Does baptism have saving effects?

The latter

What theology tome are you reading user?

Attached: Christian what am I readin….png (429x410, 16.66K)

Not intrinsically.
Yes, you could say that.
No, it is that, but its a little more than just that.

Baptism having "saving effects" is generally called "baptismal regeneration" by Protestants. This doctrine is taught not only by the Catholic and Orthodox churches, but also by many of the confessional Protestant churches, as I will show below from their confessional documents. Even the Presbyterian doctrine is not really all that different from the Catholic doctrine of baptism (in re) versus baptism of desire.

Catholics (Council of Trent)
>Of this Justification the causes are these: the final cause indeed is the glory of God and of Jesus Christ, and life everlasting; while the efficient cause is a merciful God who washes and sanctifies gratuitously, signing, and anointing with the holy Spirit of promise, who is the pledge of our inheritance; but the meritorious cause is His most beloved only-begotten, our Lord Jesus Christ, who, when we were enemies, for the exceeding charity wherewith he loved us, merited Justification for us by His most holy Passion on the wood of the cross, and made satisfaction for us unto God the Father; the instrumental cause is the sacrament of baptism, which is the sacrament of faith, without which (faith) no man was ever justified; lastly, the alone formal cause is the justice of God, not that whereby He Himself is just, but that whereby He maketh us just, that, to wit, with which we being endowed by Him, are renewed in the spirit of our mind, and we are not only reputed, but are truly called, and are, just, receiving justice within us, each one according to his own measure, which the Holy Ghost distributes to every one as He wills, and according to each one's proper disposition and co-operation. 
 history.hanover.edu/texts/trent/ct06.html

Eastern Orthodox (Confession of Dositheus)
crivoice.org/creeddositheus.html

Lutherans (Augsburg Confession)
>Of Baptism they teach that it is necessary to salvation, and that through Baptism is offered the grace of God, and that children are to be baptized who, being offered to God through Baptism are received into God's grace. They condemn the Anabaptists, who reject the baptism of children, and say that children are saved without Baptism.
 bookofconcord.org/augsburgconfession.php#article9

Anglicans (XXXIV Articles)
anglicansonline.org/basics/thirty-nine_articles.html

Presbyterians (Westminster Confession)
>VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, 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) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.
reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

As far as the biblical evidence, I'm not going to bother quote mining, but there are numerous relevant passages, and they all speak of baptism as regenerating, saving, conferring remission of sins. People who deny this (e.g. Baptists) have to say ridiculous ad hoc things like places that talk about baptism are not really talking about the sacrament of baptism (even though baptism is clearly meant to anyone without an agenda), but a waterless spiritual baptism. I'll just post the Lutheran Satire video (I don't like a lot of their videos, but the argument here is basically correct).

youtu.be/JwxHzo0QVYY

Finally, the Creed, which should be normative for all Christians says, "I believe… in ONE baptism for the forgiveness of sins."

No, it's the second one

...

That means you don't understand Reformed sacramentology (understandable), see for a Reformed definition of the term sacrament which should give you a basic idea of some differences with Romish doctrine.
The Reformed explicitly deny that sacramental efficacy is ex opere operato and instead believe they confer grace through faith (this alone constitutes a major difference with baptismal regeneration). The way in which a sacrament confers the grace promised (sanctification, justification, etc.) is no different than the way in which the preaching of the gospel confers it. It is not the baptism itself, whether the rite, the water, the minister or anything else in the sacrament which confers it, but the promise being exhibited. Hence, in baptism there is a twofold promise; "I will save you" and "You are saved", faith in which promise brings the promised grace. The confession itself says

I don't think I have interpreted the Westminster Confession. I think your mistake is assuming there is one "the Reformed" view, and that the Westminster Confession must necessarily reflect that. The more plain reading of your quote is that there is nothing intrinsic to the outward act of baptism, but that God has made the sacrament an instrument of Grace so that the Holy Spirit operates through the Sacrament. What it says is that through baptism, the grace signified is really conferred. I am not alone in beliving the WCF teaches baptismal regeneration. See, for example,

puritanboard.com/threads/does-the-wcf-teach-baptismal-regeneration.36278/

Unless you are either deliberately trying to be obnoxious or a gnome, you should use the word Catholic, especially when the Catholic doctrine is not exclusive to the Roman or Latin Church.

...

It is a supernatural sacrament that washes your soul so that you can be a Christian. That is why the apostles baptized whole households.

What is God's wrath?

There is. Roman Catholic sacramentology has always been strictly rejected. There has never been a debate between two men claiming to be Reformed on the topic of baptismal regeneration. There has never been any claim of difference amongst them.
I'm just recognizing the historical context of the confession, which also allows me to accurately interpret other parts of the confession which plainly contradict baptismal regeneration.
That would be the plain reading if the context was a Roman Catholic speaking, but these men are Calvinists, and there's no doubt what they meant. They are denying that there is absolutely anything in the sacrament itself which confers grace, any more than there is something in the words of the gospel which confer grace. Plus, how does this section end? "a promise of benefit to worthy receivers". Who are the worthy receivers? Believers.

Reproof. Spare the rod spoil the child.

The "refuting" posts don't refute the claim that the WCF teaches a Calvinist form of baptismal regeneration. The first post quotes the first paragraph of the WCF, which says baptism is a "sign" of grace, ignoring the relevant statement that baptism confers the grace that it signifies. The second post posts about the LBC, but we are discussing the Presbyterian WCF, not the Baptist LBC.

Look at the later posts.

But, I did
No less egregious than you ignoring the relevant statement that it confers such grace through faith.
The text quoted is the same. The person's point was that if the Westminster taught baptismal regeneration in chapter 28 article 1, the text would have been fundamentally altered by the Baptists.
It doesn't matter who said it, it's wrong. It wouldn't matter if they said the Westminster Confession teaches Arianism either, it still wouldn't be true.
The person still rejects baptismal regeneration. Read the thread, it says he held that baptism is concurrent with regeneration in elect infants. The fact they are being baptized in that moment would therefore be a mere coincidence.
Also

Did you personally make both those posts under different accounts?

It doesn't matter whether faith is an instrument of grace, as it is in Lutheranism, Catholicism, etc., but whether it is the sole instrument of grace.

I didn't say that p. 1 taught baptismal regeneration. It is p. 5 that teaches baptismal regeneration, and that was not included in the LBC. You might was well argue that the WCF does not teach infant baptism.

I used a comma
I know, but the OP of that thread you linked did
Absolutely preposterous and contemptible nonsense. I don't know why you're pressing this so hard, what's next, the confession teaches transubstantiation?
Tell it to Burges.
Well that sure shows the very same disrespect for the immediate, greater and historical contexts of the confession you have maintained all thread, but also abject ignorance of Reformed soteriology. The position you attribute to the confession is strictly incompatible with Calvinism, and indeed the confession itself. This is because in Calvinism faith is impossible without the pre-existence of regeneration, so faith cannot be tied to the efficacy of baptism if regeneration is itself tied to baptism. Let's look at another relevant section you will no doubt ignore

.