PART ONE

Over a decade ago I read a book by Douglas Wilson, that described a philosophy for his writing, represented in the title:  A Serrated Edge.  His and the Moscow, Idaho mood is portrayed by a serrated edge and the use of satire.  Let me again announce that I accept Wilsonian written serration.  It’s more interesting at least and sometimes more effective writing.  Someone else once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”  Maybe for Wilson, “His pen is equally mighty to a serrated knife.”  Many of the targets of Wilson’s writings deserve their serration from his satirical analysis.

Strict Adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism

Douglas Wilson and his posse in Moscow, Idaho get attention with the style or mood of their writing and other operations.  A focus on mood neglects serious problems, most notably their confusion on the gospel.  Wilson and Moscow are strong adherents to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which says this (Article 28):

Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ . . . . to be unto him 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 newness of life.

Furthermore, the WCF says (Article 28) that “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).”  That is all salvific language applied to baptism.  Wilson takes this very seriously in his view and preaching of salvation.

John Calvin, the Protestant and Reformed Forefather

Calvin’s Institutes

From what I read of Wilson, he does not believe that baptism guarantees future salvation for the one baptized. Neither does any Roman Catholic.  Roman Catholics would say faith is necessary for salvation.  They would reject “faith alone.”  To clarify his position, Wilson wrote:  “Baptism is an effectual means of salvation to worthy receivers.”  John Calvin, whose theology Wilson follows, wrote (Institutes, 4:17:1, 4:15:3, 4):

God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption . . . whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified . . . forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . forgiveness has reference to baptism.

Calvin’s “Antidote” to the Council of Trent

Calvin also published (1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1st Decree of the 5th Session):

We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made . . . by baptism . . . the guilt is effaced [and] it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.

In the same publication Calvin continued:

We, too [as do the Catholics], acknowledge that the use of baptism is necessary—that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free (optional). And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation. The only exception we make is, that the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument. He may of himself accomplish salvation. For when an opportunity for baptism is wanting, the promise of God alone is amply sufficient.

Wilson doesn’t distinguish himself from the teaching of his spiritual father, Calvin.

Thomas Ross’s Statement

Thomas Ross wrote in his book, Heaven Only for the Baptized?:

Those who think that infant baptism was the instrument of their receiving forgiveness, those who think that they received the sacrament as confirmation and evidence that they were already regenerated in the womb, and those who think they had water applied to them in infancy as evidence that they were certain to be regenerated in the future unless they consciously rejected the “sacrament” and its efficacy are underneath a terrible spiritual delusion. They will certainly be damned unless they recognize that their unbiblical religious ceremony did nothing beneficial for them, admit they are still lost, and then repent and believe the gospel.

With the Protestant or Reformed Catholics, this very serious problem relates to what Paul writes about adding circumcision to grace in Galatians 5:1-6.  The Protestant or Reformed Catholics see infant sprinkling as New Testament circumcision.  This does not proceed from the Bible, but from allegorization of scripture and tradition.

Galatians

The Galatians added circumcision to grace, which was enough for Paul to say in Galatians 5:2-4:

Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.  For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.  Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.

No one should come close to what the Galatians did.  Paul uses very strong language, saying, “Christ shall profit you nothing” and more.  This is how they perverted the gospel to the degree that Paul wrote in 1:6-9 that it was “another gospel.”  Those who preached it, he said, “let them be accursed.”

Infant Sprinkling and John Gill

Wilson wrote a defense on infant sprinkling, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God.  He wrote:  “we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism” (p. 9).  And yet, not one verse in scripture mentions infant baptism or sprinkling.  Consider what 17th century English Baptist preacher or pastor John Gill wrote about infant sprinkling:

The Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infant-baptism; though it is no other than a pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many nations; is the basis of national churches and worldly establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps them together; nor can there be a full separation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reformation in religion; until it is wholly removed: and though it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain;

I believe with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when infant-baptism will be no more practiced in the world; when churches will be formed on the same plan they were in the times of the apostles; when gospel-doctrine and discipline will be restored to their primitive luster and purity; when the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be administered as they were first delivered, clear of all present corruption and superstition.

Cultural Stands Don’t Undo These Problems

Wilson may take a position closer to the Protestant or Reformed Catholics than his contemporary Reformed fellows do.  He could argue that he is more consistent than them with the doctrine and practice.  I respect the teaching of Wilson on many cultural issues.  He helps on cultural and social ones.  These are attractive to many evangelicals and even professing Baptists, their not hearing this in their own churches.  Those, however, cannot undo the problems with the unscriptural doctrine I’m addressing. However, the Moscow troubles don’t end with infant sprinkling.

More to Come