In this episode of A Reasonable Response, Robert Bosley reflects on the long-standing theological differences between Baptists and Presbyterians—particularly regarding the nature of the New Covenant and whether covenant signs should be applied to children.

 

Rather than stirring division, Bosley highlights the shared faith both traditions hold in Christ and encourages a spirit of humility, charity, and biblical fidelity in the conversation. This is not a battle to draw lines outside the kingdom—but a call to sharpen one another as brothers and sisters in an in-house theological family debate.

 

If you're navigating covenant theology or seeking to understand these distinctions more clearly, this episode is a model of conviction with grace.

Elect of God, holy and beloved. It's real pretty. And I will use it for students. I was like, do you sing, you know, when you're singing, can you really sing that? Elect of God, holy and beloved, but maybe not you, not sure yet.

We'll find out. Welcome to A Reasonable Response. I'm Robert Bosley, and I'm not singing. The purpose of this podcast is to give a reasoned response to issues related to the Christian faith from a Reformed Baptist perspective. Each episode contains what we call the breakdown, where I respond to a video related to the topic at hand, which today is our disagreements as Baptists with our Presbyterian brothers.

But before we get into that, let's talk a little bit about some church history. So often, the modern church today is disconnected from church history, as if we're the first Christians to deal with any of these issues, when in fact Christ has been building his church for 2, 000 years. Understanding this history can help us to understand where we are at in these debates even today. And so for this episode, we're going to take a brief look at a couple of the historic Reformed confessions of faith. In the 1640s, the Westminster Assembly was called to reform and restructure the Church of England.

Out of that meeting came the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1646, and this systematized a Pato-Baptist and Covenanthal view of Reformed theology that is still used by Presbyterians today, though the American version is slightly revised. This confession was adopted and revised by the Congregationalists in 1658 in the Savoy Declaration, and borrows significantly from the Westminster language, and is still in use today as well. Then in 1677, the Reformed Baptists in London took these two confessions, the Westminster and the Savoy, and further adjusted and refined them and published what has become known as the Second London Confession of faith. We are often used to hearing the Second London Confession referred to as the 1689, but it was first published in 1677, but it was published then anonymously as Baptists were not allowed to have religious freedom at the time. After religious toleration was extended to the Baptist, this confession was reissued in 1688 and then formally adopted and endorsed in 1689 and thus is called the Second London Confession of 1689.

These two confessions of faith, the 1646 Westminster and the 1689 Second London Confession of Faith, have significant overlap, and that was intentional on the part of the Baptists. They wanted to show how much they had in common with their Pato Baptist brothers while still clearly articulating their areas of disagreement. And the reasons that these men wrote these confessions still exist today. They wrote these confessions to clearly articulate what they believe, to answer their critics, and to give a clear presentation of how they interpret the scriptures. These issues still face us today, and so these confessions are very helpful even for the churches that exist 300 plus years later.

Now on to the breakdown. Today, we're looking at a video from the Right Stuff podcast titled, What Baptists Don't Understand About Presbyterians, featuring Jared Longshore. What I'm wanting to do today is to bring a little bit of clarity to the Baptist's position and interact with his comments in the video. So with that, on to clip one. Yeah, well, I do think the biggest thing is going to be, why are you baptizing babies?

That's the question. And that's going to be based on the covenant promises of God. So the first thing, when it comes to the necessity of the new birth, And when it comes to justification, God has declared this one to be righteous in his sight once and for all. Or when it comes to any of those cardinal Reformation doctrines, any of the solas, There's immense unity. So if I'm talking to a Baptist that's aware of that, that's kind of thinking like I'm a Baptist in the reformed tradition, in the Calvinistic reformed tradition.

Obviously the Calvinism thing runs all the way through, Calvin, baptized infants. Sovereignty of God, big God theology, sola fide, all of that kind of stuff. That's where all of your commonalities are going to be. The difference really is going to be on the covenant, Like on what, when God swears an oath to his people, does he include the kiddos? At the end of the day, we actually agree, you baptize members of the New Covenant.

