Why I’m Not Presbyterian

A charitable, Reformed Baptist case for credobaptism and New Covenant purity

Several of my friends have become Presbyterians over the last year. And before I say anything else, I want to put a flag in the ground: I count Presbyterians as dear brothers in Christ—especially confessional Presbyterians. If you’re PCA and you love the Westminster Confession, if you’re the kind of Presbyterian who actually cares about doctrinal clarity, I genuinely respect you. Most Presbyterians exalt the sovereignty of God (rightly so). They understand man’s fallen nature (a biblical anthropology). And when we lock arms and say, “We need saving grace,” we’re saying something gloriously true.

I’ve got Presbyterian friends and collaborators I love and appreciate. So, when I give Presbyterians a hard time, I’m not trying to “convert people to Reformed Baptist” as my ultimate goal. My ultimate goal is to convert people to the gospel of grace—and to equip believers with a better understanding of Scripture.

But here’s the honest answer: I am convictionally not Presbyterian, and I don’t plan on becoming one.

A brother named Eric asked a question that I get more and more lately:

“Several of my friends have become Presbyterians within the last year. I don’t think I can go that far with baptism. Not sure if you’ve heard of the Romans 4 argument, but that chapter is what persuaded them. Why are you not Presbyterian?”

Eric, that makes perfect sense. And if we’re going to answer it carefully, we need to do two things:

1. Deal with the key proof texts that usually drive people toward paedobaptism, and

   
   

2. Deal with the covenant theology underneath it all—because eventually, the conversation always goes there.

   
   

So let’s do it in a way that’s fair, charitable, and biblical.

The Westminster claim that changes everything

I pulled up Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 28 (thank you, Ligonier—also, yes, I love R.C. Sproul).

Westminster 28.1 says baptism is not only for those who profess faith and obedience under Christ, but also for infants of one or both believing parents.

And then the confession uses language that should make everyone slow down and think:

Baptism is said to be a sign and seal of the covenant of grace.

That’s the Romans 4 connection your friends are talking about. That “sign and seal” wording is the hinge. It sounds biblical because Romans 4 uses those exact terms—just not about baptism.

And this is why the discussion isn’t merely, “Do you like sprinkling or immersion?” It’s deeper: What covenant are we talking about, and what exactly is baptism doing?

Acts 2:38–39 explained

The key proof text Presbyterians love—and why I don’t think it proves paedobaptism

If someone is going to build a case for infant baptism, they almost always come to Acts 2.

Peter preaches Pentecost. A Jewish audience is cut to the heart. They cry out: “Brothers, what shall we do?”

Peter gives them two imperatives, two commands:

• Repent

  
  

• Be baptized

  
  

“Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Then comes verse 39:

“For the promise is for you and for your children and for all who are far off, everyone whom the Lord our God calls to himself.”

Now, the paedobaptist argument often goes:

• “See? It’s for you and your children.”

  
  

• “Therefore children are included in the covenant community by sign.”

  
  

• “Therefore baptize infants.”

  
  

But here’s the immediate issue: the text also contains repentance, and repentance is not a category infants can perform.

And that matters because verse 38 sets the grammar and the logic of the passage. Peter is speaking to a convicted audience, calling them to heart-level repentance and then to baptism as the public marker of that repentant faith.

So what does “you and your children” mean?

I believe “you and your children” is covenantal, Jewish language—language that shows up repeatedly. Jews did not conceive of themselves in a modern individualistic way. Their identity is tied to the nation, the fathers, the offspring, the covenant line.

You can see the pattern in places like:

• Acts language about promises to “us their children” (Acts 13:33)

  
  

• Even the sobering covenantal language in Matthew 27:25 (“his blood be on us and on our children”)

• The broader “to the Jew first” reality (Romans 1:16)

And then the phrase “those who are far off” is very naturally Gentile-inclusion language (cf. Acts 22:21; Isaiah 57:19). So Acts 2:39 reads smoothly as:

• promise to Jews (“you and your children”)

  
  

• promise to Gentiles (“those far off”)

  
  

• promise applied effectually to the elect (“everyone whom the Lord our God calls”)

  
  

In other words, Acts 2 is not sneaking infant baptism in through the word “children.” It is proclaiming the gospel promise expanding outward—Jew to Gentile—and grounding it in sovereign calling.

And none of that removes the fact that Peter’s commands are clear: repent and be baptized.

Does baptism replace circumcision?

