and thus infuses faith and charity.

Along side this commitment to baptism, the Catholic Church also shares an emphasis on the Spirit’s universal activity. Since Vatican II, this emphasis has prompted a diﬀ erent nuance to emerge in the theology of the sacrament of baptism. One no longer ﬁ nds a clear indication that unbaptized infants stand outside of grace. Instead, the Catholic Church makes two simultaneous con- fessions: (1) that it knows no other way to assure entry into eternal beatitude than by baptism; (2) that it entrusts unbaptized children to the mercy of God and hopes that all children who die apart from baptism will ﬁ nd salvation.

37 Tese simultaneous confessions intimate that the Catholic Church recognizes the tension and opens up the possibility for renewed dialogue on the topic.

While the tension arises within Catholic and Methodist thought between sanctifying grace and prevenient grace, Pentecostals, for their part, must probe more deeply into the meaning of infant dedication. More speciﬁ cally, given their fundamental acceptance of prevenience and their act of consecration and prayers for blessing with respect to the dedicated child, they need to dis- cern theologically what the practice implies. It is clear that the Pentecostal community’s prayers embody the desire that the child be brought to the con- scious awareness of faith, but how does the community understand God’s activity in realizing this request? If the Spirit is already active in the lives of all children, is not the community asking for some special intervention on the part of the Spirit in the life of the dedicated child? What form might this

CCC, §§1122-1123. 36

CCC, §§1855-1856, 1861. 37

CCC, §§1257, 1261.

200

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

special intervention take? Is there an internal consecration by the Spirit that corresponds to the prayers of the community such that Pentecostals can at least call dedication a means of grace? Since the Pentecostal participants in the third dialogue with the Catholic Church afirm that “the grace of God is active in the life of the infant and that God takes the initiative in the life of children and adults,” the answer would seem to be that they can.38 Given the emphasis on synergism and salvation as a sanctifying process — a via salutis — Pente- costals need not worry about dedication “mediating” salvation insofar as salva- tion broadly construed refers to the entire process of transformation that cannot be reducible to any single event. In its own way, Pentecostal theology reveals the challenges to which Pentecostal pneumatological commitments lead.

Prevenient Grace, Sanctifying Grace, and a Possible Way Forward

What I want to do is explore the inherent tensions between reception of bap- tismal grace, prevenience, and conscious awareness of the presence of grace, which is required for synergism. The point here is to ask what the nature of sanctifying grace is in the infant and how its presence diﬀ ers from actual grace in prevenience. Before addressing the nature of sanctifying grace in relation to prevenient grace as two modalities, a more precise articulation of the primary purpose of infant baptism may help remove an initial obstacle to agreement. When one reads the Catholic and Methodist comments about infant baptism, the accent normally falls on the regenerating activity of the Spirit (sanctifying grace) rather than on forgiveness of sins. Since infants do not possess actual sins, forgiveness in infant baptism could only relate to original sin. The Cath- olic Catechism says nothing explicitly about the forgiveness of sins when it makes statements that directly address infant baptism as opposed to general statements about baptism. Instead, the accent always falls on the bestowal of new life through the regenerating activity of the Spirit.

This is not to make a

PK, 1989, §46.

See CCC §§1250-1252, 1257, 1261. In reference to infants, the Catechism says that “they too have need of new birth.” It is only the section entitled “The Grace of Baptism” that mentions forgiveness of sins, not with respect to infants. The section states, “By Baptism all sins are for- given, original sin and all personal sins, as well as all punishment for sin. In those who have been reborn nothing remains that would impede their entry into the Kingdom of God, neither Adam’s sin, nor personal sin, nor the consequences of sin, the gravest of which is separation from God” (§1263; see also §1279 where a similar summary statement is given). The primary concern of this statement is to reiterate Trent’s concern contra Luther, as the subsequent paragraph makes clear (§1264), to underscore that the presence of concupiscentia does not prevent entry into God’s kingdom because concupiscentia is not sin in the strict sense.

