Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?
I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?
James,
Baptism and ecclesiology are the two major differences. Folks may say, "You only disagree on those two things? Certainly you can reconcile if that's the only thing separating you." What's missing is the depth of both disagreements.
I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?
I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?
The "RB" eternalises and etherealises covenant theology by absorbing it into the decree of God and thereby separates it from God's revealed will in time and space. The Presbyterian sees both an eternal purpose and a temporal administration in God's covenant and thereby distinguishes the secret things which belong to the Lord and those things which are revealed for us and our children.
The "RB" eternalises and etherealises covenant theology by absorbing it into the decree of God and thereby separates it from God's revealed will in time and space.
So Reformed Baptists believe that the New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, as do Presbyterians, but they believe that - unlike the Abrahamic Covenant - the administration of it is to be restricted to those old enough who personally make a credible or accredited profession of regeneration?
I believe in temporal blessings upon those who might not be elect but that does not mean they are members of the Covenant of Grace.
Let's speak of the Abrahamic Covenant right now for an example. I do not believe the Abrahamic is purely one of the Covenant of Grace. Ishmael and Isaac were two brothers included in the Abrahamic Covenant. But where both brothers included in the Everlasting Covenant? I do not believe they were per what Genesis 17 reveals. I leave Charles Hodges thoughts on this as an example. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/hodge-abrahamic-covenants-479/
Is that longhand for confusing the covenant of redemption with the covenant of grace?
I do not believe they were per what Genesis 17 reveals. I leave Charles Hodges thoughts on this as an example. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/hodge-abrahamic-covenants-479/
If, therefore, circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew nation, it was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew Church. All this arose from the nature of God’s covenant with Abraham. In that covenant, as we have seen, were included both national and religious promises. God selected the descendants of that patriarch through Isaac to be a people peculiar to himself, He constituted them a nation to be secluded and hedged around from other nations, He gave them the land of Canaan for a habitation, and He enacted for them a code of laws, embracing their civil, national, social, personal, and religious duties. All these enactments were mingled together. The people were not regarded as bearing distinct relations to the magistrate and to God. All their obligations were to Him. They were a holy people; a Church in the form of a nation. The great promise, as we have seen, was the promise of the redemption of the world by the Messiah. To this everything else was subordinate. The main design of the constitution of the Hebrews as a distinct nation, and of their separation from all other people, was to keep alive the knowledge of that promise. Almost the whole significancy and value of the priesthood, sacrifices, and temple service, were to prefigure the person, offices, and work of the Messiah. To the Hebrews as a people were committed the “oracles of God;” this was their grand distinction. Those oracles had reference to the great work of redemption. To suppose a man to be a Jew, and not at least a professed believer in those promises and predictions, is a contradiction. A man, therefore, was a member of the Jewish commonwealth, only in virtue of his being a member of the Jewish Church; at least, he could not be the former without being the latter. Consequently, every child who was circumcised in evidence that he was one of the chosen people, was thereby sealed as a member of the Church of God as it then existed.
If, therefore, circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew nation, it was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew Church. All this arose from the nature of God’s covenant with Abraham. In that covenant, as we have seen, were included both national and religious promises. God selected the descendants of that patriarch through Isaac to be a people peculiar to himself, He constituted them a nation to be secluded and hedged around from other nations, He gave them the land of Canaan for a habitation, and He enacted for them a code of laws, embracing their civil, national, social, personal, and religious duties. All these enactments were mingled together. The people were not regarded as bearing distinct relations to the magistrate and to God. All their obligations were to Him. They were a holy people; a Church in the form of a nation. The great promise, as we have seen, was the promise of the redemption of the world by the Messiah. To this everything else was subordinate. The main design of the constitution of the Hebrews as a distinct nation, and of their separation from all other people, was to keep alive the knowledge of that promise. Almost the whole significancy and value of the priesthood, sacrifices, and temple service, were to prefigure the person, offices, and work of the Messiah. To the Hebrews as a people were committed the “oracles of God;” this was their grand distinction. Those oracles had reference to the great work of redemption. To suppose a man to be a Jew, and not at least a professed believer in those promises and predictions, is a contradiction. A man, therefore, was a member of the Jewish commonwealth, only in virtue of his being a member of the Jewish Church; at least, he could not be the former without being the latter. Consequently, every child who was circumcised in evidence that he was one of the chosen people, was thereby sealed as a member of the Church of God as it then existed.
