Responding to Sinclair Ferguson’s defense of infant baptism in Baptism: Three Views , Anthony Lane attacks the use of “sign and seal” as the “controlling framework” for one’s theology of baptism.  He points out that for Ferguson the “proper” function of baptism is to “display and portray God’s grace,” and lists the pages where Ferguson talks about how baptism “points” and “symbolizes” and “signifies” and “proclaims.”  Lane charges: “This theme owes much to Reformed theology, little to the New Testament.”

Instead, Lane argues, “for the New Testament writers, the prime function of baptism is not to ‘portray’ grace but (together with faith) to receive it.”  He lists the key New Testament passages on baptism and points out the obvious: “These all portray baptism not as a symbol pointing to something but as having a role in the reception of salvation - not of course in opposition to faith but together with it.”

That’s easy for a Baptist (or a “dual-practice” advocate) like Lane to say.  It’s harder for a paedobaptist. But Lane is exactly correct, and defenses of infant baptism will not persuade Baptists until they convincingly account for what Lane calls “the instrumental role of baptism in receiving salvation.”