Baptism & New Covenant

[De Jager]

Being a sign of the NW to them, there would be no real value to them until/unless they receive Jesus as Lord and are saved then, correct?

It is of value, but not of saving value. A baptized person can look back on their baptism, and the baptism of others as a visible evidence of God's work through Jesus Christ. Their confidence/faith can thus be strengthened, which is a work of God's grace.

Of course if the baptized person doesn't exercise personal faith, then all they ever received was the sign, and not the thing signified. This would be like standing at a road sign outside a town which said "Smithville 20 Miles Ahead", and acting like you were actually in Smithville.

Being circumcised never saved any OT saint, and being baptized never has saved any NT saint, or for that matter contributed to their justification at all, since that was accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection, alone.

 

[Dachaser]

It is of value, but not of saving value. A baptized person can look back on their baptism, and the baptism of others as a visible evidence of God's work through Jesus Christ. Their confidence/faith can thus be strengthened, which is a work of God's grace.

Of course if the baptized person doesn't exercise personal faith, then all they ever received was the sign, and not the thing signified. This would be like standing at a road sign outside a town which said "Smithville 20 Miles Ahead", and acting like you were actually in Smithville.

Being circumcised never saved any OT saint, and being baptized never has saved any NT saint, or for that matter contributed to their justification at all, since that was accomplished by Christ's death and resurrection, alone.

I still do not see why this would seem to be such a large disagreement among Presbyterian and Baptists then, as both sides do not see the rite granting saving grace, and both see only saved as being really in the New Covenant now.

 

[Solparvus]

I still do not see why this would seem to be such a large disagreement among Presbyterian and Baptists then, as both sides do not see the rite granting saving grace, and both see only saved as being really in the New Covenant now.

I think the main disagreement is, who is a disciple in Matthew 28:19?

Baptists say, only the regenerate.

Presbyterians say, professing believers and their children.

The question comes down to, on a practical level, by not granting our children church membership, are we robbing them of a means of grace that God has appointed for them? If they have faith, church membership will be used to encourage and preserve them as it does adult believers. If they are not converted, the use of the means of membership may bring them to it.

But if church membership is not important in the case of children who cannot make a profession, or not old enough to make a credible one, then agreed--baptism does no good.

 

[Dachaser]

I think the main disagreement is, who is a disciple in Matthew 28:19?

Baptists say, only the regenerate.

Presbyterians say, professing believers and their children.

The question comes down to, on a practical level, by not granting our children church membership, are we robbing them of a means of grace that God has appointed for them? If they have faith, church membership will be used to encourage and preserve them as it does adult believers. If they are not converted, the use of the means of membership may bring them to it.

But if church membership is not important in the case of children who cannot make a profession, or not old enough to make a credible one, then agreed--baptism does no good.

That last part still seems to be saying to me that we are not really that far apart in a practical sense of how one views children in the Church.

 

[Solparvus]

That last part still seems to be saying to me that we are not really that far apart in a practical sense of how one views children in the Church.

The last part is actually a very big practical difference, and it concerns how you view the church.

The church has the keys to the kingdom, and what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what the church looses on earth is loosed in heaven; and in the ordinary course those who are part of the church are in the kingdom, and those on the outside are not. John Owen in one single work on baptism notes that in the ordinary course, those who are baptized are members of Christ's body, and those who are not are excluded (which isn't the same as saying everyone baptized is saved, and everyone not baptized is condemned), and that was one of John Owen's arguments in favor of infant baptism. Excluding a child from membership, therefore, has no small ramifications for what you are saying about their standing in the kingdom, ie. they have no part nor lot in the matter, and I think too it's why Jesus was angry when the children were shooed away from him.

To keep them out of the church is to deny a means of grace which no believer can ordinarily be expected to persevere without.

So, what we preach to the world about the church, children, and what we preach to ourselves and to our own children, hinges very much on this matter of whether or not they are to be baptized.

This is probably one of the strongest practical reasons that caused me to change my view.

 

[Dachaser]

The last part is actually a very big practical difference, and it concerns how you view the church.

