# I, too, am no longer a Baptist



## Philip A

*UPDATE!*
Since this thread continues to pop up now and again, and I even get a PM or two on it occasionally, let me set the record straight regarding my position on baptism. Since the Spring of 2006 I have been thoroughly convinced that the historical Reformed view of paedobaptism is the biblical position, and that no expression of credobaptism, no matter the qualifier, can truly be said to be Reformed. I therefore retract everything I have said below and in subsequent posts in support of credobaptism. I sincerely love my Baptist brethren, but I am at the same time thoroughly convinced that credobaptism is erroneous, unbiblical, and harmful to the church.


As there have been a number of similar threads popping up on the PB, I will add mine here as well. As you can tell from the title, I, too, am no longer a Baptist. As with the others, this study has taken me a long time, sometimes totally immersed in the subject (pardon the pun), sometimes almost indifferent, but my change in position has come about as a result of continued study over about two years now. Also, as others have said, this has come about as a result of reading the bible as a whole, not just certain passages that deal explicitly with baptism, nor even just the NT, but all of scripture, including such subjects as children, covenant, promise, etc. As so many of my paedobaptist friends have urged, I finally went back to Abraham to answer the question.


It has been interesting to see the comments from others on what a change this makes to one´s theology, both systematic and biblical. I have experienced many of these changes as well, such as the following, in which I´m sure you will find echoes of your own thoughts as well:

- I now see the continuity of scripture. I almost feel like tearing out that blank page about Â¾ of the way through my bible that says "œNew Testament", as if there were a sharp division between the two testaments. There is rather one continuous thread that runs through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.

- A whole lot more of the scripture has opened up to me as well. Parts that were dark I now see in a whole new light. This, as others have said, brings freshness to reading and studying the bible. Obscure things are now much clearer. The scriptures seem like they are brand new, and much richer.

- I now love the Old Testament. It used to be a history of God´s dealing with a particular nation in a particular way, not applying much to me and merely being of historical interest, if that. Now it is living and breathing, and I get so much more out of reading the OT than I used to. It used to be dark, depressing, and gloomy, and I couldn´t read much of it without going back to the NT to get a fix in between.

- The redemptive-historical aspect of scripture is becoming clearer and clearer to me now, and I can´t wait to get into studying it even more.


I have come to reject many of the Baptist arguments for similar reasons that many of you have. Most of the well known Baptist arguments that seemed so rock solid now seem so poorly thought through. I have noticed a number of them seem to be so focused on a particular word or phrase that they ignore the import of another word or phrase in the same verse or passage! Also there is a huge gap of inconsistency between the supposed theology of the Baptist perspective and their practice. And of course, the vast majority of Baptist arguments ignore the bulk of scripture, and don´t even come close to answering the questions and objections raised by paedobaptists.

So, after all of this study, I am no longer a Baptist, but I am now a Particular Baptist, what some of you may call a Reformed Baptist. (That term has come on hard times recently, as any Baptist who becomes a Calvinist thinks he is now a Reformed Baptist.) Yes, coming to Particular Baptist doctrines has come about for the reasons that I have stated above, has produced the fruits that I have stated above, and stands over and against the Baptist errors that I have cited above. Everything that I wrote above is true and written in good faith. I have written it in such a way in order to emphasize the radical difference between the modern Baptist position and the historical Particular Baptist position - that which is represented in the 1689 Confession and other Particular Baptist writings of the period, most of which are quite obscure and very hard to come by. The Particular Baptist position is rooted in Covenant Theology and starts from Genesis, not from Acts.

Someone has asked the question, why are so many Baptists jumping from the credo camp over into the paedo camp? I firmly believe that it is because they are ignorant of the distinction between the Baptist position and the Particular Baptist position. The end result is the same, both of them end up denying infant inclusion, and therefore infant baptism, but they are not, in fact, the same. The modern Baptist theologian has crossed the Particular Baptist bridge to end up where he is at theologically, and subsequently turned around and burned the bridge behind him by denying Covenant Theology "“ he is now in theological limbo with no vital connection to the scripture. So, when someone says that they have rejected the Baptist position, I completely understand why. But, when someone says "œI have examined both sides of the issue", I can´t help but think that they are unaware that there are in reality three sides of the issue.


----------



## JonathanHunt

OH YES!

OH YES!



Put it there, my brother!

A much, much appreciated post. Said all I have wanted to say and more.


----------



## LawrenceU

Amen! Amen, brother. ( We Baptists know how to use that little Hebraism. )

Very well said; and refreshing I might add.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Thanks for the input. Could you perhaps highlight some more differences between the Baptist and Particular Baptist positions? Perhaps point out some key reference people and/or writings on either side to read up on?


----------



## SmokingFlax

Ditto.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

That post was better than the climax of the "Sixth Sense."


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia




----------



## daveb

Wow, I was unaware of this distinction. Now there are particular baptists, when did this happen? I thought all Baptists were dispensational.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

They are....


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> They are....


----------



## Augusta

Ouch!


----------



## Ivan

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Thanks for the input. Could you perhaps highlight some more differences between the Baptist and Particular Baptist positions? Perhaps point out some key reference people and/or writings on either side to read up on?



I'm waiting for a response to this post.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

I'll be honest, I think Phillip A will be able to post a few things that DO make a difference between Baptists and Particular Baptists, especially on the practical side of holy living (Sabbth Day, etc.). It should be a helpful post.


----------



## JonathanHunt

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> They are....



We SO are NOT!

So there!


----------



## daveb

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> They are....


----------



## bond-servant

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> <snip>
> - I now see the continuity of scripture. I almost feel like tearing out that blank page about Â¾ of the way through my bible that says "œNew Testament", as if there were a sharp division between the two testaments. There is rather one continuous thread that runs through the bible from Genesis to Revelation.
> <snip>.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

burden of proof..


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> Put it there, my brother!



Firmly Put! 



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Thanks for the input. Could you perhaps highlight some more differences between the Baptist and Particular Baptist positions? Perhaps point out some key reference people and/or writings on either side to read up on?



In general, as I mentioned above, Particular Baptist theology is rooted and grounded in Covenant Theology. Modern Baptist theology is, unfortunately, most often rooted in Dispensationalism, or some residue thereof. True, the historical roots of Baptist thought are directly descended from the Particular Baptists, but modern evangelicals as a whole have a bad case of historical amnesia, so they have no idea where they have come from, and consequently where they are going. Typically the modern Baptist argues from the NT exclusively, and that by example, i.e. "œwe only see adults baptized in the NT, so we only baptize adults." Also, the typical Baptist arguments from Romans 6:3-4, both for subject and mode, are severely lacking in exegesis and tend to ignore the main thrust of Paul´s thought in the immediate context. That is one particular case I had in mind when I said of modern Baptists that "œa number of them seem to be so focused on a particular word or phrase that they ignore the import of another word or phrase in the same verse or passage". As an aside, I do believe that a good argument could be made from the passage, but it rests on other points that must be established first, and contradicts objections that must also be cleared first, before it can be used. I´m sorry I can´t provide particulars, it´s been a while since I´ve been through any modern Baptist polemics; I rather have in my mind a general sense of "œunconvincedness" (if I may coin a term!) with regard to much that I´ve read.

Positively, as a Particular Baptist, I would start in Genesis 3:15 and work forward, showing the continuity of the CoG even before Abraham, through to NT times, and argue my case from that. I see in the Abrahamic Covenant a distinction between the "œgospel" elements of the "œCovenant of Grace revealed to Abraham" and the "œcivil" elements of the "œCovenant of Circumcision made with Abraham". Therefore I do not see infant inclusion as a part of the Covenant of Grace as it was administered via Abraham. Thus the argument against paedobaptism is one from continuity, not from discontinuity. There´s more to it than that, but in general those are its starting points.

As for sources, there are two major Puritan works that are helpful for understanding the Particular Baptist case. The first is from John Tombes, although I must qualify this. Tombes was an Anglican who happened to become convinced of "œantipaedobaptism", but in all other respects remained an Anglican. Therefore he cannot be considered a Particular Baptist, as he did not hold to Particular Baptist ecclesiology (which also, by the way, hardly resembles Baptist ecclesiology as it is taught and practiced today). Tombes is helpful in that he is representative of the general stream of Puritan antipaedobaptist thought from which the Particular Baptists emerged. His work is distilled in Michael Renihan´s _Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes_, still available, I believe, here, if not elsewhere.

