Tom,

Did YOU actually READ the entirety of WCF XXVIII? The WCF clearly refutes any hint of the efficacy of the sacrament, in and of itself, in sections V & VI. Just in case you haven't time to actually visit, e.g, The Highway website or some other site that has the complete and genuine article itself, I'll include it for your convenience. Now, after reading these two articles, please reply and tell me how the assertion that the WCF (writers and adherents of it) are guilty of embracing either "baptismal regeneration" or "presumptive regeneration"? scratchchin

Originally Posted by WCF XXVIII; articles V & VI
V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] 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.[17]

PS The bracket numbers refer to the biblical texts that support each statement which are included in many versions of the WCF, which is the one that is posted on The Highway website, which you can easily access by clicking here: The Westminster Confession of Faith.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]