Essential presupposition of covenant theology?

[Semper Fidelis]

On CT versus Baptist CT, I think it's largely a difference of opinion about what is essential versus accidental in the covenant of grace. CT'ers see "to you and your seed" as an essential part of the gospel promise, as the way God always works with his people. Baptist CT'ers view the inclusion of children in the covenant as typological, indicating the line through which Messiah would come. So, once Messiah has come, there is no longer any need for the type. Therefore, baptism actually signifies less than circumcision did, since baptism symbolizes purely spiritual realities, whereas circumcision had ethnic and social meanings that are no longer applicable. This is the basic argument of Paul Jewett's Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace.

This is the heart of the issue. In both schemas, the Covenant of Grace is in Christ. Nobody ever has nor ever will be saved by the Covenant of Grace who is not united to Christ by faith. This is what Paul labors about Abraham in Romans 4. It's also what the author of Hebrews notes in Hebrews 11. The essential character of the Covenant is faith that God's promises are "Yes" and "Amen". He has promised to save men by grace. Men who trust the Promises of God are truly in Covenant with Him by His electing grace. The Advent of Christ changes not the fundamental character but is the final revelation of that Covenant and also the full guarantee of it. Former administrations were instructional in the sense that they were instituted for the purpose that they might be replaced by the antitype that they typified. The author of Hebrews labors this point at length that God instituted an imperfect system that it might be fulfilled in Christ and that those who approached God by those OT sacrifices ultimately did so because of the reality that they signified.

Christ's coming then is not the advent of a new God and a new way of salvation but the full revelation thereof. The Son of God comes to be a Servant Who perfectly does the Father's will and fulfills every stipulation of Covenant obedience. He is the perfect Messiah because He came to obey and obeyed perfectly. He is the perfect Priest, which the imperfect Aaronic priesthood typified, and His sacrifice is perfect and once-for-all.

That all said, then, as Charlie notes, the real question is whether the Covenant signs of the OT served merely as some sort of biological or national purpose disconnected from the essential character of the Covenant of Grace. Baptists tend to see the sign of circumcision as a national sign that biologically ensures Christ will come but not really connected to the Covenant of Grace in an essential fashion.

Because the Covenant of Grace has always and now consists of the elect alone, the Baptist insists that anything that participates in that perfect Covenant has to, itself, be perfect. An elect person who was circumcised participated in the covenant but so did a reprobate person who was circumcised. Thus, they conclude that because circumcision was applied indiscriminately of whether or not the person was elect, the perfect nature of the CoG excludes any notion that circumcision could be somehow essentially tied to the CoG. The fact that Abraham has Ishmael circumcised provides the appropriate out in this case. Because Abraham is given a land and physical promise, circumcision sort of becomes tied more to a physical and national aspect of a promise made to Abraham that does not require that it be thought of any way of entrance into the perfect CoG that a reprobate Jew might defile by his reprobate-ness. The Old Covenant as well, under Moses, is seen to have this character by the Baptist because the whole nation, elect or reprobate, participates in the "covenant life" of its administration. The perfect Covenant of Grace, then, cannot be seen as being coextensive with the Old Covenant because, again, there is this "defilement" by reprobate Jews who are never really united to Christ by faith.

When the New Covenant comes, then, the Baptist sees Jer 31 and Heb 8 as the idea that God is going to no longer have a visible Covenant on earth. The New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace in Christ. It is with the elect of Christ alone. There is no longer any visible Covenant, per se, in Baptist theology. Why? Because of the admission that, even with the best professors and lives that indicate, there may be false brethren in the Churches. Thus, the thread continues where an elect person who is baptized participates in the New Covenant but a reprobate person who is baptized does not. New Covenant = Covenant of Grace = perfect. The reprobate person cannot in any way participate because that would make an imperfection in the NC. Hence, baptism itself (like circumcision) is not of the essence of the CoG. Where circumcision was not of the essence of the CoG, it did serve (by Baptist thinking) to make one a member of the OC but, again, that was not coextensive with the CoG. Now baptism is not of the essence of the CoG and does not make one a member of the NC but does make one a member of the local Church.

I'm getting an Excedrin Headache trying to get to my point.

At the end of the day, the Baptist treats the CoG as so ideal and perfect as to leave it out of the reach of any historical administration. Its composition is and always has been in the mind of God alone. He knows His elect and saves them but neither circumcision nor baptism has ever been a means by which a man could positively state - "I am in the Coveant of Grace". In the OC, circumcision served to let a man know he was in the OC but not necessarily in the CoG. In the NC, baptism serves as a testimony that a man claims to believe but it serves no function to assure anyone that he is truly in the NC.

The Reformed position does not deny the inscrutable character of God with respect to His knowledge of the Elect of God but sees God's redemptive signs as methods of divine condescension. God does not leave knowledge of the elect beyond history but is pleased to give Sacraments to His Church by means of which men can participate in historical acts and, by the eyes of faith, be drawn to spiritual realities that exist beyond history.

That's the simplest way I can explain it at the moment.

 

[steadfast7]

Adam was not impeccable before the fall, and it is not clear that he was immortal. Impeccable means unable to sin. But, he sinned, therefore he was not impeccable. He was righteous.

Thanks Charlie for clarifying this term for me

Baptist CT'ers view the inclusion of children in the covenant as typological, indicating the line through which Messiah would come. So, once Messiah has come, there is no longer any need for the type. Therefore, baptism actually signifies less than circumcision did, since baptism symbolizes purely spiritual realities, whereas circumcision had ethnic and social meanings that are no longer applicable. This is the basic argument of Paul Jewett's Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace.

Thanks for this as well. Helps me to understand my own position.

So, when did the new covenant commence? Only when the NT was canonized and could completely explain the OT? Sure, it benefits us. But Paul was using only the OT when he understood everything he wrote in his letters. So, his presupposition is not the NT first, but the OT.

Quite right. It benefits us, on this side of canonization. Paul does depend on the OT, but not without a measure of tweaking on his part as well. Recall that Paul in Gal 3:15ff reinterprets (if that's the right word) plural "offspring" to singular "offspring," namely Christ. This seems to suggest that while he is only using the OT, the Christ event changes things to a significant extent. He goes on to say that now Christ has come, the guardian is no longer necessary and those who are in Christ are the offspring of Abraham. This would not have been (and apparently was not) obvious to Jews.

