I’ll be lecturing at the MBIBS this Saturday (as well as teaching and preaching at Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church on Sunday). One of my lectures is on baptism and I am planning on asking about the following:

5. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance [baptism], yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

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.

It is pretty clear hear that the grace conferred is defined here as that which guarantees final salvation.

I’m glad the Westminster Divines wanted to do justice to the Bible’s own language and the heritage of the Church. But I’m wondering if this expression is all that helpful. Does this not essentially tell us that baptism confers regeneration unless it doesn’t? (perhaps “at some point in time, unless it never does,” but there are other ways of taking the time reference).

I don’t doubt that baptism is tied in some way to the regeneration of the elect but this way of expressing things doesn’t give us much pastoral direction.

That’s why, when I talk about baptism and the Reformed heritage that has faithfully transmitted what the Bible teaches, I find it a lot easier to talk about it as “for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church” (WCF 28.1).

By the way, here is a lecture on the life of Martin Bucer that was given by Rev. Steve Wilkins.

audio