# "Reformed" Baptist becomes Reformed



## Roldan (Feb 18, 2004)

I thought this was pretty interesting. Read patiently.

Infant Baptism

Question
I'm studying the paedobaptism issue, and I'm using many traditional and popular works from both credobaptists and paedobaptists. To date I find the Reformed Baptist stuff to be the most biblical. It just seems to fit better than the paedobaptism reasoning, but I'm open to change. How one understands the covenants and their fulfillment, etc., would appear to be crucial. Any thoughts? 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Answer
I know this can be a really tough subject -- I myself was a Baptist for 25 years or so! In fact, most Presbyterians I know used to be Baptists. I also agree that much of what has been written over the years fails to address some of the concerns that I thought were most important when I was a Baptist. For example, R.C. Sproul basically argues from church history. While I love R.C. (I used to work for him at Ligonier), I just don't find this argument very compelling from a sola Scriptura perspective. Many other authors argued from assumptions carried over from the old covenant, but I had not yet come to the solid conclusion that the old covenant was the same covenant as the new covenant, and most authors do not present or defend this fact. Then too, they nearly all mentioned the probability that infants were present in the household baptisms.

For me, the most critical interpretive questions that I needed answered were:

Why doesn't the Bible explicitly teach either paedobaptism or credobaptism? 
What would the assumptions of the original audience have been in the absence of any explicit teaching on this subject? 
Does the Bible anywhere demonstrate what the original audience assumed?
The most critical theological questions that pertained to the issue were:
What does baptism symbolize?
Can the new covenant be broken?
What finally turned me into a Presbyterian were the answers to these questions. First, I came to conclude that the new covenant was simply a renewal of the old covenant, not a completely different covenant. I also came to conclude that the Bible taught that the new covenant could be broken (from many of the same texts from which people erroneously argue that salvation can be lost). Since salvation cannot be lost, and since the new covenant can be broken, then there must be people in the new covenant who are not saved. For me, this removed the objection that any covenant sign ought only to be applied to believers. The implication became that it ought to be applied to all covenant members. Then, it became easy to assume that the same covenant rules which applied to the old administrations of the covenant still applied in the new administration of the covenant. (There is a related point on which I still differ from many Reformed thinkers: I do not believe that any portion of the law has been abrogated, but that Jesus continues to fulfill on our behalf those portions which we are no longer to do ourselves, such as animal sacrifice, etc. My view of the Law presents an even stronger case for paedobaptism that some of the more traditional statements on the Law do.)

As I looked at the New Testament for help, I was a bit surprised to find that it nowhere explicitly teaches that baptism is &quot;an outward sign of an inward change.&quot; I still believe this is one valid aspect of its symbolism (implied in texts such as Rom. 6:4; Col. 2:12; 1 Pet. 3:21), but not that its symbolism is limited to this. Colossians 2:11-12 was a text I thought the Presbyterians used unfairly at first, but in time I came to agree that the implication of that text is that baptism now accomplishes what circumcision used to accomplish, and thus that it really is the new covenant sign. As a covenant sign, I came to believe that baptism symbolizes the entire covenant, not just one particular covenant blessing, and not even all covenant blessings alone. Rather, the implication would be that, like circumcision, it symbolizes both covenant blessings and covenant curses. 

Finally, on the hermeneutical front, I was struck by Lydia's household baptism in Acts 16:14-15. This was not because I assumed there were children present (though it does seem odd to me to think that there were no children present in any of the households that were baptized), but rather because of Luke's choice of words. That is, Luke says that Lydia believed, and indicates that on that basis her household was baptized. In saying that the household was baptized, Luke never differentiates believers from unbelievers. Regardless of the age of those in the household, they were apparently all baptized. Because Luke does not distinguish between believers and unbelievers in the household, it indicates to me that he assumed that their belief or unbelief was immaterial to the question of whether or not they should be baptized. The important issue was the belief of the head of the household. 

Two more theological points that impact the discussion, particularly with regard to breaking the new covenant, are the way the new covenant and its blessings are revealed and applied to believers, and the conditionality of all covenants. Ultimately, the covenant will become unbreakable, but only when Jesus returns and gives us all the covenant blessings. Until then, we partake of blessings only partially, and the covenant remains breakable. A good book on this idea is The Coming of the Kingdom by Herman Ridderbos. 

On the point that all covenants are conditional, there has been much confusion because of the unfortunate teaching that has existed within the Reformed tradition that some covenants were unconditional (Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic) while others were conditional (Adamic, Mosaic). Meredith Kline popularized this view, but did so on faulty data. As is reflected even in good study Bibles, for many years research seemed to indicate that in the ancient Near East there was such a thing as an unconditional &quot;royal land grant treaty.&quot; The conclusion that these were unconditional, however, was based on covenant boundary marker stones that sounded unconditional and contained no curses. More recently, though, they dug up these stones to study them further. What they found was that on the portions of the stones buried under the ground by time, these treaties contain stipulations and curses, indicating that these treaties really were conditional. But this is perhaps a point that will continue to be debated as people discover more data, reinterpret existing data, etc.

More importantly, the Bible itself lists explicit stipulations and curses in conjuction with the supposedly unconditional biblical covenants (e.g. uncircumcision results in being cut off from Abraham's people in Gen. 18; death penalty for murderers in Gen. 9; fidelity to God in 2 Chron. 6:16; etc.) Thus, there really is no good case that any biblical covenant was unconditional. This is most obvious in the case of the new covenant, where Jesus himself had to die in order to receive the covenant curses due us in order to gain the covenant blessings for us. To me, it is somewhat curious that the view that some covenants were conditional (Adamic, Mosaic) and others unconditional (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) has become ingrained in a tradition (Reformed) that claims there is really only one covenant in various administrations. How does the same covenant ping-pong between being conditional and unconditional? 

Anyway, baptism is certainly an issue that is not so clearly presented in Scripture that believers cannot reasonably disagree on it. And you can see from what convinced me that my own views are not entirely identical to those of others in the paedobaptism camp. Different arguments convince different people. The ones I have mentioned are just the ones that convinced me, and are largely based on implication and assumption (as are, by the way, credobaptism arguments). I still know, respect and love a great many Reformed Baptists, and it seems to me that the same issues that prevent them from being paedobaptists are things like the assumption that the new covenant cannot be broken and that baptism is only an outward sign of an inward change. I also know a great many paedobaptist who seem to hold to paedobaptism for insufficient reasons, but I love them too.

Answer by Ra McLaughlin

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Roldan]

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Roldan]

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## turmeric (Feb 18, 2004)

*Paedo? Credo? Don't know*

Maybe you can help me understand this, I am sure it's been addressed before, but the arguments usually scare me, they start to sound Arminian, and I don't want to get within a mile of Auburn - but how can you break a covenant written on your heart? Isn't that the distinctive of the new covenant, i.e. not like the old...which covenant you broke...but this is the new covenant I will make with you in those days, I will write my laws on your hearts...THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE QUOTE!!
But isn't that the point, that it's unbreakable, unlike the old one which was broken? This time I'll try to pay attention.


----------



## Roldan (Feb 18, 2004)

[quote:61f3024ed6][i:61f3024ed6]Originally posted by turmeric[/i:61f3024ed6]
Maybe you can help me understand this, I am sure it's been addressed before, but the arguments usually scare me, they start to sound Arminian, and I don't want to get within a mile of Auburn - but how can you break a covenant written on your heart? Isn't that the distinctive of the new covenant, i.e. not like the old...which covenant you broke...but this is the new covenant I will make with you in those days, I will write my laws on your hearts...THIS IS NOT A COMPLETE QUOTE!!
But isn't that the point, that it's unbreakable, unlike the old one which was broken? This time I'll try to pay attention. [/quote:61f3024ed6]

&quot;Two more theological points that impact the discussion, particularly with regard to breaking the new covenant, are the way the new covenant and its blessings are revealed and applied to believers, and the conditionality of all covenants.Two more theological points that impact the discussion, particularly with regard to breaking the new covenant, are the way the new covenant and its blessings are revealed and applied to believers, and the conditionality of all covenants. [b:61f3024ed6]Ultimately, the covenant will become unbreakable, but only when Jesus returns and gives us all the covenant blessings. Until then, we partake of blessings only partially, and the covenant remains breakable.[/b:61f3024ed6] A good book on this idea is The Coming of the Kingdom by Herman Ridderbos. 


The final fullfilment of Jer. 31 will be at Christ Return for now it has been inaugurated but will reach its completion with the parousia, for who now can say they abide by the law perfectly?

Now of course those TRULY regenerated will never break the Covenant but we have members of the Visible chuch who have agreed to the Covenant who will eventually Break the agreement they made before God nominally.

Grace and Peace

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 18, 2004)

[quote:7318eebbea]Ultimately, the covenant will become unbreakable, but only when Jesus returns and gives us all the covenant blessings. Until then, we partake of blessings only partially, and the covenant remains breakable. [/quote:7318eebbea]

This is auburn theology. It speaks of an eschatological justification that depends on us enduring until Christ returns to finally justify us.

The covenant is not fluid. It is not one thing today and another when Christ returns. In God's eyes [i:7318eebbea]it is finished[/i:7318eebbea]. It is done. Rom 8:30 is past tense.

His covenant is what it is and it, like God Himself, does not change.

Phillip

[Edited on 2-18-04 by pastorway]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 18, 2004)

[quote:889b262e03][i:889b262e03]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:889b262e03]
[quote:889b262e03]Ultimately, the covenant will become unbreakable, but only when Jesus returns and gives us all the covenant blessings. Until then, we partake of blessings only partially, and the covenant remains breakable. [/quote:889b262e03]

This is auburn theology. It speaks of an eschatological justification that depends on us enduring until Christ returns to finally justify us.

The covenant is not fluid. It is not one thing today and another when Christ returns. In God's eyes [i:889b262e03]it is finished[/i:889b262e03]. It is done. Rom 8:30 is past tense.

His covenant is what it is and it, like God Himself, does not change.

Phillip
[/quote:889b262e03]

Phillip,

This is not Auburn theology. Ridderbos here is making a Biblical distinction between the already and the not yet. There is an eschatological dimension to the covenant. To deny that is to lump every Reformer and (non-baptistic) puritan and Presbyterian (including me) in with that heresy.

There is a careful distinction to be made, but the problem comes (in my humble opinion) from the way you define covenant. We have spoken on this before. I say this not to reopen that discussion, or dismiss your view, but to gently warn you to be careful in lumping together what you view as a mistaken dimension of the covenant that has been held by orthodox divines for centuries with a novel heterodoxy.

Notice that Ridderbos is speaking of those in the visible church, not the elect. This is the very important distinction that Wilson et al reject.

This is why the federal vision is so dangerous. It resembles orthodoxy, but is not.

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 18, 2004)

Fred, let me ask for my own understanding - if a person is elect, are they ever in a breakable covenant? Is a redeemed person ever in a situation where the covenant he is in is partial now and permanent only later? 

What about Rom 8:30 being written in the past tense?

This view of the covenant, as being conditional and breakable, leads to either a works sanctification and eschatological justification, or to the possibility of losing your salvation and being thrown out of the covenant altogether. That is all pure auburn.......

Does not the WCF and catechisms teach that only the elect are in the covenant of grace? If so, then it is not temporary, conditional, or breakable, for men cannot undo the salvation of God.

And if only the elect are in the CoG, then being an unregenerate church member, while it may expose you to the benefits of the covenant, in no way puts you IN the covenant. To be in the covenant community is not the same as being in the covenant.

Of course that is my position as a Baptist......and perhaps paedos need to be a little more clear about which covenant they are talking about. Their own confessions say that only the elect are in the CoG, then they assume (presume) that any in the church are in the covenant. It cannot be both!

Phillip


----------



## Roldan (Feb 18, 2004)

[quote:2fedf51adb][i:2fedf51adb]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:2fedf51adb]
[quote:2fedf51adb]Ultimately, the covenant will become unbreakable, but only when Jesus returns and gives us all the covenant blessings. Until then, we partake of blessings only partially, and the covenant remains breakable. [/quote:2fedf51adb]

This is auburn theology. It speaks of an eschatological justification that depends on us enduring until Christ returns to finally justify us.

The covenant is not fluid. It is not one thing today and another when Christ returns. In God's eyes [i:2fedf51adb]it is finished[/i:2fedf51adb]. It is done. Rom 8:30 is past tense.

His covenant is what it is and it, like God Himself, does not change.

Phillip

[Edited on 2-18-04 by pastorway] [/quote:2fedf51adb]

WOW, Again my point is made. Covenant theology is not understood by our passionate and loving baptist brothers.

I think this piece of an article by Richard Pratt on Jer. 31 is helpful at this juncture.

&quot;It is well known that the NT teaches that Christ fulfilled OT promises about the restoration from exile. But these fulfillments take place in a manner unanticipated by OT prophets. Instead of happening completely and all at once, the restoration expectations were fulfilled and are being fulfilled over a long stretch of time. Jesus explained this process of fulfillment for the Kingdom of God after the exile in the parable of the mustard seed (Matt. 13:31-32). He explained that the grand kingdom would begin very small, slowly grow, and finally reach full maturity. It helps to think of this NT perspective on the fulfillment of restoration prophecies in three stages: the inauguration of fulfillment in the first coming of Christ; the continuation of fulfillment between the first and second comings of Christ; and the consummation of fulfillment at the return of Christ. The NT repeatedly explains that OT predictions of the glorious state of blessing after the exile began to be fulfilled at Christ's first coming, continue to be fulfilled in part today, and will finally be realized beyond imagination when Christ returns. 
Because the NT does not explicitly apply this threefold fulfillment pattern to Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant, the fulfillment of that particular prophecy is often misunderstood. Often interpreters approach this text as if the new covenant had come in its fullness when Christ first came to earth, but this is a significant error. Christ has not yet completed the restoration, and thus we have not yet obtained the promised blessings in full. The new covenant was inaugurated in Christ's first coming; it progresses in part during the continuation of Christ's Kingdom; but it will reach complete fulfillment only when Christ returns in the consummation of all things. We must approach Jeremiah 31:31-34 as we approach all prophesies regarding the restoration after exile: with the understanding that the restoration of the kingdom and the renewal of the covenant will not be complete until Jesus returns. 
When we apply the basic pattern of NT fulfillment to Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant, it becomes clear that his expectations provide no basis at all for opposing infant baptism. To illustrate that this is the case, we will return to the three common objections often raised by Jeremiah 31:31-34. 
In the first place, Jeremiah announced that the new covenant couldn't be broken. In the consummation of Christ's Kingdom, this prediction will be completely fulfilled. Once Christ returns it will not be possible to break the new covenant and thereby to enter into another exile. Before that time, however, participants in the new covenant can break the new covenant. In addition to the numerous warnings against apostasy in the NT, we should give special attention to Hebrews 10:28-31: 
"Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, 'It is mine to avenge; I will repay,' and again, 'The Lord will judge his people.' It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." 
This passage makes it plain that until Christ returns it is possible for the new covenant to be broken. The writer of Hebrews acknowledges that covenant breakers under Moses were executed for capital offenses (Heb 10:28) and then argues, from the lesser to the greater ("how much more" [Heb 10:29]), that even more severe punishment is deserved by people who have "trampled the Son of God under foot ... treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified [them] ... and ... insulted the Spirit of grace" (Heb 10:29). The three objects in focus - Son of God, blood of the covenant, and Spirit of grace - are features of the new covenant. Flagrant violation of these new covenant realities is quite possible and leads to severe punishment. 
In fact, the writer of Hebrews applied the warning "the Lord will judge his people" from Deuteronomy 32:36 - a warning to the covenant people under the Mosaic covenant - to this new covenant situation, thus equating the circumstance of the new covenant prior to the return of Christ to the situation Israel faced under the old covenant. Judgment was and is possible for both the old and the new covenant communities, and judgment flows only from covenant breaking, not from covenant keeping. If judgment is a possibility under the new covenant, then so is the covenant breaking that leads to that judgment. 
As the NT indicates, until Christ returns it should never be thought that the new covenant cannot be broken. On the contrary, the NT expects some participants in the new covenant to break that covenant. Therefore, the rejection of infant baptism on the basis that infants may prove to be covenant breakers is not well founded. 
In the second place, we have seen that the new covenant is internalized. This feature of Jeremiah's prophecy may appear to stand against the idea of bringing infants into external blessings in the new covenant through baptism. This objection to infant baptism also falls when we think more carefully about how this expectation is fulfilled. 
We can have confidence that when Christ returns in glory, everyone in the new creation after Christ's return will have the law of God written on his or her heart. We will all love and delight in his ways, just as Christ already does (2 Cor. 3:16-18; 1 Thess. 3:11-13). In this sense, we expect Jeremiah's prophecy to find complete fulfillment when Christ returns. 
At the present time, however, this expectation is only partially fulfilled. There is a sense in which the hearts and minds of believers have been renewed by God's grace (Rom. 12:1-2). At the same time, however, we are also commanded by NT writers to observe guidance from the Scriptures and to watch for corruption in our thinking (e.g. Rom. 1:18-2:29; Eph. 4:17-32; 2 Pet. 3:17). The NT speaks this way because the promise of complete internalization of the law of God has begun within believers, but it has not yet been completed. 
For this reason, it should not surprise us to find that even in the NT some people are blessed simply to be involved in the more external dimensions of the new covenant community. This kind of circumstance occurs regularly in the NT, but a striking example appears in Paul's discussion in 1 Cor 7:14: 
"For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." 
When discussing the responsibilities of believers married to unbelievers, Paul made a remarkable observation. He argued that the unbelievers (a;pistoj) are set apart from the world or sanctified (a`gia,zw) by their association with their believing spouses. This language recalls the expression of Hebrews 10:29 that one who turns from Christ "treat as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him." Sanctification in this sense parallels the OT concept of "consecration" (vdq)) which is applied both to people and things as they are set apart from ordinary life for special contact with the presence of God. These people are not necessarily "saved" or "regenerated" (to use common theological categories). The new covenant has not been internalized for them, but they are sanctified by external associations nonetheless. From Paul's use of this language for unbelieving spouses in 1 Corinthians 7:14, we see that prior to the return of Christ, it is appropriate to speak of association with the external dimensions of the new covenant. Such association sanctifies even those who have not been transformed by God's grace in their minds and hearts. 
Interestingly enough, in 1 Corinthians 7:14 this concept of sanctification is not only applied to unbelieving spouses but also to the children of such marriages. As Paul put it, "your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy." Again, applying the old covenant designation of "unclean" to indicate unacceptability within the vicinity of the holy presence of God (e.g. Lev. 10:9-10; Num. 5:2-3), Paul asserts that the sanctification of the unbelieving spouse renders even their children holy or consecrated. 
Until Christ returns in glory it is not only permissible and helpful, but also necessary to speak of certain people as consecrated or sanctified to God by their close associations with the people of God and with the activities of true believers. For this reason, it is quite appropriate to speak of the children of believers as sanctified or consecrated by their involvement in the more external dimensions of life in the new covenant even though they may not be regenerated. The internalization promised in the new covenant by no means opposes to the baptism of infants. 
In the third place, we saw that many evangelicals object to infant baptism because the new covenant distributes salvation to all of its participants. As with the previous objections, this point of view is correct insofar as it relates to the complete fulfillment of the new covenant in the consummation. When Christ returns he will separate the just and unjust, the sheep and the goats, true believers and unbelievers in the church. The promise that the new covenant will grant salvation to all who participate will be fulfilled by the removal of the unbelievers at the time of judgment. Only true believers will be left, and thus all who are in covenant will be saved. 
Yet, prior to the judgment that Christ will render at his return, the new covenant community is not restricted to believers only. If it were, there would be no separation of people at Christ's return. We have already mentioned Hebrews 10:28-31 which speaks of judgment coming against some who have been "sanctified by the blood of the covenant." We should add to this passage those that warn the members of church communities (often called "brothers") to be sure to pass the test of perseverance (e.g. 1 Cor. 9:27; 2 Cor 13:5; 2 Pet. 1:10; Rev. 2:7,11,17,26; 3:5,12,21; 21:7). The familiar explanation of apostasy found in 1 John 2:19 summarizes the situation well: 
"They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had belonged to us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." 
As the parables of the Ten Virgins and Talents (Matt 25:1-30) illustrate, there are many in the new covenant community who will prove themselves not to be truly regenerate. Consequently, there is no need to withhold baptism from infants on the basis of Jeremiah's new covenant expectations. Until the consummation the new covenant will continue to be mixed with true believers and sanctified unbelievers. 

