# A summary of where I am at on Covenant Theology



## Pergamum (Jul 15, 2017)

Hello,

If you've been keeping track of the posts on the PB these two weeks you've probably noticed that I've been posting lots of questions on Covenant Theology lately. 

The reason why is this:

I am a Reformed Baptist. But many Reformed Baptists have told me that (1) I should adopt 1689 Federalism. And (2) I've had several folks this past year call me a "deepwater Presbyterian" or my theology as "immersed presbyterianism." And some have said that (3) my current set of beliefs is inconsistent as a baptist. Finally, (4) I had one person tell me that 1689 Federalism was THE baptist position and there were not other ways to interpret the data from a baptist perspective. 

Presently if the 1689 Federalism position is THE consistent baptist position I need to rethink being a baptist. If this is where it leads, then it seems to (1) stress the discontinuity of the OT and NT too much, (2) make the OT primarily about physical things and physical peoples and not primarily spiritual realities which culminate in Christ.

Here are my current beliefs (as a Reformed Baptist):

-The Bible is one book, of primarily spiritual things. It is not about natural things, or natural promises.

-Following Adam's Fall into sin, the Covenant of Grace was immediately revealed to Adam in Gen. 3:15.

- All OT believers participate in the Covenant of Grace. It is an active reality because people were being saved by it, even in the OT. 

-The Covenant of Grace does not equal the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the culmination of the Covenant of Grace. Those OT "covenants of promise" were also part of the Covenant of Grace in that their chief purpose was to point to Christ and not to deal with some physical tribe of people.

- The Mosaic Covenant was not merely a "ministration of death" but merely so due to unbelief. It also contained gracious promises and types of Christ. There was grace in the law.

-This Covenant of Grace is one covenant with many different dispensations, which all point primarily to Christ and culminate in the New Covenant. Eph 2:12 calls these the "covenants of promise" and therefore, are not primarily about the physical nation of Israel but the Promise of Christ, the True Israel, into which all of God's people are incorporated into.

-God doesn't have two people, a physical seed and a spiritual seed. God had Israel. Believing Gentiles were grafted in; unbelieving Jews were cut off. But though there are different types of branches, it is all one tree. God's OT promises dealt with this one Israel, we cannot divide up the promises into physical and spiritual Israel.

-Galatians 4 is not contrasting Sara and Hagar with some supposed covenant with Hagar, but is contrasting the Abrahamic Covenant with the Mosaic? (I need more help on this issue).

- The signs of the covenant which place a person into the external administration of the covenant are not guarantees of salvation. Thus we cannot baptize only saved people. We only baptize those, to the best of our knowledge, our actually in the internal administration of the Covenant (IN Christ). Presbyterians trust that the general promises to the children of believers is enough while baptists also want to see actual professed faith. I do agree that there is, in fact, a general promise to the children of believers.

Now for some questions:

What else am I missing? Where am I wrong?

Can I be a consistent baptist with my beliefs above?

Is there another possible position as a baptist without adopting 1689 Federalism?


----------



## BG (Jul 15, 2017)

It sounds to me like you are becoming a Presbyterian

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 15, 2017)

I would agree. The main points of paedo-baptism are all there, especially the points about not needing to have a credible profession for baptism, and the unity of the various administrations of the covenant of grace. The only thing missing for you to become a paedo is a recognition that baptism replaces circumcision, and the last plank falls into place. This depends on the exegesis of Romans 4 and Colossians 2, which ought to be your next step.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 15, 2017)

Actually one thing is a bit confusing about your points. What do you mean by internal administration? Usually people talk about external adminstration or internal substance.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 15, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Actually one thing is a bit confusing about your points. What do you mean by internal administration? Usually people talk about external adminstration or internal substance.


I guess I mean external administration and internal substance. Unbelievers who are false professors and baptist in baptist churches who are members but really not saved are "in" or "under" the external administration of the Covenant of Grace (the preaching and sacraments) but are not "In" the Covenant truly for they are not "in" Christ.

If I do believe that baptism replaces circumcision why can't I be a baptist? If the New Covenant is better than it will be purer and not just anyone with a Christian family can gain the signs of the covenant but only those who also profess.

What do Reformed Baptists believe about baptism replacing circumcision? The OT physical types had NT spiritual fulfillments right? So if baptism replaces circumcision, we would have a physical type replaced by a physical sacrament instead of pointing to a spiritual reality? This is not advancement. Instead, it seem circumcision of the flesh was to typify circumcision of the heart that the True Israel of God possess. Don't Presbyterians believe this also, though? What am I missing? Perhaps this is not so much a replacement but an analagous relationship between circumcision and baptism?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 15, 2017)

What paedos believe is that circumcision and baptism both work in exactly the same way. Both are physical signs pointing to spiritual realities. The only difference is a redemptive-historical one between a bloody prefiguring sign and a bloodless post-figuring sign. While it is perfectly true to claim that the NT covenant of grace is purer, that does not exclude children from the administration of the CoG. Jesus said that the kingdom of God (I take this to mean both subtance and administration, as it can mean either salvation or access to the means of salvation) belonged to infants. That is the word used, not even small children. If the kingdom of God belongs to children, then on what basis could the sign of the administration of the CoG be refused to them? It is possible for even infants to be regenerated (John the Baptist, for instance, seems to have been regenerated from the womb). If baptism need not be tied to a profession of faith, then it is tied to covenantal promises. The parents make the profession of their own faith as a belief in the covenantal promises of God. 

