Given that Pastor Douglas Wilson is a paedobaptist, I was really curious to read his tweet today:
In baptism, our old Adam is abandoned and drowned outside the ark. And we find ourselves alive and dry inside it.
Maybe I’m a simpleton and just don’t get it, but if this is what he says baptism is (and I can wholeheartedly say “Amen!” for the true disciple of Jesus), wouldn’t his practice of baptizing babies be an affirmation of the Roman Catholic heresy of baptismal regeneration?
Of course… the Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 28 has a pretty squishy statement on baptism as well. While rightly affirming what baptism is in paragraphs 1 and 2, paragraph 4 seeks to explain why what paragraph 1 says isn’t completely accurate (Gary Crampton has done a great job documenting the contradiction in his work From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism). So which is it: Is baptism “a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life” (i.e. an outward sign of one’s conversion in Christ) (paragraph 1), or is baptism for “Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized” (i.e. infants who have not and cannot profess faith in Christ) (paragraph 4)? Either it’s a sign of regeneration or it’s not, it cannot be two different signs. It seems to me to be a baptismal contradiction…
(By: Nick Kennicott)