# WCF XXVIII (Baptism); grace conferred (paedos only...)



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 20, 2005)

> VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy *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.



Is this sanctifying grace; that is, grace that sets these infants or adults apart from the pagans of the world as God's covenant people, for blessings through faith or curses through unbelief?

Or, is it salvific grace, the regeneration of the Holy Spirit through washing (Tit 3:5)?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 20, 2005)

Presumptively speaking, the WCF says it is:

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the new testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church;[2] but also, to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his church until the end of the world.[8]

1. Matt. 28:19
2. I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:27-28
3. Rom. 4:11; Col. 2:11-12
4. Gal. 3:27; Rom. 6:5
5. John 3:5; Titus 3:5
6. Mark 1:4; Acts 2:38; 22:16
7. Rom. 6:3-4
8. Matt. 28:19-20

If the child later proves to be a covenant breaker, then the 'curses through unbelief' is their badge of honor.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 21, 2005)

> VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinancy 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 think you will find that the key to understanding this section as far conferral goes is to look to the words immediately following the portion you highlighted. 

1. conferred by the Holy Ghost

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

3. * according to the counsel of God's own will , in his appointed time. *


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

Although, as Scott B mentions, the WCF does identify what grace baptism signifies or promises. And the WCF does say that, with qualifications such as those you mention, baptism does confer the grace it promises (signifies).


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

The WCF's proof texts for the clause about conferring grace in the paragraph that Gabriel quoted are below. They give a flavor of what grace is being conferred (with the qualifications Adam mentioned and a few others). Drawing from the quotes below they include "putting on Christ," regeneration, renewing by the Holy Ghost, sanctification, cleansing by the Holy Ghost, the remission of sins, and the receipt of the Holy Ghost.

> Galatians 3:27. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

> Titus 3:5. Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. 

> Ephesians 5:25-26. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word. 

> Acts 2:38, 41. Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.... Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 21, 2005)

Yes Scott, I totally agree. 

The grace conferred in baptism is made effectual by the Spirit to those whom God sovereignly elects (not tied to the moment of time in which the baptism is administered.) The WS speak only of the reprobate receiving common operations of the Spirit.


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

Yes, agreed.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

So baptismal regeneration is possible and does occur?


----------



## AdamM (Jul 21, 2005)

> So baptismal regeneration is possible and does occur?



Baptism functions as sign and seal, not instrument, but theoretically one could be converted at the moment of baptism, again without baptism being the instrumental cause. So, no to the baptismal regeneration, but yes it is possible that a child could be converted at the moment of his or her baptism through the ministry of the Word. I am not indicating that this would be the ordinary pattern, but if you asked me if it is possible for someone to be converted at their baptism, I would say yes it is possible. 

[Edited on 7-21-2005 by AdamM]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

So not 'baptismal regeneration,' classically defined?

Doug Wilson argues that the WCF teaches a _version_ of baptismal regeneration, and argues that people today Baptistically-redefine it to make it not seem so. Thoughts?

He says that to argue the Sacraments and Word are not effectual means of salvation is a Baptist argument that he left behind when he became Reformed.


----------



## AdamM (Jul 21, 2005)

> So not 'baptismal regeneration,' classically defined?



Yes, no to baptismal regeneration. 



> Doug Wilson argues that the WCF teaches a version of baptismal regeneration, and argues that people today Baptistically-redefine it to make it not seem so. Thoughts?



In fairness to Wilson, I think his version of baptismal regeneration, means that by baptism the child is incorporated into the covenant community i.e. the visible church (btw, I thought the WS say that it by birth). I think it is a needlessly confusing way to state things and I have little sympathy when people give non-standard meanings to hot button terms like baptismal regeneration and then complain about well - controversy - go figure. 




> He says that to argue the Sacraments and Word are not effectual means of salvation is a Baptist argument that he left behind when he became Reformed.



He is knocking down a straw-man. How about showing me any mainstream Reformed person of note, who would argue that the Sacraments and Word are not effectual means of grace? Of course they may not agree with Wilson, but that is how it seems to work in the debate. You build an unidentified straw man, claim the high ground by knocking it down and then call everyone who does not buy into their new paradigm a baptist.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)

Thanks.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by AdamM_
> 
> 
> > So not 'baptismal regeneration,' classically defined?
> ...