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

201

strong assertion about what the Catholic Church teaches regarding original guilt in the transmission of original sin, but to signal a change in the presenta- tion of its transmission with respect to the baptism of infants and suggest that this may provide an opportunity for dialogue.40 If the accent falls on regenera- tion and puriﬁ cation in the Catholic Catechism, it would seem possible to oﬀ er an interpretation of infant baptism that sees the intention behind the statements of the Council of Florence and the Council of Trent regarding forgiveness of original and actual sin as attempting to articulate those two central elements.41 Hence the two principal eﬀ ects of infant baptism would remain: (1) regeneration and renewal; (2) puriﬁ cation from sins.

It is only the North African tradition with its powerful bishop, Augustine of Hippo, that presupposes original guilt that must be forgiven in infant baptism. T is perspective is not shared by the Eastern theologians of the church, whose focus remains on original sin as an inherited defect that must be cured.43 For this reason, it is unfortunate that the section on conversion and Christian initia- tion in the most recent ﬁ nal report of the Catholic/Pentecostal dialogue does not deal with the relationship between original sin and corporate guilt in

One of the issues that would need to be addressed in a fuller presentation of this claim is how the Catholic Church could maintain its emphasis on continuities between the baptism of infants and adults. This is what also stands behind the assertion that “all sins are forgiven” in CCC §1264. The question is whether it is necessary to assert that in every instance baptism is always “for the remission of sins.” It may be that the baptism of infants is for the puriﬁ cation of sin so that “nothing remains that would impede” entry into the Kingdom of God (CCC §1263). However, this is a matter for Catholic theologians to take up in the course of ecumenical dialogue.

In its discussion of original sin, the Catechism states, “Although it is proper to each indi- vidual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice. . . . Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back toward God. . . .” (§405). The impersonal pronoun it refers to original sin, thus signaling that “original sin” as a whole is proper to each person. The paragraph next explains original sin in terms of its Anselmian deﬁ nition of a deprivation of original justice but nowhere explicitly uses the term guilt. For the statements of the Council of Florence see Norman Tanner, ed., Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 1: Nicaea I to Lateran V (London: Sheed & Ward and Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 453. For the statements of the Council of Trent see N. Tanner, Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, vol. 2: Trent to Vatican II (London: Sheed & Ward and Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 666, 667.

This is precisely the language of the Catechism. See §1262: “T us the two principal eﬀ ects are puriﬁ cation from sins and new birth in the Holy Spirit.”

In a joint statement on sacramental teaching, the Old Catholic and Eastern Orthodox claim similarity between infants and adults on the basis of the common operation of divine grace. See Growth in Agreement II, ed. Jeﬀ rey Gros, Harding Meyer, and William G. Rusch (Geneva: WCC Publications, 2000), 256.

202

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

baptism and how it emerged from the North African tradition.44 Later in the document one ﬁ nds a richer examination of the patristic texts with a conscious eye to geographical diﬀ erences and the local traditions that emerge from them.45 If there is a common mind, a consenus ﬁ delium , on infant baptism, in early Christianity it would seem to be centered on the regenerating activity of the Spirit, not forgiveness of corporate guilt.

Secondly, infant baptism, as with all sacraments, emerges from the shared soteriological substructure that itself is grounded in pneumatology. In the Catholic/Methodist dialogue the broadening of the sacramental life to encom- pass “sacramentals” or other means of grace highlights this point.46 The Cath- olic understanding that sacraments are the primary dispensers of grace rather than the exclusive dispensers points back to the pneumatological substructure. Even though the sacraments are a guaranteed means of grace by virtue of the covenant Christ establishes to be with his church until the end, Catholics and Methodists also afirm the existence of numerous “means of grace” that the Spirit may employ, which would include works of mercy, the sign of the cross, and so forth.47 This explicit acknowledgment indicates the pneumatological underpinning to the church’s existence without which the realization of the covenant expressed in baptism could not occur. It is the Spirit of Christ who recapitulates Christ in believers. Sacraments in the strict sense are guaranteed instruments or means by which the Spirit accomplishes this goal. Yet they can- not be divorced from the Spirit’s activity within the church as a whole to conform the people of God to Christ, and this activity occurs in and through a variety of means even if its primary instruments may be the sacraments themselves.

