What gives baptism its validity?

[greenbaggins]

The recent thread on re-baptizing gave me some food for thought, such that I believe this question needs to be asked: what gives baptism its validity? The Reformed/Presbyterian answer to this question has always included the following elements: 1. Jesus' institution of the sacrament gives the sacrament itself validity in general; 2. The proper Trinitarian formula (a la Matthew 28); 3. Its communal character (it is a churchly sacrament, not a private affair); 4. Conducting of the baptism by a properly ordained minister of the gospel. 5. Profession of faith by either the person being baptized or by the covenantal parents of the person being baptized.

Of these elements, I am fairly certain that Baptist brothers and sisters would agree with 1 and 2. Some Baptists would reject 3 and 4 while others would not. But almost all Baptists would change the fifth: a genuine confession of faith on the part of the person baptized. Baptists differ in two ways, it seems to me: it has to be genuine at the time of baptism (although I think Piper would demur on this point, whereas Devers would not), whereas Reformed/Presbyterian say that the genuineness of the baptism does not depend on the genuineness of the profession of faith. And, more obviously, Baptists do not believe that a credible profession of faith can be made by anyone on behalf of anyone else. In other words, even if there is a covenantal family structure, that has no impact on profession of faith.

It seems to me, in my own admittedly biased point of view, that the Baptist understanding of validity enters into problems just here when it comes to the fifth element. There seems to be a constant calling of something in a way that contradicts its true nature. Maybe Baptists would simply call it the judgment of charity. I'm not sure. But if the church believes that it has conducted a valid baptism, and for years the person gives no indication otherwise, but is yet unregenerate, theoretically a person could die in an unregenerate state, and yet the church never call that person's baptism invalid, even though it was, at least on Baptist principles. Presbyterians would simply say it was always a valid baptism, but since the person was unregenerate, that sign turns into judgment (see Fesko's excellent work Word, Water, and Spirit for a spectacular exploration of the judgment side of baptism). If a person's actual conversion is in doubt, then doesn't the sign always come under suspicion as well, on Baptist principles? But if baptism is something God primarily does, rather than primarily something we do, then there is never a need to question the validity of the sign, given the presence of the 5 elements above. Instead, if the person shows signs of unregeneracy, the sign retains its validity by turning into judgment. To put things another way, isn't God the one who ensures the validity of the sacrament, not man? Why should the validity of a sacrament which Jesus instituted depend partially (and decisively!) on something man does? Or how can it depend on something God does but man has to discern whether it has happened or not? If the sign is a sign of something God promises (see Acts 2!), how can God's promises be dependent on man's will? And yet this seems to be the way Baptist principles work: the promise God makes in baptism hinges on the genuineness of regeneration.

Imagine another scenario: a person makes a profession of faith which is false, gets baptized, then gets regenerated soon after that, but doesn't realize that the change came after the baptism, instead of before. In this scenario, his baptism is invalid, and yet no one will ever know in this life. It seems to me that Baptists should change their views on what makes baptism valid. In my opinion, it is not necessary to come all the way to the paedo view in order to do this. If Baptists still want to say that a person must make a credible profession of faith in order to get baptized (and be old enough to do that), then say that the baptism is valid whether the profession is genuine or not, then they could avoid some of the errors mentioned above without going whole hog into the paedo position.

 

[Phil D.]

Lane, that has essentially been my position for a while, albeit at the expense of many raised eyebrows and frowns among my Baptist peers. I believe a baptism can be authentic in terms of its administration, while it only benefits the recipient when it is coupled with true faith. These two aspects of validity may occur at various points in relation to each other. But I know I am in a small minority on this.

 

[Dachaser]

Lane, that has essentially been my position for a while, albeit at the expense of many raised eyebrows and frowns among my Baptist peers. I believe a baptism can be authentic in terms of its administration, while it only benefits the recipient when it is coupled with true faith. These two aspects of validity may occur at various points in relation to each other. But I know I am in a small minority on this.

Since we would see baptism as outward sign of what was already spiritually done, would be valid when one had saving faith in Christ.

 

[Jack K]

Some of the Baptist pastors I know sort of straddle the line between saying the profession of faith must be genuine and saying it only needs to be credible at the time.

