# The differences between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians



## Stratiotes

Can somebody explain the main differences in the two denominations. I know about the infant baptism. I just dont know much about the Presbyterians beliefs. I assume they are pretty close??? Thank you all. 

Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## Pergamum

There are also differences in church government (presbyterian church government versus independency).


----------



## THE W

I kicked around the idea of making a thread asking this same question.

Baptists don't hold to EPAW(exclusive psalmity a capella worship) do they?


----------



## Pergamum

Most Presbyterians also do not hold to those things.


----------



## JP Wallace

THE W said:


> Baptists don't hold to EPAW(exclusive psalmity a capella worship) do they?



As Pergy says most Baptists don't, but some do and I'd say an increasing number are thinking about it. But then again, most Presbyterians are not EP either.


----------



## Scott1

Charitably,
the most noticeable difference will be differing views of covenant theology. Infant baptism, a high view of the church, the role of educating children, even church discipline tend to flow from that.

Church government, the vows and ordinances, part of worship, pertaining to that, also.


----------



## ProtestantBankie

The disagreement is fundamentally about the church.

What the church is, when it started and who should be in it.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

There is a good tool here on the PB that let's you compare the WCF to the LBC. I believe it is under the reformed confessions tab on the main page.


----------



## JimmyH

Baptists say *A*-men, Presbyterians say Ahh-men. An observation made from being in one camp, then then moving to the other.


----------



## deleteduser99

Infant baptism, church government, details of covenant theology, and application of the regulative principle are some of the more pronounced differences. How close are they? Despite those differences I say Reformed Baptists and Reformed Presbyterians are rather close. The LBC was intentionally modeled after the WCF so that they could preserve unity and like-mindedness where possible while at the same time making open confession of their differing stances.


----------



## SinnerSavedByChrist

This is a nice summary of *some* of the major issues at play. (Presbyterians, please don't throw stones at me)
[video=youtube;ChxhbTM-wfU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChxhbTM-wfU[/video]


----------



## VictorBravo

JimmyH said:


> Baptists say A-men, Presbyterians say Ahh-men. An observation made from being in one camp, then then moving to the other




Except those from either camp who are learning Greek start saying "ah-main"


----------



## THE W

Pergamum said:


> Most Presbyterians also do not hold to those things.



What percentage of RPCNA and OPC churches do not hold to EPAW?



JP Wallace said:


> THE W said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptists don't hold to EPAW(exclusive psalmity a capella worship) do they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Pergy says most Baptists don't, but some do and I'd say an increasing number are thinking about it. But then again, most Presbyterians are not EP either.
Click to expand...


What about just AW?


----------



## JP Wallace

Wade 

Some churches do exist that are not EP but are AW, but these are probably rarer among RB's than those that are EPAW! Most folks who go EP also go AW I suppose. There are of course more churches who are force majerure instumentless, as they either have no instument or no one to instrumentalize!

It should be said that (probably) the finest book contra the use of instruments is written by an RB - John Price 'Old Light on New Worship'.

In regard to one of your questions - I thought all RPCNA churches were Exclusive Psalmists and acapella? But then again I'm over the pond so what would I know! . I have no idea about the OPC statitistics, I think San Franscico is EPAW.


----------



## kodos

All RPCNA churches are indeed EP/Acapella. I wouldn't imagine many OPC churches are however. I know 1st OPC in San Francisco is EP, not sure about Acapella however.


----------



## JM

Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF


----------



## SolaScriptura

Generally, the differences come down to personality, intellect, and appearance.

Presbyterians tend to be thoughtful and intelligent in their formulations, winsome and engaging in their conversations, and healthy in physique with good color and skin tone.

Baptists tend to be ignorant and dull in their formulations, unexciting and boorish in their conversations, and in appearance they often seem sickly with pasty color and tone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

(dull, check; pasty, check; boorish, check)
Ben! I had no idea I was a closet Baptist...

(For any who don't know, Ben was most excellently trained at SBTS, whose faculty he admires, and he has many attractive and well-spoken friends from those days)



One might say things this way: RefBaptist and Presbyterian take different routes, and arrive at basically the same soteriological destination, that is to say holding to pretty much the same core doctrine on matters of Christ and salvation--what must be believed in order to be saved, and what "angle" is best to view those things (the best seats in the house).

Still, respecting the matter of which route, clearly it is not a matter of indifference. The hermeneutical question "how to read the Bible" plays a significant role in the different conclusions both sides reach. Failure to appreciate the reality that formal agreement on the significance of _Sola scriptura_ is not the same as *how* one reads the Scripture, is a major reason why I do not "cheer" a person "switching sides" (so to speak) on baptism, without coming to grips with all such a conversion entails.

Instead, I'm crossing my fingers, wondering if such an individual is thinking as deeply as he should, or if he will end up confused, disappointed, regretful, reversed, or on his way to some other theological (or even religious) camp. It has happened before, right before our eyes.

So my chief contribution to this thread is an attempt to make it clear that the ordinary differences between the Baptist and the Reformed are NOT cosmetic, even when we speak about the self-conscious, covenantal/confessional RefBapt contingent. The latter obviously have major affinity with the non-baptist stream of this tradition, and I thank God for them.

But if it was an "easy" matter to convince one from the other persuasion, the division would never have continued for hundreds of years.


----------



## reaganmarsh

SolaScriptura said:


> Generally, the differences come down to personality, intellect, and appearance.
> 
> Presbyterians tend to be thoughtful and intelligent in their formulations, winsome and engaging in their conversations, and healthy in physique with good color and skin tone.
> 
> Baptists tend to be ignorant and dull in their formulations, unexciting and boorish in their conversations, and in appearance they often seem sickly with pasty color and tone.




Ha ha!


----------



## earl40

SolaScriptura said:


> Generally, the differences come down to personality, intellect, and appearance.
> 
> Presbyterians tend to be thoughtful and intelligent in their formulations, winsome and engaging in their conversations, and healthy in physique with good color and skin tone.
> 
> Baptists tend to be ignorant and dull in their formulations, unexciting and boorish in their conversations, and in appearance they often seem sickly with pasty color and tone.



Also don't we Presbyterians wave hello to friends from inside a liquor store?


----------



## Herald

Contra_Mundum said:


> (dull, check; pasty, check; boorish, check)
> Ben! I had no idea I was a closet Baptist...
> 
> (For any who don't know, Ben was most excellently trained at SBTS, whose faculty he admires, and he has many attractive and well-spoken friends from those days)
> 
> 
> 
> One might say things this way: RefBaptist and Presbyterian take different routes, and arrive at basically the same soteriological destination, that is to say holding to pretty much the same core doctrine on matters of Christ and salvation--what must be believed in order to be saved, and what "angle" is best to view those things (the best seats in the house).
> 
> Still, respecting the matter of which route, clearly it is not a matter of indifference. The hermeneutical question "how to read the Bible" plays a significant role in the different conclusions both sides reach. Failure to appreciate the reality that formal agreement on the significance of _Sola scriptura_ is not the same as *how* one reads the Scripture, is a major reason why I do not "cheer" a person "switching sides" (so to speak) on baptism, without coming to grips with all such a conversion entails.
> 
> Instead, I'm crossing my fingers, wondering if such an individual is thinking as deeply as he should, or if he will end up confused, disappointed, regretful, reversed, or on his way to some other theological (or even religious) camp. It has happened before, right before our eyes.
> 
> So my chief contribution to this thread is an attempt to make it clear that the ordinary differences between the Baptist and the Reformed are NOT cosmetic, even when we speak about the self-conscious, covenantal/confessional RefBapt contingent. The latter obviously have major affinity with the non-baptist stream of this tradition, and I thank God for them.
> 
> But if it was an "easy" matter to convince one from the other persuasion, the division would never have continued for hundreds of years.



