# Which View of Covenant Theology Do You Hold To?



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 15, 2006)

3 or 2?


----------



## Me Died Blue (Feb 15, 2006)

I think both of them express certain true characteristics of the nature and ordering of the covenants, and honestly don't even see enough of a difference as such to _necessarily_ view them as mutually exclusive in a full way.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Feb 15, 2006)

I agree they both express the certain true characteristics of the nature and ordering of the covenants, but I think there is still enough difference that they are not identical. Maybe the poll should be changed to include other views (such as those who deny the CoW), but I don't consider that CT at all.


----------



## Casey (Feb 15, 2006)

Where's the "both" option? Confessionally, I hold to both. My preference is 3, though.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Feb 15, 2006)

Just a help - 

Turretin held to 2, but divided the CoG into two parts which essentially is what the 3 part consists of.

Westminster held to 3, but termed the CoR in the Confession as chapter 3 "Divine Decrees", and in thier writings uses the other designation.

Witsius held to 3, as did Rutherford, Gillespie, and Henderson, and most of Enlgish Puritanism.

Whichever you choose, you would be on good ground so long as you defined what you mean by the CoG.

I personally like 3 so I don't have to "explain what I mean" like Turretin did in his Institutes.


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 15, 2006)

I hold to the only true and right strain of Covenant Theology... within credo-baptist strictures





"We believe that the Baptists are the original Christians. We did not commence our existence at the reformation, we were reformers before Luther and Calvin were born; we never came from the Church of Rome, for we were never in it, but we have an unbroken line up to the apostles themselves. We have always existed from the days of Christ, and our principles, sometimes veiled and forgotten, like a river which may travel under ground for a little season, have always had honest and holy adherents. Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man..."
--C.H. Spurgeon


----------



## Steve Owen (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I hold to the only true and right strain of Covenant Theology... within credo-baptist strictures
> 
> 
> ...





Martin


----------



## raderag (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> I hold to the only true and right strain of Covenant Theology... within credo-baptist strictures
> 
> 
> ...



Do you guys still believe this trail of blood thing?


----------



## Peter (Feb 15, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...



 I'm actually quite surprised Spurgeon would say something like this. I thought particular baptists consider themselves Protestants of Calvin's lineage. This sounds like junk from Landmarkian Anabaptists (heretics) not Reformed Baptists (biblical Protestants).


----------



## satz (Feb 16, 2006)

> Persecuted alike by Romanists and Protestants of almost every sect, yet there has never existed a Government holding Baptist principles which persecuted others; nor, I believe, any body of Baptists ever held it to be right to put the consciences of others under the control of man..."


----------



## brymaes (Feb 16, 2006)

I hold to a tri-covenantal view.


----------



## matthew11v25 (Feb 16, 2006)

Covenant of Redemption, Grace, and Works...Tri-covenantal

[Edited on 2-16-2006 by matthew11v25]


----------



## Puritanhead (Feb 16, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Peter_
> I'm actually quite surprised Spurgeon would say something like this. I thought particular baptists consider themselves Protestants of Calvin's lineage. This sounds like junk from Landmarkian Anabaptists (heretics) not Reformed Baptists (biblical Protestants).



Those of English Baptist pedigree on the Isles, and some migrants to Holland, are of a different pedigree than the Landmarkian Anabaptists that Calvin condemned. That they don't trace a heritage to Luther and Calvin, doesn't make them antinomian. Besides, I don't give the final word to Luther or Calvin, like many Reformed Protestants do. They mastered _sola fide_ to be sure, but there is much to be wanted in their ecclesiology and doctrine on the sacraments/ordinances. 

The most _Reformed_ sects are Reformed Baptists and Congregationalists, that is those still confessionally orthodox, credo-baptist and affirming classic covenant theology.
:bigsmile:


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by raderag_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Puritanhead_
> ...




Well... Who baptized Jesus?

It certainly wasn't JOHN THE CALVINIST!!!


 

Now that was funny, I don't care who you are 

In Christ,

MeanieCalvinist


----------



## Arch2k (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by theologae_
> I hold to a tri-covenantal view.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by MeanieCalvinist_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by raderag_
> ...



But I am sure that John was a Calvinist Before Calvin was. :bigsmile:

I don't hold to the Trail of Blood thingy. 

1689er who likes the 3 thingy also.


----------



## RamistThomist (Mar 8, 2006)

For all practical purposes its better to say John the Baptizer. When I hear John the "Baptist" I envision him carrying a potluck!


----------



## MeanieCalvinist (Mar 8, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> For all practical purposes its better to say John the Baptizer. When I hear John the "Baptist" I envision him carrying a potluck!


----------

