Westminster 30.5 and Baptism

[Hamalas]

Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

(Emphasis added.)

In the italicized portion above, it says that it is a great sin to neglect this ordinance. I don't disagree with this at all, but I would be interested to understand more of what is behind this statement. My copy of the WCF has some Scripture footnotes and they referenced Luke 7:30 and Gen. 17:14. Are there any other passages that come to mind?

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Perhaps WCF 28.5?

28.V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,(n) yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it;(o) or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.(p)

(n) Luke 7:30 with Exod. 4:24, 25, 26.
(o) Rom. 4:11; Acts 10:2, 4, 22, 31, 45, 47.
(p) Acts 8:13, 23.

Robert Shaw:

Section V.—Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptised are undoubtedly regenerated.

Exposition
This section affirms—1. That baptism is not of such absolute necessity to salvation, that none can be saved without it. God has not made baptism and faith equally necessary.—Mark xvi. 16. The penitent thief was saved without being baptised. But baptism is an instituted means of salvation, and the contempt of it must be a great sin on the part of the parents, though the neglect cannot be ascribed to the child before he arrives at maturity, and cannot, therefore, involve him in the guilt. 2. That baptism is not regeneration, nor are all who are baptised undoubtedly regenerated. That the baptism of water is regeneration, and that every person duly baptised is born again, is the doctrine of the Church of Rome; and 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 a 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. Paul, writing to the Corinthians, says: "I thank God that I baptised none of you, but Crispus and Gaius." But if baptism be regeneration, his meaning must be: "I thank God that I regenerated none of you." And could Paul really give thanks to God on this account? How absurd the idea! "Christ," says he, "sent me not to baptise." But can it be thought that Christ did not send the chief of the apostles to promote the great work of regeneration? Unquestionably Paul made a great difference between baptism and regeneration.

 

[jaybird0827]

Check out the WCF online - in this case take the link for Chapter 28. Text contains hyperlinks to additional proofs.

 

[Hamalas]

Perhaps WCF 28.5?

Thanks!