Bruce, yes, I am concerned about a change of position on Baptism when due diligence has not been performed on the other theological implications of such a change. I have witnessed individuals flip back and forth more than once because those other theological implications have not been satisfactorily resolved.


----------



## deleteduser99

SolaScriptura said:


> Generally, the differences come down to personality, intellect, and appearance.
> 
> Presbyterians tend to be thoughtful and intelligent in their formulations, winsome and engaging in their conversations, and healthy in physique with good color and skin tone.
> 
> Baptists tend to be ignorant and dull in their formulations, unexciting and boorish in their conversations, and in appearance they often seem sickly with pasty color and tone.



Hey, I resent that!

I'm not boorish...


----------



## Stratiotes

thanks, Bill. That really will help.

Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## Edward

THE W said:


> What percentage of RPCNA and OPC churches do not hold to EPAW?



I'd say none or a small minority for RPCNA, the vast majority for OPC.


----------



## Andres

I was once at an evening bible study fellowshipping with some fine RB brothers. During a break of our study, the pastor asked me, "So is the whole infant baptism issue really enough that you couldn't consider becoming a member at our church?" to which I looked him straight in his eye and without missing a beat answered, "Yes."


----------



## Herald

Andres said:


> I was once at an evening bible study fellowshipping with some fine RB brothers. During a break of our study, the pastor asked me, "So is the whole infant baptism issue really enough that you couldn't consider becoming a member at our church?" to which I looked him straight in his eye and without missing a beat answered, "Yes."



Andres,

A Reformed Baptist pastor who would ask such a question displays a lack of understanding of Reformed Baptist doctrine. Does his ecclesiology mean so little to him?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Nobody has really elaborated over our differences in our form of government. I think understanding the difference is really existential. By that I mean that I never would have really understood the difference that Presbyterian government represents to Independency if I hadn't lived through it for the last few years as an elder, commissioner to three GA's (one as a member of Overtures), and a year as Moderator of Presbytery. The level of accountability is much more acute in Presbyterian government as is the "spread" of Church authority. Presbyterianism can be at the same time incredibly frustrating as well as (mostly) encouraging to consider the work of the "Church" to be universal not merely in an invisible sense but a visible sense.

I certainly experienced Presbyterianism when I was a Church member in the Southern California Presbytery of the OPC (attending yearly picnics as well as volunteering for Junior and Senior High retreats) but I had only watched or heard of Church court deliberations from afar.

As I grow older I appreciate the "connectionalism" that Presbyterian Church government provides. It is far more than a voluntary association of liked-minded individuals but often forces together men who sometimes are not like-minded and requires the exercise of the fruit of patience with one another. As our Presbytery multiplied into two Presbyteries about a week ago, I listened to two men with tears in their eyes saddened that each was departing to differing Presbyteries. They had labored together for over three decades for the sake of the Gospel and had often found themselves at not quite 180 degree positions from one another but certainly in disagreement over the years. Yet, together, they had wrestled together. Our form of government had forced them to wrestle over convictions that needed to have some edges taken off. It forced them to wrestle in a way that exposed their pride over how they viewed others who disagreed with them.

I have also found Presbyterianism to be a very sanctifying influence in my own life. Had I remained in my local body with few responsibilities outside its borders I would never have had the privilege of seeing how my views interact with other Elders in the Presbytery or in the broader Church. I've had the opportunity to examine dozens of men for ordination and licensure over the last few years and have been examined myself. I've gotten in sharpt disagreements over the interpretation of clauses and repented to men with whom I was not gracious (and repented to in return). I've shifted my interest in theology from a focus more purely interested in the facts of the matter to truly caring whether a man can apply theology to the lives he will minister to and desiring to help men along who are struggling to grasp how certain truths are relevant.

I know it sounds like I'm giving an apology for the superiority of Presbyterianism over Independency. I suppose I can't help it because I'm not only convinced it is Biblical for its Scriptural warrant but for the fruit I see it bear in men's lives and, most importantly, my own.


----------



## JML

THE W said:


> Baptists don't hold to EPAW(exclusive psalmity a capella worship) do they?



I know one who does.


----------



## Stratiotes

Baptism should happen after regeneration!!!


----------



## Stratiotes

well now i can learn all of the differences, thank you JM.

Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## MarieP

JimmyH said:


> Baptists say A-men, Presbyterians say Ahh-men. An observation made from being in one camp, then then moving to the other.



I know some Reformed Baptists in England who say Ahh-men...


----------



## MarieP

Presbyterian churches also tend to be higher church- Reformed Baptists don't generally have responsive readings or recitation of a Confession or Catechism during worship. I'm not aware of any Reformed Baptist pastor that wears a Geneva gown or clerical collar.


----------



## Herald

Semper Fidelis said:


> I know it sounds like I'm giving an apology for the superiority of Presbyterianism over Independency. I suppose I can't help it because I'm not only convinced it is Biblical for its Scriptural warrant but for the fruit I see it bear in men's lives and, most importantly, my own.



Rich, I am genuinely happy that your life is bearing fruit through Presbyterianism. I am not trying to minimize the positive affect Presbyterianism is having in your life when I state I have experienced a similar work of grace in my time of being a Baptist. But I wonder whether it really has as much to do with being a Baptist as it does with being discipled, mentored, and influenced by godly men who have invested in my life over the years. Like you I am convinced, by Biblical warrant, that the form of church government I hold to is correct, but that alone does not account for any spiritual growth that has occurred in my life over the past 30 years. While I do not consider any form of church government to be perfect (because of human weakness), I do see the problems inherent in Independency. Identifying problems is the first step in addressing them.


----------



## Herald

MarieP said:


> Presbyterian churches also tend to be higher church- Reformed Baptists don't generally have responsive readings or recitation of a Confession or Catechism during worship. I'm not aware of any Reformed Baptist pastor that wears a Geneva gown or clerical collar.



Marie, if you ever visit the Baltimore-Washington are feel free to join us for worship. You will be invited to participate in our responsive reading each Lord's Day. We do not read the Confession, Catechism, or any Creed during worship. We also do not wear gowns or collars. I would not look good in a gown anyway.


----------



## Herald

Stratiotes said:


> Baptism should happen after regeneration!!!




Dan, 

Yes, well, from the Baptist perspective that is stating the obvious. But let us keep this from becoming a Baptism debate. Come to think of it, it has been a while since we have had one of those. I kind of like the peace and quiet.


----------



## Stratiotes

Ok, Bill. God bless you

Soli Deo Gloria


----------



## Andres

Stratiotes said:


> Baptism should happen after regeneration!!!



Yes, because there has never been an adult who was baptized and later left the faith. To borrow from Josh, borrowing from Pastor Ruddell, where can we pick up a pair of those regeneration goggles you have?


----------



## MarieP

Herald said:


> Marie, if you ever visit the Baltimore-Washington are feel free to join us for worship. You will be invited to participate in our responsive reading each Lord's Day. We do not read the Confession, Catechism, or any Creed during worship. We also do not wear gowns or collars. I would not look good in a gown anyway.