Well articulated. And we have to ask ourselves the question: what kind of grace is being given? Sacramentally, the grace received is as follows -

WCF, Chapter 27



> I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace,[1] immediately instituted by God,[2] to represent Christ, and his benefits; and to confirm our interest in him:[3] as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the church, and the rest of the world;[4] and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.[5]
> 
> II. There is, in every sacrament, a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.[6]
> 
> ...



The WCF makes it very clear here that the sacraments do not impart saving or converting grace, nor is it automatic but a "promise of benefit to worthy receivers." We ought to never separate our confessions description and explanation of the sacraments from the more explicit teaching of the confession on baptism or Lord's Supper. (The same goes for the HC and the Belgic Confession which teach, very clearly I might add, that sacraments nourish and strengthen our faith but do not create faith nor give grace to those who do not partake by faith but only condemnation).


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 21, 2005)




----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

"The WCF makes it very clear here that the sacraments do not impart saving or converting grace, nor is it automatic but a "promise of benefit to worthy receivers.""

Daniel - I am not sure I follow you here. The Westminster standards teach that the sacraments (both of them) are "effectual to salvation."


Q. 154. What are the outward means whereby Christ communicates to us the benefits of his mediation?
A. The outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates to his church the benefits of his mediation, are all his ordinances; especially the word, sacraments, and prayer; *all which are made effectual to the elect for their salvation*. 

Q. 161. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted. 

I think what you might be getting at is that the sacraments are not "instruments" of salvation. Using confessional terminology, the alone "instrument" of justification is faith. Yet, God savingly and effectually conveys grace via the Word, prayer, and the sacraments.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "The WCF makes it very clear here that the sacraments do not impart saving or converting grace, nor is it automatic but a "promise of benefit to worthy receivers.""
> 
> Daniel - I am not sure I follow you here. The Westminster standards teach that the sacraments (both of them) are "effectual to salvation."
> ...



Yes but what kind of grace do they convey? What, if anything, do they convey that the Word does not convey by the power of the Holy Spirit? Or are they visible signs of the holy gospel meant to help us persevere and encourage us in our sanctification? 

Furthermore doesn't Q&A 162 clearly explain the 'type' or manner of the grace or salvation of the sacraments?



> Q162: What is a sacrament?
> 
> A162: A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ in his church,[1] to signify, seal, and exhibit [2] unto those that are within the covenant of grace,[3] the benefits of his mediation;[4] to strengthen and increase their faith, and all other graces;[5] to oblige them to obedience;[6] to testify and cherish their love and communion one with another;[7] and to distinguish them from those that are without.[8]
> 
> ...



Do we understand each other now?


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

I am not sure. Like the Word and prayer, the sacraments are "effectual to salvation," which seemed a bit different from your earlier post (which you indicated did not impart "saving grace"). The grace conferred in baptism is not a form of Lutheran baptismal regeneration. But, with qualifications, the Holy Spirit uses baptism to confer the grace promised.

This is another helpful provision from the LC:

Q. 163. What are the parts of a sacrament?
A. The parts of a sacrament are two; the one an outward and sensible sign, used according to Christ´s own appointment; the other an inward and spiritual grace thereby signified. 

By definition a sacrament includes the grace signified. So for baptism to be a sacrament, it has to have the outward element (water), and the grace signified.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> I am not sure. Like the Word and prayer, the sacraments are "effectual to salvation," which seemed a bit different from your earlier post (which you indicated did not impart "saving grace"). The grace conferred in baptism is not a form of Lutheran baptismal regeneration. But, with qualifications, the Holy Spirit uses baptism to confer the grace promised.
> 
> This is another helpful provision from the LC:
> ...



Of course the sacraments do signify the inward reality but they do not convey that reality. Abraham was justified before he was circumcised. Circumcision did not add anything to his salvation but it did testify to it and point him to it (Romans 4:11)

Let me just ask these questions to clarify:

can the benefits of the sacraments be received apart from faith?
are the benefits of the sacraments more than what is received in the gospel?
can the sacraments convert people?

The Reformers taught that the sacraments assume faith on the part of the receivers (even infants who were baptized). The benefits are only, however, for worthy receivers as the WCF points out. 

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]
> 
> ...



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.*For they are visible signs and seals of an inward and invisible thing, by means whereof God works in us by the power of the Holy Spirit.* Therefore the signs are not empty or meaningless, so as to deceive us. For Jesus Christ is the true object presented by them, without whom they would be of no moment.