Tese two points reveal substantial agreement between Pentecostals, Catho- lics, and Methodists. Baptism, or dedication, represents a means of grace in and through which the Spirit is bestowed on the infant. Tese rites embody moments of grace that must be integrated into the broader process of conver- sion. The presence of the church in them also points toward the broader pneu-

See OBC, 2007, §§45-46, 79-85. In §§45-46, the document claims that “the Fathers gen- erally spoke of conversion in the context of baptism as the beginning of the Christian life” and then oﬀ ers quotations from Origen, the local synod of Orange, Augustine, and Tertullian. Also, most of the focus in §§79-85 seems to be on Tertullian, Cyprian, and Augustine.

See OBC, 2007, §§122-132. In this section, there is a richer sampling of patristic texts on display and one ﬁ nds a greater representation of Eastern and Roman Christianity with Cyril of Jerusalem, T eodore of Mopsuestia, John Chrysostom, Ambrose of Milan, Gregory of Nyssa, and Augustine mentioned.

Rio Report, 1996, §§100-107; Brighton Report, 2001, §§55-61.

See in particular Brighton Report, 2001, §§57, 58.

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

203

matological context that will help the child in his or her eﬀ orts to be a disciple of Christ. The Spirit’s activity in the rites of baptism or dedication cannot be divorced from the Spirit’s activity in the community as a whole to which the child will be continuously exposed as he or she grows. At minimum, this places the child in a “blessed” condition insofar as the child has received the grace of the Spirit and will constantly be exposed to that grace in and through the life of the church. It would seem that Pentecostals could join Catholics and Methodists in afirming that, as a means of grace, infant dedication bestows something on the child that surpasses the Spirit’s prevenient activity. T at is, in some manner the child becomes the beneﬁ ciary of the Spirit’s regenerat- ing and sanctifying presence. The church prays that the child will come to a conscious awareness of the Spirit’s presence and in this awareness embrace Christ.

The question concerns precisely what it means to claim that the child receives “new life” in baptism through the Spirit’s regenerating activity. As I have said, this relates to the mode of the Spirit’s presence. I wish to oﬀ er a tentative suggestion, ﬁrst by opening some conceptual space through a brief analysis of Aquinas and then forwarding a proposal in conversation with Jona- than Edwards and Irenaeus of Lyons.

When Aquinas discusses the diﬀ erent modalities of grace, he focuses pri- marily on the adult convert. He suggests that grace ﬁrst prepares the person as an internal aid (auxilium) that initiates the movement of the will toward God.48 God moves the will internally toward himself and then cooperates with the will to bring this movement to completion in an external action. An exam- ple of the former would be an interior state of repentance and the latter would be the exterior act of tears that may ﬂ ow from it.

Simultaneous with the initial movement of the will is the bestowal of sanctifying grace ( gratia gratum faciens) that actually makes the person holy by infusing an accidental quality

St. T omas Aquinas, Summa theologiae IaIIae, q. 111. a. 2; q. 112. a. 2.

See Brian Davies, The T ought of T omas Aquinas (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 270-71; Joseph Wawrykow, “Grace,” in The T eology of T omas Aquinas , ed. Rik van Nieuwen- hove and Joseph Wawrykow (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 195-98. Wawrykow notes a problem in Aquinas’ thought of linking the operative and cooperative dimen- sions of the internal aid of grace (auxilium) with the three dimensions of human action in Summa theologiae IaIIae, qq. 8-17, in which a person must (1) will the end or intentionality, (2) deliberate over strategies to reach this end, and (3) perform the act necessary to reach it. It is clear that operative auxilium is present in willing the end and cooperative in performing the external act, but unclear as to which is responsible for deliberation. Wawrykow opts for coopera- tive auxilium for deliberation because grace moves the will in such a way that the will contributes to this movement.

204

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

into the soul.50 T omas sees this quality as a formal cause because sanctifying grace forms or shapes the soul in a way that reﬂ ects God’s own life. Although sanctifying grace is distinct from virtue, faith and love are infused along with it and represent the ﬁrst fruits of its presence. Conversion, then, is both the initial movement of the will and the accompanying reception of sanctifying grace. While cooperating with God’s turning of the will, the individual receives the habit of charity, which sanctiﬁ es the will and brings about formed faith or the faith that works in love. This love moves the will to assent to what the intellect has grasped in the act of faith.