The ultimate juggernaut argument for the paedos is the position of children regarding the covenant. There is no indication that children have suddenly become completely detached from the covenant. And as Calvin woukd argue, if baptism works the same way as circumcision, then any argument used against infant baptism would also have to be levelled against infant circumcision.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 15, 2017)

If you believe baptism replaces circumcision, then you ought to be at the place that you believe in infant baptism. For Abraham it was believer's circumcision, but for his sons it was infant circumcision. If baptism replaces circumcision, how can you deny that the sign should thus be given to infants?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 15, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I guess I mean external administration and internal substance. Unbelievers who are false professors and baptist in baptist churches who are members but really not saved are "in" or "under" the external administration of the Covenant of Grace (the preaching and sacraments) but are not "In" the Covenant truly for they are not "in" Christ.
> 
> If I do believe that baptism replaces circumcision why can't I be a baptist? If the New Covenant is better than it will be purer and not just anyone with a Christian family can gain the signs of the covenant but only those who also profess.
> 
> What do Reformed Baptists believe about baptism replacing circumcision? The OT physical types had NT spiritual fulfillments right? So if baptism replaces circumcision, we would have a physical type replaced by a physical sacrament instead of pointing to a spiritual reality? This is not advancement. Instead, it seem circumcision of the flesh was to typify circumcision of the heart that the True Israel of God possess. Don't Presbyterians believe this also, though? What am I missing? Perhaps this is not so much a replacement but an analagous relationship between circumcision and baptism?



The two biggest issues for you would appear to be those involving just how much of a continuity there are between the Old and new Covenants, and just how much of the Old Covenant promises were a mixture of the physical and the spiritual blessings from God, as how much of them were conditional and unconditional in nature and application.
Based upon your posting here, would suggest that you go to the logical conclusion and become a Presbyterian Christian, as their understanding on these issues are much closer to yours now then Baptist ones would now be.


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> If you believe baptism replaces circumcision, then you ought to be at the place that you believe in infant baptism. For Abraham it was believer's circumcision, but for his sons it was infant circumcision. If baptism replaces circumcision, how can you deny that the sign should thus be given to infants?



Just for clarification, you seem to have skipped a step in the presentation of your reasoning. Circumcision was given to male infants so baptism should be given to male and female infants?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 15, 2017)

KMK said:


> Just for clarification, you seem to have skipped a step in the presentation of your reasoning. Circumcision was given to male infants so baptism should be given to male and female infants?


Does water baptism now correspond to the circumcision of infants though?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 15, 2017)

KMK said:


> Just for clarification, you seem to have skipped a step in the presentation of your reasoning. Circumcision was given to male infants so baptism should be given to male and female infants?



I do not presume to answer for Jon, but the usual answer given by Presbyterians to this question is that the promises have expanded in scope in the NT. Just as the outward administration is no longer limited to Israel but now includes Gentiles, so also the sign is not given only to the males but also now to the females. Of course, females were included under the sign in the OT by virtue of male headship in the home. 



Dachaser said:


> Does water baptism now correspond to the circumcision of infants though?



This is, indeed, how Presbyterians would interpret Colossians 2 and Romans 4.


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2017)

What Scriptures do they use or it by necessary consequence of their understanding of CT?


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 15, 2017)

Ken, it would definitely be "good and necessary consequence."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 15, 2017)

Pergamum,

Here is an observation. Take it or leave it. 

You're definitely in study mode. That's a good thing. Don't ever stop. And inquire from guys who know this stuff, as you've been doing here. I've not been in the 1689 federal camp very long, so I'm still sorting myself out as well. 

However, I am not trying to learn about it from hacks like me. I'm going to modern scholars and the particular baptists themselves. Don't just read Denault, although that is a good place to start. Read the Coxe/Owen book. RBAP has a lot of good stuff. Founders or Free Grace Press as well. From there, you can springboard into many great resources. 

My point, do more research. Base your decision (which is a serious one) on more than just the interaction and exchanges here. Read multiple view points. I just finished Horton's book on CT. Now I'm on to _Recovering a Covenantal Heritage_. That has helped me go to other sources (journals and books) that I plan to continue to read. It has even given me a dissertation idea, should I decide to make this my area of focus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Justified (Jul 15, 2017)

Just join the darkside of the consensus of the Church Catholic

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jul 15, 2017)

I just read the whole thread and think we should rename it - *Pergamum’s Progress*

Also, thanks to Rev. Keister (greenbaggins) for his smilling face. He almost always brings a smile to mine.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 7


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 15, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> Here is an observation. Take it or leave it.
> 
> ...


Well. both you and I have had some considerable changes in how we view theology since we first started interacting. and seems that our brother is on his way now also.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 15, 2017)

KMK said:


> What Scriptures do they use or it by necessary consequence of their understanding of CT?


Both Baptists and Presbyterians are forced into their views regarding both the church and water baptism due to our views regarding just how to implement Covenant theology from the perspective of the scriptures.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 15, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> you've probably noticed that I've been posting lots of questions on Covenant Theology lately.


Ed wisely suggested you should go on Pergamum's Progress  To help you on this journey I would suggest a careful reading of these books:
1. The Divine Covenants by AW Pink. I think Pink wisely navigates a helpful path for a Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and was aware of old debates among the early Particular Baptists.
2. Recovering a Covenantal Heritage: Essays in Baptist Covenant Theology. This has an indepth coverage of key issues from a 1689 Federalism position.

