# Baptismal Regneration and the WCF



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 28, 2005)

A friend of mine has been bombarded by a "Reformed Catholic" lately, trying to convince him that the WCF and the Reformers believed in baptismal regeneration. Anyone care to share some refutations of this assertion, including helpful quotes, etc.?


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 29, 2005)

Gabriel, I, too, have heard that from many "reformed catholics" and "federal visionists." However, I usually only here two or three names (of the 150 plus?) from that period who advocate something similar to what we anachronistically label "baptismal regeneration." I would be interested if someone has anything on this topic, too. Has David Hall or Carl Trueman (or someone like them) written anything on (or even covering) this issue?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 29, 2005)

Come to think of it, I should probably go skim through my copy of Turretin's _Institutes_. I just checked Calvin, but his language is (at least to me) vague on that particular subject.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 29, 2005)

Oddly enough, it seems as if Turretin is a huge favorite of federal visionists. In my debates with Mark Horne, and in reading his blogs/website, he seemed to rely upon Turretin more than any other scholastic. As an aside, usually, as I've pointed out to him, Turretin was used incorrectly (i.e. Turretin speaking of/against post-lapsarian man and condign/congruent merit in the Roman theology and trying to impliment that into the covenant of works with Adam). So, if you see "reformed catholics" using Turretin, double and triple-check the context.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 29, 2005)

Good point. Turretin's _Institutes_ is a massive work, and I've yet to really dive deeply into it.


----------



## Myshkin (Apr 29, 2005)

Where in the Westminster Confession do these guys stake their claim for baptismal regeneration? Obviously it doesn't teach it, but what is an example of how these guys use the WCF for their support on this particular doctrine?


----------



## Poimen (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> Oddly enough, it seems as if Turretin is a huge favorite of federal visionists. In my debates with Mark Horne, and in reading his blogs/website, he seemed to rely upon Turretin more than any other scholastic. As an aside, usually, as I've pointed out to him, Turretin was used incorrectly (i.e. Turretin speaking of/against post-lapsarian man and condign/congruent merit in the Roman theology and trying to impliment that into the covenant of works with Adam). So, if you see "reformed catholics" using Turretin, double and triple-check the context.



I would add: If you see them using *anything* double and triple-check the context.


----------



## Me Died Blue (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> ...



...and yet so true.


----------



## smallbeans (Apr 29, 2005)

One good resource is E. Brooks Holifield's 1974 book "The Covenant Sealed" which is about Puritan sacramentology. It has sections on baptism and the Lord's Supper and he is a very careful scholar. I do not think he would support the idea that a baptismal regenerationist view is common and he responds to an earlier book by Norman Petit who mistakingly found baptismal regeneration in some early NE pastors like Peter Bulkeley. On the other hand, you may be surprised by how sacramentally minded the Puritans were after reading Holifield, so it is hard to say how to weigh that evidence. There is a book on the Westminster Confession edited by Ligon Duncan in which an historian - David Wright is his name, I believe - describes the WCF as having a regenerationist view of baptism, but the article gives zero argument for the pronouncement - it is just kind of put out there as if everyone should know it; I'm not sure what makes him say that, but usually people point to the language of "confer" or they relate the section on the visible church to the section on the ordinary impossibility of salvation outside of the visible church. I think this is a difficult issue because a lot of it depends upon what a person really means by "baptismal regeneration" - I mean, Bonaventure and Aquinas didn't really even mean the same thing by it. My guess is that we will all be really aided by the good work of the Westminster Assembly Project: 

http://www.westminsterassembly.org/

They are publishing the minutes and other important documents relating to the confession so soon we'll have more insight into the diversity of opinion on a whole host of subjects that the Confession makes statements on. The bottom line is that you could tell your friend that all confessional documents are consensus documents to some extent and preserve language that is sometimes designed to keep people with different nuances of thought from dividing over various issues. Tell him that the jury is still waaaay out on whether the WCF promotes b-r and even if the WCF technically preserves the ability for someone who holds to a form of baptismal regeneration to assent to it, a. that doesn't make the view selfsame with the Roman Catholic view of regeneration, b. it doesn't mean that the majority of the tradition held the view, and c. it doesn't make b-r right or wrong because as the WCF itself says, the Holy Spirit speaking in the scriptures is the final word in controversies of religion; all councils can err.

