I sent an email to Douglas Wilson asking if he is desirous of continuing the debate. I believe that since June 28th, which was the first post on the sacerdotalism chapter, and July 2nd, which was the second post on that chapter, and July 12th, which was my first post on the baptism chapter, Wilson has had adequate time to respond. I think that if those who are benefitting from this exchange between a critic and a proponent of FV are desirous of keeping this a two-way street, some pressure will need to be exerted on Wilson to continue on his side. I plan on finishing the book review. I am not sure why Wilson has not continued the debate. But lack of time can hardly be the reason, especially since he has posted on the Federal Vision here. I do not mean to bully Wilson in any way. If he is not desirous of continuing the debate, then that is certainly his prerogative. At the same time, I think it odd that he has been clamoring for debate, and yet now does not seem to want it. Was it because I came down hard on his (mis)take on Warfield? I make no attempt to read his motives. I am somewhat puzzled, I confess. Maybe Wilson will be so good as to clear it up for us.
That being said, let us continue on to the rest of the chapter “Baptism Now Saves.” He makes the point that there is a sacramental union between the sign and the thing signified. We must be very careful here. It is true that “this sacramental union is so tight that it is fully appropriate to refer to one reality in terms of the other” (p. 102). However, the qualifier must also be added: the metonymy of which the Standards speak also implies the distinction between the sign and the thing signified, such that sacramental language means that the reality may be primarily in view, or the sign may be primarily in view. I was glad to see Wilson say this: “Consequently, the analogy of faith requires us to say that water baptism without saving faith is worse than useless” (p. 102). This indicates that Wilson, at least, does not believe that faith and baptism inevitably go together. Wilson’s position is that baptism is always efficacious, but that the efficaciousness may be to judgment, and not to salvation. The difference (presumably) would be saving faith.
I think Wilson is on a dangerous track with pp. 103ff., however. I do not believe that the WS teach baptismal regeneration. This discussion all comes down to what we mean by “signs and seals.” WCF 28.1, for instance, tells us that baptism is efficacious as a sign and seal. In fact, 28.5 so qualifies 28.1, that we MUST come to the conclusion that the sign and seal are not equal to the thing signified or the thing sealed. This is non-negotiable. Now, Wilson does say this:
Of course there are baptized covenant members who are not individually regenerate. They are the ones who reject what God is offering to them in their baptism. They therefore fall away from the covenant and not from election (p. 104).
This leaves us in a difficult position. He wants to say that the WS teach baptismal regeneration. And yet, he says that without saving faith, baptism does no such thing. The key to understanding Wilson’s position is undoubtedly this statement on p. 105: “Contrary to Warfield, baptism is efficacious. But the efficacy of the sacrament is not tied to the moment when it is administered. By means of baptism, this efficacious grace is conferred on the elect at the appropriate time, the time of conversion, and it is the applied grace of their baptism.” This statement raises a number of interesting points. First of all, he would seem to disagree with the interpretation of the WS that interprets the phrase “not tied to the moment of its administration” to mean that the grace starts at baptism, but then continues on throughout life (as Jeff Meyers holds, for instance). Wilson holds to a more “delayed reaction” interpretation of the phrase. In this, I would certainly side with Wilson. Indeed, as carefully read and qualified (I don’t at all like the language of baptismal regeneration, as it carries an enormous weight of baggage), Wilson’s position seems to be in accord with the Standards on baptism. Here are the points of agreement I have with Wilson on baptism: 1. Baptism joined with faith saves. 2. The time-point of faith coming to the believer can be called the improvement of baptism. 3. In this sense, we can speak of the time-point of conversion being the applied grace of their baptism. Another way of saying it is the improvement of their baptism. So far we agree. Where I would disagree is in Wilson’s lack of qualifications regarding the signness and sealness of baptism. Also, I would describe faith-union as the time point of the marriage, not baptism. I would describe baptism as the engagement ring (see the Strawbridge book on infant baptism), not the wedding ring. My disagreement with Wilson on the proper interpretation of Warfield has already been documented.
Green Baggins 