The other, even more helpful source, is Nehemiah Coxe´s _A Discourse of the Covenants_. Coxe was a major player in the writing of what became the 1689 (Particular!) Baptist confession, but he died before it was officially released. His is the best work that represents the theology behind the confession. Unfortunately, Coxe is not quite back in print yet. His _Discourse_ is soon to be published together with Owen´s comments on the Covenants from Hebrews 8 in a volume called _Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ_ from Reformed Baptist Academic Press. You can see it mentioned here.

There will be some discussion of Tombes and other aspects of both the historical Particular Baptist position and the modern Reformed Baptist position in the issue of the _Reformed Baptist Theological Review_ due out this month, the major theme of which will be paedobaptism. The website for RBTR is here.

I will soon, if not already, begin to sound like a broken record in recommending these sources. If so, please pardon the annoyance. Rest assured that I am not in the employment of RBAP or RBTR . I am however convinced that these are essential materials for understanding the historical Particular Baptist position, and that without availing oneself of these resources one cannot fully examine the issue of Paedobaptism.



> _Originally posted by Webmaster_
> That post was better than the climax of the "Sixth Sense."



Glad to have given you a good laugh, brother!



> _Originally posted by daveb_
> Wow, I was unaware of this distinction. Now there are particular baptists, when did this happen? I thought all Baptists were dispensational.



This is particularly why I wrote what I did. My whole purpose for this thread was to illustrate the difference between Baptists and Particular Baptists. I think there are far too many who do not appreciate the distinction. And by the way, it happened during the Puritan Era in the 17th century!

With regards to Dispensationalism, you must understand that there are in fact two definitions of it:

Definition 1 - The historical definition of a Dispensationalist, according to the movement itself, is one who holds to a radical ecclesiological distinction between the Church and Israel, denies substantially the spiritual meaning of OT prophecy, and subsequently holds to a future, earthly, millennial reign of Christ in which the OT prophecies will all be fulfilled physically. This is true Dispensationalism.

Definition 2 - The other definition of a Dispensationalist, and that which is prevalent on this board, is that a Dispensationalist is anyone who sees any more discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments than the Webmaster.  (This is a most fascinating phenomenon, given his peculiar and tenacious insistence on using the objective, academic, historical definition of the term "œReformed"!)



> _Originally posted by Webmaster_
> They are....



According to Definition 2, yes, all Baptists are dispensational. With this I would most heartily agree. I would even go further, as I have stated above, and say that the modern Baptist position is largely based on the Dispensationalism of definition 1.

However, Particular Baptists cannot be considered dispensationalists by Definition 1, as they all hold to Covenant Theology, and either Amillennialism or Postmillennialism, in opposition to Definition 1. (I, personally, am a Partial Preterist Optimistic Interadvental Millennialist, or PPOIM for short :bigsmile:. Yes, I am sorry it doesn´t convert to acronym particularly well).

Neither can Particular Baptists be considered dispensationalists even according to Definition 2, because they do not recognize infant inclusion in the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham. They see a continuous lack of infant inclusion throughout the CoG from Genesis 3:15 onwards. In fact, according to Definition 2, Paedobaptists are dispensational, as they hold to a discontinuity within the CoG by inserting infant inclusion into the New Testament! 

I hope, brother, that my non-covenantal inclusion of the  will illustrate for you, and the rest of my dear Paedobaptist brethren, the humor that the last paragraph was intended to communicate!



> _Originally posted by Webmaster_
> I'll be honest, I think Phillip A will be able to post a few things that DO make a difference between Baptists and Particular Baptists, especially on the practical side of holy living (Sabbth Day, etc.). It should be a helpful post.



I´ll be honest, I am too tired of typing to post anything in detail, but I will say that he is exactly right! there is a very sharp distinction between Baptists and Particular Baptists with regard to holy living, because Particular Baptists are also Puritans! Therefore the Puritan emphasis on personal piety, the perpetuity of the fourth commandment as applied to the observance of the Lord´s Day, and the Regulative Principle of Worship are all essential aspects of Particular Baptist theology.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> burden of proof..



What do I have the burden of proving, that I am a Particular Baptist? :bigsmile:


----------



## JonathanHunt

Put it there... again.



JH


----------



## Me Died Blue

Philip, since you do not even see infant inclusion in the Abrahamic covenant, but somehow make a distinguishment between the "Covenant of Grace" made with Abraham and the so-called "civil covenant of circumcision" made with him, what do you interpret all the spiritual references to circumcision in both testaments as signifying? Also, what exactly do you take passages like Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39 and 1 Cor. 7:14 to mean? If God's love, promises and redemptive plan are expressed throughout history in covenants, then to assert that such an abundance of spiritual promises are just random, non-covenantal promises that God happened to make is absurd.


----------



## kceaster

> There will be some discussion of Tombes and other aspects of both the historical Particular Baptist position and the modern Reformed Baptist position in the issue of the Reformed Baptist Theological Review due out this month, the major theme of which will be paedobaptism. The website for RBTR is here.



In my frame of mind today, I found this funny. What other major theme could be in a RB theological review? What is the difference between RB's and Reformed brethren of other sorts? Baptism.

Philip, I did not mean to poke fun. And I will not call you a dispie, either. I just sort of see the distinction you're making as a distinction without a difference. Fred is in the PCA and I am in the OPC. I don't know where he descended from or what side his family has been on through the centuries. Mine is a sordid past coming from an executioner's family in the middle of German Reformers. I'm pretty sure he sees a two office view in Scripture, whereas I see a three office view, yet, we're both Presbyterians. The thing that makes us Presbyterians is basically that we hold to a certain form of ecclesiastical government.

Now, I do not deny that I would rather distance myself from some Presbyterians. However, the reason they call them that is because of the government.

What makes a Baptist a Baptist? Basically, a Baptist is one who believes that only professing members are to be baptized, over and against pretty much the rest of christendom. This is not Arminian or Calvinistic. The central theme is whether or not infants are to be baptized.

Granted you are a different flavor of Baptist. Just like Fred and I differ. Perhaps the chasm exists much wider in your case between a Reformed and a non-reformed, but you and the most liberal member in the SBC have the same basic point of departure.

Trail of tears talk aside, you should see the connection between all baptists. Who was first and who begat whom is not important. The important point of distinction is that you believe infants are not worthy recipients of the sacrament and ordinance of our Lord.

Your discovery seems to have given you some peace for which you have been searching. I would not try to deter you from your course at all. But, I would encourage you to continue to search. Just because I'm linked to the German Reformation does not mean that I am right any more than your identifying with a group you consider to be historically prior to what you once were. Believe what you believe not just in opposition to a certain group or idea. Believe because of similarities, not differences.

The biggest question I had before I found my current place was why do men believe what they believe. The answer I found was that God illumines all minds to the same truth unless He hardens their heart to it. This is the only logical conclusion to why men believe different things about God since He is One and only one truth may be said of Him. Therefore, He has either blinded men's eyes from the real truth, or there are multiple truths. Since there is only one truth, one hermeneutic, one understanding of God's redemption, then the disagreement must be because the Spirit has not opened the eyes and softened the heart. Of course, we come to this because we are sinful. But God's truth must still be true though every man sins.

Unless someone can point me to another alternative, I think this is the only conclusion to be made.

Therefore, never stop searching for truth. I am not saying this because I think I've found it. I know for a fact that I am a sinful man and that I deceive myself constantly. But this is why God made faith. He continually works this faith within us so that we continually search for the truth. The minute we are so certain that we have all the truth, is the exact moment He has hardened our hearts because of our own sin.

Anyway. I do hope you know I am not ridiculing you. I just wanted to give you something to think about.

In Christ, 

KC


----------



## govols

Kevin,

Now if only the younger Presbyterians would have the wisdom to respond as you.

 

As I duck for cover.


----------



## daveb

Thank you Kevin, this is a great post.


----------



## JonathanHunt

Yes, a worthy and well-thought out post from Kevin. As a Baptist, I appreciate the tone, tenor and content of it. Respectful, not dismissive, interesting and fresh.

Jonathan


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Philip...
> what do you interpret all the spiritual references to circumcision in both testaments as signifying?



Spiritual Circumcision; the circumcision made without hands.




> Also, what exactly do you take passages like Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39 and 1 Cor. 7:14 to mean?



For the most part (I won´t quibble about the one or two that I don´t think belong there) that is a collection of covenant promises, some of which are particular to the civil aspects of the covenant. As for the others, those are precious Gospel Covenant Promises, brother! 




> If God's love, promises and redemptive plan are expressed throughout history in covenants, then to assert that such an abundance of spiritual promises are just random, non-covenantal promises that God happened to make is absurd.