Colossians 2 and the “circumcision made without hands”

Another common argument is:

• Circumcision was the covenant sign in the Old Covenant.

  
  

• Baptism is the covenant sign in the New Covenant.

  
  

• Therefore just as infants received circumcision, infants should receive baptism.

  
  

Colossians 2 is usually brought in here. But notice how Paul frames the entire passage:

“In him… you were circumcised with a circumcision made without hands…”

That phrase matters: without hands.

Paul is talking about regeneration—heart circumcision—something God does, not man. And then Paul connects that reality to being “buried with him in baptism… raised with him through faith… in the powerful working of God.”

If you want to argue that Colossians 2 equates circumcision and baptism, you’ve got a problem: the circumcision in view is explicitly spiritual—regeneration. And if that’s the case, then we’re talking about a baptism that corresponds to God’s work (the Spirit’s work), not a ritual automatically applied to those who cannot yet believe.

Either way, Colossians 2 does not hand you a clean infant-baptism command. It anchors everything “in him,” in union with Christ, through faith, by God’s powerful working.

Household baptisms

Acts 16 and what “you and your household” actually means

Household baptisms get brought up constantly, so I always say: let’s go to the clearest household account and read it carefully.

In Acts 16, the Philippian jailer asks:

“What must I do to be saved?”

Paul and Silas answer:

“Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.”

Then what happens?

• They spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house.

  
  

• The household is baptized.

  
  

• The household rejoices because the household believed.

  
  

That’s the pattern: hearing the word → believing → baptism → rejoicing.

So when someone says, “But it says household,” my response is: yes—and it defines the household in terms of those who received the word and believed…and rejoiced. Did infants rejoice? No.

Romans 4 and the “sign and seal” language

Where the Presbyterian appeal sounds strong—until you slow down

Now we get to your question, Eric: Romans 4.

Romans 4:11 says:

“Abraham received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised…”

That is the “sign and seal” phrase that gets imported into baptism discussions.

But notice the key point Paul is making: Abraham was justified before circumcision.

Circumcision did not justify him. Circumcision did not regenerate him. Circumcision did not create the righteousness. It functioned as a covenant marker given after the fact—a sign and seal of righteousness he already had by faith.

So here is where I press pause and say: you cannot simply leap from Romans 4 to “therefore baptism is the seal of the covenant of grace.”

Why?

Because Romans 4 is talking about circumcision as the sign and seal of the Abrahamic covenant marker, tied to Abraham’s faith prior to receiving it.

And here is another helpful way to frame what’s happening:

• Reformed Baptists look to Abraham as the model: faith → then the sign.

  
  

• Presbyterians often treat Isaac as the model: the sign applied in infancy before personal profession.

  
  

That difference isn’t cosmetic—it’s foundational.

The deeper issue: covenant theology

The conversation eventually “devolves” (in the best way) into covenant definition

At some point, you stop arguing about a few verses and you start arguing about how the Bible’s covenants relate to each other.

Here’s the principle I put on the table early:

A covenant is either of grace or of works—and you don’t get to mix them without collapsing the law/gospel distinction.

Paul says:

“If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.” (Romans 11:6)

That’s not a minor point. It’s a category statement.

So when I hear, “All post-fall covenants are administrations of one covenant of grace,” my response is: define covenant.

Because biblically, covenants come with:

• a sovereign (God) setting terms

  
  

• stipulations and commands

  
  

• sanctions (blessings for obedience, curses for disobedience)

  
  

Where there are sanctions tied to obedience, you’re in a covenant-of-works structure. That doesn’t mean God isn’t gracious. It means the covenant’s legal structure is not pure grace.

And I believe the New Covenant is distinct in this way:

• It is enacted on better promises.

  
  

• It has a perfect mediator.

  
  

• It has definitive forgiveness of sins.

  
  

• It has the Spirit poured out as the guarantee.

  
  

• It is, in its substance, grace upon grace.

  
  

Adam and the covenant of works

Yes, I affirm it—and it actually helps clarify everything else

Even though the word “covenant” isn’t used in Genesis 2, the concept is undeniable:

• God gives command.

  
  

• God gives sanction.

  
  

• Disobedience brings death.

“In the day you eat of it you shall surely die.”

Hosea 6:7 even speaks of Israel transgressing the covenant “like Adam,” which confirms the covenantal frame.

So if Presbyterians agree the Adamic covenant is of works, then the question becomes: how do later covenants function?