If a person who was baptized on Baptist principles later comes to believe they became regenerated some time afterwards, these pastors will not tell that person to be baptized again. They'll just let it be. And if the person asks whether or not they should be baptized again, these pastors will point out that it's hard to know exactly when we are regenerated and which professions are genuine, and that it is not necessary to be repeatedly baptized each time we experience a spiritual renewal that we think, this time, is finally the real thing.

However, if the person were insistent that they know they were not a true believer at the time of the original baptism and really want to be baptized again, these pastors would likely allow it.

So they straddle. This feels awkward to me, because I think like a Presbyterian (which, of course, comes with its own set of tough calls and difficult situations). But these Baptist pastors do acknowledge the difficulty of these situations and the fact that we can't tell what professions are genuine—and that this might make "credible profession" a better condition that "genuine" when deciding whether or not an original baptism ought to be counted as good in the eyes of the church.

I suspect some of the Baptists here might lean the same way. I'm interested to see.

 

[Dachaser]

Some of the Baptist pastors I know sort of straddle the line between saying the profession of faith must be genuine and saying it only needs to be credible at the time.

If a person who was baptized on Baptist principles later comes to believe they became regenerated some time afterwards, these pastors will not tell that person to be baptized again. They'll just let it be. And if the person asks whether or not they should be baptized again, these pastors will point out that it's hard to know exactly when we are regenerated and which professions are genuine, and that it is not necessary to be repeatedly baptized each time we experience a spiritual renewal that we think, this time, is finally the real thing.

However, if the person were insistent that they know they were not a true believer at the time of the original baptism and really want to be baptized again, these pastors would likely allow it.

So they straddle. This feels awkward to me, because I think like a Presbyterian (which, of course, comes with its own set of tough calls and difficult situations). But these Baptist pastors do acknowledge the difficulty of these situations and the fact that we can't tell what professions are genuine—and that this might make "credible profession" a better condition that "genuine" when deciding whether or not an original baptism ought to be counted as good in the eyes of the church.

I suspect some of the Baptists here might lean the sam person e way. I'm interested to see.

Think that it all depends on if the person really knows was not converted at the time, or if they were really saved, but confused as to what that meant, if they have sin issues deal with, etc.
Think many times person was really saved, but not fully understanding what that meant, and have not grown and been maturing in their faih walk with Christ!

 

[Semper Fidelis]

We have to sort of narrow our focus to those who are Reformed and anti-paedobaptist in their construction of Covenant Theology because the revival tradition would have a different answer to the dilemma you posed.

The interesting and bewildering thing about the Reformed Baptist approach to the topic of baptism is that it centers on the nature of the NC and that its administration is "perfect" in the sense that not only its Mediator is perfect but the *only* members of that Covenant are those who are of that Spiritual administration. They admit to zero "external administration" where a person can be, in any way, a member of the New Covenant if they are not of the elect.

That is then the foundational argument as to why baptism can only be applied to professors because they are most likely the elect. They'll note that they baptize based on command but the fundamental reason for the command is this underlying NC commitment with which they criticize paedobaptist thinking on this point - the discontinuity with the OC that had a mixed Covenant.

This is also, by the way, that the 1689 LBCF notes that baptism does not admit a person to the NC. They cannot say this because they know that they may baptize one who has all the signs of regeneration but may yet be unregenerate. They "protect" the NC from admission to the NC of false professors but even their own practice does not admit a person into the NC because they reject an external administration of the NC.

So, at best, the RB practice admits a person into a local congregation but not into the NC itself. Due to the concern for a "perfect NC" it is completely appropriate for a member of their congregation to determine that they were not elect (though a professor) in the past in that Church but have now become regenerate and seek to be re-baptized to become (again) a member of the local congregation but not, by that action, a member of the New Covenant.

Thus, the validity of RB baptism does not extend much beyond the walls of that local congregation. It may be, to the party baptized, an answer to their good conscience (as far as they know) but the best the other members of the congregation can do is note that they believe this is a valid profession and admit them into local membership but cannot declare that the person is a member of the NC.

In short, the NC is so perfect that no Baptist knows who is a member of the New Covenant.

 

[timfost]

Should you be baptized again if your original confession was not legitimate?

At least three Baptist theologians, @Scott Bushey, @Ed Walsh and @Johnathan Lee Allen vote "no."

(Sorry, couldn't resist.)

 

[B.L.]