The justiﬁ cation of the ungodly person requires a movement of faith that cannot occur apart from charity. T omas repeatedly asserts that to believe is an act of the intellect moved to assent at the command of the will.51 The interior act of belief stems from two dispositions that correspond to one another. The intellect is disposed toward God as the proper object of faith, but this disposi- tion comes about through charity’s disposing the will. It is important to keep the act of belief in relation to the intellect because, as T omas notes, the intel- lect grasps the truth. Nevertheless, charity as an infused disposition inclines the will to embrace the truth and thus provides the assent to God. T omas makes it quite clear that the intellect is the proper subject of faith because the intellect grasps faith’s object, which suggests that there must be some basic content to faith. At minimum, Aquinas thinks this content will include God and other things related to God.52 Once the intellect grasps the truth, charity gives rise to desires for the truth that moves the will to assent to it and thus complete the act of belief.

When one turns to T omas’ discussion of baptism, he clearly asserts that it is the sacrament of regeneration unto life. He also claims, however, that justi- ﬁ cation can occur in principle apart from water baptism. For adults, sanctify- ing grace and the virtues of faith and love precede baptism. This is made clear in T omas’ discussion of whether a catechumen who fails to get baptized will

See Summa theologiae IaIIae, q. 112, a. 2, ad 1 in which T omas states, “the preparation of man for the possession of grace is simultaneous with the infusion of grace.” See also Summa theologiae IaIIae, q. 110, a. 2 ad 1 in which he states that “grace, since it is a quality, is said to act in the soul not in the manner of an eficient cause, but in the manner of a formal cause just as whiteness makes [something] white and justice makes it just.” All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.

See Summa theologiae IIaIIae, q.2, a. 1; a. 2; q. 4, a. 2.

See Summa theologiae IIaIIae, q. 1, a. 1 in which T omas indicates that God is the formal object of faith while God and other things related to God are the material objects of faith. In either case, God, as the ﬁrst truth, is the object of faith.

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

205

be saved.53 His answer is that as long as the person possesses the intention for baptism, which could not be possessed apart from sanctifying grace and its virtues, then the person will be saved. So, what does baptism accomplish? Generally, it has two principal eﬀ ects: (1) it imparts a spiritual sense, which is the cognition of the truth through further illumination; (2) it imparts a spi- ritual motion, which is an instinct or prompting of grace on the will. Aquinas also notes that baptism is a “fuller” remission of sin and bestows a “greater abundance” of grace and virtues.54 In an important sense, baptism completes the initial passage from death to life that admits one into God’s own life, and yet it does this not by imparting sanctifying grace but by strengthening it. Presumably, as with other sacraments, the baptism of an adult convert bestows actual grace (auxilium) as a further internal aid to strengthen sanctifying grace or habitual grace. Finally, T omas envisions only select occasions when baptism would not be administered to a catechumen, such as internal obsta- cles like a lack of devotion due to sin that would render baptismal grace null and void.

T omas recognizes that there are clear diﬀ erences between children and adults as baptismal candidates. He claims however, that children can receive grace and virtues in baptism because this makes them members of Christ and ensures admittance to eternal life. The mistake on the part of those who wish to deny infant baptism is in thinking that sanctifying grace requires activity for its bestowal, which is not the case for a habit. He likens the presence of habit- ual grace in children to its presence in a person who is asleep. In both cases an impediment prevents the habit from giving rise to action, the former through lack of physical development and the latter through an unconscious state. In response to a claim that children do not have liberum arbitrium and thus can- not possess infused virtues, he then states, “faith and charity consist in the will of men and yet the habit of these and other virtues requires the capacity of the will (potentia voluntatis), which is in children, whereas acts of virtues require acts of will, which is not in children.”55 Since infants possess the capacity to act

Summa theologiae III, q. 68, a. 1 and a. 2.