The church has the keys to the kingdom, and what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what the church looses on earth is loosed in heaven; and in the ordinary course those who are part of the church are in the kingdom, and those on the outside are not. John Owen in one single work on baptism notes that in the ordinary course, those who are baptized are members of Christ's body, and those who are not are excluded (which isn't the same as saying everyone baptized is saved, and everyone not baptized is condemned), and that was one of John Owen's arguments in favor of infant baptism. Excluding a child from membership, therefore, has no small ramifications for what you are saying about their standing in the kingdom, ie. they have no part nor lot in the matter, and I think too it's why Jesus was angry when the children were shooed away from him.

To keep them out of the church is to deny a means of grace which no believer can ordinarily be expected to persevere without.

So, what we preach to the world about the church, children, and what we preach to ourselves and to our own children, hinges very much on this matter of whether or not they are to be baptized.

This is probably one of the strongest practical reasons that caused me to change my view.

The external Church is made up of both saved and lost though, and those who would be seen as actually in the the true Church would be just the redeemed. All who have received Jesus as Lord are redeemed, but not all who have been water baptized will be redeemed.

 

[De Jager]

I still do not see why this would seem to be such a large disagreement among Presbyterian and Baptists then, as both sides do not see the rite granting saving grace, and both see only saved as being really in the New Covenant now.

There is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides. I am in the process of trying to wade through all that.

I think that many 'reformed' people don't even know why they baptize their children. If you asked them, they might say something like 'the covenant'. This would be more common in less, shall we say, 'strict' denominations like the CRC or the RCA (this is an assumption I am making).

When you apply infant baptism without having the people well-grounded in the reasons for what they are doing, and without having them understand both the blessings and obligations of the sign, and sometimes, when even the parents don't have faith, and to top it all off, you have churches that shy away from the true gospel and call to repentance and holiness, you end up with churches full of baptized people who don't really look any different than the world. I think we can both agree that this is unacceptable.

Where the issue comes in, is that when some Christians see this, they think the issue is Paedobaptism itself. They might think something like this: "these reformed folk baptize their kids and their kids don't look anything like a Christian is supposed to look like...they don't seem interested in the things of the faith, and they act very worldly...they think that all you have to do is baptize a kid then that kid is good to go!"

I believe this type of thinking is flawed although I can understand where it comes from. I believe the issue is the misunderstanding of baptism among reformed people and a lack of true gospel preaching in mainline reformed churches, which leads some reformed folk to think that baptism has some kind of magical power that gives their child an 'in' with God. I don't see it that way. Rather, I see it that this child is already greatly advantaged when compared to the children growing up in pagan cultures outside the church (See Romans 3:1-4), and baptism is simply a recognition of that reality!

The baptist position, as I see it, is a reaction against 'dead' Christianity that I described above. This splits the church and tends to lump in faithful reformed people (who both baptize their children and take their raising seriously and understand what true conversion is) in with the mainline, liberal 'reformed' people (who really are reformed in name only). Hence we have current Christianity splint into two distinct groups, although with the resurgence in 'reformed theology', we are seeing closer and closer union between the more conservative, faithful wings of each group (take for example Ligonier ministries, a reformed ministry which is happy to use the teaching skills and expertise of baptists like Al Mohler and John MacArthur).

Best regards,

Izaak

 

[De Jager]

The external Church is made up of both saved and lost though, and those who would be seen as actually in the the true Church would be just the redeemed. All who have received Jesus as Lord are redeemed, but not all who have been water baptized will be redeemed.

Correct. The difference between us is simply this: you believe that baptism is a symbol for the redeemed only (those who we think are in the 'true church') while Paedobaptists view baptism as for those in the external church who are 'disciples', regardless of God's mysterious, elective purposes.

 

[Solparvus]

The external Church is made up of both saved and lost though, and those who would be seen as actually in the the true Church would be just the redeemed. All who have received Jesus as Lord are redeemed, but not all who have been water baptized will be redeemed.

No disagreement here. Would you agree though that outside the church, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation?

 

[Solparvus]

There is a lot of misinformation out there on both sides. I am in the process of trying to wade through all that.

I think that many 'reformed' people don't even know why they baptize their children. If you asked them, they might say something like 'the covenant'. This would be more common in less, shall we say, 'strict' denominations like the CRC or the RCA (this is an assumption I am making).

