The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum William Webster on unanimous consent of baptism

To say that Baptism IS an outward SIGN of an already renewed heart, aka: "an inward reality", de facto everyone who submits to baptism MUST BE SAVED! If you then wish to backtrack and say that there are false professors who are baptized, then baptism is not a sign of regeneration, for how could it be a sign of something that doesn't exist. Remember that old law of non-contradiction? Therefore, you cannot say that Baptism is a sign and is not a sign of a renewed heart. This is one of the insurmountable obstacles of the CB position. The whole premise of defining baptism subjectively leads to all kinds of issues.

It is far better to define baptism objectively as the Bible does and therefore the meaning of baptism never changes. So, what objectivity should baptism be defined upon?... GOD and His immutable promise of salvation. So, one can then rightly say that baptism is a sign of the cleansing of a sinner by Christ's blood to all who believe. In short, we can rightly say that baptism is the visible Gospel. And, if one who is baptized is not truly regenerated, self-deceived as to their spiritual state or if one deliberately feigns conversion, the definition/meaning of baptism remains true.

For one who truly has saving faith, this sign is true for them and baptism then also becomes a seal, the seal of God's promise to that believer that just as the water cleanses the body from filth so has Christ's blood cleansed your soul from the filth of sin.

A very good statement of baptism can be found in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter XXVIII "Of Baptism".