Since this has derailed from the original post and turned into a free-for-all about baptist covenant theology and ecclessiology, I'd like to offer the following resources to both answer above questions for those who want to dig deeper, and correct some misunderstandings. I don't intend to get into a prolonged discussion, as time will likely not allow.
not every American who turns a traitor began (self-consciously) to lie about his allegiance.
So, does every man who proves him a false-professor have his fingers knowingly crossed behind his back?
Whether or not the false professor is intentionally being deceptive or is himself deceived is irrelevant. The point is that Satan, the enemy, has sown them as a tare to attack the kingdom.
Again, if the Holy Spirit is the sole Agent of administration of the New Covenant, then nothing the church says or does is technically "official," in any meaningful sense... And if the argument follows: Well, it IS official, when the man really means it, then what's really being said is that the arbiter of official activity is the individual.
If someone professes faith in Christ, the Church's acceptance of them based on that profession does not mean that they actually have faith in Christ. In that sense, you are correct, the Church does not ultimately ("officially") determine the matter. But no, that does not mean the arbiter of "official" activity is the individual. It means the arbiter of "official" activity is God, who alone sees the Church as it truly is. God has simply given us means to fallibly live together with other believers in this world - which means that sometimes we are mistaken as to who is truly part of the Church.
Hodge put it this way "If, then, the Church is the body of Christ; if a man becomes a member of that body by faith; if multitudes of those who profess in baptism the true religion, are not believers, then it is just as certain that the external body consisting of the baptized is not the Church, as that a man’s calling himself a Christian does not make him a Christian." (The Visibility of the Church)
The Kingdom of God is Jesus' terminology. It has roots in the national concept of Israel, the chosen people. Citizen of heaven is Pauline language, Php.3:20; cf. Eph.2:19. So, I imagine we'd expect a robust analogy stretching forth, and not (I think) a weak, thin rubber band type. Why not scrounge for a more precise expression in the same vein, and strengthen the biblically rooted analogy?
I think the Presbyterian view deserves a good challenge, a clearly stated alternative, perhaps even a rebuttal to his contention. Peace.
The nation of Israel was not the Kingdom of heaven/Christ. It was a type of it. If we try to understand the kingdom of heaven through national Israel, an earthly kingdom, we will misunderstand it. Again, Hodge:
"[T]he parables in question were not intended to teach us the condition of membership in the kingdom of heaven, they cannot decide that point. In one place Christ asserts didactically, that regeneration by the Holy Spirit is essential to admission into his kingdom; shall we infer, in direct opposition to this assertion, that his kingdom includes both the regenerate and unregenerate, because he compares it to a net containing fishes, good and bad? Certainly not...
Whenever the kingdom of God means the same thing as the church, it is expressly taught that admission into it depends on saving faith, or an inward spiritual change, and not on external rites or profession. The ancient prophets having predicted, that after the rise and fall of other kingdoms the God of heaven would set up a kingdom, the establishment of that kingdom became to his ancient people an object of expectation and desire. They were, however, greatly mistaken both as to its nature and the terms of admission into it. They had much the same notion of the kingdom of God that ritualists now have of the church. They expected it to be, in its essential character, an external organization, and the condition of membership to be descent from Abraham, or the rite of circumcision. Our Lord did not simply modify this conception by teaching that his kingdom, instead of being a visible organization with kings and nobles, was to be such an organization with cardinals and bishops; and that, instead of circumcision, baptism was to secure membership. He presented a radically different idea of its whole nature. He taught that it was to be a spiritual kingdom,—that it was to have its seat in the heart,—its Sovereign being the invisible God in Christ,—its laws such as relate to the conscience,—-its service the obedience of faith,—its rewards eternal life." (
The Idea of the Church)
So is Judas not really a member of the visible church because he's false? If so, that's not how Jesus is treating him. Judas teaches, preaches, heals just like any of the other 12, all which power came from Jesus. Are only the regenerate disciples? Then It's a mystery why he is called a disciple. Was he not really part of the church?
Ps 109:8, "Let another take his office." The remaining disciples perceived an office vacancy after his suicide.
So for the visible/invisible distinction, if none exists in the NT church, why did Christ treat Judas as a church citizen under its governance?
The visible/invisible Church distinction is a matter of perspective: our fallible perspective vs God's infallible perspective. The visible Church, strictly speaking, is the company of true believers on earth who profess faith. An unbeliever is not part of the visible Church. ("The unconverted are not members of the external, visible church. Believers only constitute the true church." -
a Brakel)
So why did Jesus, who is omniscient, treat Judas as part of the visible Church? Because that is how the Church is to function here on earth: We treat people according to their profession. You answered your own question when you said "Christ in establishing the governance of the visible NT church does not do it." He's not acting according to his omniscience.