When you apply infant baptism without having the people well-grounded in the reasons for what they are doing, and without having them understand both the blessings and obligations of the sign, and sometimes, when even the parents don't have faith, and to top it all off, you have churches that shy away from the true gospel and call to repentance and holiness, you end up with churches full of baptized people who don't really look any different than the world. I think we can both agree that this is unacceptable.

Where the issue comes in, is that when some Christians see this, they think the issue is Paedobaptism itself. They might think something like this: "these reformed folk baptize their kids and their kids don't look anything like a Christian is supposed to look like...they don't seem interested in the things of the faith, and they act very worldly...they think that all you have to do is baptize a kid then that kid is good to go!"

I believe this type of thinking is flawed although I can understand where it comes from. I believe the issue is the misunderstanding of baptism among reformed people and a lack of true gospel preaching in mainline reformed churches, which leads some reformed folk to think that baptism has some kind of magical power that gives their child an 'in' with God. I don't see it that way. Rather, I see it that this child is already greatly advantaged when compared to the children growing up in pagan cultures outside the church (See Romans 3:1-4), and baptism is simply a recognition of that reality!

The baptist position, as I see it, is a reaction against 'dead' Christianity that I described above. This splits the church and tends to lump in faithful reformed people (who both baptize their children and take their raising seriously and understand what true conversion is) in with the mainline, liberal 'reformed' people (who really are reformed in name only). Hence we have current Christianity splint into two distinct groups, although with the resurgence in 'reformed theology', we are seeing closer and closer union between the more conservative, faithful wings of each group (take for example Ligonier ministries, a reformed ministry which is happy to use the teaching skills and expertise of baptists like Al Mohler and John MacArthur).

Best regards,

Izaak

I met someone like this last week. She grew up Reformed, baptized as a baby, and recently became a Baptist after hearing some Baptist friends make their case. However, she was persuaded to hear out the paedobaptist side before committing to the Baptist position (which would mean rebaptism), because she did not understand the paedo position at all. There's been a number of cases in our area like that.

 

[EvanVK]

The last part is actually a very big practical difference, and it concerns how you view the church.

The church has the keys to the kingdom, and what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what the church looses on earth is loosed in heaven; and in the ordinary course those who are part of the church are in the kingdom, and those on the outside are not. John Owen in one single work on baptism notes that in the ordinary course, those who are baptized are members of Christ's body, and those who are not are excluded (which isn't the same as saying everyone baptized is saved, and everyone not baptized is condemned), and that was one of John Owen's arguments in favor of infant baptism. Excluding a child from membership, therefore, has no small ramifications for what you are saying about their standing in the kingdom, ie. they have no part nor lot in the matter, and I think too it's why Jesus was angry when the children were shooed away from him.

To keep them out of the church is to deny a means of grace which no believer can ordinarily be expected to persevere without.

So, what we preach to the world about the church, children, and what we preach to ourselves and to our own children, hinges very much on this matter of whether or not they are to be baptized.

This is probably one of the strongest practical reasons that caused me to change my view.

I appreciate this explanation, this was very well said.

 

[Dachaser]

No disagreement here. Would you agree though that outside the church, there is no ordinary possibility of salvation?

Yes, if the term church actually refers to the true church, the bride and body of Jesus, and not the local church building itself.

 

[Dachaser]

Correct. The difference between us is simply this: you believe that baptism is a symbol for the redeemed only (those who we think are in the 'true church') while Paedobaptists view baptism as for those in the external church who are 'disciples', regardless of God's mysterious, elective purposes.

Would say that Baptists view the water baptism for those who are now included as part of the Universal church of Christ, just the redeemed now of the Lord.

 

[Dachaser]

The last part is actually a very big practical difference, and it concerns how you view the church.

The church has the keys to the kingdom, and what the church binds on earth is bound in heaven, and what the church looses on earth is loosed in heaven; and in the ordinary course those who are part of the church are in the kingdom, and those on the outside are not. John Owen in one single work on baptism notes that in the ordinary course, those who are baptized are members of Christ's body, and those who are not are excluded (which isn't the same as saying everyone baptized is saved, and everyone not baptized is condemned), and that was one of John Owen's arguments in favor of infant baptism. Excluding a child from membership, therefore, has no small ramifications for what you are saying about their standing in the kingdom, ie. they have no part nor lot in the matter, and I think too it's why Jesus was angry when the children were shooed away from him.

