Doug wrote:

6. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered (John 3:5, 8); 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 (Gal. 3:27; Tit. 3:5; Eph. 5:25–26; Acts 2:38, 41).

Baptism is efficacious. But the efficacy of the sacrament is not tied to the moment when it is administered. This efficacious grace is conferred on the elect at the appropriate time, the time of their conversion, and what happens in that moment is the applied grace of their baptism. For someone baptized in infancy in a covenant home, and who was converted as an adult, the Confession teaches that their conversion was due to the efficacy of their baptism. When someone under such circumstances is not converted, we obviously cannot speak of the saving efficacy of their baptism. But when such a person is converted, it is beyond all question that the Confession teaches that their baptism was efficacious, taking the grace promised in baptism, and “really exhibiting and conferring” it. It is common for many contemporary Presbyterians to depart from the Confession here by saying that the two sacraments are genuine means of grace, but that they are means of sanctifying grace only, and not saving grace. This is out of conformity with the Confession at this point—it is not heresy, but it is plainly out of conformity with the Confession, and those who hold to this position need to take an exception to the Confession. We may summarize this section as saying that “the Holy Ghost uses as His instrument a right use of the ordinance of baptism to really exhibit and confer the saving grace promised in that baptism to those elect who are the rightful beneficiaries of that grace.”

OK, Doug didn’t use the adult baptism’s example as he does here, but they are both exactly what the Confession states, but the principle is exactly the same and amply support his contentions.

Otherwise, the divines would have written a question in the Larger Catechism, “How is effectual calling to be improved by us?” But they didn’t ask that did they. One question was sufficient for all cases:

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.

So what is the problem? The problem is that the Westminster Assembly has created confusion by articulating a view of baptismal efficacy that is far too high–far more like baptismal regeneration than anything articulated in recent Reformed thinking.

However, the Westminter documents are no longer open to analysis and discussion. They are simply an object of superstitious fear and totem power. So when someone does nothing more than articulate what the Westminster confession states, then he is accused of being illogical.

No. He is reading what the words say. If you have problems with the logic, own up to with whom you are disagreeing.
For my part, I always stay away from actually doing constructive theology out of paragraphs 5 and 6 in the Westminster Confession because I don’t believe in baptismal regeneration in that sense. (I don’t mind pointing to the paragraphs to show what the Divines believed, but that’s about it. I don’t so much disagree as find it unhelpful to teach. It meets resistance, as the blogosphere has shown us today.) As I pointed out in this essay, baptism as entrance into the visible church is far more helpful and Biblical than baptism as sign that gives saving faith, etc. Baptism bestows “conditional unmerited grace” (to used John Piper’s vocabulary), not “unconditional unmerited grace.”

Here is another essay I wrote that might help.