I'd love to come visit sometime! I definitely will if I'm in the area. I actually thought about it last time I went north, but it was further than we wanted to drive (I went once again to Covenant Baptist in Lumberton! Good brethren there!) That's great about the responsive reading- we did that once with Psalm 136 when we got to it in our Psalter reading- I enjoyed it immensely!


----------



## MarieP

Herald said:


> We do not read the Confession, Catechism, or any Creed during worship.



The Reformed Baptist (in the broader sense) SBC church I formerly attended did. They pulled from mainly the Baptist and Heidelberg Catechisms. Of course, growing up Presbyterian, we recited the Apostles' and Nicene Creeds. And I worshiped with a conservative Anglican church when I visited New Mexico a couple weeks ago. It had a lot of Presbyterian elements to it. I found the language of the Communion service particularly beautiful. It had been awhile since I'd been in that type of high-church setting.

I love being back at my Reformed Baptist church though! And my pastors offer beautiful words, and we sing beautiful words, before the Lord's Supper as well!


----------



## Gforce9

Andres said:


> Stratiotes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism should happen after regeneration!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, because there has never been an adult who was baptized and later left the faith. To borrow from Josh, borrowing from Pastor Ruddell, where can we pick up a pair of those regeneration goggles you have?
Click to expand...


Good point, Andrew. I once had a pair I got from guy sporting a trench coat downtown Chicago who also was selling Rolex watches. I purchased a "Rolex" and the goggles for $25. The goggles really worked good when I sat down to watch Robert Schuller, Creflo Dollar, and Benny Hinn on TV. I will never reveal what I saw. Regeneration goggles are real!................


----------



## Stratiotes

That is true Andrew, some adults will be baptized with water and are not regenerated. Never being known by Christ. Just as some will be baptized as infants.They will grow up and live in sin and are never known by Christ.The man on the cross next to Jesus, was he baptized??? Matthew 3:11 "I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire" 

This is the baptism that counts Andrew. We both agree on that.


----------



## irresistible_grace

Presbyterianism is NOT a denomination; it is a branch of Reformed Protestantism!

Presbyterianism & Presbyterian Theology emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the authority of the Scriptures, and the necessity of grace through faith in Christ.

Presbyterians believe that Scripture is clear on the the sacrament of Baptism...
We are Credo Baptist first & foremost
*Baptism is NOT to be administered to any that are outside of the visible church until they profess faith in Christ & obedience to His commands...
BUT* we also believe that Scripture teaches Household Baptism & that covenant children are to receive the sign & seal of the covenant...
*the infants of such as are members of the visible church *(members being defined as those who have professed faith & obedience to Christ) *are to be baptized. *
Hence, in the Great Commission,


> baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost


comes before 


> Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you




Presbyterianism is named for its biblical Church government (which is articulated beautifully in post #27)

I say this as one who has been a Presbyterian since late '08 (Baptist before that most of my life)!


----------



## Stratiotes

I must say now, I am very convicted of the sin of pride. So I ask all the people that I have offended for forgiveness. Wanting to be right on something and "puffing up" trying to prove something that has nothing to do with Salvation, other than public profession . How am I glorifying God in all this??? I have such a finite mind. Gal 6:3. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. Sorry all, never should have even talked about something so unimportant.

Soli Deo Gloria,


----------



## One Little Nail

Herald said:


> Stratiotes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism should happen after regeneration!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Yes, well, from the Baptist perspective that is stating the obvious. But let us keep this from becoming a Baptism debate. Come to think of it, it has been a while since we have had one of those. I kind of like the peace and quiet.
Click to expand...


I'll be your Huckleberry


----------



## Herald

One Little Nail said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratiotes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism should happen after regeneration!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Yes, well, from the Baptist perspective that is stating the obvious. But let us keep this from becoming a Baptism debate. Come to think of it, it has been a while since we have had one of those. I kind of like the peace and quiet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be your Huckleberry
Click to expand...


You're no daisy at all. 

Sent from my iPhone killing Galaxy S-4


----------



## Herald

Stratiotes said:


> I must say now, I am very convicted of the sin of pride. So I ask all the people that I have offended for forgiveness. Wanting to be right on something and "puffing up" trying to prove something that has nothing to do with Salvation, other than public profession . How am I glorifying God in all this??? I have such a finite mind. Gal 6:3. For if a man think himself to be something, when he is nothing, he deceiveth himself. Sorry all, never should have even talked about something so unimportant.
> 
> Soli Deo Gloria,



Dan,

Discussing baptism is not insignificant. It is a very important doctrine. It is a matter of obedience to God. Both sides believe they are right. Obviously that is not the case. It is not the discussion of baptism that is prideful, but rather the manner in which we discuss it that may reveal pride. You can apply that rule to the discussion of any biblical doctrine. 

Have a blessed Lord's Day.



Sent from my iPhone killing Galaxy S-4


----------



## One Little Nail

MarieP said:


> Presbyterian churches also tend to be higher church- Reformed Baptists don't generally have responsive readings or recitation of a Confession or Catechism during worship. I'm not aware of any Reformed Baptist pastor that wears a Geneva gown or clerical collar.



I would like to call you Baptists to Order,I Believe we are discussing the The Theological Differences between 
"Reformed" Baptists & Presbyterian not whether Individual Presbyterian Church's have betrayed their Heritage
& brought in Non-Confessional practises into their Worship, The RPW does not have permit these practises so 
these particular Church's who are practicing these things are not in Question here or Relevant to the conversation.
These are Prelatical Practises & have no place in pure, well Governed & Biblically Ordered Presbyterian Church's.
Except for the Catechisms,non sanctioned means are a strawman argument ,please get back to the Argument


----------



## One Little Nail

Herald said:


> One Little Nail said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratiotes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Baptism should happen after regeneration!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dan,
> 
> Yes, well, from the Baptist perspective that is stating the obvious. But let us keep this from becoming a Baptism debate. Come to think of it, it has been a while since we have had one of those. I kind of like the peace and quiet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll be your Huckleberry
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're no daisy at all.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone killing Galaxy S-4
Click to expand...


----------



## One Little Nail

irresistible_grace said:


> Presbyterianism is NOT a denomination; it is a branch of Reformed Protestantism!
> 
> Presbyterianism & Presbyterian Theology emphasizes the sovereignty of God, the authority of the Scriptures, and the necessity of grace through faith in Christ.
> 
> Presbyterians believe that Scripture is clear on the the sacrament of Baptism...
> We are Credo Baptist first & foremost
> *Baptism is NOT to be administered to any that are outside of the visible church until they profess faith in Christ & obedience to His commands...
> BUT* we also believe that Scripture teaches Household Baptism & that covenant children are to receive the sign & seal of the covenant...
> *the infants of such as are members of the visible church *(members being defined as those who have professed faith & obedience to Christ) *are to be baptized. *
> Hence, in the Great Commission,
> 
> 
> 
> baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost
> 
> 
> 
> comes before
> 
> 
> 
> Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Presbyterianism is named for its biblical Church government (which is articulated beautifully in post #27)
> 
> I say this as one who has been a Presbyterian since late '08 (Baptist before that most of my life)!
Click to expand...