Belgic Confession, Article 35



> Now, as it is certain and beyond all doubt that Jesus Christ has not enjoined to us the use of His sacraments in vain, so He works in us all that He represents to us by these holy signs, though the manner surpasses our understanding and cannot be comprehended by us, as the operations of the Holy Spirit are hidden and incomprehensible. In the meantime we err not when we say that what is eaten and drunk by us is the proper and natural body and the proper blood of Christ. But the manner of our partaking of the same is not by the mouth, but by the spirit through faith. Thus, then, though Christ always sits at the right hand of His Father in the heavens, yet does He not therefore cease to make us partakers of Himself by faith. This feast is a spiritual table, at which Christ communicates Himself with all His benefits to us, and gives us there to enjoy both Himself and the merits of His sufferings and death: nourishing, strengthening, and comforting our poor comfortless souls by the eating of His flesh, quickening and refreshing them by the drinking of His blood.
> 
> *Further, 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.*


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

Daniel: I think allot of those qualifications are in the WCF too. Yet the central affirmations remain (the sacraments confer grace and are effectual to salvation). 

And, as I mentioned, faith is the alone instrument of justification. Neither the sacraments, the Word, or prayer is, in WCF terminology, an instrument of justification. The Holy Spirit uses the Word, prayer, and the sacraments to strengthen and increase that faith. None of these things save apart from the Holy Spirit. Following Augustine, some reformers used the expression that the sacraments are the Word made visible if that helps.


----------



## Scott (Jul 21, 2005)

MeDiedBlue posted a helpful quote from Michael Horton awhile back. It is from his book, In the Face of God (from page 141):



> It was for this reason that the Protestant Reformers followed such great church fathers as St. Augustine in calling the sacraments "God's visible Word." The sacraments serve the same purpose as the Word itself, not only offering or exhibiting God's promise, but actually conferring his saving grace by linking us, through faith, to Christ and his benefits.
> 
> Someone will doubtless ask, "But if we're justified once and for all, why do we need to continue receiving forgiveness and grace through the sacraments?" It is interesting that we do not ask this question in relation to the Word. We know that we need to hear the gospel preached more than once in our lives, that we need to continually hear God's assurance of forgiveness and pardon extended to us in our weakness and doubt. The sacraments serve precisely the same purpose.


 
Later in the book, he continues along that same line of thought (from page 221):



> Does Baptism actually save, then, if so many who are baptized fail to believe? If the sacraments serve the same purpose as the Word"”that is, if they are means of grace"”then we can ask the same question of the Word: Does the preached Word actually save, if so many fail to believe? Most of us have no hesitation in answering, "[Of course.] God offers eternal life"”but if we reject it, we have no one to blame but ourselves. If we accept it, we have no one to praise but God." The same is true of baptism. If God offers eternal life to everyone, even to those outside the covenant of grace, then how much more will he hold us responsible for rejecting his saving grace sealed to us by his Spirit through the Word and baptism?


----------



## Poimen (Jul 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> MeDiedBlue posted a helpful quote from Michael Horton awhile back. It is from his book, In the Face of God (from page 141):
> 
> 
> ...



<sigh> At this point we may need a third party to mediate between us because now I have no idea what you mean. That may be my fault, and perhaps you feel the same way about me. 

To make it simple, answer these questions [if you please sir ] and then I will know if your position is different than mine:


can the benefits of the sacraments be received apart from faith?
are the benefits of the sacraments more than what is received in the gospel?
can the sacraments convert people?
if the sacraments do not justify nor regenerate, what then do they do? in other words, what part of salvation are the effectual unto?

Does anyone want to jump in and help us out?


----------



## Scott (Jul 22, 2005)

Daniel: I am not sure I understand your questions. I will answer as I understand.

> can the benefits of the sacraments be received apart from faith?
It depends what benefits you mean. Broadly speaking, the WCF recognizes at least two kinds of benefits. The first category would be those enjoyed by the elect. These are obtained by saving faith and cannot be obtained without saving faith. I think this is probably what you are getting at with your question. For example, can one obtain the remission of all sins without faith? No. 

The WCF does recognize another category of benefits called "common operations of the Spirit." The unelect in the visible church can receive non-saving benefits.

> are the benefits of the sacraments more than what is received in the gospel?
I don't understand this question. 

> can the sacraments convert people?
I don't understand this question either. People are ordinarily converted by the ministry of the Word. The sacraments and prayer may have a role too, as they are means of grace and the Word made visible. In any event, I certainly deny any kind of ex opere operato mechanical functioning like Lutherans believe. For example, Lutherans believe that the act of baptism actually implants faith in the infant baptized. I don't agree with that. 

