WCF chapter 28.6

[PuritanCovenanter]

I am discussing the efficacy of baptism with another chap and this was my next question for him. He believes that baptism is a means of justification if I am reading him correctly.

What does it mean when it says the right use of this ordinance. Can the phrase be pointing to efficacy by God's will alone? For example our prayers are heard and answered in the affirmative if we pray according to His will. Such is the efficacy of Baptism when it is conferred over salvifically elected children or adult converts.. In other words it is of no effect when performed upon non elect children or adults.

28.6
The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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 .

 

[Puritan Sailor]

You are correct Randy in your analysis. The Divines opposed Romanism along with baptismal regeneration and justification too. The chapter on justification is crystal clear on this. I think the chapter on sacraments and baptism both make this clear that the sacrament is a sign and seal to the faith of the recipient. In other words, faith is necessary to receive the promises in the sacraments.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would only qualify to the extent that baptism is of no effect with respect to the extent of its real exhibition and conference. Grace is still promised and there is an admission to the visible covenant. Where most run into trouble is where they conflate the promise with the conference of grace.

Baptism has both strong dogmatic as well as practical theological elements to it and most errors stem from only considering one aspect without considering both together. From the dogmatic standpoint, it is key that it is understood that baptism is not magical and that union with Christ is not conveyed automatically by the Sacrament but that it does signify it. Dogmatically, only the elect are united to Christ and the instrument of that union is faith while baptism ministerially signifies and seals the promise that those who believe will be united to Him.

From a practical standpoint, however, it is key to see baptism's role as a real initiating rite and as a thing to encourage believers. We really cannot live in the knowledge of the decree and know that believers and unbelievers doubt in ways that are not always discernably different. It would be foolish to minister to the doubt of a believer by telling them that "...if you are elect then you are united to Christ...." That's like saying "...if you are elect then you are elect...." This is where the richness of the Reformed Confessions comes in and the pastoral language of promise found there and in the Scriptures. When doubt comes, it's not the Secret things of God that we remind people with but the revealed things. We remind them of their baptism and that grace was really promised to them that, if they believe, they will be saved.

Thus, from both a dogmatic and practical theological standpoint, it's about belief because the promise offered is only really conveyed and sealed to those that believe. It's simply a matter of how you communicate and internalize the Truth.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So is Baptism a means of grace in justification? I am having problems buying into this one. I am discussing this with someone who is convinced the WCF defines baptism as a sacrament. Ok. I can handle that. By definition sacraments have two parts. An outward sign and an inward grace. I can go with this also. Then he says that the the inward grace is not different from the thing signified. He believes the outward sign is water, signifying the washing away of sins which is justification to him beyond a shadow of a doubt. He is convinced this is defined this away from the WCF. This I am having a problem with.

Then we start discussing baptism as a means of grace and he assumes because baptism is a means of grace it is necessary for justification. I disagree with him here. We only need the Word to convert us and make us call upon the Lord. I actually think the WCF says this in 28.5. I could be mistaken... It wouldn't be the last time.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

So is Baptism a means of grace in justification? I am having problems buying into this one. I am discussing this with someone who is convinced the WCF defines baptism as a sacrament. Ok. I can handle that. By definition sacraments have two parts. An outward sign and an inward grace. I can go with this also. Then he says that the the inward grace is not different from the thing signified. He believes the outward sign is water, signifying the washing away of sins which is justification to him beyond a shadow of a doubt. He is convinced this is defined this away from the WCF. This I am having a problem with.

Then we start discussing baptism as a means of grace and he assumes because baptism is a means of grace it is necessary for justification. I disagree with him here. We only need the Word to convert us and make us call upon the Lord. I actually think the WCF says this in 28.5. I could be mistaken... It wouldn't be the last time.

I'm uncomfortable with the language as well.

Word and Sacrament are means of grace but from different standpoints. The Gospels promise salvation while the Sacraments assure us of the Gospel promise. The Gospel is heralded to all while the Sacraments are administered to Covenant members alone.

Here is what Rev. Winzer wrote recently that does a good job distinguishing:

Rich, thus far we have the gospel indiscriminately preached to all, whilst sacraments are administered to those in the visible church. We also have faith in the gospel essential to salvation whilst sacramental participation is not essential to salvation. The third and final point I am fairly sure you will concur with is that the gospel offers salvation as a present need, whereas sacraments are administered on the basis that salvation is a reality. Hence, the gospel is really and fundamentally a promise, whilst sacraments point to the fulfilment of the promise. Given these three qualifications, I would say the idea that sacraments are gospel is an unhelpful one, and it is best to distinguish Word (gospel) and Sacraments. Blessings!

Indeed, the Heidelberg captures this eloquently and succinctly:

Question 67. Are both word and sacraments, then, ordained and appointed for this end, that they may direct our faith to the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross, as the only ground of our salvation? (a)

Answer: Yes, indeed: for the Holy Ghost teaches us in the gospel, and assures us by the sacraments, that the whole of our salvation depends upon that one sacrifice of Christ which he offered for us on the cross.

Notice that both Word and Sacrament are directed to the same object (Christ as the only grounds for salvation) but the Gospels teach us while the Sacraments assure us.

 

[Poimen]

He believes the outward sign is water, signifying the washing away of sins which is justification to him beyond a shadow of a doubt. He is convinced this is defined this away from the WCF. This I am having a problem with.

Then we start discussing baptism as a means of grace and he assumes because baptism is a means of grace it is necessary for justification.

Sounds like someone has replaced circumcision with baptism for justification. I think Paul had something rather derogatory to say about that once...

See Romans 3:1ff. & Romans 9:30ff. If the Jews did not get justification through circumcision, why would we get justification through baptism?

Really, if we are justified by faith alone (in the words of the Reformed creeds) then baptism cannot be the or a means of justification. I thought this was Protestantism 101. As Rich noted, the Reformed view is that sacraments confirm our faith but do not impart it nor do they impart what faith appropriates, namely Christ's righteousness.