Summa theologiae III, q. 68, a. 2; q. 69, a. 4 ad 2. In q. 69, a. 4 ad 2, Aquinas states, “some- one receives remission of sins before baptism insofar as he has baptism in intention (in voto) either explicitly or implicitly. Nevertheless, when he really receives baptism, he is given a fuller (plenior) remission inasmuch as it relates to liberation from the full penalty. T us also Cornelius and others like him receive grace and the virtues through faith in Christ and the desire (desider- ium) for baptism, implicitly or explicitly. Nevertheless afterwards they receive a greater amount (maiorem copiam) of grace and virtues in baptism.”

Summa theologiae III, q. 69, a. 6 ad 1.

206

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

because of their wills, undeveloped as they are, they can be transformed through sanctifying grace. As T omas makes clear elsewhere, God moves infants to justice by “giving form to their souls” (informatio animae ipsorum) through the gift of sanctifying grace.56

T ere are several elements that are important to T omas’ discussion of infants. First, infants, like the mentally handicapped, possess a physical imped- iment that prevents them from acting on habitual grace. This does not mean that the accidental form cannot be communicated to them and transform their will, since the presence of a will is all that is required for its transforma- tion. However, the physical impediment must be removed and, in the case of adults, T omas notes that other impediments, such as a lack of devotion due to the presence of sin, can further hinder the eﬀ ects of baptismal grace. For catechumens, T omas recommends penance to remove any impediment due to sin, and presumably he would agree with the Catholic Catechism that sug- gests that penance should precede conﬁ rmation.

Impediments render baptis- mal grace ineﬀ ective and thus there is no guarantee that sanctifying grace will lead to eternal life as the infant comes of age.

Secondly, when T omas explains why faith and charity can be present as habits in an infant, he speciﬁ cally mentions the capacity of the will as being necessary. This is because the act of belief requires the will to assent. Since the intellect rather than the will grasps the truth, however, T omas also claims that the intellect is the proper subject of faith and that the act of belief requires some content. Moreover, one of the eﬀ ects of baptism in adults is the imparta- tion of a spiritual sense by the illumination of the intellect. Since infants have an undeveloped intellect and also lack the necessary content for faith, they can only be said to possess the will for faith, it would seem. What is required is for the church to supply the content of faith ( ﬁ des quae ), the intellect to develop in order to understand the truthfulness of the faith, and the will to assent to this truth. While the presence of sanctifying grace suggests that the will’s con- sent will be forthcoming, impediments may arise as the child grows that will prevent this from happening.

What I hope this excursion into Aquinas’ theology achieves is to point out that infants may have the will for faith, but they do not possess faith strictly speaking insofar as they do not have a developed intellect nor do they have the content of the ﬁ des quae . Moreover, as a physical impediment is removed, a spiritual impediment may emerge in the child’s development because of the

Summa theologiae IaIIae, q. 113, a. 3 ad 1. 57

CCC, §1310.

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

207

numerous forces at work in that child’s life. In this sense, conceptual space may be opened up for a slightly diﬀ erent proposal. It may be that a pneuma- tological distinction between prevenient grace and sanctifying grace may help achieve T omas’ goal of genuine transformation while also making room for Pentecostal and Methodist concerns.

In his sermon “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” Jonathan Edwards sug- gests that one can diﬀ erentiate the modality of the Spirit’s presence in com- mon grace from the modality in special grace. In common grace, the Spirit assists natural principles, for example, conscience, to perform their task more eﬀ ectively. The Spirit convicts by acting upon the person as an extrinsic agent. In special grace, the Spirit “unites himself with the mind of a saint, takes him for his temple, actuates and inﬂ uences him as a new, supernatural principle of life and action.”58 The Spirit now functions as a new vital indwelling principle by uniting with the person. While the Reformed division of grace into com- mon and special does not correspond to the division between prevenient and sanctifying grace, Edwards’ attempt to articulate two distinct modalities of the Spirit’s presence may still be appropriated to diﬀ erentiate the baptized convert from the unbaptized. To utilize Edwards’ distinction one need only remove the additional Reformed claim that common grace does not lead to sanctify- ing grace. Edwards’ claim, however, opens the possibility for a clear and distinct articulation of two modalities of the Spirit’s presence in the adminis- tration of grace that may help to diﬀ erentiate more clearly prevenience from regeneration.

