WCF 28.6

August 3, 2007 at 12:36 pm (Federal Vision)

Since these are the relevant sections which I am accused of denying, let’s look at them, line by line, and as a whole, to determine what they mean. I am merely going to comment on it as a rebuttal to Wilson’s position. This is my final statement on it. Wilson can have the last word on it if he wants.

WCF 28.6

The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered…

Contrary to Jeff Meyers, et al, this does not mean that the efficacy of baptism starts at its administration necessarily, and is not limited to that moment, but continues on during one’s lifetime, much like a mathematical limit from the right. That Meyers’s interpretation is wrong is proved from the last phrase “in His appointed time.” That is, the grace of baptism occurs in God’s appointed time. That is, the thing signified occurs when God has appointed, to the elect only, according to the counsel of God’s own will. The WCF is saying that the efficacy of baptism as a sign and seal can be a delayed reaction. That is, the meaning of baptism is that just as water cleanses dirt, so Christ’s blood cleanses sin. Baptism means that for the elect, God will effect salvation. It is that promise. Signs and seals are promises of what they signify. To go back to the analogy of the road sign, the sign to Bismarck promises that if you go a certain number of miles, you will get to Bismarck. So, when that person comes to faith, promise becomes fulfillment. Baptism has its full effect as sign and seal when a person comes to faith. That does not prejudge when the person can come to faith, which, as I have said many times now, can be before, during, or after baptism, no matter what the age of the person being baptized. In the case of faith coming before, the fulfillment is there before the promise. Being careful about how we use (and whether we use) sacramental language is crucial here. WCF 27.2 is crucial here, and is something about which the FV doesn’t usually demonstrate understanding. The names and effects of the one are attributed to the other. This is not equivalent to “equal to the other.” This is how the divines understand Titus 3:5, for instance, where the “laver” is understood as sacramental language for the thing signified (Christ’s blood). However close the union between the sign (water) and the thing signified (Christ’s blood), still they must be understood to be distinct. They are distinct, yet inseperable (for the elect). There is, of course, a razor thin ledge on which we must walk when it comes to this. There are those who stress the inseperability at the expense of the distinctness (Roman Catholics, and those with Catholicizing tendencies), and there are those who stress the distinctness, at the expense of the inseperability (Anabaptists, etc.). The WCF threads this line very carefully. If we say that the efficacy of baptism consists in salvation itself, then there is no guard against a sacramentarian view (ex opere operato) of the sacrament. Baptism, however connected it is to faith, is not faith itself. We are not justified by baptism. We are justified by faith alone.

yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred, by the Holy Ghost,

Really, the question here is what happens when baptism is administered. I would argue that what happens is that a sign and seal is given to the person. The grace to which the sign and seal points is salvation. But that is given “in His appointed time.” That is not necessarily the time of baptism. It can be. But it doesn’t have to be.

to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto,

This limits the efficacy of baptism to the elect. The grace to which baptism points belongs only to the elect.

according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time.

So, let’s say we have the case of someone who receives baptism, but does not come to faith until later. What does he have? He has the promise that God will save him. When that promise becomes fulfillment, the promise has its full meaning. It is not as if he has nothing between baptism and faith. He has the sign and seal. But the sign and seal do not have their full efficacy until faith comes. In the case of someone who believes already, baptism functions like a stamp upon that faith, saying that God does save.

I would be extremely interested in Wilson’s reactions to the baby-driven theology claims evident here and here. I would also be interested in Wilson’s not dismissing the Warfield quotations that I adduced, but actually dealing with them. I find it highly ironic that FV guys will say “we believe in the WCF,” and take us to task for not believing them. But when it comes to Warfield, who gives an unequivocally Confessional position in the Shorter Writings, Wilson will not take Warfield at his word, but instead claims that what Warfield gives with his right hand, he takes away with his left. The Plan of Salvation is not Warfield’s exposition of the Sacraments. The articles in the Shorter Writings are. Therefore, those should be the starting place, not The Plan of Salvation. I’m absolutely sure that Gary Johnson will agree with me here, who is not only one of the world’s experts on Warfield, but is also related to Warfield. I think Johnson is more of an authority on Warfield than Wilson is.

4 Comments

  1. David Weiner said,

    August 3, 2007 at 5:35 pm

    Lane,

    I am really trying to grasp the bedrock in this debate and just when I think I’m getting closer, It all evaporates!

    “Baptism means that for the elect, God will effect salvation.”

    Since it is impossible to distinguish the elect and non-elect at baptism, does it then serve to mislead the non-elect?

    “In the case of faith coming before, the fulfillment is there before the promise.”

    Since the elect have this promise without regard to baptism, what is the value of a further promise that comes after the reality?

    “This is how the divines understand Titus 3:5, . . . ”

    I looked quite hard and was not able to see any ‘water’ in this passage. Could you be a little more specific about where you see it?

    “In the case of someone who believes already, baptism functions like a stamp upon that faith, saying that God does save.”

    God says He saves! How does the stamp of baptism improve on that?

  2. Robert K. said,

    August 4, 2007 at 8:31 am

    One thing heresy does is it forces the besieged to sharpen or re-sharpen (whichever the case) their own understanding of biblical doctrine. The sacramentalism in Reformed Theology has not been an innocent presence. Sacramentalism gives license to reside in comfortable, wordly states while at the same time the faith becomes a shallow, worldly endeavor. The thousand justifications for maintaining the sacramentalism - which are readily resorted to or just accepted docilely - corrupt communions and individuals at deep levels. Christianity is not IBM circa 1965, nor it is a seminary campus or communion of professors, nor is it the nuclear family and gatherings of nuclear families. It’s a mystical connection effected by the Word and the Spirit, and once one has the Spirit the further practice - practice - of the faith becomes something that makes one quite at odds with the world. Just having the Spirit makes one a target. This is not pleasant to most people, and it’s common to want to avoid such unpleasantness. Spiritual warfare and all that, but as a Christian you experience what Jesus experienced or you are merely playing games and hanging back, and actually rejecting the faith that you claim to embrace.

  3. David Gadbois said,

    August 4, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    Lane,

    I think the pivotal phrase here is what “conferred” here means and what is the “grace promised” that is conferred. I don’t mean to slam my Westminster friends, but I think the WCF is very, very ambiguous on this very point, because of its consensus nature. 3FU are far better. I think there may be a way of squaring this statement with WCF 11, but I don’t know what way that is. I can only say that FV has not even seen the need for squaring up *anything* because of their anti-systematic attitude and the low priority of sola fide in their circles. But if WCF 28 were taken in isolation, I could understand how one could get baptismal regeneration lite out of it.

  4. Robert K. said,

    August 4, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    WCF 10 nukes any notion of baptismal regeneration in the WS. The old buzzards knew their biblical doctrine. And anyway FVists can’t even troll on WCF 28 without ignoring 28.5 which controls anything else said touching or potentially touching on the subject regarding baptismal regeneration.

    And how many times does John the Baptist have to say He will baptise with the Holy Spirit and fire? Apparently more than once… (And if I hear another seminary professor say that ‘fire’ here means hellfire I’m going to become a quaker… ;)

Post a Comment