Before moving on to our next topic, Green Baggins has taken a moment to respond to my statements about his views of baptismal efficacy. Before I engage with him at this point, let me say again how much I appreciate Lane’s continued endeavors in all of this. Pete Myers, a judicious commenter both here and at Green Baggins, cautions me against making things worse with unnecessary sarcasm, and I certainly do want to take his cautions to heart. From time to time, I haven’t minded making a bit of fun of Gary Johnson’s magisterium, and silicon sister study commissions make it all but impossible to avoid being funny, but I really do take Lane’s efforts seriously, and I really do appreciate them.
Ironically, the reason I take Lane seriously is that he has demonstrated a trait that Gary Johnson claims is absent in me — a willingness to correct and adjust when shown to be in error, and a willingness to admit that you have been wrong about something. My only problem with Gary’s application of the standard to me is that he wants me to prove I am willing to admit to wrong by admitting to wrong when I still think I am right, which I cannot do, however much I try. So to bring this opening section in for a landing, I do not fault Lane from continuing to see it his way. I don’t fault him for continuing to maintain that he is right when he genuinely believes that he is. And my hat is off to him for the times when he has made corrections despite political pressures not to. I have the same standard for myself, and I really do seek to live by it.
Lane was concerned that I had not interacted with his actual argument about sign and seal. I thought I had, but I am more than happy to give it another whirl.
“So, once more, THIS is my grammatical interpretation: the words ‘sign and seal’ apply to all the items in the series: ingrafting, regeneration, remission, giving up unto God, and walking in newness of life. It would be exactly parallel to saying this: I believe that God is eternal, unchangeable, and infinite in His wisdom, power, glory, blessing, etc. The words ‘eternal, unchangeable, and infinite’ in the first series are intended to apply to all the attributes in the second series. This is what the FV has missed in its reading of WCF 28.1, and what Doug simply does not understand, or refuses to acknowledge.”
Actually, I don’t miss this point at all, and, so far as it goes, I agree with it completely. Yes, baptism in water is all of these things. It is sign and seal of ingrafting, sign and seal of regeneration, etc. I agree. But to repeat my question here, what is a seal? What does seal of ingrafting mean? What does seal of regeneration mean?
Lane quotes this:
“Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and His benefits; and to confirm our interest in Him; as also, to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to His Word (WCF 27.1).
And he comments on it this way:
“So signs and seals represent Christ and His benefits, confirm our interest in Him, put a visible difference between the church and the world, and engage us to serve God. Notice that there is no confusion here between the sign/seal and the thing that is signed/sealed.”
Yes, but Lane has still not answered my basic question, the hinge upon which all turns. Lane says rightly that “baptism does NOT do the same thing for all in the church.” This is true. So, is baptism in water a seal of anything for the reprobate covenant member? We agree that it is a sign in either case, but is it a seal? In the section just quoted from 27.1, the one clear description of a sealing activity is the phrase “to confirm our interest in Him.” When a reprobate covenant member is baptized, is his interest in Christ confirmed? Is it sealed?
My position here is clear and simple. Christian baptism is a sign every time it is administered, regardless of the person applying it or receiving it. Christian baptism always signs the same thing and it says what God says it says. Christian baptism is also a seal, accomplishing (not just pointing to) its intended effect, in certain specified non-salvific ways — e.g. “putting a visible difference between the church and the world.”
But Christian baptism is only a salvific seal with the elect, with worthy receivers, with those who have had all the graces that are signed by water baptism exhibited to them and conferred upon them — they are the ones who receive the seal. So my position is that a reprobate covenant member does not have his interest in Christ confirmed, sealed, or conferred. I still don’t know what Lane would say about this — he discusses sealing quite a bit, but this is really the essential question about it, one that he has not answered yet.
He also quotes 27.2:
“There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified: whence it comes to pass, that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other” (WCF 27.2).
But this particular point is not germane to a discussion where sign and thing signified are both distinguished and out on the table. It applies when we say the Nicene Creed, and confess that we believe in one baptism for the remission of sin. We are speaking there of one thing in terms of the other, or with both of them together. Or when Paul was told to arise and be baptized, to wash away his sins, it makes sense to speak with this understanding of sacramental union in mind. But when we are talking about the sign and seal on one hand, and the reality that is signed and sealed on the other, we cannot do this. The sign points to the reality, the seal does . . . what? We don’t want to find ourselves with a seal that doesn’t really seal anything, where God becomes a divine huckster, offering unconditional guarantees that guarantee nothing.
“For our purposes here, then, we can talk primarily about two parts: the sign/seal, and the thing signed/sealed.”
Yes, but this is not the question. We agree on the relation of the sign to the thing signified. What is the relation of the seal to the thing sealed? And is the thing sealed sealed . . . follow me closely here . . . by the seal?