Both books nicely compliment each other.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Both Baptists and Presbyterians are forced into their views regarding both the church and water baptism due to our views regarding just how to implement Covenant theology from the perspective of the scriptures.



I am not forced into a view based upon a perspective of a certain view of Covenant Theology or Ecclesiology. I am personally forced into my understanding based upon the Whole Counsel of God. That means the Holy Bible is my guide. Not a view of Covenant Theology. I have gained a lot of ground through the years when I have compared Scripture with Scripture and allowing Scripture to interpret Scripture. Just a heads up. I don't agree with you.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2017)

Randy, I think he was referring to the Reformed paedobaptist's conclusion that baptism includes female as well as male infants because of good and necessary cosequence. Maybe I am not understanding him. 

I do not think the credobaptist must use good and necessary consequence in regards to the gender of baptism recipients.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2017)

How did my answer not answer either accusation(question mark).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2017)

As an old Reformed Baptist who became Reformed years ago I understand how things have been abrogated due to fulfillment and how things have been implemented due to fulfillment.


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> How did my answer not answer either accusation(question mark).



I was not accusing you of anything. I thought I was trying to clear up a misunderstanding where there was no misunderstanding. My bad.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2017)

KMK said:


> My bad.


 Now you are revealing how bad grammar has ruled the day. LOL. Just picking on you.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Jul 15, 2017)

Perg, for what it's worth, your understanding that the sacraments are "covenant signs" is also at odds with 1689. The authors carefully removed any specific mention of "covenant" from those chapters on the sacraments for a reason (compare to the 1646 WCF). It's interesting that John Gill didn't even view baptism as a sign of visible church membership, but something to be done based upon an individual's profession of faith, and was a prerequisite before he could even seek to join a church. I don't know how modern Baptist scholars deal with those issues. But for 1689, the sacraments are not covenant signs and seals but ordinances for beleivers. Others please correct me if I am misreading the situation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 15, 2017)

No argument from a 30 year RB hear. Good question.


----------



## KMK (Jul 15, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> Perg, for what it's worth, your understanding that the sacraments are "covenant signs" is also at odds with 1689. The authors carefully removed any specific mention of "covenant" from those chapters on the sacraments for a reason (compare to the 1646 WCF). It's interesting that John Gill didn't even view baptism as a sign of visible church membership, but something to be done based upon an individual's profession of faith, and was a prerequisite before he could even seek to join a church. I don't know how modern Baptist scholars deal with those issues. But for 1689, the sacraments are not covenant signs and seals but ordinances for beleivers. Others please correct me if I am misreading the situation.



They are signs, but not seals. 

LBC Capter 29

Paragraph 1. Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party baptized, a sign of his fellowship with him, in his death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into him;*3* of remission of sins;*4* and of giving up into God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.*5*


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

Also the 1644 says...

To this Church He has made His promises, and given the signs of His Covenant, presence, love, blessing, and protection...

Particular Baptists were pretty consistent with their rejection of the idea of a seal.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 16, 2017)

I have long been hesitant to join this august board, feeling I had nothing constructive to add, but felt the need to jump in for this one. Pergamum: your summary in the first post describes accurately what we baptists believe in my corner of the Reformed Baptist world. I don't know what 1689 federalism is, but if it's different than your summary, we don't hold to it.
I would say we are as close as to Presbyterians as can be, save that we differ in church polity, and we differ in who are the proper recipients of baptism.
Simply to state our position (knowing this is not the place for a baptism debate), we believe that in the New Covenant (which as has been pointed out is an administration of the CoG, just like the Old Covenant was), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. In the Old Covenant you were a member by physical birth, but that did not assure salvation--the OC had among them as visible members both the regenerate and the un-. In the New Covenant you are member ONLY by the New Birth, which is one of the Better Promises on which the NC is founded--all who are in covenant with God know Him savingly, and it is a covenant that cannot be broken, which the old one could.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Justified said:


> Just join the darkside of the consensus of the Church Catholic


That is a temptation. If the Church believed it for many long centuries, then it must not be dismissed lightly. But the Catholic system since the early centuries had infant baptist tied to salvation and believed in some form of baptismal regeneration. Should I join that consensus, too?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> I have long been hesitant to join this august board, feeling I had nothing constructive to add, but felt the need to jump in for this one. Pergamum: your summary in the first post describes accurately what we baptists believe in my corner of the Reformed Baptist world. I don't know what 1689 federalism is, but if it's different than your summary, we don't hold to it.
> I would say we are as close as to Presbyterians as can be, save that we differ in church polity, and we differ in who are the proper recipients of baptism.
> Simply to state our position (knowing this is not the place for a baptism debate), we believe that in the New Covenant (which as has been pointed out is an administration of the CoG, just like the Old Covenant was), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. In the Old Covenant you were a member by physical birth, but that did not assure salvation--the OC had among them as visible members both the regenerate and the un-. In the New Covenant you are member ONLY by the New Birth, which is one of the Better Promises on which the NC is founded--all who are in covenant with God know Him savingly, and it is a covenant that cannot be broken, which the old one could.


This is not yet an august board. It is still July.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 7


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Pergamum,
> 
> Here is an observation. Take it or leave it.
> 
> ...