One thing that bugs me about all of this FV stuff is that there hasn't been a single scholarly, peer-reviewed book or article on the whole controversy. There have been colloquia, articles on the web, popular books, etc., but no real meaty investigations with arguments and historical research that is peer reviewed by qualified scholars on all sides of the issue and vetted properly. I'm not trying to knock web-publishing, but there is a rigor required for scholarly journals that is helpful and reassuring. But then again, who am I kidding. We simply do not have a general, scholarly evangelical press - it doesn't exist. We do have a few good seminary journals, but that's about it. It's kind of depressing sometimes. I think the scandal of the evangelical mind continues...


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by RAS_
> Where in the Westminster Confession do these guys stake their claim for baptismal regeneration? Obviously it doesn't teach it, but what is an example of how these guys use the WCF for their support on this particular doctrine?



You have to be careful here how you label these guys. They would probably deny baptismal regeneration in the Romish sense, though practically speaking it's no difference. As I understand it, they rather argue that regeneratiobn "usually" occurs at baptism, so they can backpeddle and still say they hold to the WCF and it's teaching that the efficacy of the sacraments is not tied to the time of it's administration. They then build there arguments from there.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by RAS_
> ...



They largely seem to appeal to:

WCF, Chapter 28
VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] 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, 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.[17]

16. John 3:5, 8
17. Rom. 6:3-6; Gal. 3:27; I Peter 3:21; Acts 2:38, 41

The question is, just as it is in regard to the Three Forms of Unity, what kind of grace are we referring to? Chapter 27 of the WCF tells us that the grace is "to confirm our interest in him" and "a promise of benefit to worthy receivers," both statements which affirm that the blessing(s) of the sacraments are only received by those who have faith. Baptism, as a sacrament of grace, is not automatic grace, but a means of grace when it is received by faith. It does not create faith or regenerate, but it does confirm or strengthen faith.

Also consider the superior )) 3FU:

Belgic Confession, Article 33

"We believe that our gracious God, taking account of our weakness and infirmities, has ordained the sacraments for us, thereby to seal unto us His promises, and to be pledges of the good will and grace of God towards us, and also to nourish and strengthen our faith; which He has joined to the Word of the gospel, the better to present to our senses both that which He declares to us by His Word and that which He works inwardly in our hearts, thereby confirming in us the salvation which He imparts to us. "

Belgic Confession, Article 35

"though the sacraments are connected with the thing signified nevertheless both are not received by all men. The ungodly indeed receives the sacrament to his condemnation, but he does not receive the truth of the sacrament, even as Judas and Simon the sorcerer both indeed received the sacrament but not Christ who was signified by it, of whom believers only are made partakers."

Heidelberg Catechism, LD 25

Q65: Since, then, we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, where does this faith come from?

A65: The Holy Ghost works faith in our hearts [1] by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments.[2]

1. John 3:5; Rom. 10:17
2. Rom. 4:11; Acts 8:37

Q66: What are the sacraments?

A66: The sacraments are visible, holy signs and seals appointed by God for this end, that by their use He may the more fully declare and seal to us the promise of the Gospel, namely, that of free grace He grants us the forgiveness of sins and everlasting life for the sake of the one sacrifice of Christ accomplished on the cross.[1]

1. Gen. 17:11; Rom. 4:11; Deut. 30:6; Heb. 9:8-9; Ezek. 20:12

Q67: Are both the Word and the sacraments designed to direct our faith to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross as the only ground of our salvation?

A67: Yes, truly, for the Holy Ghost teaches in the Gospel and assures us by the holy sacraments, that our whole salvation stands in the one sacrifice of Christ made for us on the cross.[1]

Heidelberg Catechism, LD 26

Q72: Is, then, the outward washing with water itself the washing away of sins?

A72: No,[1] for only the blood of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit cleanse us from all sin.[2]

1. I Peter 3:21; Eph. 5:26
2. I John 1:7; I Cor. 6:11

Heidelberg Catechism, LD 29

Q78: Do, then, the bread and the wine become the real body and blood of Christ?

A78: No, but as the water in Baptism is not changed into the blood of Christ, nor becomes the washing away of sins itself, being only the divine token and assurance thereof,[1] so also in the Lord's Supper the sacred bread [2] does not become the body of Christ itself, though agreeably to the nature and usage of sacraments it is called the body of Christ.[3]

1. Matt. 26:29
2. I Cor. 11:26-28
3. Exod. 12:26-27, 43, 48; I Cor. 10:1-4

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by poimen]

[Edited on 4-29-2005 by poimen]


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 29, 2005)

As Patrick has noted, the FV, or at least Wilkin's, view of Baptismal Regeneration is not Rome. Its actually Lutheran.