Absolutely, I agree entirely, that is truly absurd. Whoever suggested that should be beaten!


----------



## Philip A

Kevin, I believe I understand the intent and spirit of you post, and I greatly appreciate it; it bears the marks of a humility, spiritual wisdom, and love for the brethren that can only be the result of God´s work in the heart of man. Praise be to God for the life he has given to dead men! I agree in large part with what you said, but there is something I must ask you. You said:




> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The central theme is whether or not infants are to be baptized.



And on the basis of that, I should "œsee the connection between all Baptists."

I understand your point, but suppose I turn it around on you. I could use the same reasoning, and say that, despite your different backgrounds, the central theme is whether or not infants are baptized, and therefore, at the end of it all, there is really no difference between you and the Roman Catholic. You should see the connection between all paedobaptists.

Does this sound right to you? Or is there some significance to the fact that you arrive at your reason for baptizing infants based on a totally different doctrinal base than does the Roman Catholic? If you were arguing justification with a Roman Catholic, could I step in and say, "œyou two just need to recognize that, after all, you are both paedobaptists"?

Now, I use an extreme example. There is nothing near the immensity of the gap between Baptists and Particular Baptists as there is between the Presbyterian and the Roman Catholic. My Baptist brethren believe in Justification by Grace Alone, through Faith Alone, on account of the work of Christ Alone, and I love them dearly. I do indeed see the connection between all baptists. But there is an important principle underlying my illustration. You cannot judge a person´s theology by their view of the subjects of baptism.

I posted what I did, and in the manner that I did, in order to illustrate the difference between my theology and that of the common variety Baptist. It has been the habit of many to lump all credobaptists into one camp. Is the cause of truth served in doing this? No, it is not, not any more than it is by lumping Presbyterians and Roman Catholics together on account of their both being paedobaptists, or by calling infant baptism "œpart and pillar of Popery".

Does this make sense to you, brother?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> Philip...
> what do you interpret all the spiritual references to circumcision in both testaments as signifying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spiritual Circumcision; the circumcision made without hands.
Click to expand...


So then is it just a coincidence that the word used to describe that spiritual concept in the New Testament is the very same word used to describe the physical sign in the Old? Surely there is a connection, from a linguistic perspective if none other.



> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> 
> Also, what exactly do you take passages like Gen. 17:7, Deut. 30:6, Ps. 22:9-10, Ps. 103:17-18, Prov. 3:33, Prov. 11:21, Isa. 54:13, Isa. 59:21, Isa. 65:23, Jer. 32:39, Luke 1:14-15, Acts 2:39 and 1 Cor. 7:14 to mean?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For the most part (I won´t quibble about the one or two that I don´t think belong there) that is a collection of covenant promises, some of which are particular to the civil aspects of the covenant. As for the others, those are precious Gospel Covenant Promises, brother!
Click to expand...


Then since all of the promises are made to the children of believers, and you acknowledge that some of them are Gospel Covenant Promises, how can you logically say that such children have no promise in the Covenant of grace?



> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> 
> 
> 
> If God's love, promises and redemptive plan are expressed throughout history in covenants, then to assert that such an abundance of spiritual promises are just random, non-covenantal promises that God happened to make is absurd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, I agree entirely, that is truly absurd. Whoever suggested that should be beaten!
Click to expand...


So then you agree that those promises to children are covenantal promises? If so, which covenant applies?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

I'm still waiting to see how being a Particular Baptist is true to Covenant Theology? I was a Baptist for 20 years, and Reformed for 1. I loved the 1689 and believed everything in it. By all practical means, I was a Particular Baptist as you are boasting of in this thread. However, I also came to see the errors in that viewpoint through personal Bible study, so forgive me if I don't seem impressed by your claims in this thread. I will, however, say that I'm praying for you and hope that God's grace and mercy is made evident to you in your life as you grow in the knowledge of our Savior.


----------



## govols

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I will, however, say that I'm praying for you and hope that God's grace and mercy is made evident to you in your life as you grow in the knowledge of our Savior.



As I will pray for you too Gabriel.

Grace to you my brother.


----------



## kceaster

Philip,

Quite right. I did not come across as clearly as I could have. When I said that there is a clear connection between baptists because they believe that only believers are to be baptized, I meant that in the sense that it is the original departure point between Reformed theology and Reformed Baptist theology. All was in agreement by in large, except for that main point which drove a huge wedge between the two Reformed bodies. Up until that time, the two streams were running parallel and then they flowed apart.

I could say the same for the Reformed Anglicans and the Presbyterians. They were basically in agreement on several key things. But their point of departure was church government among the chief points.

I guess what I am trying to get you to see is where the divide began and perhaps get you to question why and for what reason these divides occurred.

I agree with you that not all who baptize believers only are called baptists. I was in the Church of God (Anderson) for many years and we only baptized believers, yet we were not baptists and some even scorned that name because of elitism, though the beliefs were not all that different.

If we could rewind the tape to where the two roads diverged, what would we find? Why did it occur and what can we learn from it?

I think one of the biggest differences between what I'm proposing and what you suggested is that I am not saying your baptism differs between baptists. I think all the baptists believe the same thing about baptism. They all believe in the trinitarian formula and it is a valid baptism, except in those cases where a person must be baptized again even though they'd been baptized before. (My brother in law is about to go through this in California. He's been baptized twice before and his profession has not changed from the first time, yet the church will not allow him to member unless they baptize him.)

But the comparison between Presbyterians and RCC'ers is that the baptism is for completely different reasons. One involves the superstition of baptismal regeneration and the other does not.

Like the Hatfields and McCoys, we just need to get down to the basic disagreements to see why the feud, if one could call it that, is still ongoing. You and I probably believe the same things about much of our theology, yet a difference still divides us, and because of that, the church.

Find out why and for what reason, because up until that point, Christendom had been on the same page, unless we want to believe the speculative histories that have only emerged in the last 180 years.

That's my advice to you. And I take it for myself as well which is why I study the issues surrounding the Reformation on the continent and in the UK. If we do not have a reasonable idea as to why these things happened, then we are believing what we believe without being informed as to why we believe it.

I hope this makes sense to you.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I'm still waiting to see how being a Particular Baptist is true to Covenant Theology?



As classically defined by Presbyterians, it is not. Presbyterians identify the Covenant of Grace with the Abrahamic Covenant, without making any distinctions in its particular parts. Particular Baptist Covenant Theology is rooted in Presbyterian Covenant Theology, in that it agrees on all points with the exception of the gospel/civil distinction I have made.



> I was a Baptist for 20 years, and Reformed for 1. I loved the 1689 and believed everything in it. By all practical means, I was a Particular Baptist as you are boasting of in this thread.



Did you at any time adhere to the gospel/civil distinction within the Abrahamic Covenant as defined by Tombes refined by Coxe? If the answer is no, then you were certainly a Baptist, but not a Particular Baptist. This is the distinction that I have been trying to make throughout this whole thread.

I apologize, brother, if any of what I have said has appeared as boasting. That was not at all the intent. My intent from the beginning is not to debate, nor to boast, but to explain. I'm not so much concerned as to whether you agree, but whether you understand.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

Yes, I understand everything you are saying, and yes I believed in the distinction you are talking about. I simply don't believe it is entirely accurate, in light of further study, however.

Also, I think you might be somewhat confused about the CoG as related to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the beginning of the CoG. It seems to me you think Presbyterians believe that? If I'm mistaken I apologize, but I'm somewhat confused as to what you think true Covenant Theology is asserting about the covenants?


----------



## Me Died Blue

In addition to what Gabriel pointed out, it is also a mistake to say that we "identify the Covenant of Grace with the Abrahamic Covenant, without making any distinctions in its particular parts." See Matt's chart for a quick idea of why that is not fully accurate.


----------



## Philip A

Brother Kevin,

I think I am on the main understanding where you are coming from now.



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I guess what I am trying to get you to see is where the divide began and perhaps get you to question why and for what reason these divides occurred.



This is what I have sought to do. I have, if you will, gone_ad fontes_ on whole baptism issue. I was convinced of Reformed theology, Puritanism, and, apart from a few details, Covenant Theology. The point of divergence was the Particular Baptist movement that began in the Puritan Era. All that had gone before were by and large heretics and schismatics. But here were men who held firmly to all that flowed from the stream of Reformed doctrine, except for this one, little, piece. Why did they do that? Well, now I have had a chance to read it in their own words. Now I know, and I am convinced by it.



