Paul writes to the Romans:

What shall we say then? Are we to continue in sin that grace may abound? By no means! How can we who died to sin still live in it? Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life. For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we shall certainly be united with him in a resurrection like his. We know that our old self was crucified with him in order that the body of sin might be brought to nothing, so that we would no longer be enslaved to sin. For one who has died has been set free from sin. Now if we have died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. We know that Christ, being raised from the dead, will never die again; death no longer has dominion over him. For the death he died he died to sin, once for all, but the life he lives he lives to God. So you also must consider yourselves dead to sin and alive to God in Christ Jesus.

It has become rather common in the PCA (in line with the wider baptist culture) to say that Paul is not really talking here about baptism, or at leas not about water baptism.

Since there is a lot of blood being spilled over this issue, let me just remind everyone that I am expressing my opinion and nothing more. I love and respect many presbyters who might or do take this position and I have never voted against anyone’s reception into a presbytery because they disagreed with me on this issue.

But in my opinion, this is erroneous. Paul is reminding the Romans that they were baptized with water and trying to remind them of its great significance.

And this is exactly how the Westminster standards understand the passage:

Q. 167. How is baptism to be improved by us?
A. The needful but much neglected duty of improving our baptism, is to be performed by us all our life long, especially in the time of temptation, and when we are present at the administration of it to others; by serious and thankful consideration of the nature of it, and of the ends for which Christ instituted it, the privileges and benefits conferred and sealed thereby, and our solemn vow made therein; by being humbled for our sinful defilement, our falling short of, and walking contrary to, the grace of baptism, and our engagements; by growing up to assurance of pardon of sin, and of all other blessings sealed to us in that sacrament; by drawing strength from the death and resurrection of Christ, into whom we are baptized, for the mortifying of sin, and quickening of grace; and by endeavoring to live by faith, to have our conversation in holiness and righteousness, as those that have therein given up their names to Christ; and to walk in brotherly love, as being baptized by the same Spirit into one body.

If one looks at the prooftexts appended to this statement, one will find Romans 6 is used. But even more significantly, the statement is simply a summary paraphrase of what Paul says in Romans 6. Even without a prooftext, we would know this Scripture is being set before us to answer the question about how we are to improve our baptisms.

All I’m saying is that a denial that Romans 6 teaches about water baptism is a contradiction to our standards.

Which is why I was pretty appalled to read this statement in the SJC’s rationalization:

Presbyteries are to determine whether a candidate or member has any differences with the teaching of the Constitution. A difference does not require overt contradiction or denial. It can arise when a member “quibbles” with the sufficiency of the exegesis underlying the proposition of the Constitution. It may occur when a member redefines terms specifically defined in our Constitutional standards. It can arise when a party describes the Constitution as “incomplete, misleading, or inaccurate.” It occurs whenever a position is asserted that “differs” with the authoritative exposition stated in our Constitutional standards.

Once a difference has been stated, or statements suggesting a difference exists are made, the Presbytery has an affirmative duty to explore that difference and to decide whether the difference is merely semantic, whether it is more than semantic but “not out of accord with any fundamental of our system of doctrine”, or whether the stated difference is “out of accord” and “hostile to our system” or strikes “at the vitals of religion.” (RAO 16-3(e)(5)).

The SJC is claiming that any divergence from an exposition in the standards requires a Presbytery investigation. But that is not an honest claim. We would be investigating basically anyone who is not substantially “FV” if we adopted this standard.

The irony here is rather strong. It is precisely because he is “FV” (FV here means: Reformed and not ashamed of the Reformed heritage both in the Westminster Confession and previous regarding baptism) that Steve Wilkins is one of the few ministers in the PCA who does not need to quibble about Romans 6. Yet he has never troubled anyone over this issue, called them heretical, or denied their qualifications for ministry over the Internet. Yet this “standard,” is being used against him. The Presbytery was supposed to use a standard on Steve that, if used consistently, would have mandated an investigation of many other presbyters.