Your position is what I believe is called New Covenant Theology (NCT) People such as Wayne Grudem and Fred Zaspel are adherents to this theology. I think it doesn't stand up to classic covenant theology. NCT tries to perpuate a difference between the law of moses (contained in the decalogue) and the law of Christ. In truth, there is no qualitative difference. Christ exegetes his own law, (law of moses) by giving us a fuller understanding of its original intent. Any one else familiar with NCT willing to chime in? It's more of baptist thing.
I, too, am no longer a Baptist
- Thread starter Philip A
- Start date
- Status
Your position is what I believe is called New Covenant Theology (NCT) People such as Wayne Grudem and Fred Zaspel are adherents to this theology. I think it doesn't stand up to classic covenant theology. NCT tries to perpuate a difference between the law of moses (contained in the decalogue) and the law of Christ. In truth, there is no qualitative difference. Christ exegetes his own law, (law of moses) by giving us a fuller understanding of its original intent. Any one else familiar with NCT willing to chime in? It's more of baptist thing.
Tony (Iconoclast) replied to me in part the following (hope he doesn't mind me posting a portion of our e-mail exchange publicly):
You seem to think we are "going backwards," retrogressing by acknowledging believers' children as a significant element of "the future of the church" by the grace of God. Naturally, I disagree. In your view, I think you see the church today as somehow ideally "more purified" than the church was under the Old Covenant. Speaking for our side in the debate, we think that is claiming to be able to see what can't be seen, precisely because it is spiritual and invisible.
Personally, I think that the FAITHFUL church (not "the visible church" without qualification) is "more pure" than the visible church was under the Old Covenant--because the Spirit has been poured out, because his grace is lavished on us. He saves more liberally among our offspring today--not because we are superior to OT saints, but because he works by ordinary means, and he has given us more of his Spirit to help us by grace to rear our children in the fear of God.
So in point of fact, I see the OT saints including their children in the covenant (but seeing a minuscule remnant actually possess the substance of the Promise by faith) as TYPOLOGICAL, or FORWARD-LOOKING in hope to our day of Spirit outpouring, where we see by far the greater number of our children converted and saved (by grace through faith as only ever). Which is still typological of the future heaven and perfection of the saints and their environment--the thorough banishment of all the ungodly away from the presence of the Lord (2 Thes. 1:9).
As for Peter's observation (1.2.9, etc.), that is but the abolition of the narrow, ethnic church, and the promise of salvation expanded to the ends of the earth. That was a portion of the typology of Israel. The people of God being given a land. Now, the people of God being given the whole earth. But there is no more a political entity. The nation served its purpose (Rom. 9:1-6), but the church which was there explodes outward--the spiritual kingdom takes center-stage. No political or ethnic identity can contain it. But we still are not content with the sin-infected world. We look for heaven beyond. We are still living typologically, between the "already" and the "not-yet."
Hope I've explained a few more things about our view of things, brother.
Yours in Christ,
Israel was a type, true. Of Jesus, of His eternal people, of heaven, etc. And the NT church is still a type--of Christ (e.g. Christ in you the hope of glory, Col. 1:27 and context; or Jn. 17:21, or 1 Tim. 1:16), of His eternal people (the elect, we can only approximate it here on earth), of heaven (Heb. 11:10 & 16; 12:22-24--our worship puts heaven on display).
You seem to think we are "going backwards," retrogressing by acknowledging believers' children as a significant element of "the future of the church" by the grace of God. Naturally, I disagree. In your view, I think you see the church today as somehow ideally "more purified" than the church was under the Old Covenant. Speaking for our side in the debate, we think that is claiming to be able to see what can't be seen, precisely because it is spiritual and invisible.
Personally, I think that the FAITHFUL church (not "the visible church" without qualification) is "more pure" than the visible church was under the Old Covenant--because the Spirit has been poured out, because his grace is lavished on us. He saves more liberally among our offspring today--not because we are superior to OT saints, but because he works by ordinary means, and he has given us more of his Spirit to help us by grace to rear our children in the fear of God.
