It seems to me that they both confuse the decree of election with the outward administration of the covenant of grace.
Reformed Baptists argue that only the elect have a right to membership in the covenant, speaking as they often do of their commitment to a “truly converted church membership”. Federal Visionists on the other hand want to say that all who have a right to membership in the covenant are elect, speaking of election in the case of unrepentant covenant members in a conditional, corporate sense. By my light, the former group narrows the covenant administration excessively, while the second group, broadens the definition of election unnecessarily.
Both seem to me to neglect the distinction between the outward and inward administration of the covenant. It is possible to be a covenant member by baptism and not possess the spiritual realities that baptism signifies and seals to us. It is possible to be a covenant member of the visible Church and still be a stranger to the inner reality such membership offers to us, namely, union with Christ by His Spirit.
One may be a covenant member and reprobate; a member of the visible church by baptism but not yet a member of Christ by His Spirit. There is an outward and an inward mode of participation in the covenant. The outward and the inward relate to one another through the means of grace. Thus the grace signified in baptism, for example, is “not only offered but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such, (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.” (WCF 28.6)
So much of this discussion relates to the case of the unrepentant covenant member. The baptist has to say they were never truly covenant members at all, hence, should they repent, they are rebaptized. They make covenant membership, and therefore also the covenant sign of baptism, subjective and conditional on the state of the individual’s heart. If the individual was unrepentant or insincere when they were baptized that renders their baptism invalid. It is a subjective thing entirely.
Typical of this view is 19th century Calvinistic Southern Baptist, Professor P. H. Mell. He wrote, “It is the Savior’s will of precept that the constituents of His churches shall be regenerated persons. He authorizes none to receive the ordinance of Baptism, and to have a lot among His visible people, but those who believe with the heart that he is the Son of God.” (P. H. Mell, Corrective Church Discipline, 1860, Mark Dever ed. Nine Marks Ministries, 2001, p.422) Notice the correlation between regenerate membership and baptism. If a baptized person defects from the faith and later repents he is re-baptized, since his former baptism is rendered invalid by his unbelief.
It may be that I am misunderstanding things here. I’ll be glad of any correction I may receive. But the Federal Visionist, unlike the Reformed Baptist, doesn’t make the sacraments subjective. Objectivity is a key concept for him. Instead the FVist inverts the Reformed Baptist error. He holds to sacramental objectivity, and inserts subjectivity at the level of election instead. Surely he has to say that “in some sense” the unrepentant covenant member’s election (and justification, and union with Christ, etc), while really conferred on them in baptism, was nevertheless conditional, fallible, and is therefore now forfeit.
The classic Reformed position, as far as I can tell, however, argues that when the means of grace, through which the covenant is outwardly administered, are received in faith, the recipient enjoys, not only the outward administration, but the inner heart and substance of the covenant itself, namely union and communion with Christ. When they are not received believingly they are not rendered empty signs, but the curses of the covenant are signified and sealed by them to every covenant member who refuse to embrace Christ as he is offered to them.
The sacraments are not destroyed by the inner condition of the one receiving them at the time of their administration, but neither is the grace signified bound to the moment of administration. It is offered and communicated to believers throughout their lives in various ways and in differing degrees as God ordains best for their good and His glory. That’s why the Reformed do not re-baptize people baptized in infancy when they profess their faith. The grace signified and sealed to them has been and is being communicated to them by the Spirit. That’s the way its supposed to work.
November 11th, 2010 at 18:00
Dear Brother David,
I did not see any scripture to substantiate anything you said.
November 12th, 2010 at 06:25
Frank,
Thanks for stopping by. You did not see any scripture because there wasn’t any! I wasn’t attempting to build a scriptural case for my assertions so much as to remark on two movements (Federal Vision and Reformed Baptists) that relate in a similar fashion to historic reformed theology. That theological system has a body of recognized scriptural and theological argumentation and has been confessed in the form I outlined for a long time by the Reformed Churches. My point was not to build a constructive and comprehensive case for the reformed view de novo, which as you point out, would require a great deal of scriptural evidence, but to point out the similarities of these two movements and the common misunderstandings of the nature of the covenant of grace as articulated by the Reformed church made by both.
Now it is another thing entirely to argue that the Reformed Churches got it wrong and that the Federal Vision or Reformed Baptist view points represent a more scriptural position. That would be, at least, an honest approach in my view. It would concede that actually, at this point, the Federal Vision and the Reformed Baptist have no serious claim to the title, ‘Reformed’ at all, but stand outside that tradition of exegesis and confessional theology with an alternative set of claims and conclusions. My argument simply has to do with the confessional theology and history of the reformed faith.
November 14th, 2010 at 13:45
Just requesting follow up comments.
November 14th, 2010 at 13:47
Dear Brother,
Thanks for your clarification.
November 19th, 2010 at 17:19
Dave, welcome back to blogworld.
I can’t say much about Fed Vision… but i think you must have met some pretty well tuned Reformed Baptists. The best of them are pretty on the ball, and a recent book on the subject, called Believers Baptist I think, is a fairly heavy duty work that counters most of what you write. It covers all the ground, theological, biblical, covenants, and so on.
As far as I understand the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, baptism is on profession of faith and repentance. There is no necessary presumption of regeneration. So the whole thing about a “pure church” is not necessarily the Reformed Confessional Baptist position. In fact, a quick look at the chapter on the church in the Baptist Confession appears to suggest that 17thC Reformed or Particular Baptists had a view of the visible church very similar to Presbyterians and other infant baptists. (Looks to me like the 18thC revivals and awakenings have made a mess of all our theologies!)
Added to this, there is also a different movement among Baptists in general towards sacramentalism. So I reckon that the best Baptists you are likely to meet would repudiate the same things you do in your post. They’d certainly be unhappy with re-baptisms… the record I’ve heard is an adult who has been baptised three times on profession -that’s just madness(!), making a mockery of any kind of doctrine of the church.
Funny, the best argument I’ve read about believers baptism is found in a chapter by Sinclair Ferguson, in Baptism: Three Views (IVP). In one sentence he writes that “Circumcision was not a sign of Abraham’s faith response, but of the (covenant) righteousness which he received through faith.” He then goes on to write of an “objective reality”, citing Gen 17.11.
Now, granted, the argument runs that the offspring of Abraham received the same sign, and so it should continue in the New Testament w.r.t baptism. But that sentence, and the disastrous phrase “objective reality” did make me think about the “faith” problem w.r.t. baptism. In the New Testament, (profession of) faith is the only warrant we have for judging that grace and righteousness rest on an individual. So, if we are looking for the “objective reality” of grace, why baptise anyone without knowing they are people of faith? Otherwise, we are ex opere operato, and headed down a Federal Vision line or a Roman Catholic line, which is not for the best.
March 18th, 2011 at 08:17
[...] Strain at Letters from Mississippi makes some interesting observations about what Reformed Baptists and Federal Visionaries have in [...]
March 23rd, 2011 at 06:58
As for the inward and the outward covenant, I’ve always found Thomas Shepard’s article on church membership of children very helpful. It is essentially your view (though Shepard was a congregationalist).
July 21st, 2011 at 05:19
David,
Your view seems to be the one espoused long ago by Thomas Shepard. I read about this in an article about children and church membership which Iain Murray had published in a larger book years ago (forgot the title). Also, it seems to be the view of Joel Beeke.
The outward and inward covenant is one that Baptists of reformed (small r) persuasion can’t get hold of.