What are we to make of the invisibility of regeneration? Jesus teaches us that the moment of regeneration is beyond our power to manipulate (John 3:8), but He also teaches, equally clearly, that the effects of regeneration are entirely visible (John 3:8).
The theological problem is this. At the eschaton, everything will be completely visible to all. At the moment of baptism, the condition of the recipient’s heart is invisible to us, known only to God — and this is true whether or not we are talking about infant baptism.
Since we know that some make it through the laver of regeneration (Tit. 3:5) unregenerate — because not all covenant members are elect — the question can be posed this way. At the moment of baptism, when an unregenerate person is faking his way into the covenant community, can we tell the difference between a sincere, regenerate, elect convert and an insincere, unregenerate, and reprobate one?
Usually, no. Sometimes we can, as when a scoffer tells his carousing friends that he is going to join the church so he can get a cute wife, and that he will be back among them soon enough. People join churches for all kinds of reasons that are in equal parts false and visible. Some want to sell insurance, while others want to keep peace in the family. And there are always the cute girls.
By visible, I mean visible in principle to a creaturely eye, not visible to all equally.
And so usually, no. The elders are not given a spiritual MRI of every convert’s soul. We take professions of faith charitably, and we do the same with the covenant vows that parents make when they bring their children to be baptized.
So, if someone asks whether at that moment, at the moment of baptism, there is any difference between the sincere and insincere recipient, a question can come back this way. From which vantage? From the standpoint of the decrees? We can’t know those, and shouldn’t try (Dt. 29:29). From the standpoint of the eschaton? We aren’t there yet.
But this binary choice is far too simple, and doesn’t come close to accounting for all the biblical data. It is not the case that we have to choose between cracking open the decrees at the font, on the one hand, and waiting for the last trump on the other.
Three examples of different kinds of soul-assessment come immediately to mind, and I have no doubt there are others. Remember, the apostle Paul says that the works of the flesh are manifest (Gal. 5:19), and those who do such manifest things will not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:21). And it is manifest that they will not inherit the kingdom of God.
First, the Bible teaches us that the credibility of the profession of others may be called into question in the heat of lawful, polemical controversy. In the midst of controversy, the apostle Paul declared that those who wanted to require circumcision of the Gentiles were “false brothers” (Gal. 2:4). He says that they were “dogs,” “evil workers,” “mutilators of the flesh” (Phil. 3:2). He doesn’t go so far as to call them Episcopalian bishops, but he certainly comes close.
Second, the Scriptures teach us that the church may, after careful thought and investigation, decide that a baptized person should be treated as a heathen tax-collector (Matt. 18:17). This happens after that person’s baptism, and long before the eschaton. Such a determination can be done right. In order to be faithful to Scripture, it must be done right. This determination is being made from within history, and not from the vantage of the decrees or the balcony seats of the eschaton.
And the third situation might be called that of pastoral admonition. A very short time after the baptism of Simon Magus, Peter tells him this:
“But Peter said unto him, Thy money perish with thee, because thou hast thought that the gift of God may be purchased with money. Thou hast neither part nor lot in this matter: for thy heart is not right in the sight of God. Repent therefore of this thy wickedness, and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee. For I perceive that thou art in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity” (Acts 8:20-23).
Peter looked at the hands and wallet of Simon Magus, and made a statement about the bondage his heart was in.
Now fact that all three of these situations found in Scripture can and have been wrongfully applied does not make their correct application impossible. People have been called false brothers for the flimsiest of reasons — having had it done to me repeatedly, I certainly don’t want to promote that. But the abuse does not negate the use. Abusus non tollit usus. People have been excommunicated for parking in the spot reserved for the pastor’s wife. Okay, so quit doing that everybody. And hubristic sectarian pastors have pronounced on the obvious lack of regeneration displayed by someone who failed to dot all 5 i’s in “denominational distinctives.” That can’t be good.
But, with all this said, to adopt a simple binary scheme between baptism and the last day is really to close the door on effective pastoral care and the cure of souls. I have noticed a tendency among some, in the name of FV stuff, to treat the manifest sins of some as though the import of those sins were not equally manifest. But I fear that this will eventually amount to sacrificing biblical language on the altar of systematics — which is precisely one of the problems that FV has diligently sought to avoid.