But as Baptists, we believe the new covenant is made solely with the elect, and so to be a part of the new covenant is to be elect, whereas the Presbyterians have a category of covenant members who are not elect necessarily and not necessarily regenerated. And so that is really our fundamental difference when we then look at the topic of baptism. So we talked a little bit about the visible church last time. And can you tell me again, the visible church for maybe the separatist movement, it's everybody that they could conceive of that's alive at that time, not just within the four walls, but it's, is that right? For the separatist movement, for the, So for the, the Baptist basically don't acknowledge a visible church, which is pretty interesting.

Now I imagine there will be Baptists in the comments that say, I believe in the visible church. So that's fine. I'm not trying to say whatever individual Baptist, I'm saying... As a generality. I'm saying if you look at the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, they modify the language on visible church, which is in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and they change it to visible saints.

I would be one of the guys in the comments saying, no, we do believe in a visible church. Yes, the Second London Confession changed the wording. The confession, chapter 26, paragraph two says, all persons throughout the world professing the faith of the gospel and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors averting the foundation or unholiness of conversation are and may be called visible saints and of such all particular congregations to be constituted." So he's right that the Baptist did remove the specific word of visible church and refer to visible saints, but then it clarifies that that is what each congregation is to be constituted of, visible saints. So you have visible saints congregating together. What is that?

Well, it's a visible church. Just because the language might have been tweaked doesn't mean that were throwing out the whole concept of the visible church We're just simply saying the visible church is those who actually profess faith and haven't destroyed that profession by heresy or unrepentant sin. They are what make up the visible church, those who profess faith, not professors and their children. The dominant paradigm is... Decretal.

Decretal elect. What is the decretal, real quick? What is that? You just look at Ephesians, God chose us in him before the foundation of the world. So the creedal election is that the Father chooses all of the elect, all the people that are going to be in heaven, He chooses them unto salvation before the foundation of the world in Christ.

And that number is set, it cannot be increased, it cannot be decreased. And whatever someone thinks about Tulip, like, let's say if they see it as helpful, or, you know, I think it is helpful as far as it goes, we learn that those in that thing, in that decretal elect, like God will never lose those. God will never lose those. Like those are his. Those are his.

And nothing Romans 8 tells us can separate that. Not a choice you make, not swords. The spectrum is all there. So when a Presbyterian says something along the lines of like, yep, my kid is in, I think a Baptist hears like, they're in the what now? And then if you, the Presbyterian, and you as a pastor say something to the effect of like, maybe you are barring someone from the supper or it's been some time and you say, yep, like, they were not one of us.

He's right. This is a big part of the problem of Presbyterians and Baptists not understanding one another. We do talk past each other on this point because again, the Baptist view is when we come to the new covenant, it is the elect who are the members of the New Covenant. When Baptists hear that they're in the Covenant, that can be confusing for us because, again, we believe that the elect are the members of the Covenant. And this is why Covenant theology is really the heart of our debate and our disagreement with our Presbyterian brothers.

We don't disagree about the reality of election, or at least reform Baptists and Presbyterians don't disagree about the reality of election or the gift of perseverance or God's decree or any of these things. Our disagreement is on the relationship of the elect and the membership of the New Covenant. Who is in one group? Is it the same as the other group? As Baptists, we would say it's the same group.

To be a member of the new covenant is to be one of the decreed elect and to receive all the blessings of the new covenant. Can God lose this Christian or not, Jared? Right. And everyone has this problem. So the NSA sings this song, elect of God, holy and beloved.

It's real pretty. And I will use it for students. I was like, do you sing, you know, when you're singing, I said, can you really sing that? You know, like, I'm God, holy and beloved, but maybe not you, not sure yet. We'll find out.

You know what I mean? Like, what you do could be. So what do you do about that? And then people will talk about charity, you know, like they just go, well, basically just being charitable in that moment. Everyone has to deal with apostasy and the apostasy passages in scripture.

In Jared's debate with James White on membership of the New Covenant and infant baptism, Dr. White pointed out to Jared that this is one of the problems with the PatoBaptist system is they seem to really start with their doctrine of apostasy and then go from that to define the new covenant. They begin with this consequence and then read that back into how they define the new covenant. When in reality, we need to start with what is the new covenant, what does the Bible say about the new covenant and who its members are, and from there, try to understand the doctrine of apostasy. And it seems like the Presbyterians, the Pato-Baptists just generally reverse that order.