To keep them out of the church is to deny a means of grace which no believer can ordinarily be expected to persevere without.

So, what we preach to the world about the church, children, and what we preach to ourselves and to our own children, hinges very much on this matter of whether or not they are to be baptized.

This is probably one of the strongest practical reasons that caused me to change my view.

The Church though Jesus referred to being built is not the local assembly, but the Church as a whole, the body of Christ, all of the saved within her.

 

[Solparvus]

Yes, if the term church actually refers to the true church, the bride and body of Jesus, and not the local church building itself.

What about membership in a constituted body, where individuals consent to be under the oversight of pastors and elders, and to hold accountable/be held to account by others in the assembly? This is the means that Christ uses to visibly govern His people on earth. Can one ordinarily be saved if they do not submit to the visible church?

 

[De Jager]

The Church though Jesus referred to being built is not the local assembly, but the Church as a whole, the body of Christ, all of the saved within her.

But remember that Jesus did not say "go into the world and baptize members of the true church"

He said to baptize disciples.

In my mind, the basic question is this: who is considered to be a disciple? If by 'disciple', Jesus means truly converted, then in my mind it is illogical for him to command his apostles to baptize these people, because then he would be telling them to do something that they could not even properly do, since they would not know who would truly be a 'disciple'.

And keep in mind, that Jesus also did not say baptize 'professing disciples' either. He said baptize 'disciples'. When he gave the command, it seems clear that he did not intend for us to try to pry too deeply into someone's soul to try and definitively determine their actual spiritual state. Rather this is to be an external sign to mark disciples of Christ from the rest of the world.

At the end, the wheat and the tares will be made manifest, and God will show who was simply baptized externally, but not 'baptized in the heart'.

Regards,

Izaak

 

[Dachaser]

What about membership in a constituted body, where individuals consent to be under the oversight of pastors and elders, and to hold accountable/be held to account by others in the assembly? This is the means that Christ uses to visibly govern His people on earth. Can one ordinarily be saved if they do not submit to the visible church?

Yes, they can be saved, but they also would be in disobedience, for God warns us against forsaking the assembly of the brethren.

 

[Dachaser]

But remember that Jesus did not say "go into the world and baptize members of the true church"

He said to baptize disciples.

In my mind, the basic question is this: who is considered to be a disciple? If by 'disciple', Jesus means truly converted, then in my mind it is illogical for him to command his apostles to baptize these people, because then he would be telling them to do something that they could not even properly do, since they would not know who would truly be a 'disciple'.

And keep in mind, that Jesus also did not say baptize 'professing disciples' either. He said baptize 'disciples'. When he gave the command, it seems clear that he did not intend for us to try to pry too deeply into someone's soul to try and definitively determine their actual spiritual state. Rather this is to be an external sign to mark disciples of Christ from the rest of the world.

At the end, the wheat and the tares will be made manifest, and God will show who was simply baptized externally, but not 'baptized in the heart'.

Regards,

Izaak

I do indeed see children able to be disciples, but do not see babies as being able to be doing that requirement though.

 

[Solparvus]

Yes, they can be saved, but they also would be in disobedience, for God warns us against forsaking the assembly of the brethren.

Ordinarily, can they be?

 

[Scott Bushey]

but do not see babies as being able to be doing that requirement though.

David,
In the past, you have agreed that some babies, if not all, are elect and if they die as infants, are heaven bound. Hence, your own acknowledgement shows that infants can be 'disciples'.

 

[Dachaser]

Ordinarily, can they be?

I do not understand your question my brother.

 

[Dachaser]

David,
In the past, you have agreed that some babies, if not all, are elect and if they die as infants, are heaven bound. Hence, your own acknowledgement shows that infants can be 'disciples'.

My understanding would be that all infants {mod addition: who die in infancy} are elected by God unto salvation into Christ, but the sign of the water would be to show the outward indication of the inner work already done by the Lord Himself. Honestly, my hope is that all infants {mod addition: who die in infancy} will be saved, but have no concrete evidence, but do have that solid foundation for believers baptism.