In light of Edwards’ proposal, prevenient grace refers to the Spirit acting as an extrinsic agent upon the individual, whereas sanctifying grace refers to the Spirit acting as a vital indwelling principle. To clarify further how one might understand these two modalities, an insight from Irenaeus is needed. In speaking of the relation between the Incarnate Son and the Spirit, Irenaeus states, “This is why [the Spirit] also descends upon the Son of God made son of man, acclimatizing [himself] to dwell in human kind and to rest upon humans and to dwell in the formation of God, working the Father’s will in them and renewing them from the old into the newness of Christ.”59 Irenaeus suggests that the Spirit must “become accustomed to” or “acclimatize” to

Jonathan Edwards, “A Divine and Supernatural Light,” in A Jonathan Edwards Reader, ed. John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema (London: Yale University Press, 1995), 109.

Irenaeus of Lyons, Against Heresies 3.17.1, in Irenäus von Lyon: Adversus Haereses (Gegen die Häresien) II, ed. and trans. Norbert Brox (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 210. All translations are my own unless otherwise indicated.

208

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

humanity. This acclimatization occurs over the course of the human life of the Incarnate Son as he recapitulates human history in his own person and thus conquers the devil through every act of obedience. The Spirit becomes accus- tomed again to dwell within humans as a vital principle through the process of perfection that Jesus of Nazareth undergoes, which has the eﬀ ect of opening up his entire humanity to the Spirit’s operation. The Lukan allusion to the Spirit at Jesus’ transﬁ guration implies this opening up (Luke 9:34). Conse- quently, even though the Spirit functioned as a vital indwelling principle and source of the Incarnate Son’s obedience, the acclimatization of the Spirit to the human life of the Son occurred over the course of the Son’s earthly ministry as the Spirit constituted him to be Savior, Sanctiﬁ er, Spirit baptizer, and healer. I have described this acclimatization as an opening up of the human con- sciousness of the Son to the Spirit’s complete activity and suggested that this opening occurs through acts of obedience that transform the humanity. The writer of Hebrews clearly notes that the Son learned obedience by suﬀ ering and possibly connects this to the activity of the Spirit if the phrase “he oﬀ ered himself through the eternal Spirit” does indeed refer to the Holy Spirit.

Irenaeus also connects the Spirit’s activity in the Incarnate Son to believers when he states, “Now we receive some portion from his Spirit for perfection and preparation for incorruption, gradually acclimating to contain and bear God. This the apostle also called a pledge, that is, a portion of the honor of the one who was promised to us by God.”60 Following Irenaeus and Edwards, one could claim that in baptism, or dedication, children receive the Spirit as a vital indwelling principle that is God’s pledge to them. The “indelible mark” of Christ is the Spirit, whose sanctifying presence sets the child apart. T is is what sanctifying grace is, and for children, the Spirit’s indwelling presence sup- plies the “will for faith.” However, the child must become acclimatized to the Spirit’s presence, which links the child’s growth directly to the church. The Spirit’s activity in the church through its worship, teaching, and mission con- nects to the Spirit’s activity in the life of the child to open the child up to the conscious awareness of grace. For Pentecostals, as well as for Methodists and Catholics, one cannot divorce the child’s coming to faith from the community of faith for it is there, in its worship, that the child sees the tangible demon- stration of the power of God at work in the lives of the saints and receives the ﬁ des quae by which the child understands the Spirit to be the Spirit of Christ. While the Spirit supplies the will for faith, faith itself only emerges in the context of ecclesial life through which the content required for faith comes.

Against Heresies 5.8.1, in Irenäus von Lyon: Adversus Haereses II, 66, 68.

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

209

Even if the child should depart from the church and reject the faith, the “indel- ible mark” of the Spirit will never leave the child. Numerous Pentecostals have claimed their children for the Lord on the basis of the Spirit’s always being with them, which means that no matter what pit of darkness the child may fall into, the grace of God will never leave.