@greenbaggins, @Semper Fidelis,

Thank you both for taking the time to lay out a critique of the Baptist position regarding the validity of baptism. I enjoyed reading your posts and will think on these points you've made.

Have a joyful evening brothers!

 

[Dachaser]

Lane,

Your post reminds me of something Kevin DeYoung noted on a completely different subject - namely, human sexuality. He was speaking to a Baptist brother who was wishful that his tradition had the resources that DeYoung's Reformed tradition had to reach back to deal with issues of concupiscence, sin, sanctification, etc. They're having to wrestle with these issues and there's a bit of an ad hoc response to ti because not every Baptist can match the cumulative wisdom of centuries dealing with some of the most fundamental issues that get hashed out in Church courts and controversies.

We have to sort of narrow our focus to those who are Reformed and anti-paedobaptist in their construction of Covenant Theology because the revival tradition would have a different answer to the dilemma you posed.

The interesting and bewildering thing about the Reformed Baptist approach to the topic of baptism is that it centers on the nature of the NC and that its administration is "perfect" in the sense that not only its Mediator is perfect but the *only* members of that Covenant are those who are of that Spiritual administration. They admit to zero "external administration" where a person can be, in any way, a member of the New Covenant if they are not of the elect.

That is then the foundational argument as to why baptism can only be applied to professors because they are most likely the elect. They'll note that they baptize based on command but the fundamental reason for the command is this underlying NC commitment with which they criticize paedobaptist thinking on this point - the discontinuity with the OC that had a mixed Covenant.

This is also, by the way, that the 1689 LBCF notes that baptism does not admit a person to the NC. They cannot say this because they know that they may baptize one who has all the signs of regeneration but may yet be unregenerate. They "protect" the NC from admission to the NC of false professors but even their own practice does not admit a person into the NC because they reject an external administration of the NC.

So, at best, the RB practice admits a person into a local congregation but not into the NC itself. Due to the concern for a "perfect NC" it is completely appropriate for a member of their congregation to determine that they were not elect (though a professor) in the past in that Church but have now become regenerate and seek to be re-baptized to become (again) a member of the local congregation but not, by that action, a member of the New Covenant.

Thus, the validity of RB baptism does not extend much beyond the walls of that local congregation. It may be, to the party baptized, an answer to their good conscience (as far as they know) but the best the other members of the congregation can do is note that they believe this is a valid profession and admit them into local membership but cannot declare that the person is a member of the NC.

In short, the NC is so perfect that no Baptist knows who is a member of the New Covenant.

All that we know is that the only persons found to be in it are those who are in Christ and have received the promised Holy Spirit.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

To put things another way, isn't God the one who ensures the validity of the sacrament, not man? Why should the validity of a sacrament which Jesus instituted depend partially (and decisively!) on something man does? Or how can it depend on something God does but man has to discern whether it has happened or not? If the sign is a sign of something God promises (see Acts 2!), how can God's promises be dependent on man's will? And yet this seems to be the way Baptist principles work: the promise God makes in baptism hinges on the genuineness of regeneration.

In short, the NC is so perfect that no Baptist knows who is a member of the New Covenant.

I can honestly say I have been struggling with this issue for some time. But it seems to me the paedobaptist has a similar problem. If paedobaptists baptise an infant based on the faith of a parent, what happens when the parent is shown not to be a believer?

Conducting of the baptism by a properly ordained minister of the gospel.

What about when it is shown that the minister was not a believer at all. I have sadly seen this a number of times.

 

[timfost]

But it seems to me the paedobaptist has a similar problem. If paedobaptists baptise an infant based on the faith of a parent, what happens when the parent is shown not to be a believer?

That's a good question. Parents who fall away are covenant breakers. It's not as if they were never part of it in any sense. Because they were holy (similar to children of believing parents in 1 Cor. 7), the baptisms would still be considered legitimate.

It would seem that since Presbyterians distinguish between external and internal outworkings relating to being in the covenant, we don't have the same dilemma. It becomes especially problematic when the sacrament only can be applied in relation to the internal.

 

[Tom Hart]

What about when it is shown that the minister was not a believer at all. I have sadly seen this a number of times.

The faith of the minister ought not to be thought to make a baptism invalid. Let ministers, even with their imperfections, be known to be God's instruments, lest we raise again the spectre of Donatism.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I can honestly say I have been struggling with this issue for some time. But it seems to me the paedobaptist has a similar problem. If paedobaptists baptise an infant based on the faith of a parent, what happens when the parent is shown not to be a believer?