> if the sacraments do not justify nor regenerate, what then do they do? in other words, what part of salvation are the effectual unto?

The WCF says that the right use of baptism can, with qualifications and in God's time, confer the grace promised on the elect. The grace promised includes regeneration. So, I am not sure what you mean here, unless you mean regeneration ex opere operato, as Martin Luther believed (which is mistaken). I believe that "by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised [which is defined elsewhere] 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."

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by Scott]


----------



## Scott (Jul 22, 2005)

"The WCF makes it very clear here that the sacraments do not impart saving or converting grace, nor is it automatic but a "promise of benefit to worthy receivers.""

Daniel - WOuld you be comfortable with this statement:

"The WCF makes it very clear here that the Word does not impart saving or converting grace, nor is it automatic but a "promise of benefit to worthy receivers.""

I think the second clause is ok, but I am not sure if the first clause is consistent with the confessional teaching that sacraments are "effectual to salvation" or, Titus 3:5's statement that "to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost." The WCF uses Titus 3:5 as a proof text for the statement about the sacraments being effectual to salvation.


----------



## JKLeoPCA (Jul 22, 2005)

Seems as if the discussion is about the sacraments is exclusive to the sacraments themselves. So I'd ask, Is the Gospel message to be absent from the administration of the sacraments? 

WCF Chapter XXVII



> 3. 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.



So in the "words of institution" there is contained the authorized use of the sacrament, and mention of the benefit to the worthy receiver. but the effectualness of it still relies upon the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "The WCF makes it very clear here that the sacraments do not impart saving or converting grace, nor is it automatic but a "promise of benefit to worthy receivers.""
> 
> Daniel - WOuld you be comfortable with this statement:
> ...



You continue to quote the section of the WCF concerning the sacraments being effectual unto salvation but you never state exactly what part of salvation you are referring to. What part of the ordo is made effectual by the sacraments?


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 22, 2005)

I think that the phrase "effectual for salvation" is a bit misleading in regards to the sacraments alone. Perhaps these 2 sections from the WCF will shed more light:

From Chapt 10.1:

I. All those whom God hath predestinated unto life, and those only, He is pleased, in His appointed time, effectually to call,[1] *by His Word and Spirit,*[2] out of that state of sin and death, in which they are by nature to grace and salvation, by Jesus Christ;[3] enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God,[4] taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh;[5] renewing their wills, and, by His almighty power, determining them to that which is good,[6] and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ:[7] yet so, as they come most freely, being made willing by His grace.[8]

And Chapter 14.1:

I. The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls,[1] *is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts,[2] and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word*,[3] by which also, and by the administration of the sacraments, and prayer, it is increased and strengthened.[4]

The Word working with the Spirit is the ordinary "effectual" means of salvation and prayer and the sacraments increase and strengthen the faith of those who are effectually called.


----------



## Poimen (Jul 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> I think that the phrase "effectual for salvation" is a bit misleading in regards to the sacraments alone. Perhaps these 2 sections from the WCF will shed more light:
> 
> From Chapt 10.1:
> ...



This is exactly what I was looking for (and what I understood the Confession to be saying). 

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by poimen]


----------



## Scott (Jul 22, 2005)

"The Word working with the Spirit is the ordinary "effectual" means of salvation and prayer and the sacraments increase and strengthen the faith of those who are effectually called."

Wayne: I agree that the Word is ordinarily primary in terms of justification. To clarify, when you use the word "salvation" you mean what the WCF terms "justification," right?

What do you mean that the term "effectual to salvation" is misleading in terms of the sacraments?

[Edited on 7-22-2005 by Scott]


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 22, 2005)

> What do you mean that the term "effectual to salvation" is misleading in terms of the sacraments?



I mean that the Sacraments by themselves are not salvific. No one is saved by partaking in a sacrament.




> Wayne: I agree that the Word is ordinarily primary in terms of justification. To clarify, when you use the word "salvation" you mean what the WCF terms "justification," right?



The Word and Spirit are primary not only in justification, but in the effectual calling, regeneration, justification, sanctification, etc., etc. 

I believe the word salvation as used by the WCF encompasses more than justification but the whole Ordo.

[Edited on 7/22/2005 by wsw201]


----------



## Scott (Jul 25, 2005)

"I mean that the Sacraments by themselves are not salvific. No one is saved by partaking in a sacrament."

