Lane is continuing our conversation and so shall I.
I’d like to begin with just a few quick answers and responses, and then spend the bulk of my time on the Westminsterian view of baptism — which is in sharp contrast to that of many American Presbyterians.
First, we do believe that the Lord is present in the Lord’s Supper by means of the power of the Holy Spirit. That should have been mentioned in our statement, and it was not because of an oversight. Second, I would be happy to discuss paedocommunion with Lane when we are done with all this. Third, Lane says that he can envision theologies of connections between Christ and the visible church that are orthodox, and others that are heterodox. So can I, but the whole discussion of John 15 has appeared to revolve around whether there can be any kind of connection between the Lord and the reprobate covenant member (as illustrated by the Lord’s metaphor) which is orthodox and sound. I simply am maintaining that there can be. Fourth, Lane says there is zero biblical evidence to support the conclusion that believers are baptized into the Regeneration. My answer is that for worthy receivers, baptism ushers us into all of Christ, and all His benefits. That would include the Lord’s regeneration of the world. Fifth, I thank Lane for his clarification of what he said about the FV position on time lapse baptism.
So much for the preliminaries. I want to concentrate on Lane’s astonishing statements about water baptism, because I am afraid that Lane has really put his foot in it.
First, he dismisses as “frankly ludicrous” the suggestion that FV critics are nowhere close to the Westminister Confession on the subject of baptism. But it is only ludicrous when it can be shown to be so by appeal to the text of the Confession. But that won’t happen any time soon, as we shall see in a moment.
Lane says, “My position is that the grace conferred in baptism is a signing and sealing grace, not a saving grace” and “it is a saving grace (in the sense of means of grace) in the sanctificatory sense.”
Not content with this, Lane tries to demonstrate his position by saying this: “Rather, the grace exhibited and conferred is that the person now has a sign and a seal of all those things . . . It says that baptism is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace . . . Signs and seals are not equal to the things they sign and seal.”
In response to all this, it is worth noting in the first place that the biblical phrase sign and seal comes from Romans 4, and here it is: “And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe . . .” (v. 11). My question for Lane here is what does seal mean? I know what a sign does, but what does a seal do? Are non-elect covenant members sealed in their baptisms? The one time this language is used in Scripture it is used of Abraham, who already had the righteousness of faith.
But the thing that flies in the teeth of English grammar is Lane’s statement above about what the Westminster Confession is saying. And it is unfortunate that he appeals to the grammar of the thing. “This is how the grammar of the passage works.” But here is the text in question — read it carefully, and read it all. Better yet, read it aloud slowly.
“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” (28.6).
Lane’s interpretation of this, sketched above, wants to says that the argument presented for the efficacy of baptism is actually arguing for the inefficacy of baptism. The divines are telling us under what circumstances the Holy Spirit uses a right use of this ordinace to accomplish His purposes, but Lane limits it to the Holy Spirit talking about His purposes, with the actual work being done by the Spirit directly elsewhere. But that is not what the Confession says.
Let me give the amplified and modernized version of the Confession.
“The efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of baptism; but nevertheless, when administered properly, the grace promised in baptism is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Spirit, to the elect according to God’s counsel and will, when the time is right” (28.6).
The “grace promised” is not water baptism. Water baptism is what is doing the promising. If baptism were what Lane is saying it is, then the efficacy of baptism would be tied to the moment of administration. It only makes sense to talk about a difference of time between administration and reception of the grace promised if the grace promised is referring to what baptism signs and seals, what the baptism is pointing to. It is not the grace of having a sign and seal now, but rather the grace promised by the sign and seal.
Lane shows that he is missing the argumentation of the Westminster divines entirely (and is therefore out of conformity with the Confession), when he says this: “And if baptism can be a delayed reaction type of thing (which Doug admits), then baptism does not confer regeneration on people.” But this is only the case if the Holy Spirit is limited by time. The grace of baptism is not a causal event in the world, like putting an eight ball in the corner pocket. The Confession says plainly that a man can receive the saving grace conveyed by water baptism, before he is baptized, while he is being baptized, or after he is baptized. The Holy Spirit is not so limited as to prevent Him from “conferring” salvation through the instrumentality of events still future.
I gave am amplified version of this section earlier. Let me give a truncated version of it, showing the heart of the Westminsterian position.
“The grace promised and offered in efficacious baptism is really exhibited and conferred upon the elect by the Holy Spirit’s use of that baptism in His due time” (28.6).
The words themselves are plain enough — they are just inconvenient for American Presbyterians who have accommodated themselves to the surrounding baptistic ethos. Not only are such Presbyterians out of accord with the Confession, but they have been out of accord for so many centuries that when someone just ups and tells them what their document is actually saying, they accuse him of being out of conformity with the Confession. “Ludicrous. Preposterous. Outrageous.” Okay, have it your way. But diagram the sentence in 28.6 first. Show me how it is saying what you claim.