Hear,Hear Beautifully spoken I was almost afraid that we were wasting our 
time with these Baptists till I remembered that I used to be one myself


----------



## One Little Nail

I would like to concur with Bruce in Post #18 & would like to say that Hermeneutic & Interpretation
really is the crux of the matter as a former Baptist I look back & see that i really didn't understand
the scriptures correctly or how to interpret them the Credo understanding rests on the analogy of 
Faith this is exactly what the confession means when it says " by good and necessary consequence may
be deduced from Scripture" Baptists I find can't grasp this concept even from personal experience 
my own History as I've mentioned, & also had an Old Scottish friend who had Baptistic views but 
attended a Presbyterian Church would question this quote,deny it & ridicule it.but never understand it!

the Baptist mindset is more literalistic in its make up which can be seen & shown by the fact that
they tend to embrace Pre-Millennialism as a doctrine & non reformed Baptists almost always tend
to be adherents to heretical Dispensationalism, whether its the Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 13, Acts 28 or
Progessive Dispensational guise, due to their heavy use of Literalism, particularly in Prophetic 
Interpretation which is a real disaster as it leads to modified Jesuit Futurism schemes & Pre-Millennialism.

remember those dallas T.S. boys were always extolling the Literal Hermeneutic.


----------



## Bill The Baptist

One Little Nail said:


> as a former Baptist I look back & see that i really didn't understand
> the scriptures correctly or how to interpret them



As Bill pointed out earlier, we are now enjoying a "pax baptismus" of sorts here on the PB. Let's not ruin it by making such blanket assertions.


----------



## JP Wallace

One Little Nail said:


> I would like to call you Baptists to Order,I Believe we are discussing the The Theological Differences between
> "Reformed" Baptists & Presbyterian not whether Individual Presbyterian Church's have betrayed their Heritage
> & brought in Non-Confessional practises into their Worship, The RPW does not have permit these practises so
> these particular Church's who are practicing these things are not in Question here or Relevant to the conversation.
> These are Prelatical Practises & have no place in pure, well Governed & Biblically Ordered Presbyterian Church's.
> Except for the Catechisms,non sanctioned means are a strawman argument ,please get back to the Argument



OK...now let me swing my judgment gavel to in relation to your later comment. The OP is about the differences between RB's and Presbyterians, not Baptists and Presbyterians and so when you write...



One Little Nail said:


> the Baptist mindset is more literalistic in its make up which can be seen & shown by the fact that
> they tend to embrace Pre-Millennialism as a doctrine & non reformed Baptists almost always tend
> to be adherents to heretical Dispensationalism, whether its the Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 13, Acts 28 or
> Progessive Dispensational guise, due to their heavy use of Literalism, particularly in Prophetic
> Interpretation which is a real disaster as it leads to modified Jesuit Futurism schemes & Pre-Millennialism.



...I must through back your own judgment. Since an RB is defined by the 1689 Confession of Faith (at least on this board) your bringing up these things is largely to use your own words 'irrelevant to the conversation' since the confession precludes dispensationalism and quite probably premillenialism as well. You say baptists (as opposed to the non-reformed type) tend to premillenialism - I think that is very far from the actualy truth of the matter. The tendency is to amillenialism and against post-millenialism. Premillenialism probably, and dispensationalism definitely, are to quote you not 'relevant to the conversation'

Furthermore when you write that when you were a baptist you didn't understand the bible or how to intrepret it, it looks mightly like you 

a) think everyone who is baptist is as ignorant as you were and
b) that baptists. broad brush, still don't understand the bible or how to interpret it.

Please a) don't impute your ignorance to everyone else and expect that argument to be take seriously
b) don't paint with such a broad brush
c) please do stick to the parameters of the OP the question is about the differences between RB's i.e. confessional and confessional Presbyterians. 

BTW it is usual for moderators to call to order.


----------



## Josh Williamson

One Little Nail said:


> the Baptist mindset is more literalistic in its make up which can be seen & shown by the fact that
> they tend to embrace Pre-Millennialism as a doctrine & non reformed Baptists almost always tend
> to be adherents to heretical Dispensationalism, whether its the Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 13, Acts 28 or
> Progessive Dispensational guise, due to their heavy use of Literalism, particularly in Prophetic
> Interpretation which is a real disaster as it leads to modified Jesuit Futurism schemes & Pre-Millennialism.



Yes, those nasty baptists. You'd never see someone who holds presbyterianism embracing the 'evils' of premillennialism. I would never expect to see anyone like Andrew Bonar, Horatio Bonar, Francis Schaffer, or James Montgomery Boice (just to name a few) hold to such doctrines 

The majority of Reformed Baptists I know would be in the amillennial camp, although there seems to be a growing number embracing postmillennialism.


----------



## ZackF

There are differences what constitutes Christian behavior in certain areas correct? Alcohol abstinence or even prohibition is more common among the Reformed Baptists from what I've seen.


----------



## Herald

KS_Presby said:


> There are differences what constitutes Christian behavior in certain areas correct? Alcohol abstinence or even prohibition is more common among the Reformed Baptists from what I've seen.



Subjective and not accurate.


----------



## MarieP

MarieP said:


> I know some Reformed Baptists in England who say Ahh-men...



And then tonight there was me, who ended the hymn "My faith looks up to Thee" with a heartily sung "Ay-men." I don't know why I didn't sing "Ah-men" like usual and like everyone else- I think it was because it was so much a prayer of my heart that subconsciously I did what I normally do at the end of one, but sung it!


----------



## davdavis

I'm asking out of Curiosity and not trying to pick a fight. Do Reformed Baptist have a concept of the "visible Church"? In my interaction with RBs (sorry)I don't see any discussion of the concept.
To me infant Baptism, like Circumcision in the OT, is the sign of Visible Membership in the covenant community. In both visible members were not necessarily elect. It seems to me the alternative would be like the show they did about the Amish some years ago where the Amish encouraged their children to "experiment" with the world before deciding to enter the community. As to Church Gov. the problem with the Baptist is the larger Church has no way to discipline straying congregations. The big problem in Presbyterianism is it has the courts but often lacks the courage to use them.

David
PCA
Montgomery, AL


----------



## Semper Fidelis

davdavis said:


> I'm asking out of Curiosity and not trying to pick a fight. Do Reformed Baptist have a concept of the "visible Church"? In my interaction with PBs I don't see any discussion of the concept.



In your interaction with "PB's"? What are you using PB as an acronym for here? If you mean paedobaptists then I'll answer after I make sure you did not intend to type "RBs".


----------



## MarieP

davdavis said:


> I'm asking out of Curiosity and not trying to pick a fight. Do Reformed Baptist have a concept of the "visible Church"? In my interaction with PBs I don't see any discussion of the concept.



Particular Baptists? Primitive Baptists? Paedobaptists? Puritan Boarders (much more dangerous than surf boarders, but without the tan- except for Pergy)?

Actually, one of my elders just preached on the parable of the 10 virgins and the parable of the talents. He used the phrase "professing visible church"- those who outwardly profess faith in Christ, but among whom there may be (and are) false believers.



davdavis said:


> As to Church Gov. the problem with the Baptist is the larger Church has no way to discipline straying congregations.



That's because we don't believe that the larger Church is to discipline straying congregations. There can be councils of multiple churches that meet to discuss issues, as in Acts 15. But, under Christ, there is no hierarchy above a local church's board of elders (also called pastors). In Christ's letters of warning to the churches, there's no indication that there is any obligation above the elders and people of the church repenting (though surely the other churches reading the letters could have come alongside if possible to help).