A Presbyterian's not necessarily talking about the decreed will of God when you say, when one time Jared said, my son is in this covenant, or he got the sign and seal in front of our church, is given a charge. Yeah. Let's say that's not the primary thing that we're thinking about. So what are you thinking about? We're thinking about the revealed thing, because the thing which revealed belonged to us and to our children.

And revealed has to do with covenant, revealed has to do with promises, revealed has to do with what did God say. And so you got Abraham and God says to him in Genesis 17, seven, Abraham, this is my covenant with you and your offspring after you and their generations, I will be God to you and to your offspring after you. And so if we saw Abraham like five days later and we were like, Abraham, what'd God say? You know, he said, he said, he'd be God to me. Anything else?

He'd be God to my children too, and after me and their generations. And you're like, okay. And so like, you have to believe everything God said. It's actually just that. And then if the guy in the college university brings up, but what about God's decree?

You're like, I don't know about God's decree, but I know what God said. So he's right. We have to look at what God has revealed, not necessarily act like we can discern God's decree. That's often a criticism level at Baptist that we're trying to understand God's secret decree when we say that the elect are the only members of the new covenant. That's not the case.

We're not trying to discern God's decree. We actually are going by what God has revealed because, as I've said a couple of times already, the fundamental question is what has God revealed about the nature of the new covenant and who are the members of the new covenant. We're not trying to discern the secret decree. We're looking at what God has positively revealed in scripture about the nature of the new covenant. Jeremiah 31, 31 through 33 would be the prime example.

Jeremiah writes, Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt, my covenant which they broke, though I was a husband to them, says the Lord. But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord. I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts, and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. No more shall each man teach his neighbor and every man his brother, say, Know the Lord, for they shall all know me. From the least of them to the greatest of them, says the Lord.

For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more." So what does God reveal here about the nature of the New Covenant? Well, first it's a new covenant that's not like or not according to the old covenant that God made with the forefathers of Israel. And then he specifies that that was the covenant which they broke. And so this new covenant, it's not like the old covenant specifically in the fact that it's not a covenant that they're going to break. It's a different covenant.

It's an unbreakable covenant. It's also a covenant where God will put His law in the minds and hearts of His people. Now yes, the law is written on the hearts of everyone as image bearers of God, but this is a unique blessing of the New Covenant. Something more. The members of the New Covenant have the law in their hearts and on their minds in a unique and new way.

They will not be taught to know the Lord because they will all know Him. All the members of the New Covenant personally know God from the least to the greatest. And He says, I will forgive their iniquity, their sins, I will remember no more. This is a reality for those who are in the New Covenant. So yes, we go by what has been revealed about the Covenant, and when we look at what has been revealed about the New Covenant, I don't see how we can have any room for unbelieving, unrepentant people as members of the new covenant, no matter how old they may be.

Can you just say one more time what you just said? If you say, well, you're trusting, God's actually given you covenant promises and revealed that He will be God to your children after you. Yeah. Are you saying that your kid has been chosen for the foundation? Well, so yeah, of course.

But I'm doing that not because I've gotten some secret knowledge into the decree. Okay. Okay. I'm doing that based on the covenant. Okay.

I'm living by revealed things. And how about this? And then let's talk about Joschmo that just said what you said. Okay. Joschmo, he works down the street.

If it turns out that Joschmo's child is a covenant breaker who goes his own way, he's not a Christian, doesn't live there. Does the Baptist got you here or no? Right. So this is exactly the moment in the college room, in the bunk room. And I would say, well, let's stop living in hypotheticals.

Who are we talking about? So this may put me at odds with some of my Baptist brothers, but I don't think we actually disagree with Jared here, at least not in the broad sweep of what He's saying. As a Christian father, I have great hope that my children will repent and believe the gospel, but not because I assume that they're members of the New Covenant based on mine and my wife's faith, But because the normative means that God uses to convert sinners is the preaching of His Word and the evangelism of saints. And that's what happens in our home. We preach the gospel to our children.