Conclusion
As we have seen in this study, Jeremiah's prophecy of the new covenant in Jeremiah 31:31-34 has been the basis of a number of objections to the practice of infant baptism. We have looked at this prophecy in connection with the many other OT expectations for the return from exile. Moreover, we have noted how the NT understands the fulfillment of restoration prophecies in three stages. All followers of Christ look forward to the day when this age of sin and death will be entirely replaced by the new world of blessing. At that time, there will be no bearing of children and the question of infant baptism will be moot. [b:2fedf51adb]Yet, until that day we live in a time when the new covenant still includes people who become covenant breakers, who benefit only from the external dimensions of the new covenant, and who have never been regenerated.[/b:2fedf51adb] Until that time, we continue to have children to multiply and to fill the earth. As a result, we baptize our children as believers circumcised their sons in the OT. We baptize them as the expected heirs of the new covenant, those blessed with a heritage of faith and special privileges and responsibilities before God.&quot; 

Please let us not confuse centuries of Reformed Covenant theology with modern heretical garbage.

In Search of Clarity, Roldan 
:saint:

[Edited on 2-18-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 18, 2004)

[quote:ef4fc148f9][i:ef4fc148f9]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:ef4fc148f9]
Fred, let me ask for my own understanding - if a person is elect, are they ever in a breakable covenant? Is a redeemed person ever in a situation where the covenant he is in is partial now and permanent only later? 

What about Rom 8:30 being written in the past tense?

This view of the covenant, as being conditional and breakable, leads to either a works sanctification and eschatological justification, or to the possibility of losing your salvation and being thrown out of the covenant altogether. That is all pure auburn.......

Does not the WCF and catechisms teach that only the elect are in the covenant of grace? If so, then it is not temporary, conditional, or breakable, for men cannot undo the salvation of God.

And if only the elect are in the CoG, then being an unregenerate church member, while it may expose you to the benefits of the covenant, in no way puts you IN the covenant. To be in the covenant community is not the same as being in the covenant.

Of course that is my position as a Baptist......and perhaps paedos need to be a little more clear about which covenant they are talking about. Their own confessions say that only the elect are in the CoG, then they assume (presume) that any in the church are in the covenant. It cannot be both!

Phillip [/quote:ef4fc148f9]

Phillip,

The quick answer is found in the visible/invisible church distinction. Only the elect are in the covenant of grace, but various administrations of the covenant of grace admit both elect and non-elect.

This is vital. For example, Isaac was in the covenant of grace (elect) but Ishmael was not. But Ishmael [b:ef4fc148f9]was[/b:ef4fc148f9] in the Abrahamic covenant, and received its sign. The same with the Mosaic covenant. (I know, I know, you view the Mosaic differently, but you are still wrong  ) That is why Paul can say, not all of Israel are Israel.

But to answer another point - I do not believe that the elect can ever fall from covenant with God - that is where the Federal Vision gets murky. They want to talk about an election that is not eternal. But every man is in covenant with God. Some to glory and salvation, others to death and destruction.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 18, 2004)

So (to prove I understand Covenant theology but am trying to challenge it) one in the church who is not elect is in the outer/visible covenant of grace but not in the inner/invisible covenant of grace. Hence he will not meet the conditions of the CoG since to meet the conditions one must be in Christ. Therefore he is ultimately a covenant breaker and will receive the penalty for his sin and suffer covenant curses. 

I guess that is why those who are only in the [i:81bfe05267]outer[/i:81bfe05267] administration of the covenant are eventually cast into [i:81bfe05267]outer [/i:81bfe05267]darkness! 

Sure I understand. I just reject it because it is compounding what the Bible says about the &quot;Covenant of Grace!&quot; (Then again, I am a Baptist, so of course to you I am wrong!) Let us just not say that because we disagree that we misunderstand each other! 

That said, I do say that the Bible does not teach that to be in the visible church automatically puts you into a covenant relationship with God. Only the elect are in the CoG. Period. No one else is in any way in that Covenant! Again, to be int he covenant community is not the same as being int he covenant.

And without explanation, the quote I mentioned in my earlier post easily leads people astray from truth. God's covenant with His elect is neither breakable or temporary. Otherwise He has lied to us and to His own Son!!

Phillip

[Edited on 2-18-04 by pastorway]


----------



## Roldan (Feb 18, 2004)

Fred: &quot;The quick answer is found in the visible/invisible church distinction. Only the elect are in the covenant of grace, but various administrations of the covenant of grace admit both elect and non-elect. 

[u:365aa6ebdc][i:365aa6ebdc][b:365aa6ebdc]This is vital[/b:365aa6ebdc][/i:365aa6ebdc][/u:365aa6ebdc].&quot;

YES indeed, this is where, I think, the misunderstanding is, once this is embraced as biblical (and it is:bigsmile the rest fall into place.

Grace and Peace


----------



## Roldan (Feb 18, 2004)

Pastor, what about this:

Fred said &quot;This is vital. For example, Isaac was in the covenant of grace (elect) but Ishmael was not. But Ishmael was in the Abrahamic covenant, and received its sign. The same with the Mosaic covenant. (I know, I know, you view the Mosaic differently, but you are still wrong ) That is why Paul can say, not all of Israel are Israel.&quot;

How do you explain that? After all that was the Covenant of Grace right?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 18, 2004)

See, you do not understand the Reformed Baptist position do you? :tongue:

To answer your question, no, it was not the covenant of grace! Beside, Ishmael was not in the Covenant, period (Gen 17:19-21).

The Covenant of Grace, according to the LBCF, is the New Covenant. The Abrahamic and all others forshadowed the CoG/NC. The NC fulfilled the shadows. It alone in the New Covenantin Christ's blood - meaning to be in it you have had Christ's blood shed for you. And if you believe in particular redemption/limited atonement then it is easy to see that the NC is made only with the elect.

We need no visible/invisible distinction. God either sent Christ to die for you and inititate you into the CoG, or He did not and you will be judged!

Phillip


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 18, 2004)

[quote:794f4d1708][i:794f4d1708]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:794f4d1708]
See, you do not understand the Reformed Baptist position do you? :tongue:

To answer your question, no, it was not the covenant of grace! Beside, Ishmael was not in the Covenant, period (Gen 17:19-21).

The Covenant of Grace, according to the LBCF, is the New Covenant. The Abrahamic and all others forshadowed the CoG/NC. The NC fulfilled the shadows. It alone in the New Covenantin Christ's blood - meaning to be in it you have had Christ's blood shed for you. And if you believe in particular redemption/limited atonement then it is easy to see that the NC is made only with the elect.

We need no visible/invisible distinction. God either sent Christ to die for you and inititate you into the CoG, or He did not and you will be judged!

Phillip [/quote:794f4d1708]

Now, now, Phillip. The 1689 does not teach that the covenant of grace [b:794f4d1708]is[/b:794f4d1708] the new covenant. It teaches that the covenant of grace began with Adam in the garden, and that it received [b:794f4d1708]its fullest expression[/b:794f4d1708] in the new covenant (which is, by the way, the WCF position.

[quote:794f4d1708]This covenant {of grace, cf 7.2 - FTG} is revealed in the gospel; first of all [u:794f4d1708]to Adam in the promise of salvation[/u:794f4d1708] by the seed of the woman, and afterwards [u:794f4d1708]by farther steps[/u:794f4d1708], until the [u:794f4d1708]full discovery thereof[/u:794f4d1708] was completed in the New Testamentand it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; 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 (LBCF 7.3) [/quote:794f4d1708]

I know what your position is, and you are still wrong! 

But the 1689 is clear. It does not say that covenant of grace = new covenant. Rather it says that the new covenant is a [b:794f4d1708]revelation of[/b:794f4d1708] the covenant of grace.

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## pastorway (Feb 18, 2004)

Oh but Fred....lots of us RBs understand the LBCF to be Biblical when it does NOT say that the CoG existed in differing administrations throughout Scripture but instead was [i:6dfbdd2796]revealed[/i:6dfbdd2796] in further steps until it is fully discovered in the New Covenant.

Those other covenants were not the CoG, but revealed it in types and shadows until the final revelation was found in the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ's blood, which is what was forshadowed....hence it is the CoG.

That is my position and the position of many many RBs. So that is our take on the CoG and why we react like we do when paedos are not CLEAR about which aspect of their covenant construct they are talking about!!!

We keep it simple! You are in or out. Not visibly in but invisibly out!

Phillip

[Edited on 2-19-04 by pastorway]


----------



## luvroftheWord (Feb 18, 2004)

&quot;Simple&quot; does not equal &quot;correct&quot;. :saint:


----------



## kceaster (Feb 18, 2004)

*Phillip....*

[quote:41b9afd19d]Oh but Fred....lots of us RBs understand the LBCF to be Biblical when it does NOT say that the CoG existed in differing administrations throughout Scripture but instead was [i:41b9afd19d]revealed[/i:41b9afd19d] in further steps until it is fully discovered in the New Covenant.[/quote:41b9afd19d]

This does damage to the English language. It is not as if we're translating the 1689 from Latin or something. It was written in English and it cannot mean how you have interpreted it.

Do you have some divines from the time explain this in writing? I think this is a novel interpretation in the last 150 years, but is not the original intent of the LBCF.

I know you usually refuse to answer this, but I'll try it again. Would you please treat Matthew 7:21-23? These are clearly in the church, but are not saved. Who are they? This is a primary place where the visible and invisible church comes into play.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 18, 2004)

[quote:28906041af][i:28906041af]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:28906041af]
Oh but Fred....lots of us RBs understand the LBCF to be Biblical when it does NOT say that the CoG existed in differing administrations throughout Scripture but instead was [i:28906041af]revealed[/i:28906041af] in further steps until it is fully discovered in the New Covenant.

Those other covenants were not the CoG, but revealed it in types and shadows until the final revelation was found in the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ's blood, which is what was forshadowed....hence it is the CoG.

That is my position and the position of many many RBs. So that is our take on the CoG and why we react like we do when paedos are not CLEAR about which aspect of their covenant construct they are talking about!!!

We keep it simple! You are in or out. Not visibly in but invisibly out!

Phillip

[Edited on 2-19-04 by pastorway] [/quote:28906041af]

Phillip,

This really is not the historic Baptist understanding of the covenant of grace. It is also not necessary to reject paedobaptism. As you know, I am not really interested at this point in convincing you of paedobaptism - that can wait for another day! But what is important, I think, is the structure of the covenant of grace and its relation to the Biblical manifestations of that covenant (Gen 3:15, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New) .

This is a matter of first magnitude, as has been said:

[quote:28906041af]
The doctrine of the Covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scriptures are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenants of law and the covenants of grace. May God grant us now the power to instruct and you the grace to receive instruction on this vital subject. [b:28906041af](Charles Spurgeon)[/b:28906041af][/quote:28906041af]
Let me quote from two excellent reformed baptists (who need not ever be suspected of trying to view the covenant in such a way as &quot;sneak&quot; paedobaptism in:

&quot;Presbyterians have often spoken as if the covenant with Abraham were the covenant of grace, but this identification ignores its typical elements and its beginning in the lifetime of Abraham, not immediately after the Fall. [i:28906041af][b:28906041af]The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace.[/i:28906041af][/b:28906041af] {emphasis added - FTG} As the Confession remarks, 'the full discovery' of the covenant of grace 'was completed in the New Testament'. However, it is clear that the New Covenant was inaugurated in the events surrounding the first advent of Christ (Jer. 31:31; Heb 8:13). Thus is its crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the covenants of grace and the biblical, divine covenants. The divine covenants undoubtedly suggested this terminology, but no one of them ought to be equated with it... The [i:28906041af]organic unity[/i:28906041af] {emphasis in original} of the covenants means that they all depend on and grow out of each other. The divine covenants are not self-contained entities. They are all [b:28906041af][i:28906041af]phases in the growth of the same plant.[/i:28906041af][/b:28906041af] {emphasis added}... The Mosaic covenant is organically dependent upon the covenant with Abraham. The specific blessings of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen 12:1-3; 15:1-7, 18-21; 17:1-8) began to be fulfilled under the Mosaic covenant (Exod. 1:6-7; 2:23-25; 6:2-8; Deut. 1:8-11) .... How impossible it is to call the with Abraham a covenant of grace and the Mosaic covenant a covenant of works! they are inseparable. (Samuel Waldron, [u:28906041af]A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Confession[/u:28906041af], p. 108-109 )[/quote]

[quote:28906041af]It is nothing new for baptists to adhere to Covenant Theology... We believe that every covenant made with man since the Fall is unified in its essence. In all ages there has been one rule of life - God's moral law. God's standard of righteousness was the same before Moses received the Ten Commandments, and it is the same today. there has been but one way to salvation in all historic covenants since the Fall. the Gospel by which Adam was saved is the same as that by which we are saved. Genesis 3:15 declares a salvation that is wholly of grace through faith in Christ. the basic differences between the covenants of history in these essential matters are those of Biblical Theology. The promises of the Gospel have become more clear with each succeeding age of revelation, [b:28906041af]though the promises have been identically the same[/b:28906041af]. (Walter Chantry, &quot;Baptism and Covenant Theology&quot; p 4-5)[/quote:28906041af]

That is what the 1689 teaches. It is what Spurgeon taught, what Al Martin, Al Mohler and others teach now. It is exactly what I believed when I was a reformed baptist. It is critical.


----------



## luvroftheWord (Feb 19, 2004)

Fred,

This is off subject, but given your comments earlier about your extended family being Roman Catholic, I was just wondering, you yourself also a former Roman Catholic?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 19, 2004)

Matthew 7:21-23

Proves nothing about covenantal church membership. Jesus said He [i:dcef2760ca]never[/i:dcef2760ca] knew them no matter what they had done, or what they thought they had merited (salvation). He was never is relationship or covenant with them. They were not &quot;His people&quot;, no was He &quot;their God.&quot; He [i:dcef2760ca]never[/i:dcef2760ca] knew them.

as for the rest - I know we disagree Fred. That is fine. It is not the gospel we are arguing about. It is about a man made confessions and our understanding of the &quot;elements&quot; of the covenant of grace.

I have stated what I believe. I know what you believe. And my point in light of this thread is that I wanted to be sure and say that I do not see anywhere in the Scriptures where God's covenant with His elect is breakable, conditional, or rescindable.

