One of the things that became obvious throughout this review of Waters’ book on the Federal Vision was the extraordinarily sloppy job done by Waters in representing my views fairly or accurately. Unfortunately, this pattern continues in the footnotes and bibliography.
An astonishing ommission in the bibliography is the doctrinal examination I took before my presbytery in order to address these question. That examination can be found here, under the heading of Ecclesiastical Issues.
Another striking example of sloppiness is the following summary of my contribution to the Knox Colloquium on sacramental efficacy. Waters says:
“Wilson charges the modern Reformed church with compromising the ‘sacramental theology found in the Westminster Standards,” and proceeds to elaborate precisely what he understands that sacramental theology to mean. In so doing, he advances a doctrine of baptismal efficacy that neglects needed confessional qualifications. He thereby transgresses the very Confession that he professes to espouse” (p. 363, emphasis added).
My point here is not to dispute the doctrinal issue itself — that is forthcoming in response to a footnote from Cal Beisner’s Foreword. My point here is simply to illustrate Waters’ critical methods. I want to simply quote from the article in question, in order to see if I in fact neglected “needed confessional qualification.”
Remember, the issue is not our disagreement over what we believe baptism does. Later for that. The issue is whether I qualify what I believe it does in accordance with the Confession’s qualifications. Waters says that I neglected this important task. Read the following, and see if you agree with this assessment.
“Let us grant that the Catechism here is not maintaining that all those who are baptized with water are automatically and inexorably saved. Let us grant that it is not saying that individuals are watertight jugs and that baptism pours an ‘effectual call fluid’ into each and every one of them. Let us grant that those who are baptized but who remain in unbelief are worse off for having been baptized, not better off. Of course the Confession is not teaching baptismal superstition (and, incidentally, neither are we). The Confession is talking about worthy receivers, who in the broader context of the Confession should be understood as the elect” (The Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons, “Sacramental Efficacy in the Westminster Standards,” p. 236, italics original, bold added).
“So positively, what is the Confession saying about such worthy receivers?” (p. 236).
“Spiritual blessings work the way they do because of the involvement of God in them. God is always the one who gives the increase — not water, not bread, and not wine. He works through His instruments, but it is His involvement that gives the increase for blessing” (p. 237).
“Those who come to the sacraments with true evangelical faith in God are those on whom this blessing of salvation is bestowed” (p. 238).
“In the words of the Confession, a sacrament . . . is a holy ordinance that uses sensible signs to represent, seal and apply the benefits of the new covenant to worthy receivers. Who are worthy receivers? The elect” (p. 240). [Note — I am aware that an elect individual who is foreordained to be converted next year is not yet a worthy receiver. I am telescoping here.]
In my quotation of the Shorter Catechism 91, I italicized the phrase from the answer that says “in them that by faith receive them.” (p. 238). I did this in order to jump up and down on it.
“Now faith is the only instrument that occupies this place. We cannot intrude works, or good looks, or willing, or running here. But there are multitudes of other instruments, used by God, that occupy other places in the process of salvation” (p. 244).
So then, the Standards limit the efficacy of the sacraments (for blessing) to worthy receivers, to those who use the sacraments rightly. Do I agree with this? Did I say so? Why would Waters say that I had not made these qualifications? Beats me. The whole thing is beyond weird.