CBT: I don't know if your schematic could be improved (by your own intention) with an exponential curve, rising from the baseline.
However, your intention might be to show little eternal "progress" occurs along the graph, and then rises dramatically and off the chart at the institution of the NC.

Good point. There is a sense in which there's a curve, but also a sense in which the line starts on a graph, on a new page. C. Matthew McMahon comments that in looking back over his many years as a Reformed Baptist there was no escaping a form of dispensationalism, however subtle it might have been. There is a recognition of discontinuity, but dispensationalism is not the right charge, in my opinion.

Because the Covenant of Grace has always and now consists of the elect alone, the Baptist insists that anything that participates in that perfect Covenant has to, itself, be perfect.
....
At the end of the day, the Baptist treats the CoG as so ideal and perfect as to leave it out of the reach of any historical administration.

I believe RCT'ers also believe that the CoG is ultimately with the elect alone, if I'm not wrong, and in a perfect world, we would aim for exact congruence between sign and signified. I guess we can say that for the Baptist, the historical (this-worldly) administration does occur, but happens incidentally, by virtue of not knowing those who are elect. Thus, we recognize that the churches will be a mixed group. In RCT, the historical administration is built into the fabric of the system, and mandated by it.

---------- Post added at 11:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:21 PM ----------

btw, are any of my credo brethren planning on jumping in to contribute here?? I'm on the verge of changing my position!

 

[Peairtach]

Dennis

I guess we can say that for the Baptist, the historical (this-worldly) administration does occur, but happens incidentally, by virtue of not knowing those who are elect. Thus, we recognize that the churches will be a mixed group.

This isn't incidental. God intends that Kirk Sessions and other ecclesiastical organisations will not be able to infallibly tell who the regenerate elect are, otherwise He would have given them that ability.

Therefore Baptist churches don't baptise the regenerate elect but those who make a credible profession of faith. Presbyterian churches baptise those who make a credible profession of faith and their children.

But when Jesus saw it, he was indignant and said to them, "Let the children come to me; do not hinder them, for to such belongs the kingdom of God. (Mark 10:14, ESV)

 

[Douglas P.]

I'm on the verge of changing my position!

If there is anything that i can do to help, please let me know!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Dennis,
I would begin by asking you NOT to be quickly moved from a standpoint of true conviction. I say this, not because I don't want people to come to agreement with me, but because it's too easy for people who pull-up stakes to end up casting their certainties away wholesale, once they have begun "digging up their garden." That would be unprofitable for you. Please surround yourself with good, local, godly counselors. And this may be hard to do in a foreign land. So much is going on around you, you might be more easily moved--and moved too far--in a situation that is not-so-stable.

Paul in Gal 3:15ff reinterprets (if that's the right word) plural "offspring" to singular "offspring," namely Christ.

No, Paul specifically references Gen.22:18, which is best understood as the singular reference, rather than the plural that dominates v17; because the climatic verse puts the attention back on Isaac, and especially the One whom Isaac typifies.

This would not have been (and apparently was not) obvious to Jews.

This is a problem for the mostly apostate Jewish exegetes of the day, and not a problem for those inclined to a Messianic-interpretive focus. One of the issues we are dealing with is whether Jesus made a change by teaching his disciples to interpret the Scriptures through his Person as Messiah, or whether there was tug-of-war all along between Israelites who interpreted the Bible (OT) messianicly, however imperfectly; and those who interpreted it through the lens of the law. The latter was so dominant by the time Jesus comes into his ministry, that even those true believers who are inclined to a messianic-hope-interpretation (exemplified by the Disciples) are deeply confused by Jesus' reorientation of their thinking.

Paul is by no means describing a new theology when he denies flatly that Jews-in-general (after the flesh) are Abraham's true offspring. He undercuts the argument by appealing to the Scriptures in Rom.9. Remember, Jesus rebuked Nicodemus for being "the teacher of Israel!" and not knowing the things that Jesus spoke to him concerning the necessity of a NEW BIRTH, not merely resting in one's original heritage.

the historical (this-worldly) administration does occur, but happens incidentally, by virtue of not knowing those who are elect.

This statement is incoherent, although I agree wholly with the last:

In RCT, the historical administration is built into the fabric of the system, and mandated by it.

. I think most RBs would recognize the first statement as an illegitimate borrowing of our terminology. It is absolutely critical to CBT (as well as baptist-system in general) that the New Covenant is NOT administered in this world, in the sense that such a word is ordinarily understood.

The fully "immediate" (non-mediated) nature of the NC is absolutely fundamental to the baptist-system. Its reflected all over the system: from individual water-baptism being primarily a statement from the individual; to "flattened" church-organization (congregational)

--Even one necessary "layer" of institutional unity is fraught with the peril of imperfection, as professors who join the church may prove false. If you don't really "know" persons outside your local body, you cannot "judge" their profession, and you certainly don't want them making decisions that might affect your locally "pure" body. The introduction of further "layers" of unity (i.e. a Presbytery or Synod) is consistent only within a system where church-government is synonymous with external-covenant administration.​

The closest the baptist-system comes to recognizing "administration" of the CoG/NC (in the common sense RCT typically means by it) is in Word-ministry. But even there, the "flattening" of the whole tends to minimize the distinction between a Minister bringing the Word, and anyone else' bringing the Word. In much baptist-ecclesiology, the preacher fills a unique role by virtue of his gifts, in the pulpit or in personal counseling; but outside those referential categories he is no more or less engaged in "the ministry" than all other Christians. I would call this an overapplication of the (legitimate) principle of universal-priesthood.

 

[steadfast7]

This isn't incidental. God intends that Kirk Sessions and other ecclesiastical organisations will not be able to infallibly tell who the regenerate elect are, otherwise He would have given them that ability.

What I mean is that the Baptist cannot be rightly charged for not having any kind of this-worldly administration, or for being infinitely idealistic and spiritual as to leave no room for a mixed church. These are a part of Baptist ecclesiology, not by intentionality, but by virtue of human error of not knowing the elect. The Presbyterian argument is that God's covenant-administrating ways are more inclusive and lenient in this regard - and I can appreciate this reasoning too.

