The first part of chapter seven in Waters’ book is dedicated to my views of sacramental efficacy and baptism. And so, here we are.
He begins by saying that I misread B.B. Warfield definition of sacerdotalism, and seeks to establish that I misread it by simply stating why Warfield said what he did (p. 199). But this does not change the fact that Warfield defined sacerdotalism as the notion that God uses any means to accomplish his saving purposes (as I said he did). Warfield holds that the evangelical position is that God’s saving action is never mediated. So Waters’ response here is simply beside the point. Suppose I say that Smith believes that we ought not to be fighting in Iraq. Waters says that I have misread Smith because he holds this position because the war is too expensive. How would I be misreading Smith’s position?
Waters notes that I quote the WCF (28.5) and that I draw a certain inference from the way they talk about baptism there.
“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.”
Waters says (accurately) that I argue from this expression that grace and salvation are ordinarily annexed to water baptism, although not inseparably annexed. Waters responds by saying that the “paragraph says nothing about who among the baptized will be saved.” This is quite true, but it is also not the point of my argument. Let’s just consider the structure of this sentence from the WCF, changing the topic completely.
“Although it be parental neglect not to enroll your kid in a good Christian school, yet a good education is not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be educated well without it; or, that all who are enrolled are undoubtedly educated well.”
Now what is this speaker claiming about Christian education? He is saying that not enrolling your kid in a good Christian school is a big negative deal. He is saying, however, that it is possible to get a good education without doing so, and he grants that to claim that all who are so enrolled are educated well would be an overstatement. It would be fair to say, however, that the speaker is saying that a good education is the ordinary result of enrolling your kid in such a school. It would be nothing to the point for Waters to say that the speaker was making no claim about who among the students would receive a good education. This is quite true, but it is also not the subject under discussion. A man can be convinced that a school is ordinarily good for the kids without making any particular claims about who will be educated well. But this is structurally the same argument the Westminster divines advance concerning baptism.
Waters then says that I believe that baptism seals what it signifies, and that it is not a “front operation.” Good enough. He then says of me that “Wilson does not qualify here the objects of the redemptive sealing of the sacrament as those who have saving faith. It may be that he understands the redemptive sealing operation of the Spirit in the sacraments to transpire, at least sometimes, in the absence of faith. This suspicion is heightened . . .” (p. 200). Thus far Waters on my view of baptism, emphasis mine.
Here is my take on my view of baptism, the first of which is just a few pages after the citation Waters quoted.
“Of course this baptism does not automatically save the one baptized; there is no magical cleaning power in the water” (RINE, 99).
“The blessings are appropriated by faith, not by water, and the curses are brought down upon the head by unbelief, against which curses the water provides no protection whatever” Credo on Baptism, emphasis added).
“An unbelieving covenant member incurs all the curses of the covenant, while the believer appropriates all its blessings by faith alone” (Credo on Baptism, by faith alone)
Now I ask you . . .
The next section of Waters’ chapter is worth quoting in some detail. He says this:
“Fifth, Wilson conflates Westminster Larger Catechism 161 and WCF 27.3 to read as follows: ‘Worthy receivers of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper are effectually saved by these sacramental means through the working of the Holy Spirit and the blessing of Christ.’ This, however, is what neither statement affirms. The Standards are careful to say that the sacraments are ‘effectual means of salvation,’ but this is a far cry from saying that ‘worthy receivers . . . are effectually saved by these sacramental means.’ Wilson’s latter statement places a far greater emphasis on the necessity and importance of the sacraments to one’s salvation than the Standard’s statements do” (p. 201).
This is simply unbelievable. The difference between Waters’ summary (“The sacraments are effectual means of salvation for worthy receivers” and mine (“Worthy receivers are effectually saved by these sacramental means”) really amounts to a difference of voice. But “The ball hits John” is apparently a “far cry” from “John is hit by the ball.” Bill, a worthy receiver, is effectually saved by these sacramental means is a “far cry” from these sacramental means save Bill, a worthy receiver. Sometimes I really am at a loss for words. How are you supposed to debate people like this? Waters says that my summary “places a far greater emphasis on the necessity and importance of the sacraments.” Why? How? In what way? What on earth is he talking about?
