# Reformed Baptist position on the New Covenant - waterproof?



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 27, 2018)

Heb 8:11
And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
for they shall all know me,
from the least of them to the greatest. [ESV]

It seems to me a key weakness of the Reformed Baptist view of the New Covenant is that the Reformed Baptist cannot claim that *all *their baptised members 'know the Lord'. Further it may be that within a Reformed Baptist church some need to be taught to 'know the Lord' - ie, we need teachers.

Thoughts?


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 27, 2018)

It is an "over-realized eschatology" I've been told, conflating the blessings of the age to come into this age.


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 27, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It seems to me a key weakness of the Reformed Baptist view of the New Covenant is that the Reformed Baptist cannot claim that *all *their baptised members 'know the Lord'.



I am not sure I understand what you mean? A Presbyterian cannot make that claim either if what you mean by "know the Lord" is "Saved". Can you clarify your questions? I could be missing it.



Stephen L Smith said:


> Further it may be that within a Reformed Baptist church some need to be taught to 'know the Lord' - ie, we need teachers.



Again, help me out me out so I can try and help. We still need teachers in all denominations.

Matthew Henry handles this text beautifully in my opinion (and surprisingly briefly, due to the fact he already covered it in commenting on Jeremiah)



> Verses 6-13 In this part of the chapter, the apostle illustrates and confirms the superior excellency of the priesthood of Christ above that of Aaron, from the excellency of that covenant, or that dispensation of the covenant of grace, of which Christ was the Mediator (v. 6): his ministry is more excellent, by how much he is the Mediator of a better covenant. The body and soul too of all divinity (as some observe) consist very much in rightly distinguishing between the two covenants—the covenant of works and the covenant of grace; and between the two dispensations of the covenant of grace—that under the Old Testament and that under the New. Now observe,I. What is here said of the old covenant, or rather of the old dispensation of the covenant of grace: of this it is said, 1. That it was made with the fathers of the Jewish nation at mount Sinai (v. 9), and Moses was the Mediator of that covenant, when God took them by the hand, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which intimates the great affection, condescension, and tender care of God towards them. 2. That this covenant was not found faultless (v. 7, v. 8); it was a dispensation of darkness and dread, tending to bondage, and only a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ; it was perfect in its kind, and fitted to answer its end, but very imperfect in comparison of the gospel. 3. That it was not sure or stedfast; for the Jews continued not in that covenant, and the Lord regarded them not, v. 9. They dealt ungratefully with their God, and cruelly with themselves, and fell under God’s displeasure. God will regard those who remain in his covenant, but will reject those who cast away his yoke from them. 4. That it is decayed, grown old, and vanisheth away, v. 13. It is antiquated, canceled, out of date, of no more use in gospel times than candles are when the sun has risen. Some think the covenant of peculiarity did not quite decay till the destruction of Jerusalem, though it was forfeited at the death of Christ, and was made old, and was now to vanish and perish, and the Levitical priesthood vanished with it.II. What is here said of the New-Testament dispensation, to prove the superior excellency of Christ’s ministry. It is said,1. That it is a better covenant (v. 6), a more clear and comfortable dispensation and discovery of the grace of God to sinners, bringing in holy light and liberty to the soul. It is without fault, well ordered in all things. It requires nothing but what it promises grace to perform. It accepts of godly sincerity, accounting it gospel perfection. Every transgression does not turn us out of covenant; all is put into a good and safe hand.2. That it is established upon better promises, more clear and express, more spiritual, more absolute. The promises of spiritual and eternal blessings are in this covenant positive and absolute; the promises of temporal blessings are with a wise and kind proviso, as far as shall be for God’s glory and his people’s good. This covenant contains in it promises of assistance and acceptance in duty, promises of progress and perseverance in grace and holiness, of bliss and glory in heaven, which were more obscurely shadowed forth by the promises of the land of Canaan, a type of heaven.3. It is a new covenant, even that new covenant that God long ago declared he would make with the house of Israel, that is, all the Israel of God; this was promised in Jer. 31:31, Jer. 31:32 , and accomplished in Christ. This will always be a new covenant, in which all who truly take hold of it shall be always found preserved by the power of God. It is God’s covenant; his mercy, love, and grace moved for it; his wisdom devised it; his Son purchased it; his wisdom devised it; his Son purchased it; his Spirit brings souls into it, and builds them up in it.4. The articles of this covenant are very extraordinary, which are sealed between God and his people by baptism and the Lord’s supper; whereby they bind themselves to their part, and God assures them he will do his part; and his is the main and principal part, on which his people depend for grace and strength to do theirs. Here,(1.) God articles with his peoplethat he will put his laws into their minds and write them in their hearts, v. 10. He once wrote his laws to them, now he will write his laws in them; that is, he will give them understanding to know and to believe his law; he will give them memories to retain them; he will give them hearts to love them and consciences to recognize them; he will give them courage to profess them and power to put them in practice; the whole habit and frame of their souls shall be a table and transcript of the law of God. This is the foundation of the covenant; and, when this is laid, duty will be done wisely, sincerely, readily, easily, resolutely, constantly, and comfortably.(2.) He articles with them to take them into a near and very honourable relation to himself. [1.] He will be to them a God; that is, he will be all that to them, and do all that for them, that God can be and do. Nothing more can be said in a thousand volumes than is comprehended in these few words: I will be a God to them. [2.] They shall be to him a people, to love, honour, observe, and obey him in all things; complying with his cautions, conforming to his commands, comporting with his providences, copying out his example, taking complacency in his favour. This those must do and will do who have God for their God; this they are bound to do as their part of the contract; this they shall do, for God will enable them to do it, as an evidence that he is their God and that they are his people; for it is God himself who first founds the relation, and then fills it up with grace suitable and sufficient, and helps them in their measure to fill it up with love and duty; so that God engages both for himself and them.(3.) He articles with them that they shall grow more and more acquainted with their God (v. 11): They shall all know me from the least to the greatest, insomuch that there shall not be so much need of one neighbour teaching another the knowledge of God. Here observe, [1.] In the want of better instruction, one neighbour should be teaching another to know the Lord, as they have ability and opportunity for it. [2.] This private instruction shall not be so necessary under the New Testament as it was under the Old. The old dispensation was shadowy, dark, ritual, and less understood; their priests preached but seldom, and but a few at a time, and the Spirit of God was more sparingly given out. But under the new dispensation there shall be such abundance of public qualified preachers of the gospel, and dispensers of ordinances statedly in the solemn assemblies, and so great a flocking to them, as doves to their windows, and such a plentiful effusion of the Spirit of God to make the ministration of the gospel effectual, that there shall be a mighty increase and spreading of Christian knowledge in persons of all sorts, of each sex, and of all ages. O that this promise might be fulfilled in our days, that the hand of God may be with his ministers, that a great number may believe and be turned to the Lord!(4.) God articles with them about the pardon of their sins, as what always accompanies the true knowledge of God.


