Reformed Baptist position on the New Covenant - waterproof?

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
.
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.) :2cents::popcorn::detective:
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top