As found
here:
"I can assume, then, that you agree with Hodge that, in the believing reception of baptism, the Holy Spirit reconveys and faith reappropriates the forgiveness of sins, ingrafting into Christ, the Spirit himself, and, in general, the benefits of Christ's mediation?
If so, then that is the primary point I was trying to affirm in my quotation of Hodge, in agreement, I think, with FV authors and certainly with my own views.
The real sticking point for you then seems to be "regeneration" and its relationship to baptism.
Let me try to say something constructive here.
First, let's stipulate that by "regeneration" we mean the result of effectual calling, a sovereign work of the Spirit, renewing and renovating the heart, so that a person is enabled to put actual faith in Gospel so to receive and rest upon Christ for salvation.
Second, I want to be absolutely clear that I believe that this regeneration can be enjoyed quite apart from baptism and that there are many who are baptized who are never regenerated.
Third, I would whole-heartedly affirm that this regeneration is something ordinarily wrought by the Spirit through the preaching of the Word.
None of that is in dispute in what I am saying nor, as far as I can see, in what FV proponents are saying.
None of that, however, is in the least conflict with the following affirmations:
[1] While infants are incapable of experiencing actual regeneration and the exercise of faith in particular acts, infants are nonetheless capable of having the seed and root of regeneration and faith, that is to say, the Holy Spirit at work in their lives.
[2] In infant baptism, faithful parents should have the hopeful expectation that the Holy Spirit is present and active, so that, whatever prior operations of the Spirit may have been present in the infant, the Spirit ordinarily (re)conveys himself to our children in baptism as the seed and root of their regeneration and faith.
[3] We should, therefore, also expect that in the ordinary process of Christian nurture of children by faithful parents, the Spirit will use the preaching and teaching of Word to bring the seed and root of regeneration and faith to fruition in actual regeneration and the exercise of faith. That's to say, even our baptized children need to hear the Gospel and be called to repentance and faith, as do all God's people.
[4] Thus, following from the previous points, it is perfectly natural to say, with respect to our children, that "we baptize in order that the one who is baptized be made regenerate." That is to say, baptism is among the ordinary means at God's disposal by which he works in the lives of our children along the way to regeneration and faith, which are properly and ordinarily wrought by the Word.
[5] In the case of adult converts, they are presumably already believers before they come to baptism and thus are already regenerate.
[6] Nonetheless, as Hodge says, "the benefits of redemption, the remission of sin, the gift of the Spirit, and the merits of the Redeemer, are not conveyed to the soul once for all. They are reconveyed and reappropriated on every new act of faith, and on every new believing reception of the sacraments."
[7] That's to say, in baptism, faith is strengthened and increased so that we more and more die to sin and walk in newness of life, which is the progress and increase of regenerating grace (WCF 31.1; WLC 167).
[8] Thus, following from these points, it is perfectly natural to say, with respect to an adult convert, that "we baptize in order that the one who is baptized...might grow in his regeneration." That is to say, baptism is among the ordinary means at God's disposal by which he works in the lives of converts to strength and increase their faith unto newness of life.
[9] There are other complicating cases, of course, such as the adult who is baptized in unbelief but subsequently comes to faith or the child who dies in infancy prior to being able to be called through the preaching of the Word. But I'll set those aside for present purposes.
[10] Since we cannot look upon the heart, we extend the judgment of charity to all the baptized who profess faith and who are not living scandalously. That is to say, we have a hopeful expectation that what God has signified and sealed sacramentally is actually true in fact. Thus we speak to and about such baptized professors as "regenerate." Moreover, this judgment of charity is grounded in what Reformed theology has typically termed "regeneration" in a "merely external, sacramental, and conditional" sense.
Okay, I hope that is all relatively clear.
Now, how does all of that intersect with what you quoted from Hodge and Miller?
First, I certainly do not at all affirm that "baptism regenerates" in the sense that Hodge denies that "baptism regenerates." We are coming at the question and terminology from different angles and with different meanings.
Second, I don't know the details of Hodge well enough to say, but I suspect he probably would not agree with what I believe about baptized infants of faithful parents. The way he speaks of baptized children as needing to "ratify that covenant by faith" suggests this perhaps, though I certainly could agree with that statement in the sense that children need to grow up into repentance and faith through the preaching of the Gospel.
Third, I'm convinced that my probable disagreement with Hodge here is part of a historic and ongoing difference of opinion within the Reformed and Presbyterian tradition, going back to the Westminster Assembly itself and before. There were conservative 19th century American Presbyterians who essentially agreed with what I've said above and there were those who didn't. All of our views are well within the bounds of the Westminster Standards and this is historically demonstrable.
Fourth, I fail to see how what I have outlined above bears any direct relationship to the kind of Anglo-Catholic sacerdotalism that Hodge describes and opposes. I'm not an Anglo-Catholic and my views come largely out of the Puritans and 17th century Reformed scholastics - not Pusey or Newman.