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 27, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Heb 8:11
> And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
> and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
> for they shall all know me,
> ...


But yes the reformed baptist position at least makes the infants of Christians Parents Waterproof in practice  (just trying to be funny).


----------



## RobertPGH1981 (Aug 27, 2018)

Below is an excerpt from James White on the Hebrew 8...

Heb 8:10 -- "What the Old covenant had only pictured and hinted at, but failed ot produce in them, God fulfills in the better covenant with better sacrifices and better promises and better mediator."

Heb 8:11 -- "The entire ministry of the prophets of old could be summed up in the constant revelation of knowledge of God to a hard hearted and stubborn people. The phrase "Know the LORD" or "did know hte LORD" appears a number of times in the scriptures (Exod. 5:2; Judg. 2:10; 1 Sam 2:12; 3:7; Isa. 19:21; Hos 2:20; 5:4; 6:3). Interestingly, though Eli's sons were members of the Old Covenant and in fact, were priests, they did not "know the Lord" (1 Sam 2:12)...."The only meaningful way of seeing this is that htey knew him externally, but not internally". 

I think the indwelling presence of the Holy Spirit comes into play here as well because some believe that indwelling occurred only after the New Covenant and not prior (see Hamilton).


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 27, 2018)

Pergamum said:


> It is an "over-realized eschatology" I've been told, conflating the blessings of the age to come into this age.


Your signature states you are a Baptist, so I assume you disagree with the statement?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 27, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> I am not sure I understand what you mean? A Presbyterian cannot make that claim either if what you mean by "know the Lord" is "Saved". Can you clarify your questions? I could be missing it.


The Reformed Baptist argues his position based on the 'newness' of the New Covenant. But part of the New Covenant states that in the New Covenant *all* know the Lord, and that no one needs to teach his to know the Lord as they shall all know the Lord. But it is possible that a baptised member in a Reformed Baptist church may not know the Lord, thus some still need to teach his neighbour to know the Lord. I am saying there is a "not yet" element in the New Covenant that it seems to me undermines the Reformed Baptist position.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 27, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> (just trying to be funny).


I for one like a "sprinkling" of humour from time to time.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 27, 2018)

RobertPGH1981 said:


> Below is an excerpt from James White on the Hebrew 8...


I have read quite a bit of James White on the New Covenant. But I remain unconvinced that he has solved the problem. See my clarification in post 7


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 27, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Your signature states you are a Baptist, so I assume you disagree with the statement?


Yes. But not with a certainty. I can understand and sympathize with the Presbyterian view. The Reformed have done better representing the basic unity of all Scripture than the baptists.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 27, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I for one like a "sprinkling" of humour from time to time.


Haha.

Stephen,

I am a little confused from your profile (It says your subscribe to LBC). Are you paedo or credo?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Aug 27, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Heb 8:11
> And they shall not teach, each one his neighbor
> and each one his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,’
> for they shall all know me,
> ...



Reformed Baptists don't make the claim that every person we baptize on profession of faith is making a TRUE profession of faith, so by that token we don't claim that everyone we baptize "knows the Lord".