 

[kceaster]

Quite right. It benefits us, on this side of canonization. Paul does depend on the OT, but not without a measure of tweaking on his part as well. Recall that Paul in Gal 3:15ff reinterprets (if that's the right word) plural "offspring" to singular "offspring," namely Christ. This seems to suggest that while he is only using the OT, the Christ event changes things to a significant extent. He goes on to say that now Christ has come, the guardian is no longer necessary and those who are in Christ are the offspring of Abraham. This would not have been (and apparently was not) obvious to Jews.

Yet, we must not make a leap that Christ has changed something already in the mind of God. In other words,, Paul didn't reinterpret offspring to mean something different to NT readers than it did to OT readers. The rendering of Gen 12:7 is not a plural offspring, so Paul is not changing the number here. What may have been otherwise understood, though, is that one wouldn't think of Christ as being given the land, if indeed, He is the seed spoken of; hence, there would be many seeds of Abraham. However, Paul is redirecting us to see that the promise and covenant God is here swearing to uphold by Himself, is not so much a covenant of land, as a covenant of people. Abraham was promised a seed first, at least that is what he should have heard, not yet having any offspring and being the age he was. The land was incidental, because he already had a place to live. Abraham would have heard the promise of a seed, and a people to grow from that seed. His children, especially in Jesus' day, might well have focused on the aspect of the land because they are inheritors of it. But through the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, this is how we are to interpret Abraham's seed. Abraham's seed (singular) is the hope of his old age, even Jesus Christ, and that is the Christian's hope as well. Paul didn't change the person to Whom the Holy Spirit was referring to in Gen 12. Otherwise, we cannot allow Scripture to interpret Scripture.

And don't forget, Jesus is the seed (singular) which should bruise the serpent's head.

Also, there is one olive tree in which there are natural branches and wild branches grafted in.

We also have to realize that the NT writers were confounding the modern interpretations. That does not mean that the OT meant something different. The writers of the NT and even Jesus are not contradicting the OT, but correcting the wrong interpretation of it.

In Christ,

KC

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Covenantal Baptist: The cross of Christ (New Covenant) brings out a fundamental change in the way God views those whom he calls his.

I don't like the above assessment and believe it is unbiblical.

There is only one Covenant of Grace established in promise to from Genesis 3:15 for all who are redeemed by Christ. Even though one might be a beneficiary of the covenants of promise which were administered by the Covenant of Grace it didn't necessarily mean they were members in the Covenant of Grace. (ie. Ishmael, Esau) Not all of Israel was Israel as it says in Romans. The Children of Abraham where those who had faith.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Pre-fall Adam = saved Christian?

I will have to find it. But the answer is no. Adam and Christ are different. The glory of Christ is by far more weightier than that of Adam but Christ was fully man. Christ was fully God and man. Adam was not. To be found in Adam can not be the same as being found in Christ.

 

[steadfast7]

I would begin by asking you NOT to be quickly moved from a standpoint of true conviction. I say this, not because I don't want people to come to agreement with me, but because it's too easy for people who pull-up stakes to end up casting their certainties away wholesale, once they have begun "digging up their garden."

Thanks for the encouragement. It's all been the result of recently being a part of a Presbyterian church and its mission here in India. I will soon be forced to ask myself if I want to be a member of this church and fully celebrate and participate in all its church life and sacraments. I happen to hold the presupposition that unity, solidarity and membership are just as important to me here as personal conviction is to those in the west - but this is a cultural thing. It certainly would be a nice bonus, however, to be fully convinced of its theology as well!

No, Paul specifically references Gen.22:18, which is best understood as the singular reference, rather than the plural that dominates v17; because the climatic verse puts the attention back on Isaac, and especially the One whom Isaac typifies.

It seems to me that this would provide evidence of an even greater weightage on Christ as the entire point of the covenant promise and less weightage to the necessity of including one's natural offspring within the covenant.

I think most RBs would recognize the first statement as an illegitimate borrowing of our terminology. It is absolutely critical to CBT (as well as baptist-system in general) that the New Covenant is NOT administered in this world, in the sense that such a word is ordinarily understood.

The terminology of administration may be confusing. But Baptists do view baptism as an entrance into a this-worldly church membership - a church which is mixed. There is an honest recognition of the differences in God's part and ours in naming covenant members.

btw, very interesting insight on how the CBT plays out in ecclesiology!

---------- Post added at 01:21 AM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 AM ----------

Covenantal Baptist: The cross of Christ (New Covenant) brings out a fundamental change in the way God views those whom he calls his.

I don't like the above assessment and believe it is unbiblical.

There is only one Covenant of Grace established in promise to from Genesis 3:15 for all who are redeemed by Christ. Even though one might be a beneficiary of the covenants of promise which were administered by the Covenant of Grace it didn't necessarily mean they were members in the Covenant of Grace. (ie. Ishmael, Esau) Not all of Israel was Israel as it says in Romans. The Children of Abraham where those who had faith.

You're right. My wording was bad. I only meant to convey that the New Covenant hermeneutic is definitive in how the rest of the covenants are seen. Now that Christ has come and established the NC, all our covenantal eggs, and what they were pointing to, need to go in the New Covenant basket. Hope that sounds ok. Glad you're here Randy.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

So, when did the new covenant commence? Only when the NT was canonized and could completely explain the OT? Sure, it benefits us. But Paul was using only the OT when he understood everything he wrote in his letters. So, his presupposition is not the NT first, but the OT.

Kevin, When did Paul have a correct presupposition and clear understanding of the New Covenant? It was first revealed to him by Christ. He didn't come to a correct view by his presuppositions from the Old necessarily till he came to understand the promise of a New Covenant that was to come in Christ. God revealed the mystery of the New Covenant which was not like the Old (per Jer. 31) that was hidden in prophecy such as in Isaiah and Jeremiah 31. As it is said. The New in the Old is concealed. The Old in the New is revealed. The type is not the antitype. Methinks John Owen did a good job on this. But better minds than mine have done a far superior job in this than I have.

I am not sure I am really understanding your term presupposition here though.

 

[steadfast7]

I am not sure I am really understanding your term presupposition here though.

