The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.1

And thus we utterly damn the vanity of those that affirm sacraments to be nothing else but naked and bare signs (Rom. 8). No, we assuredly believe that by baptism we are engrafted in Christ Jesus to be made partakers of His justice by which our sins are covered and remitted (1 Cor. 10) (Scots Confession 21).2

A regular reader of The Heidelblog asked about the meaning of the language in WCF 28.6. I have had several questions over the years about similar language in the Scots Confession (1560), article 21.

The Question

The question is what is entailed in the verb “conferred.” Did the Westminster divines intend to confess that at the moment of baptism new life is necessarily conferred to and created in the baptized? Similar questions are raised in the language of the Scots Confession from more than eighty years earlier. Did the Scots confess, for nearly a century leading up to the Westminster Assembly, that at the moment of baptism the Spirit necessarily creates new life, righteousness, and union with Christ? This is a potential interpretation of the Scots Confession that has been proposed to me several times over the years.

The Discussion

There are two or three views in the literature on this question: (1) the Confession plainly teaches baptismal regeneration, (2) the Confession might teach baptismal regeneration, and (3) the Confession does not teach baptismal regeneration. The first view is represented by the late David F. Wright (1937–2008).3 He wrote, “Its central affirmation seems clear: ‘the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost’ (28:6).”4 He conceded that the Confession makes a “variety of qualifications,” even acknowledging that the divines did not intend to say that “all the baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.”5 He then, however, proceeded to declare, “The Westminster divines viewed baptism as the instrument and occasion of regeneration by the Spirit, of the remission of sins, of ingrafting into Christ (28:1). The Confession teaches baptismal regeneration.”6

This assertion, however, as before, is followed by a qualification: “But if the Assembly unambiguously ascribes this instrumental efficacy to baptism, it is not automatically enjoyed by all recipients,” which leads him to note that it is “those who do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ . . . ‘according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time’ (28:6).”7 He characterizes as “a perverse interpretation of the Confession’s chapter on baptism” that allows “this last allusion to the hidden counsel of God to emasculate its vigorous primary affirmation.”8

Robert Letham might be described as taking a mediating position between Wright and the majority view.9 His discussion of the debates at the Assembly is clearer and more useful than Wright’s.10 For example, where Wright freely used the word instrument to describe the relation between baptism and regeneration, Letham shows that the term was debated, and the divines did not adopt it as part of the Confession.11 Jeremiah Whitaker, he writes, “referred to Chamier, who said the grace signified is exhibited; so it is in the French Confession; it doth efficaciter donare. It does not do so ex opere operato.”12Whitaker argued that baptism is as instrumental in regeneration as the Word.13 Herbert Palmer

was skeptical of Whitaker’s argument. Baptism differs from the Word and the Eucharist, he maintained, in both of which the recipients are regarded as having grace already; this is not so with baptism. However, it is not a naked sign—there is a union in the sacrament, for whatever is promised in the word is granted by participation in the sign.14

He observes, without comment, Wright’s claim that the verb “to exhibit” used by the divines, in this context, is “closer to ‘convey.’”15

Letham notes that Cornelius Burgess argued, “Regeneration is twofold.”16 “There is,” he writes, “an infusion of grace by the Holy Spirit at the baptism of elect persons, including elect infants, while actual regeneration, which produces faith, occurs at effectual calling.”17 Daniel Featley argued something similar.18 For his part, like Wright, Letham seems to want to affirm some kind of baptismal regeneration (it is not clear whether he agrees with Burgess and Featley), yet he also says, “The grace is not sealed except to those who repent and believe.”19 He also writes, “It is in reality the laver of regeneration, which has perpetual efficacy.”20 He also recognizes a distinction between the sign and the reality.21

The majority view is represented by Robert Shaw (1795–1863), A. A. Hodge (1823–86), Chad Van Dixhoorn, J. V. Fesko, and R. C. Sproul (1939–2017). Writing in the nineteenth century, under WCF 28.5 Shaw argued “Baptism is an instituted means of salvation, and the contempt of it must be a great sin,” yet “God has not made baptism and faith equally necessary.” Baptism “is not regeneration nor are all who are baptized undoubtedly regenerated.”22 He called the doctrine that “the baptism of water is regeneration and that every person duly baptized is born again . . . the doctrine of the Church of Rome,” and he complained that “this doctrine has been embraced by many in Protestant Churches, and receives too much countenance from the Liturgy of the Church of England. It is very dangerous doctrine; and that it has no warrant from Scripture appears from the case of Simon Magus, who after baptism remained ‘in the gall of bitterness and in the bond of iniquity’—Acts viii.13, 23.” He remarked that if baptism is regeneration, then Paul should have said to the Corinthians, “I thank God that I regenerated none of you,” a thought he found “absurd.”23