But what we DO claim, is that there are no unregenerate people that are in the New Covenant. Someone may falsely profess faith and therefore be an unregenerate unbeliever and still wind up getting baptized, but they are not a member of the New Covenant.

We do assert that every regenerate person "knows the Lord". They may need to be taught doctrine and be built up in the faith by preachers and teachers, but all regenerate people "know the Lord" by definition.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Josh Williamson (Aug 28, 2018)

Reformed Baptists do not teach that all those who are baptised know the Lord. There are quite a number of false professors. What we do teach, however, is that there is no unregenerate people in the covenant. As Baptists we hold to regenerate church membership, so only the saved are in the New Covenant. 

Since, only those who are saved are in the New Covenant, they have no need for someone to teach them to "know the Lord" as they already know Him. As Sean mentioned above, they may need to be taught doctrine and built up in the faith, but they already "know the Lord."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Polanus1561 (Aug 28, 2018)

I am going forth in my belief that when the Kingdom is fully realised - the invisible church becomes the visible and everyone will know the LORD truly. That is what Jer 31 points towards.

But for now the members of the New covenant will need teachers (Eph 4), as it is not fully realised.

The webmaster's book on CT is helpful on this.

"This part of the prophecy—the direct, unmediated access to the knowledge of God—has been inaugurated but not consummated, so all believers will have a more intense experience of these things in the new heavens and earth." - Reformation Study Bible.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 28, 2018)

John Yap said:


> I am going forth in my belief that when the Kingdom is fully realised - the invisible church becomes the visible and everyone will know the LORD truly. That is what Jer 31 points towards.
> 
> But for now the members of the New covenant will need teachers (Eph 4), as it is not fully realised.
> 
> ...


John,

I agree.



Josh Williamson said:


> Since, only those who are saved are in the New Covenant, they have no need for someone to teach them to "know the Lord" as they already know Him. As Sean mentioned above, they may need to be taught doctrine and built up in the faith, but they already "know the Lord."



I must respectfully disagree with the claims that say we don't need to teach the elect to "know the Lord". That is extremely hard to reconcile in many ways. I will list one verse below.

*Romans 10:14-21 English Standard Version (ESV)*
14 How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching 15 And how are they to preach unless they are sent As it is written, "How beautiful are the feet of those who preach the good news!” 16 But they have not all obeyed the gospel. For Isaiah says, “Lord, who has believed what he has heard from us?” 17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.


Indeed all are without excuse to be sure. But God has ordained that his word be preached so that people can be given the "knowledge of God"

WCF Chapter 1 may shed some light:
*Chapter I*
I. Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men unexcusable;[1] yet are they not sufficient to give that knowledge of God, and of his will, which is necessary unto salvation.[2] Therefore it pleased the Lord, at sundry times, and in divers manners, to reveal Himself, and to declare that his will unto his Church;[3] and afterwards for the better preserving and propagating of the truth, and for the more sure establishment and comfort of the Church against the corruption of the flesh, and the malice of Satan and of the world, to commit the same wholly unto writing;[4] which makes the Holy Scripture to be most necessary;[5] those former ways of God's revealing his will unto his people being now ceased.[6]


----------



## Jonathan R (Aug 28, 2018)

Grant, your citation from Josh, I believe, is misunderstood. His point is regarding people who are already in the New Covenant, which in the Baptist understanding is someone who is regenerate and exercising saving faith. Your reference to Romans and subsequent note is with regard to an elect yet unregenerate person. Two different types of people.

When we as Baptists say that there is not a need for members of the New Covenant to be taught to know the Lord, we are limiting the phrase "know the Lord" to a saving understanding, something which every member of the NC by definition has in the Baptist structure. Sean's post references this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 28, 2018)

Jonathan R said:


> Grant, your citation from Josh, I believe, is misunderstood. His point is regarding people who are already in the New Covenant, which in the Baptist understanding is someone who is regenerate and exercising saving faith. Your reference to Romans and subsequent note is with regard to an elect yet unregenerate person. Two different types of people.
> 
> When we as Baptists say that there is not a need for members of the New Covenant to be taught to know the Lord, we are limited the phrase "know the Lord" to a saving understanding, something which every member of the NC by definition has in the Baptist structure. Sean's post references this.


Ahhh...I see what you (and Josh) mean.

So then you would say that our children (non-professing) are not in the New covenant in any way because we are indeed, as parents, teaching them to "know the Lord" (pursuing a valid profession)?

Am I cooking with grease now regarding your position with the passage? 