----------



## Bill The Baptist

davdavis said:


> the problem with the Baptist is the larger Church has no way to discipline straying congregations. The big problem in Presbyterianism is it has the courts but often lacks the courage to use them.



Clearly there are advantages and disadvantages to both forms of church government. Presbyterian government allows for better vetting of pastors and fosters and atmosphere of doctrinal accountability. Of course, as you pointed out, this only applies if the authority is actually exercised. The biggest advantage to congregational government is the freedom it allows in terms of who the church associates with. If the SBC were to pass a resolution recommending the ordination of homosexuals, our church would be completely free to disassociate with the SBC. Such a move would be much more complicated for a Presbyterian church. One thing that I do think that Baptists and Presbyterians can agree on is that both of these forms of government are superior to the Episcopal model.


----------



## davdavis

Thanks for the input. In south Alabama where I was raised the closest thing we had to Reformed Baptist were dispensationalist who liked Spurgeon. Later there were a couple of couples who attended our Church (back then, a conservative PCUS cong.) They were enamored with John Zens from the More Anabaptist strain. These plus listening to AOMIN have made it somewhat difficult to know what the RB position is on the Covenant.
Thanks again 

David D
PCA
Montgomery, Al


----------



## Herald

davdavis said:


> I'm asking out of Curiosity and not trying to pick a fight. Do Reformed Baptist have a concept of the "visible Church"? In my interaction with RBs (sorry)I don't see any discussion of the concept.
> To me infant Baptism, like Circumcision in the OT, is the sign of Visible Membership in the covenant community. In both visible members were not necessarily elect. It seems to me the alternative would be like the show they did about the Amish some years ago where the Amish encouraged their children to "experiment" with the world before deciding to enter the community. As to Church Gov. the problem with the Baptist is the larger Church has no way to discipline straying congregations. The big problem in Presbyterianism is it has the courts but often lacks the courage to use them.
> David Davis



David,

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith states:



> 26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and_* may be called visible saints*_; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.



If there are visible saints there is a visible church. Reformed Baptists would disagree with infant baptism being a sign of visible church membership, but we do see a visible church made up of visible saints.


----------



## Herald

davdavis said:


> Thanks for the input. In south Alabama where I was raised the closest thing we had to Reformed Baptist were dispensationalist who liked Spurgeon. Later there were a couple of couples who attended our Church (back then, a conservative PCUS cong.) They were enamored with John Zens from the More Anabaptist strain. These plus listening to AOMIN have made it somewhat difficult to know what the RB position is on the Covenant.
> Thanks again D Davis



There is a difference between Calvinistic Baptists and confessional, Reformed Baptists.


----------



## timmopussycat

One Little Nail said:


> I would like to concur with Bruce in Post #18 & would like to say that Hermeneutic & Interpretation
> really is the crux of the matter as a former Baptist I look back & see that i really didn't understand
> the scriptures correctly or how to interpret them the Credo understanding rests on the analogy of
> Faith this is exactly what the confession means when it says " by good and necessary consequence may
> be deduced from Scripture" Baptists I find can't grasp this concept even from personal experience
> my own History as I've mentioned, & also had an Old Scottish friend who had Baptistic views but
> attended a Presbyterian Church would question this quote,deny it & ridicule it.but never understand it!
> 
> the Baptist mindset is more literalistic in its make up which can be seen & shown by the fact that
> they tend to embrace Pre-Millennialism as a doctrine & non reformed Baptists almost always tend
> to be adherents to heretical Dispensationalism, whether its the Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 13, Acts 28 or
> Progessive Dispensational guise, due to their heavy use of Literalism, particularly in Prophetic
> Interpretation which is a real disaster as it leads to modified Jesuit Futurism schemes & Pre-Millennialism.
> 
> remember those dallas T.S. boys were always extolling the Literal Hermeneutic.



The problem with using the "good and necessary clause" in the debate over IB is that while one can derive the conclusion that God intended infants of believing parents to be baptized from various Scriptural premises, there are several indications in the Scriptures that block us from concluding that such a conclusion is good and necessary.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

From my point of view things depended upon the substantial differences between the Old and New Covenants. As a Reformed Baptist I understood them to be different substantially. It took me years to understand what my Reformed brothers were meaning when they were telling me that the Old and New Covenants were the same in substance concerning the Administration of the Covenant of Grace. I always viewed the Old Covenant as some covenant that was a mixture of both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. I saw the Old Covenant as something that was totally different than the New Covenant even by its very nature. That skewed my understanding concerning who was considered a Covenant Member in the Church. When I started to understand that the Mosaic Covenant was not a Covenant of Works in any way shape or form, but that it was purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace, things became much clearer. Covenant membership in the Church had not changed and the Old Covenant was just as much an administration of the Covenant of Grace as much as the New Covenant was. That isn't necessarily based upon good and necessary consequences. It is based upon good hermeneutics. Thus the sign and seal of the Old and New Covenants are also basically the same in substance and signify the same thing even though they differ in what was performed. Both point to being regenerate and Born Again.


----------



## JM

Plenty of Baptists understand the paedobaptist view of the Sinaitic Covenant...we just reject that understanding.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Your not the only ones JM. LOL. A lot of people do mischaracterize it also though. I am kind of slow sometimes. So I know I did.


----------



## KMK

davdavis said:


> Thanks for the input. In south Alabama where I was raised the closest thing we had to Reformed Baptist were dispensationalist who liked Spurgeon. Later there were a couple of couples who attended our Church (back then, a conservative PCUS cong.) They were enamored with John Zens from the More Anabaptist strain. These plus listening to AOMIN have made it somewhat difficult to know what the RB position is on the Covenant.
> Thanks again D Davis



Welcome to PB! Please fix your signature according to Board Rules. You can find out how by clicking on 'Signature Requirements' under my own signature.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> Plenty of Baptists understand the paedobaptist view of the Sinaitic Covenant...we just reject that understanding.


I want to ask and mention a few things JM. Which view of the paedo baptists concerning the Old Covenant are you referring to? Part of my problem lay in misreading some of them as I was looking through the eyes of John Owen who held to a minority view during the time of the Divines at Westminster and that of Meredith Kline. I also read all I could and saw through the eyes of Fred Malone and other well known authors who departed from the Presbyterian and Majority Reformed understanding. Just to be clear, I am not so sure they truly understood it. I have been quite surprised by the number of gentlemen, even Seminary trained Presbyterian and Reformed men, who didn't understand this position. I can even name some of our most noted Professors who either don't or just reject it also. I have even been quite surprised about the whole Union with Christ discussion in the past few years. 


In a recent discussion on the PB we discussed a blog that stated this. 




> In debates concerning the republication of the covenant of works within the Mosaic covenant, anyone who holds to the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession confesses that the same law that was given to Adam was delivered to Moses. *At the very least, then, the confessions teach a republication of the covenant of works. *


*
*

The last sentence is part of the problem. And the blogger is no slouch. The blog is actually pretty good. It just simply is not true concerning the last sentence bolded above. As Ruben noted concerning the quote, "The rest of the post and the nature of the case, show that it should have read "the confessions teach a republication of the law." It might have been a misstatement on Sam's part. I make them all the time. But the sympathy to what he noted stands true for many guys. And therein lays the problem. A lot of guys don't realize what is being said and taught with the distinctions needed. I for one am working on it.


----------



## JM

Hi brother, for years now I have said I held to "a modified form of covenant theology" without realizing the position was found in the works of Coxe and Owen. I have read the section from Dr. Beeke's work titled The Minority Report. I think I understand the majority position held by those who attended the Westminster. I would say the Sinaitic covenant was a mixed covenant. 