So in point of fact, I see the OT saints including their children in the covenant (but seeing a minuscule remnant actually possess the substance of the Promise by faith) as TYPOLOGICAL, or FORWARD-LOOKING in hope to our day of Spirit outpouring, where we see by far the greater number of our children converted and saved (by grace through faith as only ever). Which is still typological of the future heaven and perfection of the saints and their environment--the thorough banishment of all the ungodly away from the presence of the Lord (2 Thes. 1:9).
As for Peter's observation (1.2.9, etc.), that is but the abolition of the narrow, ethnic church, and the promise of salvation expanded to the ends of the earth. That was a portion of the typology of Israel. The people of God being given a land. Now, the people of God being given the whole earth. But there is no more a political entity. The nation served its purpose (Rom. 9:1-6), but the church which was there explodes outward--the spiritual kingdom takes center-stage. No political or ethnic identity can contain it. But we still are not content with the sin-infected world. We look for heaven beyond. We are still living typologically, between the "already" and the "not-yet."
Hope I've explained a few more things about our view of things, brother.
Yours in Christ,
I recently came across John Tombes (1603-76) an antipaedobaptist Anglican minister who was ejected in 1662 and his catechism on baptism. In full.
Quest 15. Why should not Infants be baptized, sith they were Circumcised?
Answ. The reason why Male Infants were to be Circumcised, was a particular Command of God to Abrahams house for special ends belonging to the time before Christ, which Baptism hath not, nor is there any Command to use Baptism according to the rule of Circumcision.
Quest. 16. Did not Baptism come in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.11,12. and so to be used as it was?
Answ. The Apostles words import not that our Baptism came in the room of the Jews Circumcision; there is no mention of any bodily Circumcision but Christ's, which our baptism cannot be said to suceed to, as there it is made the cause of Spiritual Circumcision, without arrogating that to it which belongs to Christ alone, and Baptism is mentioned with faith, as the means whereby we are in Christ, and compleat in him.
Quest. 17. May we be said to be compleat as the Jews without Infant Baptism?
Answ. Our compleatness is in that we have not Ordinances as the Jews had, but we are compleat in that we have all in Christ without them, Col. 2.8,9,10.
Quest. 18. Have not our Children then less privilege than the Jews had?
Answ. No: For Circumcision was a privilege only for a time, and comparitively to the estate of the Gentiles who knew not God; but of itself was a heavy yoke, Acts 15.10. Gal. 5.1,2,3.
Quest. 19. Why did the Jews then so much centend for it, Acts 15.1,5.
Answ. Because they too much esteemed the Law, and knew not their liberty by the Gospel.
Quest. 20. Had it not been a discomfort to the believing Jews to have their Children unbaptized, and out of the Covenant?
Answ. The want of Baptism to Infants was never any grievance to Believers in the New Testament, nor were they thereby put out of the Covenant of Grace.
Quest. 21. Was not the proper reason of Circumcising the Infants of the Jews the interest which they had in the Covenant to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. to be a God to him and to his seed?
Answ. The end of Circumcision was indeed to be a token of the whole Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.4,5,6,7,8. not only the promise, ver. 7. But the formal proper distinguishing reason why some were to be Circumcised, and others not, was God's Comand alone, not the interest in the Covenant; sith Ishmael who was not a Childe of promise, Gen. 17.20.21. Rom. 9.6,7,8,9. and those who were in Abrahams house, though not of his Seed, were Circumcised, but no Females, nor Males under eight days old.
Quest. 22. Was not the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. the Covenant of Grace?
Answ. It was, according to the hidden meaning of the Holy Ghost, the Evangelical Covenant, Gal. 3.16. But according to the open sense of the words, a Covenant of special benefits to Abrahams inheriting natural posterity, and therefore not a pure Gospel Covenant.
Quest. 23. Are not Believers Children comprehended under the promise, to be a God to Abraham and his seed? Gen. 17.7.
Answ. No: unless they become Abrahams seed according to Election of Grace by Faith.
Quest. 24. Did Circumcision seal the Gospel Covenant? Rom. 4.11.
Answ. That text speaks not of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams, which sealed the righteousness of faith he had before Circumcision, and assured thereby righteousness to all, though uncircumcised, who should believe as he did.
Quest 15. Why should not Infants be baptized, sith they were Circumcised?