Well anyways many PB threads have fleshed that out and I will not derail the OP.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 28, 2018)

Presbyterians do emphasize the already/not yet of Jeremiah 31 as quoted in Hebrews. There has to be a not yet element, since there is still a need for teachers. The main distinction that Presbyterians make that Baptists do not is that there are two ways of relating to the covenant of grace: administratively and essentially. The person who is baptized, but is non-elect, does not participate in any of the essential benefits of the covenant of grace. They do not have regeneration, faith, justification, etc. What they do get is contact with the means of grace. They sit under the Word, they see the sacraments administered, they see the church of God in action. This is how they can be in the church but not of the church, just as Paul says that there were those who were Israel in one sense (by birth), but not Israel in another sense (they didn't have the spiritual essence of the covenant). Just as Hebrews can talk about apostasy from the administration of the covenant in chapter 6, which is not apostasy from salvation, but apostasy from the administration of the covenant. Just as 1 John can say that the false teachers went out from us, but they were not of us. In my opinion, Presbyterians have a built-in easy-to-understand way of understanding the apostasy passages, and the continuity of the already/not yet way of understanding covenant theology, a way that Baptists do not have. Just add to this that the children of believers belong to the covenant administratively, and the sign of the covenant belongs to them, just as the administrative sign of belonging to the covenant in the OT was circumcision.

While Presbyterians have an easier time explaining the apostasy passages, and covenant theology in general, the hard part for Presbyterians is defining what is new about the new covenant as Jeremiah 31 lays it out. I believe that what is new about the new iteration of the covenant is that Jesus has come, and what a difference that makes. While all those that are of faith are the children of Abraham, as Galatians 3 makes clear, Jesus' coming makes a difference. We are no longer in the period of types and shadows. So, what is new about the new covenant is Jesus, and the concomitant bloodlessness of the covenantal signs, since Christ has shed the blood. What is not new is the distinction between administration and essence, nor the covenantal position of children.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Aug 28, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> Ahhh...I see what you (and Josh) mean.
> 
> So then you would say that our children (non-professing) are not in the New covenant in any way because we are indeed, as parents, teaching them to "know the Lord" (pursuing a valid profession)?
> 
> ...



I wouldn't necessarily say it exactly that way, but you are on to something.

We would say that they are not in the New Covenant in any sense because they are _unregenerate_ (if indeed they _are_ truly unregenerate). And since they are unregenerate, they do not "know the Lord" no matter how much scripture they could recite, how many catechism questions they have memorized, or how slick their prayers are.

But yes, you are indeed TEACHING them to know the Lord, but it is up to God whether He will actually and truly reveal Himself to them in His good time according to His good pleasure.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 28, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I wouldn't necessarily say it exactly that way, but you are on to something.
> 
> We would say that they are not in the New Covenant in any sense because they are _unregenerate_ (if indeed they _are_ truly unregenerate). And since they are unregenerate, they do not "know the Lord" no matter how much scripture they could recite, how many catechism questions they have memorized, or how slick their prayers are.
> 
> But yes, you are indeed TEACHING them to know the Lord, but it is up to God whether He will actually and truly reveal Himself to them in His good time according to His good pleasure.



Thanks for a very clear statement of the Baptist position. It is always helpful when the clarity is crystal.

The Presbyterian will typically respond to this by pointing out that, practically speaking, Baptists don't typically treat their children like pagans. You often do things like 1. dedicate them to the Lord (which is almost like a dry baptism); 2. you bring them to the means of grace; 3. even while evangelizing them, you don't treat them like life-long rebels, but rather like people needing nurturing.

My question is this: why would you assume that they are not regenerated? Is it impossible for a child to be regenerated at a very young age? The position of most Presbyterians is that we should not make any assumption one way or the other. Either way, of course, they need the gospel. The danger of the Baptist position is that if a child _was_ regenerated from the womb (like John the Baptist almost certainly was), then treating them like a pagan will teach them to doubt their faith. The danger of assuming they are regenerated is equally great, of course, teaching them to presume. But if a very young child says that he believes in Jesus, and if there is no reason to believe that they are simply doing this to please the parents, then why not believe what they say, and treat them as Christians in that case?

Paul says unequivocally that our children are holy if even one parent is a believer. That means that we cannot treat them like pagans. Saying that they are set-apart pagans is a contradiction in terms.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Aug 28, 2018)

Better men than I have spilled much ink in answer to the questions you raise, Rev. Keister. However, my goal here is not to convince any paedobaptists of why the Baptist position is _right_, I am only here to explain what the Baptist position _is _vs. what the Baptist position _is not_.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 28, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Better men than I have spilled much ink in answer to the questions you raise, Rev. Keister. However, my goal here is not to convince any paedobaptists of why the Baptist position is _right_, I am only here to explain what the Baptist position _is _vs. what the Baptist position _is not_.



Fair enough. I was coming at the discussion also from the perspective of clarifying the Presbyterian position as juxtaposed to the Baptist position. Hopefully people think that clarity has been achieved.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 28, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> I am a little confused from your profile (It says your subscribe to LBC). Are you paedo or credo?


Still thinking the issue through

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 28, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> But what we DO claim, is that there are no unregenerate people that are in the New Covenant. Someone may falsely profess faith and therefore be an unregenerate unbeliever and still wind up getting baptized, but they are not a member of the New Covenant.





Josh Williamson said:


> Reformed Baptists do not teach that all those who are baptised know the Lord. There are quite a number of false professors. What we do teach, however, is that there is no unregenerate people in the covenant.





greenbaggins said:


> Presbyterians do emphasize the already/not yet of Jeremiah 31 as quoted in Hebrews. There has to be a not yet element, since there is still a need for teachers.





greenbaggins said:


> In my opinion, Presbyterians have a built-in easy-to-understand way of understanding the apostasy passages, and the continuity of the already/not yet way of understanding covenant theology, a way that Baptists do not have.