Here, the notion of "faith" as a requirement for the parents is one in the external sense. The child is a member of the Covenant externally because his parents are members of the Covenant externally. Internal operations belong to the Holy Spirit. There is really no conundrum here. If the parents apostasize then the child was presented for baptism on the basis of their participation in the Church (external Covenant) at the time. The grounds by which the child was presented for baptism are not the same as the validity of the baptism. The Church is only to baptize those who are the children of one or more believers (as well as we can tell) but the validity of the baptism is not the faith of the parents or the faith of the one conducting the baptism but it is on the fact that it was performed in the Church and was Trinitarian.

 

[greenbaggins]

Stephen, there are two sticking points I have found to be the case for helping Baptists to understand the Reformed/Presbyterian position on baptism. The first is that baptism, in the Reformed position, does not mark one's inclusion in the invisible church, but the visible church. In other words, it is more churchly than salvific, as much as the sign still points to salvation. This implies more slippage between the visible and invisible church than Baptists are typically willing to allow. And, secondly, that baptism is primarily something God does on the basis of his promises, not something man does to profess his faith. Yes, God uses secondary instruments. But in the Reformed view, baptism is not a profession of faith, but a sign and seal of covenantal promises. Baptists tend to think of the sacrament more like a wedding ring, whereas the Reformed view it more as an engagement ring. This, of course, will tie everything back to one's eschatological view of the new covenant. Is it mostly realized (Baptist position), or is there more "not yet" in the New Covenant than Baptists would allow? I realize these particular issues are not directly related to my OP, but they are definitely tangentially related, and one cannot address the validity of baptism without also addressing what it is thought to do.

Anyway, put these two points together, and the validity of the sign (which is already a visible outward thing to begin with) depends on outward visible things for its validity, not on an inward reality which is impossible to gauge.

 

[Dachaser]

Stephen, there are two sticking points I have found to be the case for helping Baptists to understand the Reformed/Presbyterian position on baptism. The first is that baptism, in the Reformed position, does not mark one's inclusion in the invisible church, but the visible church. In other words, it is more churchly than salvific, as much as the sign still points to salvation. This implies more slippage between the visible and invisible church than Baptists are typically willing to allow. And, secondly, that baptism is primarily something God does on the basis of his promises, not something man does to profess his faith. Yes, God uses secondary instruments. But in the Reformed view, baptism is not a profession of faith, but a sign and seal of covenantal promises. Baptists tend to think of the sacrament more like a wedding ring, whereas the Reformed view it more as an engagement ring. This, of course, will tie everything back to one's eschatological view of the new covenant. Is it mostly realized (Baptist position), or is there more "not yet" in the New Covenant than Baptists would allow? I realize these particular issues are not directly related to my OP, but they are definitely tangentially related, and one cannot address the validity of baptism without also addressing what it is thought to do.

Anyway, put these two points together, and the validity of the sign (which is already a visible outward thing to begin with) depends on outward visible things for its validity, not on an inward reality which is imng literallypossible to gauge.

The main poiunt of contention seems to be around just how new was/is the NC, as Baptists tend to see it as being literally a new and better Covenant, and that the only ones to be seen under it are those who have received Jesus as their Messiah and have now received promised Holy Spirit!

 

[Dachaser]

I can honestly say I have been struggling with this issue for some time. But it seems to me the paedobaptist has a similar problem. If paedobaptists baptise an infant based on the faith of a parent, what happens when the parent is shown not to be a believer?

What about when it is shown that the minister was not a believer at all. I have sadly seen this a number of times.

IF one cannot be in a Covenant relationship with God apart from being forgiven of their sins and having received the Holy Spirit and new nature, what does a baptism for the infant actually accomplish for them?

 

[Scott Bushey]

IF one cannot be in a Covenant relationship with God apart from being forgiven of their sins and having received the Holy Spirit and new nature, what does a baptism for the infant actually accomplish for them?

David, if u read through the thread, Lane answered that already.

 

[Dachaser]

David, if u read through the thread, Lane answered that already.

Yes, but still do not think that fits into what scriptures indicate just who is to be seen included among the NC now.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Yes, but still do not think that fits into what scriptures indicate just who is to be seen included among the NC now.