Given the necessity of the child’s development in order to remove physical impediments that prevent the full cooperation with the Spirit’s sanctifying presence, one can begin to see the critical role of social context in conversion. The child’s intellectual and spiritual development never occurs in a vacuum but always in and through a speciﬁ c social, political, and economic context. As contextual theologies have implied, generic accounts of conversion are deeply problematic precisely because they fail to take issues of context into consideration. Many theological and philosophical accounts of the relation- ship between grace and freedom function within a generic or idealized frame- work. The human will under consideration belongs not to a particular human being within a speciﬁ c context, but to a generic human extracted from every context. It is as though one can resolve the question of the modalities of grace by conceiving of “everyman” and the precise conditions under which an inte- rior response to the gospel occurs. This “laboratory” approach to conversion does not take seriously the way in which the removal of physical impediments or lack thereof occurs within distinct contextual situations. What if the bap- tized child grows intellectually but remains illiterate? Does illiteracy function as an impediment? How does poverty impede opening up to the Spirit’s pres- ence? One might compare Vincent de Paul’s quest to “evangelize” the poor Catholics of the French countryside by calling them to penance with Wesley’s desire to spread scriptural holiness in order to highlight the fundamental agreement of the existence of impediments to baptismal grace among both men. Tese questions merely scratch the surface of the kinds of impediments that can emerge during the developmental process. Taking them into account reveals how quickly impediments can form, and how numerous they can be as well.

The point of this excursion into Aquinas, Irenaeus, and Edwards was to open up some conceptual space that may allow Catholics, Methodists, and Pentecostals to return to their common soteriological substructure and thus reach greater agreement with one another. Baptism or dedication imparts the Spirit as a vital indwelling principle supplying the will for faith. T is is distinct from the prevenient activity of the Spirit in the created order who acts as an extrinsic agent upon individuals rather than as a vital principle united to them. One could call the modality of the Spirit in baptism or dedication a

210

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

regenerating activity insofar as the Spirit unites to the child and gives rise to the will for faith.61 Precisely how the Spirit functions as a vital principle cannot be explored here, but, at minimum, the Spirit’s indwelling presence means that the child receives sanctifying grace. The Spirit is also the indelible mark, the seal or pledge, that never leaves the child even if that child might depart the faith. As Aquinas notes, however, several impediments remain, the ﬁrst of which is the lack of mental development necessary to possess genuine faith. In the process of development, the child can become closed oﬀ to the Spirit’s sanctifying activity and so destroy the work of grace, but this will never remove the Spirit’s presence from which the child cannot ﬂ ee. In this sense, any child who returns to the faith has no need of rebaptism because the Pentecostal and Methodist pastor as well as the Catholic priest can say with conﬁ dence that the Spirit given at the beginning of life has never left.

None of the above guarantees ﬁ nal salvation because the child must become acclimatized to the Spirit’s presence through a transforming process in which the child cooperates by opening up more and more to the Spirit’s activity. T is process of opening up cannot be severed from the church that the Spirit con- stitutes to be the body of Christ because it is in bearing witness to the power of God at work in tangible, concrete ways that the child cooperates with the Spirit, beholding the truth enacted in the assembling of the saints and opening up more deeply to that truth. For Pentecostals, the child develops a sensitivity to the Spirit, which Catholics and Methodists describe in terms of a spiritual instinct. Such a view may reinforce the importance of Spirit baptism as a fur- ther release of the Spirit that opens the child up more deeply to the Spirit’s presence by empowering the child for mission. Despite issues surrounding how to integrate Spirit baptism into their respective views of Christian exis- tence, Catholics and Pentecostals agree that it “is a powerful action of grace bestowed by God upon believers in the church.”62 As with Jesus of Nazareth, the child seeks to open up fully to the Spirit’s penetrating activity until the day when the Spirit will “shine” through the fully mature convert now made com- pletely transparent. The charismatic and sanctifying actions of the Spirit, then, form the pneumatological ground to salvation as the Spirit recapitulates Jesus the savior, sanctiﬁ er, Spirit baptizer, and healer in the believer.