I think Lane gets to the heart of the matter here. It must be his love of Vos 


Josh Williamson said:


> As Baptists we hold to regenerate church membership


No, you hold to professing believer church membership. You do not infallibly know who is a regenerate member. It is interesting in this regard that our Lord Jesus allowed Judas to be a *disciple* of His.


----------



## Josh Williamson (Aug 28, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> No, you hold to professing believer church membership. You do not infallibly know who is a regenerate member. It is interesting in this regard that our Lord Jesus allowed Judas to be a *disciple* of His.



No, we believe in regenerate church membership. The church is only made up of those who are truly saved. Local church membership may have non-believers who sneak in, but they aren't part of the true Church, as they are not in the covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Aug 28, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Fair enough. I was coming at the discussion also from the perspective of clarifying the Presbyterian position as juxtaposed to the Baptist position. Hopefully people think that clarity has been achieved.


Lane, and that is _always _the hardest part of any discussion.

When I joined the Puritan Board back in 2005, I unwisely jumped right into the baptism debates. At that time they were prolific on the board. I was not prepared for them since I was struggling with my own position. As the years went by I began to investigate what the different sides believed, not what each side presented about the other. Slowly, but deliberately, I increased my understanding. My insatiable need to debate the topic waned. That does not mean that debate is without merit, it means that I no longer had to debate for the sake of it. When I see other Baptists struggling with their understanding of the New Covenant and baptism, I am better able to appreciate their struggle and the why behind their questions.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 29, 2018)

Josh Williamson said:


> No, we believe in regenerate church membership. The church is only made up of those who are truly saved.


Perhaps. But the argument is hypothetical because the church in reality has professing believers. This is why Lane's "yet-not yet" makes good sense.


----------



## Jonathan R (Aug 29, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Perhaps. But the argument is hypothetical because the church in reality has professing believers. This is why Lane's "yet-not yet" makes good sense.



The difference comes from a differing definition of the church, or body of Christ, itself. We baptists maintain that the church, delimited by the New Covenant, solely consists of those who are in vital union to Christ. The presbyterian position delineates between those who are in a vital union and promissory union (would that be correct in speaking of baptized infants yet unregenerate?) to Christ, yet maintains that both are truly in the church. 

We use the term regenerate church membership with regard to the church universal, which the rolls of the local church ought to reflect as man ought not to pronounce what God has not. Presbyterians do likewise in stating that upon their definition of the church universal, the rolls of the local church also are representative.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 29, 2018)

Josh Williamson said:


> No, we believe in regenerate church membership. The church is only made up of those who are truly saved. Local church membership may have non-believers who sneak in, but they aren't part of the true Church, as they are not in the covenant.



I am not sure all Baptists would agree with you here. This position leads to perpetual re-baptizing, because, if the person was not truly saved the first time, then you have to mark the "real" conversion with a "true" baptism. However much you want to say "regenerate", your visible church still has unbelievers in it, like any other branch of the church. As has been said on the board before, no one has regeneration goggles. So, if you go to First Baptist Church in your local town, there are people there professing to be believers who have in fact deceived themselves. And yet they are still members of your visible church. You don't seem to have any category for accounting for these people. Presbyterians have an easy way of describing them: they are part of the visible church, and not part of the invisible church. Or, to speak covenantally, they are part of the administration of the covenant, but do not possess the essential benefits of the covenant. 



Jonathan R said:


> The difference comes from a differing definition of the church, or body of Christ, itself. We baptists maintain that the church, delimited by the New Covenant, solely consists of those who are in vital union to Christ. The presbyterian position delineates between those who are in a vital union and promissory union (would that be correct in speaking of baptized infants yet unregenerate?) to Christ, yet maintains that both are truly in the church.
> 
> We use the term regenerate church membership with regard to the church universal, which the rolls of the local church ought to reflect as man ought not to pronounce what God has not. Presbyterians do likewise in stating that upon their definition of the church universal, the rolls of the local church also are representative.



Presbyterians do not typically believe in a promissory union to Christ for baptized infants. Union with Christ is reserved for those who are regenerate, which could include infants, but not by assumption, and certainly not by baptism. We would phrase it this way: baptism is a sign and seal that marks out the infant as set apart from the world, and joined to the visible church. The child is already part of the visible church by virtue of being born into a covenantal family of the church. But baptism is the formal sign and seal of what already exists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Aug 29, 2018)

Jonathan R said:


> The difference comes from a differing definition of the church, or body of Christ, itself. We baptists maintain that the church, delimited by the New Covenant, solely consists of those who are in vital union to Christ. The presbyterian position delineates between those who are in a vital union and promissory union (would that be correct in speaking of baptized infants yet unregenerate?) to Christ, yet maintains that both are truly in the church.
> 
> We use the term regenerate church membership with regard to the church universal, *which the rolls of the local church ought to reflect as man ought not to pronounce what God has not*. Presbyterians do likewise in stating that upon their definition of the church universal, the rolls of the local church also are representative.