To be truthful, I am growing suspicious of these RB books, because they are written to push an agenda. They have an ax to grind. Their polemics seem to be clouding their exegesis. The more they write, the more I am turned away from it. Some of it is their tone....as if paedos are so stupid that they overlook the clear implications of Scripture. Or that paedos love to baptize their babies so much without biblical reasons, that they will create an entire theological construct in order to defend this one pet doctrine. Many Presbyterians/Reformed are also similarly partisan and unfair to their oppoenents (R. Scott Clark, for instance), but I see a spate of baptists writings doing the same thing (and I am sure I have also done the same).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> I have long been hesitant to join this august board, feeling I had nothing constructive to add, but felt the need to jump in for this one. Pergamum: your summary in the first post describes accurately what we baptists believe in my corner of the Reformed Baptist world. I don't know what 1689 federalism is, but if it's different than your summary, we don't hold to it.
> I would say we are as close as to Presbyterians as can be, save that we differ in church polity, and we differ in who are the proper recipients of baptism.
> Simply to state our position (knowing this is not the place for a baptism debate), we believe that in the New Covenant (which as has been pointed out is an administration of the CoG, just like the Old Covenant was), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. In the Old Covenant you were a member by physical birth, but that did not assure salvation--the OC had among them as visible members both the regenerate and the un-. In the New Covenant you are member ONLY by the New Birth, which is one of the Better Promises on which the NC is founded--all who are in covenant with God know Him savingly, and it is a covenant that cannot be broken, which the old one could.


Ben,

Maybe I need to get to know you Bristol, RI Reformed Baptists better. Can you PM me and we can connect via Facebook and email?


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jul 16, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> In the New Covenant you are member ONLY by the New Birth



1 Samuel 16:7
But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.

Hi Ben,

The problem is that we do not know who has been born again. Many tares will grow up in the Church along with the wheat.
In verse 7 from 1 Samuel above, Samuel is not being rebuked by the Lord for his looking only at the outward appearance. Rather, the Lord is stating what the case is between men and men. We do NOT know what is in another man's heart. Period.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> That is a temptation. If the Church believed it for many long centuries, then it must not be dismissed lightly. But the Catholic system since the early centuries had infant baptist tied to salvation and believed in some form of baptismal regeneration. Should I join that consensus, too?



No you should not, because it is not biblical. I think everyone should know why they don't believe in baptismal regeneration, and why the Bible does not teach it. That is what is owed to that position. A foeman worthy of the steel, as it were. After all, some passages, read too carelessly, might seem to suggest it. But just because you want to reject the church's decision on this does not mean that you need to reject its position on something else. It is most definitely not a slippery slope from paedo-baptism to baptismal regeneration, and the history of Reformed theology demonstrates this pretty clearly.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 16, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> I have long been hesitant to join this august board, feeling I had nothing constructive to add, but felt the need to jump in for this one. Pergamum: your summary in the first post describes accurately what we baptists believe in my corner of the Reformed Baptist world. I don't know what 1689 federalism is, but if it's different than your summary, we don't hold to it.
> I would say we are as close as to Presbyterians as can be, save that we differ in church polity, and we differ in who are the proper recipients of baptism.
> Simply to state our position (knowing this is not the place for a baptism debate), we believe that in the New Covenant (which as has been pointed out is an administration of the CoG, just like the Old Covenant was), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. In the Old Covenant you were a member by physical birth, but that did not assure salvation--the OC had among them as visible members both the regenerate and the un-. In the New Covenant you are member ONLY by the New Birth, which is one of the Better Promises on which the NC is founded--all who are in covenant with God know Him savingly, and it is a covenant that cannot be broken, which the old one could.



Welcome to the board, Ben. If you are half the man your brother Ruben is, then we are in serious trouble. Just kidding. 

You say we differ only in polity and recipients of baptism. There is, however, a third difference in terms if covenant theology, and it is a biggy: paedos believe in a distinction between the essence of the covenant and its administration. Belonging to the essence is basically the same as what you claim for the covenant as a whole. But the administration allows for people who might be unsaved to still belong to the covenant in some way. Since paedos believe that baptism is tied to the administration and not the essence, we believe both that children ought to be baptized, and that there is no reason to assume regeneration on the part of all who are baptized.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> No you should not, because it is not biblical. I think everyone should know why they don't believe in baptismal regeneration, and why the Bible does not teach it. That is what is owed to that position. A foeman worthy of the steel, as it were. After all, some passages, read too carelessly, might seem to suggest it. But just because you want to reject the church's decision on this does not mean that you need to reject its position on something else. It is most definitely not a slippery slope from paedo-baptism to baptismal regeneration, and the history of Reformed theology demonstrates this pretty clearly.


ok. Fair enough.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Is there another possible position as a baptist without adopting 1689 Federalism?



Yes. There wouldn't be an argument if it weren't. Your views aren't out of accord with the 1689, a fact that the leading lights of "1689 Federalism" have readily acknowledged. The confession is broad enough to allow for both views.

This is also sort of a Baptist version of the constant Presbyterian warring of WTS East vs WTS West, etc. But all of them remain Presbyterian and not something else. In this case, it is simply that the Barcellos and Renihan (and Johnson and Denault) "team" is the one that is doing all of the publishing right now.

Why not try to talk to Waldron, Malone or some of the others that they are reacting against? Some of those men are now in retirement, I think, but this issue has certainly come before them and I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss it. (Their books are also readily available.) In those FB threads, you've been talking to a bunch of cage stagers, a couple of authors who at best disagree with others in their own camp at certain points (how our mutual friend came to endorse the other fellow's book is beyond me) and then one man who has more credentials than all of them put together who seems to agree with you, more or less.

