In the footnotes of Waters’ book, Cal Beisner makes this statement. “The Westminster Standards present the sacraments solely as means of sanctifying grace, not as means of converting grace” (p. 302). In his response to my essay on sacramental efficacy in the Westminster Standards, Rick Phillips makes a similar point.
“In reading Wilson’s paper I find that a single issue or question determines the whole, namely, ‘What is the nature of the grace conveyed via the sacrament?’ Is the grace of the sacraments limited to edifying or sanctificational issues, or do the sacraments regenerate or enter the recipient into a new relationship with God, conveying a grace not previously received through faith alone?” (Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons, p. 245).
I have already argued on behalf of the sacramental teaching of Westminster in several places — in “Reformed” Is Not Enough (pp. 103-107) and “Sacramental Efficacy in the Westminster Standards” in Auburn Avenue Theology: Pros and Cons (pp. 233-244). My purpose here is not to rehash all of this, multiplying words unnecessarily, but rather to provide a simple summary of the argument. There are additional questions or qualifications that I would want to make beyond this, but at the heart of this issue, I subscribe to what the Westminster divines taught in the following:
1. The grace that we are talking about here is limited to what Westminster calls “worthy receivers,” those who have been graciously given (by God) a “right use” of the sacrament. I take this to mean evangelical faith as evidenced in the one being converted at the moment of his or her effectual call. And that evangelical faith is a gift of God, lest any should boast.
2. Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are both sacraments, but they signify different aspects of the overall process of salvation. Baptism is about entry and the Lord’s Supper is about nurture.
3. There is a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified in baptism (WCF 27.2) Baptism in water is therefore united in this sacramental way to what it represents.
4. So what does Christian baptism represent? Baptism represents solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church; it is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, it represents the baptized individual’s ingrafting into Christ, it represents regeneration, it means remission of sins, as well as surrender to God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life. There is therefore a sacramental union between water baptism and all these things. Note that baptism means or represents a number of things on this list which we would normally associate with conversion, and not with sanctification — things like ingrafting into Christ, regeneration, remission of sins, and so on. This is the language of conversion, not surprisingly, because baptism is the sacrament of initiation.
5. The sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified is not tied to the moment of time when it is administered (WCF 28.6). The union is a sacramental union, not a temporal union.
6. If this converting grace promised in baptism (and sacramentally united to it) belongs to someone (one of the elect), then by a right use of the sacrament (remember what right use means), then the promised grace is, by the power of the Holy Spirit, not only offered to this individual, but exhibited to him, and conferred upon him (WCF 28.6). What is conferred? Remission of sins, regeneration, ingrafting into Christ, etc.
7. This baptismal grace is not limited to those who are “of age,” but can also belong to infants. This means that the Holy Spirit can offer, exhibit, and confer this baptismal grace upon infants. Notice what this does to Rick Phillip’s alternative, where baptism only conveys a grace previously received through faith alone. If someone restricts faith only to those who can knowingly give their assent to propositions, then they are out of conformity with the Standards. If baptismal grace is possible for infants (who die in infancy, say), and evangelical faith is the only way to have a “right use” of the sacrament to receive this blessing, then the Confession teaches that infants can have evangelical faith. Right? Great — glad that’s settled.
Such is the teaching of the Confession. I subscribe to it and agree with it. Guy Waters does not. Cal Beisner does not. If the Confession gives a detailed description of a sacramental union between water baptism and converting graces (which it plainly and unambiguously does), then what do you call it when guardians of the Confession just wave their hands over it, and pronounce (ex cathedra) that is doesn’t mean what it says? When this kind of inversion happens, then only one thing can follow it — accusations must be brought against those who still hold to the original meaning of the Confession at this point. And that is what is happening. The rabbis are cracking down lest the original sacramental Calvinism of the Confession break free from the talmudic layers of revivalism that have been imposed upon it.
It is like the Second Amendment to the Constitution. If you maintain, with a straight face, that the right to keep and bear arms means that you don’t have the right to keep and bear arms (as many solons and political chin-scratchers do), then what is to be done with those raving lunatics in Idaho who think that they somehow have the right to keep and bear arms? When you twist the original intent of words like this, then only one thing can be done with those who remain faithful to the original intent of those words. Attack them as innovators, which is exactly what Beisner and Waters have done in this book.
Incidentally, just for the record, I don’t put Phillips in the same category. He shares the same paradigm with the other anti-FVers, but has in a number of instances shown a fair-minded willingness to hear his opponents out in a judicious and non-politcal way. I differ with him as much as I ever did, but it is (as far as I can tell) a straight-up doctrinal difference. I can’t say the same thing about some of the high-octane weirdness elsewhere. And I hope this doesn’t get Rick into trouble with any of his friends, but there it is.