A presupposition is an assumption about a subject upon which he builds knowledge and forms concepts. It's axiomatic and is the foundation of their thinking along a particular subject line, but is itself difficult to prove or disprove. For example, secular psychologists say that all mental problems are biological and/or psychiatric, not the result of supernatural activity. Using this assumption, their treatments naturally do not include prayers or chants.

Each discipline and concept has its set of presuppositions which allows it to function. I think one of RCT's presuppositions is the undisturbed continuity of the covenants between old and new, while CBT may assert there is a significant degree of discontinuity. Another one of RCT's: that which comes before takes priority; CBT: that which comes after takes priority.

It's very difficult to argue against a presupposition, because you need a standard that resides outside of the field discipline in question. Whether we like to admit it, we often choose a position on subjective or personal grounds rather than through argument. So, since it seems like the fool proof argument is hard if not impossible to arrive at, I'm looking for the most basic presupposition that governs each position and seeing how it interacts with my subjective feelings! Hey, it's worth a try...

 

[kceaster]

What I'm saying, brother Randy, is that if you came up to Paul on the street and told him you'd been reading the OT about the salvation of the Lord, he wouldn't have told you to start with his letters first because they explain the OT. Just like Philip and the eunuch. Philip didn't tell him to put that away, but rather began to explain the history of redemption to him. Jesus did the same with the two on the road to Emmaeus. The NCT folks came out a few years back and said that you must begin with the NT because it is logically prior. While one may think that, it is rather impossible.

That's what I mean by a presupposition. It may be simply stated as the beginning of Hebrews: "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed the heir of all things, through whom also he created the world." What a connection of redemptive history!

In Christ,

KC

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I believe RCT'ers also believe that the CoG is ultimately with the elect alone, if I'm not wrong, and in a perfect world, we would aim for exact congruence between sign and signified.

Reformed theology holds that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and its saving benefits belong to the Elect alone but I would not agree that "in a perfect world" we would aim for exact congruence between sign and thing signified. This is not to be pejorative but this is Baptist thinking and not the way the Scriptures reveal how the world is (created by a Perfect God). The hidden assumption in Baptist theology is, because the New Covenant is ideal, that the Church is given an implicit command to apply the sign to those they most probably believe are elect. There is no such commandment in Scripture.

In the world that God created, He knows the hidden things and the creature lives by faith according to the revealed things. Nowhere does God tell us to live by the things hidden from us but, on the contrary, commands against this and commands us to live by the things He has revealed (Deut 29:29). In the Covenant, God plans in eternity those Whom He will redeem, reveals how He plans to redeem them in His Word, and leaves His Church visiible signs of His Covenant to accommodate Himself to our creatureliness.

There is a real danger in idealizing the New Covenant because men begin to speculate from the fact that God saves the elect to assuming that, because God can save, that He does so apart from any means or connection from history. God, as He is in Himself, is inscrutable, and we must rely upon what He has revealed and proceed no further. His Word tells us that He attends His saving work in conversion by the preaching of His Word. It's called the foolishness of preaching, in part, because it seems quite odd to our speculation that God would attend His infinite power to such seemingly inadequate means. He also condescends, in ways that seem foolish to men's thinking, by promising that something as simply as water can direct our senses and our minds to the historical fact that He has saving intentions toward us.

Without these seemingly foolish ways of the Creator condescending to our creatureliness we would be left with bare speculation. The creature would have no way of knowing the hidden things of God. It is for this reason that I believe that the Baptist view of baptism severely weakens the ministerial testimony of God's Covenant to men that He intends by such means. Instead of letting Baptism become God's way of speaking to us by the ministry of the Church, it becomes the person speaking to God and guts the grace manifest in the Sacrament.

 

[Pilgrim]

This thread is turning into a bit of a dog's breakfast - if an interesting dog's breakfast.

Indeed.

---------- Post added at 04:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:28 PM ----------

Dennis, I would begin by asking you NOT to be quickly moved from a standpoint of true conviction. I say this, not because I don't want people to come to agreement with me, but because it's too easy for people who pull-up stakes to end up casting their certainties away wholesale, once they have begun "digging up their garden." That would be unprofitable for you. Please surround yourself with good, local, godly counselors. And this may be hard to do in a foreign land. So much is going on around you, you might be more easily moved--and moved too far--in a situation that is not-so-stable.

Dennis,

This is sound advice. As someone who was baptistic once, then Presbyterian and now Baptist again, I can identify with your plight, especially given the recent fellowship you've shared with Presbyterians. If you're looking for a reason to be convinced of Presbyterianism, you'll find it and vice versa. That was basically what happened with me, largely because I didn't feel I could identify with any of the Baptist churches in my area. I grasped the presuppositions of the Reformed pedobaptist argument and within a few months made the switch. But I was in a position of instability, as Bruce alludes to, even though for about a year or two I seemed to be planted firmly in that soil. Like me at that time, you seem to be looking for a quick resolution of the issue. But such quick resolutions are likely to result in having to reexamine the question more thoroughly at some point further down the road or else perhaps suppressing lingering doubts for the sake of fellowship. I can appreciate the differences in culture between East and West, but ultimately our consciences should be bound to scripture, not to culture.

Ultimately I don't think you're going to be completely satisfied with the results you get from this board if this is going to be your main resource in resolving this issue. It's a helpful resource (you can review old baptism debate threads if you have hours to spare) but I wouldn't make a major change based solely on any discourse here. Also, the continued banter about impeccability and the pre-fall state of Adam in this thread shows that more basic study is needed than on the one issue of WCF vs LBCF covenant theology, unless it was simply a confusion of terminology. (The continued references to that question leads me to believe that it was not simply a confusion over terminology.) There is no disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians on that issue.

Were you ever connected with a Baptist church? If so, it would be a good idea to raise these questions with them as well. If you don't have any solid Baptist ministries with which you are personally acquainted, there are tons of resources you can get elsewhere, whether in book form or online. Randy, myself and others can help you in that regard if you like. The historic confessions are more statements of belief than they are apologetics or arguments for that belief.

 

[JP Wallace]

It is for this reason that I believe that the Baptist view of baptism severely weakens the ministerial testimony of God's Covenant to men that He intends by such means. Instead of letting Baptism become God's way of speaking to us by the ministry of the Church, it becomes the person speaking to God and guts the grace manifest in the Sacrament.