We do family worship regularly. We take them to church. They're hearing the Word of God over and over again. They're raised in a Christian home, and so they are being exposed to the means of grace that God uses to save sinners to a far greater degree than other unbelievers. And this is where I would have to break ranks with certain Baptists who would perhaps call their children pagans or the phrase, vipers and diapers.

I'm not a fan of that language because my children are in a somewhat of a different circumstance than the children of unbelievers because they're in a Christian home. They're going to a Christian church. They're hearing the Word of God. And so they are under the influence of these means of grace, and I pray that God would use that to bring them to salvation. And I hope this is an encouragement to Baptists, even though we say that our children aren't necessarily members of the New Covenant, they may prove to be members of the New Covenant by the means of grace being brought to them and taking effect and drawing them to faith in Christ.

And I think that is probably partly what Paul is getting at in 1 Corinthians 7, where children are considered holy, partly because of the influence of a Christian parent, not because they're necessarily members of the Covenant. Giving them the best shake. A Baptist, let's say a reformed Baptist maybe, hears Doug say that. What does that mean? How would they hear that?

Or does that mean anything? Yeah, I think the, I don't know how, I don't know. I think the statement, the way it's worded kind of blows off blows the Baptist categories And so you might have people landing in different places and even in the way they're trying to understand what's being said, right? You do actually have in the Second London Baptist Confession of faith a statement that says baptism is a sign unto the party baptize. Which is an interesting holdover from the Westminster confession of faith, which says the same thing.

Now the Westminster says more, it's more about what it is, it's a sign and seal of the covenant and all that kind of stuff that's in the Westminster, it's not in the Baptist version. But you still have kind of this vertical idea, this idea that it's assigned to the party baptized. You know, not the modern Baptist conception of baptism is that it's a it's a testimony of my faith So it's kind of something that's going for me Primarily to the people in the room or to God or to whoever's there So he's right when we compare the Second London Confession with a lot of the modern Baptist expressions of the significance of baptism and what it means, there's a big difference. Most modern Baptists, as he said, it's merely a sign or a profession of faith. It's you professing faith publicly.

Whereas the reformed Baptist position is that it is that, but it's also more. It's assigned to the party baptized. And it says where his discussion of Doug Wilson's phrase of grabbing someone by their baptism, I probably wouldn't use that phrase personally, but I would tell somebody if I know they're deconstructing or apostatizing, you are a baptized member of this church. You have professed your faith in the Lord. What has drawn you away from him.

There is a time and place to call people's attention back to their baptism because it is a sign to them of God's covenant, of God's blessings. And it's also, as the Baptist catechism and the confession make clear, it's also a means of grace. The Reformed Baptist position is that the ordinances or sacraments of the Supper and Baptism are effectual means of salvation to the elect, not by virtue of anything in them or the one who administers them but by the working of Christ and his Spirit through faith and so we receive the benefits of the redemption Christ purchased for us through these means of grace including baptism. Baptism is not a merely symbolic act, but it is actually a means of grace for the sanctification of the Christian. And so I think he's right that we can tell somebody you're a believer, you've professed this, remember your baptism, remember what God has done for you.

There is room for that as reformed Baptists. So in summary, I hope we can see that though Baptists and Presbyterians have very substantial disagreements, primarily about the nature of the New Covenant and of course whether or not to give the covenant sign to our children, I hope we can see that our disagreements are not ones where we are trying to kick each other out of the kingdom. We can affirm that each other, we're brothers and sisters in the Lord, that we are truly Christians having an in-house debate. And so I hope that that came through in this video and that when we engage in this discussion, we can come to it with an attitude of grace and charity toward one another as believers in Christ spurring one another on to love and good works and to go back to the Scriptures to see what God has said and how we can best obey and keep His Word and to love one another even in the midst of this disagreement. Well, that's all the time we have today.

If you would like to connect with me personally, I'm on X at R. Bosley, 1689. And if you would like to find out more information about church and family life, you can do so at churchandfamilylife.com. See you