> You and I probably believe the same things about much of our theology, yet a difference still divides us, and because of that, the church.



Amen, I agree, from what I have read of yours, that we are in agreement on almost all points, save this one. And as I read your post, I remember from those of yours in the past that you are particularly grieved to see Christ's church divided.



> Find out why and for what reason, because up until that point, Christendom had been on the same page, unless we want to believe the speculative histories that have only emerged in the last 180 years.
> 
> That's my advice to you. And I take it for myself as well which is why I study the issues surrounding the Reformation on the continent and in the UK. If we do not have a reasonable idea as to why these things happened, then we are believing what we believe without being informed as to why we believe it.



Absolutely!


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

A big thing for me is the fact that the Covenant that is "unbreakable" is the CoR, between Christ and God the Father, in the redemption of Christ's Church. All who are elect receive the benefits of this covenant and its salvation; There is no breaking this covenant. If you're elect, you're elect and you produce fruit and persevere. It is not for humans to break or 'mess up'.

However, many people are part of the CoG (The 'Visible Church', if you will) and then "fall away", prove themselves as apostates, etc. and are judged "according to the Law" since they are turning away from God's grace that they have been identified with in baptism and other visible ways, turning themselves over to be accursed. All those who live by the law will die by the law. They receive the same punishment of eternal death as to all the pagans and unregenerate, but are also heirs of a harsher punishment as Heb 10 tells us, since they have trampled on the Son of God through their rebellion against His blood which they claimed as their own.


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Also, I think you might be somewhat confused about the CoG as related to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the beginning of the CoG. It seems to me you think Presbyterians believe that?



Nope! Sorry if it came across that way. I know Presbyterians don't believe that.



> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> In addition to what Gabriel pointed out, it is also a mistake to say that we "identify the Covenant of Grace with the Abrahamic Covenant, without making any distinctions in its particular parts."



Yes it is a mistake, or rather a limitation inherent to short summaries. Hence the need for lengthly confessions. It would have been more precise for me to to have written "...without making quite the same distinctions...", were I attempting something more than a short summary.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> *Philip A:*
> Presbyterians identify the Covenant of Grace with the Abrahamic Covenant, without making any distinctions in its particular parts.





> *WrittenFromUtopia:*
> I think you might be somewhat confused about the CoG as related to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the beginning of the CoG. It seems to me you think Presbyterians believe that?





> *Philip A:*
> Nope! Sorry if it came across that way. I know Presbyterians don't believe that.




Then... what _were_ you saying??


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Then... what _were_ you saying??



I'll put it this way, perhaps it will be clearer. We both recognize that the CoG started before Abraham. But the Presbyterian nevertheless derives more of a pattern for how the CoG is administered from the Abrahamic Covenant than the Particular Baptist is willing to grant. I recognize, however, that the Presebyterian viewpoint on that particular detail is an important part of classical Covenant Theology as it is defined historically; I am more than willing to confess that the Particular Baptist view is a modification to Covenant Theology proper on this point.



Catching up from earlier....




> _Originally posted by Me Died Blue_
> So then is it just a coincidence that the word used to describe that spiritual concept in the New Testament is the very same word used to describe the physical sign in the Old? Surely there is a connection, from a linguistic perspective if none other.



Yes, there is absolutely a connection, it is know by the term "typology"! 




> Then since all of the promises are made to the children of believers, and you acknowledge that some of them are Gospel Covenant Promises, how can you logically say that such children have no promise in the Covenant of grace?



Because I do not agree that these promises are all made to the children of believers; you have presupposed that based on your own systematic, not mine. You think "children of believers" ; I think (and read) "children of the nation"- which nation is a type of the holy nation of which all beleivers are citizens.



> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> A big thing for me is the fact that the Covenant that is "unbreakable" is the CoR, between Christ and God the Father, in the redemption of Christ's Church. All who are elect receive the benefits of this covenant and its salvation; There is no breaking this covenant. If you're elect, you're elect and you produce fruit and persevere. It is not for humans to break or 'mess up'.
> 
> However, many people are part of the CoG (The 'Visible Church', if you will) and then "fall away", prove themselves as apostates, etc. and are judged "according to the Law" since they are turning away from God's grace that they have been identified with in baptism and other visible ways, turning themselves over to be accursed. All those who live by the law will die by the law. They receive the same punishment of eternal death as to all the pagans and unregenerate, but are also heirs of a harsher punishment as Heb 10 tells us, since they have trampled on the Son of God through their rebellion against His blood which they claimed as their own.



The same applies here. You have jumped far, far downstream logically, without having cleared the issues at hand. Again, the things that you state are based on things that you have presupposed based on your own systematic, not mine. I'll only say that what you are describing has to do with the distinction between the subjective and objective nature of the Covenant. Read Owen on these types of passages in volume 10 ( or _Death of Death_) if I am being too cryptic.

These things cannot be discussed profitably unless all parties are willing and able to, for the sake of discussion, put off their own systematic presuppositions, and take upon themselves the opposing set of presuppositions. Anything less than that will serve only to cloud the argument with false assumptions regarding the other party's logical steps. There is far too much that has been skipped over for the handling of these issues in any more detail.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

> *Philip A:*
> These things cannot be discussed profitably unless all parties are willing and able to, for the sake of discussion, put off their own systematic presuppositions, and take upon themselves the opposing set of presuppositions. Anything less than that will serve only to cloud the argument with false assumptions regarding the other party's logical steps. There is far too much that has been skipped over for the handling of these issues in any more detail.




No offense, but this seems like nothing more than a cop-out. 

I'm very much willing to discuss the continuity of the Covenant of Grace throughout redemptive history as it has been more fully revealed and ultimately revealed in Christ. I have no problem listening to what you have to say, but you really haven't made an attempt to clearly _say anything_ in this post, other than some seemingly condescending rhetoric towards myself and the other CT'ers in this thread. 

[Edited on 24-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> 
> *Philip A:*
> These things cannot be discussed profitably unless all parties are willing and able to, for the sake of discussion, put off their own systematic presuppositions, and take upon themselves the opposing set of presuppositions. Anything less than that will serve only to cloud the argument with false assumptions regarding the other party's logical steps. There is far too much that has been skipped over for the handling of these issues in any more detail.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No offense, but this seems like nothing more than a cop-out.
> 
> I'm very much willing to discuss the continuity of the Covenant of Grace throughout redemptive history as it has been more fully revealed and ultimately revealed in Christ. I have no problem listening to what you have to say, but you really haven't made an attempt to clearly _say anything_ in this post, other than some seemingly condescending rhetoric towards myself and the other CT'ers in this thread.
> 
> [Edited on 24-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
Click to expand...


Phillip,
I have to agree with you there. If one attempts to understanc CT with the credo glasses, they will never come to the understanding. However, I have come from the credo camp; I know how and what the credo thinks and does. The theology has fractures. One of the major dysfunction is the attempt at raising one's child in the way they should go. The credo acts as if their child is a believer, by teaching them to pray, to call God father etc. This is an inconsistancy. On one hand you tell your child, you must be saved. You must repent. You are at odds with God, yet the credo confuses the child by teaching them to pray to God. Would you tell the pagan next door to tell his child this? CT reconciles this inconsistancy in that in light of the promise, we are able to approach God in confidence that His promises are true. The credo's child is cut off from this benefit..........

[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The credo acts as if their child is a believer, by teaching them to pray, to call God father etc. This is an inconsistancy. On one hand you tell your child, you must be saved. You must repent. You are at odds with God, yet the credo confuses the child by teaching them to pray to God. Would you tell the pagan next door to tell his child this? CT reconciles this inconsistancy in that in light of the promise, we are able to approach God in confidence that His promises are true.



So is presumptive regeneration a pillar of CT without which CT crumbles? I though that even Reformed paedos disagreed and debated this particular point. Did not John Gerstner, for one, teach parents to tell their children that they must repent and be saved?


----------



## Me Died Blue

You are correct Gregory, it is not an essential part of it. In fact, you can see a long discussion we had about that from both sides here.


----------



## doulosChristou

Thanks, Chris!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> These things cannot be discussed profitably unless all parties are willing and able to, for the sake of discussion, put off their own systematic presuppositions, and take upon themselves the opposing set of presuppositions. Anything less than that will serve only to cloud the argument with false assumptions regarding the other party's logical steps. There is far too much that has been skipped over for the handling of these issues in any more detail.



