# Question About WCF 27.3 and 28.6



## Taylor (Jan 14, 2017)

I was listening to this lecture by Dr. John Gerstner on RefNet Radio the other day, and he mentioned the one place in the WCF wherewith he disagreed, and that is in the language of WCF 28.6, which reads as follows (the passage of interest is bolded):



> The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, not withstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, *the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred,* by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.



I understood why he disagreed (I think). He said that the Westminster Divines did not believe that grace is conferred at baptism, yet he could not find any other way to read this (please listen to the lecture linked above for context and exact wording used).

On my reading of the WCF, I also found this statement to be of interest, especially in juxtaposition to 28.6, and this is WCF 27.3, which reads as follows:



> *The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them;* neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it: but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.



As I read it, I imagine that the point being made is that the sacraments are not magical, and do not confer grace _per se_ (27.3), but any grace conferred is conferred by the Holy Spirit (28.6). Furthermore, it seems that 28.6 is saying that the grace conferred is only conferred to the elect alone ("...to such as that grace belongeth unto..."), and is conferred, in many if not most cases, at a later time ("...according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time...").

Am I reading these passages correctly? My question is: What specifically about this did Dr. Gerstner disagree, do you think?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 14, 2017)

I've heard that Anthony [edit, see below] *Cornelius* Burgess clearly did believe that _ordinarily _grace was conferred to the elect at baptism, even of the infant, which was the start of his conversion. And his view may be representative of many others, I expect.

The question is: when does God _begin _his work of salvation in anyone? Might it not be true to say that a lengthy process of conversion begins in the hard heart of an adult when he hears the gospel the first time, but is resistant? The Holy Spirit takes his time with him. But did not the wrecking ball begin its work that early day? That wrecking ball was grace.

Can baptism of the infant be the beginning of "watering" the seed of faith, though it be not germinated in conversion for some time yet? This does not seem inherently false. If we leave off thinking purely in terms of on/off, yes/no, black/white, and allow that there can be something of a process, the use of means, to bring about a true and complete conversion, we can at least acknowledge the latitude and restraint in the divine's choice of words.

Remember, in the earlier generations of our Reformed fathers, men like Calvin used the term "regeneration" not to speak of something instantaneous--the first "moment of spiritual life"--but of the whole life of sanctification, of vivification of the new man (in parallel with the mortification of the old). So, it is not at all unnatural for the second or third generation (WCF era) to be acknowledging that the first blessing of God to an elect infant in many cases is he is born into a believing family, and has the Word of promise spoken to him in the church, and he is physically touched by it the first time as a newborn. This is, in some sense, the beginning of this elect child's encounter with divine grace.

I don't know if Gerstner had any drift of mind in this direction. He is correct to say that the Reformed Protestant divines at Westminster did not believe in _ex opera _baptism, that simply receiving baptism brought grace, even if only to the elect. But the deeper issue is: What will God do when his promises are invoked by faith, granting all the fit conditional realities?

If Gerstner denied any baptized baby ever knew the first stirrings of grace at his baptism, I say he couldn't know that; though it wasn't the baptism itself, but the promise and God himself who confers, baptism being one of his ordained means. Will we be as bold as Burgess? Perhaps not. Conversion is ordinarily wrought by reception of the preached Word. We may wish to differentiate the workings of grace, from it's initial effects (barely distinguishable from "common operations of the Spirit"), to germination, to the sprouting of new life in regeneration, and the whole _ordo salutis; _then the whole progress of sanctification.

But we should be able to acknowledge that in one important sense, for the elect it is all one long work of bringing an heir to glory. And for many, that work begins with the first promised word in the gentle water of baptism: "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you (little one) will be saved."

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 14, 2017)

Taylor Sexton said:


> he Westminster Divines did not believe that grace is conferred at baptism



Not in the absolute sense. 

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2013/12/what-did-westminster-believe-about-baptismal-regeneration/

*


Taylor Sexton said:



The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them

Click to expand...

*


Taylor Sexton said:


> and do not confer grace _per se_ (27.3), but any grace conferred is conferred by the Holy Spirit (28.6)



Forgive me on the front end for babbling on here.....The sacraments, however, are not empty either! Consider those that hold to the idea that the sacraments are mere ordinances. They are NOT magical, for sure; They are somewhat mysterious because certain conditions are definitely brought about by their 'right usage'. For example, If they are not administered rightly, nothing will be exhibited-they would be empty. But they are NOT empty. They are not ordinances only, but Holy and means of grace. More than just a dedication. Spiritual changes occur in the elements that do not happen any other time outside of worship and their proper administration. Bread and wine are just that at the grocery store. Place them on a table and administer them properly, in the midst of a call to worship and they become something that is no longer typical. The ladder to Heaven is wide open during this holy time and the communication line in que; God, Christ and the HS, sharing a meal with the bride.


----------



## MW (Jan 15, 2017)

The grace which baptism signifies is conferred by God on those to whom it belongs in His appointed time, not necessarily at the moment of time when baptism is administered. Why would any person who believes in the doctrines of grace disagree with this?

Cornelius Burges, not Anthony Burgess, might be the intended reference. He advocated the seed of faith is ordinarily wrought by baptism in the case of elect infants.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 15, 2017)

Thank you for the correction, MW.


----------



## Taylor (Jan 16, 2017)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The question is: when does God _begin _his work of salvation in anyone? Might it not be true to say that a lengthy process of conversion begins in the hard heart of an adult when he hears the gospel the first time, but is resistant? The Holy Spirit takes his time with him. But did not the wrecking ball begin its work that early day? That wrecking ball was grace.



This is very helpful, as it exposes the strong tendency in modern evangelicalism to perceive salvation as an instantaneous change as opposed to, like Calvin, a progressive endeavor.

Thanks for the reply.



MW said:


> Why would any person who believes in the doctrines of grace disagree with this?



I have no idea. That's part of the reason I posted, because I'm not sure, especially now, exactly what Gerstner's—who I would assume is thoroughly Reformed—issue with it is.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Jan 17, 2017)

Session 566 of the Westminster Minutes might be of some interest here:

https://archive.org/stream/minutesofsession00west#page/174/mode/2up

Edit: the original link did an auto search. Sorry for the inconvenience.


----------