Rich sadly I believe your criticism is frequently correct, however it ought not to be, because so far as our definition of what baptism is there should be no fundamental disagreement between the PB and CB positions. You correctly hightlight that baptism is God speaking to us, but that is just what the Baptist Confession says in very similar terms to the WCF, thus while I think your criticiism of much baptist 'practice' is accurate, that point of criticism should not be if Reformed Baptists at least were holding to their confession, and practising baptism in accordance with their confession...I quote both confessions to prove my point,

This is WCF28:1

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

And for comparison BCF 29:1

1. Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death, 457and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him; of 458remission of sins; and of his 459giving up unto God through Jesus Christ to live and walk in newness of Life.

Now yes there are some changes, and I wouldn't want to ignore them, but with all the changes, the vital content is very similar...the nature of the sacrament is a sign to the party being baptized.....of the various listed things; union with Christ, remission of sins.....in other words the Baptist Confession defines baptism as being a sign of what God has done, and IS NOT defined as being a public profession of faith in Christ, though as you know it more often than not is practiced in that way.

My point is that chiefly for the Reformed and Confessional Baptist - baptism is about God speaking and is not about us speaking to God.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Paul,
There are still major differences, and they start with that first sentence the BCF omits. That's the place where we understand the "divine speech" begins, namely in objective statements, rather than in subjective ones. We both agree, it's true, that baptism is a sign, unto faith, of all the things mentioned. But the "administrative" stuff is just the pieces not present in the BCF. Since an unconverted man isn't actually baptized at the event (on the baptist-scheme), then literally no statement by God is being made on that occasion. But under our scheme, He is still speaking, objectively.

 

[steadfast7]

Were you ever connected with a Baptist church? If so, it would be a good idea to raise these questions with them as well. If you don't have any solid Baptist ministries with which you are personally acquainted, there are tons of resources you can get elsewhere, whether in book form or online. Randy, myself and others can help you in that regard if you like. The historic confessions are more statements of belief than they are apologetics or arguments for that belief.

Thanks for your advice and perspective, Chris. You've had quite a journey yourself. Myself, unfortunately, no, I haven't been a part of an RB church and side with them on the confession alone. My church experiences in the past have either been liberal Presbyterian, charismatic or non-denominational. It's now that I'm settling in India (hopefully long term) that I'm finally having the opportunity to worship with authentically Reformed Presbyterian brethren. In terms of culture and conscience, it's true that we should be captivated by scripture and conscience, but our culture is a powerful element in both our understanding of scripture and the operation of our conscience, and difficult to separate. I'm realizing more that baptism is a churchly sacrament, so it's valid to submit to the policies of the church, if I'm unable to come to a complete conclusion myself.

I'm also realizing how inadequate it is to say, "scripture is so clear," because there are plenty of very intelligent and godly thinkers who simply differ on this point, and it implies that the other is foolish - which I don't think is the way of love. I'd like to even move this thread in the direction of subjective reasons to believe in credo vs. paedobaptism. As I mentioned before, intellectual arguments are helpful, but subjective personal reasons are very compelling as well. I hear glimmers of it coming through at times, eg. paedo: a desire to consider one's baby a Christian, a member of the covenant; credo: a desire to mimic Jesus in his adult baptism. These are deep-rooted associations in our hearts that we want to be so and act as presuppositions which control our thinking as well.

would anyone admit to any subjective, or emotive reasons for their position?

 

[kceaster]

Now yes there are some changes, and I wouldn't want to ignore them, but with all the changes, the vital content is very similar...the nature of the sacrament is a sign to the party being baptized.....of the various listed things; union with Christ, remission of sins.....in other words the Baptist Confession defines baptism as being a sign of what God has done, and IS NOT defined as being a public profession of faith in Christ, though as you know it more often than not is practiced in that way.

So, the operative term you are using is, "what God has done." The Reformed understanding of baptism is that it MAY be a sign of what God has done, but more precisely, it is resting on the promise of what God says He will do. In the end, both the Baptistic and the Reformed will agree that it is all predicated on the promise. But the reality is the old paradigm of already/not yet as regards our salvation. We all look forward to our own salvation, fully and finally. We look in hope for each other. We look in hope for our children. Our hope is in the LORD; the only One who can save us.

However and whomever we baptize, it should be our solemn realization that this baptism is the signpost, not the destination. The destination, the celestial city, we may only reach if God is gracious. That is our hope of things not yet seen. And that is a hope we can have for the old and for the young. That is the hope of Abraham. That is the hope of the covenant of grace.

In Christ,

KC

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

credo: a desire to mimic Jesus in his adult baptism.

This is a misconception also. We desire to follow Christ and see the eschatological in baptism. Baptism is also our entrance into the Church. It is a sign of a present reality of our union with Christ. It isn't a desire to follow Christ in His adult baptism. I think His baptism in no way represents ours. His was done to fulfill righteousness. Ours is done to show our union with him because of his propitiating work.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Were you ever connected with a Baptist church? If so, it would be a good idea to raise these questions with them as well. If you don't have any solid Baptist ministries with which you are personally acquainted, there are tons of resources you can get elsewhere, whether in book form or online. Randy, myself and others can help you in that regard if you like. The historic confessions are more statements of belief than they are apologetics or arguments for that belief.

Thanks for your advice and perspective, Chris. You've had quite a journey yourself. Myself, unfortunately, no, I haven't been a part of an RB church and side with them on the confession alone. My church experiences in the past have either been liberal Presbyterian, charismatic or non-denominational. It's now that I'm settling in India (hopefully long term) that I'm finally having the opportunity to worship with authentically Reformed Presbyterian brethren. In terms of culture and conscience, it's true that we should be captivated by scripture and conscience, but our culture is a powerful element in both our understanding of scripture and the operation of our conscience, and difficult to separate. I'm realizing more that baptism is a churchly sacrament, so it's valid to submit to the policies of the church, if I'm unable to come to a complete conclusion myself.

