Does baptism have saving effects?

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

.