Can I be a credobaptist and a covenantalist at the same time

[VanVos]

I've been studying Covenant Theology for a year now and I love it. I am convinced that Covenant Theology gives you right understanding of redemptive history and is the best way to understand man's relationship to God. I used to be a dispensationalist, then I held briefly to New Covenant Theology (the modified Lutheran view) but for sometime now I have considered myself a Covenantalist. My question is: I'm allowed to say I am Covenantalist even though I'm Credobaptist or would that distort the historical meaning of the word. In other words is the such a position called Covenantal Credobaptist?.

VanVos

p.s. I currently studying paedobaptism and have not yet come to a concrete conclusion on the topic, but as yet I am not convinced. :book:

[Edited on 5-29-2004 by VanVos]

[Edited on 5-29-2004 by VanVos]

 

[Dan....]

[quote:76b6bc6328]
In other words is the such a position called Covenantal Credobaptist?.
[/quote:76b6bc6328]

If by that you mean that can one hold that.....

[quote:76b6bc6328]
London Baptist Confession, 1689
Chapter 7
Of God's Covenant


1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although
reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their creator, yet they
could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary
condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express by way
of covenant.(1)

1. Lk 17:10; Job 35:7-8.


2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall,
it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace,(2) wherein He freely offereth
unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him,
that they may be saved;(3) and promising to give unto all those that are
ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to
believe.(4)

2. Ge 2:17; Gal.3:10; Ro 3:20-21.
3. Ro 8:3; Mk 16:15-16; Jn 3:16.
4. Eze 36:26-27; Jn 6:44-45; Ps 110:3.


3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of
salvation by the seed of the woman,(5) and afterwards by farther steps, until
the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament;(6) and it is
founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and
the Son about the redemption of the elect;(7) and it is alone by the grace of this
covenant that all of the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did
obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of
acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of
innocency.(8)

5. Ge 3:15.
6. Heb 1:1.
7. 2Ti 1:9; Tit 1:2.
8. Heb 11:6,13; Ro 4:1-2; Ac 4:12; Jn 8:56.
[/quote:76b6bc6328]

....while at the same time be a credo-baptist, then the answer is yes.






[Edited on 5-29-2004 by Dan....]

 

[Me Died Blue]

You can indeed reject the errors of Dispensationalism, and realize how God has set up His unified covenants with His people throughout history, and still be a credobaptist. However, as you asked, I also believe that totally claiming the label of one who fully holds to covenant theology would in fact distort the [i:0e5c42fd3a]historical[/i:0e5c42fd3a] meaning to some extent. I also think that there is also somewhat of a doctrinal problem in calling oneself both, since I believe that the denial of infants' rightful place as recipients of baptism inevitably reveals either a lack of full understanding, or an unwillingness to fully accept, the historical Reformed concept of the covenant of grace and its nature. Nonetheless, the answer to your question predominantly concerns issues of history and terminology, rather than doctrinal convictions.

In Christ,

Chris

[Edited on 5-29-2004 by Me Died Blue]

 

[VanVos]

Good to know, thanks. I will start refering to myself as a Covenantalist without the fear of offending paedobaptist. Now, whether or not I can call myself reformed.....I think I might get some mixed reponses. Surely if one holds to all the solas, all the 5 points and has covenant theology one can call one self reformed or at least reforming :bs2:

VanVos

 

[VanVos]

[quote:d4ef339c47][i:d4ef339c47]Originally posted by Me Died Blue[/i:d4ef339c47]
You can indeed reject the errors of Dispensationalism, and realize how God has set up His unified covenants with His people throughout history, and still be a credobaptist. However, as you asked, I also believe that totally claiming the label of one who fully holds to covenant theology would in fact distort the [i:d4ef339c47]historical[/i:d4ef339c47] meaning to some extent. I also think that there is also somewhat of a doctrinal problem in calling oneself both, since I believe that the denial of infants' rightful place as recipients of baptism inevitably reveals either a lack of full understanding, or an unwillingness to fully accept, the historical Reformed concept of the covenant of grace and its nature. Nonetheless, the answer to your question predominantly concerns issues of history and terminology, rather than doctrinal convictions.

In Christ,

Chris

[Edited on 5-29-2004 by Me Died Blue] [/quote:d4ef339c47]

Thanks for the thoughts. If needs be I'll make up an ism i.e. VanVosism. I can see presbyterians in future generations saying "don't go to that church they teach VanVosism".

 

[Dan....]

Pastor Goundry,

I prefer calling it the "Confessional Baptist position"... it has a nice ring to it.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

To historically answer your question, read this:

What Does it mean to be Reformed Really?

or listen to its substance here:

Reformed Really