I was recently invited by a friend to a baptism service at his Baptist church, where his child was to be baptized. As a friend—and, admittedly, the token Presbyterian in the room—I was glad to attend. After the service, conversation naturally turned toward the subject of baptism itself. I was struck by how often Baptists insist that infants can’t receive baptism because they are not regenerate— a view that, assumes a kind of baptismal regeneration that Presbyterians don’t adhere to. It all clicked for me when I later came across a tweet that summed up this confusion perfectly.
“I can’t see the heart- I don’t have that Baptist spiritual gift.” – Matt Cline
It dawned on me that within the credobaptist framework, baptism is often administered on the “confirmation” of prior regeneration. At the service, the pastor described baptism as “your first act of obedience in the kingdom,” implying that the candidate was already born again. In this case, the child had been made to wait three years before baptism to ensure that their conversion was genuine—an approach far removed from the example of the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, who was baptized upon his simple confession that Jesus Christ is Lord.1 Yet this practice naturally follows from the baptistic conviction that everyone within the New Covenant must be a regenerate believer.
The primary proof text appealed to is Hebrews 8:7–13. Many Baptists interpret the phrase “they shall all know me” in a salvific sense, as a guarantee that every member of the New Covenant is regenerate. Yet this reading mistakes the intent of the passage. Jeremiah, quoted by the author of Hebrews,2 contrasts the Old Covenant—characterized by external administration and appended to ceremonies3—with the New, in which God’s people as a body will truly know Him through the mediation of Christ. This knowledge is covenantal, not merely salvific. To treat it otherwise is to misunderstand the nature of the visible church and to deny that our children belong to the covenant community. We are not to raise them as “vipers in diapers,” but as Christians—disciples to be nurtured within the household of faith.
For if that first [covenant] had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. Because finding fault with them, He says: "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 when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD. "For this [is] the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." In that He says, "A new [covenant]," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. - Hebrews 8:7-13
Baptists frequently appeal to Hebrews 8, citing Jeremiah’s prophecy that under the New Covenant “they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest.” From this, they reason that unlike the Old Covenant—where membership was mixed, including believers and unbelievers—the New Covenant is purely spiritual and therefore restricted to the regenerate. Since only those who truly “know the Lord” belong to this covenant, baptism must follow credible evidence of conversion rather than precede it. This is why they state the Old Covenant as being with fault, but the fault is not with God’s Covenant itself, but the people’s corruption and apostasy.
To take Hebrews 8 on its own terms, the contrast Jeremiah draws is not between a mixed and a pure covenant community, but between an external and an internal administration of the same covenant of grace. The passage, quoting Jeremiah 31, describes the superiority of the New Covenant — not because its members are all regenerate by definition, but because it is mediated by a better Priest and promises the internalization of the law. The problem with the old order was not that it contained unbelievers, but that the law was written on stone rather than on hearts. The phrase “they shall all know me” should be understood in contrast to the ignorance and apostasy of Israel under the Mosaic covenant, not as a categorical statement that every visible member of the covenant community possesses saving faith. Rather the promise “they shall all know me” speaks to the inward efficacy of God’s redemptive work in Christ—His Spirit writing the law upon His people—rather than to the composition of the visible church. This is why the promise is couched in Abrahamic terms.4 The writer to the Hebrews cites this to demonstrate the superiority of Christ’s priesthood, not to redefine covenant membership. When read contextually, the “knowing” is covenantal and eschatological — describing the Church as a whole in union with Christ, in which His people truly and corporately know Him through the mediation of Christ rather than as an aggregate of only the regenerate.
Even apart from Scripture’s testimony, the notion of a church composed only of regenerate members collapses under its own weight. It assumes this “Baptist spiritual gift” — that men can infallibly discern the state of another’s soul. However, this is something nowhere granted to the church. Christ Himself taught that the wheat and the tares will grow together until the harvest5. The visible church has always been a mixed community, containing both sincere believers and those who only outwardly profess faith. This reality is repeatedly confirmed in the New Testament. In Acts 8, Simon the Magician was baptized upon profession yet later proved unconverted6, showing that credible confession—not verified regeneration—is the biblical standard for admission. To demand visible proof of invisible grace before baptism is to presume an authority and insight that the church simply does not possess; only Christ does.
Hebrews 67 describes those who have “tasted the heavenly gift … become partakers of the Holy Spirit … tasted … powers of the age to come” and yet fall away despite being “once enlightened”, indicating participation in the covenant’s outward blessings without inward renewal. the passage continues with “if they fall away … impossible to renew them again to repentance … crucifying … the Son of God again” These phrases are powerful and deliberately provocative. The author of Hebrews is issuing a warning against a severe apostasy — one that is not casual sin but defection after having experienced the gospel’s privileges.
Likewise, Hebrews 108 warns of those who have been “sanctified by the blood of the covenant” and still trample it underfoot. This clearly suggests some kind of covenant privilege or status. Also, the warning is framed in terms of deliberate sin / apostasy after “knowing the truth.” It underscores the difference between visible profession / membership and inward, saving faith. These passages make clear that covenant membership and regeneration, though often conjoined, are not identical. The warnings prove that covenant membership is visible, and those in the covenant community subject to danger of falling away, or rather being false-professing — which undercuts the idea that everyone admitted to baptism / church membership is regenerate.
Perhaps the deeper question is not whether the church can ever be composed solely of regenerate people, but whether we trust God’s faithfulness in His covenant promises. If Scripture warns of those who taste the heavenly gift yet fall away, if it shows Simon baptized but unregenerate, and if it exhorts the visible church with warnings and encouragements alike, then the church must be a mixed body. Some claim the “ Baptist spiritual gift” to discern who is truly regenerate, yet Scripture itself repeatedly reminds us that the heart is known fully only by God. What, then, do we gain by insisting that only the regenerate receive the sign of the covenant? Do we risk withholding God’s promises from His children, or assuming a discernment that Scripture reserves for Him alone? In the end, the invitation remains: to place our hope not in human verification, but in the God who calls, sustains, and graciously gathers His people — and their children — into His covenant family.
Leave a comment