Hi PrestorJohn,

Well, I find myself in the awkward circumstances of appearing to defend everything that the Auburn men have taught. Just for the record, I want to state again that this is not the case. At the same time however, out of a desire to see the church grapple with the issues that I see as legitimate controversy rather than those that are not, I would like to respond to some of the things in your post.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"]Jason in your statement you made mention of the fact that the Auburn Avenue Presbyterian Church Statement (hereby designated AAPCS) was open to criticism because of their "muddying of the waters" Frankly I don't think they've muddied it I think they threw the baby out with the bath water ... They are claiming that baptism regenerates a person. Because they did not say "in baptism" but "by baptism" they are siding with the RCC ... In fact Doug Wilson in his Short Credo on Baptism says the very same thing:



This would be correct if they were using regeneration in the sense with which you are ordinarily accustomed, but this is not the case. Once again, from Wilson's pen:

We see in this portion of the Confession that a man is "quickened and renewed" in such a way as to enable him to respond to the call of God. This might be called regeneration, theologically considered. A man is either regenerate or he is not. When the word regeneration is being used in this sense, we are talking about an invisible operation performed by the Spirit of God, who does what He does when and how it pleases Him. And when we are talking about what might be called "effectual-call-regeneration," we have to repudiate every form of baptismal or decisional regeneration. We do not control the Spirit of God at the baptismal font any more than we control Him with our spiritual law booklets. [emphasis mine]

At the same time, this is not the only legitimate use of the term regeneration.

"John Calvin, however, uses the term regeneration in a much broader, more inclusive sense, comprehending not only the first inception of new life in Christ, but also the manifestations of this new life throughout life. In other words, regeneration, or spiritual renewal, as used by Calvin, includes not only the origin of the new life, but also sanctification, the process of development or growth in the new life. "That this may be more clear", Calvin says, "let my readers call to mind that there is a two-fold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made, but that regeneration is only begun, and goes on making progress during the whole of life."" (Reformed is Not Enough, pg. 39 - 40)


Hence, when Wilson connects regeneration with Baptism, he is claiming that Baptism is the initiation into the process of having a new life in Christ, which is a continual process of development for every Christian in this life. Not new life in Christ in the sense of the spiritual rebirth that happens once ("theological" regeneration), where a person is given a new heart, but the transformation of an individual into the image of Christ (think of this use of regeneration as being "renewed" day by day such as in 2 Corinthians 4:16). Or think of regeneration as the fruit of discipleship, whose entrance is begun with Baptism as the Great Commission commands. See my remarks below on the eschatological concept of salvation before fully digesting this thought. Once again, you may not like this stipulated definition of regeneration, but if you permit it for the sake of evaluating his own worldview then your concerns about "baptismal regeneration" disappear.


You wrote:

In reply to:
[color:"blue"] In reply to: I believe that water baptism is the laver of regeneration (Tit. 3:5). Baptism now saves us (1 Pet. 3:20-21). In baptism we call upon the Lord, washing our sins away (Acts 22:16). I believe in one baptism for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38). Only an evangelical faith can see this without superstition.

What Evangelical would agree to that?



Well, since he has simply pasted quotes from Scripture there I would hope all evangelicals would agree to it. In fact, I think I can even anticipate what his response might be to you; that this proves the validity of his concerns.

In reply to:
[color:"blue"] Baptism doesn't save us it is a sign and a seal of Christ's salvation in us. To say that it produces initial salvation of any type is a heretical statement.



Given what's already been posted, I don't believe Wilson is making the heretical statement you fear. Keep in mind as well that Wilson (and I believe others, such as Richard Gaffin) believe that "salvation" can be viewed from an eschatological viewpoint as well (1 Peter 1:5, Hebrews 9:28, Revelation 19:1). Since salvation viewed in its widest sense also includes glorification and the destruction of Christ's enemies, Baptism can be viewed as the initiation into salvation from a historical or eschatological viewpoint (but not metaphysical, i.e., not initiating the saving influences associated with the ordo salutis).

Sincerely in Christ,

~Jason