 

[Solparvus]

I do not understand your question my brother.

Can you ordinarily go on without being a member of a church and expect to be saved? Barring extraordinary circumstances.

 

[Dachaser]

Can you ordinarily go on without being a member of a church and expect to be saved? Barring extraordinary circumstances.

what saves us is being a member of the one true Universal Church of Christ, but we also should be engaged in being active members of a bible believing local assembly.

 

[Gforce9]

what saves us is being a member of the one true Universal Church of Christ, but we also should be engaged in being active members of a bible believing local assembly.

David,
I think this view of the church (which is the popular evangelical view) is far too low a view of the church. It is in the church where the offices have their expression, where the sacraments are administered and the preaching of the word takes place.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Post 82

My understanding would be that all infants {mod addition: who die in infancy} are elected by God unto salvation into Christ, but the sign of the water would be to show the outward indication of the inner work already done by the Lord Himself. Honestly, my hope is that all infants {mod addition: who die in infancy} will be saved, but have no concrete evidence, but do have that solid foundation for believers baptism.

David,
Please don't misunderstand me here, but many of your posts lose sight of what you previously were responding to. I don't say this as an slight to you but to remind you to try and keep on track with what you are responding to. For example, your statement above that I have cited:

You were responding to a charge by De Jager in which he said to you:

But remember that Jesus did not say "go into the world and baptize members of the true church"

He said to baptize disciples.

So, your response had a direct relationship to infants and their ability to be disciples, which u said in response:

I do indeed see children able to be disciples, but do not see babies as being able to be doing that requirement though.

Children vs babies....children being able and infants, not. *If I have understood you correctly.

My response was this:

David,
In the past, you have agreed that some babies, if not all, are elect and if they die as infants, are heaven bound. Hence, your own acknowledgement shows that infants can be 'disciples'.

Post 82 evades what we have been talking about, which is discipleship and Christ's command in the GC.

The point that is being pressed is that Christ told us to 'make disciples' and 'baptize' them. He doesn't tell us to only baptize those who have an outward confession, nor does he tell us to not place the sign as He was very familiar with. An infant can be saved and glorified, hence they can be 'disciples' of Christ and should have the sign placed on them. No person in heaven was without discipleship.


13 • All your children shall be p taught by the Lord ,
3605 859 1121 3928 3068
And q great shall be the peace of your children .
7227 7965 859 1121
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Is 54:13.


45 It is written in the prophets , m ‘ And they shall all be taught by
2076 1125 1722 3588 4396 2532 3956 2071 1318
God
3588 2316
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Jn 6:45.

 

[Dachaser]

David,
I think this view of the church (which is the popular evangelical view) is far too low a view of the church. It is in the church where the offices have their expression, where the sacraments are administered and the preaching of the word takes place.

I agree with you that the local church would be where the Lord has given the ordinances to His people to partake of, and also to gather to worship, praise, and to be instructed by the preaching of the scriptures. The true one church though that Jesus died for, and he established, would be the Universal church itself. God does not see us as being Baptist, Reformed, Methodist, Lutheran et all, but as members of the one true Church of Christ.

 

[Pilgrim]

I still do not see why this would seem to be such a large disagreement among Presbyterian and Baptists then, as both sides do not see the rite granting saving grace, and both see only saved as being really in the New Covenant now.

Something that seems to be left by the wayside today is the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) and related issues when it comes to this question. Maybe this is because you are in the North and these kinds of things (insistence on immersion, restricted communion, etc.) have persisted as emphases among Baptists in the South moreso than in the North, from what I understand. Also, maybe it is less prominent today now that so many Presbyterians have abandoned aspects of the RPW as well, with widespread acceptance of things like "pictures of Christ" among them.

Traditionally, Baptists have seen baptism as immersion, period, especially in the USA. (This one argument may have convinced more people to join Baptist churches in the 19th Century and afterward than any other.) So as AMR said, they effectively unchurch all paedobaptist churches, particularly those Baptist churches who have maintained close communion, which would bar all unimmersed persons from the table, no matter how godly and renowned. If baptism is considered a mark of the church, then I don't see how the Baptist can affirm pedobaptist churches as true churches. (There are some in the Dutch tradition, such as some in the URC that I am aware of, who do not consider Baptist churches to be true churches. But I've rarely if ever seen that alleged by Presbyterians.)

