Under the heading of “No Exceptions,” Lane has responded to my last post this way:
I do not take any exceptions to the Westminster Confession of Faith. Wilson conveniently forgot to mention WCF 28.5, when he argues that I need to take an exception to the Standards: ‘Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it; or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated’ (emphasis added). This clearly states that regeneration is not dependent on baptism.”
Actually, I haven’t forgotten this section of the confession, and I agree with it whole-heartedly. But Lane doesn’t — notice how he modifies the straight reading of this portion also. The premises stated don’t yield the conclusion that “regeneration is not dependent on baptism.” Rather, they yield the conclusion that regeneration is not necessarily or absolutely dependent upon baptism.
A man can be baptized and still be lost. Amen. A man can be unbaptized and still be saved. Amen again. This does not prove that there is no link between baptism and regeneration, but rather that there is not a “no exceptions link.”
“If regeneration can happen without baptism ever happening (such as the thief on the cross), then regeneration is simply not dependent on baptism. One does not have to have baptism in order for regeneration to happen. And, as the Confession equally clearly states, just because one has baptism does not mean that one is regenerated, either. So, I am in perfect conformity with the Confession in saying that regeneration is not dependent on baptism.”
The Westminster divines say that saving grace is not “inseparably annexed” to baptism, and they give two obvious examples. A man can be saved without it, and a man with it can be lost. But in the section of the Confession that Lane differs with, we were not talking about an unbaptized regenerate soul or a baptized unregenerate soul. We are talking about a baptized regenerate soul. Now, in that circumstance, does Lane agree or disagree that in the right use of the sacrament of water baptism that saving grace is really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Spirit at the appointed time?
“Lack of baptism does not mean lack of regeneration, and baptism does not automatically confer regeneration.”
Sure, but if someone is baptized and regenerate, what is the teaching of the Confession about the relationship between the two? Does the Confession teach — only for those to whom the grace belongs — that regeneration is exhibited and conferred by baptism?
“If regeneration happens at the time-point of baptism, I am willing to say that the Holy Spirit uses baptism as a means through which a sinner is regenerated, although the baptism without the Word can do nothing. And before the TR’s jump all over me for being FV, hear the rest of this out carefully. It is crystal clear it is really the Word that the Holy Spirit uses to regenerate someone. Even in baptism, I would argue that it is the Word which regenerates if regeneration happens at that time.”
This does not whisper an exception to the Confession; it shouts it. The Confession says that the efficacy of baptism is not dependent on the “time-point” of its administration at all. Lane says that potential efficacy of baptism is limited to the time of administration and, even then, baptism isn’t really doing anything. This is called disagreeing with the Westminster Assembly.
“But that will only be because the thing signified is also given, not because of the sign only being given. FV guys are fond of pointing out that the norm appears to be that the sign and thing signified are normally annexed one to the other. But the grace promised in 28.6 is the efficacy of baptism as a sign and seal. This must be distinguished (however closely one wants to tie the sacramental union) from the thing signified.”
I would answer this, but I don’t know what Lane means by it. I think there is something important in there, but I don’t know what it is. For the elect, the sign seals the thing signified. That’s why we can say that the thing signified is really exhibited and conferred.
“That being said, Wilson seems not to want to answer my query about Warfield. I would still appreciate it if Wilson would engage the Warfield quotations from the Shorter Writings, those books out of which Wilson forgot to read when formulating what Warfield supposedly believed about the Sacraments. In other words, I refuse to allow any kind of derailing of the discussion from Warfield’s beliefs to my beliefs. We are really talking about Warfield’s beliefs, not whether I should take an exception to the Confession. My own beliefs are tangential to this discussion.”
Lane’s answers here illustrate the point I was making about Warfield in RINE. I interacted with Warfield’s doctrine on this as stated in The Plan of Salvation. At the same time, I acknowledged that Warfield would elsewhere confess that the sacraments are means of grace. Lane produced quotations that show this, and challenges me on that basis. But I am going to stick to my guns here. Lane and Warfield have the same kind of “workaround” for the confessional language. Notice how Lane says that that baptism does something — but before his trigger-happy brethren empty their clips into him, he hastens to add this this is okay because he doesn’t really believe it. The Word does it, not baptism. I understand something very similar to this being what Warfield means by the immediacy of God’s grace in salvation, which goes back to my original point in my book.
Last thing. Lane says that whether he is in accord with the Confession if “tangential to this discussion.” This is a nice little set up. Wilkins and Leithart — our presbyterial heavens will tumble to the ground if we find that they are out of accord with the Confession at any point. But is Lane out of accord with the Confession? An irrelevant detail. A trifle. Let us not get distracted. We have work to do. What is that work? Nailing other people for being out of accord with the Confession.