Passing Through the Waters of Baptism into Church Community
Reformed Covenantal Baptism compared to Reformed Believers-Only Baptism
Introduction
For many, attending Waypoint Church is the first time they’ve encountered a church that holds to a Reformed Covenantal (Presbyterian) view on baptism, which makes sense because many come from biblically conservative Baptist or Non-Denominational churches that believe in “believers-only” baptism. In fact, about 35% of Christians in the US hold this position, but only 5% of churches in the US hold to a reformed covenantal view.
When you first see us perform an infant baptism, you might be tempted to lump us in with other denominations that practice infant baptism (Catholics, Orthodox, Lutherans, etc.) However, most of those other denominations believe in some type of “baptismal regeneration.” (55% of Christians Americans) They believe something happens to the person being baptized; some type of cleansing, washing away of sins, etc. However, reformed covenantal Presbyterians do not believe in baptismal regeneration. We agree with these denominations on the timing of baptism but not the meaning. This has led to some confusion. When “believer’s only” hear that we baptize infants, they might conclude that we believe in baptismal regeneration, which is not the case.
More we agree on than we disagree on
There is a lot of agreement between the Baptist’s believers-only and the Presbyterian’s reformed covenantal views on baptism. Both of us believe baptism does not save us, regenerate us, or remove our sin. We believe it’s only faith in Christ that does that. We believe baptism is the outward sign of that inward reality. We both believe it signifies our union with Christ in His death and resurrection, righteousness received from Him, heart transformation, and being saved from the waters of judgment. On the main points and our understanding of the gospel, we agree. This means, at our church, we choose not to divide over the issue of the timing of baptism. At our church we have both parents who choose to baptize their children and those who choose to wait to have their children decide to be baptized.
However, I do encourage people to understand our churches official position more clearly. In fact, the rest of this article is intended for people to come to a more clearly understand of the issues being debated. This visual should help clarify the points of agreement and disagreement:
Continuity or Discontinuity with the Old Testament?
You might be asking, “If reformed covenantal Presbyterians believe so much in common with me, why would they baptize a child that does not yet have personal faith?” Ultimately, it comes down to a question of continuity or discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments. What I mean by “continuity” is: Does a pattern in the Old Testament carry over to the New Testament or not?
We see a connection between Old Testament circumcision and New Testament baptism. Circumcision was, just like baptism, a sign of personal faith. Romans 4 clearly shows us Abraham was saved by faith, and the mark of his personal faith was circumcision. Moses, in Deuteronomy 10:12-17, says that the outward act of circumcision didn’t result in salvation until someone experienced internal renewal, i.e. “circumcision of the heart.” Yet, even though it was a sign of personal faith, it was given to new converts (Exodus 12:48) and to their not-yet-believing children (Genesis 17:10, Leviticus 12:3).
You might be wondering, “Why would God command that? Why would He command unbelieving children to be circumcised if it was a sign of personal faith and inward renewal?” Well, first, we need to understand what circumcision signifies.
Circumcision was all about a covenant (an agreement between two parties). God made a covenant promise to the nation of Israel (Gen 17:7): For those who express personal faith in him, he will be faithful to save them (Hebrew 11 demonstrates that God has always saved people through faith) Circumcision was a sign of this promise. So, every time a child was circumcised, it was a public declaration that said, “you are part of God’s set apart promise community, and so, if you inwardly circumcise your hearts (express faith in God), He will be faithful to save you.”
Believers-only Baptists believe that baptism signifies what an individual person has done (they have professed faith), whereas we believe baptism signs and seals (shows & guarantees) what God has promised he’ll do (that if you express faith, he will be faithful to save). Circumcision was not a sign of what an individual person had done (not a sign of heart circumcision), it was a sign and seal that if you have faith, he will be faithful to save.
When we get to the New Testament we read that baptism has become the new sign of the same covenant promise (Col 2:11-12: “In him also you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through faith in the powerful working of God, who raised him from the dead.”). But we don’t see a verse say “The people who are to be baptized has changed. We used to include children, but now, with baptism, it should be believers only who are baptized.” So, I ask, “in the absence of a verse directly stating a change has been made, should we assume continuity or discontinuity with the Old Testament practice?
The argument for including children in simple: Circumcision was a sign of salvation by faith and believers and their children were circumcised. Baptism is a sign of salvation by faith and believers and their children should be baptized.
Who is “in” and who is “out” of the New Testament Church?
Both believers-only Baptists and reformed covenantal Presbyterians agree that baptism is the initiation rite that marks your entrance and public identification with the church; we just have a different understanding of who is “in” and who is “out” of the church community.
Reformed covenantal Presbyterians believe baptism marks the entrance into participation in the church (you’re visibly and publicly aligned with the church) but don’t believe it means you are necessarily part of those who have publicly expressed faith in Christ (sometimes referred to as the “invisible” church, since you can’t physically see who has personal faith). Believers-only churches differ in that they believe the visible church should only be those who have given a profession of faith and are, in their best judgment, truly inwardly converted.
So why would reformed covenantal Presbyterians believe that. Why would we believe there is a visible church (made of those participating in the church community) and an invisible church (made of those truly saved)?