Now when I was a Baptist I held that the unregenerate must be rebaptized
I don't believe I've come across that teaching in a 2LBC church.
But when I thought more deeply I realised Reformed Baptists do not baptise believers. They baptise professing believers. The argument unravels that point. What if they baptised Judas? Was he a disciple or a professing disciple? This is where my thinking ties in wth yours I think.
Most Baptists actually do know this in some form. After all, they tend to realize that we can't have "regeneration goggles" so as to know who is saved, and that there are false professors within the visible church. All the same, from the paedo perspective, there is a certain inconsistency here, since (again, from the paedo perspective) Baptists tend to argue that only the regenerated can be baptized, but there is no way of knowing that for sure. This results in saying that a baptism is genuine until it isn't. It's genuine as long as the person baptized continues to act like a Christian, but then becomes illegitimate as soon as the person apostatizes.
The Reformed Baptist position on this point of baptism is no different than the Reformed view of the Lord's Supper. Who may worthily participate in the Lord's Supper? Only believers. Who may lawfully participate in the Lord's Supper? Only those who make a credible profession of saving faith. Likewise, Who may worthily be baptized? Only believers. Who may lawfully be baptized? All who make a credible profession of saving faith. So rebaptism is not necessary because it was lawfully administered the first time. If the person was excommunicated from a church, then he is to be reinstated, but he does not need to be rebaptized. Here is
Ursinus' commentary on Heidelberg 81
"The questions who ought to come, and who ought to be admitted to the Supper, are distinct and different. The former speaks of the duty of communicants; the latter of the duty of the church and ministers. The former is more restricted; the latter is broader, and more general: for, as touching the former, none but the godly ought to come to the Supper; whilst, as it respects the latter, not only the godly, but hypocrites also, who are not known to be such, are to be admitted by the church. Hence all that ought to come, ought also to be admitted; but not all who ought to be admitted, ought to come: but only those, 1. Who acknowledge their sins, and are truly sorrowful for them. 2. Who trust that their sins are forgiven them by and for the sake of Christ. 3. Who earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy: that is, those only ought to come to the Lord’s supper, and they alone are worthy guests of Christ, who live in true faith and repentance."
Witsius actually
makes the same point about baptism.
"In the meantime, let it be observed that if we take the strictest view of baptism, it is in its true nature and in the judgment of God suited only to the elect, because it is always agreeable to truth. For since baptism is a sign and seal of that covenant in which God has made over to his covenanted people the benefits of saving grace and whatever has a sure connection with eternal life, it follows that those who neither have nor ever will have any right to the benefits of the covenant, in like manner have no right before God’s tribunal to the seal of the covenant. The ministers of religion, indeed, who, in regard to individuals, must be guided by the judgment of charity, cannot distinguish elect from non-elect, and thus they do not sin although they should occasionally sprinkle with the baptismal water those whom in strictness they ought not."
The difference between Witsius and ourselves is simply whether or not being born to professing parents itself constitutes a profession of saving faith.
Ursinus said
"ay our [Anabaptist] opponents, the church ought to be satisfied with a profession of faith. This we admit, and would add, that to be born in the church, is, to infants, the same thing as a profession of faith. Faith is, indeed, necessary to the use of baptism with this distinction. Actual faith is required in adults, and an inclination to faith in infants… nfants have the Holy Ghost, and are regenerated by him… In as much now as infants are fit subjects for baptism, they do not profane it as the Anabaptists wickedly affirm."
Likewise
Hodge
"by the clear teaching of the Scriptures, regeneration in the case of adults is assumed to precede baptism... A man had, therefore, to profess to be regenerated before he could be baptized... Those incapable of such profession, may be visibly members of the Church by virtue of God's revealed covenant or promise to be their God. This is precisely the case with infants and the ground of their baptism. But in either case, membership in the visible Church is founded on a presumptive membership in the invisible..."
The classical paedo position, however, is that baptism marks inclusion in the visible church, not the invisible church. Therefore, the grace associated with baptism points to salvation, as do all the ordinances of the visible church (prayer, preaching, the Lord's Supper). But that grace does not come automatically at all. Only when faith is present is the sacrament complete.
It depends on which "classical" paedo position you have in mind. The view just outlined above is different from the Westminster view (which does not entail any presumption/judgment of charity that all in the visible church are also in the invisible).