I guess this goes back to the definition of salvation. But our confessional standards do state that the sacraments, along with the Word and prayer, are effectual to "salvation" and the proof texts appended are salvation proof-texts. So, I don't see it it would be accurate to say that something that is effectual to salvation is not "salvific," especially in light of the accompanying proof texts. 

I am also not sure what you mean when you say the sacraments "by themselves." It is the Holy Spirit who applies grace through the sacraments. It is not the elements by themselves (alone apart from the Holy Spirit).

BTW, I understand and agree with the confessional statements regarding the ordinary primacy of the Word in calling and in faith (conversion). 

Scott

[Edited on 7-25-2005 by Scott]


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> "I mean that the Sacraments by themselves are not salvific. No one is saved by partaking in a sacrament."
> 
> I guess this goes back to the definition of salvation. But our confessional standards do state that the sacraments, along with the Word and prayer, are effectual to "salvation" and the proof texts appended are salvation proof-texts. So, I don't see it it would be accurate to say that something that is effectual to salvation is not "salvific," especially in light of the accompanying proof texts.
> ...



I am looking at the Standards as a whole. Since one chapter or catechism question can not contradict another question or chapter, it all has to make sense. If we are going to say that the sacraments can save you then why wasn't that included in the chapter on Effectual Calling? 

The ordinary means of salvation is through hearing the Word and being effectually called by the Spirit. If the sacraments were effectual for salvation outside of Word and Spirit, we need to have every preacher go out and start baptizing everyone they can get their hands on or feeding them bread and wine so they can be saved from the wrath to come. Needless to say the Church doesn't do this because the Sacraments, though they do impart grace to a believer, they do not impart any salvific grace to a non-believer.

You asked the question regarding how "salvation" is defined. How do you define salvation?


----------



## Scott (Jul 25, 2005)

> I am looking at the Standards as a whole. Since one chapter or catechism question can not contradict another question or chapter, it all has to make sense. If we are going to say that the sacraments can save you then why wasn't that included in the chapter on Effectual Calling?


Wayne: I mentioned that I agree with you that the Word is the primary means of grace used for conversion. That is why the mention of the Word makes sense there. It would seem to me that you are using "salvation" in the limited sense of conversion, which is one proper use ("we have been saved"). However, your other post stated that you mean salvation in all aspects, including not only conversion but also sanctification and glorification. I think that is what is giving me some difficulty in understanding.




> The ordinary means of salvation is through hearing the Word and being effectually called by the Spirit. If the sacraments were effectual for salvation outside of Word and Spirit, we need to have every preacher go out and start baptizing everyone they can get their hands on or feeding them bread and wine so they can be saved from the wrath to come. Needless to say the Church doesn't do this because the Sacraments, though they do impart grace to a believer, they do not impart any salvific grace to a non-believer.


Again, you really seem focused on conversion, as opposed to salvation as a whole. Which leads to your question.



> You asked the question regarding how "salvation" is defined. How do you define salvation?


I would use it in the full-orbed since, including sanctification and glorification. It would include the past ("you have been saved"), the present ("work out your salvation in fear and trembling") and the future ("we eagerly await our salvation"). 

So perhaps we could agree on this model. Salvation in the sense of conversion is ordinarily through the means of grace of the Word. The Holy Spirit gives us faith to receive and embrace the Word. Salvation in the sense of sanctification in normally through the means of grace of the Word, the sacraments, and prayer. The Holy Spirit works through these means to increase and strengthen our faith. In all cases, the Holy Spirit is using the means of grace ito impart grace in ways that effectual for the salvation of the elect. So, in that sense they are all salvific. 

Does that sound right to everyone? I really imagine that we are all basically on the same page, as I don't think anyone has suggested Lutheran baptismal regeneration on one end or Zwinglian memorialism on the other.

If you look at the Horton quote, I think it is helpful.

Scott


----------



## wsw201 (Jul 25, 2005)

I don't disagree with you Scott but I was not simply focusing on conversion. As I had noted salvation encompasses more than justification. It includes the whole Ordo. But that did not seem to be the point that Daniel was trying to get across.

When I said that the phrase "effectual for salvation" was misleading is that very few look at that phrase in an all encompassing manner as you have explained it. I say this because I have had serious discussions with more than a few folks at my former church who took this phrase at face value and believed that the sacraments were as effectual as the preached Word. In fact they argued if you only had communion there was no need for a sermon. Unfortunately they failed to understand that without the Word no one would understand what the sacraments meant and there "effectuality" would be lost..


----------