His stout denial of the doctrine of baptismal regeneration did not mean that he rejected the WCF’s doctrine of baptismal efficacy. On 28.6 he wrote, “Though not effectual at the time it is administered, it may afterwards be effectual, through the working of the Spirit.—John iii.5, 8.”24

1. A. Hodge agreed with Shaw in arguing that the Confession does not teach baptismal regeneration. He also connected the efficacy of baptism to electing grace.25 He characterized the doctrine of baptismal regeneration as “extreme” and attributed it to the “Papists and Ritualists.”26 He argued that the efficacy of baptism is due not to “any spiritual or magical quality communicated to the water” but to “the moral power of the truth” symbolized by baptism, to the fact that it is a seal of the covenant of grace “and a legal form of investing those persons embraced in the covenant with the graces promised therein” and to “the personal presence and sovereignly gracious operation of the Holy Spirit, who uses the sacrament as his instrument and medium.” Baptism is one of the “channels” through which “grace signified is really conveyed to the persons to whom, according to the divine counsel, it truly belongs.”27

Chad Van Dixhoorn writes, “Christians have often wanted more consistency and predictability in God’s gracious blessing of the sacraments than he is willing to give.”28“Obviously the Westminster Divines are shying away from any suggestion that baptism works invariably and automatically.”29 The Assembly, he argues, “is calling Christians to recognize that baptism really is a tool, and that the Holy Spirit often chooses to use it—so much so that to the Galatians Paul could say that ‘as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ’ (Gal 3:27); to Titus Paul could link ‘the washing of regeneration and the renewal of the Holy Spirit’ (Titus 3:5).”30 The Holy Spirit “can use the visible word to preach to us, just as he can use the audible word, and he has often done so.”31

J. V. Fesko contends, “Two things demonstrate that the divines did not formulate their understanding of baptism to teach baptismal regeneration.”32 The first evidence is the clause in WCF 28.5, which explains baptism and salvation “are not so inseparable” that a person cannot be regenerated or saved without them. Second is the first clause of WCF 28.6, “The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered.”33 This is a rejection of any ex opere idea of baptism. The divines, he writes, “wanted to ensure that God’s sovereignty in salvation was not bound to a mechanical view of the sacraments, as in Roman Catholicism.”34

R. C. Sproul followed the same approach by emphasizing the significance and importance of baptism but explained that it is the “sign and seal of regeneration.”35Regeneration, he wrote, “is conferred sovereignly and solely by the direct and immediate ministry of the Holy Spirit.”36 Regeneration is monergistic, wrought by God. “It is not caused by baptism, but it is signified by baptism.”37

The majority view is correct. Neither the Scots Confession nor the Westminster Confession of Faith intends to teach that at the moment of administration of baptism, the Spirit necessarily confers news life. In part 2 we will consider how the Confession understands sacraments generally and what that means for our understanding of baptism in particular.

NOTES

1. Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) 28.6.
2. James T. Dennison Jr., ed., Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation: 1523–1693 (Reformation Heritage Books, 2008–14), 2:201.
3. David F. Wright, “Baptism at the Westminster Assembly,” in The Westminster Confession into the 21st Century, ed. Ligon Duncan, (Christian Focus, 2003–09), 1: 161–86.
4. Wright, “Baptism,” 167–68.
5. Wright, “Baptism,” 169.
6. Wright, “Baptism,” 169.
7. Wright, “Baptism,” 170.
8. Wright, “Baptism,” 170.
9. Robert Letham, The Westminster Assembly: Reading Its Theology in Historical Context (P&R, 2009), 331–39.
10. Letham had access to records of the debate published by Chad Van Dixhoorn that Wright presumably did not.
11. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 331–23.
12. Quoted in Letham, Westminster Assembly, 332.
13. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 332.
14. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 332.
15. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 332; and Wright, “Baptism,” 168.
16. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 333.
17. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 334.
18. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 334.
19. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 338.
20. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 338.
21. Letham, Westminster Assembly, 339.
22. Robert Shaw, An Exposition of the Confession of Faith of the Westminster Assembly of Divines, 9th ed. (Glasgow, 1861), 291.
23. Shaw, Exposition, 291.
24. Shaw, Exposition, 291–92.
25. A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith: A Handbook of Christian Doctrine Expounding the Westminster Confession (Banner of Truth, 1983), 350.
26. Hodge, Confession of Faith, 350.
27. Hodge, Confession of Faith, 351.
28. Chad Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith: A Reader’s Guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Banner of Truth, 2014), 379.
29. Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 380.
30. Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 380.
31. Van Dixhoorn, Confessing the Faith, 380.
32. J. V. Fesko, The Theology of the Westminster Standards(Crossway, 2014), 321.
33. Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Standards, 321.
34. Fesko, Theology of the Westminster Standards, 321.
35. R. C. Sproul, Truths We Confess: A Systematic Exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith, rev. ed. (Reformation Trust, 2019), 596.
36. Sproul, Truths We Confess, 596.
37. Sproul, Truths We Confess, 596.