From the paedo position, Baptists are inconsistent on the matter of the visible/invisible church. Baptists either tend to collapse the distinction (which is, oddly enough, something that Rome also does), or try to ignore it theoretically, while still understanding that it is a practical necessity, if they are to understand apostasy. But if there is a legitimate distinction between visible/invisible church (and the apostasy passage in Hebrews 6 make MUCH more sense with this idea in view), then the New Covenant has this in common with all the OT iterations of the covenant of grace. Not all Israel are of Israel.
We don't ignore or deny the visible/invisible Church distinction, we simply hold that the distinction is a matter of perspective: our's vs God's. We agree with the understanding expressed in the Continental reformed confessions, and defended by men like
a Brakel,
Jean Claude,
James Currie,
Charles Hodge, and
John Murray. We would agree with a Brakel that it is actually your view of the visible/invisible Church that is inconsistent.
"As one person cannot be divided into an invisible and a visible person, one may not divide the church into a visible and invisible church, for then it would seem as if there were two churches, each being a different church. One may also not divide the church into a visible and invisible church as far as the members themselves are concerned, as if the one had different members from the other... This is, in our opinion, an erroneous view, generating many confusing thoughts and expressions concerning the church... this distinction is founded upon a false supposition — as if the unconverted are truly members of the church with equal right, that is, in its external and visible gathering, and therefore have a right to use the sacraments, something which we deny expressly below. If the unconverted are not members of the church, even when she is visible, the aforementioned distinction is of necessity irrelevant.
Thirdly, such a distinction infers the existence of two churches which are essentially different from each other... From this proposition it must be concluded that there are two churches, which is contrary to the Bible... If one understands the differentiation between the external and internal church to be but a twofold view and perspective of one and the same church, and does not hold to a twofold membership relationship, all is well and our proposition is confirmed: The differentiation between an external and internal church on the basis of membership and relationship is not good. One and the same church, consisting of true believers only, can either be viewed in reference to her internal spiritual condition, or in reference to her external manifestation in the world. This is what we have stated."
Please do read the above links to excerpts from those men. I think it would go a long ways towards reconciling some of the issues in this thread.
With regard to the overly-realized eschatology, Pratt's article on Jeremiah 31 shows us that the New Covenant promises are already and not yet. We are not at the point where no one needs a teacher. We all still need teachers. So
Jeremiah 31:34 shows us that there is a telescoping of the benefits of the New Covenant.
With regards to Pratt's under-realized eschatology, see Waldron's response in RBTR (I think it's also an appendix in The Reformed Baptist Manifesto)
First, Calvin correctly notes that "Now, by the days which the prophet mentions, all agree that Christ’s kingdom is signified; it hence follows, that the old covenant was changed by the coming of Christ.” Heb 8 is dealing with that time, not Christ's return. The author of the letter specifically quoted that section of prophecy for a reason. If it was not relevant to the issue at hand (it only had relevance at Christ's return) then he had no reason to quote it. Thus Augustine said "“And they shall no more teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for they shall all know me, from the least even unto the greatest of them.” Jer. xxxi. 34. Now, the present is certainly the time of the New Testament, the promise of which is given by the prophet in the words which we have quoted from his prophecy."
and Owen
"Howbeit some learned men have been so moved with this objection, as to affirm that the accomplishment of this promise of the covenant belongs unto heaven, and the state of glory; for therein alone, they say, we shall have no more need of teaching in any kind. But as this exposition is directly contrary unto the design of the apostle, as respecting the teaching of the new covenant and the testator thereof; when he intends only that of the old, and exalts the new above it; so there is no such difficulty in the words as to force us to carry the interpretation of them into another world"
Yes, there are aspects of the New Covenant that are "not yet" but regeneration is not one of those. Not needing a teacher does not refer to theological instruction. It refers to saving illumination of the Holy Spirit (See Owen's full comments for a further explanation on this point). It's the same point John makes in 1 John 2:27.
Finally, make careful note of
how Jesus interprets this prophecy as a reference to the conversion and salvation of all the elect: John 6:45; cf Is 54:10, 13; Jer 31:34; 1 Jn 2:20 etc)
I don't see how Galatians 3 and Romans 4 can be understood in any other way than that there is a continuity of covenant between the Abraham iteration of the covenant of grace and the New Covenant.
See if this series helps you at least see another reading of those passages
- Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 6: 1689 Federalism
- Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 5: Glory Cloud Podcast
- Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 4: Contradiction
- Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 3: Royal Grant Proposal
- Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 2: Typological Merit
- Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 1: Murray and Shepherd
- Galatians 3:16
- Galatians 3:17
- Galatians 3:18
If you've made it this far, thanks for reading