In your OP it seems you setting up Presbyterianism vs what you find in a FB thread, even though the latter may be somewhat representative of one side of today's conversation. To the extent that you're doing that, you're forcing a false choice, in my opinion.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Yes. There wouldn't be an argument if it weren't. Your views aren't out of accord with the 1689, a fact that the leading lights of "1689 Federalism" have readily acknowledged. The confession is broad enough to allow for both views.
> 
> Why not try to talk to Waldron, Malone or some of the others that they are reacting against? In those FB threads, you've been talking to a bunch of cage stagers, a couple of authors who at best disagree with others in their own camp at certain points (how our mutual friend came to endorse the other fellow's book is beyond me) and then one man who has more credentials than all of them put together who seems to agree with you, more or less.
> 
> In your OP it seems you setting up Presbyterianism vs what you find in a FB thread, even though the latter may be somewhat representative of one side of today's conversation. To the extent that you're doing that, you're forcing a false choice, in my opinion.



As always, Chris, you are super helpful. Thanks. Can you help point me to links where the other more traditional view is expounded. I like Malone's book and most everything Dr Waldron writes. My troubles only began when I began to be told that I really needed to believe in 1689 Federalism because it was THE baptist position, lest I be merely an "immersed Presbyterian."

Also, why the recent reaction? Why the cage-stage 1689 Federalists? If you'd like to PM or email me so you can talk more freely, I would welcome that.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> As always, Chris, you are super helpful. Thanks. Can you help point me to links where the other more traditional view is expounded. I like Malone's book and most everything Dr Waldron writes. My troubles only began when I began to be told that I really needed to believe in 1689 Federalism because it was THE baptist position, lest I be merely an "immersed Presbyterian."
> 
> Also, why the recent reaction? Why the cage-stage 1689 Federalists? If you'd like to PM or email me so you can talk more freely, I would welcome that.



FYI, I added another paragraph to the post of mine you just responded to.

Very quickly in response to the last paragraph, Johnson and Denault published their books around the same time that Brandon Adams set up that 1689 website, and RBAP published several more books. They've gained an audience, including some who are newly Reformed and have found something to hang their hat on.

I think there is a fair amot of Waldron material online. Maybe there are some Greg Nichols lectures online. There are probably a good many RB preachers on Sermon Audio that I'm unaware of. But most of the heavy lifting from that camp is probably in written form, including Waldron's book, Malone's book, David Kingdon's OOP and hard to find book, etc. 

I had never read the Coxe/Owen book and was frankly shocked that Barcellos and others liked "The Fatal Flaw" which read to me like a cross between NCT and RB teaching. But the only modern stuff I had read was essentially "20th Century Reformed Baptist" which probably includes even Jewett despite the latter's stance as a more or less "progressive" evangelical.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 16, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> FYI, I added another paragraph to the post of mine you just responded to.
> 
> Very quickly in response to the last paragraph, Johnson and Denault published their books around the same time that Brandon Adams set up that 1689 website, and RBAP published several more books. They've gained an audience, including some who are newly Reformed and have found something to hang their hat on.
> 
> I had never read the Coxe/Owen book and was frankly shocked that Barcellos and others liked "The Fatal Flaw" which read to me like a cross between NCT and RB teaching. But the only modern stuff I had read was essentially "20th Century Reformed Baptist" which probably includes even Jewett despite the latter's stance as a more or less "progressive" evangelical.



Were they coordinating their efforts or each working independently and following a baptist zeitgeist? I am friends with Jeff and we've talked some on this issue. I love him dearly. I just haven't been able to embrace these views yet. I am certainly prejudiced and biased to WANT to like these views....I also want a distinctively baptist theology. But it hasn't happened. And it seems the desire for such an identitiy has caused some writers to point out too much how wrong the Reformed are. The theology of these baptist brethren seems to be a reimagining of the paradigm.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

Here is Waldron on the '1689 Federalist' movement from the *5th edition* of his book on the 1689 Confession, Chapter 7, footnote 2:

In the almost 30 years since I wrote this discussion of the covenant of grace a great deal of historical study has been focused on the subject of the covenants in Reformed or Particular Baptist tradition. *This has given rise to what is known as 1689 Federalism*. There is much of value in this viewpoint. A number of my friends are prominent in this movement. The defense of the covenant of grace given here, however, distinguishes it from the New Covenant. It is content simply to say what the Confession says-that the covenant of grace is fully revealed in the New Covenant. It does not affirm, what 1689 Federalism affirms, that the New Covenant is the covenant of grace. This, of course, raises the problem I have mentioned in my exposition. How then can the covenant of grace be equated with the New Covenant- if the covenant of grace is a covenant which overarches all of history? Attendant upon this question is another. If the covenant of grace is the New Covenant, how were men saved before the New Covenant was put into effect by the blood of Christ (Heb 7:22)? The response of 1689 Federalism to this is that men were saved by the promise of that covenant of grace before it was actually ratified by the blood of Christ. Thus, Old Testament saints, I suppose, were saved by the grace of the covenant of grace before the inauguration of the covenant of grace. I think my friends' position is consistent with the 1689 Confession. I am not, however, ready to affirm it and have remaining questions about it. I think my explanation here is also consistent with the wording of paragraph 3 which says only that "the full discovery thereof (the covenant of grace) was completed in the New Testament. Samuel E Waldron; _A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith_, 5th Edition, pg. 128.

For what it is worth, I agree with Waldron on this.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> There is, however, a third difference in terms if covenant theology, and it is a biggy: paedos believe in a distinction between the essence of the covenant and its administration.



