Green Baggins

I have already talked a great deal about baptism here. What I want to do here is to note a few more rather important things that the WCF says about baptism. Baptism is said explicitly to admit the one baptized into the visible church (28.1). The divines were very careful here not to ascribe too much to baptism. They were also careful not to ascribe too little to baptism. However, that is not usually what is being attacked these days. These days, most of the attacks are coming from people ascribing too much to baptism. The nature of the grace “exhibited and conferred” is that of sign and seal. Sign and seal modify ALL the phrases in 28.1: “sign and seal of the covenant of grace, (sign and seal) of his ingrafting into Christ, (sign and seal) of regeneration, (sign and seal) of remission of sins, etc.”

Baptism is not necessarily the time-point of regeneration, as 28.5 confirms. It can be, but that would not be by the bare rite of baptism. One of the most helpful things that the WCF says is that “the efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.” Some have twisted this to mean that the WCF is saying that the efficacy starts at baptism, but is not tied down to it: that is, that it is not a one-time shot of grace. This is not what the WCF is saying. The WCF is saying that baptism’s efficacy can be a “delayed reaction.” This is clear from the “yet notwithstanding” right after the semi-colon, which indicates that the grace being exhibited and conferred might have been denied given the first phrase of 28.6. If that grace might have been denied given the first phrase of the section, then the first phrase cannot mean that the grace starts immediately at the time point of baptism, but is not tied down to that moment. Otherwise, the flow of argument would make no sense. Rather, it must mean that there can be a “delayed reaction.” This is confirmed by the last phrase of the section “in His appointed time.” The grace comes in His appointed time, if it comes.

That it does not necessarily come is confirmed by the last part of 28.5: “grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it…that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.” This phrase is sometimes taken to mean that grace and salvation are normally annexed to it. However, this is an invalid inference, since the target against which this section aims is the belief that it is okay to neglect the ordinance of baptism. The target is not those who say that grace and salvation are always annexed to baptism. I take the word “so” in that phrase to mean “thus.” It is not an indication of degree. A parallel would be the KJV translation of John 3:16: “For God so loved the world…” The word “so” there does not indicate that God loved the world this much. It indicates that God loved the world so, thusly. So also here (pun intended). A synonymous rendering would be “grace and salvation are not in such a way inseparably annexed unto it as that…” If we use the word “thus,” however, we must be careful to note that the word would not have a “therefore” connotation, but rather the word would set the interpretation, as in the rendering I have adopted above.