That's all I wanted to say.
Phillip

[Edited on 2-19-04 by pastorway]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 19, 2004)

*Phillip....*

[quote:47e7fdb0ab]Matthew 7:21-23

Proves nothing about covenantal church membership. Jesus said He [i:47e7fdb0ab]never[/i:47e7fdb0ab] knew them no matter what they had done, or what they thought they had merited (salvation). He was never is relationship or covenant with them. They were not &quot;His people&quot;, no was He &quot;their God.&quot; He [i:47e7fdb0ab]never[/i:47e7fdb0ab] knew them.[/quote:47e7fdb0ab]

Unfortunately you have not answered the main question once again. We are not asking who these people are in God's eyes. Obviously, He doesn't count them in His covenant and they are not known to Him. But is that where it stops? By no means.

Who are they to us? They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot tell them apart from anyone else.

And, God does bless them by being with us. They partake of the same blessings as you or I. We disciple them. We baptize them. We give them the Lord's Table. They are communicant members in good standing. Yet, they are not God's own. In that day, He will tell them to depart from Him.

Now clearly, this presents us with a dilemma, and it is not a false one. To our eyes, they are no different than the ones in the ancient church. They are in the covenant community, but they are not in the covenant. This is the invisible/visible church distinction.

If you don't believe this, then you are basically saying that all those under your leadership are in the covenant of grace, and that is simply untrue. Some of these are not.

If you do not know who is and who is not then how do you administer any of the ordinances of Christ? You claim that it is sin for you to do so. How do you know when you sin and when you don't?

This is the whole reason for the visible/invisible church distinction. Why do you not think a distinction should be made? On the basis of the covenant? Since you didn't extend it to anyone and since you cannot enable anyone to stay in it, why should you protest the inclusion, externally, of those you cannot determine the status of. Let God be God and every man a liar.

Your basic premise is that you want your ministry to be marked by truly covenant people. That is a great aim. But you will never know until judgment who was a sheep in your particular flock and who was a goat. This does not mean you should remain indifferent to who you allow in your flock. You condemn sin and put away the evil from among you. But that does not mean you got it all or that there is not some evil still remaining in your flock. There will always be goats in the sheep. There is NOTHING you can do about it.

As far as you are able, be at peace. But do not forsake the teaching of the reformation on this point. It is true, there is a visible and invisible church in the NT age. I suggest you embrace it and see how it fits with your theology instead of denying what is clear from Scripture.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:e4b976d55a][i:e4b976d55a]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:e4b976d55a]
[quote:e4b976d55a]Matthew 7:21-23

Proves nothing about covenantal church membership. Jesus said He [i:e4b976d55a]never[/i:e4b976d55a] knew them no matter what they had done, or what they thought they had merited (salvation). He was never is relationship or covenant with them. They were not &quot;His people&quot;, no was He &quot;their God.&quot; He [i:e4b976d55a]never[/i:e4b976d55a] knew them.[/quote:e4b976d55a]

Unfortunately you have not answered the main question once again. We are not asking who these people are in God's eyes. Obviously, He doesn't count them in His covenant and they are not known to Him. But is that where it stops? By no means.

Who are they to us? They are our brothers and sisters in Christ. We cannot tell them apart from anyone else.

[/quote:e4b976d55a]

KC, 

I cannot speak for Pastor Way, but as another Reformed Baptist, I have no problem making a distinction between those who appear to be in Covenant and those who are actually in Covenant, you seem to be fiting a square where a circle belongs, for we, Reformed Baptist do not deny that distinction. 

Our arguement is that from God's perspective the New Covenant is unbreakable... and we quickly add God's perspective (since it is more than the prespective of a man is the true determiner of reality) is in reality the only one that matters in this debate... 

Is the New Covenant breakable, God says No, it only appears to us to be breakable.- A Reformed Baptist couldn't agree more. 

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

Persoanlly I think this whole issue is a diversion since you can be a Paedo and agree that the Covenant is unbreakable and you can be a Reformed Baptist and agree that the Covenant is breakable... so this is not really what seperates Reformed Baptist from Reformed Paedobaptist.


[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 19, 2004)

I am a little confused about Ridderbos. I was told that he has made that same Covenantal error that Reformed Baptist are accused of making in this discussion, in fact Fred Malone actually utilizes Ridderbos throughout his whole book because of Ridderbos's stance on the Covenant. Here is a few quotes that Malone pulled from Ridderbos in his book,

[quote:e80a24f4b7] The term "The children of the kingdom" indicating Israel "according to the flesh" (Matt. 8:12), is now used to the new sense of the "good seed" (Matt. 8:38). [i:e80a24f4b7] The special relation to God that was first applied to the totality of Israel, is now restricted (and extended) to those who respond to the preaching of the kingdom with faith and repentance and have been elected by God to this end. This change, noticeable in the gospel, finds its basis already in the Old Testament (Jer. 31)[/i:e80a24f4b7].... In the light of the whole gospel they are people who have accepted the preaching of the gospel in faith and conversion. It is they, and no one else, who receive the salvation of the kingdom. They are "Israel," 'God's people," and it is to them that all the promises of the covenant apply... the circle in which it is granted and [i:e80a24f4b7] where God's people are found, is no longer that of the empirical Israel, but it is that of those who are given remission of sins in Christ's death, and whose hearts have been renewed by the Holy Spirit [/i:e80a24f4b7] (Emphasis, Dr. Fred Malone]. (Ridderbos, Coming of the Kingdom, 200, 202. See Ridderbos' excellent discussion of the New Covenant, 192-202)

The reference to Jeremiah 31 is so important because according to this prophecy, the Lord God himself will accomplish the fulfillment of the condition for the maintenance of the new covenant. For he will write his law in the hearts of his people. To this end he will forgive their iniquity and no longer remember their sins (Jer. 31:33,34). According to these words at the last Supper, this fellowship of grace between God and his people is guaranteed by God himself and is consequenty [i:e80a24f4b7] unbreakable [/i:e80a24f4b7], and finds it foundation and strength in Christ's substitutive suffering and death (Emphasis, Dr. Fred Malone) (Ibid, p. 201) 

God's people are those for who Christ sheds his blood of the covenant. They share in the remission of sins brought about by him and in the unbreakable communion with God in the new covenant that he has made possible (ibid p. 202.) [/quote:e80a24f4b7]

So I am not sure that it is right to accuse Ridderbos of saying that new Covenant is breakable... or is there any counter factuals that show that Ridderbos either renounced his quotes above.

Also to my freind and brother Roldan,

you seem to say that the New Covenant blessings have not been realized, but surely that does not follow if the promises are being fullfilled partly now as we would expect in the Now and then model, after all has not Christ forgiven your sins, now? (Which was a promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31) Has not God regenerated your heart, now? (Which was a promise of the New Covenant in Jeremiah 31) Has not God kept his word or has He failed to give his Covenant promises ot those He established the Covenant with? Of course, the New Covenant blessings have not fully come in (ex. we are only regenerated and being santified), but that does not mean that God has not kept his promise to some of the Covenant members- the Kingdom has really been inaugurated... Therefore, If God regenerates and imputes Christ righteousness to all His Covenant members like he promised (Heb 9:15) than how can anyone fall away. Surely Christ the Covenant High Priest is not going to fail to mediate the blessings of the Covenant to anyone whom He is in Covenant with. That is why we ought to agree with the Westminster on this point and say the Covenant has only been made by God with Christ and the elect. 

Some might object and say that New Covenant promises are conditional upon Covenant obedience, but if our regeneration is conditioned upon Covenant obedience, then nobody would be saved because it is impossible to please God by obeying his laws if we are not first regenerated, hence if God waited to regenerate us upon the condition of Covenant faithfulness nobody would be regenerated.

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Tertullian]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 19, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:9eb43fe601]KC, 

I cannot speak for Pastor Way, but as another Reformed Baptist, I have no problem making a distinction between those who appear to be in Covenant and those who are actually in Covenant, you seem to be fiting a square where a circle belongs, for we, Reformed Baptist do not deny that distinction.[/quote:9eb43fe601]

This distinction is disagreeable to those who claim that the new covenant encompasses only the elect, whereas the old covenant encompassed the elect and non-elect.

It is clear to the paedo that there have always been non-elect associated closely to the covenant. I have explained to you that there is an internal and external reality to the the covenant. Credos do not want to see that reality. If they do see it, they will still not make the logical step of covenant initiation for infants. And others, because they see the logical step of covenant initiation for infants, will reject the entire notion.

If you see that there have always been elect and non-elect associated with the covenant, yet reject the notion of infant initiation into that relationship, then you are not completing the final logical step.

The argument is never about who is actually in the covenant. Both paedos and credos agree that it is only the elect. The argument is about infant inclusion. To this the paedo explains that infants have always been included and there is no abrogation of that. The credos then must claim that the &quot;new&quot; covenant is made only with the elect and contains no one other. Therefore, if that is the case, then infants should be excluded until such time as we can ascertain their election.

It will never be the case of apples to apples as long as the distinction may not be made as to the visible and invisible church.

If you allow this distinction, then you are a credo baptist who will not baptize infants on some other ground than the exclusion of infants in the covenant.

This is very basic, because there are many other arguments that depend upon each other in the theological tapestry of the covenant. I use tapestry because it symbolizes the whole of the saving knowledge of Christ. If we focus too much on one particular part (baptism) then we lose sight of the whole beautiful design.

As such, I look at paedos as the ones who stand back to see the whole thing. The credos, therefore, are standing closer, looking at the tapestry in miniture. I do not say this in a prideful way. For I am only a paedo by God's appointment. This is where He has placed me, given the limited knowledge I have. I am, at this point, comfortable with my surroundings knowing that the reformers believed the same.

[quote:9eb43fe601]Our arguement is that from God's perspective the New Covenant is unbreakable... and we quickly add God's perspective (since it is more than the prespective of a man is the true determiner of reality) is in reality the only one that matters in this debate...[/quote:9eb43fe601]

This is completely amenable to me. God put us there, He is the only one who can keep us there. Our lives are monergistically His. We are covenant keepers or covenant breakers by His decree. Those whom He has placed in the mystical internal essence of the covenant cannot break it. He upholds them. 

[quote:9eb43fe601]Is the New Covenant breakable, God says No, it only appears to us to be breakable.- A Reformed Baptist couldn't agree more.[/quote:9eb43fe601]

To break the new covenant is to trample on its external aspect. This is the warning from Hebrews and the final result in Matthew 7. The breakers were never in the internal essence of the covenant. As such, the new covenant may not be broken by any internal member of it for they are given the grace and faith to believe and obey. For them there is no curse. The curse comes from the law. Christ is our freedom from that law. But for those who are only in the external administration of the covenant, the curse of the law is upon them. And in the external sense, they have broken the new covenant.

This is no difference from that of the OT.

Therefore, we are free to say that the OT covenant is but an administration of the one covenant of grace and be in agreement with reformed orthodoxy on that point.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Roldan (Feb 19, 2004)

Tert: &quot;you seem to say that the New Covenant blessings have not been realized,&quot;

ME: NOPE! PLease read the above article again or for the first time by Richard Pratt.

Kceaster posted a very clear and concise explanation of our distinctions and will not taint it with a reply from myself. 

But if you have another question I will be glad to help.

Grace and Peace


----------



## Roldan (Feb 19, 2004)

Tert: &quot;Some might object and say that New Covenant promises are conditional upon Covenant obedience, but if our regeneration is conditioned upon Covenant obedience, then nobody would be saved because it is impossible to please God by obeying his laws if we are not first regenerated, hence if God waited to regenerate us upon the condition of Covenant faithfulness nobody would be regenerated. &quot;

Me: This is obvious and basic Calvinism. But what you are not understanding is that Yes there is a condition but that condition is met by Christ for us(Elect).

Was there a covenantal obligation in the OC? If you understand the covenant you would say yes but how was it met? By Faith Alone as it still is in the NC.

So whats the point? When a baptized infant grows older, he or she must meet that obligation that is only by God's redeeming grace and continues in the covenant and is placed, by GOD, in the invisible church and if not then becomes a covenant breaker and commits apostasy of which Hebrews speaks of.

KC has said it best here: &quot;This is completely amenable to me. God put us there, He is the only one who can keep us there. Our lives are monergistically His. We are covenant keepers or covenant breakers by His decree. Those whom He has placed in the mystical internal essence of the covenant cannot break it. He upholds them.&quot;

nuff said.

Grace and peace

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by Roldan]


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:e1d96dd51f]
It will never be the case of apples to apples as long as the distinction may not be made as to the visible and invisible church. 

If you allow this distinction, then you are a credo baptist who will not baptize infants on some other ground than the exclusion of infants in the covenant. 
[/quote:e1d96dd51f]

I think that one of the keys to understanding the visible/invisible church distinction goes to the specific stipulations of the CoG. Using the LBCF definition of the CoG, the stipulations are:

&quot; Moreover Man having brought himself under the curse of the Law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace wherein he freely offereth unto Sinners, Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved [b:e1d96dd51f](The General Call of the Gospel)[/b:e1d96dd51f]; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal Life, his holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe [b:e1d96dd51f](The Effectual Call of the Gospel)[/b:e1d96dd51f]. &quot;

What is included is the &quot;general call&quot; and the &quot;effectual call&quot;. These are defined in the LBCF as follows:

[b:e1d96dd51f]General Call [/b:e1d96dd51f]- &quot;Others not elected, although they may be called by the Ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will, nor can truly come to Christ; and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian Religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, [b:e1d96dd51f]and the Law of that Religion they do profess[/b:e1d96dd51f].&quot; (note that someone who &quot;answers&quot; the general call of the Gospel does make a profession!) 

[b:e1d96dd51f]Effectual Call [/b:e1d96dd51f]- &quot;Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; inlightning their minds, spiritually, and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace. &quot;

In comparing the the stipulations of the CoG with the definitions of the general and effectual calling, the distinction between the &quot;Invisible Church&quot; (the elect, the effectually called who are ordained to eternal life) and the &quot;Visible Church&quot; (all those who profess and their children, which includes the effectually called and general called) become more apparent.

At least for me :wink1:


----------



## Roldan (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:93975f35e2][i:93975f35e2]Originally posted by wsw201[/i:93975f35e2]
[quote:93975f35e2]
It will never be the case of apples to apples as long as the distinction may not be made as to the visible and invisible church. 

If you allow this distinction, then you are a credo baptist who will not baptize infants on some other ground than the exclusion of infants in the covenant. 
[/quote:93975f35e2]

I think that one of the keys to understanding the visible/invisible church distinction goes to the specific stipulations of the CoG. Using the LBCF definition of the CoG, the stipulations are:

&quot; Moreover Man having brought himself under the curse of the Law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace wherein he freely offereth unto Sinners, Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved [b:93975f35e2](The General Call of the Gospel)[/b:93975f35e2]; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal Life, his holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe [b:93975f35e2](The Effectual Call of the Gospel)[/b:93975f35e2]. &quot;

What is included is the &quot;general call&quot; and the &quot;effectual call&quot;. These are defined in the LBCF as follows:

[b:93975f35e2]General Call [/b:93975f35e2]- &quot;Others not elected, although they may be called by the Ministry of the word, and may have some common operations of the Spirit, yet not being effectually drawn by the Father, they neither will, nor can truly come to Christ; and therefore cannot be saved: much less can men that receive not the Christian Religion be saved; be they never so diligent to frame their lives according to the light of nature, [b:93975f35e2]and the Law of that Religion they do profess[/b:93975f35e2].&quot; (note that someone who &quot;answers&quot; the general call of the Gospel does make a profession!) 

[b:93975f35e2]Effectual Call [/b:93975f35e2]- &quot;Those whom God hath predestinated unto Life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, effectually to call by his word, and Spirit, out of that state of sin, and death, in which they are by nature, to grace and Salvation by Jesus Christ; inlightning their minds, spiritually, and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them an heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his Almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his Grace. &quot;

In comparing the the stipulations of the CoG with the definitions of the general and effectual calling, the distinction between the &quot;Invisible Church&quot; (the elect, the effectually called who are ordained to eternal life) and the &quot;Visible Church&quot; (all those who profess and their children, which includes the effectually called and general called) become more apparent.

At least for me :wink1: [/quote:93975f35e2]

WOW, I didn't realize that the LBCF also distinguishes visible and invisible church distinction with out using the actual terms.

It seem very clear to me then that this is true:

KC: &quot;It will never be the case of apples to apples as long as the distinction may not be made as to the visible and invisible church. 

If you allow this distinction, then you are a credo baptist who will not baptize infants on some other ground than the exclusion of infants in the covenant.&quot;

And also: &quot;As far as you are able, be at peace. But do not forsake the teaching of the reformation on this point. It is true, there is a visible and invisible church in the NT age. I suggest you embrace it and see how it fits with your theology instead of denying what is clear from Scripture.&quot;


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 19, 2004)

Roldan,


[quote:49030e99dc]
WOW, I didn't realize that the LBCF also distinguishes visible and invisible church distinction with out using the actual terms. 
[/quote:49030e99dc]

It certainly would seem that way. This is from the LBCF chapter on the Church:

&quot;The Catholick or universal Church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit, and truth of grace) may be called [b:49030e99dc]invisible[/b:49030e99dc], consists of the whole number of the Elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. &quot;

And:

&quot;All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the Gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ, according unto it; not destroying their own profession by any Errors everting the foundation, or unholyness of conversation, are and may be called [b:49030e99dc]visible [/b:49030e99dc]Saints; and of such ought all particular Congregations to be constituted. &quot;

Now I'm no LBCF expert, but this sounds pretty close to the invisible/visible church distinction in the WCF (with the exclusion of children).