I'm also realizing how inadequate it is to say, "scripture is so clear," because there are plenty of very intelligent and godly thinkers who simply differ on this point, and it implies that the other is foolish - which I don't think is the way of love. I'd like to even move this thread in the direction of subjective reasons to believe in credo vs. paedobaptism. As I mentioned before, intellectual arguments are helpful, but subjective personal reasons are very compelling as well. I hear glimmers of it coming through at times, eg. paedo: a desire to consider one's baby a Christian, a member of the covenant; credo: a desire to mimic Jesus in his adult baptism. These are deep-rooted associations in our hearts that we want to be so and act as presuppositions which control our thinking as well.

would anyone admit to any subjective, or emotive reasons for their position?

There might have been a point at which I had an emotional reason (with kids) to desire paedobaptism but the more I learn about the Scriptures, the more fear and trembling I have about the responsibilities they have to the things they've tasted and seen. I think it would be subjectively easier for me to think: "Nah! The threats of Hebrews don't apply to my kids because they're not Christians yet and under no real obligation...."

I don't agree that we should just conclude that the Scriptures are not clear because intelligent and decent men disagree. Some don't see clarity in the Trinity either. I don't know if you meant to write it the way you did but you placed the lack of clarity on the Scriptures (as if they could be taken either way) as opposed to the error of those who receive the Scriptures. I am willing to grant that sin disposes me to misinterpreting the Scriptures but I will not grant that the Scriptures do not present a clear, consistent picture. I believe giving in to the "good men disagree" is a capitulation to the idea that men have a right to misinterpret the Word of God. I have no such right.

This brings me to another fundamental disagreement about the Covenant and that is the nature of disciple. In the Biblical (read Reformed) sense, a disciple is one who is baptized and then taught to observe everything that Christ has commanded (Matt 28:18-20). In the Baptist schema, often disciple is viewed as one who has already been taught and has a mature understanding of all things and is so baptized. In the examples of baptisms of adults in Acts, nearly every example of adult baptism is one who is baptized immediately after hearing the most rudimentary things about Christ, receives it, and submits himself in baptism in order to be discipled. In fact, Simon is an example of one who submits himself to be baptized, is discipled for a season, and then shows evidences that he may not have ever been converted. There is no evidence that any Apostle or Evangelist was looking for sure evidence of regeneration in order to baptize - rather, the accent is upon the recipient being willing to submit oneself to the visible Kingdom of God. Profession, in one sense, is like a person swearing allegiance to a new King. Baptism is the ceremony by which one is made a member of the visible Kingdom. Instruction is the means by which the citizens grow in their understanding of what it means to be a citizen of the kingdom. Again, in the Baptist schema, many are looking for that mature and sure person that looks and acts like a full-fledged citizen and then they will receive citizenship. In some particular Baptist congregations of the past, people would be expected to wait years for sure evidence of fruits prior to baptism. This is what the understanding of the Covenant leads to that is discordant with the Scriptural picture.

Likewise, then, with children. Children are baptized not because they know everything and act in every way like a mature citizen of the visible Kingdom but in order to begin the period of instruction toward that end. Remarkably Paul and the other Apostles (and even Christ Himself) addresses children as those who are to be trained in and belong to the Kingdom of God but presuppositions present a huge blindspot for many that the light of nature makes plain even if Scripture weren't itself so plain. Does anybody really think that any child who is raised in a Christian home will ever escape the condemnation of "shrinking back" from the heavenly gifts they taste of week in and week out as they hear the Word of God preached and the Word calls them to faith and repentance. They are baptized because it is recognized that they are on the interior of the Kingdom. The King expects those inside the walls of His Kingdom to heed His commands. Now the Gospel is surely sweet in that it grants what it commands. It regenerates according to the King's sovereign pleasure. Yet, for those that willingly rebel and shrink back and trample underfoot the Son of God that they've heard proclaimed so sweetly, how can they escape the consuming fire of God's wrath? This is true of child or adult. Christ has given us baptism, in part, to mark out those from the world who belong to the visible Kingdom of God. He does wonderful things through His Word for His citizens but He also threatens, in no uncertain terms, those who shrink back.

And so, I ask you: Would you want to think of your beloved children as under the wrath of God should they shrink back? I soberly consider what responsibility is upon my children given the privilege of being born into a Christian household. I pray with them every night that God would cause them to repent of their sins and convert them to the Gospel. It's according to God's sovereign pleasure so to do but it is yet their responsibility before His face to hear His voice and not shrink back. It is my responsibility, before God, to train them in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

 

[Scott1]

that unity, solidarity and membership are just as important to me here as personal conviction is to those in the west - but this is a cultural thing.

Not trying to change your position by this point, and would underscore Contra Mundum, not to make large changes in theology lightly, but consider this basic tenet of reformed theology:

The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

This is not "cultural" nor "Western," it is biblical.

A corollary to that might be, "True unity of the church cannot be grounded on superficial compromise or avoidance of major doctrinal difference because the church confesses what the Scriptures say."

This is why reformed churches are confessional, as well, another basic tenet of reformed theology.

Add to that the doctrine of perspicuity- the whole of Scripture speaks clearly one coherent message, that is intended, even commanded, to be understood by all God's creatures.

When we're speaking of whether infants and children are in the covenant, it's major doctrine.

One can, and must, love and recognize believers with wrong doctrine, but at the same time, not join in confessing substantial misrepresentation of God's will (doctrine) in this world.

We learn to subsume "preferences" for the love of the Body, learn by God's grace to love people we would not otherwise love, maybe even subsume minor doctrinal differences- and that is necessary for unity, but not "principles."

The churches confession is the substantial statement of those "principles."

 

[steadfast7]

I don't agree that we should just conclude that the Scriptures are not clear because intelligent and decent men disagree. Some don't see clarity in the Trinity either. I don't know if you meant to write it the way you did but you placed the lack of clarity on the Scriptures (as if they could be taken either way) as opposed to the error of those who receive the Scriptures. I am willing to grant that sin disposes me to misinterpreting the Scriptures but I will not grant that the Scriptures do not present a clear, consistent picture.

You're right. It is the noetic effects of sin, without a doubt, that create unclarity and misinterpretation. But we also need to recognize that the most sanctified of our forebears and teachers will disagree vehemently with one another. This is not to cast doubt on the clarity of scripture, but my hope is that we can expose the deep subjective presuppositions and recognize how powerful they are in forming our beliefs. In re-reading Calvin on infant baptism, I can't help but notice his pastoral heart coming through and his concern that anabaptism was causing such strife and division in the church and the reformation movement. While not his main reason for opposing anabaptism, I'm sure it was influential.