Waters then reproduces another argument I advanced from the Westminster Confession.
“Sixth, Wilson takes Westminster Shorter Catechism 92 (‘wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers’) to mean that ‘the benefits of the new covenant) are applied to a man through the sacraments when that man has faith.’ Wilson certainly intends to be provocative by this statement . . . Is he saying that baptism and the Lord’s Supper are instruments of justification? If so, they he most certainly would be out of accord with the Standards. Is he saying that a believer’s sense of his justification may be built up by improvement of his baptism and by a right use of the Supper? If so, Wilson is saying nothing new” (p. 202)
This is the same kind of thing as an earlier point made about persevering grace, a question that is sometimes legitimately directed against some FV expressions. If a baptized individual receives all of Christ’s benefits, then how can we account for such a person not having persevering grace? Isn’t that part of Christ’s benefits, and doesn’t he have them all? A reasonable kimd of quesion, I think, and so now I present it back to Waters.
The Shorter Catechism teaches that Christ and the benefits of the new covenant are applied to worthy receivers by means of sensible signs. Waters wants to see this as the relatively uncontroversial notion that a man’s sense of his justification can be built up by improvement of his baptism and through a right use of the Supper. But no, that can’t be it. The Shorter Catechism says “Christ and the benefits of the new covenant” are applied by sensible signs, not my “sense of Christ, and my sense of the benefits of the new covenant.” And so my question for Waters is whether he believes this. If so, what is his beef with what I have been saying? If not, has he taken an exception to the WCF at this point? Spelling it out, justification is one of the benefits of the new covenant, is it not? Just like persevering grace is.
Put this another way. If I were to be so foolish as to say that Christ and the benefits of the new covenant were applied to a man (a worthy receiver guy) by means of the sensible signs given in the sacraments, would Waters interpret me as saying this meant nothing more than a man’s sense of these benefits being strengthened as he rolls these propositions around in his brain? Not a chance. He would interpret me as a roaring sacerdotalist, as he has done. How about if Wilkins said it? No, wait . . . what if Lusk said it?
For misrepresentations, Waters is setting a record in this chapter. He then says this:
“Wilson’s doctrine of sacramental efficacy is intriguing in that it conceives of redemptive sacramental efficacy in the case of an unconverted recipient (the ‘nominal Presbyterian, baptized in infancy’). As SC 92 and many other passages state, however, the Westminster Standards conceive of redemptive sacramental efficacy in the presence of a faith that embraces what the sacrament holds forth to it” (p. 204).
Well, of course. That was the whole point of my illustration. The Westminster Standards clearly teach that the grace conferred by means of baptism is not anchored to the moment of baptismal administration. Someone is baptized in infancy, grows up a hellion, lives in unbelief for a time, and is then converted. When he is converted, he comes to “a faith that embraces what the sacrament holds forth to it.”
I say, “By means of baptism, this efficious grace is conferred on the elect at the appropriate time, the time of conversion, and it is the applied grace of their baptism.” And yes, I said that, because that is what the Westminster Standards teach. Waters summarizes this as saying the exact opposite of what I said. “We may speak, then, of redemptive baptismal efficacy quite apart from the subjective condition of the recipient” (p. 208). Okay. So I say that the applied grace of baptism is conferred on someone at the time of their conversion (e.g. when they are brought by God to a subjective condition of repentance and faith), and Waters represents this as me saying that this baptismal efficacy occurs quite apart from “the subjective condition of the recipient” (p. 208). Now I am no salty dog, or crusty Lutheran, or anything like that, but this really is a “what the hell?” moment. Maybe I should start typing words like CONVERSION or REPENTANCE or FAITH in all caps so that scholars can find them.
Waters ends his section dealing with me by saying that “Wilson’s understanding of precisely what is conveyed to the recipient in baptism is not at all clear” (p. 210). Well, not at all clear to some people’s children.