# Federal Vision baptism question



## littlepeople (Sep 15, 2010)

From what I can tell, there is a general consensus within the FV that water baptism marks the beginning of covenant membership. Does anyone know how this applies to children. i.e. If I have twins, and only baptize one of them, is the other outside the covenantal obligations? I searched around, and I couldn't find a concrete answer.

Thanks


----------



## jwright82 (Sep 15, 2010)

They tend towards baptismal regeneration. They say we are definantly marked at the time of baptism but that any spiretual effects may not show up or take affect at the time of baptism. You are correct that say that the person is definantly withen the covenant at the time of baptism. They seem to straddle somewhat between a Lutheran and Calvenistic view on the matter almost trying to go between. As I understand it we affirm that only decreetaly elect people who are baptized are spiretualy marked when the Spirit in His own apointed time applies the affects of baptism withen a person spiratualy. They would say that everyone who is baptized is marked and really withen the covenant regardless of their decreetal stance as elect or rebrobate. This ties into their wierd views on apostasy.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 15, 2010)

I think most paedo - or covenantal rather - baptists would say that those born to professing (hopefully believing) parents, have covenantal obligations.

Baptism is but the sign and the seal of such obligations, privileges, responsiblities and promises.

FVs seem to teach that children should be encouraged to believe that they are regenerated because they have been baptised, and when they doubt that they have faith just be pointed to their water baptism.

This is very different from the Reformed doctrine of improvement of one's baptism, which is for those who for various reasons have good reason to believe that they are regenerate and have been baptised with/by the Spirit by Christ into Himself, to be encouraged by a remembrance of their water baptism which pointed to this. 

If we have good reason to believe that a person who has grown up in the Covenant is unsaved or that a child growing up in the Covenant is unsaved, the only way we should encourage _these _ to improve their baptism is by encouraging them to take their Covenant obligations, promises, privileges and responsibilities seriously and seek the reality of regeneration and baptism in the Spirit which water baptism points to.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 15, 2010)

Highly recommend this recent interview with Wes White: New Broadcast: A Journey From and a Look at the Federal Vision | Covenant Radio (Great job Wes!)

From the joint FV statement:


> The Sacrament of Baptism
> We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name, and that this baptism obligates such a one to lifelong covenant loyalty to the triune God, each baptized person repenting of his sins and trusting in Christ alone for his salvation. Baptism formally engrafts a person into the Church, which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28).
> We deny that baptism automatically guarantees that the baptized will share in the eschatological Church. We deny the common misunderstanding of baptismal regeneration—i.e. that an "effectual call" or rebirth is automatically wrought in the one baptized. Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving, but rather damning. But we deny that trusting God's promise through baptism elevates baptism to a human work. God gives baptism as assurance of His grace to us personally, as our names are spoken when we are baptized.


Baptism does not unite or engraft a person to Christ, faith does.

What the WCF says about Sacraments:


> II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.
> 
> III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.


Note, first that in Sacraments there is a spiritual relation between the _sign_ and what it signifies.

Note, next, that the grace that is signified by a Sacrament _depends upon the Holy spirit and is conferred upon *worthy receivers.*_

Conclusion: Not all who receive the sign receive the grace signified by the Holy Spirit. This belongs to the elect alone.

The WCF on baptism:


> I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, or his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in his Churchy until the end of the world.


Baptism is a sign of:
a. Admission into the visible Church
b. *union with Christ*
c. Regeneration
d. Remission of sins
e. Giving up to God

Do all who receive the sign, receive what is signified by the sign? No, as above, but just to be clear the Confession continues:


> 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 belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in his appointed time.


Again we see the clear statement that the grace promised is _conferred by the Holy Ghost to such that grace belongs unto_, according to the counsel of God's own will. _This includes union with Christ_ as one of those graces.

In conclusion, we see in the Joint FV statement that baptism unites a person to Christ. Period. Everyone baptized. This is clearly denied by the Confessions that see that as a grace conferred sovereignly by the Holy Spirit.


----------



## Kevin (Sep 15, 2010)

I had not heard that theory. All those (officers) in presbyterian churches must agree that we baptise those that are already in the covenant. 

So children are baptised because they are "christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptised:" (Westminister Dir. for the publick worship of God)

---------- Post added at 10:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:44 PM ----------

Rich, How do you differentiatethe phrase ..."repenting of their sins"... as you cited from the joint FV statement & the confessional phrase "worthy recievers"?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Sep 15, 2010)

Kevin said:


> I had not heard that theory. All those (officers) in presbyterian churches must agree that we baptise those that are already in the covenant.
> 
> So children are baptised because they are "christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptised:" (Westminister Dir. for the publick worship of God)
> 
> ...


