Now, I know this title is provocative. I want to assure you that I know that, but it is done to prove a point. Let me explain, those in the Federal Vision claim that the main line PCA and OPC are nothing more that Reformed Baptists warmed over. They say this based on the view the PCA and the OPC have of their children, how they need to be converted. I am not interested in defending the PCA or OPC at this point, here and now. I only say this to give a background for my post.
So, how is it that the FV is similar to/or the same as Reformed Baptists? The point of correspondence is found in this: the way both groups understand the New Covenant. Reformed Baptists see the New Covenant as only made with the elect, i.e. those that are saved. This is why they only baptize those that profess to be believers because they only put the sign of the covenant (baptism) on those in the covenant (the elect). The same is true of the FV. They want to see everyone in the New Covenant as ‘saved.’ If you are baptized, even as an infant, you are saved, according to the FV. Many in the FV have no problem using, with qualification, the phrase ‘baptismal regeneration.’ Some argue that all infants in covenant families have faith. According to the FV baptism puts one into Christ and anyone in Christ is ‘saved’ (the reason I keep using the quotes is because they would say ‘saved in a sense’). Thus, the FV seem to be similar on this point with Reformed Baptists. They both want to see the New Covenant as being made with ‘saved’ people. Whereas, the PCA and the OPC see the New Covenant as having both saved and unsaved people, it is a ‘mixed’ group of people.