Honest question, was the "minority" view the minority for English non-conformists, Puritans, etc. or the minority view of the Divines who penned the WCF? 

Please forgive me if this response seems a little short. I'm trying to type on my iPhone.

j


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jason,


I like you (as you know) held to the Particular Baptist position for 30 years. I really appreciated Rich Barcellos work on Coxe and John Owen. I read Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ intently and repeatedly. Rich is a dear friend of mine. I still highly recommend the book. I have also delved a few times into Mike Renihan's book on Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes which also reflected the same theology of Nehemiah Coxe the best I can tell. Samuel Petto is another theologian you might enjoy as he had influence upon Owen. I discuss his thought in a blog post. John Owen is another story. He seems to go back and forth on the topic of the Administration of the Covenant of Grace in the Mosaic Covenant depending on what you are reading in his works. Vic Bottomly has shown that to me. 




> It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5.
> Vindiciae Evangelicae Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first are of three sorts:— First, Of life temporal, as it was an instrument of their government; and eternal with God, as the promise or covenant of grace was exemplified or represented therein, Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12. Secondly, Of a spiritual Redeemer, Savior, Deliverer, really to effect what the ordinances of institution did represent, so to save them eternally, to be exhibited in the fullness of time, as we have at large already proved. Thirdly, There are given out with the law various promises of intervenient and mixed mercies, to be enjoyed in earthly things in this world, that had their immediate respect unto the mercy of the land of Canaan, representing spiritual grace,annexed to the then present administration of the covenant of grace. Some of these concerned the collation of good things, others the preventing of or delivery from evil; both expressed in great variety.
> 
> 
> p. 657 (Volume 17)




Owen also didn't believe that the Covenant of Works was republished as a Covenant in the Mosaic as is pointed out in 'A Puritan Theology'. 




> For the most part, theologians who spoke in this way, whether dichotomists or trichotomists, made a number of careful qualifications in order to show that the moral law was republished not as a covenant but as a rule of righteousness for those in covenant with God. In other words, the moral law was not republished at Sinai to serve as a means of justification before God. For example, John Owen made clear in his work on justification by faith that the old covenant was not a revival of the covenant of works strictly (i.e., “formally”). Rather, the moral law was renewed declaratively (i.e.,“materially”) and not covenantally: “*God did never formally and absolutely renew or give again this law as a covenant a second time. Nor was there any need that so he should do, unless it were declaratively only, for so it was renewed at Sinai.”76 *
> 
> 
> 76. Owen, Justification by Faith, in Works, 5:244.
> 
> http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/what-is-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/




Did you read chapters 16 and 17 also from 'A Puritan Theology? I know you are a good researcher so I am assuming you have. If you haven't you must read those chapters to understand chapter 18 on the Minority position. I am assuming that there is a reason why it is called the Minority position. I can't answer your question about the numbers outside of the Assembly. From the Puritan and Reformed writings I have read there truly was diversity. Albeit though from what I understand the Minority Position was still not the most held position. I am assuming that the Minority position is called such in relationship to those who were of the Assembly. As you and I both know there were no Particular Baptists in the Assembly. So what was held outside of it I can't speak for numerically. I can't even truly speak of numbers in the Assembly. I do know that Samuel Bolton did hold to the minority position as did Jeremiah Burroughs possibly. But don't quote me on Burroughs. I have to go back and research Burroughs on that. But there seems to be more writing on the topic from the Majority position authors who were Divines than of those of the Minority position. Remember Owen was not one of the Westminster Divines and I am not sure how far of a reach John Cameron's teaching had upon those who adhered to forms of what he believed. I tried to research the minutes on Chapter 7 but haven't found much. I have found some notable quotes by the Westminster Divines on the topic. 


Have you ever peered into my blog to read the conclusions I have come to? The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? | RPCNA Covenanter

Anyways, Keep trudging on Jason. I trudged and I am still learning. This is probably one of the only times I have had a major theological shift in my thinking over the past 33 years. It has been a learning experience for sure. The funny thing about this shift for me was just a few weeks before I finally came to understand and adhere to Westminsterian Covenant Theology I said that I would never change positions on the PB of all places. Famous last words, "I will never." I think St. Peter tried to do the same thing about his denying Christ. I think I will strike, "I will never," from my vocabulary unless it is something like I will never visit the surface of the sun. LOL.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW Jason,

I hate my Iphone. I want to go back to my Galaxy. My son, Samuel Rutherford, confiscated it from me. I can't seem to get him to want my Iphone. I think I am going to get the Galaxy Note 3. I like bigger.


----------



## Petty France

PuritanCovenanter said:


> In debates concerning the republication of the covenant of works within the Mosaic covenant, anyone who holds to the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession confesses that the same law that was given to Adam was delivered to Moses. *At the very least, then, the confessions teach a republication of the covenant of works.*
> 
> 
> 
> It just simply is not true concerning the last sentence bolded above. As Ruben noted concerning the quote, "The rest of the post and the nature of the case, show that it should have read "the confessions teach a republication of the law."
Click to expand...


From a WCF perspective, is it "simply not true" to say that the covenant of works was materially republished at Mt. Sinai? Not at all. That is what the WCF teaches. A _material_ republication of the covenant of works is a republication of its _material_ basis, i.e. the law, and nothing more. Both confessions confess _material_ republication which means that both confessions teach _a_ republication of the covenant of works. 

It's fine to say that they both teach a republication of the law, but that's the same as saying that they both teach material republication. What commonality do I claim above? I begin the post by claiming that both confessions confess "that the same law given to Adam was delivered to Moses." Then I go on to say that they both teach _a_ republication of the covenant of works. So no, it's not a misstatement. And no, it isn't "simply not true." It's what our confessions teach. Now surely a broad claim like "the confessions teach a republication of the covenant of works" needs clarification, but that broad claim had already been prefaced by talking about the law in particular, and the rest of the post goes on to argue and demonstrate that the WCF specifically limits this republication to material republication while the SD and LCF open the door for more.

So, I have no problem with Ruben's rephrasing. But it's not a correction of an error or something "not true." That the law given to Adam was given to Moses is the common agreement in this issue, and you have to start there (as I did). But in this context, the law given to Adam was given "as a covenant of works" and with arguments like Edward Fisher's in mind, the moral law taken strictly and properly signifies the covenant of works. Thus, when that same law goes to Moses, it is _a_ republication of the covenant of works, whether materially or formally.

Blessings.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Samuel, 
I recommend Robert Shaw's commentary on the WCF chapter 19. It is posted in the blog post below along with many other comments to help you see why the distinction is made. I recommend you read the whole thing.


Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 19. The Law and the Covenant of Works. | RPCNA Covenanter


Anyways here is Shaw. Notice how Shaw makes a distinction between the law of creation which Adam had inscribed on his heart and brought under it in its natural form in comparison to the distinction of how he was placed under it later in Covenant form. The distinction is important and the lines are being blurred by many now days. 