Answ. The reason why Male Infants were to be Circumcised, was a particular Command of God to Abrahams house for special ends belonging to the time before Christ, which Baptism hath not, nor is there any Command to use Baptism according to the rule of Circumcision.
Quest. 16. Did not Baptism come in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.11,12. and so to be used as it was?
Answ. The Apostles words import not that our Baptism came in the room of the Jews Circumcision; there is no mention of any bodily Circumcision but Christ's, which our baptism cannot be said to suceed to, as there it is made the cause of Spiritual Circumcision, without arrogating that to it which belongs to Christ alone, and Baptism is mentioned with faith, as the means whereby we are in Christ, and compleat in him.
Quest. 17. May we be said to be compleat as the Jews without Infant Baptism?
Answ. Our compleatness is in that we have not Ordinances as the Jews had, but we are compleat in that we have all in Christ without them, Col. 2.8,9,10.
Quest. 18. Have not our Children then less privilege than the Jews had?
Answ. No: For Circumcision was a privilege only for a time, and comparitively to the estate of the Gentiles who knew not God; but of itself was a heavy yoke, Acts 15.10. Gal. 5.1,2,3.
Quest. 19. Why did the Jews then so much centend for it, Acts 15.1,5.
Answ. Because they too much esteemed the Law, and knew not their liberty by the Gospel.
Quest. 20. Had it not been a discomfort to the believing Jews to have their Children unbaptized, and out of the Covenant?
Answ. The want of Baptism to Infants was never any grievance to Believers in the New Testament, nor were they thereby put out of the Covenant of Grace.
Quest. 21. Was not the proper reason of Circumcising the Infants of the Jews the interest which they had in the Covenant to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. to be a God to him and to his seed?
Answ. The end of Circumcision was indeed to be a token of the whole Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.4,5,6,7,8. not only the promise, ver. 7. But the formal proper distinguishing reason why some were to be Circumcised, and others not, was God's Comand alone, not the interest in the Covenant; sith Ishmael who was not a Childe of promise, Gen. 17.20.21. Rom. 9.6,7,8,9. and those who were in Abrahams house, though not of his Seed, were Circumcised, but no Females, nor Males under eight days old.
Quest. 22. Was not the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. the Covenant of Grace?
Answ. It was, according to the hidden meaning of the Holy Ghost, the Evangelical Covenant, Gal. 3.16. But according to the open sense of the words, a Covenant of special benefits to Abrahams inheriting natural posterity, and therefore not a pure Gospel Covenant.
Quest. 23. Are not Believers Children comprehended under the promise, to be a God to Abraham and his seed? Gen. 17.7.
Answ. No: unless they become Abrahams seed according to Election of Grace by Faith.
Quest. 24. Did Circumcision seal the Gospel Covenant? Rom. 4.11.
Answ. That text speaks not of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams, which sealed the righteousness of faith he had before Circumcision, and assured thereby righteousness to all, though uncircumcised, who should believe as he did.
Dieter Schneider
Puritan Board Sophomore
My dear brother – you are greatly mistaken - and as a learned man I think you ought to know better (please take my gentle rebuke in the right spirit)! Please do not be breaking the ninth commandment. Many Baptists – all over the world – are NOT Dispensationalists! I also know many paedo-Baptists who are Dispensationalists!
Whilst I profoundly disagree with my paedo-Baptist brethren, I am grateful for such a rich heritage. Had Calvin been a Baptist I might be prepared to worship him! Such is my admiration for this great giant!
Why such theological mud-slinging and why such delight? Or is it gloating? Is it edifying? And why in the public domain? It sounds like men coming out of the closet!
Where is Christ in all this? Why is there so little glorying in the Cross? Are we more godly as a result?
By all means, let us be mature to debate the issues – in a spirit of brotherly affection and speaking the truth in love.
There is not even one paedo-Baptist view and the arguments are complex, to say the least.
We ought to be firing our ammunition at a common enemy: the world, the flesh and the devil. Let's encourage rather than antagonize one another.
We may pride ourselves in knowing the doctrines of grace, but what about the grace of the doctrines? I trust you are spiritual enough to bear with me – as the weaker brother.
I need to start closing really old threads. Opening up two year old threads again is just so disjointed.
- Status