It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and His true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e., the covenant of grace), were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the Seed of the woman, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the church founded on the other.
When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts viii. 37) The Church, therefore, is, in its essential nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, requiring merely external profession as the condition of membership. While this is true and vitally important, it is no less true that believers make themselves visible by the profession of the truth, by holiness of life, by separation from the world as a peculiar people, and by organizing themselves for the worship of Christ, and for mutual watch and care.
Charles Hodge, Church Polity (New York: Scribner, 1878), 66-67.
(Gen 17:16) I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her."
(Gen 17:17) Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"
(Gen 17:18) And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!"
(Gen 17:19) God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.
(Gen 17:20) As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.
(Gen 17:21) But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year."
(Gal 4:22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
(Gal 4:23) But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
(Gal 4:24) Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
(Gal 4:25) Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
(Gal 4:26) But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
(Gal 4:27) For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband."
(Gal 4:28) Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
(Gal 4:29) But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
(Gal 4:30) But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
(Gal 4:31) So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.
How does each view's covenant theology affect it's sacramentology and ecclesiology?
I'm such a conciliatory guy.
James,
Paedobaptist Covenant Theology is not a monolith. Ernest Kevan put the Puritans into two camps and Mark Karlberg has done a better job http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective.pdf and Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant
You'll find Covenantal Baptist who agree with these nuanced streams of Covenantal Theology.
To read them for yourself plese see here Covenant Theology & Baptism | Covenantal Baptist most of these resources are available for free as a pdf, epub or online.
James,
Regretfully, there is no one/simple answer to your question. (Part of the reason is because there is not a single/standard Presbyterian covenant theology to compare it with).
For the most part, as has already been mentioned, Reformed Baptists believe the New Covenant is made with the elect alone (though I have run into RBs on this board who deny that), and this is the primary difference.
However, among those who believe the New Covenant is made with the elect alone, you will find further differences over how the New Covenant relates to the Covenant of Grace. In his Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of 1689, Dr. Sam Waldron argues that we must not equate any historical covenant with the Covenant of Grace and must view them all as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. So Waldron would argue that the Covenant of Grace advanced/changed as to the nature of its members when the New Covenant was inaugurated.
On the other side would be those, like me, who would equate the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace (rather than just an administration of it). Though some disagree, this is likely the view in mind in LBC 7.3 Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF Nehemiah Coxe was the likely editor of the 1689LBC (he died before it was signed). In his book on covenant theology from Adam to Abraham he passingly equates the new covenant to the covenant of grace, though he does not elaborate because that was not the focus. In his preface he says he didn't finish his work to include his thoughts on the Mosaic and New covenants because he was "happily prevented" by the publication of Owen's commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13, which he agrees with.
In that commentary, Owen argues that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, that it is made with the elect alone, and that "No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect." Owen was not a baptist, but he argued against the opinion of "most reformed divines" on the matter of the New Covenant, and since your question is about differences in our understanding of covenant theology, I mention it here.
I think they are both good positions to hold (just that the presbyterian is the better position).
So Reformed Baptists believe that the New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, as do Presbyterians, but they believe that - unlike the Abrahamic Covenant - the administration of it is to be restricted to those old enough who personally make a credible or accredited profession of regeneration?
Richard, I'm not sure I understand how you've come to this conclusion. The New Covenant is not an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant or the encompassing Old Covenant. The New Covenant is completely unlike the covenant that preceded it (Heb. 8:8-13). When a professor of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized he is baptized with the sign of the New Covenant alone. Sure, there is a shadow of the spiritual seed of Abraham, but there is not a one for one correlation between the signs (circumcision and baptism); at least not in the RB schema. The reason for this is because the New Covenant is built on better promises (Christ); Heb. 8:6.
This is not a baptism argument, it's simply a differentiation between the different views of the New Covenant.
The New Covenant is not an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant or the encompassing Old Covenant.
The New Covenant is completely unlike the covenant that preceded it (Heb. 8:8-13).