Thats because u are not taking into consideration the full harmony of the scriptures, never-mind all of the counsel u have been given on the subject.

brother, frankly, let me ask u. Why are u here Sir? Is it to learn or is it to teach? U seem to alway be in the 'teaching' mode. You do not seem to listen nor do u exhibit a learned heart.

 

[Dachaser]

Thats because u are not taking into consideration the full harmony of the scriptures, never-mind all of the counsel u have been given on the subject.

brother, frankly, let me ask u. Why are u here Sir? Is it to learn or is it to teach? U seem to alway be in the 'teaching' mode. You do not seem to listen nor do u exhibit a learned heart.

I am here to interact and learn and instruct others, as we all see the Bible as through a glass dimly!

 

[Romans922]

IF one cannot be in a Covenant relationship with God apart from being forgiven of their sins and having received the Holy Spirit and new nature, what does a baptism for the infant actually accomplish for them?

Romans 3:

1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar...


The issue or difference between the Presbyterian/Reformed view and the Baptist view is that Baptist’s view still has the effects of dispensationalism in their thinking or always had it.

[Mean as that may sound, that’s not my intent. Rather just to speak truth.]

 

[timfost]

On a half humorous and half serious note, seeing that the Reformed correlate NT baptism to OT circumcision, can you imagine having this conversation under the old covenant? If a circumcised proselyte doubted the validity of his confession, would he then be re-circumcised?

Ouch!

It seems that the Baptist really has to view baptism as something entirely different than the covenant sign of circumcision!

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

brother, frankly, let me ask u. Why are u here Sir? Is it to learn or is it to teach? U seem to alway be in the 'teaching' mode. You do not seem to listen nor do u exhibit a learned heart.

Although you're likely right about the Brother in question, this same accusation works against you too. Tread lightly, you accuse yourself as well.

 

[Tom Hart]

Although you're likely right about the Brother in question, this same accusation works against you too. Tread lightly, you accuse yourself as well.

Allow me to step in and say that @Scott Bushey is very likely referencing the fact that the brother in question does not support his statements in any form whatsoever, but repeatedly throws out his assertions as though they are all self-evidently true statements, and as though his interlocutors ought simply to accept them. As such, it is not much of a dialogue that has been had. You can read through this thread and see a pattern:

Assertion - rejoinder/question - assertion - rejoinder/question - unrelated assertion...​

It's a lot of talk that has so far gone nowhere.

As for Scott Bushey, I have seen him ask some very good questions in the past, questions that have really given me cause to think. I know he knows a lot more than I do; I've learned a lot from his posts, and so, he has taught me a fair bit here. I do not, however, see him always in "teaching mode". (And besides, he certainly comes prepared to back up his positions.)

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Allright. That's fair. @Scott Bushey, please accept my apologies for my hasty comment.

 

[Dachaser]

Allow me to step in and say that @Scott Bushey is very likely referencing the fact that the brother in question does not support his statements in any form whatsoever, but repeatedly throws out his assertions as though they are all self-evidently true statements, and as though his interlocutors ought simply to accept them. As such, it is not much of a dialogue that has been had. You can read through this thread and see a pattern:

Assertion - rejoinder/question - assertion - rejoinder/question - unrelated assertion...​

It's a lot of talk that has so far gone nowhere.

As for Scott Bushey, I have seen him ask some very good questions in the past, questions that have really given me cause to think. I know he knows a lot more than I do; I've learned a lot from his posts, and so, he has taught me a fair bit here. I tbe under the administarationo now do not, however, see him always in "teaching mode". (And besides, he certainly comes prepared to back up his positions.)

The main problem is that Reformed and RB such as myself do see the NC in a differing way, as in just what it means to now be in the Covenant relationship with God, and how water baptism fits into that. Scriptures can be quoted from both sides and positions on this issue, and yet just the RB seems to be stated as being wrong or else not really knowing what the scriptures are teaching on water baptism!
I do value Scott and all here holding to infant baptism viewpoint as brethren of mine in Christ, but we please just tome it down a bit and agree to discuss and disagree here in the love of Christ and in grace towards each other?

 

[Scott Bushey]

As for Scott Bushey, I have seen him ask some very good questions in the past, questions that have really given me cause to think. I know he knows a lot more than I do; I've learned a lot from his posts, and so, he has taught me a fair bit here. I do not, however, see him always in "teaching mode". (And besides, he certainly comes prepared to back up his positions.)