Also, infant baptism is viewed by traditional Baptists (including 1689ers) as a violation of the RPW, an example of "will-worship", something that cannot be demonstrated in the NT by command, example or (legitimate) inference. Representative of this argument is a work by John Gill entitled "Infant Baptism: A Part and Pillar of Popery." (If it's not in the NT, and Rome does it, then....)

Obviously these points are debated by our Presbyterian friends. In other words, this is as serious an issue for Baptists (or it should be) as "pictures of Christ" is for those holding to the traditional Reformed view of the 2nd Commandment or singing uninspired hymns is for the Exclusive Psalmodist.

That you would ask why it is such a big deal after being on this board so long is baffling, frankly. Maybe part of that is because these debates on the PB used to generate a lot more heat 10-15 years ago. There also seem to have been more Baptists here back then.

I think a few decades ago if you asked a Baptist (Calvinist or not) why he is a Baptist, he'd have said "Baptism is immersion" and "Infant baptism isn't in the NT" and generally not felt that a whole lot of argument beyond that was necessary. Also, perhaps before the revival of Calvinistic soteriology in the 2nd half of the 20th Century, there was somewhat less of a felt need among Baptists to be accepted as "Reformed" (or respectable?) by Presbyterians. At the risk of coming across as anti-intellectual, it seems to me that now we are getting all of these Baptist arguments about the NC that are almost as complicated as the Presbyterian arguments, if not moreso.

One book that came out a few years ago that is basically "1689 Federalist" almost "represbyterianized" me with several of its arguments! You end up with over-arguments that to varying degrees can be proved to be false, such as "Circumcision had no spiritual import whatsoever and was only a national symbol" and "Israel only existed to pave the way for Christ" and "Everyone in Israel was unregenerate except for a few prophets and others." Some seem to want to make everything in the OT into a type.

Another factor is the legitimacy of the Presbyterian "two stage" membership with non-communicant covenant children who aren't admitted to the Lord's Supper until roughly the point that the Baptist would baptize them and (more or less) simultaneously admit them into full membership. (Thus, Presbyterians and others who charge Baptists with "withholding the privileges of church membership" to their children are open to the charge that they withhold full privileges themselves. David's "What's the difference" question may have some applicability here.) I think the Presbyterian would say this is necessary via "good and necessary consequence" and cite 1 Cor 11 and maybe a few other texts on proper preparation for the Lord's Supper. The Baptist of course sees this as another example of an unbiblical practice but is thankful that at least most Presbyterians don't practice infant communion along with infant baptism.

 

[Dachaser]

Post 82



David,
Please don't misunderstand me here, but many of your posts lose sight of what you previously were responding to. I don't say this as an slight to you but to remind you to try and keep on track with what you are responding to. For example, your statement above that I have cited:

You were responding to a charge by De Jager in which he said to you:



So, your response had a direct relationship to infants and their ability to be disciples, which u said in response:



Children vs babies....children being able and infants, not. *If I have understood you correctly.

My response was this:



Post 82 evades what we have been talking about, which is discipleship and Christ's command in the GC.

The point that is being pressed is that Christ told us to 'make disciples' and 'baptize' them. He doesn't tell us to only baptize those who have an outward confession, nor does he tell us to not place the sign as He was very familiar with. An infant can be saved and glorified, hence they can be 'disciples' of Christ and should have the sign placed on them. No person in heaven was without discipleship.


13 • All your children shall be p taught by the Lord ,
3605 859 1121 3928 3068
And q great shall be the peace of your children .
7227 7965 859 1121
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Is 54:13.


45 It is written in the prophets , m ‘ And they shall all be taught by
2076 1125 1722 3588 4396 2532 3956 2071 1318
God
3588 2316
The New King James Version (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1982), Jn 6:45.

What amount of discipleship though did the Thief on the Cross receive?
I think that the main difference here still seems to revolve around what does the water baptism signify? One actually being part now of the NC with God, or one anticipating they might be included within that relationship with God in the future?