First, we see that pattern in the Old Testament. The nation of Israel was circumcised to mark their public participation in God’s community (visible church) but not everyone in Israel has personal faith (invisible church). But also, we see many verses in the New Testament that seem to indicate a distinction between these two groups within the church community.
Hebrews 10:26-30 describes a person in the visible church who has received the knowledge of the truth and has been “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” (sanctified = set apart, i.e. they were “in” the covenant)... Yet, they go on to deliberately sin, setting aside the law of Moses, will die without mercy, and have “profaned the blood of the covenant.” If everyone “in” the covenant community was saved, then the person described in Hebrews 10 would not exist. But the author of Hebrews describes someone who was truly in the visible church (not “appeared” to be in the church, but was actually a part of the visible covenant community) but proves themselves not to be part of the invisible church.
Jesus also has a category for someone who is “in” Him but is ultimately not saved. In John 15:1-6, He describes a person who is in Him, in the vine, but who doesn’t go on to bear fruit and does not abide in Him. Someone who has to be removed and burned. Scripture clearly has a category of someone who is part of God’s visible community but who is eventually revealed to not be someone who was personally saved, just as it was in Israel.
1 Corinthians 7:12-16 would not make sense if we didn’t have a category for a person in the visible church who may not be personally saved. It says that if one parent of a family comes to Christ, it makes the children clean and holy. We know elsewhere from scripture that the faith of someone else can’t save us, so the faith of the parent doesn’t save the children, yet scripture says they are made holy and set apart. They are holy and set apart because they become part of the visible covenant community, not saved but publicly participating in the church because they have a parent who is publicly participating in the church.
Both Ephesians 6 and Colossians 3 command children, all children regardless of faith, to “obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. ‘Honor your father and mother,’ which is the first commandment with a promise ‘that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth’ ...for this pleases the Lord.” Paul does not say, “Children who have professed faith are required to obey parents ‘in the Lord’ to ‘please the Lord.’” This implies children are part of the visible covenant community and, as members of this visible community, are “in the Lord” even though they have not yet been saved.
Some people appeal to the above texts to show that a person can lose their salvation. They would argue that the person “in” the church community was saved, but at some point lost their personal faith and “fell out” of the church. But a reformed believers-only Baptist and a reformed covenant Presbyterian both believe you cannot lose your salvation (John 10: believers can’t be snatched from Christ, Romans 8: nothing can separate us from the love of God, Philippians 1: He will complete the work he began in us). So the question remains, who is this person who was in the visible church, in the Lord, who tasted grace, and yet left and proved they were never part of the believing, invisible church? We believe the New Testament describes the children of believers who are in God’s visible covenant community.
Believers-only churches often feel this tension. They don’t want to fully say their children are “out” of the church. So they will perform baby dedications to declare, “this child is being raised in the church, they’re participating in the church, their parents are declaring the gospel promise to them.” They have a desire to “mark” this child as set apart and desire to hold out the gospel promise to them. That is what Presbyterians do. We mark them with God’s promise, we declare “you are in the covenant community, you will hear the gospel, and God has promised if you have faith, he will be faithful to save you.”
Presbyterians are “believers Baptists” they just aren’t “believers only Baptists.” We also baptized new believers who come into the church, just as a believers only church would do. For us, baptism marks the entrance into the visible church, and communion marks the entrance into personal faith and communion with God. Some are converted, are baptized, and partake in communion all at the same time. Some are baptized in the visible church, come to faith later in life, then publicly profess their faith and begin taking communion (We have two categories of members: communing and non-communing members; members who have been converted and who take communion; and members who have not been converted and don’t yet take communion.)
Conclusion
So, we see the connection between circumcision and baptism. And because the New Testament assumes a visible and invisible church, and doesn’t say we shouldn’t include children in the visible church, we continue to mark them with the covenant sign, and pray that one day they will fulfill their part of the promise, that they will have faith and in that moment we are certain the promise given to them in Baptism would come true, that God would be faithful to save them.
When you examine what the scriptures have to say about baptism, you learn that the main emphasis is that we should 1. Do baptisms; 2. Use water when we do it; and 3. Do it in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Both believers-only Baptists and reformed covenant Presbyterians agree on these main points, and they agree that baptism does not save and that only personal faith in Christ saves. We simply have a minor disagreement on the timing of baptism. In the absence of a verse that directly clarifies our disagreement, our church chooses not to divide over the issue of baptism.
God calls His church to unity. Unity is not the same as uniformity, unity implies that people have differences but still get along with one another. We desire to have a church that agrees and aligns on central gospel issues but allows for some differences on secondary issues. Reformed covenantal baptism is the official position of our church, but we don’t require that someone believe in infant baptism to join the church, and don’t require anyone to baptize their children. Despite having a difference on a secondary issue, we believe we can still be in fellowship with one another.
Want to learn more?
Here are some additional resources on the topic:
For an overview on the doctrine of Infant Baptism you can read this article written by Elder Bruce Harrington and Pastor Steve.
If you’re interested in reading from the perspective of someone who changed their mind to accept infant baptism, you may find this article helpful.
This short booklet is also a helpful resource.