Phillip, I would appreciate the attempt at presenting your views. Please start a thread regarding it. Start from square one with the Particular Baptist view of Continuity and Discontinuity regarding the covenant of grace and Abraham. I think we would all appreciate the interaction. The only things I thought were different about the Particular Baptists from other Baptists was their eschatology and their Calvinism. John Gill is really the only Particular Baptist I'm familiar with, unless you want to throw Spurgeon in there. So please, take the time to explore the issue. We would all benefit.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia




----------



## PuritanCovenanter

This thread is just to cool. You go Philip. I haven't laughed out of despair so hard as I did when I got to the part Particular Baptist. I needed that. Use Abraham to explain the differences. There are differences between circumcision and baptism even though they have similarities. I will stick with my thread on Welty. I have to look over on the Paedo side now. I haven't attended to it yet. I kind of drop in and out. I know Paul has written on who is considered a New Covenant member. I am sure I will disagree with him as his Mommy would. God bless our Mummys. They are the coolest.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by doulosChristou_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> The credo acts as if their child is a believer, by teaching them to pray, to call God father etc. This is an inconsistancy. On one hand you tell your child, you must be saved. You must repent. You are at odds with God, yet the credo confuses the child by teaching them to pray to God. Would you tell the pagan next door to tell his child this? CT reconciles this inconsistancy in that in light of the promise, we are able to approach God in confidence that His promises are true.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is presumptive regeneration a pillar of CT without which CT crumbles? I though that even Reformed paedos disagreed and debated this particular point. Did not John Gerstner, for one, teach parents to tell their children that they must repent and be saved?
Click to expand...


Greg,
PR or PE is not at all relevant in my approach to rearing my child. I tell my child that I must repent and so do you. I must believe and so do you. I must obey God and so do you. It is Gods command and promises which I hold dear. God commands that the sign be placed; rebellion to this command can be eternal. By placing the sign, the odditiy of rearing my child and reconciling it along the lines of the pagan child whom lives next door is comfortably couched and reconciled scripturally in Gods promise to me and my family. There is a vast difference.

Greg,
As far as the credo's theology; does it crumble under the weight of this one truth-no. But it is a major fracture that cannot be reconciled. So as far as presuppositions go, I believe the credo has ultimately more that has to be unwound. The American evangelical majority is wound tight as a drum under these presups. How do I know this, I was a credo for 15 years.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## doulosChristou

And I was a paedo for 10.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

15 > 10

Plus, I was a credo for 21


----------



## Puritanhead

I'm a Reformed Baptist and stickin' it!

I'm proud of my Congregationalist and Baptist roots, but it twas grace that saved me.

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by Puritanhead]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> So, when did you become a Paedobaptist?


When I saw that you posted in a thread called "I, too, am no longer a Baptist", my first thought was, "Oh no, another one bites the dust!"


----------



## polemic_turtle

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> So, when did you become a Paedobaptist?


Speak you of his signature, which now reads "Confessional Presbyterian in a RB church"? I was wondering about that, myself. His post was made in 2005, after all.


----------



## matt01

Does anyone know why a log in box for www.federaltheology.org pops up when one opens the link to this thread?


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by matthew_
> Does anyone know why a log in box for www.federaltheology.org pops up when one opens the link to this thread?


Good question. That happened to me too, on a different thread.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by matthew_
> Does anyone know why a log in box for www.federaltheology.org pops up when one opens the link to this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. That happened to me too, on a different thread.
Click to expand...


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by matthew_
> Does anyone know why a log in box for www.federaltheology.org pops up when one opens the link to this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. That happened to me too, on a different thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

You don't suppose that the moderators/supermoderators are 'playing with our minds', behind the scenes, by...

Nah, they would never do that...though I still can't believe I fell for that April fools prank...Nah, never mind. I'm "sure" they wouldn't...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by matthew_
> Does anyone know why a log in box for www.federaltheology.org pops up when one opens the link to this thread?
> 
> 
> 
> Good question. That happened to me too, on a different thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't suppose that the moderators/supermoderators are 'playing with our minds', behind the scenes, by...
> 
> Nah, they would never do that...though I still can't believe I fell for that April fools prank...Nah, never mind. I'm "sure" they wouldn't...
Click to expand...


----------



## panta dokimazete

after reading this page I believe that I, too am a Particular Baptist!

...and I didn't even KNOW it!

-JD


----------



## py3ak

I am not sure that Philip would agree with some of the statements on that page --such as


> What is being claimed is that Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are freed from "The law of ten commands, on holy Sinai given." (Isaac Watts) Believers are brought into Gospel Liberty, which is a New Rule that is based on the New Covenant and set in New Creation.



Given some of the statements earlier in this thread it seems somewhat unlikely.


----------



## brymaes

federaltheology.org is Kevin Easterday's site. I think that pop up is because he linked to an image on his site or something.


----------



## 3John2

Can someone help me out. This is sort of deviating from the original thread but what Phillip posted about the OT & the NT & how they really have a lot more in commone than most think is where I'm at currently. I have just recently & GLADLY come into Reformed belief. I was raised & baptized a Roman Catholic then abandoned that & went Word of Faith & finally have come to a Reformed belief & church where I'm VERY happy & learning/growing. 
I was taught a LOT of NT in the WOF movement but not much OT as "it has been done away with as we are now under grace" as I was told. 
Well my pastor teaches a LOT of OT. I have started to realize what Phillip has & wanted to know if anyone can recommed any reading material (books!) or any teaching series on cd/mp3 to help me along those lines? I'm simply VERY hungry for growth. Last night I ordered the "Together 4 the Gospel" cd series as I heard that Ligon Duncan did an EXCELLENT teaching on Christ in the OT. 
Anyways sorry to crash in on this thread but I saw what Phillip wrote & it really spoke to my heart. If anyone wants to answer either here or e mail me at [email protected] I would GREATLY appreciate beyond what mere words can say. 
Thank you!


----------



## panta dokimazete

Blessings and welcome 3John2! - you may find this link interesting:

Christ in every Book


-JD


----------



## py3ak

Frank, on www.ccel.org you can find a copy of Calvin's Institutes. Check out Book 2, chapters 10 and 11.


----------



## 3John2

Thanks guys will do!!


----------



## 3John2

Ruben Zartman hablas espanol? Hay muchas iglesias que creen como nosotros en el distrito? Jamas e hido para el distrito pero si a viajado en Mexico un poco. Voy a Reynosa, Tamaulipas vastante pero solo para comer bien!


----------



## py3ak

Frank,

Mis padres viven en Monterry y van a McAllen muy seguido. Â¿CÃ³mo es tu iglesia? A lo mejor les puedo convencer a visitarla.

No hay muchas iglesias reformadas en el D.F. 

Te invito a mi blog --tengo vÃ­nculos para algunos recursos reformados traducidos al castellano.


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Frank,
> 
> Mis padres viven en Monterry y van a McAllen muy seguido. Â¿CÃ³mo es tu iglesia? A lo mejor les puedo convencer a visitarla.
> 
> No hay muchas iglesias reformadas en el D.F.
> 
> Te invito a mi blog --tengo vÃ­nculos para algunos recursos reformados traducidos al castellano.


Careful. I don't think speaking in tongues is allowed...

[Edited on 6-17-2006 by blhowes]


----------



## Pilgrim

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by py3ak_
> Frank,
> 
> Mis padres viven en Monterry y van a McAllen muy seguido. Â¿CÃ³mo es tu iglesia? A lo mejor les puedo convencer a visitarla.
> 
> No hay muchas iglesias reformadas en el D.F.
> 
> Te invito a mi blog --tengo vÃ­nculos para algunos recursos reformados traducidos al castellano.
> 
> 
> 
> Careful. I don't think speaking in tongues is allowed...
> 
> [Edited on 6-17-2006 by blhowes]
Click to expand...


Of course brother, it is not an _unknown_ tongue...


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Pilgrim_
> Of course brother, it is not an _unknown_ tongue...


Good point. Jabber away.


----------



## Puritanhead

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> As you can tell from the title, I, too, am no longer a Baptist.



By no longer being a Baptist...




_...you're helping them enemy right now "” namely paedo-baptist Presbyterians_.





_On the up side, at least you can goto church, that doesn't have a cheesy bulletin board that some head-counting Baptist erected._


----------



## caddy

This is rich with wisdom and very well said ! 