> Section I.–God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
> Exposition
> 
> 
> The law, as thus inscribed on the heart of the first man, is often styled the law of creation, because it was the will of the sovereign Creator, revealed to the reasonable creature, by impressing it upon his mind and heart at his creation. It is also called the moral law, because it was a revelation of the will of God, as his moral governor, and was the standard and rule of man’s moral actions. *Adam was originally placed under this law in its natural form, as merely directing and obliging him to perfect obedience. He was brought under it in a covenant form, when an express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, was annexed to it*; and then a positive precept was added, enjoining him not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as the test of his obedience to the whole law.–Gen. ii. 16, 17. That this covenant was made with the first man, not as a single person, but as the federal representative of all his natural posterity, has been formerly shown. The law, as invested with a covenant form, is called, by the Apostle Paul, “The law of works” (Rom. iii. 27); that is, the law as a covenant of works. In this form, the law is to be viewed as not only prescribing duty, but as promising life as the reward of obedience, and denouncing death as the punishment of transgression. ….
> 
> 
> Section II.–This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.
> 
> 
> Exposition
> 
> 
> Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set aside; but, considered as moral, it continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. That fair copy of the law which had been inscribed on the heart of the first man in his creation, was, by the fall, greatly defaced, although not totally obliterated. Some faint impressions of it still remain on the minds of all reasonable creatures. Its general principles, such as, that God is to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, that we should do to others what we would reasonably wish that they should do to us–such general principles as these are still, in some degree, engraved on the minds of all men. – Rom. ii. 14,15. But the original edition of the law being greatly obliterated, God was graciously pleased to give a new and complete copy of it. He delivered it to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, with awful solemnity. In this promulgation of the law, he summed it up in ten commandments; and, therefore, it is commonly styled the Law of the Ten Commandments.




Here is a portion of a quote by Reverend Winzer that I sense is very true. You can read the whole quote in the blog I wrote and linked to above.


> Further problems arise once this basic departure is discerned. One begins to see a metaphysical reworking of the categories of grace and justice in relation to the “covenant of nature.” Instead of a providential dispensation (see Shorter Catechism question 12), the covenant of works is turned into a creational entity which characterises the natural relationship between God and man. Human morality is, in its very essence, made a covenant of works. Grace is only operative where sin abounds.



I really do believe the distinctions here are misunderstood in your thought Sam. At least others would think so. Here is a quote from an OPC Pastor Patrick Ramsey which I have lifted from my blog so that you understand that we do disagree with you. It is mainly for clarification. I am not trying to come down on you or anything like that. We just disagree with you. But there are others who agree with you at the same time. 



> Consequently, it is correct to say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. *This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. *There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.


(Brenton Ferry has been a defender of the Mosaic views Meredith G. Kline held later in life)

There were some really good things I saw in your blog. Especially some acknowledgements that the WCF views the the Old and New Covenants purely as an administration of the Covenant of Grace and how others don't believe that to be true. 

Blessings upon you too Samuel, 
Randy


----------



## JM

Hi brother Randy,

I realize Owen's exegetic work on Hebrews that deals with the covenants differs from his his earlier work on justification (as quoted) but I believe his work in the text itself stands the true test. 

Thank you for the encouragement to keep studying, I understand and fully realize how sinfully flawed I am and try not to get all worked up when someone disagrees with me. 

I do understand the paedobaptist position on the covenants and simply do not agree. It could be do to poor exegetical work on my part (or just plain stubbornness?) but _here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God._ (Couldn't resist quoting Luther with Reformation-ween so close and all...)

Yours in the Lord,

j


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thanks Jason,

Same here when it comes to being flawed. I think I know what I know.  But I surely don't know as I ought to know. I still promote RB books and the like. I try not to get all worked up either. I really am kind of a mellow person. Sometimes my writing might not show that. Thanks for discussing this Jason and may God allow us both to grow in knowledge and grace. 

Randy


----------



## Bill The Baptist

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Same here when it comes to being flawed. I think I know what I know. But I surely don't know as I ought to know. I still promote RB books and the like. I try not to get all worked up either. I really am kind of a mellow person. Sometimes my writing might not show that. Thanks for discussing this Jason and may God allow us both to grow in knowledge and grace.



This is the godly attitude that allows for us to disagree on certain issues, but yet still live peaceably as brothers and sisters in Christ. Thanks Randy for modeling this for us.


----------



## Petty France

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Notice ... a distinction between the law of creation ... and... how he was placed under it later in Covenant form. The distinction is important and the lines are being blurred by many now days.



Yes, it is important to distinguish between a law, and a law as the material basis for a formal covenant. That's the formal/material distinction.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I really do believe the distinctions here are misunderstood in your thought Sam. At least others would think so. Here is a quote from an OPC Pastor Patrick Ramsey which I have lifted from my blog so that you understand that we do disagree with you. It is mainly for clarification.
> 
> I am not trying to come down on you or anything like that. We just disagree with you. But there are others who agree with you at the same time.



I know you're not trying to come down on me. I'm not upset [though I may have raise an eyebrow at one point... uh oh ], just getting at the "simply not true" statement. What we are discussing is really a disagreement over expression from the WCF's perspective more than anything. The only thing I am contending for is that when the formal/material distinction is understood, to say "the covenant of works was materially republished" at Mt. Sinai and to say "the law of the covenant of works was republished" are _equivalent_ phrases. The reason I'm using terms the way that I am comes from the historical usage of the formal/material distinction in 17th century thought, not Brenton Ferry's thesis. But he got it from the 17th century anyway, so it's fine either way. 

To see what I mean, consider Durham, Sedgwick, and Fisher in this post: Form and Matter in Covenant Theology | Particular Voices

As well as Bulkley and Bridge in this post: Form and Matter + Promise and Promulgation = Particular Baptist Federal Theology | Particular Voices

I am using the language as Durham, Sedgwick, Fisher, Bulkley, Bridge, the confessions, and others used it. The covenant of works is "revealed" or "made known" (i.e. materially republished) at Mt. Sinai.



> Consequently, it is correct to say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. *This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. *There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.



Yes there can be misunderstanding and misleading in such terms, but that does not make them wrong. It _would be wrong_ to say "The Mosaic covenant _is_ a material republication of the covenant of works." That sentence doesn't make sense because a material republication is simply a republishing of the law. Thus the sentence would mean "The Mosaic covenant is a republishing of the law." Again, that doesn't make sense. A right usage of the distinction is to say "The Mosaic covenant _contains_ a material republication of the covenant of works." Or one could say, "The covenant of works is materially republished in the Mosaic covenant." All this means is that the law that was given to Adam was delivered to Moses.

So I agree, of course, on the need for precision in expression here. But when we see how the formal/material distinction was used in 17th century federal theology, you'll see our statements aligning. You're being just slightly too narrow in your use of the terms. To reiterate, your expression that we should talk about a republication of the law are perfectly fine. Just keep in mind that to say that the covenant of works is materially republished at Sinai is the same thing.

Cheers.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Thanks for all your references Sam. I really appreciate them as I consider this topic. Maybe I am being a bit too narrow. I will consider it. I still don't think I am in light of what I have posted above but I will consider it. I really appreciate your participation concerning this topic and you are helping me understand things.


Concerning William Bridge, I believe Calvin does a better job on Galatians 4 and how he speaks about the two Covenants in Galatians 4:24 if I am understanding him correctly. 