Can you define what you mean by a 'biggy'? What would be an example of a 'small' difference between Reformed Presbyterians and Baptists?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> paedos believe in a distinction between the essence of the covenant and its administration. Belonging to the essence is basically the same as what you claim for the covenant as a whole. But the administration allows for people who might be unsaved to still belong to the covenant in some way.



That's a very helpful way to explain it, but not all paedos hold to that distinction. The Schilderite community does not, but sees the covenant alles of niets.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 16, 2017)

Colossians 2:11-12
In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: Buried with him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised him from the dead. 

It seems there is some correlation between circumcision and Baptism. It is called a sign and seal in Romans. In Ephesians we are sealed in reference to our Regeneration. I don't see a problem calling Baptism a sign and seal as circumcision was to Abraham.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is called a sign and seal in Romans.



"And he received the sign of circumcision, *a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised:* that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:" (Rom 4:11)

It is my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, that the writers of the LBC would say Romans 4:11 says circumcision was a seal to Abraham as the father of the faithful, but not necessarily to each and every male who was circumcised thereafter.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 16, 2017)

KMK said:


> but not necessarily to each and every male who was circumcised thereafter.



That's what Lane meant by his distinction of substance/administration.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> That's what Lane meant by his distinction of substance/administration.



Thanks for the clarification. I was addressing the absence of the word 'seal' in the LBC, which is what I thought Randy was talking about.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

Interestingly, Hercules Collins, a signer of the LBC 1689, retained the 'sign and seal' language in his own 'Orthodox Catechism'.

Q. What are the sacraments?

A.: They are sacred signs, and seals, set before our eyes, and ordained of God for this cause, that he may declare and seal by the the promise of his Gospel unto us...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Were they coordinating their efforts or each working independently and following a baptist zeitgeist? I am friends with Jeff and we've talked some on this issue. I love him dearly. I just haven't been able to embrace these views yet. I am certainly prejudiced and biased to WANT to like these views....I also want a distinctively baptist theology. But it hasn't happened. And it seems the desire for such an identitiy has caused some writers to point out too much how wrong the Reformed are. The theology of these baptist brethren seems to be a reimagining of the paradigm.



They were working independently, at least Jeff was. (I don't know how well known or connected the French Canadian Denault was with Reformed Baptist leaders prior to the publication of his book.) As seen with the intro and endorsements of "The Fatal Flaw," Jeff was connected with Tom Nettles and Richard Belcher, but not the West Coast guys (e.g. Barcellos and Renihan, IRBS) as far as I know. I'm not that familiar with Nettles' views, but apparently Jeff was in contact with him for quite a while as he worked through the issues writing his first book. I remember him saying at one point that he was surprised at the positive reception of his book in some quarters. I don't think that he dreamed of being at the forefront of some "1689 Federalism" movement. (As I recall it, he hardly refers to the confession or older writers at all.) But he is influenced by Klineanism (Horton, Fesko, etc.) as they are, so the affinity is no surprise. The "20th Century RB" men are more influenced by WTS Philly, such as Murray and Robertson.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Ben,
> 
> Maybe I need to get to know you Bristol, RI Reformed Baptists better. Can you PM me and we can connect via Facebook and email?


Can't figure out how to PM...stand by while I figure it out. New here.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 16, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> 1 Samuel 16:7
> But the Lord said unto Samuel, Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature; because I have refused him: for the Lord seeth not as man seeth; for man looketh on the outward appearance, but the Lord looketh on the heart.
> 
> Hi Ben,
> ...


The NT seems pretty clear that we can know them by their fruits, and Peter thinks people should be baptized after "the answer of a good confession." Sure, tares will slip in among the wheat, because ministers will make mistakes in examining a candidate, but the Baptist ideal is that only believers who have a convincing testimony should be baptized.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Welcome to the board, Ben. If you are half the man your brother Ruben is, then we are in serious trouble. Just kidding.
> 
> You say we differ only in polity and recipients of baptism. There is, however, a third difference in terms if covenant theology, and it is a biggy: paedos believe in a distinction between the essence of the covenant and its administration. Belonging to the essence is basically the same as what you claim for the covenant as a whole. But the administration allows for people who might be unsaved to still belong to the covenant in some way. Since paedos believe that baptism is tied to the administration and not the essence, we believe both that children ought to be baptized, and that there is no reason to assume regeneration on the part of all who are baptized.


Thanks, Lane. I can't aspire to even half the theological heft of Ruben, since I am only an amateur theologian, and of lesser intellect and duller reading skills. "Surely I am more brutish than any man."
Your third difference I had simply included mentally with the second, since the recipients of baptism issue grows directly out of it. But I agree that it is perhaps the biggest difference in our views of the covenants. We hold to the notion of a regenerate church membership, where ideally (again, tares will slide in--our pastors are only human) everyone who is a member of the external administration of the new covenant is partaker of the essence--it is one of the things that make it better. But surely that has been the major division between paedos and credos since the Reformation.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> Can't figure out how to PM...stand by while I figure it out. New here.



I believe a PM is called a "conversation" now. There has been a recent major change to the board's format, so some of us veterans continue to use old terminilogy. In the past you had to have a minimum number of posts (maybe 25) in order to send PMs, but I don't know if that is the case with the new conversation feature.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 16, 2017)

KMK said:


> Can you define what you mean by a 'biggy'? What would be an example of a 'small' difference between Reformed Presbyterians and Baptists?



Lol. I guess I just meant it is a foundational one. It hadn't been mentioned by Ben. One small difference would be that Baptists often call deacons "trustees," and elders "deacons."