There is no evidence that any Apostle or Evangelist was looking for sure evidence of regeneration in order to baptize - rather, the accent is upon the recipient being willing to submit oneself to the visible Kingdom of God. Profession, in one sense, is like a person swearing allegiance to a new King.

I think this ends up looking about the same in both baptist and presbyterian approaches. The baptist is looking for allegiance and willingness to submit to the church; likewise, the Presbyterian is looking for some credible signs (not necessarily sure signs) of authentic faith. As Calvin says, "

We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. Inst. 4.23.

The unity of the church must be grounded in doctrinal agreement.

This is not "cultural" nor "Western," it is biblical.

I agree with you Scott. I was actually commenting on my personal cultural situation, ethnically Korean and serving in India. You can immediately recognize the Eastern collectivist culture that is inevitable. While changing or retaining one's position on account of personal conviction is seen as noble in Western culture, here in the east, community solidarity and living for the larger whole is more preferred. Thus, for that reason alone, an eastern Christian might justifiably change their position.

Baptism is also our entrance into the Church. It is a sign of a present reality of our union with Christ. It isn't a desire to follow Christ in His adult baptism. I think His baptism in no way represents ours. His was done to fulfill righteousness. Ours is done to show our union with him because of his propitiating work.

Amen brother. I still see it like this...

 

[JP Wallace]

So, the operative term you are using is, "what God has done." The Reformed understanding of baptism is that it MAY be a sign of what God has done, but more precisely, it is resting on the promise of what God says He will do.

Kevin I'm not sure if you think I'm in disagreement with your point or not (I think I agree) but just for clarity when I speak of what God has done, I am speaking from the perspective of a true believer, and the confession does speak in terms of present possession , it is a 'sign [and or seal!] of his engrafting into Christ etc....

Of course as I stated in my very first post on this thread God's promise is indeed the crux of covenant theology (of any sort )

'Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]'

---------- Post added at 05:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:46 PM ----------

And I also agree with Puritan Covenanter on the connection (or lack thereof) with Jesus' baptism.

 

[steadfast7]

Just for clarification, I wasn't arguing that Baptists would be correct in mimicking Jesus' adult baptism or thinking that they could mimic it; only that it may be one of those emotive subjective desires that a baptist secretly has in choosing adult baptism over paedo.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

There is no evidence that any Apostle or Evangelist was looking for sure evidence of regeneration in order to baptize - rather, the accent is upon the recipient being willing to submit oneself to the visible Kingdom of God. Profession, in one sense, is like a person swearing allegiance to a new King.

I think this ends up looking about the same in both baptist and presbyterian approaches. The baptist is looking for allegiance and willingness to submit to the church; likewise, the Presbyterian is looking for some credible signs (not necessarily sure signs) of authentic faith. As Calvin says, "

We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptised unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. Inst. 4.23.

Here is the full quote from Calvin:

23. They now come down to the custom and practice of the apostolic age, alleging that there is no instance of any one having been admitted to baptism without a previous profession of faith and repentance. For when Peter is asked by his hearers, who were pricked in their heart, “What shall we do?” his advice is, “Repent, and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins,” (Acts 2:37, 38.) In like manner, when Philip was asked by the eunuch to baptize him, he answered, “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest.” Hence they think they can make out that baptism cannot be lawfully given to any one without previous faith and repentance. If we yield to this argument, the former passage, in which there is no mention of faith, will prove that repentance alone is sufficient, and the latter, which makes no requirement of repentance, that there is need only of faith. They will object, I presume, that the one passage helps the other, and that both, therefore, are to be connected. I, in my turn, maintain that these two must be compared with other passages which contribute somewhat to the solution of this difficulty. There are many passages of Scripture whose meaning depends on their peculiar position. Of this we have an example in the present instance. Those to whom these things are said by Peter and Philip are of an age fit to aim at repentance, and receive faith. We strenuously insist that such men are not to be baptized unless their conversion and faith are discerned, at least in as far as human judgment can ascertain it. But it is perfectly clear that infants must be placed in a different class. For when any one formerly joined the religious communion of Israel, he behoved to be taught the covenant, and instructed in the law of the Lord, before he received circumcision, because he was of a different nation; in other words, an alien from the people of Israel, with whom the covenant, which circumcision sanctioned, had been made.

Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (2010). Vol. 3: Institutes of the Christian religion (372–373). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.

The actual location is Book IV, Chapter 16, Section 23.

Notice that Calvin notes the same thing I did by the analogy of the person switching allegiances. The child, being a member of the Kingdom by birth, does not switch visible allegiance because he is born into the visible Kingdom (whether or not he is truly in Christ).

The distinction I would make is whether or not the party baptized, in the Baptist schema, is really made a member of the visible Kingdom of God. There is a reason why re-baptism is not considered "re-baptism" in the Baptist schema and that is the reasons I enumerated before. It is not enough for the Baptist to see Baptism once administered upon a person's initial profession of repentance and faith to be sufficient. Why? Because the individual may decide or discover later that his repentance and faith was not genuine.

Thus, baptism is not seen as a sufficient visible sign to mark one out in the visible Kingdom of God to mark one out as a disciple who is then trained in the more mature things of God. Rather, if the fruits of conversion are not yet mature enough and the person is seen to have "fallen away" and comes back his initial baptism into discipleship may be seen as no baptism at all and the individual never really had a status as a disciple. Disciple, in a real sense, is tied to the ideal nature of the NC for the Baptist where the only One who truly knows whether a man is a disciple or not is the Lord Himself.

The Biblically Reformed view sees baptism as the beginning of discipleship and there is but one baptism because the person is marked out from the world by an objective ministerial declaration commissioned by God. Whether the man (or child) is elect or not does not change the objective fact that he has been separated from the world with all the external privileges and responsibilities that it entails. If the person is removed visibly from that Kingdom by discipline then the person is seen by the Church to be outside the Kingdom of God but, should he return and repent, it is not seen as if he was never a disciple but, rather, a citizen (or wandering sheep if you like) that has been restored.

