And in his latest response to my response, Lane says this in the course of his continued discussion of Warfield.
“Regeneration can happen before baptism, during baptism, or after baptism. Therefore, it is not dependent on baptism.”
This really gets at the crux of the matter between us, and it illustrates why I believe that Lane (and Warfield) don’t really believe that sacraments are means of grace. They say they do (because as confessional Presbyterians they have to use that phrase), but they take away with the left hand what they gave with the right. Let me quote Lane again, and juxtapose his words with a pertinent section of the Westminister Confession.
“Regeneration can happen before baptism, during baptism, or after baptism. Therefore, it is not dependent on baptism.”
“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 belongs unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in His appointed time” (WCF 28.6).
Lane has said that regeneration is “not dependent on baptism,” and he says this because of the varying temporal relations that are possible between the moment of baptism and the moment of regeneration. That latter part is true enough. On that point, Lane, I, and the Westminster divines all agree. Regeneration can occur before, during or after baptism. But Lane concludes from this that regeneration is not dependent upon baptism. This is almost a photo negative of the Westminster doctrine.
In stark contrast, Westminster says that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to any temporal considerations like this. So why does Lane make an argument out of temporal considerations? And what is the efficacy of baptism? What is included in this efficacy? Regeneration, among other things (WCF 28.1). Now Westminster says that, at the appointed time, for those to whom the grace belongs, regeneration is not only offered, but exhibited and conferred, and this is done by means of an efficacious baptism, regardless of when the water was applied. All this is accomplished in the power of the Holy Ghost “by the right use of this ordinance.” They do not say that regeneration is not dependent upon a “right use of this ordinance.”
So let me ask Lane a question here. Do you believe that the Holy Spirit uses the instrumentality of a “right use of this ordinance” as His way of really exhibiting and conferring the grace of regeneration on one of God’s elect at the appointed time? If so, would you like to retract or modify your statement above? If not, would you be willing to take an exception to the Westminster Confession at this point?