 
Kevin,

I can't tell if you're directing your entire post at me or just the last question so I'll just answer the last question.

When the FV statement uses the word "repenting of their sins" it is within the context of everything that baptism obligates a baptized recipient unto. They start by saying that a person baptized is "united to Christ and to His Covenant people". Each person is then obligated, by their Covenant loyalty, to repent of their sins and trust upon Christ.

As for *worthy recipients*, as quoted, the Confession states that the grace signified by a sign is conferred by the Holy Ghost upon them.

What is signified by baptism includes remission of sin (by repentance) and other benefits. Only those who have that grace conferred _possess_ what is signified by baptism. Repentance, then, would not be merely something that every person baptized is obligated unto by baptism but is one of those graces conferred.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 15, 2010)

Thanks for the info and resources. Rich, it was while listening to the Wes White broadcast that the question popped into my mind, it's a very good broadcast (2 thumbs up). Besides the errors that are pointed out by Wes White, Lane Keister, Guy Waters, and many many others faithful to the confessions; it seems that there are more basic problems that I haven't seen anyone interact with. 

This is what I'm getting at: 


Semper Fidelis said:


> From the joint FV statement:
> The Sacrament of Baptism
> We affirm that God formally unites a person to Christ and to His covenant people through baptism into the triune Name



It seems that the logical consequence of the FV leads to at least 3 very unbiblical and undesirable positions:
1. Water baptism is necessary for salvation
2. A believer's child is completely removed from all covenantal implications, obligations, blessings/curses until the date of his/her baptism. In short, it is baptism that creates a covenant bond, not birth.
3. If baptism rather than birth creates the covenant bond, why do FV still consider their children appropriate subjects for baptism. Does that make sense?

It seems like these are pretty basic and obvious problems for the FV position. And I'm sure someone else has pointed them out. I do think that "some" of the proponents are quite intelligent, so I would expect that someone in the FV has interacted with the 3 things mentioned above.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 15, 2010)

*FV*


> which means that baptism is into the Regeneration, that time when the Son of Man sits upon His glorious throne (Matt. 19:28).



Plain weird. I don't know if "interpretive maximalism" has been at work.

Do they apply all this stuff about baptism to the Old Testament saints and circumcision?

It's partly the idolatry of a more "consistent" view of the Covenant administration, but they're trying to be more "consistent" than Scripture.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 15, 2010)

Richard Tallach said:


> Do they apply all this stuff about baptism to the Old Testament saints and circumcision?



I don't see how they could. "But an uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant" 

broken my what?


----------



## TimV (Sep 15, 2010)

Joint FV Statement said:


> Baptism apart from a growing and living faith is not saving



But baptism WITH a growing faith is saving!

As Calvin Beisner pointed out, the half witted FV heresy/joke doesn't pass the test of systematic logic. Salvation is either dependent on works or it isn't. Duh. Why we are still too scared to excommunicate these people is beyond me.


----------



## toddpedlar (Sep 16, 2010)

Thanks, all, for the positive feedback on the show with Wes. We really enjoyed the discussion, and are very thankful for his willingness to be 'out there' on his journey out of the FV.

Also, just so y'all know what we've got planned at Covenant Radio, we do have an interview with Guy Waters planned for October on the subject of Justification, and have a series planned on the Canons of Dort with folks including Danny Hyde on the various points. I'm sure many of our topical shows this fall on Reformed basics will draw the FV doctrines into sharp relief against historic Reformed Orthodoxy.


----------



## greenbaggins (Sep 16, 2010)

littlepeople said:


> Thanks for the info and resources. Rich, it was while listening to the Wes White broadcast that the question popped into my mind, it's a very good broadcast (2 thumbs up). Besides the errors that are pointed out by Wes White, Lane Keister, Guy Waters, and many many others faithful to the confessions; it seems that there are more basic problems that I haven't seen anyone interact with.
> 
> This is what I'm getting at:
> 
> ...


 
1. The FV would say that baptism is ordinarily necessary for salvation. 

2. The FV would say that at no time is anyone exempt from the covenantal obligations. However, the federal headship view they espouse would put the primary burden on the parents to obey FOR their children. Even after baptism, the covenantal structure of the family is still in play. 

3. The FV is a bit vague/contradictory on this point. On the one hand, they will pretty much all say that children are in the covenant by birth. And yet, they will turn around and say that they enter the covenant by baptism. If I remember correctly, at least some of them resort to de jure/de facto distinctions: children have the possession of the covenantal rights by right of birth, but are only legally part of the covenant by baptism. For the FV, since there is no page in between the OT and the NT, circumcision is still the main driving force behind infant baptism for the FV'er.


----------



## littlepeople (Sep 16, 2010)

Thank you Rev. Keister. That's very helpful.


----------