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Lol. I guess I just meant it is a foundational one. It hadn't been mentioned by Ben. One small difference would be that Baptists often call deacons "trustees," and elders "deacons."



I wonder if you are referring to mainstream Southern Baptists or other types of Arminian Baptists. I've never seen any kind of overtly Calvinistic Baptist church do as you describe. More commonly, if they have trustees, they are the same as the deacons.


----------



## Ed Walsh (Jul 16, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> The NT seems pretty clear that we can know them by their fruits, and Peter thinks people should be baptized after "the answer of a good confession." Sure, tares will slip in among the wheat, because ministers will make mistakes in examining a candidate, but the Baptist ideal is that only believers who have a convincing testimony should be baptized.



That's a good point about the "fruits," and I agree. I was responding to what seemed to be absolute language when you said, "In the New Covenant you are member ONLY by the New Birth." But I now see that you know that "tares will slip in among the wheat." This is the same as I believe. I guess the by your word in all caps "ONLY" that you were speaking theoretically.

Thanks for writing back.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> I guess I just meant it is a foundational one.



By foundational, do you mean it is reason to break fellowship?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> The signs of the covenant which place a person into the external administration of the covenant are not guarantees of salvation. Thus we cannot baptize only saved people. We only baptize those, to the best of our knowledge, our actually in the internal administration of the Covenant (IN Christ). Presbyterians trust that the general promises to the children of believers is enough while baptists also want to see actual professed faith. I do agree that there is, in fact, a general promise to the children of believers.





greenbaggins said:


> I would agree. The main points of paedo-baptism are all there, especially the points about not needing to have a credible profession for baptism, and the unity of the various administrations of the covenant of grace.The only thing missing for you to become a paedo is a recognition that baptism replaces circumcision, and the last plank falls into place. This depends on the exegesis of Romans 4 and Colossians 2, which ought to be your next step.



Lane, I'm not sure that Perg is quite to the point you seem to think he is with regard to a credible profession, although I can see how his statement about "general promises" to the children of believers can be confusing and is perhaps a point of tension that needs to be ironed out. It seems to me that he still believes that a credible profession is prerequisite to baptism and I think he's stated as much at least once in this thread. 

I have heard it claimed (by Buswell and maybe Shishko?) that Spurgeon taught that there was some sense that children of believers were in sort of a covenant relationship that nonetheless did not warrant baptizing them, but I don't know what terminology they or he used when referring to this. (I don't have my copy of Buswell's ST handy, but he refers to this somewhere in his discussion of baptism, possibly without citation.)


----------



## Justified (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> That is a temptation. If the Church believed it for many long centuries, then it must not be dismissed lightly. But the Catholic system since the early centuries had infant baptist tied to salvation and believed in some form of baptismal regeneration. Should I join that consensus, too?


As Lane already said, not necessarily, although baptismal regeneration of some kind or other has been present in Protestantism in general (Lutherans and some Anglicans) and also even in Reformed circles (certain views on presumptive regeneration, et al.), although it isn't the majority view.

What's really impressive to me about the early life of the Church is how prevalent infant baptism already was _and none objected to the practice. _As Baptists sometimes mention, there were some in the early Church that argued for the superiority of credo-baptism only, _but that was mostly based on prudential grounds_. Some waited till their death to receive the full remission of sins (Constantine), others thought it was wiser to allow the child to grow up and make the choice themselves. Nevertheless, none of these,, however, denied the validity of an infant baptism.

Baptists today, on the other hand, will claim that many Christians have never had a baptism and by consequence not admit them to the table of the Lord.


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 16, 2017)

KMK said:


> By foundational, do you mean it is reason to break fellowship?



I would not say it is reason to break fellowship here on the PB, for instance, nor in the general sense of Paedos and RB's getting together and having fellowship. I do think it would be problematic trying to stuff both of these views into the same denomination. Wouldn't it result in constant argument? By "fundamental" I mean that it is a paradigmatic difference in how each group sees the covenant.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

Do you consider Republication or R2K, for example, to be fundamental? I am just trying to get a sense of how strongly you feel about our differences compared to differences within your own Reformed Presbyterian community.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 16, 2017)

Puritan Sailor said:


> But for 1689, the sacraments are not covenant signs and seals but ordinances for beleivers


It is true the 1689 Confession uses the word 'ordinance' but many Baptists have been happy to use the word sacrament. Early framers of the 1689 confession were happy to use the word sacrament in their personal writings.



Puritan Sailor said:


> beleivers


The confession does not use the word *beleivers *

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## greenbaggins (Jul 16, 2017)

Ken, I think some versions of republication are well within the pale of orthodoxy. Radical 2 Kingdoms paradigms I am rather uncomfortable with, but I do think some milder forms are within the bounds of orthodoxy as well. Views that go off the rails would include making the Mosaic covenant simpliciter a covenant of works (though not even Kline advocated that). Also, I think that a R2K view that says we must never engage in being a citizen of the country where we find ourselves is also off the rails. But there are many gradations of each of these camps, so it is difficult to say. And, for myself, I would prefer that presbyteries have the say-so on this. I don't really have authority to say anything more than "I would vote for someone in this camp, but not someone in that camp."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is true the 1689 Confession uses the word 'ordinance' but many Baptists have been happy to use the word sacrament. Early framers of the 1689 confession were happy to use the word sacrament in their personal writings.
> 
> 
> The confession does not use the word *beleivers *



And the WCF refers to "ordinance" at least once, if I'm not mistaken. I think some writers from that era may have used the terms somewhat interchageably.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 16, 2017)

Ed Walsh said:


> That's a good point about the "fruits," and I agree. I was responding to what seemed to be absolute language when you said, "In the New Covenant you are member ONLY by the New Birth." But I now see that you know that "tares will slip in among the wheat." This is the same as I believe. I guess the by your word in all caps "ONLY" that you were speaking theroetically.
> 
> Thanks for writing back.