[Edited on 2-19-2004 by wsw201]


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 19, 2004)

????????????

Has anyone on this thread denied the distinction between the invisible church and visible saints, or are y'all just debating a straw man?


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 19, 2004)

Dan,

Not arguing a straw man. But based on the tenor of the thread it appeared that the distinction between the visible/invisible church was not apart of the RB view. If it is, then there can be non-elect as well as elect in the visible church (setting the issue of baptism aside, if that's possible). In CT lingo, external/internal covenant is synonomous with the visible/invisible church.


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 19, 2004)

Just for the record, I have never known of a confessional baptist who does not distiguish between the invisible (or, eschatalogical) church and visible saints.

As for the terms &quot;external/internal covenant&quot;, I do not find them in the London Confession (nor the Westminster for that matter), and hence I will avoid the use thereof.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 19, 2004)

Dan,

I don't use these terms either. I find they cause more confussion than they're worth, so I stick to the language of the Standards.


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 19, 2004)

[quote:4c7e17f10b][i:4c7e17f10b]Originally posted by Roldan[/i:4c7e17f10b]
Tert: &quot;you seem to say that the New Covenant blessings have not been realized,&quot;

ME: NOPE! PLease read the above article again or for the first time by Richard Pratt.

Kceaster posted a very clear and concise explanation of our distinctions and will not taint it with a reply from myself. 

But if you have another question I will be glad to help.

Grace and Peace [/quote:4c7e17f10b]

So if you agree that God has forgiven New Covenant members sins and that God has regenerated their hearts... then how are any lost... if you disagree that God has done those things to New Covenant members please read my post again.

KC's post has gaps, he argues external/internal but he defines them the way the London Baptist Confession defines (Visible, Invisible) but clearly I can agree with my own Confession and remain Reformed Baptist, though he says that that is logicially impossible, KC's arguement has gaps, for even if I granted KC's point, why must Covenant members get the sign of the Covenant, for surely you can be in the Covenant and not get the sign, see Women in the Old Covenant.


To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## kceaster (Feb 20, 2004)

*Dan....*

[quote:680fd12be4][i:680fd12be4]Originally posted by Dan....[/i:680fd12be4]
Just for the record, I have never known of a confessional baptist who does not distiguish between the invisible (or, eschatalogical) church and visible saints.

As for the terms &quot;external/internal covenant&quot;, I do not find them in the London Confession (nor the Westminster for that matter), and hence I will avoid the use thereof. [/quote:680fd12be4]

I guess I would have to argue that the definition of visible saints between paedo and credo is different. Or, at least Pastor Phillip would not define them the same.

Since everyone in the NC (under the current RB view) is saved, then everyone in the visible church who has been baptized and is a member in good standing is a member of the NC, and hence would be a visible saint. This does not allow for goats, or wolves for that matter.

If this is not your view, then you are not coming from the angle Pastor Phillip comes from, who is considered a confessional baptist.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster (Feb 20, 2004)

*Tyler....*

[quote:cc7146d268]KC's post has gaps, he argues external/internal but he defines them the way the London Baptist Confession defines (Visible, Invisible) but clearly I can agree with my own Confession and remain Reformed Baptist, though he says that that is logicially impossible, KC's arguement has gaps, for even if I granted KC's point, why must Covenant members get the sign of the Covenant, for surely you can be in the Covenant and not get the sign, see Women in the Old Covenant.


To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:cc7146d268]

You can be completely confessional with the 1689 but not follow the logical step of covenant inclusion. The reason this is the case is because you have no biblical warrant to exclude what has always been included in the covenant of grace, namely children. The covenant sign was applied to children under the OT administration and there is no mandate to stop this practice in the NT administration.

The visible/invisible church distinction is rather elementary to the covenant of grace. The only reason that it is misinterpreted is because of a bias against infant inclusion.

And I assure you, if there are gaps in this argument, they are not mine. I share them equally with those to whom this first came, namely the reformers.

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 2-20-2004 by kceaster]


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:63fe372a44]I guess I would have to argue that the definition of visible saints between paedo and credo is different. Or, at least Pastor Phillip would not define them the same. [/quote:63fe372a44]

True. The definitions are different. Per the London Confession, a visible saint is defined as:

[i:63fe372a44] All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.[/i:63fe372a44] - XXVI:2.

Per this definition, an infant child would not be considered a "visible saint".

[quote:63fe372a44]Since everyone in the NC (under the current RB view) is saved, then everyone in the visible church who has been baptized and is a member in good standing is a member of the NC, and hence would be a visible saint. This does not allow for goats, or wolves for that matter. [/quote:63fe372a44]

I'm having a difficult time following, are you saying that that goats and wolves would not be in the New Covenant, or that they would not be visible saints?

The Baptist would say that there are no goats and wolves in the New Covenant, although they may be among the visible saints. Being in the New Covenant and being a visible saint are not synonomous. One can be in the New Covenant and not be a visible saint (eg., a regenerate infant), and one can be a visible saint and not be in the New Covenant (eg., wolves).


[quote:63fe372a44]
If this is not your view, then you are not coming from the angle Pastor Phillip comes from, who is considered a confessional baptist. 
[/quote:63fe372a44]

Pastor Phillip can speak for himself, but the Confession seems pretty clear on what a visible saint is.


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:5e07ccf98e]
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I guess I would have to argue that the definition of visible saints between paedo and credo is different. Or, at least Pastor Phillip would not define them the same. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



True. The definitions are different. Per the London Confession, a visible saint is defined as: 

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. - XXVI:2. 

Per this definition, an infant child would not be considered a "visible saint". 


[/quote:5e07ccf98e]

This is a very interesting point in that the LBCF does not actually define the &quot;Visible Church&quot; like the WCF does but defines &quot;Visible Saints&quot;, although the LBCF does define the &quot;Invisible Church&quot;.

But Dan, one of the problems that you and Phillip, as well as other RB's, seem to have is CT terminology (getting the jargon down is 90% of the battle). Granted, I am not too crazy about using this language either but if we can all get on the same page as to what these terms mean and how they are used we can come to a better understanding regarding the various positions.


----------



## kceaster (Feb 20, 2004)

*Dan....*

I hope Phillip answers this, because it was my understanding that he sees visible saint and new covenant member as one in the same thing.

In the same way, a paedo would say that a visible saint = one who is in the visible church (although we would also allow infants since they received the covenant sign in the OT economy); a member of the CoG = one who is in the invisible church.

Since we cannot know who is in the invisible church, then we must admit that there are both elect and non-elect in the visible church. Further, since we can only see the new covenant in its external administration, we must admit that [i:493c8b3821]to our eyes[/i:493c8b3821] there must be elect and non-elect in covenant with God. That does not mean that they are actually in the covenant. That means that they have been placed in the outward administration but will not be known at judgment.

Where the rubber meets the road, then, is now we can see that the OC and the NC have the same sort of internal and external aspect. There were elect and non-elect in the OC (in the external sense) just as there are in the NC. Therefore, the prophecy in Jeremiah is not saying that the OC included elect and non-elect, but the new will only include the elect. It is saying that the NC will be marked by a more widespread obedience to the covenant, than the OC did. And I think we can see that. How many were the people of God in the OT compared to the time from Christ till now?

The NC includes non-elect. As an administration of the covenant of grace, it most certainly does include, in its external aspect, those who are not known by God.

The covenant of grace, then, is only the true people of God from all times and places. It is the invisible church. It is not equated with the NC since the OT saints are in the covenant of grace while still being under the OC administration.

This is where Pastor Phillip and I disagree. He thinks that the CoG is the NC. And, because he equates the NC with the CoG, and because he believes the NC only encompasses the elect (i.e., visible saints), then he is faced with excluding two groups of people (by external administration) that are in the bosom of God: the OT saints and the elect infants of covenant members. The OT saints cannot be members of the NC because there is no passage of Scripture that shows that sort of transition, where they could be under the Mosaic and yet, after Christ, are transformed to the NC.

And, we know why he excludes infants. There is no explicit scriptural mandate (in the NT) to include them (by administration of the covenant sign).

The only reason I can fathom why the 1689 restates the WCF in this way, and does not make the visible/invisible church distinction the way the Assemby did, is because they are opposed to infant baptism. This is the lowest common denominator of their whole theology.

I point to infant baptism as the key factor of why NCT has sprung up in recent years.

I know this opinion will cause dissatisfaction with my brothers, but I really believe that at the heart of the argument is the fact that they believe it is Catholic to do so. This doctrine must be destroyed simply because it is associated with Rome. From that basic understanding, dogmas formed by interpreting the scriptures in novel ways, or by ignoring key parts, or by pitting inspired Scripture against inspired Scripture, showing the NT to be &quot;more&quot; inspired than the OT.

But at the heart of it all, is infant baptism.

Look at this board. (I am sorry for ranting by the way, and it is not directed solely at you, Dan, or Phillip.) I have said it before and I'll say it again, we could start a thread on ballroom dancing and end up debating infant baptism in some way shape or form. Look at the posts. It is overwhelming how much time we spend boxing each other about the ears on the subject of infant baptism.

Of course, I blame the baptists. After all, that is their title. The reason they are called baptists is because of their stance on baptism. But really, if it were not infant baptism as the underlying burr under our collective saddles, it would be something else. By nature, we as the &quot;competent&quot; theologians we are, thrive on debate and argument. We want to show ourselves approved, right?

But paedos are as much to blame as anyone else. Perhaps, way back when, there was something someone could have done to stem this tide of divisiveness over this issue. I wish there had been. And, there is not a day that goes by that I pray that God would unite His church once again.

Well, I must get off my soapbox now. I am sorry to have gone on like this. I pray you'll all understand my heart. I wish that we could all agree, but, I love you all even if we don't.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:a7be122819]
In the same way, a paedo would say that a visible saint = one who is in the visible church (although we would also allow infants since they received the covenant sign in the OT economy); a member of the CoG = one who is in the invisible church. 

Since we cannot know who is in the invisible church, then we must admit that there are both elect and non-elect in the visible church. Further, since we can only see the new covenant in its external administration, we must admit that to our eyes there must be elect and non-elect in covenant with God. That does not mean that they are actually in the covenant. That means that they have been placed in the outward administration but will not be known at judgment. 
[/quote:a7be122819]

Okay, up to this point.




[quote:a7be122819]
Where the rubber meets the road, then, is now we can see that the OC and the NC have the same sort of internal and external aspect. There were elect and non-elect in the OC (in the external sense) just as there are in the NC. 
[/quote:a7be122819]

Here is where we part ways.

You will notice that the London Confession does not refer to the Old Covenant, (nor even the New Covenant at that matter) as an administration of the covenant of grace. It says that this covenant was revealed first of all to Adam and afterwards by farther steps, but it never identifies any of the covenants of promise as administrations of the covenant of grace.

I do not mind the use of the term &quot;administration&quot;, so long as we understand that by that term we do not mean that these covenants of promise were to be themselves identified as the covenant of grace.

Rather than saying that the covenants of promise were &quot;administrations of the covenant of grace&quot;; I prefer saying, as does the confession, that the covenant of grace was revealed through these covenants. 

It appears to me that there are at least two possible interpretations of the London Confession on the identity of the covenant of grace:

1. It can be said that both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are administrations of the one covenant of grace (though each by itself is not the covenant of grace).

Or,

2. It can be said that the Old Covenant, though not being itself the covenant of grace, reveals the covenant of grace, which is identical to the New Covenant.

It appears that Waldron (and possibly Chantry???) hold the first.

Malone holds the second.

The actual verbiage of the confession could be interpreted either way. I am not aware of which way the authors stood on it.

If yone reads the London Confession in light of the Westminster Confession, then he ends with the first interpretation. If he reads it apart from the Westminster Confession, (in my opinion) he is more likely to arrive at the second.

One may argue that the confession should be read in light of the way that the Westminster was written; however, such an argument would have no reason for why the authors of the confession totally leave out paragraphs 4, 5, and 6.

Personally, I agree more with the second interpretation, although that is not necessary for the baptistic position.

According to the first interpretation, the Old Covenant administration included both elect and non-elect, while the New Covenant is with the elect alone.

According to the second interpretation, the Old Covenant was a covenant with both elect and non-elect, and the New Covenant is a covenant with the elect alone.

[quote:a7be122819]
Therefore, the prophecy in Jeremiah is not saying that the OC included elect and non-elect, but the new will only include the elect.
[/quote:a7be122819]

This is what I would say. This appears to be what Pastor Way would say, and this interpretation is not in opposition in to the London Confession as it is written.




[quote:a7be122819]
This is where Pastor Phillip and I disagree. He thinks that the CoG is the NC. And, because he equates the NC with the CoG, and because he believes the NC only encompasses the elect (i.e., visible saints), then he is faced with excluding two groups of people (by external administration) that are in the bosom of God: the OT saints and the elect infants of covenant members. The OT saints cannot be members of the NC because there is no passage of Scripture that shows that sort of transition, where they could be under the Mosaic and yet, after Christ, are transformed to the NC. 
[/quote:a7be122819]

The elect of all ages are included in the New Covenant. See Hebrews 9:15.

[quote:a7be122819]
And, we know why he excludes infants. There is no explicit scriptural mandate (in the NT) to include them (by administration of the covenant sign). 
[/quote:a7be122819]

I have not read Phillip to say that there are no infants in the New Covenant. We (Phillip, I, and the London Confession) do not identify infants as &quot;visible saints&quot;. The two are not synonomous. There are visible saints that are not in the New Covenant, and there are New Covenant members who are not visibly saints.

[quote:a7be122819]
The only reason I can fathom why the 1689 restates the WCF in this way, and does not make the visible/invisible church distinction the way the Assemby did, is because they are opposed to infant baptism. This is the lowest common denominator of their whole theology. 
[/quote:a7be122819]

You are correct in seeing that the London Confession does not define visible saints in the same way that the Westminster does the visible church. The two reasons that appear to me are:
1. They were congregationalists
2. They did not see their infant children as visible saints.

[Edited on 2-20-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 20, 2004)

Dan,

Help me out here. I understand the way you have laid out the two &quot;options&quot; or interpretations of the covenant of grace. I have yet (not meaning from you, but in my studies) to see any hard evidence from any covenantal theologian (baptist or presbyterian) that equates the covenant of grace with the new covenant before Malone and some of the new baptists. Maybe Joe can help us here - but my understanding is that Chantry and Waldron are following classical baptistic covenant theology, and that Spurgeon held the same views. 

Here is my problem. And again, I am COMPLETELY unconcerned with infant inclusion in the covenant at this point. While I think that is an important doctrine, I think it is not germane here, and leads to a side path. Thus I think your and KC's discussion involving it has clouded the matter a bit.

Let's assume (for argument's sake) the following to get at the main point. 

1. Infants are not in the new covenant.
2. Only those who are in the new covenant are to be given the sign of the new covenant (baptism)

Is this fair? I think this is what is the basic baptist argument.

Now, if the covenant of grace is the new covenant, we would say that the new covenant is made only with the elect. That means that since the covenant of grace is unbreakable and eternal (and has no external aspect - your words) all those in the new covenant are in the covenant of grace.

Now here is the $64,000 question: what do we do about those who make a profession and are baptized (thus given the sign of the covenant), but then make clear by their life (and perhaps even subsequent rejection of the faith) that they are not of the elect?

Now please note: I am not accusing baptists of inconsistency here. Presbyterians do the exact same thing with professors of faith. And I am NOT concerned with infants here.

What I am concerned with is the relationship of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and the covenant of grace. If we say that the new covenant [b:42bf85e14d]IS[/b:42bf85e14d] the covenant of grace, instead of merely being [b:42bf85e14d]the clearest administration/revelation[/b:42bf85e14d] of the covenant of grace, we have a problem. Either the covenant of grace is breakable, or else the new covenant cannot be equal to the covenant of grace. It has to be an historical administration of the covenant of grace. I can grant to you that it is the clearest expression of the covenant of grace; and that is why only those who make a credible profession receive the sign (for the sake of argument).

But what I cannot do is allow the new covenant to be the covenant of grace. Then the false professor is a real problem. Can you help me here?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 20, 2004)

To clarify my position....I'm with Dan and the LBCF completely!

Only the elect are in the NC. Visible saints are not necessarily elect. Visible saints are therefore not automatically in the NC. Visible saints may be sheep or goats, wheat or tares. If they are goats/tares then they are not in the covenant and will be removed from the field and judged. If they are sheep/wheat they are covenant members and will be partakers of the inheritance of Christ.

The New Covenant is a covenant in the shed blood of Jesus. It is a covenant He mediates. To be in the covenant is to be covered by His blood and have Him serving as your advocate before the Father. A person in the covenant of His blood cannot receive curses, for Christ became a curse for them.

As I have stated before, being a member of the covenant community (the visible church) does not mean that you are a member of the covenant itself. Only the elect are in the CoG/NC.

Phillip



[Edited on 2-20-04 by pastorway]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:3484575740][i:3484575740]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:3484575740]
To clarify my position....I'm with Dan and the LBCF completely!

Only the elect are in the NC. Visible saints are not necessarily elect. Visible saints are therefore not automatically in the NC. Visible saints may be sheep or goats, wheat or tares. If they are goats/tares then they are not in the covenant and will be removed from the field and judged. If they are sheep/wheat they are covenant members and will be partakers of the inheritance of Christ.