Let me be the first to say, I am always learning. reading, taking in the data; assessing the information. I have been on this board, since its inception. My dialoging has changed a number of times. Initially, I was obnoxious. Offensive. Accusatory. It forced me to resign for many years. Over time, I refined my dialoging. Is it perfect? No. I am trying to be more neutral and less emotional. I have benefited from all who participate. Thank u, Tom for the props. You have been no less, a help to me in the past. I would only hope that when the time occurs and I act unbecoming of a fellow believer in Christ, someone would bone up and rebuke me if I need it.

Since this board is primarily Reformed, all the non-reformed folk should expect that the argumentation will be from Reformed perspectives; any theologies that go against our confessional standards, sadly, assault us all. We see theologies unlike ours as an attack on the scriptures itself. Hence, the result we see most times. When we say we see the credo group as brethren, we do so in a condescending manner. On one hand, this is wrong and on the other, unavoidable. To be perfectly honest, it saddens us Reformed, for the credo.

Since this is a discussion group; how can we avoid this tension? Just throw in the towel? Say nothing? There have been a good number of people who have transitioned, over the years, to the Reformed position, based on these discussions. Have there been any Reformed that have transitioned to the latter position? I believe a few may have. Some people have apostatized the faith that were family members here.

Having said all of the above; the PB is a theological playground of sorts. We all try to play nice. Some things cannot be avoided.

 

[Nomos]

Related to number five in Lane's original post; what is the mechanism to properly assess the authenticity of one's confesion? I have in mind younger children. Do they have to pass a test or pass a certain expectation in their ability to articulate their faith? Does their life have to evidence and conform to a certain set of expectations? What would be the biblical evidence to support how one we evaluate the faith of a young child? I would imagine for a baptist the scrutiny might be far greater to avoid the circumstance of multiple baptisms.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Do they have to pass a test or pass a certain expectation in their ability to articulate their faith

Since these children are baptized, they are seen as 'being in covenant'. The only testing they have to forego would be for the time when they are pursuing the Lord's table. It is at this time, the parents and elders of the church are reviewing the non-communicant person (i.e. they are not communicated in a local sense to the body of Christ and the Lord's table), for full communicant status and participation to the Lord's table.

Does their life have to evidence and conform to a certain set of expectations?

Yes. They should have a confession in relation to the gospel and what it is.

What would be the biblical evidence to support how one we evaluate the faith of a young child?

Given their age, their ability to discern certain biblical facts and truths.

I would imagine for a baptist the scrutiny might be far greater to avoid the circumstance of multiple baptisms.

in my opinion, many particular baptists stretch out the timing to an exhaustive nature. I have seen this first hand. Multiple baptisms prove nothing as no person can actually see the heart of an individual. Dragging out the sign only gives the person time to parrot doctrine which they are being taught anyways.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

The faith of the minister ought not to be thought to make a baptism invalid. Let ministers, even with their imperfections, be known to be God's instruments, lest we raise again the spectre of Donatism.

True.

It would seem that since Presbyterians distinguish between external and internal outworkings relating to being in the covenant, we don't have the same dilemma. It becomes especially problematic when the sacrament only can be applied in relation to the internal.

Here, the notion of "faith" as a requirement for the parents is one in the external sense. The child is a member of the Covenant externally because his parents are members of the Covenant externally. Internal operations belong to the Holy Spirit.

Stephen, there are two sticking points I have found to be the case for helping Baptists to understand the Reformed/Presbyterian position on baptism. The first is that baptism, in the Reformed position, does not mark one's inclusion in the invisible church, but the visible church. In other words, it is more churchly than salvific, as much as the sign still points to salvation.

I understand this and thought you would take the argument in that direction. I also acknowledge my Baptist argument for the New Covenant is not a solid argument. I have admitted that for some time

And, secondly, that baptism is primarily something God does on the basis of his promises

I think the argument is a little more nuanced than this for Reformed Baptists. The 1689 Baptist Confession 7:3 says "This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect". So a Reformed Baptist can say first and foremost it is something God does.

Is it mostly realized (Baptist position), or is there more "not yet" in the New Covenant than Baptists would allow?

I agree with this point.