Since I’ve been asked, and since there have been recent discussions of it lately, I am going to be posting my views on infant baptism.  This is especially written with my Reformed Baptist brethren from #prosapologian in mind.  Thus, I will not be dealing with a defense of Calvinism as both Presbyterians (such as myself) and Reformed Baptists hold to Calvinistic principles in soteriology.

The differences between the two views begin in the understanding of the Covenant.  Presbyterians are by far more covenantal than Baptists are; which isn’t to say that there aren’t any covenantal Baptists!  However, it does mean that one must properly define the covenants.  This is especially true when we consider that even such phraseology as “Old Testament” and “New Testament” when we open are Bibles, while refering in part covenants (an example of this is found in the idea of someone’s “last will and testament“), really ought to be the “Old Covenant” and the “New Covenant” and probably would have been had it not been for the Vulgate.

Since ultimately the difference between the Presbyterian Covenant and the Reformed Baptist Covenant will depend on who belongs in the New Covenant, let us first establish just what a covenant is.

First, and most basically, a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties.  The Hebrew word barit almost always points to the idea of a “bond” or “relationship” (cf. Robertson, O. Palmer The Christ of the Covenants, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1980, p. 5).  In Scripture, the covenantal bonds almost always occurs between God and man, but there are a few exceptions (such as the covenant between God and animals in Genesis 9).

Scripture, however, uses a more formal version of the above bond.  This version is designated by the phrase “bond-in-blood” (Robertson, Ibid 7) which seals the bond into a life or death agreement.  This usage of the term “covenant” cuts (pun intended) to the heart of the term in Hebrew: the phrase translated “to make a covenant” literally means “to cut a covenant.”

To quote Robertson:

This phrase “to cut a covenant” does not appear just at one stage in the history of the Biblical covenants.  Much to the contrary, it occurs prominently across the entire spread of the Old Testament. The law [Gen 15:18; 21:27, 32; 26:28; 31:44; Exod. 23:32, 34: 24:8, 34:10, 12, 15, 17; Deut. 4:23, 5:2, 3; 7:2; 9:9; 29:1, 12, 14, 25, 29; 31:16], the prophets [Josh. 9:6ff.; 24:25; Judg. 2:2; I Sam. 11:1, 2; II Sam 3:12ff.; I Kings 5:12ff.; II Kings 7:15ff; Isa. 28:15; 55:3, Jer. 11:10; 31:31ff.; Ezek. 17:13; Hos. 2:18; Hag. 2:5; Zech. 11:10], and the writings [Job 31:1; Ps. 50:5; I Chron. 11:3; II Chron. 6:11; Ezra 10:3; Neh. 9:8] all contain the phrase repeatedly.

(ibid, 8)

Robertson also points out that this phrase is used to describe covenants between man and man (Gen. 21:27, 32; II Sam. 3:12, 13), those inaugurated by God with man (the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and “new” covenant as predicted in the prophets; the phrase is not used in the covenant with Noah however), and those inagurated by man with God as a renewal of God’s covenant (II Kings 11:17; 23:3; II Chron. 29:10).

The use of the term “cut” is also graphically illustrated by the rituals surrounding the covenants, such as the sacrifice of animals.  (Thus, animals are “cut”.)  The significance of this action is the demonstration that whoever breaks the covenant will be “cut” as the animal had been.  Thus, it serves as a pledge unto death.  The animals become a demonstration of the curse that will result should one party break the covenant.

Finally, Scripture demonstrates that the covenants are “sovereignly administered.”  That is, there is “[n]o such thing as bargaining, bartering, or contracting…[in] the divine covenants of Scripture.  The sovereign Lord of heaven and earth dictates the terms of his covenant” (Robertson, ibid 15).  As such, Robertson concludes “A covenant is a bond-in-blood sovereignly administered” (ibid).