Thanks kceaster for your thoughts in this post



> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The biggest question I had before I found my current place was why do men believe what they believe. The answer I found was that God illumines all minds to the same truth unless He hardens their heart to it. This is the only logical conclusion to why men believe different things about God since He is One and only one truth may be said of Him. Therefore, He has either blinded men's eyes from the real truth, or there are multiple truths. Since there is only one truth, one hermeneutic, one understanding of God's redemption, then the disagreement must be because the Spirit has not opened the eyes and softened the heart. Of course, we come to this because we are sinful. But God's truth must still be true though every man sins.
> 
> Unless someone can point me to another alternative, I think this is the only conclusion to be made.
> 
> Therefore, never stop searching for truth. I am not saying this because I think I've found it. I know for a fact that I am a sinful man and that I deceive myself constantly. But this is why God made faith. He continually works this faith within us so that we continually search for the truth. The minute we are so certain that we have all the truth, is the exact moment He has hardened our hearts because of our own sin.
> 
> Anyway. I do hope you know I am not ridiculing you. I just wanted to give you something to think about.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC


----------



## Philip A

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> By no longer being a Baptist...
> 
> _...you're helping them enemy right now "” namely paedo-baptist Presbyterians_.
> 
> _On the up side, at least you can goto church, that doesn't have a cheesy bulletin board that some head-counting Baptist erected._



For the record, _I am one of the enemy now._
Muahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

But I still go to my "Reformed" Baptist church - and no, they don't have a cheesy bulletin board.


----------



## caddy

Cheesy Bulletin boads = Abience


----------



## javacodeman

*Muddy Waters?*



> *Me Died Blue* wrote:
> Then since all of the promises are made to the children of believers, and you acknowledge that some of them are Gospel Covenant Promises, how can you logically say that such children have no promise in the Covenant of grace?


Hi, I'm new to this site and new to some of the terms used here. I have started a study of Dispensationalism with my pastor. We would term ourselves (although not everyone at my church would--some are much more hard line Dispensationalists) "Progressive Dispensationalists".

In short a Progressive Dispensationalist is a sort of hybrid between CT and DT (if those are the right abbreviations). My general view from my studies is that there are three major covenants that are grant covenants (i.e. not dependent on the recipient). These are the Abrahamic, Davidic, and the New. Each successive covenant reveals more about the prior(s) and about *how* God intends to fulfill the prior(s).

There are also "already-not yet" versions of these Covenants: Mosaic, Solomonic, To the Seven Churches (this last is mine as I have not heard or read any one else use or suggest this*). These were not grant covenants (Suzerain-Vassal, actually), and are therefore not necessarily eternal.

Anyways (here's my point), I say all of that to say this: the Abrahamic covenant got off to a "rough" start. Ishmael and Esau saw no part of it (other than a large Arab nation). Moreover, Reuben, Simeon, and Levi were all skipped over for the central fulfillment of the covenant as the Messianic lineage passed through Judah. I think that this shows that God will and does fulfill His covenant, but He may not include our particular children.

I think this is also shown in this passage:

John 1:12-13 



> 12 But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, even to those who believe in His name,
> 
> 13 who were born, *not of blood *nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.





*I am still studying this and am not yet totally convinced, but I think that it is correct at this point in time. If you know of someone who has taught on this or where I could do more research, then let me know.


----------



## CalvinandHodges

*The Covenants of God*

Javacodeman:

There are two books concerning Covenant Theology that are excellent to study: O. Palmer Robertson's, The Christ of the Covenants, and Hermann Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man.

Blessings,

-CH


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Here is the resignation letter of the great Particualr Baptist J.C. Philpot when he left the paedo's and joined the Particulars.

http://www.gracegems.org/Philpot/letter.htm

Philpot's letter of resignation from the 
Church of England, March 28, 1835.

Mr. Provost: 
I beg leave to resign the Fellowship of Worcester College, to which I was elected in the year 1826. This step I am compelled to take because I can no longer with a good conscience continue a Minister or a Member of the Established Church.


----------



## Philip A

Blueridge reformer said:


> Here is the resignation letter of the great Particualr Baptist J.C. Philpot when he left the paedo's and joined the Particulars.



I could post my resignation letter from the deaconate of my former church, but it's rather boring - "I am no longer a Baptist, so I ought not to be an offiercer in a Baptist church"


----------



## javacodeman

CalvinandHodges said:


> Javacodeman:
> 
> There are two books concerning Covenant Theology that are excellent to study: O. Palmer Robertson's, The Christ of the Covenants, and Hermann Witsius' The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man.
> 
> Blessings,
> 
> -CH


I actually own The Christ of the Covenants and will read/work through that book soon. I'm currently on Progressive Dispensationalism. In fact my pastor and I have a good friend who is a Presbyterian Pastor that we plan to sit down and discuss this issue further. Craig, the other pastor, actual "grew up" a dispensationalist and became a covenant theologist.


----------



## S. Spence

I've just been reading through this thread. 

Thought I might add just one or two comments. I too was a Reformed Baptist and I really struggle to see the PB's point of view. But then I came to see that the CoG was not the equivalent to election. Election has more to do with the CoR. 

However sometimes it is the simple things that make you change your mind. After reading virtually every book I could find on baptism and CT, I just thought to myself, 'If I was a Jew on the day of Pentecost, would I not expect the sign of the covenant to be applied to my children?' How could the children of believers, be in the covenant one moment and not in it the next? I know it's very simplistic but I truly believe there would have been an absolute uproar if baptism as a sign not applied on believers' seed.

I found this sermon by David Silversides on this topic very helpful. (In fact he's pretty amazing on anything to do with the Covenant!)

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=1105104752

Just on another point, I lived in the south east of England for a while and in that region if someone described themselves as a Particular Baptist it was generally understood to mean a Baptistic hyper-Calvinist, it's funny how the same phrases can mean different things in different places.


----------



## S. Spence

Oops, just noticed quite a few grammatical mistakes in my last post - wrote it in a hurry, sorry.


----------



## pilgrim2

*Covenant Theology*

A "must" read for all those interested in Covenant theology is Dr. M. Horton's book, "God of Promise". 

SDG,
Pilgrim


----------



## AV1611

S. Spence said:


> But then I came to see that the CoG was not the equivalent to election. Election has more to do with the CoR.



Differentiating between a CofR and CofG is not, in my opinion, correct.


----------



## S. Spence

> Differentiating between a CofR and CofG is not, in my opinion, correct.



You're entitled to your opinion - I'm not trying to put a huge difference between the CoR and the CoG but their is still a difference in that one is between the Godhead concerning mankind and the other is between God and mankind. Both the CoW and the CoG stem from the CoR.



> A "must" read for all those interested in Covenant theology is Dr. M. Horton's book, "God of Promise".



In complete agreement.


----------



## AV1611

S. Spence said:


> You're entitled to your opinion - I'm not trying to put a huge difference between the CoR and the CoG but their is still a difference in that one is between the Godhead concerning mankind and the other is between God and mankind. Both the CoW and the CoG stem from the CoR.



I respectfully disagree.

A. A. Hodge:



> For the sake of simplicity, some Calvinist theologians have set forth the divine method of human redemption as embraced in two covenants The first, styled the "covenant of redemption," formed in eternity between the Father and Christ as principal, providing for the salvation of the elect; the second, styled the "covenant of grace," wherein life is offered to all men on the condition of faith, and secured to the elect through the agency of Him who, as "surety of the new covenant," insures the fulfillment of the condition in their case.
> 
> Our Standards say nothing of two covenants. They do not mention the covenant of redemption as distinct from the covenant of grace. But evidently the several passages which treat of this subject (Conf. Faith, ch. 7., s. 3; L. Cat., q. 31; S. Cat., q. 20) assume that there is but one covenant, contracted by Christ in behalf of the elect with God in eternity, and administered by him to the elect in the offers and ordinances of the gospel and in the gracious influences of his Spirit. The Larger Catechism in the place referred to teaches how the covenant of grace was contracted with Christ for his people. The Confession of Faith in these sections teaches how that same covenant is administered by Christ to his people.