 

[Dachaser]

Something that seems to be left by the wayside today is the Regulative Principle of Worship (RPW) and related issues when it comes to this question. Maybe this is because you are in the North and these kinds of things (insistence on immersion, restricted communion, etc.) have persisted as emphases among Baptists in the South moreso than in the North, from what I understand. Also, maybe it is less prominent today now that so many Presbyterians have abandoned aspects of the RPW as well, with widespread acceptance of things like "pictures of Christ" among them.

Traditionally, Baptists have seen baptism as immersion, period, especially in the USA. (This one argument may have convinced more people to join Baptist churches in the 19th Century and afterward than any other.) So as AMR said, they effectively unchurch all paedobaptist churches, particularly those Baptist churches who have maintained close communion, which would bar all unimmersed persons from the table, no matter how godly and renowned. If baptism is considered a mark of the church, then I don't see how the Baptist can affirm pedobaptist churches as true churches. (There are some in the Dutch tradition, such as some in the URC that I am aware of, who do not consider Baptist churches to be true churches. But I've rarely if ever seen that alleged by Presbyterians.)

Also, infant baptism is viewed by traditional Baptists (including 1689ers) as a violation of the RPW, an example of "will-worship", something that cannot be demonstrated in the NT by command, example or (legitimate) inference. Representative of this argument is a work by John Gill entitled "Infant Baptism: A Part and Pillar of Popery." (If it's not in the NT, and Rome does it, then....)

Obviously these points are debated by our Presbyterian friends. In other words, this is as serious an issue for Baptists (or it should be) as "pictures of Christ" is for those holding to the traditional Reformed view of the 2nd Commandment or singing uninspired hymns is for the Exclusive Psalmodist.

That you would ask why it is such a big deal after being on this board so long is baffling, frankly. Maybe part of that is because these debates on the PB used to generate a lot more heat 10-15 years ago. There also seem to have been more Baptists here back then.

I think a few decades ago if you asked a Baptist (Calvinist or not) why he is a Baptist, he'd have said "Baptism is immersion" and "Infant baptism isn't in the NT" and generally not felt that a whole lot of argument beyond that was necessary. Also, perhaps before the revival of Calvinistic soteriology in the 2nd half of the 20th Century, there was somewhat less of a felt need among Baptists to be accepted as "Reformed" (or respectable?) by Presbyterians. At the risk of coming across as anti-intellectual, it seems to me that now we are getting all of these Baptist arguments about the NC that are almost as complicated as the Presbyterian arguments, if not moreso.

One book that came out a few years ago that is basically "1689 Federalist" almost "represbyterianized" me with several of its arguments! You end up with over-arguments that to varying degrees can be proved to be false, such as "Circumcision had no spiritual import whatsoever and was only a national symbol" and "Israel only existed to pave the way for Christ" and "Everyone in Israel was unregenerate except for a few prophets and others." Some seem to want to make everything in the OT into a type.

Another factor is the legitimacy of the Presbyterian "two stage" membership with non-communicant covenant children who aren't admitted to the Lord's Supper until roughly the point that the Baptist would baptize them and (more or less) simultaneously admit them into full membership. (Thus, Presbyterians and others who charge Baptists with "withholding the privileges of church membership" to their children are open to the charge that they withhold full privileges themselves. David's "What's the difference" question may have some applicability here.) I think the Presbyterian would say this is necessary via "good and necessary consequence" and cite 1 Cor 11 and maybe a few other texts on proper preparation for the Lord's Supper. The Baptist of course sees this as another example of an unbiblical practice but is thankful that at least most Presbyterians don't practice infant communion along with infant baptism.

I think one of the reasons might not be able to see just how large a difference there appears to be between Baptists and Presbyterians on some of this issues would be that I came in as a Pentecostal, to a free will Baptist, to Dispensational, to now into the Calvinistic/reformed understanding of theology. This broad exposure has allowed me to see the Church as beijg broader then what sometimes it seems that we want it to be,and to appreciate the differing nuances of doctrine understanding among various Christian churches and groups.
I know many Baptists who would deny the legitimacy of the reformed infant baptism, or the Reformed view on Sacraments, or use on Confessions, but I do not see that being inferior, but merely a different way to see and view what the scriptures teach to us.