And my point is simple: whenever you hear “obey and live / disobey and die,” you’re dealing with works-structure—again, not denying gracious blessings, but denying that the covenant’s substance is pure grace.

Hebrews 8 and why the New Covenant is better

Not “slightly upgraded,” but categorically superior

If I had one chapter to press into the conversation, it’s Hebrews 8.

Hebrews contrasts the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, and it refuses to speak as if they are the same substance merely in different packaging.

Christ has obtained a ministry more excellent… since it is enacted on better promises.

Then Hebrews quotes the New Covenant promise:

• God writes the law on hearts (regeneration).

  
  

• All in the covenant “know the Lord.”

  
  

• God is merciful to iniquities.

  
  

• God remembers sins no more.

That’s not a mixed community defined by external administration. That is a covenant community defined by saving realities—heart knowledge of God and definitive forgiveness.

So when I say, “The New Covenant is exclusively the covenant of grace,” I’m not being dramatic. I’m trying to honor the argument of Hebrews: the New Covenant is better in a way that doesn’t allow us to flatten it into “same substance, different administration.”

Why I don’t call baptism the “seal”

The Holy Spirit is the seal of the covenant of grace

This is a huge point, and it connects back to Westminster.

If someone insists baptism is the seal of the covenant of grace, I immediately say: that language dangerously drifts toward sacramental efficacy.

Because Scripture explicitly identifies the seal:

“When you heard the word of truth… and believed in him, you were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit.” (Ephesians 1:13)

So what seals the believer into the covenant blessings? Not the rite itself, but the Spirit—given through faith, as the guarantee of inheritance.

Baptism is a sign—an ordinance of Christ, a public marker, a covenant badge of union with Christ—but it is not the seal in the Pauline sense. The Spirit is.

And if you make baptism the seal, you keep walking toward the question: what is baptism doing to the person? That’s where traditions start sounding uncomfortably close to baptismal regeneration, even if they try to qualify it.

The Abrahamic covenant: promises and conditions

Genesis 17 is where “covenant of grace” language gets tested

Genesis 15 shows God making promises—God walking through the severed animals—highlighting God’s unilateral commitment.

But Genesis 17 adds explicit covenant stipulations:

“As for you, you shall keep my covenant…”

And then the sign:

“Every male among you shall be circumcised…”

And then the sanction:

“Any uncircumcised male… shall be cut off from his people. He has broken my covenant.”

That is covenantal law structure. There are conditions, and there are consequences.

So when someone tells me, “Circumcision is a sign and seal of the covenant of grace,” I ask: where is the grace if breaking it results in being cut off?

Yes—there are glorious promises contained in these covenants that point forward to Christ. Amen. But that does not mean the covenant itself is the New Covenant in substance.

This is why I keep saying: different blood, different covenants. Animal-blood covenants function typologically. The New Covenant is cut in the blood of God—the once-for-all sacrifice of Christ.

So why am I not Presbyterian?

The simplest answer, with all the weight behind it

Because I believe the New Covenant is made up of those who know the Lord—those whose sins are forgiven—those sealed by the Holy Spirit—those united to Christ by faith.

And that’s why I believe baptism belongs to those who can repent, believe, call upon Christ, and publicly confess him.

Acts 2 doesn’t give us “baptize your infants.” It gives us:

• repent

  
  

• be baptized

  
  

• receive the Spirit

  
  

Romans 4 doesn’t give us “baptism is the seal.” It gives us:

• Abraham justified by faith prior to the sign

  
  

• circumcision as sign and seal in its covenantal function

  
  

Hebrews doesn’t give us “same covenant, different administration.” It gives us:

• a better covenant

  
  

• better promises

  
  

• a purified people

  
  

• definitive forgiveness

  
  

And Ephesians doesn’t give us “baptism is the seal.” It gives us:

• the Holy Spirit as the seal

  
  

• received when one hears and believes the gospel

  
  

So yes—I can love my Presbyterian brothers, respect their confessional seriousness, and still say: I do not believe paedobaptism is biblical, and I do not believe Presbyterian covenant theology best accounts for the New Covenant’s purity.

Recommended resources (the ones I’d hand someone immediately)

If you want to chase this down carefully, here are excellent helps:

• Jeffrey D. Johnson, The Fatal Flaw (especially on the Mosaic covenant not being grace-substance)

  
  

• Jeffrey D. Johnson, The Kingdom of God (Baptist covenantal framework)

  
  

• James Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader

  
  

• Samuel Renihan, The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom

  
  

• Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (helpful collection/overview)