 (http://www.rtrc.net/documents/wcf/hodge/wcfaah7.htm)

John Gill:



> 3d. It is by some divines called, "the covenant of redemption"; and very truly, because the redemption of God’s elect is a principal article in it: the Father proposed to the Son, that he should raise up, restore, redeem Israel, his chosen ones; the Son agreed to it, and hence he was declared and promised, and expected as the Redeemer, long before he came into this world to do this service; Job knew him as his living Redeemer, and all the Old Testament saints waited for him as such, having had a promise of it, which was founded on this covenant agreement; for as it was proposed to him, and he agreed to it, to be the Redeemer, so it was promised him, that upon the condition of giving himself, the redemption and ransom price for the elect, they should be delivered from all their sins, and the effects of them, and out of the hands of all their enemies; see (Isa. 49:5, 59:20; Job 33:24). But then,
> 
> 3e. This covenant is the same with the covenant of grace; some divines, indeed, make them distinct covenants; the covenant of redemption, they say, was made with Christ in eternity; the covenant of grace with the elect, or with believers, in time: but this is very wrongly said; there is but one covenant of grace, and not two, in which the Head and Members, the Redeemer and the persons to be redeemed, Christ and the elect, are concerned; in which he is the Head and Representative of them, acts for them, and on their behalf. What is called a covenant of redemption, is a covenant of grace, arising from the grace of the Father, who proposed to his Son to be the Redeemer, and from the grace of the Son, who agreed to be so; and even the honours proposed to the Son in this covenant, redounded to the advantage of the elect; and the sum and substance of the everlasting covenant made with Christ, is the salvation and eternal happiness of the chosen ones; all the blessings and grants of grace to them, are secured in that eternal compact; for they were blessed with all spiritual blessings in him, and had grace given them in him before the world was; wherefore there can be no foundation for such a distinction between a covenant of redemption in eternity, and a covenant of grace in time.


 (http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_2/book2_07.htm)


----------



## S. Spence

Hi Richard,

I think we'll just have to agree to disagree. 
Throughout history there have been many good men who said they did not hold to a CoR, on the other hand many have, these include the likes of:

John Owen
Caspar Olevian
Johannes Cocceius
Herman Witsius
Charles Hodge
Geerhardus Vos
Louis Berkhof
and many more.

Personally I find the idea of a CoR essential for a proper understanding of election but I realise that you may disagree, I'm sure we have far more in common than what we disagree on.


----------



## JimfromOhio

*Was Baptist and Anabaptist for years*

Now a member of a local Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).


----------



## Davidius

JimfromOhio said:


> Now a member of a local Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).



 

And welcome to the PuritanBoard!


----------



## Iconoclast

*How about a "covenant child" timeline?*

What exactly is the status of the "covenant child"? Is he a child of wrath,even as others,,,,dead in sin as per eph.2 :1-3? Is he or she the natural man,of 1cor 2;14? Does the "covenant child" need to be born again, as Jesus said? or exempt from Adamic sin?? To hear some speak of it,you would think that somehow the "covenant child" does not need to be quickened by the Spirit. Some describe the ability of the "covenant child" to recieve divine truth as apart from the Spirit's work???
What happens when your covenant child does not show fruit in the life?
Is he in the covenant one day, out the next?? At what age do you say that an unfruitful "covenant child" needs to be called to account? 
Or like the Roman Church,,,,do you believe the conferring of the sign, somehow covers him?
In 1cor 12,,,,,,we are told that God places the members in the body as it pleases Him. Are you saying that God places all covenant children in His body? Then like the arminian teaching,,,they jump out of His hand?? Does anyone have a timeline of how the "covenant child" comes to new birth??
I am a reformed baptist, with many questions,,,[non dispensational,lol] by the way. If any have not the Spirit of Christ they are none of His? When does this take place,in the timeline. I do not believe the scripture teaches unregenerate church membership. I will look forward to any responses,thank you.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

*Iconoclast*: _first thing, please find your control panel (user CP) and update your signature line in accordance with board rules, thank you (for the administration)_


Covenat child status? These are church members, non-communing (not yet permitted to the Lord's Table).

Why are they "members"? Because we aren't baptists. haha. Well, that's accurate, really, but its kind of uninformative. Because, unlike baptists, we don't believe that membership issue for ANY persons is "unregenerate/regenerate." Adults become members because they profess faith. We have no idea, ultimately, whether this adult person is regenerate or not, because we can't see the heart. They really are members of our church though. However, in the baptist paradigm, unless he's regenerate, he's not a church member either. So I've heard of many baptist churches "disfellowshipping" someone they later deem unregenerate, but its hard to tell someone who wasn't a "member" (indeed couldn't be a "member" unregenerate!) that he's no longer a "member."

But for us, that adult was a professing MEMBER of our church. He was an outward participant in the church. But that's all he was--someone seeking covenant blessings, but not as by faith. So, when he apostatizes, and is "excommunicated", he is removed from membership in the visible church. We still don't know *ultimately*: is he is regenerated or not, elect or not, converted or not? We are just being faithful to the outward discipline God gave the church.

How about the children of professing believers? Well, we believe God put them in his church as far back (definitively) as Genesis 17 (really we would go back to the first family in the Bible). In that chapter, God gives the OT sign of covenant inclusion (outward) to Abraham, the believer, _and to his seed,_ to his whole house in fact--which was the beginning of a new visible church. We do not believe this command has ever been recinded. The sign has changed--from circumcision to baptism--but they mean essentially the same things, allowing for the progress of revelation and the forward-backward natures of the two signs.

Children of believers need to be CONVERTED. Like anyone else. They must have and exercise their own faith. But they are baptized on the basis of their parent's professed faith--faith in God to save them, and their children (when their children believe). "I will be God to thee, and to thy children after thee." That is the promise of the Almighty. Now, those children won't be saved UNLESS they too believe. Anymore than Abraham's children and grandchildren for generations were saved unless they too believed. And many did not.

So, CONVERSION is absolutely necessary to that covenant child. Conversion is not regeneration. When does the regeneration happen? I don't know, because that's invisible. It happens at different times for different people. Regeneration is the inward call of the Holy Spirit, usually accompanied by the external call by the Word. But not always--some saved (infants, mentally handicapped) are incapable of being outwardly called. But the Spirit is still able to call them too. I do know that the Bible gives us examples of infants, even in utero, who were called savingly by God. So, there is no "time limit" on when that can happen. But signs of CONVERSION, evidence of REPENTANCE and FAITH, ordinarily come through the application and internalization of God's Word. 

Baptists do not believe in an outward administration of the New Covenant. (Don't worry, even if you don't understand this terminology, it is accurate--for example, listen to James White's baptism debate with Bill Shishko). That is because they believe that the New Covenant is purely invisible. So, they do not see the church today as administering the covenant outwardly as did Abraham, and later Moses and Israel, in the Old Testament.

But we do. And so, anyone who is "in the covenant" outwardly can be "cut off" from that covenant. That is excommunication for adult apostates. And, that is what will happen to rebellious covenant children. They may not be able to be denied communion if they never became communing members already, but they can still be removed from membership in the church (removed from the covenant) by discipline. Baptists, by contrast, do not think of the NC as having anything external, and no one can be "only" in the NC "outwardly." There is no "outward" to be "in" under baptist theology.


One more thing: Do not mistake baptism in Reformed churches for baptism in RC or EO churches. While outwardly they may look similar (just as your baptism may look similar to Church of Christ baptism-for-salvation) there is a massive theological chasm of understanding between them. So, your confusion is understandable when you may conflate all churches that practice infants-baptism assuming their understandings are the same, only because they don't do it your way. Peace.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Bruce,

When you said, “Conversion is not regeneration”, I faltered at that for a moment. I remembered reading just that in Louis Berkhof’s _Summary…._, and wondered about it then also. So I got his book down and read that section again. That a person may be regenerated in infancy (in the womb, even) is clear from John the Baptist’s record, and it makes sense that (in Berkhof’s words) “When the change wrought in regeneration begins to manifest in the conscious life, we speak of conversion”, so I falter no longer.

I was thinking of normal adult regeneration, which almost immediately results in conversion. But in children it is different – I can see that. And also with the mentally disabled. I worked for years with the mentally retarded, and would talk to them about the Lord Jesus – even those termed “profoundly retarded”, non-verbal – assuming that the Lord could touch their hearts by His Spirit.

Thanks for your clarity.

Steve


----------



## Nse007

javacodeman said:


> Hi, I'm new to this site and new to some of the terms used here. I have started a study of Dispensationalism with my pastor. We would term ourselves (although not everyone at my church would--some are much more hard line Dispensationalists) "Progressive Dispensationalists".
> 
> In short a Progressive Dispensationalist is a sort of hybrid between CT and DT (if those are the right abbreviations). My general view from my studies is that there are three major covenants that are grant covenants (i.e. not dependent on the recipient). These are the Abrahamic, Davidic, and the New. Each successive covenant reveals more about the prior(s) and about *how* God intends to fulfill the prior(s).
> 
> There are also "already-not yet" versions of these Covenants: Mosaic, Solomonic, To the Seven Churches (this last is mine as I have not heard or read any one else use or suggest this*). These were not grant covenants (Suzerain-Vassal, actually), and are therefore not necessarily eternal.
> 
> Anyways (here's my point), I say all of that to say this: the Abrahamic covenant got off to a "rough" start. Ishmael and Esau saw no part of it (other than a large Arab nation). Moreover, Reuben, Simeon, and Levi were all skipped over for the central fulfillment of the covenant as the Messianic lineage passed through Judah. I think that this shows that God will and does fulfill His covenant, but He may not include our particular children.
> 
> I think this is also shown in this passage:
> 
> John 1:12-13
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I am still studying this and am not yet totally convinced, but I think that it is correct at this point in time. If you know of someone who has taught on this or where I could do more research, then let me know.