Jonathan,

The problem with trying to put together a "scholarly" paper on FV is that it is not a monolithic view. Once you say that the FV is this or that, one of the guys associated with FV will say, "That's not my view!".


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 29, 2005)

Thanks for that post, Rev. Kok, it was helpful in distinguishing some important differences.

Wayne, that seems to be a big problem, yes, especially with NPP guys.


----------



## doulosChristou (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> As Patrick has noted, the FV, or at least Wilkin's, view of Baptismal Regeneration is not Rome. Its actually Lutheran.



What's the essential difference between the Roman and Lutheran view of baptism?


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by wsw201_
> ...



This link from the LCMS should help in defining the Lutheran view:

Lutheran Baptism


----------



## Poimen (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Thanks for that post, Rev. Kok, it was helpful in distinguishing some important differences.
> 
> Wayne, that seems to be a big problem, yes, especially with NPP guys.



You're welcome.


----------



## doulosChristou (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> ...



Thanks. It sounds Augustinian. Has the RCC deviated much from the Augustinian view?


----------



## AdamM (Apr 29, 2005)

Here is a link to an article describing the Oxford Movement (Tractarianism.) Anyone see any parallels to the situation today? 

http://www.untothebreach.com/OxfordMovement.html 



> The Oxford Movement
> 
> Robert J. Olson
> Reformed Theological Seminary
> ...


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 29, 2005)

Would anyone deny, though, that the Lord *could* regenerate an infant at the time baptism is applied to that infant? An infant can be regenerated in the womb, I think we'd all agree, so is it a stretch to "speculate" the Holy Spirit, as accompanied by the preached word, at the time of the application of baptism would regenerate a child? Such isn't too scary to admit for a paedobaptist, is it?


----------



## wsw201 (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> Would anyone deny, though, that the Lord *could* regenerate an infant at the time baptism is applied to that infant? An infant can be regenerated in the womb, I think we'd all agree, so is it a stretch to "speculate" the Holy Spirit, as accompanied by the preached word, at the time of the application of baptism would regenerate a child? Such isn't too scary to admit for a paedobaptist, is it?



"Could" He? Yup. "Must" He? Nope.


----------



## Poimen (Apr 29, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> Would anyone deny, though, that the Lord *could* regenerate an infant at the time baptism is applied to that infant? An infant can be regenerated in the womb, I think we'd all agree, so is it a stretch to "speculate" the Holy Spirit, as accompanied by the preached word, at the time of the application of baptism would regenerate a child? Such isn't too scary to admit for a paedobaptist, is it?



Not for me. The question however, is whether or not the baptism itself is the instrument of the regeneration of the Holy Spirit, or the preached word. It can't be both because as I noted the sacraments are given to strengthen faith, not create it or work it in our hearts.

Q65: Since, then, we are made partakers of Christ and all his benefits by faith only, where does this faith come from?
A65: The Holy Ghost works faith in our hearts [1] by the preaching of the Holy Gospel, and confirms it by the use of the holy sacraments.[2]

1. John 3:5; Rom. 10:17
2. Rom. 4:11; Acts 8:37

Yet since you are a student at WSC I know you would agree with me. 
BTW, say hello to Zach Keele and Joshua Van Ee when you see them.


----------



## smallbeans (Apr 29, 2005)

I think the Tractarian movement is very different than what I'm seeing from the FV type sources. FV is much more like Mercersberg theology which was happening in America at the same time as the Tractarian movement in the German Reformed church. The Mercersberg men, Schaff and Nevin, critiqued the Tractarians, but still held to the ideals of organic unity of the church (in Christ), organic development of doctrine, and had a fairly high sacramentology.

It seems to me that the line of development for FV views is from Vos / Murray / Van Til through Gaffin, *not* from Rome as it was for the Tractarians.


----------



## nobigdeal (Apr 29, 2005)

[Edited on 5-2-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by poimen_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> ...



Daniel! How are you, brother? I don't know if you remember me (Bradford Myers), but I hope all is going well. I will tell my pastor--Zach Keele--you said hello. How are things going up north, brother?


----------



## Poimen (Apr 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by poimen_
> ...



Yes I do remember you. All is going well, but as you can see from my signature I am no longer in the great white north but the Pacific NW (Washington). Things are going well (overall) as I am pastoring a small but vibrant congregation of 25 families. I hope to be down in California this summer to see the 'old gang' so I'll stop by the bookstore and say hello.


----------