How can you practically assure this level of vetting when even the apostles couldn't do it, and when even the whole book of Hebrews assumes this level of scrutiny as an impossibility? 

Would it also be a logical conclusion of your use of the word "ought" that if the pastor baptizes or accepts someone into membership who is not regenerate, that the pastor has committed sin?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jonathan R (Aug 29, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Presbyterians do not typically believe in a promissory union to Christ for baptized infants. Union with Christ is reserved for those who are regenerate, which could include infants, but not by assumption, and certainly not by baptism. We would phrase it this way: baptism is a sign and seal that marks out the infant as set apart from the world, and joined to the visible church. The child is already part of the visible church by virtue of being born into a covenantal family of the church. But baptism is the formal sign and seal of what already exists.



My selection of the word promissory was an attempt to define the relationship between Christ and an unregenerate church member, which, if I recall from most Presbyterian baptisms, is to the effect that Christ in some manner has marked the child as his own via the believing parent(s) and the baptism is done in hope of a future faith in the child. 



Harley said:


> How can you practically assure this level of vetting when even the apostles couldn't do it, and when even the whole book of Hebrews assumes this level of scrutiny as an impossibility?
> 
> Would it also be a logical conclusion of your use of the word "ought" that if the pastor baptizes or accepts someone into membership who is not regenerate, that the pastor has committed sin?



May I ask you to consider how you would fence the Lord's Table without using the standard that I have noted? And would you say that the minister has sinned in serving the supper to one who has falsely professed? I think not - rather the sin is on the side of the false professor. My use of the word ought implies the standard, but the blame, however, is on the side of the deceiver not the deceived.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 29, 2018)

Jonathan R said:


> My selection of the word promissory was an attempt to define the relationship between Christ and an unregenerate church member, which, if I recall from most Presbyterian baptisms, is to the effect that Christ in some manner has marked the child as his own via the believing parent(s) and the baptism is done in hope of a further actualization of faith in the child.



Unfortunately, you missed my point. I was not objecting to the word "promissory" but to the phrase "union to Christ," as the succeeding context of my answer demonstrates. 

Furthermore, your answer includes some ambiguity. For instance, what does "marked the child as his own" mean? If you understand by that a sort of union with Christ, then the Presbyterians would answer no, that is not what we believe. If you mean by that an attachment to the visible church, which does NOT imply union with Christ, then yes, that is what we believe. 

I think the fear of a lot of Baptists is that Presbyterians secretly believe in regeneration by baptism. I see this in many, if not most, discussions between Baptists and Presbyterians on the topic of baptism. Unfortunately for Presbyterians, the FV guys haven't helped matters, since a lot of them DO believe in regeneration by baptism. And then Baptists are tempted to think that the FV is really where the Presbyterian position leads, if they would only follow their arguments through to the logical conclusion. However, it just isn't the case. And the main reason it is not true is because of the distinction we Presbyterians make (and believe the Bible makes) between visible and invisible church, administration and essence of the covenant, etc. Baptism has to do with the first element in those pairings, NOT directly the second. Baptism points to salvation, but does not convey it. Whether Baptists believe in the visible/invisible church distinction or not, it is not appropriate to judge the Presbyterian position on the basis of the _lack_ of such distinctions in some forms of Baptist theology.

The phrase "a further actualization of faith in the child" is also ambiguous. Are you saying that Presbyterians always believe that a seed-faith is always present in infants? If so, that is not an accurate picture of the Presbyterian position, since we believe only that it is possible, not that we should presume such seed-faith. I am seeking to clarify here. As Bill noted, lack of clarity is one of the big bugaboos in Baptist/Presbyterian conversations on baptism.


----------



## Jonathan R (Aug 29, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Unfortunately, you missed my point. I was not objecting to the word "promissory" but to the phrase "union to Christ," as the succeeding context of my answer demonstrates.
> 
> Furthermore, your answer includes some ambiguity. For instance, what does "marked the child as his own" mean? If you understand by that a sort of union with Christ, then the Presbyterians would answer no, that is not what we believe. If you mean by that an attachment to the visible church, which does NOT imply union with Christ, then yes, that is what we believe.
> 
> ...



Perhaps my misunderstanding is most with regard to how you see Christ's headship over the New Covenant yet there be members of said covenant with no union to Christ. Thus, I assumed some manner of union to Christ on behalf of the unregenerate yet baptized infant. So are you saying that Christ can be the head of someone in the New Covenant (external administration, etc.) yet that person have no manner of union to Christ? Or would it be better so say that Christ is only the head of those in the internal administration of the NC?

I'll edit my post regarding the faith of the child - I was not intending to imply a seed-faith viewpoint, but rather that presbyterian baptism is often with a view to a hoped for, yet future, faith. Perhaps you would disagree with that, but I have at least heard that in the PCA churches I have attended.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Aug 29, 2018)

Jonathan R said:


> May I ask you to consider how you would fence the Lord's Table without using the standard that I have noted? And would you say that the minister has sinned in serving the supper to one who has falsely professed? I think not - rather the sin is on the side of the false professor. My use of the word ought implies the standard, but the blame, however, is on the side of the deceiver not the deceived.



I see what you are saying. Your original wording is “man ought not to pronounce what God has not.” The word “ought” implies duty, so it sounded to me like it was your position that the responsibility is on the pastors to ensure that only the regenerate are enrolled as members. But that's not your position?

If you believe that pastors only obligated to go on credible profession of faith, we agree. If pastors are responsible and held accountable to God for letting in the unregenerate, I feel for any pastor who tries to meet that standard. I would therefore argue that purely regenerate visible church membership is not the obligation for the pastor or the church, but only to be faithful concerning what they can observe.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 29, 2018)

Jonathan R said:


> Perhaps my misunderstanding is most with regard to how you see Christ's headship over the New Covenant yet there be members of said covenant with no union to Christ. Thus, I assumed some manner of union to Christ on behalf of the unregenerate yet baptized infant. So are you saying that Christ can be the head of someone in the New Covenant (external administration, etc.) yet that person have no manner of union to Christ? Or would it be better so say that Christ is only the head of those in the internal administration of the NC?
> 
> I'll edit my post regarding the faith of the child - I was not intending to imply a seed-faith viewpoint, but rather that presbyterian baptism is often with a view to a hoped for, yet future, faith. Perhaps you would disagree with that, but I have at least heard that in the PCA churches I have attended.



Jonathan, I think most Presbyterians would respond by saying that the biblical history of covenantal membership is quite consistent. Ishmael was circumcised, yet was not part of the essence of the covenant. Esau was in the same position. Paul in Galatians says that the covenantal relationship a believer has in Christ is the same as for the Abrahamic covenant. There has always been a slippage between the administration and the essence of the covenant. But the substance of the covenant of grace has also always been the same: salvation in Christ with all the benefits. Christ is head over the church, but that does not mean that all who are attached to the covenant relate to Christ in the same way. And, we also have to remember that what is true of a group may not be true of an individual, at least not in the same way. Christ is head of the church, and relates to her in a vital way. That does not mean that headship over individuals has the exact same characteristics with everyone attached to the visible church. 

I would like to know this one thing: when a church and a pastor welcomes someone into membership in their church, and that person gave a credible profession of faith, but is in fact being deceptive, what do you think happened when they professed faith and were baptized? The church says that they believe this person to be a true believer, correct? Do you just chalk it up to the fact that churches can err? Do you use a judgment of charity? What is this person, and how do they relate to the church? That person is a member of your visible church, and is on your rolls, and yet you seem to be saying that they are not a member of the church at all. This does not seem consistent to me. Does there not have to be some way of describing the "false sons in her pale," as the hymn has it?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 29, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Unfortunately for Presbyterians, the FV guys haven't helped matters, since a lot of them DO believe in regeneration by baptism. And then Baptists are tempted to think that the FV is really where the Presbyterian position leads, if they would only follow their arguments through to the logical conclusion. However, it just isn't the case. And the main reason it is not true is because of the distinction we Presbyterians make (and believe the Bible makes) between visible and invisible church, administration and essence of the covenant, etc.


Lane, you make an important point. Fred Malone's "Baptism of Disciples alone" is an example of a Reformed Baptist author who makes this erroneous argument. It seems to me Dr Venema's book "Christ and Covenant Theology" and Bavinck's "Saved by Grace" are two helpful books to clarify this issue. Agreed?


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 30, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Lane, you make an important point. Fred Malone's "Baptism of Disciples alone" is an example of a Reformed Baptist author who makes this erroneous argument. It seems to me Dr Venema's book "Christ and Covenant Theology" and Bavinck's "Saved by Grace" are two helpful books to clarify this issue. Agreed?



Certainly they are good places to go. Almost any Reformed ST would do a good job at making this delineation. It is a commonplace in Reformed theology. And yes, Vos says it, too.


----------



## TylerRay (Aug 30, 2018)

Part of the onus in the confusion that surrounds the discussion between Baptists and Presbyterians is the use of imprecise language by Presbyterians. Many Presbyterians speak of being "inwardly in the covenant," over against being "outwardly in the covenant." In my opinion, that's sloppy language, and it doesn't make much sense. If Christ is the head of the covenant, and someone is "outwardly in the covenant," is he then "outwardly" in Christ? Does he "outwardly" have Christ as his covenant mediator?

A more precise way of speaking is to say that only the regenerate are in the covenant, properly considered. The visible church is the outward means by which Christ administers his covenant blessings. So, all who are in the visible church are under the outward administration of the covenant; but the only ones who become partakers in the covenant, properly speaking, are the ones who have the outward administration of the covenant applied to them savingly by the Spirit.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Aug 30, 2018)

.