For Aquinas the will for faith is a result of the infusion of habitual grace, which imparts a disposition, thereby changing the will. I have excluded this option in favor of the Spirit as the vital principle. Ultimately, this requires a theological account of how the Spirit supplies the will for faith that is beyond the scope of the present article.

OBC, 2007, §260.

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

211

Conclusion

In this article I have suggested that Pentecostals, Catholics, and Methodists share a common soteriological substructure that is grounded in their emphasis on pneumatology. By drawing on the resources of this substructure possible avenues for closer agreement may open up. I have suggested one such avenue in my analysis of baptism and its relationship to Christian initiation. By dis- tinguishing between the Spirit’s modality in prevenient grace and the Spirit’s modality in sanctifying grace, it may be possible for all sides to afirm that the dedicated or baptized child receives the Spirit as a vital indwelling princi- ple that brings about the will for faith. This will for faith does not guarantee salvation in the sense of ﬁ nal perseverance, which remains contingent upon cooperation; nor does it guarantee the removal of all impediments to the con- scious realization of the Spirit’s activity. It does, however, place the child on the path of complete salvation from the outset and as such can be identiﬁ ed as a regenerating activity of the Spirit who indwells the child. Stemming from the shared soteriological substructure, this proposal may oﬀ er a further avenue of rapprochement.

Bibliography

Aquinas, T omas. Summa T eologiae . 5 vols. Madrid: Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos, 1962-

1963.

Asbury, Francis. The Journal and Letters of Francis Asbury 1794-1816 . Vol. 2, edited by E. T.

Clark, J. M. Potts, and J. S. Payton. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1958.

Campbell, Ted. “Conversion and Baptism in Wesleyan Spirituality.” In Conversion in the Wes-

leyan Tradition, edited by Kenneth J. Collins and John H. Tyson, 160-174. Nashville:

Abingdon Press, 2001.

Carlton Felton, Gaye. This Gift of Water: The Practice and T eology of Baptism Among Methodists

in America. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1992.

Catechism of the Catholic Church. New York: Doubleday, 1995.

Centro Pro Unione. http://prounione.urbe.it/dia-int/pe-rc/doc/e_pe-rc_5-contents.html. Davies, Brian. The T ought of T omas Aquinas . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992. Edwards, Jonathan. “A Divine and Supernatural Light.” In A Jonathan Edwards Reader, edited by

John E. Smith, Harry S. Stout, and Kenneth P. Minkema, 105-124. London: Yale Univer-

sity Press, 1995.

Fletcher, John. The Works of the Reverend John Fletcher . Vol. 1. Reprint. Salem, OH: Schmul

Publishers, 1974.

General Board of Discipleship. “By Water and the Spirit: A United Methodist Understanding of

Baptism.” http://gbod.org/worship/bwaswithindex&intro.pdf (accessed August 18,

2008).

Gros, Jeﬀ rey, Harding Meyer, and William G. Rusch, eds. Growth in Agreement II. Geneva:

WCC Publications, 2000.

212

D. M. Coulter / Pneuma 31 (2009) 189-212

Irenaeus of Lyon. Against Heresies. In Irenäus von Lyon: Adversus Haereses (Gegen die Häresien).

5 vols., edited and translated by Norbert Brox. Freiburg: Herder, 1993.

Manskar, Steven W. “Opening Ourselves to Grace: The Basics of Christian Discipleship.” Gen-

eral Board of Discipleship. http://gbod.org/smallgroup/cd/opentograce-sm.pdf (accessed

August 18, 2008).

Tanner, Norman, ed. Decrees of the Ecumenical Councils. 2 vols. London: Sheed & Ward, 1990. Wawrykow, Joseph. “Grace.” In The T eology of T omas Aquinas , edited by Rik van Nieuwenhove

and Joseph Wawrykow, 192-221. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005. Wesley, John. The Works of John Wesley . Vol. 11, edited by Gerald R. Cragg. Nashville: Abingdon

Press, 1989.

Baptism, Conversion, And Grace Reflections On The Underlying Realities Between Pentecostals, Methodists, And Catholics

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply