Greenbaggins has begun interacting with the FV statement, and if I may say so, he begins well. He notes first that we claim to be in harmony with the Reformed confessions, and he says that he will assume us to be so unless it is proven otherwise. Secondly, he recognizes the defined scope of the document, along with the provisional nature of some of the claims. He intends to interact with us with that in mind. And third, he notes that we have said we want to be teachable, and he will take us at our word here. He does get a little jab in here, but I think it is above the belt.
“So I am going to take them at their word here. I am not going to assume that past behavior dictates future response. If I did, I would not have excessively good reason to deem FV authors teachable. Be that as it may, I think believing this statement of humility on their part is the best way forward”
Okay, even though it is above the belt, I would like to mention that I think it still a bit out of context. Remember that the whole imbroglio started with a Morecraftian heresy trial on the cheap, and a “may God have mercy on their souls” dismissal of us, followed thereafter by a massive internet slander campaign. Someone gave a signal, and one portion of the Reformed world began heaving tin cans, bottles, dead cats, mature vegetables, and old boots at another portion of the Reformed world. “Heretics! Deniers of the gospel! False teachers!” Then halfway though the barrage, another signal was given and in the lull that followed, another argument was thoughtfully advanced. “Gee, why are you guys so defensive?”
Be that as it may, the loop has to be broken sometime, and Lane’s willingness to do is appreciated. Let’s take it from here, why don’t we?
The main thing I want to note is another comment made by Lane, and this brings us back to his denial of Westminster 28.6. He doesn’t believe he denies it, but that’s what all of us deniers say, isn’t it?
Speaking of us, he says:
“Always, for those who have taken vows to uphold the standards of the church, their teachings need to be demonstrated to be in conformity with the standards”
Now I have made what I consider to be a serious point with regard to Lane setting aside the Westminster doctrine on baptism. And he has not been able to demonstrate (his standard) that he is in conformity with the Standards at this place. It is evident that he is not in conformity. He says that the efficacy of baptism does not include the grace signified, but only refers to the grace of signing and sealing. But this is contrary to Westminster. Consider.
“Q. 91. How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
A. The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in them, or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and the working of his Spirit in them that by faith receive them” (WSC, emphasis mine).
Remember we are not talking about the unbaptized regenerate, or the baptized unregenerate. We are talking about the baptized regenerate. The blessing of Christ, and the working of the Spirit, enable someone who receives the sacraments in true evangelical faith to rightly consider those sacraments to be numbered among the effectual means of their salvation. Is this paraphrase wrong? If so, where? If not, then how can it be reconciled with Lane’s formulation?
“Question 161: How do the sacraments become effectual means of salvation?
Answer: The sacraments become effectual means of salvation, not by any power in themselves, or any virtue derived from the piety or intention of him by whom they are administered, but only by the working of the Holy Ghost, and the blessing of Christ, by whom they are instituted” (WLC, emphasis mine).
The Larger Catechism says the same, although without mentioned the true faith of the recipient. The working of the Holy Ghost and the blessing of Christ make the sacraments to become effectual means of salvation. Right? And let me add that I agree with Westminster that this is not because of any magical virtue in the water, or in the virtue, piety or intent of the one administering the sacrament. God is the one who makes the sacraments effectual the way they are.
“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’s explanation of this place fall radically short. The Confession says that the “grace promised” is exhibited and conferred in the right use of this ordinance. Lane says that this refers to the grace of promising, signing, and sealing, but it does not refer to the grace signified — meaning regeneration, among other things.
Question 177: Wherein do the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ?
Answer: The sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper differ, in that Baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants . . .”
Now this says that when baptism is administered, with water, it serves as a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ. Now the “sign and seal” aspect of baptism is tied, by the very nature of the case, to the moment of administration. It makes no sense to say that baptism is administered at one point in time and becomes a sign and seal at another point in time. But it is not nonsensical to say that the sign and seal is applied at one point, and the thing signified (regeneration and ingrafting into Christ) becomes a reality at another point in time. We all know people who were baptized in infancy and who were converted in college. This is what Westminster is plainly talking about. The thing signified may happen at another time than the time of baptism.
Now Westminster teaches that the efficacy of baptism in bringing about the thing signified (the grace promised in the sign and seal) is not limited to the moment of administration. This means that Westminster teaches that when someone, baptized in infancy, is converted in college, his baptism is still to be reckoned as one of the means involved. That is what the words say.
Lane thinks otherwise. And his standard is that since he has taken vows to uphold these standards, that he must demonstrate that his contrary views are somehow consistent with the Confession. He is not permitted to simply assert that he agrees with the Confession. He must diagram the sentences of the Confession and Catechisms and show how they are saying the same thing that he is saying. The difficulty here is that they are not saying the same thing. The grace promised refers to the grace promised, not the graciousness of promising.