The New Covenant is a covenant in the shed blood of Jesus. It is a covenant He mediates. To be in the covenant is to be covered by His blood and have Him serving as your advocate before the Father. A person in the covenant of His blood cannot receive curses, for Christ became a curse for them.

As I have stated before, being a member of the covenant community (the visible church) does not mean that you are a member of the covenant itself. Only the elect are in the CoG/NC.

Phillip
[/quote:3484575740]

But Phillip, if you are not in the covenant, why do you receive the sign of the covenant? That was not the case in the Abrahamic covenant, nor the Mosaic. IN fact, the sign of the covenant is so closely identified with the covenant itself that the sign is called the covenant several times in the Scripture - &quot;this cup is the new covenant in my blood&quot;


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:d2e0cd9827][i:d2e0cd9827]Originally posted by kceaster[/i:d2e0cd9827]

You can be completely confessional with the 1689 but not follow the logical step of covenant inclusion. The reason this is the case is because you have no biblical warrant to exclude what has always been included in the covenant of grace, namely children. The covenant sign was applied to children under the OT administration and there is no mandate to stop this practice in the NT administration. [/quote:d2e0cd9827] 

Of course you are assuming identity between circumcision and baptism, but I note it was not infants but males that were the main recepeients of circumcision, infants were included because they were males not because they were infants, now obvious the male emphasis has been replaced with the Disciple emphasis. 


[quote:d2e0cd9827] The visible/invisible church distinction is rather elementary to the covenant of grace. The only reason that it is misinterpreted is because of a bias against infant inclusion. [/quote:d2e0cd9827]

Then I guess Ridderbos and John Frame must have a bais against Infant baptism

[quote:d2e0cd9827] And I assure you, if there are gaps in this argument, they are not mine. I share them equally with those to whom this first came, namely the reformers.

In Christ,

KC [/quote:d2e0cd9827]

Will I do agree with you there, both the Reformers and you have gaps :spin: (PS Just trying to be cute not disrespectful when I said that last line)

To the Glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## wsw201 (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:83a203ccb0]
I do not mind the use of the term &quot;administration&quot;, so long as we understand that by that term we do not mean that these covenants of promise were to be themselves identified as the covenant of grace. 

Rather than saying that the covenants of promise were &quot;administrations of the covenant of grace&quot;; I prefer saying, as does the confession, that the covenant of grace was revealed through these covenants. 
[/quote:83a203ccb0]

This would be correct. Each administration or further steps were simply those covenants that pointed to the consummation of the CoG with the advent of Christ.


[quote:83a203ccb0]
It appears to me that there are at least two possible interpretations of the London Confession on the identity of the covenant of grace: 

1. It can be said that both the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are administrations of the one covenant of grace (though each by itself is not the covenant of grace). 

Or, 

2. It can be said that the Old Covenant, though not being itself the covenant of grace, reveals the covenant of grace, which is identical to the New Covenant. 

It appears that Waldron (and possibly Chantry???) hold the first. 

Malone holds the second. 

The actual verbiage of the confession could be interpreted either way. I am not aware of which way the authors stood on it. 

If yone reads the London Confession in light of the Westminster Confession, then he ends with the first interpretation. If he reads it apart from the Westminster Confession, (in my opinion) he is more likely to arrive at the second. 

One may argue that the confession should be read in light of the way that the Westminster was written; however, such an argument would have no reason for why the authors of the confession totally leave out paragraphs 4, 5, and 6. 

[/quote:83a203ccb0]

I would say that both of these interpretations are lacking. The New Covenant is not an administration of the CoG. It is the culmination/consummation/fulfillment of the CoG (the promise of a Redeemer), of which all the previous Covenants pointed to, which were administrations. In addition, the Old Covenant is not identical to the New Covenant. The Old Covenant pointed to the consummation of the Covenants in Christ, ie; the New Covenant.


[quote:83a203ccb0]
According to the first interpretation, the Old Covenant administration included both elect and non-elect, while the New Covenant is with the elect alone. 

According to the second interpretation, the Old Covenant was a covenant with both elect and non-elect, and the New Covenant is a covenant with the elect alone. 
[/quote:83a203ccb0]

This is where I get confused. Basically, anyone can agree to the stipulations of a covenant for whatever reason. Regarding the CoG, being fulfilled in Christ, the stipulations are basically "repent and believe". Considering the previous comparison of the Covenant of Grace and Effectual/General Calling, how could there not be non-elect in the Church?


----------



## pastorway (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:f65c00c041][i:f65c00c041]posted by Fred[/i:f65c00c041]
But Phillip, if you are not in the covenant, why do you receive the sign of the covenant? [/quote:f65c00c041]

That is why we Baptists stipulate that those who receive baptism have made a credible profession of their faith and indicated as best we can tell that they are in the covenant.

Beside all that - is baptism the sign of the Covenant? I thought the CUP was the sign of the New Covenant in Christ's blood!! And it is specifically reserved for those who have examined themselves to see if they are in the faith. It is for those for whom Christ has shed His blood (hence due to the Doctrine of the Limited Atonement - the elect only!). 

If someone who is not regenerate partakes they have eaten and drank condemnation - not the cup of blessing, the cup of the covenant in His blood shed for them.

Some of us do not hold that baptism and circumcision coorelate!!!

Phillip

[Edited on 2-20-04 by pastorway]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:f33c648669][i:f33c648669]Originally posted by pastorway[/i:f33c648669]
[quote:f33c648669][i:f33c648669]posted by Fred[/i:f33c648669]
But Phillip, if you are not in the covenant, why do you receive the sign of the covenant? [/quote:f33c648669]

That is why we Baptists stipulate that those who receive baptism have made a credible profession of their faith and indicated as best we can tell that they are in the covenant.

Beside all that - is baptism the sign of the Covenant? I thought the CUP was the sign of the New Covenant in Christ's blood!! And it is specifically reserved for those who have examined themselves to see if they are in the faith. It is for those for whom Christ has shed His blood (hence due to the Doctrine of the Limited Atonement - the elect only!). 

If someone who is not regenerate partakes they have eaten and drank condemnation - not the cup of blessing, the cup of the covenant in His blood shed for them.

Some of us do not hold that baptism and circumcision coorelate!!!

Phillip
[/quote:f33c648669]

Phillip,

Now you have it!!! 

Let's stick with the Lord's Supper analogy. Yes of course the Supper (the cup) is a sign of the covenant. So is baptism, just in a different way (both are signs, sacraments - or to use your parlance so as not to start another quibble, ordinances). The requirement for partaking of the sign and the benefits of the covenant is not election. It is not an infallible participation (i.e. sure and unconditional) in the covenant of grace. The requirement is membership in the new covenant. 

For adults, both paedos and credos agree with how that membership comes about. Let's stay here and not get pulled astray on baptism - we are in complete agreement here. The membership comes from a credible profession of faith. One is in the new covenant, at least outwardly, by profession of faith. That profession may prove false.

What happens then? uzzled:

Does it mean that the person was never in the covenant? NO! Paul's anser is not that there was simply [b:f33c648669]no benefit[/b:f33c648669] to such a person from the Supper, but rather (as you have so rightly pointed out) that the person has greater condemnation because of it. He has [b:f33c648669]eaten and drunk damnation[/b:f33c648669] (or condemnation) to himself. That is why Paul stresses the importance of self-examination. It is not a &quot;no harm, no foul&quot; thing. There are consequences - covenantal consequences - to such false partaking.

The problem comes when we speak of us &quot;breaking the covenant.&quot; In reality, it would be better to speak of the covenant &quot;breaking us.&quot; The covenant provides either blessings or cursings - depending on our obedience to covenant obligations. For the covenant of grace, that obligation is faith in the finished work of Christ, an obligation that is really only fulfilled by God; we cannot fulfill it because we have no ability to do so. But if we claim the covenant and do not fulfill it (by a false profession) our end is worse than if we had never claimed it to start with.

All this to say that it is possible to be in the new covenant, partake of its signs, and yet receive only cursings rather than blessings because of unbelief. There is no other way around it. If the new covenant = covenant of grace, then either all who profess are saved, or the covenant of grace is a covenant in which some can fall away.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 20, 2004)

The profession does not put you in the covenant. A visible saint is not necessarily in the covenant.

So if profession is not the &quot;door&quot; to the covenant (and neither is baptism or the Supper), then someone can profess, be baptized, and partake of the Supper and still not be in the covenant.

What is the door to the covenant? Christ is the door and those who are in Him are in the covenant. Entering the covenant, the doorway, is to enter salvation.

When you know Christ and He knows you. When your sins are forgiven and your heart circumcised. When you are regenerated, justified, and being sanctified you are in the covenant.

To profess such but not possess it no more puts you in the covenant than it will put you in heaven for eternity.

You see an outward administration that allows for covenant members to fall away. I do not. 

Do we know for sure 100% of the time who is in the covenant. No way. That is why we warn those who are professors with the passages of apostacy. Warning that if they &quot;fall away&quot;, they will go out from us because they were NEVER of us. Christ will say to these, &quot;I NEVER knew you.&quot; 

No relation. No covenant. No mediation.

The lost who were at one time &quot;visible saints&quot; do not receive covenant curses. They receive wrath and judgment for their sin because Jesus did not atone for them. The judgment will be more severe for them because they heard the truth - we are accountable for what we know. But the covenant in Jesus blood offers no condemnation to those in covenant with Him.

Jesus as a Mediator is never seen mediating curses. His role as a Mediator is the mediation of the covenant in His shed blood. Those for whom He mediates, He also prays! And Jesus does not pray for those who are not His (John 17:9).

I think that beyond the way CT confuses and compounds the covenants of Scripture, on both sides of the discussion there is a serious lack of understanding about Christ's role as the Mediator of the New Covenant!

To profess is not to be in covenant. To have the signs administered is not to be in covenant. 

To have your heart circumcised (regeneration) - that is to be in the covenant.

Phillip

[Edited on 2-21-04 by pastorway]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 20, 2004)

Phillip,

I don't understand; how can I partake of the covenant meal and not be a part of the covenant?

How come professors and members of the church can partake and people off the street cannot? Why can't they? What is the reason we keep them from the covenant meal?


----------



## Roldan (Feb 20, 2004)

[quote:c5bfd2f128][i:c5bfd2f128]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:c5bfd2f128]
Phillip,

I don't understand; how can I partake of the covenant meal and not be a part of the covenant?

How come professors and members of the church can partake and people off the street cannot? Why can't they? What is the reason we keep them from the covenant meal? [/quote:c5bfd2f128]

HMMMMMMM. Very inte-restin


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 20, 2004)

Pastor Greco,

[quote:4635d9474a]

Help me out here. I understand the way you have laid out the two &quot;options&quot; or interpretations of the covenant of grace. I have yet (not meaning from you, but in my studies) to see any hard evidence from any covenantal theologian (baptist or presbyterian) that equates the covenant of grace with the new covenant before Malone and some of the new baptists. Maybe Joe can help us here - but my understanding is that Chantry and Waldron are following classical baptistic covenant theology, and that Spurgeon held the same views.
[/quote:4635d9474a]


Have you had the oppertunity to read Dr. Malone's book yet? He does a much better job explaining the position than I can.


The Congregationalist John Owen aparently held that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. I'll have to check the archives, but I believe Pastor Way posted a lengthy quote from Owen from his work on Hebrews chapter Eight; in that quoted section, it is quite obvious that Owen held a similar view of the covenant of grace.

[quote:4635d9474a]
Here is my problem. And again, I am COMPLETELY unconcerned with infant inclusion in the covenant at this point. While I think that is an important doctrine, I think it is not germane here, and leads to a side path. Thus I think your and KC's discussion involving it has clouded the matter a bit. 

Let's assume (for argument's sake) the following to get at the main point. 

1. Infants are not in the new covenant. 
2. Only those who are in the new covenant are to be given the sign of the new covenant (baptism) 

Is this fair? I think this is what is the basic baptist argument.

[/quote:4635d9474a]


Here is where you may have misunderstood me. No one is saying that there are not infants in the New Covenant. Nor are we saying that only those who are in the New Covenant are to be baptized. We do not know who is really in the New Covenant. If the above were true, then we would not know who to baptize and who to not baptize. If this is your assumption about what is &quot;the basic baptist argument&quot;, then I completely understand why you have a problem with it. Now if we rephrased your assumptions to the following, then maybe we could get somewhere:

1. Infants are not visibly saints.

2. Only those who are visibly saints should be baptized.


[quote:4635d9474a]
Now, if the covenant of grace is the new covenant, we would say that the new covenant is made only with the elect. That means that since the covenant of grace is unbreakable and eternal (and has no external aspect - your words) all those in the new covenant are in the covenant of grace. 

[/quote:4635d9474a]

Correct.


[quote:4635d9474a]
Now here is the $64,000 question: what do we do about those who make a profession and are baptized (thus given the sign of the covenant), but then make clear by their life (and perhaps even subsequent rejection of the faith) that they are not of the elect? 

[/quote:4635d9474a]



Well, if we went with your above two assumptions, then we both would be scratching our heads. But if we recognize that not all visible saints are in the covenant, then we would say:

Those who profess faith and are baptized, who later prove that they are not of the elect, are not/were not in the New Covenant. Visibly, they were saints and were baptized, yet they no longer are visible saints and should come under church discipline and finally expulsion if they will not repent.


[quote:4635d9474a]
What I am concerned with is the relationship of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and the covenant of grace. If we say that the new covenant IS the covenant of grace, instead of merely being the clearest administration/revelation of the covenant of grace, we have a problem. Either the covenant of grace is breakable, or else the new covenant cannot be equal to the covenant of grace. It has to be an historical administration of the covenant of grace. 

[/quote:4635d9474a]


Your conclusion would be based upon a premise that the New Covenant can be broken. The syllogism:

1. The New Covenant can be broken.

2. The Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant.

*Therefore, the covenant of grace can be broken.

Obviously, as one who sees the New Covenant as an unbreakable covenant, I disagree with premise #1.


[quote:4635d9474a]
But what I cannot do is allow the new covenant to be the covenant of grace. Then the false professor is a real problem. 

[/quote:4635d9474a]



The false professor is only a problem if we conclude that his is actually in the New Covenant. On this we obviously do not agree.

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 21, 2004)

Pastor Wayne,

[quote:5ffebde8e9]
I said....
It can be said that the Old Covenant, though not being itself the covenant of grace, reveals the covenant of grace, which is identical to the New Covenant. 

You replied....
In addition, the Old Covenant is not identical to the New Covenant.
[/quote:5ffebde8e9]

I think I was a little sloppy in the above, as aparently it could be read two ways. 

Per this interpretation, the New Covenant is the covenant of grace. The New Covenant is not identical to the Old Covenant.



[quote:5ffebde8e9]
The New Covenant is not an administration of the CoG. It is the culmination/consummation/fulfillment of the CoG (the promise of a Redeemer), of which all the previous Covenants pointed to, which were administrations. 
[/quote:5ffebde8e9]


Hmmm..... I'm going to have to put some thought in to that.

Actually, I don't think I've heard this view from Classical Covenant Theology before. Most I've read say that the New Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace.



By the way, does this mean that are you disagreeing with Pastor Greco and Kevin, who say that there are non-elect in the New Covenant administration, though there are not non-elect in the covenant of grace?


[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2004)

So again I ask the same question. Then why do we allow professors to take the covenant meal?

This makes no sense. If the cup is the new covenant in Christ's blood - and I take that in a non-Roman fashion to be that the sign of the covenant is spoken of here as the covenant itself - then how do professors partake of the covenant without partaking of the covenant?

I'm really not trying to get to infant baptism or infants here. I'm trying to establish the historic reformed view of the covenant of grace, which is seen as existing throughout the Scriptures, but as [i:4493a8d387]most fully and best revealed[/i:4493a8d387] in the new covenant.

Here for example is John Gill on 1 Corinthians 11:25,
[quote:4493a8d387]saying, [i:4493a8d387]this cup is the New Testament[/i:4493a8d387], or covenant, [i:4493a8d387]in my blood[/i:4493a8d387]; alluding to the old covenant, which was ratified and confirmed by the blood of bulls, and which was called &quot;the blood of the covenant&quot;, (Ex 24:8) but the new covenant was established with Christ's own blood, of which the wine in the cup was a sign and symbol; for neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, by which is meant the covenant of grace, [b:4493a8d387]as administered under the Gospel dispensation[/b:4493a8d387]; called new, not because newly made, [b:4493a8d387]for it was made from everlasting[/b:4493a8d387]; or lately revealed, for it was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but it is so called in distinction from the old covenant, or [b:4493a8d387]former mode of administration of it {that is, the covenant of grace - FTG}[/b:4493a8d387], under the Mosaic economy; and it is always new, and will be succeeded by no other; and it provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others[/quote:4493a8d387]

Gill here is saying exactly what I am saying. That the covenant of grace is BIGGER than the new covenant. The new covenant is the best administration and revelation of it, but it is not the SAME as it.

This does absolutely no harm to the doctrine of baptism (I think there are other issues that do that), but to equate the new covenant and the covenant of grace is I think an error that confuses the duopleuric (as opposed to monopleuric) nature of the covenant of grace. You do have to have two parties to have a covenant. One of the parties can undertake to fulfill the obligations of the other if he is unable (as in our case), but man does have obligations. If he does not meet them, the covenant breaks him.

I have not read Malone. But if he truly teaches that, contra Waldron, Chantry, Martin, Gill, Spurgeon and 1689, then he has cut his nose off to spite his face. He may have an argument for credobaptism that destroys the foundation of the covenant and puts in jeopardy the 3rd use of the law.

Dan, can you cite for me any baptist that specifically says that the new covenant IS the covenant of grace? Not an administrtaion, or a revelation, but that the two are EQUAL?

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by fredtgreco]


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 21, 2004)

Here is the link to Owen on the New Covenant:

http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=2535


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 21, 2004)

Pastor Greco,

Actually, it appears that Gill is agreeing with New Covenant=Covenant of Grace.

Notice,

[quote:27e34e1093]
saying, this cup is the [b:27e34e1093]New Testament[/b:27e34e1093], or covenant, in my blood; alluding to the old covenant, which was ratified and confirmed by the blood of bulls, and which was called &quot;the blood of the covenant&quot;, (Ex 24:8) but [b:27e34e1093]the new covenant was established with Christ's own blood[/b:27e34e1093], of which the wine in the cup was a sign and symbol; for [b:27e34e1093]neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, [u:27e34e1093]by which is meant the covenant of grace[/u:27e34e1093], as administered under the Gospel dispensation[/b:27e34e1093]; called new, not because newly made, for it was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for it was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but it is so called in distinction from the old covenant, or former mode of administration of it {that is, the covenant of grace - FTG}, under the Mosaic economy; and it is always new, and will be succeeded by no other; and it provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others
[/quote:27e34e1093]

Did you see that???? Gill said that the New Covenant, that which was established in Christ's own blood, [b:27e34e1093]is[/b:27e34e1093] the covenant of grace!!!

As I said before, have no problem with calling the covenants of promise &quot;administrations&quot; of the covenant of grace, so long as we do not say that they [b:27e34e1093]are[/b:27e34e1093] the covenant of grace.

Aparently I'm on the same page with Gill here.


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 21, 2004)

[quote:045723a2e1]
Dan, can you cite for me any baptist that specifically says that the new covenant IS the covenant of grace?
[/quote:045723a2e1]

1. See the quote that you provided above from Gill.

2. Here is Fred Malone, in [i:045723a2e1]The Baptism of Disciples Alone[/i:045723a2e1]:

[quote:045723a2e1]
John Owen likewise cautions against making the covenants of promise equivalent to the covenant of grace as Louis Berkhof does. Berkhof states: 

This [Abrahamic] covenant is still in force and &quot;essentially identical&quot; with the &quot;new covenant&quot; of the present dispensation. (Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 633) 

It is this error that causes paedobaptists to include organic elements of some Old Testament covenants of promise automatically in the Covenant of Grace, as if those covenants of promise were themselves the Covenant of Grace and, by inference, the New Covenant itself. 

[b:045723a2e1]According to Owen, however, the New Covenant alone [u:045723a2e1]is[/u:045723a2e1] the pure Covenant of Grace[/b:045723a2e1], revealed in the Old Testament in terms of the promise of grace to come in Christ. Therefore the Abrahamic covenant itself cannot constitute the Covenant of Grace, or be &quot;essentially identical&quot; to it. 

Owen's view of the Covenant of Grace as essentially the promise of salvation in the Old Testament covenants of promise, [b:045723a2e1]revealed later [u:045723a2e1]as[/u:045723a2e1] the New Covenant[/b:045723a2e1], illustrates why the best definition of a covenant remains that of a bond, promise, or solemn oath further defined in content by the particular revelation concerning each covenant. 

-pgs. 64,65 Emphasis mine.
[/quote:045723a2e1]

[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## Tertullian (Feb 21, 2004)

[quote:306ee6a27d][i:306ee6a27d]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:306ee6a27d]
Phillip,

I don't understand; how can I partake of the covenant meal and not be a part of the covenant?

How come professors and members of the church can partake and people off the street cannot? Why can't they? What is the reason we keep them from the covenant meal? [/quote:306ee6a27d]

Please forgive my ignorance... but I am really having a hard time understanding the argument here. I mean what exactly is the problem with a Non Covenant member taking unlawfully the Covenant sign through deception? Does the Covenant sign place someone in the Covenant? I think that is a rather superstitious and dubious position to hold at best. But if not that, then why does receiving the Covenant sign mean that you must be part of the Covenant, for if the Covenant sign does not place someone in the Covenant then why cannot a non-Covenant member partake of it unlawfully and sill remain a non-Covenant member who has broken the established procedure of the Covenant? Or do you have to be in Covenant to break the Covenant, if this is so, then is everyone who hears the Gospel but does not repent become part of the Covenant because they have not submitted to the Covenant terms? That stance seems rather puzzling as well, so what exactly is the problem with a non-Covenant member taking a sign of the Covenant and still remaining a non-Covenant member. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2004)

[quote:407688b935][i:407688b935]Originally posted by Dan....[/i:407688b935]
Pastor Greco,

Actually, it appears that Gill is agreeing with New Covenant=Covenant of Grace.

Notice,

[quote:407688b935]
saying, this cup is the [b:407688b935]New Testament[/b:407688b935], or covenant, in my blood; alluding to the old covenant, which was ratified and confirmed by the blood of bulls, and which was called &quot;the blood of the covenant&quot;, (Ex 24:8) but [b:407688b935]the new covenant was established with Christ's own blood[/b:407688b935], of which the wine in the cup was a sign and symbol; for [b:407688b935]neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, [u:407688b935]by which is meant the covenant of grace[/u:407688b935], as administered under the Gospel dispensation[/b:407688b935]; called new, not because newly made, for it was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for it was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but it is so called in distinction from the old covenant, or former mode of administration of it {that is, the covenant of grace - FTG}, under the Mosaic economy; and it is always new, and will be succeeded by no other; and it provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others
[/quote:407688b935]

Did you see that???? Gill said that the New Covenant, that which was established in Christ's own blood, [b:407688b935]is[/b:407688b935] the covenant of grace!!!

As I said before, have no problem with calling the covenants of promise &quot;administrations&quot; of the covenant of grace, so long as we do not say that they [b:407688b935]are[/b:407688b935] the covenant of grace.

Aparently I'm on the same page with Gill here. [/quote:407688b935]

No. You are not. What do you think this sentence means:


[quote:407688b935]
by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation
[/quote:407688b935]

The &quot;Gospel dispensation&quot; is the new covenant. The new covenant is the covenant of grace in the sense that it is the best administration of it, but it is not EXACTLY EQUAL TO IT.

Why is that important? Because the Abrahamic covenant is also the covenant of grace. So is the mosaic. Gill says that explicitly:
[quote:407688b935]the old covenant, or former mode of administration of it [/quote:407688b935]

The &quot;it&quot; there is covenant of grace.

You can't claim Gill here. You can't claim Waldron or Chantry, as I hva eshown from prevous quotes.

To get to the point, your quote from Malone is not useful. To be blunt, Malone has no clue about what Owen is saying. You have just quoted a conclusion - and a monumentally wrong one - by Malone. I'm NOT criticizing you; but Malone. He has bad covenant theology. Gill would take him to task, so would Spurgeon. He is bordering on New Covenant theology, and his idea have consequences.

I need a quote from a baptist, I'll say again - other than Malone - who says that the new covenant is EXACTLY the covenant of grace. Not the best administration. Not the culmination. Not the clearest expression. Not the most excellent. What you and Phillip (and Malone) are claiming here is that he new covenant is fundamentally different in KIND, not DEGREE from the Abrahamic, Noahic, and Mosaic. Gill rejects that. Spurgeon rejects that. The 1689 CLEARLY rejects that. The language is crystal:

In LBCF 7.2, it says that God made the covenant of grace, and then cites NOT ONLY GENESIS 2:17, but also [b:407688b935]GALATIANS 3:10[/b:407688b935]!!

In 7.3, it says:

[quote:407688b935]This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and [b:407688b935]afterwards by farther steps[/b:407688b935], until the [b:407688b935]full discovery[/b:407688b935] thereof was completed in the New Testament[/quote:407688b935]

Notice it is not the covenant of grace. It is teh &quot;full discovery&quot; of it. The covenant was seen in the prophets (LBCF cites Hebrews 1:1), including Moses.

Again, why is this so important? Because the new covenant is only different in DEGREE. What was true of the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants - that one could be broken by the covenant, is true of the new. That is why the word of warning. None of this touches in the least the division among credos and paedos. But what I am describing divides the reformed (classic covenant theology) from new covenant theology. Malone is on his way to antinomianism.

Now he may not be there - in fact I am pretty sure that he not only is not, but is critical of NCT; but his theology WILL be taken in the next generation or two to that point. It is inevitable, just as the half-way covenant doctrine led to legalism. The old paths of classical covenant theology are the only safe paths for both paedos and credos.


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2004)

[quote:e35adc826b][i:e35adc826b]Originally posted by Tertullian[/i:e35adc826b]
[quote:e35adc826b][i:e35adc826b]Originally posted by fredtgreco[/i:e35adc826b]
Phillip,

I don't understand; how can I partake of the covenant meal and not be a part of the covenant?

How come professors and members of the church can partake and people off the street cannot? Why can't they? What is the reason we keep them from the covenant meal? [/quote:e35adc826b]

Please forgive my ignorance... but I am really having a hard time understanding the argument here. I mean what exactly is the problem with a Non Covenant member taking unlawfully the Covenant sign through deception? Does the Covenant sign place someone in the Covenant? I think that is a rather superstitious and dubious position to hold at best. But if not that, then why does receiving the Covenant sign mean that you must be part of the Covenant, for if the Covenant sign does not place someone in the Covenant then why cannot a non-Covenant member partake of it unlawfully and sill remain a non-Covenant member who has broken the established procedure of the Covenant? Or do you have to be in Covenant to break the Covenant, if this is so, then is everyone who hears the Gospel but does not repent become part of the Covenant because they have not submitted to the Covenant terms? That stance seems rather puzzling as well, so what exactly is the problem with a non-Covenant member taking a sign of the Covenant and still remaining a non-Covenant member. 

To the glory of Christ-Tertullian [/quote:e35adc826b]

Tertullian,

The sign absolutely places someone in the covenant. That is why Paul makes the warning. Otherwise, why not have non-professor take the Supper? Why do credos require profession to baptism? Because they see that the sign involves the covenant, and they do not want those in the covenant who have no right to the privileges. To do so brings judgment.

It is not superstititon. I am NOT saying that you can sneak into the covenant and grab blessings. What I am saying is that you can be in the covenant and be THE WORSE off for it. That is why all the warnings in Scripture. There has to be a covenant, even in the NT that can be broken. Otherwise the passages in John 15 make no sense. Hebrews 6 makes NO sense.

But it cannot be the covenant of grace, because then you have a breakable covenant of grace and you have legalism. You have federal vision theology. You have new perspectivism.

Classical covenant theology is the only way to avoid the twin errors of presumptive antinomianism and presumptive legalism


----------



## pastorway (Feb 21, 2004)

[quote:16a359f1f3]But it cannot be the covenant of grace, because then you have a breakable covenant of grace and you have legalism. You have federal vision theology. You have new perspectivism. 
[/quote:16a359f1f3]

Now Fred, you know that I do not hold in any way to Federalism. Stop and think for a minute. It is those in the CT camp that have initiated and run full force into Federalism. They have dragged a few CT Baptists with them, but this error is not making inroads into the churches I know that agree with me when it comes to the Covenants!

When we say that the CoG is the NC, we are upholding the fact that the covenant is not conditional or breakable. Understanding the NC as the CoG in no way makes it so. 

Where we are having difficulty is that you believe that receiving the sign puts you in the covenant. We are not saying that. We are saying that you can receive the sign and still not be in the covenant! You are seeing our view of the covenants through your own lense!

Here is our viewpoint......the sign does not put you in the New Covenant. Regeneration puts you in the New Covenant.

As to the dilemma of the Supper.....that is exactly why we WARN everyone present before they partake to examine themselves to see if they are in the faith, because if they are not they are eating and drinking judgment....because the meal is not for them!!!

Eating the Supper does not make you a covenant member. Neither does baptism.

And Dan is correct in quoting Gill....he and Owen both (and I believe Pink too) say that the NC is the CoG.

The Bible nowhere uses the term Covenant of Grace. It does talk about the New Covenant in Christ's blood. So that is the covenant of salvation, the full revelation of God's redemptive plan in the Life and death and resurrection of His Son.

-Phillip

PS - Spurgeon also says that the &quot;everlasting covenant&quot; is the &quot;covenant in Christ's blood&quot;, which we know is the New Covenant, for that is what Christ said Himself, &quot;This is the New Covenant in My blood.&quot;

[quote:16a359f1f3][i:16a359f1f3]from Spurgeon on Hebrews 9:19-20[/i:16a359f1f3]
Let us take it so. The blood of Jesus is the blood of the covenant. Long before this round world was made, or stars began to shine, God forsaw that he would make man. He also foresaw that man would fall into sin. Out of that fall of man his distinguishing grace and infinite sovereignty selected a multitude that no man can number to be his. But, seeing that they had offended against him, it was necesary, in order that they might be saved, that a great scheme or plan should be devised, by which the justice of God should be fully satisfied, and yet the mercy of God should have full play. A covenant was therefore arranged between the persons of the blessed Trinity. It was agreed and solemnly pledged by the oath of the eternal Father that he would give unto the Son a multitude whom no man could number who should be his, his spouse, the members of his mystical body, his sheep, his precious jewels. These the Saviour accepted as his own, and then on his part, he undertook for them that he would keep the divine law that he would suffer all the penalties due on their behalf for offences against the law, and that he would keep and preserve every one of them until the day of his appearing. Thus stood the covenant, and on that covenant the salvation of every saved man and woman hangs. Do not think it rests with thee, soul, for what saith the Scripture &quot;It is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth but of God that showeth mercy.&quot; He said to Moses, &quot;I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.&quot; To show you that salvation is not by human merit, God was pleased to cast it entirely upon covenant arrangements. In that covenant, made between himself and his Son, there was not a word said about our actions having any merit in them. We were regarded as though we were not, except that we stood in Christ, and we were only so far parties to the covenant as we were in the loins of Christ on that august day. We were considered to be the seed of the Lord Jesus Christ, the children of his care, the members of his own body. &quot;According as he hath chosen us in Christ before the foundation of the world.&quot; Oh, what grace it was that put your name and mine in the eternal roll, and provided for our salvation, provided for it by a covenant, by a sacred compact between the Father and his eternal Son, that we should belong to him in the day when he should make up his jewels!

Now, beloved, in a covenant there are pledges given, and on those pledges we delight to meditate. You know what they were. The Father pledged his honour and his word. He did more; he pledged his oath; and &quot;becaue he could swear by no greater, he sware by himself.&quot; He pledged his own word and sacred honour of Godhead that he would be true, to his Son, that he should see his seed; and that by the knowledge of him Christ should &quot;justify many.&quot; But there was needed a seal to the covenant, and what was that Jesus Christ in the fulness of time set the seal to the covenant, to make it valid and secure, by pouring out his life's blood to make the covenant effectual once for all. Beloved, if there be an agreement made between two men, the one to sell such-an-such an estate, and the other to pay for it, the covenant does not hold good until the payment is made. [b:16a359f1f3]Now, Jesus Christ's blood was the payment of his part of the covenant; and when he shed it, the covenant stood firm as the everlasting hills, and the throne of God himself is not more sure than is the covenant of grace; and, mark you, that covenant is not sure merely in its great outlines, but sure also in all its details. Every soul whose name was in that covenant must be saved. Unless God can undeify himself, every soul that Christ died for he will have. Every soul for which he stood Substitute and Surety he demads to have, and each of the souls he must have, for the covenant stands fast. Moreover, every blessing which in that, covenant was guaranteed to the chosen seed was by the precious blood made eternally secure to that seed. Oh, how I delight to speak about the sureness of that covenant[/b:16a359f1f3]! How the dying David rolled that under his tongue as a sweet morsel! &quot;Although my house,&quot; said he, &quot;be not so with God,&quot;-there was the bitter in his mouth; &quot;yet,&quot; said he,-and there came in the honey, &quot;yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure.&quot; And this sureness, mark you, lies in the blood; it is the blood of Christ that makes all things secure, for all the promises of God are yea and amen in Christ Jesus, to the glory of God by us.

God's covenants have ever been sanctioned and ratfied with blood and[b:16a359f1f3] the covenant or the testament of eternal grace is ratfied with the blood of the Surety and Testator[/b:16a359f1f3].[/quote:16a359f1f3]

And here is more of Spurgeon on the New Covenant from Hebrews 12:

[quote:16a359f1f3]We have also come to Jesus, our Savior, who is all and in all. In him we live; we are joined unto him in one spirit; he is the Bridegroom of our souls, the delight of our hearts. [b:16a359f1f3]We are come to him as the Mediator of the new covenant. What a blessed thing it is to know that covenant of which he is the Mediator! Some in these days despise the covenant; but saints delight in it. To them the everlasting covenant, &quot;ordered in all things, and sure,&quot; is all their salvation and all their desire. We are covenanted ones through our Lord Jesus. God has pledged himself to bless us. By two immutable things wherein it is impossible for him to lie, he has given us strong consolation, and good hope through grace, even to all of us who have fled for refuge to the Lord Jesus. We are happy to live under the covenant of grace[/b:16a359f1f3], the covenant of promise, the covenant symbolized by Jerusalem above, which is free, and the mother of us all.

We have come to the blood of sprinkling which has fallen upon [b:16a359f1f3]a covenant which never shall be broken[/b:16a359f1f3]; for the Lord hath made it to endure though rocks and hills remove. [b:16a359f1f3]This is called by the Holy Ghost &quot;a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.&quot; We are come to the covenant of grace, to Jesus the Mediator of it, and to his blood, which is the seal of it[/b:16a359f1f3].[/quote:16a359f1f3]

And from Hebrews 13:

[quote:16a359f1f3]Now, in this covenant of grace, we must first of all observe the high contracting parties between whom it was made. The covenant of grace was made before the foundation of the world between God the Father, and God the Son; or to put it in a yet more scriptural light, it was made mutually between the three divine persons of the adorable Trinity. This covenant was not made mutually between God and man. Man did not at that time exist; but Christ stood in the covenant as man's representative. In that sense we will allow that it was a covenant between God and man, but not a covenant between God and any man personally and individually. It was a covenant between God with Christ, and through Christ indirectly with all the blood-bought seed who were loved of Christ from the foundation of the world. It is a noble and glorious thought, the very poetry of that old Calvinistic doctrine which we teach, that long ere the day-star knew its place, before God had spoken existence out of nothing, before angel's wing had stirred the unnavigated ether, before a solitary song had distributed the solemnity of the silence in which God reigned supreme, he had entered into solemn council with himself, with his Son, and with his Spirit, and had in that council decreed, determined, proposed, and predestinated the salvation of his people. He had, moreover, in the covenant arranged the ways and means, and fixed and settled everything which should work together for the effecting of the purpose and the decree. My soul flies back now, winged by imagination and by faith, and looks into that mysterious council-chamber, and by faith I behold the Father pledging himself to the Son, and the Son pledging himself to the Father, while the Spirit gives his pledge to both, and thus that divine compact, long to be hidden in darkness, is completed and settled-the covenant which in these latter days has been read in the light of heaven, and has become the joy, and hope, and boast of all the saints.

The new covenant speaketh on this wise, &quot;Their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. I will write my law in their hearts, and on their minds will I write them. I will put my fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from me.&quot; The prophets enlarge most instructively upon this new covenant. It is not a covenant of &quot;if you will I will,&quot; but it runs thus, &quot;I will and you shall.&quot; As a covenant this exactly suits me. If there were something to be performed by me I could never be sure, but as it is finished I am at rest. God sets us working, and we work; but the covenant itself dependeth wholly upon that great promise, &quot;I will not turn away from them to do them good.&quot; So that it was right of Paul to pray that God would make us meet in every good work to do his will, because of old this was the master promise, that those for whom Jesus died should be sanctified, purified, and made meet to serve their God. Great as the prayer is, it is asking what the covenant itself guarantees.[/quote:16a359f1f3]

And on Jeremiah 31: (note - he preaches about the Covenant of Grace from Jereimiah 31, desribing the benefits of the New Covenant as the benefits of the Covenant of Grace. He preaches about this Covenant using the terms interchangeably!)

[quote:16a359f1f3]But [b:16a359f1f3]the new covenant, is not founded on works at all, it is a covenant of pure unmingled grace[/b:16a359f1f3]; you may read it from its first word to its last, and there is not a solitary syllable as to anything to be done by us. The whole covenant is a covenant, not so much between man and his Maker as between Jehovah and man's representative, the Lord Jesus Christ. The human side of the covenant has been already fulfilled by Jesus, and there remains nothing now but the covenant of giving, not the covenant of requirements. The whole covenant with regard to us, the people of God, now stands thus: &quot;I will give this, I will bestow that; I will fulfill this promise; I will grant that favour.&quot; 

And fourthly we shall endeavour to stir you up to make good use of this blessing, so freely and liberally conveyed to you by the [b:16a359f1f3]eternal covenant of grace; &quot;I will be their God.&quot;[/b:16a359f1f3]

Stop just one moment and think it over before we start. In the covenant of grace God himself conveys himself to you and becomes yours. Understand it: God-all that is meant by that word-eternity, infinity, omnipotence, omniscience, perfect justice, infallible rectitude, immutable love-all that is meant by God-Creator, Guardian, Preserver, Governor, Judge,-all that that great word &quot;GOD&quot; can mean, all of goodness and of love, all of bounty and of grace-all that, [b:16a359f1f3]this covenant[/b:16a359f1f3] gives you, to be your absolute property as much as anything you can call your own. &quot;I will be their God.&quot; [/quote:16a359f1f3]



[Edited on 2-21-04 by pastorway]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 21, 2004)

Quoting Spurgeon, Gill, and Owens will really get all of the Baptists nowhere. It is not helpful when you quote someone with an underlying premise that is new and novel. NO ONE outside of the past 30 or 40 years has read them this way. NO ONE during their own time ever used the language you all are using. Your presupposition is slanting your view of what they had to say. As such, your own confessional standard gets watered down.

Please take a moment to think about what others from their time had to say. If they did not interpret it the way you are, why should you trust someone from our time?

This has revisionist written all over it. It is fine that you believe what you believe. You are thoroughly convinced that it is correct. But please don't pull someone in who would not agree with you.

There is some serious misinterpretation going on here. I suggest we all explore the historical side of this argument and see if we can use these quotes in the manner that we have.

As for the paedo side, those of us who hold the WCF as our confession, there can be no doubt. The CoG is the covenant God offered to man immediately after the fall. It has been differently administered in the time of the OT and in the NT. Christ (through Moses as type) has mediated both the OT, through shadow and the NT through revelation. The covenant of Abraham is Christ in shadow. The covenant of Moses is Christ in shadow. The NC is Christ in reality.

I think we have all been poisoned by our times. If we feel comfortable about being here, then fine. But we should not try to identify our beliefs with those of previous times. They knew not of them.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 21, 2004)

Pastor Greco,

[quote:a7290c5bd7]
What do you think this sentence means: 



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The &quot;Gospel dispensation&quot; is the new covenant. The new covenant is the covenant of grace in the sense that it is the best administration of it, but it is not EXACTLY EQUAL TO IT. 
[/quote:a7290c5bd7]

Now wait a second..... Did you get that from Gill, or are you reading that into what Gill said?

Gill does not say here that the Gospel dispensation is the New Covenant; he said that the New Covenant is the covenant of grace. This New Covenant/Covenant of Grace is administered in the Gospel dispensation (but not in the gospel administration alone, for it was also administered through the Old Covenant, as he goes on to say).

[quote:a7290c5bd7]
Why is that important? Because the Abrahamic covenant is also the covenant of grace. So is the mosaic. Gill says that explicitly: 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the old covenant, or former mode of administration of it 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The &quot;it&quot; there is covenant of grace. 
[/quote:a7290c5bd7]

Let's stop right there....

How do you know that the &quot;it&quot; is not the New Covenant? Why do you just assume that the &quot;it&quot; is the covenant of grace (apart from the New Covenant)?

It is very important here to notice his use of the word &quot;it&quot;.

Look again:

[quote:a7290c5bd7]
for neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation; called new, not because newly made, for [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] is so called [u:a7290c5bd7]in distinction from the old covenant[/u:a7290c5bd7], or former mode of administration of [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7], under the Mosaic economy; and [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] [u:a7290c5bd7]is always new[/u:a7290c5bd7], and will be succeeded by no other; and [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others
[/quote:a7290c5bd7]

[i:a7290c5bd7]
1. called [u:a7290c5bd7]new[/u:a7290c5bd7], not because newly made, for [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] was made from everlasting;

2. or lately revealed, for [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall

3. [b:a7290c5bd7]It[/b:a7290c5bd7] is so called in distiction from the Old Covenant.

4. former mode or administration of [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7]

5. [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] is always new, and will be succeeded by no other.

6. [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] provides for and promises new things. [/i:a7290c5bd7]

[b:a7290c5bd7]It[/b:a7290c5bd7] is the New Covenant. 

1. It is the New Covenant which is &quot;called new, not because newly made, for it was made from everlasting.&quot;

2. It is the New Covenant which was &quot;made known to our first parents immediately after the fall&quot;.

3. It is the New Covenant which is &quot;so called&quot; (that is: called &quot;new&quot in distinction from the Old Covenant.

4. It is the New Covenant which was formerly administered in the Old.

5. It is the New Covenant which is &quot;always new and will be succeeded by no other&quot;.

6. And it is the New Covenant which &quot;provides for and promises new things.

Hence, when Gill says, &quot;the former mode and administration of [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7]&quot;, he means that the New Covenant/covenant of grace was formerly administered in the Old Covenant. 


[b:a7290c5bd7]He uses &quot;it&quot; 6 times in reference to the New Covenant. Why would you think that all of a sudden, now &quot;it&quot; is supposed to refer to the [i:a7290c5bd7]covenant of grace, not the New Covenant[/i:a7290c5bd7]????[/b:a7290c5bd7]


By the way, Pastor Way has provided some good quotes from Spurgeon in which aparently Spurgeon (at least, aparently from those quotes) teaches the same.


[quote:a7290c5bd7]
To get to the point, your quote from Malone is not useful. To be blunt, Malone has no clue about what Owen is saying. You have just quoted a conclusion - and a monumentally wrong one - by Malone. I'm NOT criticizing you; but Malone.
[/quote:a7290c5bd7]

Your charge here is against an ordained minister of the gospel, who, as yourself, is Christ's gift to His church. I only ask that you would please back up your statement with some good evidence.

Thanks.




[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2004)

Dan,

Let me try and respond quickly here, since I think we are getting nowhere fast, and the next two days for me are beyond busy:

[quote:ed3551789f][i:ed3551789f]Originally posted by Dan....[/i:ed3551789f]
Let's stop right there....

How do you know that the &quot;it&quot; is not the New Covenant? Why do you just assume that the &quot;it&quot; is the covenant of grace (apart from the New Covenant)?

It is very important here to notice his use of the word &quot;it&quot;.

Look again:

[quote:ed3551789f]
for neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation; called new, not because newly made, for [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] is so called [u:ed3551789f]in distinction from the old covenant[/u:ed3551789f], or former mode of administration of [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f], under the Mosaic economy; and [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] [u:ed3551789f]is always new[/u:ed3551789f], and will be succeeded by no other; and [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others
[/quote:ed3551789f]

[i:ed3551789f]
1. called [u:ed3551789f]new[/u:ed3551789f], not because newly made, for [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] was made from everlasting;
2. or lately revealed, for [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall
3. [b:ed3551789f]It[/b:ed3551789f] is so called in distiction from the Old Covenant.
4. former mode or administration of [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f]
5. [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] is always new, and will be succeeded by no other.
6. [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] provides for and promises new things. [/i:ed3551789f]
[b:ed3551789f]It[/b:ed3551789f] is the New Covenant. [/quote:ed3551789f]

Because of the English grammar. "called new" is an adjective. The antecedent is in the previous clause - "the covenant of grace." New refers back as an adjective to the covenant of grace. But notice that Gill does not say, "which is new," but rather "called new," that is [i:ed3551789f]given the designation new[/i:ed3551789f] or [i:ed3551789f]described as new[/i:ed3551789f]. There is only one covenant from everlasting - the covenant of grace. If the new covenant were the only covenant from everlasting - it would not be new! It would be old. That is the point of Hebrews. That is the point of Galatians 3-4. IT is the new administration of the covenant. How can something be the new version of itself? How can the old be the new?


[quote:ed3551789f]By the way, Pastor Way has provided some good quotes from Spurgeon in which aparently Spurgeon (at least, aparently from those quotes) teaches the same.[/quote:ed3551789f]

This is a good point. I will need to look at these quotes again, and in context. It may be that you are right about Spurgeon. I will withhold judgment.

[quote:ed3551789f]
Your charge here is against an ordained minister of the gospel, who, as yourself, is Christ's gift to His church. I only ask that you would please back up your statement with some good evidence. [/quote:ed3551789f]

Matthew has done this already on the board, and I will try and dig this up. But the most obvious thing should be that Owen was a great proponent of infant baptism. If he equated the covenant of grace and the new covenant, he would either be a fool for thinking that the sign of the covenant should be given to those whom it did not belong, or else he would contradict himself in thinking that the covenant could be broken - which he obviously did, since he talks about the penalties for covenant breaking. Malone is entitled to respect as a minister, but it is quiet shameful that he has twisted a dead saint's words to buttress his case. He knows that Owen does not agree with him - Owen has written as much both on baptism, and in Savoy 7.4-5, which he helped draft:
[quote:ed3551789f] IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed. 

V. Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; upon the account of which various dispensations, it is called the Old and New Testament.[/quote:ed3551789f]

That is like me saying, "you know, it is like Spurgeon said - 'the promises are to believers and their children.' That is why Spurgeon would agree with me that infants should be baptized."
Your first reaction would be "what?!" "Everything Spurgeon wrote is against that. You better show something pretty definitive here, not just a summary of what you say Spurgeon said."

And I would agree. But obviously Malone wouldn't. He makes Owen (who was a rather strenuously opponent of the doctrine of credo baptism, but who loved men like Bunyan, a proponent of credo baptism. What?


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 21, 2004)

*In Defense of Fred Malone....*

(not that Fred Malone is in need of defense, but just for the record.....)

Pastor Greco said:
[quote:1c0708af43]
Malone is on his way to antinomianism. 

Now he may not be there - in fact I am pretty sure that he not only is not, but is critical of NCT; but his theology WILL be taken in the next generation or two to that point. 
[/quote:1c0708af43]

Dr. Fred Malone is an associate editor of the [i:1c0708af43]Reformed Baptist Theological Review[/i:1c0708af43], (RBTR) along with such men as Richard Barcellos (who wrote [i:1c0708af43]In Defense of the Decologue[/i:1c0708af43]), Robert Martin, James Renihan and Samuel Waldron.

The goal of the RBTR &quot;[i:1c0708af43]is to present confessional Reformed Baptist doctrine in all branches of theology, with it practical outworking. With scripture as its ultimate satndard, RBTR will function within the theological framework of the Second London Confession of Faith (1677/1689).[/i:1c0708af43]&quot; 


If Malone's theology was as dangerous as Pastor Greco says it is, then why would such men as above listed allow him to be an associate editor of their periodical? Why would former Pastor Walter Chantry, editor of [i:1c0708af43]The Banner of Truth[/i:1c0708af43], have endorsed his book, saying &quot;[i:1c0708af43]Every baptist will welcome Dr. Malone's volume as being a new champion of the cause of truth. It should have immense usefulness for pastors and churches as a tool for teaching covenant theology and as an aid in controversy about the subject of baptism.&quot;[/i:1c0708af43]???

If his theology were so dangerous, then why would such men endorse his work, and allow his association with them as defenders of Confessional Reformed Baptist theology?

The church of which he is pastor, First Baptist Church, Clinton, LA, is a member church of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (A.R.B.C.A.), which requires member churches to hold strict adherance to the 1689 London Confession.

Why would he be allowed membership if his theology of the covenants were in opposition to the Confessional standard of the assocaition?

Yet, for some reason, Pastor Greco can openly say that, &quot;Malone is on his way to antinomianism&quot;, while those who associate with him, including Waldron and Chantry, aparrently do not see a problem.

Either, 
A. They are clueless to his theology. (I highly doubt that).
B. They agree with him on this point
or,
C. They do not consider Malones &quot;deviation&quot; a large enough issue to worry over (as does Pastor Greco).


Dr. Malone isn't somewhere out there in left field. He is highly regarded among Confessional Reformed Baptists as defender of the Reformed Baptist faith.

Let's think about these things before casting stones.

Thank you.


[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Dan....]


----------



## fredtgreco (Feb 21, 2004)

Dan,

I'll leave it at this since you make some good points. I thought I said (but I may not have, and if so, it is my fault) that I don't think Malone is antinomian. What I think is that men will latch onto some aspects of his theology and come to serious deviations in a few generations. That is how it works.

One good example: the work of Vos and Ridderbos was very helpful to the church, but they did take some &quot;odd&quot; positions. Take a look at Ridderbos on baptism. He talks about it in ways that make the reformed squeemish. He also is on record as saying that the ordo salutis really isn't in the Bible. Now did Ridderbos intend to start a salvation by works movement? No, of course not. Did his supporters then think he was dangerous? No, because he had careful caveats, was careful not to go too far, and was careful not to be dogmatic.

But 50-75 years later, the Auburn folks and the New Perspective folks have seized on his theology, taken the bad to new extremes and forgotten the good. Where Vos thought that Biblical theology was being given shjort shrift (and it was), now men are saying you don't even need systematics (that is NT Wright in a nutshell). We are fighting a major war now, and Vos and Ridderbos, while not responsible, are the spiritual ancestors of this bastardized theology because they were not careful enough.

That is what I think we will see in 50-75 in the reformed baptist camp. We are seeing it somewhat already. Not to cast stones - especially since New Perspectivism is the big problem in Presbyterianism - but do you wonder why New Covenant theology is almost exclusively a baptist phenomena? It is an outgrowth, I believe of the wrong view of the new covenant. That is why men who take a classical covenantal view like Barcellos, Reisenger and others are so vociferous in combatting it.

That's all. I'll let you have the last word.