 

[Scott1]

While changing or retaining one's position on account of personal conviction is seen as noble in Western culture, here in the east, community solidarity and living for the larger whole is more preferred. Thus, for that reason alone, an eastern Christian might justifiably change their position.

I understand what you are saying.

We might add, though, it is very difficult, and there are consequences to holding an opinion to "do the right" in "Western" culture. Sometimes, big consequences and big pressure is applied. Doing the right thing can be lonely and humiliating.

It is however, a necessary biblical, Christlike attribute- mortification of the flesh, a willingness to suffer.

Our Lord certainly did, and it was His example.

Subsuming truth to the collective opinion of man, at a given point of time, is, as a principle, idolatry, and must be confronted as such, trusting God, and leaving the results to Him.

This is perhaps one, only one though, way in which God changes people, and culture, for His Honor and His Glory.

 

[steadfast7]

Rich, what's the definition of "objective"? What about in the case of excommunication from the church? Is it not the case that that person has been removed from the visible kingdom? If I'm not wrong, Presbyterians believe that it is not one's baptism per se that marks him out as belonging to the covenant community, but his continued membership in the local church and the common confession of faith. That covenant status, by implication, is only objective at the time that the conditions are being met. However, it can be rendered undone through unfaithfulness within one's lifetime, as was the case with circumcision.

I would also ask of the scriptures, whether it sees baptism in this 'ideal' sense. In most cases that I can think of, the mention of baptism is coupled inseparably from their status as united with Christ and saved. One can cite Simon the sorcerer who was baptized but doubtfully converted, (although he might have been, we don't know). One thing is for certain, he was immature and was disciplined. If unconverted, Scripture would say of Simon, "they went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us. But they went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us." (1 Jn 2:19). This sounds a lot like what you think Baptists would say. But interestingly, in Simon's case, it is still affirmed by Luke that "Simon himself believed and was baptized" (Ac 8:13). Thus his baptism was still justifiable because he believed.

I'm not sure how baptists treat a backslider or one who is excommunicated, who comes back , but I imagine it's similar to how a Presbyterian church would treat him. A second baptism is not necessary.

 

[Scott1]

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter XXVIII
Of Baptism

I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ,[1] not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church;[2] but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,[3] of his ingrafting into Christ,[4] of regeneration,[5] of remission of sins,[6] and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in the newness of life.[7] Which sacrament is, by Christ's own appointment, to be continued in His Church until the end of the world.[8]

....

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,[11] but also the infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized.[12]

V. Although it is a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance,[13] yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it, as that no person can be regenerated, or saved, without it:[14] or, that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.[15]

VI. The efficacy of Baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered;[16] yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited, and conferred, by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongs unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time.[17]

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered unto any person.[18]

.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Rich, what's the definition of "objective"?

Jumpin' in...

"Objective" here means "not subjective," that is, baptism-in-fact not based on the truth/factuality of a personal-subjective state of affairs, but on objective and public criteria.

Baptism, as we we it, is first of all a gospel-witness to the objective/historic facts of the Christian faith, and their official interpretation by God through his Apostles.

Second, it is a gospel-declaration: that objectively/factually, whosoever believes in Christ-so-witnessed will certainly be saved.

Thirdly, it is an individually directed instance of the same objective declaration concerning the person present or presented for baptism. It is a call to one named individual, a personalized sermon, to believe (yes, even to the infant--the gospel call to faith never "starts" to be relevant sometime later in his life, even as it never "ceases" to be relevant to the day of his death).

Fourthly, it is a subjective testament--not just on the day of the event, but lifelong--from the person baptized, that he believes in what baptism seals and signifies. If he tells you "I'm baptized," you want to ask him what he means by that. Objectively, it might be fairly easy to observe a record of the fact, a document, witnesses. Subjectively, its his assertion, his claim--to belong to the church, to belong to Christ, to eternal life.

Its that last element, the subjective, that is "falsifiable." None of the other statements is false. The facts of Christ's work are not in doubt (related in the Bible, therefore God's self-witness). The fact that the gospel is declared is part-and-parcel of a baptism (the church's witness). The fact that a certain individual was baptized is historical record (individual witness). These are public, objective witnesses tied to baptism.

The subjective statement: "I believe in that which baptism signifies and seals," cannot be verified. It may be true, but it cannot be infallibly evaluated by men. Therefore, at best it is an ancillary support or basis for baptism. Depending on the person, profession may be a necessary, objective criteria met, in order for baptism, but it is utterly inadequate as the basis, or even as a substantial element of the basis for baptism.

Salvation as a whole is completely outside of us, it is God work, and totally objective.
I am a participant in that salvation by faith, but my subjective involvement forms NO basis of my salvation.
The same is true of my "witness" to my personal salvation in baptism.
What I say about it has no connection to its foundation.​

______________________________

Reference Simon the Sorcerer: Scripture also tells us that post-baptism, he is "in the gall of bitterness." Peter therein witnesses to Simon's unconverted state. The simple statement in Scripture, "he {or they, etc.} believed," alone tells us nothing of the value of any expression of faith. False faith as well as true is so represented--just look at the Gospels as they record the multitudes who "believed" on Jesus, but who rejected him. Simon's baptism was valid regardless, to a Presbyterian, because he met the criteria of a person in his condition for reception of the rite, and it was done in a church-orderly way.

If Simon was unconverted, then a Baptist does not acknowledge his baptism as valid to begin with. Furthermore, how does one distinguish between "backsliding" and non-conversion to begin with? Ultimately, whose decision is it to put a man back under-water? Is it the officers of the church? Or must they pretty much take the returning man's subjective evaluation of his own former profession as their best guide? If he says he believes he was "wishfully" converted before, but not really, how can the church argue with him? The church is forced into re-baptizing, even if they simply invalidate the first, and call the new baptism the "first."

In this scheme, the question of whether or not he was baptized is not principally a "church-answered" question, but a subjectively, personally and individually answered question. Baptism isn't half as "passive" an event (happening TO a man) in the Baptist-order; it is "active" on the part of the subject, because the truth or falsity of his own faith forms part of the basis for validating the event. His activity "counts" for rendering it real.