> What are the two Covenants mentioned in Galatians 4:24? I use to view them as two covenants that were in the Mosaic Covenant as a Particular (Reformed) Baptist. But what are they really representative of in this text? Wouldn’t they be representative of the Old and New Covenant? The Old would be the one where men were bound (over 600 commandments and ordinances) to shadows and things that point to Christ and forgiveness of sin? The old was a schoolmaster which is hard and the the New was liberating freeing us from the hard schoolmaster?
> 
> 
> I believe Calvin has the same understanding as I read his commentary on Galatians 4:24…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “But all this may, at first sight, appear absurd; for there are none of God’s children who are not born to freedom, and therefore the comparison does not apply. I answer, what Paul says is true in two respects; for the law formerly brought forth its disciples, (among whom were included the holy prophets, and other believers,) to slavery, though not to permanent slavery, but because God placed them for a time under the law as “a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:25.) Under the vail of ceremonies, and of the whole economy by which they were governed, their freedom was concealed: to the outward eye nothing but slavery appeared. “Ye have not,” says Paul to the Romans, “received the spirit of bondage again to fear.” (Romans 8:15.) Those holy fathers, though inwardly they were free in the sight of God, yet in outward appearance differed nothing from slaves, and thus resembled their mother’s condition. But the doctrine of the gospel bestows upon its children perfect freedom as soon as they are born, and brings them up in a liberal manner.
> 
> 
> …What, then, is the gendering to bondage, which forms the subject of the present dispute? It denotes those who make a wicked abuse of the law, by finding in it nothing but what tends to slavery. Not so the pious fathers, who lived under the Old Testament; for their slavish birth by the law did not hinder them from having Jerusalem for their mother in spirit. But those who adhere to the bare law, and do not acknowledge it to be “a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ,” (Galatians 3:24,) but rather make it a hinderance to prevent their coming to him, are the Ishmaelites born to slavery.
> 
> 
> …But why does Paul compare the present Jerusalem with Mount Sinai? Though I was once of a different opinion, yet I agree with Chrysostom and Ambrose, who explain it as referring to the earthly Jerusalem, and who interpret the words, which now is, τη νυν ιερουσαλημ , as marking the slavish doctrine and worship into which it had degenerated. It ought to have been a lively image of the new Jerusalem, and a representation of its character. But such as it now is, it is rather related to Mount Sinai. Though the two places may be widely distant from each other, they are perfectly alike in all their most important features. This is a heavy reproach against the Jews, whose real mother was not Sarah but the spurious Jerusalem, twin sister of Hagar; who were therefore slaves born of a slave, though they haughtily boasted that they were the sons of Abraham.
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...



There is much to discuss concerning your blog post such as the following statement. But I have run out of time as I have to prepare for other things for the next few days. 


> "The new covenant was truly new. No covenant leading up to it had been established on the promise of eternal forgiveness of sins."




I really think you do understand things better than most Particular (Reformed) Baptists. You come from good stock. 


Keep persevering brother. 
Randy


----------



## Petty France

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Thanks for all your references Sam. I really appreciate them as I consider this topic. Maybe I am being a bit too narrow. I will consider it. I still don't think I am in light of what I have posted above but I will consider it. I really appreciate your participation concerning this topic and you are helping me understand things.



Likewise, brother. I'm glad men are doing their best to take the confession seriously and to understand it in its historical context.

I find myself sympathizing with both sides. On the one hand I sympathize with those who would react against the views of Kline and the like given your confessional heritage. On the other hand, I think that Kline's views are not new and in fact he is quite right in many many ways. I also sympathize with supporters of a more "Klinean" paradigm because the WCF was not originally intended to be used as narrowly as it is today, and thus they are ostracized when there were WCF divines who held their views (or a similar form). 

But hey, I get to sit back and enjoy my confession without some of these conundrums. So come on over and join me! It's less problematic. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is much to discuss concerning your blog post such as the following statement. But I have run out of time as I have to prepare for other things for the next few days.
> 
> 
> 
> "The new covenant was truly new. No covenant leading up to it had been established on the promise of eternal forgiveness of sins."
Click to expand...


You don't agree??  



PuritanCovenanter said:


> I really think you do understand things better than most Particular (Reformed) Baptists. You come from good stock.
> 
> 
> Keep persevering brother.
> Randy



I think that merits (congruently) an internet cheers:


----------



## MW

Petty France said:


> To see what I mean, consider Durham, Sedgwick, and Fisher in this post: Form and Matter in Covenant Theology | Particular Voices



Besides the form/matter distinction, there is also the simply/complexly distinction, so clearly enunciated by Durham. Durham, with the great majority of divines, confines the law to the ten commandments "simply." At this point there is no formal administration with the addition of "preface, promises," etc. It is merely the law as commandment. In this "simple" consideration the law is the matter of the covenant of works. Complexly, however, the covenant of works included more than mere commandments. It included promise and condition. To speak more strictly, the moral law itself was the "foundation" rather than the "matter" of this covenant. The condition was a positive prohibition added to the moral law. Likewise, complexly, "the law" delivered on Sinai was more than the ten commandments. It included preface, promises, etc., which clearly indicate it was a covenant of grace.

If the "simply/complexly" distinction is properly recognised it will avoid much confusion. The covenant of works simply considered, as to the matter of it, the commandments, was republished on Mt Sinai. Complexly, however, taking it as an administration with conditions and promises, it was not republished on Mt. Sinai; rather, as the preface and promises of the ten commandments indicate, this was nothing but a covenant of grace.

Hence divines generally conclude that the covenant of works, simply and formally, was republished on Mt. Sinai in subordination to the covenant of grace. The Standards leave room for this view, but they exclude the idea that the covenant of works was republished and functioned in co-ordination with the covenant of grace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Petty France said:


> But hey, I get to sit back and enjoy my confession without some of these conundrums. So come on over and join me! It's less problematic.




Don't forget Sam, I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. There are plenty of conundrums I have had to face as a Particular (Reformed) Baptist and think you still do. I did then and do even now as I am still learning more and more about both confessions. There seems to be no end of learning and growing. I am sure there is no end.  


Reverend Winzer,


Thank you so much for chiming in. Can I ask you a question about what exactly points to the Covenant of Works having been republished in the Mosaic Covenant. It is a question I have had swirling around in my head for awhile. Where does God republish the Covenant of Works as a reminder? Where does God show in the Mosaic Covenant the same stipulations, requirements, and consequences that were presented to Adam? I may be displaying my ineptness here but it is something that I have been wondering about. I admit that we fully see the Mosaic Covenant purely as an Administration of the Covenant of Grace. But where do others see the Covenant of Works being republished as it was given to Adam in the Mosaic? I am not saying it isn't there but I admit that I believed it was there for many years mostly based upon my presuppositions and on what I was taught while a Reformed Baptist. Does my question make sense or do I need to clarify it more?

Rom 7:13    Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Rom 7:13    Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.


----------



## MW

Randy, please see the careful distinctions in my previous post. As I understand it, the covenant of works was not republished. One element in the covenant of works, considered simply, was republished, and that was the moral law summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. The covenant of works in its complexity with conditions and promises could not have been republished, as Charles Hodge aptly notes, because this would place man back on probation as if he had never fallen, and to say that each man must undergo his own probation is Pelagianism. The covenant of works was fitted in every way to the innocence and potentiality of created human nature. When man fell, and the covenant of grace was established as the only way of salvation, the old covenant must have been abrogated as a way to life; this is clearly taught by the Epistle to the Hebrews. All men are born under the broken covenant of works and are under the condemnation thereof. The law is set before men as an hypothetical way to life in order to show them that they cannot inherit eternal life by their own works, but this is subordinate to the covenant of grace as it is intended to drive men out of themselves that they may be drawn to Christ by the cords of Gospel-love.


----------