----------



## pastorway (Feb 21, 2004)

While Barcellos disagrees with Wells and others in the NCT movement, he did write recently in his review of the book [i:c2ea9ab296]New Covenant Theology[/i:c2ea9ab296]:

[quote:c2ea9ab296]I would like to close on a positive note. Through various circumstances, I have come to know Tom Wells on a personal level and consider him to be a dear, highly esteemed brother in the Lord. We have had several friendly, challenging, and edifying email exchanges and phone conversations. I am sure that this would be true of many other New Covenant Theology adherents and trust that this review will be taken as constructive criticism from a differing friend and brother.[/quote:c2ea9ab296]

Further, Barcellos notes in the same review, that NCT is [i:c2ea9ab296]changing[/i:c2ea9ab296] as it develops and that some of the things he addressed directly in his own work [i:c2ea9ab296]In Defense of the Decalogue[/i:c2ea9ab296] no longer apply as a critique of NCT or its leaders.

Speaking from my own perspective now, those in the RB camp do not see NCT as a serious threat/doorway to heresy in the church. It is a different system in some respects, but not a threat or a heresy.

Perhaps it is finally happening that Reformed Baptists are reading their own theologians without a WCF bias! Gill, Spurgeon, and others are thoroughly Baptist, and while their language at times sounds like the WCF...they are BAPTISTS and do not hold to full blown Covenant Theology.

Baptist theologians should not be read through a lense of the WCF. Many involved in framing the WCF and many churches that are WCF churches still had NOTHING to do with Baptists in their day. Why? Because they knew that the Baptists had a differing system when it came to defining the covenants from the Bible.

If Spurgeon and Gill and all the others had been saying the SAME thing as the WCF does, then they would not have been rejected solely on the basis of their view of baptism, would they? There had to be more to it than that and the more to it is quite simply their understanding of the covenants!

So I suggest that we strive to read what these guys wrote and hear what they preached without ASSUMING that they are speaking the language of the WCF. They were NOT. 

I would also suggest that we do not need to set up any systematic theology and man made confession of faith as &quot;the faith once for all delivered to the saints.&quot;

The Bible is our rule. It alone is infallible. And while we may derive differing systematics, we in Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches are still preaching the [i:c2ea9ab296]same gospel[/i:c2ea9ab296], are we not?

Systematics are not the gospel. Covenant Theology is not the gospel. The WCF and LBCF are not the gospel.

Do you hear me here guys and gals?

They are man made systems of interpretation that did not exist until hundreds and hundreds of years after the founding of the church and the closing of the canon. And the gospel was being preached and Christ was building His church long before the 1500s.

Systematics can be helpful, but as soon as we think that our entire belief system must fit neatly into one man made package then [i:c2ea9ab296]we have elevated the work of men over the Word of God[/i:c2ea9ab296]. May it never be.

You do not need a systematic to know Christ. Nor is there an elevated place in heaven on His right and left sides for those who have put all the ways and thoughts of God into an easily understood and structured system with available flow charts.

I want to be sure that while we disagree on these things that we admit that we all have biases and presuppositions, and that no one here is completely committed to the very same system as others are - for no theologian on this earth has ever agreed 100% with even one other theologian. Why? Because God's ways and thoughts are so high above ours how dare we ever think that we have Him figured out. 

Look at all the differences in denominatiosn that all claim to adhere to CT as presented in the WCF or some other man made confession. Look at the variety of Baptists out there. Are any of so vain as to think that &quot;our church&quot; alone has it all figured out?

How proud we would be if we thought our &quot;system&quot; was &quot;the faith.&quot;

Phillip

[Edited on 2-21-04 by pastorway]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 21, 2004)

*Here we go again....*

Phillip,

Thanks so much for telling us all for the 100th time that the Bible is our only rule of faith. As if we do not practice this.

I get rather tired every time we bring up a good point to which you have no answer, you pull out the old, &quot;the Bible is the final authority.&quot; Could you answer the point instead of side-step the issue?

Are there any Baptists from the time of the reformation to Spurgeon that actually thought that the new covenant=CoG?

Again, it is not as if all these things were not written in English. There is nothing lost in translation here. Plain English stands against you on this point. To interpret it otherwise does damage to what they intended.

A further point. The LBCF changed the language it disagreed with. If the language is the same, then the meaning is the same as the WCF. They didn't agree with a different meaning of the same words. Although we may do that in our day, they did not, for they were more precise in their language.

We all agree that the Bible is the final authority on this. But unfortunately, we are not arguing against it. We are arguing that your interpretation of your own confession is novel and does damage to the meaning of it.

Could you please answer that one? If you do not know of any difference, then say so. It is okay if your stance is novel as long as you admit it is. We can go on from there. What we cannot go on from is when you insist that these baptist writers from the reformation are saying things that agree with your novel theology. If you can show where they did, fine. But I would ask you for some references.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## pastorway (Feb 21, 2004)

The references have been given and we were told that we were misreading them because obviously they were speaking the language of the WCF.

Read Spurgeon and Gill - and most any other Baptist theologian - without a WCF lence and they sure sound like what Dan and I hae been saying. This is not a new phenomenon in the RB world, guys. 

We are not Baptists who want to sound like Presbyterians without infant inclusion. We are Baptists who hold historically to a different understanding of the covenants than does Covenant Theology.

I wanted to make the point that we are arguing about the interpretation of the covenants and not about the GOSPEL itself. There is a difference.

And I will always go back to Sola Scriptura, I don't care who gets tired of it, because we all need to be reminded from time to time that the Bible is MORE than our puny systematic theologies!

It is not a cop out. You said we did not read our guys right. We said yes we did. You said no we did not. Who wins?

Take off the WCF glasses, and read what these guys wrote. Read Spurgeon on Hebrews and Jeremiah 31. Read Gill. Read Haldane. Read others. They are not Presbyterians - they are Baptists. And Baptists have ALWAYS had a different view of the covenants that full blown CT.

If you were in a Reformed Baptyrian church that thought that the LBCF was a CT document, sorry. The 1644 and 1689 are Baptist documents and they differ from the WCF in many things.

Phillip

PS - notice the significant change in language between the WCF and the LBCF on the covenant of grace (chapter 7):

[quote:f8ad8eaac9][b:f8ad8eaac9]WCF[/b:f8ad8eaac9]
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.

Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.


[b:f8ad8eaac9]LBCF[/b:f8ad8eaac9]
This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all 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. 
[/quote:f8ad8eaac9]

Seems to me the Baptists changed quite a bit!! Because they understand the Covenant differently!



[Edited on 2-22-04 by pastorway]


----------



## kceaster (Feb 21, 2004)

*Phillip...*

[quote:ba224f2bce]
Read Spurgeon and Gill - and most any other Baptist theologian - without a WCF lence and they sure sound like what Dan and I hae been saying. This is not a new phenomenon in the RB world, guys.[/quote:ba224f2bce]

I asked for references and you say most any other Baptist theologian. Wow. So, I should just take your word for it. Will you give me the same courtesy? I did ask for specific references, did I not? 

[quote:ba224f2bce]And I will always go back to Sola Scriptura, I don't care who gets tired of it, because we all need to be reminded from time to time that the Bible is MORE than our puny systematic theologies![/quote:ba224f2bce]

You will go back to your version of Sola Scriptura. We will always disagree about that because yours is revisionist. It is not the Sola Scriptura of the reformation, because that Sola Scriptura includes the regula fidei. You seem to think that it is perfectly fine to come up with your own regula fidei. That is Solo Scriptura. Sorry.

[quote:ba224f2bce]It is not a cop out. You said we did not read our guys right. We said yes we did. You said no we did not. Who wins?[/quote:ba224f2bce]

Well we do until you actually come up with a reference that shows you are interpreting your own standards correctly.

[quote:ba224f2bce]Take off the WCF glasses, and read what these guys wrote. Read Spurgeon on Hebrews and Jeremiah 31. Read Gill. Read Haldane. Read others. They are not Presbyterians - they are Baptists. And Baptists have ALWAYS had a different view of the covenants that full blown CT.[/quote:ba224f2bce]

No one is disputing their difference from CT. We are disputing your difference from them. You equate the NC with the CoG. They did not.

And, without the WCF, your glasses would be very cloudy. How much of the WCF is included in your LBCF word for word, and without any explanation as to why they duplicated so much &quot;errant&quot; theology.

[quote:ba224f2bce]If you were in a Reformed Baptyrian church that thought that the LBCF was a CT document, sorry. The 1644 and 1689 are Baptist documents and they differ from the WCF in many things.[/quote:ba224f2bce]

What is a Baptyrian? Is that a cross between a Presbyterian and and a baptist? I seriously have never heard that term before.

[quote:ba224f2bce]PS - notice the significant change in language between the WCF and the LBCF on the covenant of grace (chapter 7):

[quote:ba224f2bce][b:ba224f2bce]WCF[/b:ba224f2bce]
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.

Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.


[b:ba224f2bce]LBCF[/b:ba224f2bce]
This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all 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. 
[/quote:ba224f2bce][/quote:ba224f2bce]

What I noticed is that when I paralleled these a couple of weeks ago so that we could all get on the same page with the same definitions, neither you nor Dan would touch that thread. Why did you not interact with it then? If they are so different, why not show us how they are different. And please, do not read the LBCF through your novel lens. Try some of the writers of the time and see if they say the Abrahamic and Mosaic were not a part of the CoG.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## pastorway (Feb 21, 2004)

A Reformed Baptyrian is a term I coined in this discussion to make a point. Some Baptists are really just Presbyterians that don't baptize their children. 

As for references, I have provided a whole post of quotes from Spurgeon and Dan quoted Gill. Do you need more? Or are you disputing what we have already posted and won't be convinced until and unless we produce mroe on top of what has already been submitted?

And I appreciate your assessment of my skewed view of Sola Scriptura. I am just a lone nut out here to destroy the faith of generations, aren't I?

As I stated before, the system of theology to which each of us holds is NOT the gospel. It is simply our way of interpreting Scripture. Neither view, CT or Baptist is novel....and we know this because the CT view did not exist until the 1500s and later. Further, we know this because as I also already stated, Covenant Theology is NOT the &quot;faith once for all delivered to the saints.&quot; And if anyone thinks it is, then they have elevated the works of men above the Word of God.

So lets quit pretending like Baptists are unorthodox and ever beholden to the Westminster &quot;divines&quot;. We are both searching for truth as revealed in the Word of God. Can we at least agree on that?

Phillip


----------



## kceaster (Feb 21, 2004)

*Phillip...*

[quote:d9f81c55a6]A Reformed Baptyrian is a term I coined in this discussion to make a point. Some Baptists are really just Presbyterians that don't baptize their children.[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

Thanks for the explanation. 

[quote:d9f81c55a6]As for references, I have provided a whole post of quotes from Spurgeon and Dan quoted Gill. Do you need more? Or are you disputing what we have already posted and won't be convinced until and unless we produce mroe on top of what has already been submitted?[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

Unfortunately, none of these quotes excludes either the Abrahamic or the Mosaic from being parts and parcels of the CoG. The NC is certainly a part of it, and the most essential one. We all agree on that. What we do not agree with is your new languages that excludes all the previous covenants from the covenant of grace.

Do you have any quotes from Gill or Owens that do that?

Also, is it not strange that given the prime opportunity to distance themselves from the reformed understanding, the baptists of 1689 did not show the CoG to be separate and apart from the other covenants? I mean, if their definition really is that different, would they not have had to explicitly state that the old covenants are not a part of the covenant of grace. That was the understanding up to that point. Why would they not have clarified this? Why would they not have clarified it in their other writings?

[quote:d9f81c55a6]And I appreciate your assessment of my skewed view of Sola Scriptura. I am just a lone nut out here to destroy the faith of generations, aren't I?[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

No, you are simply stating an illogical premise. You state that you have no systematic. But in doing so, in borrowing from everything you agree with, you create your own systematic. And, you call it Sola Scriptura. SS is not defined by you. I didn't define either. It is defined historically. And right now, you do not agree with the historical meaning because you replace the regula fidei with your own.

[quote:d9f81c55a6]As I stated before, the system of theology to which each of us holds is NOT the gospel.[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

I don't ever remember saying it was, nor was it my intention to imply that. I have never advocated that systems of theology are the gospel. This is a red herring.

[quote:d9f81c55a6]It is simply our way of interpreting Scripture. Neither view, CT or Baptist is novel....and we know this because the CT view did not exist until the 1500s and later.[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

Did you mean, &quot;Both views, CT and Baptist is novel.&quot;

This sounds as if you are stating a fact. Can you back this up? The clearly defined terms have taken some time, but the doctrine of covenants has always been there. Paul says so.

[quote:d9f81c55a6]Further, we know this because as I also already stated, Covenant Theology is NOT the &quot;faith once for all delivered to the saints.&quot; And if anyone thinks it is, then they have elevated the works of men above the Word of God.[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

This is an argument ad baculum. You are saying that if we believe this we are guilty of extra-biblical heresies. And, it is also another herring because no one has claimed that CT is the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Can you stick to the arguments we're making?

[quote:d9f81c55a6]So lets quit pretending like Baptists are unorthodox and ever beholden to the Westminster &quot;divines&quot;. We are both searching for truth as revealed in the Word of God. Can we at least agree on that?[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

We are both searching for truth. That is true. Some of us find it more in the preponderance of witnesses that God has blessed the church with. While others of us assume that unless it comes from within or because we do not agree with it, it cannot be truth.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## pastorway (Feb 21, 2004)

Of course I have a systematic....I just can't find a label for it! I try my theology against the Scripture. Shouldn't we all?

Does anyone on this forum who adheres to Covenant Theology actually AGREE with every other Covenant Theologian 100% of the time? Even the Puritans and the Westminster Divines disagreed on things. 

What do we do if we disagree? We make sure that we are correctly interpreting the Bible, because it is infallible, our systems are not. And if we continue to disagree we take the Bible OVER the system.

For Owen on the Covenant, read his commentary on Hebrews 8:6. He says that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and that the others pointed to it.

As for your last statement, KC, are you saying that we should not rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth? That is, after all, part of what He promises to do. He was sent to lead us into all truth.

Does He use men? Yes. Pastors, teachers, theologians? Surely. 

But does that mean the men are always right? No because we are all fallen. And that is exactly why the Bereans were praised, for they went to the Scriptures and in doing so questioned the teachings of an Apostle of the Lord Jesus. And they are praised for doing so. 

Here we are again at that old argument about the Bible and the Spirit. 

And here we are again to say that if Luther listened to you there would have been no reformation, because he surely would have esteemed his teachers as speaking as tools of the Holy Spirit to lead him. Instead he questioned his teachers by going to the Word of God....and when he challenged the systematized doctrine of his day with the Words of the Bible, the Spirit through him sparked the greatest recovery of the gospel in history.

But lets not start all that again. 

I do not want anyone to think that because a Baptist rejects the teachings of the covennt according to CT that they are then opening the door for heresy, and stepping away from their Baptist heretiage. That simply is not true. 

I am through with this thread for now lest we go round this circle again and again......

Phillip


----------



## kceaster (Feb 22, 2004)

*Phillip....*

[quote:05a6cd7ec4]As for your last statement, KC, are you saying that we should not rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth? That is, after all, part of what He promises to do. He was sent to lead us into all truth.[/quote:05a6cd7ec4]

Not at all, and you very well know it.

This was a jab and a red herring.

Thanks for bowing out of the argument. It is clear that you do not want to be logical, nor do you want to clarify. I suggest you read your own posting in the other thread. Several times, Owen does not agree with your interpretation. You posted a source of reference for our side not for yours. If you take all of what he is saying, he agrees with us, not you.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Dan.... (Feb 22, 2004)

Pastor Greco,

[quote:dbb8d7ad35]
I'll leave it at this since you make some good points. I thought I said (but I may not have, and if so, it is my fault) that I don't think Malone is antinomian. 
[/quote:dbb8d7ad35]

True. You did not say that he was. (Had you said that he was, you'd have seen a couple of these things -&gt; :flaming: with my last post to you). 

What you said was, &quot;[i:dbb8d7ad35]Malone is on his way to antinomianism. Now he may not be there - in fact I am pretty sure that he not only is not, but is critical of NCT; but his theology WILL be taken in the next generation or two to that point. [/i:dbb8d7ad35]&quot;

I appreciate your concern that we do not fall into antinomianism. Personally, I don't believe that Malone is anywhere near antinomianism in his theology. Now what other people will do with it.... only time will tell.

I just want to make it clear that he isn't somewhere in left field out there, but that he is highly respected among confessional baptists.


[quote:dbb8d7ad35]
That's all. I'll let you have the last word. 
[/quote:dbb8d7ad35]

Okay, I'll make this my last word:

I am a confessional baptist. I do have a few minor disagreements with the confession, but overall I truly love and highly esteem the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. It is not only my confession of faith, it is also my churches confession of faith (as it is the confession of all A.R.B.C.A. churches).

Yes, I believe in Sola Scriptura; but I also understand that it would be quite arrogant of me to think that I have enlighted to some truth that very few others have been privilaged to have obtained. I most certainly may be wrong, and I have great respect for those among my brothers who disagree (not only among the Reformed Baptists brothers, but also among Reformed Paedo-Baptist brothers).

I am very appreciative of the confessions. I do appreciate the Westminster Confession; but of course I am biased :smilegrin:, hence I appreciate the London Confession even more so.

The confessions are very important. They are a means which holds the people of God from straying off into every wind of doctrine from the sleight of man. We are all so prone to wander. God has been gracious to give us orthodox confessions to keep us in line.

Let us all be thankful.


----------

