David Gadbois argues here that FV proponents hold that infant baptism is normative, and somehow marginalize those baptisms which are performed on the basis of a profession of faith. In this course of this argument, he quotes Pastor Bordow, who put it this way:
“If you look for a credible profession before baptizing, aren’t you assuming a man is justified apart from the sacrament? How could you possibly look for a credible profession before baptism if you did not assume that man wasn’t already justified and Spirit-filled? And if you believe he was already justified and Spirit-filled , and thus a proper receipient of the sign, how can the sign convey justification and the Spirit?
And David adds, “Pastor Bordow has hit on a point that I’ve brought up many, many times throughout this controversy. FV seems to have to marginalize adult baptisms . . .”
But this argument only works for those who are willing to take an exception to the Westminster Confession, which says that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of its administration.
“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).
The thing that has astonished me in this controversy, again and again, is how the erstwhile defenders of the Westminster Standards can attack the teaching of those standards (and those who actually hold to them) in the name of defending the standards. Look at the argument above. The whole thing depends on the chronological order of baptism and justification mattering, and the teaching of the Confession is that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the time of administration, and that the grace promised is really exhibited and conferred at another moment, the moment when the person to be justified has come to his appointed time. That appointed time might be after his baptism in water, or it might be prior to that baptism.
Put this another way. The Confession says that the efficacy of baptism is not tied to the moment of administration, and comes now Pastor Bordow arguing that baptismal efficacy cannot be applied in the case of a person not yet baptized. But what is this but to tie the efficacy of baptism to the time of administration? And then to use that tie down as a confessional argument against those who agree with the Confession? There are times when I walk around in tight little circles, looking helplessly at the horizon.
Pastor Bordow says, “aren’t you assuming a man is justified apart from the sacrament? How could you possibly look for a credible profession before baptism if you did not assume that man wasn’t already justified and Spirit-filled?” No, we are not assuming that a man is justified apart from the sacrament — we are Reformed, for pity’s sake. I would assume such a man is justified before the application of the sacrament, which is quite a different thing. I am not assuming that God cannot use a subsequent means of grace in His prior giving of that grace — I am a Calvinist. And none of this threatens sola fide in the slightest because to maintain that faith is the sole instrument in justification does not deny that God uses other secondary instruments, always subsidiary to the primary instrument, which is faith alone. Those other subordinate instruments would include, but not be limited to, preaching, Gideon Bibles, tracts in the laundromat, billboards, sermon tapes, baptism, godly mothers, and so on.
If Pastor Bordow has subscribed to the Westminster Confession, he needs to notify his presbytery that he needs to take an exception, because he maintains that the grace of baptism cannot be exhibited or conferred at any moment prior to its administration, contrary to 28.6.