The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum WCF 28

I have a question related to the WCF 28 on Baptism.

In all my years discussing baptism with anyone who held to the WCF, I have never heard anyone claim that the WCF teaches “Baptismal Regeneration”. Yes, many believe it teaches “Presumptive Regeneration”. But as far as I can tell, that is an inside debate.
That is until today, when someone said the following:
(Note: I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I must admit this claim surprised me. I thought I needed people more knowledgeable than I was that knows the WCF and history.
Your thoughts are appreciated.)

——————


————————

The problem I see with this claim, is that Baptismal Regeneration contradicts what I understand about the Protestant Reformation.

Thoughts?

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"?


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.

Just as those eight day old infants were circumcised, not every circumcised infant died saved. Same with baptism. Just because someone received the sign and seal of the covenant, it’s not guarantor of their salvation. Grace is what saves, not circumcision or baptism.

Maybe I was not clear enough?
I personally do not see “Baptismal Regeneration” in WCF 28.

I have read it for myself.

My main reason for asking this question is within the quotes of this particular person. Mainly, the charge that before the Princetonian business with Warfield, it was understood that WCF 28 was talking ‘Baptismal Regeneration’.

Perhaps, because I have no dog in this fight, I should have just ignored the person.
However, I am curious if there was even a Princetonian controversy (or whatever he wants to call it).
If so did it involve Baptismal Regeneration?

I suspect this person is either lying through his teeth, because he is Roman Catholic, or another sect that believes in Baptismal Regeneration.

By the way, another reason I brought this up. Is because I am a bit of a student of Church history.
It was part of the reason that made me embrace the ‘Doctrines of Grace’.

I hope I am clear now.

IF that is the case, then you could... should? simply provide the articles; V & VI and ask this individual where baptismal regeneration or even presumptive regeneration is even hinted at in WCF 28? Regardless of some "Princetonian controversy", as a student of history, can you honestly conceive of there being credible arguments from those who have studied and know the history of the WCF that baptismal regeneration was even a fleeting thought in their minds? Having written the WCF not long after the Protestant Reformation and the deep hatred of the corrupt Roman State Church which practices baptismal regeneration, that view was one of the most disgusting albeit secondary to their faith+works=justification damnable heresy. Just a side note too, is despite their total rejection of baptismal regeneration, they did not make the sad mistake of throwing the baby out with the baptismal water as did the Baptists.

Pilgrim
Somehow I thought you would mention Baptists and I almost ignored it.
However, I am sure you know this already; but maybe others might benefit from me saying this.
When it comes the Paedo-Baptists and Credo-Baptists. An important difference between the Covenant Theology of the WCF & the 1689 LBCF; is while there is much agreement between the two Confessions.
Nevertheless, there is one difference that I find quite significant. Namely, that the WCF teaches the New Covenant is a new administration of the Old Covenant.
The 1689 LBCF sees the New Covenant as the “New Covenant”. Namely “The Covenant of Grace”.
This has some implications in how this is played out in a few areas.
Such as how the WCF views circumcision connected directly with baptism.
Whereas, the 1689 LBCF sees more separation between circumcision and baptism.

This could be fleshed out a little more; but that is not the purpose of why I am mentioning this.

I mention this, not to debate this matter. Which I am not interested in doing.
Rather, because it gives an important aspect in understanding the differences we have.

Tom

I resolved the matter this way:

The New Covenant is new with respect to Moses, but not new at all with respect to Abraham.

It is the covenant with Abraham that we inherit as children of Abraham's faith (not necessarily Abraham's genes). The "Old Covenant" is Moses, not Abraham. That covenant came 430 years after Abraham and did not cancel or replace the original.

For me the burden of proof is on credobaptists that children were "kicked out of the covenant" until they articulate faith in an adult manner.

I would basically agree with you, Robin. But my understanding is that the "Covenant of Works" (misnomer ala John Murray) which began with Adam & Eve ended after their Fall. The "Covenant of Grace" began after the Fall; cf. Genesis 3:8-24:

Genesis 3:8-24 (ASV) 8 And they heard the voice of Jehovah God walking in the garden in the cool of the day: and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of Jehovah God amongst the trees of the garden. 9 And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, Where art thou? 10 And he said, I heard thy voice in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself. 11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat? 12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat. 13 And Jehovah God said unto the woman, What is this thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat. 14 And Jehovah God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, cursed art thou above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: 15 and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed: he shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. 16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. 17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. 20 And the man called his wife's name Eve; because she was the mother of all living. 21 And Jehovah God made for Adam and for his wife coats of skins, and clothed them. 22 And Jehovah God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever- 23 therefore Jehovah God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. 24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden the Cherubim, and the flame of a sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

This, to me, is the first revelation of the Gospel and the promise of the Messiah Who would redeem them from their sins along with their spiritual children by the shedding of blood and with giving them a covering (cf. Zechariah 3). This covenant made in the Garden of Eden was iterated with Abraham and brought to fruition and its fullness in Jesus Christ through His life, death and resurrection. Thus the "sign" of the Covenant as it was in the OT is retained but changed in form to express the progressiveness of the Covenant in the NT from circumcism to baptism. It signified then and now NOT that the person circumcised nor baptized IS SAVED, but rather set apart (Grk agios, holy). They are given the MEANS OF GRACE, through which the Spirit works in the elect. To the ones given the sign, IF THEY HAVE BEEN regenerated and believe upon Christ, what the sign SIGNIFIED is true of them and them only. As it was in the OT that the vast majority of those circumcised perished in unbelief, so it is in the NT those who have been baptized will likely perish in unbelief, for it is God's chosen REMNANT who shall be saved to whom the Spirit has given them true saving faith and a new heart of flesh.

There is someone I find quite fascinating to read when it comes to the Old and New Covenants.
I am speaking of John Owen, who when one reads him. He sounds like a Baptist contemporary like Nehemiah Coxe who is credited as the (or one of) editor/s of the 1689 LBCF.
However, John Owen is a little more nuanced, and remained a Paedo-Baptist.
A great book, I started but need to press into more when things slow down at home (death in the family and an engagement of my oldest daughter) is called: ‘Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ.’

https://www.amazon.ca/Covenant-Theology-Christ-Nehemiah-Coxe/dp/0976003937

Again I am not providing this information for debate purposes. I have now read both books and articles (a few videos as well) from Paedo-Baptists and Credo-Baptists.
Quite eye opening when you do that actually. Especially, when you run into people from both sides, who seem like they hate each other and speak right past each other.
By the way, I am learning (sometimes the hard way); that when that occurs. Rarely does it help to try to play peacemaker. You end up having both sides attack you.

Of late, maybe because I am a senior? I am feeling the need to cut down on my discussions and theology discussion boards.

Tom