TylerRay said:


> Part of the onus in the confusion that surrounds the discussion between Baptists and Presbyterians is the use of imprecise language by Presbyterians. Many Presbyterians speak of being "inwardly in the covenant," over against being "outwardly in the covenant." In my opinion, that's sloppy language, and it doesn't make much sense. If Christ is the head of the covenant, and someone is "outwardly in the covenant," is he then "outwardly" in Christ? Does he "outwardly" have Christ as his covenant mediator?
> 
> A more precise way of speaking is to say that only the regenerate are in the covenant, properly considered. The visible church is the outward means by which Christ administers his covenant blessings. So, all who are in the visible church are under the outward administration of the covenant; but the only ones who become partakers in the covenant, properly speaking, are the ones who have the outward administration of the covenant applied to them savingly by the Spirit.


Agreed.

Using the terms "visible" and "invisible" were much more helpful for me when I was in transition from a Credo to a Paedo position. These terms also reflect our standards. Where one of the differences lies in how the Baptist and Presbyterians define the "visible" Church in the NT.

Westminster:


[SIZE=5 said:


> *Of the Church*[/SIZE]
> I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the Head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that fills all in all.[1]
> 
> II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion;[2]and of their children:[3] and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ,[4] the house and family of God,[5] out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.[6]



1689 LBC:


[SIZE=5 said:


> *Chapter 26: Of the Church*[/SIZE]
> 1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all.
> ( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )
> 2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.
> ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )



For me, I have never been shown where the NT definition of the "Visible" church changed to exclude the Children of believers....whom the NT itself proclaims to be set apart from the unclean. Typically when I clean something I use water to wash it off  (just trying to add some humor). But I am thankful for the clarifications that have been added from both perspectives on this thread.

We never see the children of believers excluded from the covenant community (Gen.-Rev.)


----------



## deleteduser99 (Aug 30, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Part of the onus in the confusion that surrounds the discussion between Baptists and Presbyterians is the use of imprecise language by Presbyterians. Many Presbyterians speak of being "inwardly in the covenant," over against being "outwardly in the covenant." In my opinion, that's sloppy language, and it doesn't make much sense. If Christ is the head of the covenant, and someone is "outwardly in the covenant," is he then "outwardly" in Christ? Does he "outwardly" have Christ as his covenant mediator?
> 
> A more precise way of speaking is to say that only the regenerate are in the covenant, properly considered. The visible church is the outward means by which Christ administers his covenant blessings. So, all who are in the visible church are under the outward administration of the covenant; but the only ones who become partakers in the covenant, properly speaking, are the ones who have the outward administration of the covenant applied to them savingly by the Spirit.



That caused big confusion for me. How are you in and out at the same time?

I think it also helps to change out the word paedo (child) for oiko/oikia (household). We say paedobaptist it’s the defense of the baptism of children (which even MacArthur does, and Baptists don’t disagree with child baptisms if they believe the profession). By household we claim that God brings in a whole household into the administration, infants et al. Separate issue.

Much is in how it is communicated.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Aug 30, 2018)

greenbaggins said:


> Unfortunately for Presbyterians, the FV guys haven't helped matters, since a lot of them DO believe in regeneration by baptism. And then Baptists are tempted to think that the FV is really where the Presbyterian position leads, if they would only follow their arguments through to the logical conclusion. However, it just isn't the case.


To add to the confusion the Cannons of Dort 1:17 appear to argue that children of believers who die in infancy are saved. Is this a form of regeneration by baptism? I note the WCF is a little more guarded on this.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 31, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> To add to the confusion the Cannons of Dort 1:17 appear to argue that children of believers who die in infancy are saved. Is this a form of regeneration by baptism? I note the WCF is a little more guarded on this.



That section does not mention baptism at all. The ground of hope for believing parents is the covenantal promises of Scripture. When David's infant son died, he said that he would go to his son, even if his son would not come back to him. While the biblical evidence falls short of absolute certainty, the balance of evidence points to covenantal continuity with regard to infants of believers who die.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 31, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> A more precise way of speaking is to say that only the regenerate are in the covenant, properly considered. The visible church is the outward means by which Christ administers his covenant blessings. So, all who are in the visible church are under the outward administration of the covenant; but the only ones who become partakers in the covenant, properly speaking, are the ones who have the outward administration of the covenant applied to them savingly by the Spirit.


Yeah, I remember as a Baptist being confused for a long time how the WSC defines the covenant of grace as being made with the elect alone, yet it teaches that infants should be baptised!

I would also point out that those in the visible church not only partake of the outward administration of the covenant (e.g., hearing of the word, participating in the sacraments, being treated as fellow covenanters, having some outward protection that extends to them as Christ protects his church, calling Christ their husband and God their Father, etc.), but all those in the visible church have covenanted with God. By means of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, they avouch God to be their God and themselves to belong to Christ alone. By this personal covenant, they profess to be heirs of the covenant of grace and covenantally bind themselves to be so: thereby binding themselves to its blessings (which they receive if they believe on Christ) and curses (which they receive if they do not). Hence, language about covenant breakers in the Scriptures can still be taken seriously when viewing the data from a Thomas Boston sort of perspective (as you outlined here).


----------