Your position is what I believe is called New Covenant Theology (NCT) People such as Wayne Grudem and Fred Zaspel are adherents to this theology. I think it doesn't stand up to classic covenant theology. NCT tries to perpuate a difference between the law of moses (contained in the decalogue) and the law of Christ. In truth, there is no qualitative difference. Christ exegetes his own law, (law of moses) by giving us a fuller understanding of its original intent. Any one else familiar with NCT willing to chime in? It's more of baptist thing.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Tony (Iconoclast) replied to me in part the following (hope he doesn't mind me posting a portion of our e-mail exchange publicly):


> I see the truth that households have special blessings from God. I have trouble with the idea that we are to look back to the type, Israel as a nation,and their children by physical birth,,,compared with NT. adoption by New Birth to be a spiritual nation ex.19:5-6 1 pet 2


Israel was a type, true. Of Jesus, of His eternal people, of heaven, etc. And the NT church is still a type--of Christ (e.g. Christ in you the hope of glory, Col. 1:27 and context; or Jn. 17:21, or 1 Tim. 1:16), of His eternal people (the elect, we can only approximate it here on earth), of heaven (Heb. 11:10 & 16; 12:22-24--our worship puts heaven on display).

You seem to think we are "going backwards," retrogressing by acknowledging believers' children as a significant element of "the future of the church" by the grace of God. Naturally, I disagree. In your view, I think you see the church today as somehow ideally "more purified" than the church was under the Old Covenant. Speaking for our side in the debate, we think that is claiming to be able to see what can't be seen, precisely because it is spiritual and invisible.

Personally, I think that the FAITHFUL church (not "the visible church" without qualification) is "more pure" than the visible church was under the Old Covenant--because the Spirit has been poured out, because his grace is lavished on us. He saves more liberally among our offspring today--not because we are superior to OT saints, but because he works by ordinary means, and he has given us more of his Spirit to help us by grace to rear our children in the fear of God.

So in point of fact, I see the OT saints including their children in the covenant (but seeing a minuscule remnant actually possess the substance of the Promise by faith) as TYPOLOGICAL, or FORWARD-LOOKING in hope to our day of Spirit outpouring, where we see by far the greater number of our children converted and saved (by grace through faith as only ever). Which is still typological of the future heaven and perfection of the saints and their environment--the thorough banishment of all the ungodly away from the presence of the Lord (2 Thes. 1:9).

As for Peter's observation (1.2.9, etc.), that is but the abolition of the narrow, ethnic church, and the promise of salvation expanded to the ends of the earth. That was a portion of the typology of Israel. The people of God being given a land. Now, the people of God being given the whole earth. But there is no more a political entity. The nation served its purpose (Rom. 9:1-6), but the church which was there explodes outward--the spiritual kingdom takes center-stage. No political or ethnic identity can contain it. But we still are not content with the sin-infected world. We look for heaven beyond. We are still living typologically, between the "already" and the "not-yet."

Hope I've explained a few more things about our view of things, brother.

Yours in Christ,


----------



## AV1611

I recently came across John Tombes (1603-76) an antipaedobaptist Anglican minister who was ejected in 1662 and his catechism on baptism. In full. 

*Quest 15. Why should not Infants be baptized, sith they were Circumcised?

Answ.* The reason why Male Infants were to be Circumcised, was a particular Command of God to Abrahams house for special ends belonging to the time before Christ, which Baptism hath not, nor is there any Command to use Baptism according to the rule of Circumcision.

*Quest. 16. Did not Baptism come in the room of Circumcision, Col. 2.11,12. and so to be used as it was? 

Answ.* The Apostles words import not that our Baptism came in the room of the Jews Circumcision; there is no mention of any bodily Circumcision but Christ's, which our baptism cannot be said to suceed to, as there it is made the cause of Spiritual Circumcision, without arrogating that to it which belongs to Christ alone, and Baptism is mentioned with faith, as the means whereby we are in Christ, and compleat in him.

*Quest. 17. May we be said to be compleat as the Jews without Infant Baptism?

Answ.* Our compleatness is in that we have not Ordinances as the Jews had, but we are compleat in that we have all in Christ without them, Col. 2.8,9,10.

*Quest. 18. Have not our Children then less privilege than the Jews had?

Answ.* No: For Circumcision was a privilege only for a time, and comparitively to the estate of the Gentiles who knew not God; but of itself was a heavy yoke, Acts 15.10. Gal. 5.1,2,3.

*Quest. 19. Why did the Jews then so much centend for it, Acts 15.1,5.

Answ.* Because they too much esteemed the Law, and knew not their liberty by the Gospel.

*Quest. 20. Had it not been a discomfort to the believing Jews to have their Children unbaptized, and out of the Covenant? 

Answ.* The want of Baptism to Infants was never any grievance to Believers in the New Testament, nor were they thereby put out of the Covenant of Grace.

*Quest. 21. Was not the proper reason of Circumcising the Infants of the Jews the interest which they had in the Covenant to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. to be a God to him and to his seed?

Answ.* The end of Circumcision was indeed to be a token of the whole Covenant made with Abraham, Gen. 17.4,5,6,7,8. not only the promise, ver. 7. But the formal proper distinguishing reason why some were to be Circumcised, and others not, was God's Comand alone, not the interest in the Covenant; sith Ishmael who was not a Childe of promise, Gen. 17.20.21. Rom. 9.6,7,8,9. and those who were in Abrahams house, though not of his Seed, were Circumcised, but no Females, nor Males under eight days old.

*Quest. 22. Was not the Covenant with Abraham, Gen. 17. the Covenant of Grace?

Answ.* It was, according to the hidden meaning of the Holy Ghost, the Evangelical Covenant, Gal. 3.16. But according to the open sense of the words, a Covenant of special benefits to Abrahams inheriting natural posterity, and therefore not a pure Gospel Covenant. 

*Quest. 23. Are not Believers Children comprehended under the promise, to be a God to Abraham and his seed? Gen. 17.7. 

Answ.* No: unless they become Abrahams seed according to Election of Grace by Faith.

*Quest. 24. Did Circumcision seal the Gospel Covenant? Rom. 4.11.

Answ.* That text speaks not of any ones Circumcision but Abrahams, which sealed the righteousness of faith he had before Circumcision, and assured thereby righteousness to all, though uncircumcised, who should believe as he did.


----------



## Dieter Schneider

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> They are....


My dear brother – you are greatly mistaken - and as a learned man I think you ought to know better (please take my gentle rebuke in the right spirit)! Please do not be breaking the ninth commandment. Many Baptists – all over the world – are NOT Dispensationalists! I also know many paedo-Baptists who are Dispensationalists! 
Whilst I profoundly disagree with my paedo-Baptist brethren, I am grateful for such a rich heritage. Had Calvin been a Baptist I might be prepared to worship him! Such is my admiration for this great giant! 
Why such theological mud-slinging and why such delight? Or is it gloating? Is it edifying? And why in the public domain? It sounds like men coming out of the closet! 
Where is Christ in all this? Why is there so little glorying in the Cross? Are we more godly as a result? 
By all means, let us be mature to debate the issues – in a spirit of brotherly affection and speaking the truth in love. 
There is not even one paedo-Baptist view and the arguments are complex, to say the least.
We ought to be firing our ammunition at a common enemy: the world, the flesh and the devil. Let's encourage rather than antagonize one another. 
We may pride ourselves in knowing the doctrines of grace, but what about the grace of the doctrines? I trust you are spiritual enough to bear with me – as the weaker brother.


----------



## Herald

Dieter - I concur. Not every Baptist is dispensational, although I understand why C.T.'s would say that we are. They're free to say it, but they're wrong.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I need to start closing really old threads. Opening up two year old threads again is just so disjointed.


----------



## Herald

Isn't that what they're there for...to keep down the amount of duplicate threads?


----------