Hi Ed,
Unfortunately there will be members in the visible church who are not regenerate--their confession is false, like Simon the Magician's, or Ananias and Sapphira. Until they are regenerate, no amount of church membership will put them into the New Covenant--they are simply unrepentant sinners who made it past the membership requirements. But Baptists only allow into the membership those who they are convinced are truly regenerate. Sometimes they are fooled.
Grace and peace to you.


----------



## BG (Jul 16, 2017)

How can you as a Baptist recognize a visible and invisible church and maintain a consistent Baptist theology?

Don't misunderstand what I'm asking I know that Baptists do this I just don't see how it is consistent with their position

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald (Jul 17, 2017)

I've been tempted to enter this discussion, but going on my own struggle with my position on the Abrahamic Covenant, I recognize the gravity of such a study, and its personal nature. I finally came down on the Baptist side, but it wasn't easy. I took in a lot of what my Presbyterian brethren said on the PB, but had to finally disengage from the debate and prayerfully process the information away from the board. There was just too much noise for me, and I needed some quiet time. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 17, 2017)

Herald said:


> I've been tempted to enter this discussion, but going on my own struggle with my position on the Abrahamic Covenant, I recognize the gravity of such a study, and its personal nature. I finally came down on the Baptist side, but it wasn't easy. I took in a lot of what my Presbyterian brethren said on the PB, but had to finally disengage from the debate and prayerfully process the information away from the board. There was just too much noise for me, and I needed some quiet time.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



There's a Baptist for you, needing his quiet time.

Sorry Bill, I couldn't resist!!!

I know what you mean. I need some of that "quiet time" myself. I used to say "more reading, less typing" and need to once again take my own advice. Without doing some serious study on your own, it is too easy to swing from one extreme to another in overreaction to something.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 17, 2017)

BG said:


> How can you as a Baptist recognize a visible and invisible church and maintain a consistent Baptist theology?
> 
> Don't misunderstand what I'm asking I know that Baptists do this I just don't see how it is consistent with their position


Because we believe that the unregenerate who make it into the ranks ought not to be there--it is an anomaly to be guarded against, and the offenders are to be excommunicated when exposed, like Simon Magus or Pris. and Aq. Just because we can't ensure that tares won't slip in, doesn't mean we throw the door open to them indiscriminately. All unbelievers are warmly welcomed and strongly urged to attend church and hear the Gospel, but are barred from communion and Baptism until they convince the ministers by their life and testimony that they are bringing forth fruits answering to repentance.


----------



## earl40 (Jul 17, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> All unbelievers are warmly welcomed and strongly urged to attend church and hear the Gospel, but are barred from communion and Baptism until they convince the ministers by their life and testimony that they are bringing forth fruits answering to repentance.



So if I may ask. Do you rebaptize a person who later repents?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG (Jul 17, 2017)

Ben said:
Because we believe that the unregenerate who make it into the ranks ought not to be there--it is an anomaly to be guarded against, and the offenders are to be excommunicated 

You mean like the old administration of the covenant of grace?

Excommunication or Matthew 18 is not a New Testament doctrine it comes to us straight from the old administration of the covenant of grace in which unbelievers were to be cut off from the people of God.

The baptist presupposition that in the old administration of the covenant of grace you had a mixed multitude of believers and unbelievers and that was acceptable to God is a false presupposition.

In the old administration of the covenant of grace the only proper members were believers and their children, all others were to be cut off or excommunicated from Israel.


Ben said:
All unbelievers are warmly welcomed and strongly urged to attend church and hear the Gospel, but are barred fromcommunion and Baptism until they convince the ministers by their life and testimony that they are bringing forth fruits answering to repentance.

Where in the New Testament is it taught that someone confessing faith must convince the ministers that they are believers? 

What if a man ministers in a Baptist church for 20 years baptizing 100 people ordaining men to the ministry and administering the Lord supper participating in church discipline then confesses that he has been an unbeliever for 20 years are all of his baptisms and ordinations and disciplin now invalid because he was not truly a member of the church and not a part of the covenant of grace? 

Baptists want to cling to a believers only church and covenant of grace but in practice you have to act like a Presbyterian.

If a man is not legitimately a member of the church or the covenant of grace he certainly cannot legitimately baptize someone nor ordain them to ministry or do church discipline.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Herald (Jul 17, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> There's a Baptist for you, needing his quiet time.
> 
> Sorry Bill, I couldn't resist!!!
> 
> I know what you mean. I need some of that "quiet time" myself. I used to say "more reading, less typing" and need to once again take my own advice. Without doing some serious study on your own, it is too easy to swing from one extreme to another in overreaction to something.



Great point. I have an acquaintance who changed his position on baptism four times! He's changed so many time I jokingly call him an "omni-Baptist"! I believe there's too much at stake to make a rash decision. While both sides think the other side is in error, there is a greater error in making a theological change without being totally convinced. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 17, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> To be truthful, I am growing suspicious of these RB books, because they are written to push an agenda. They have an ax to grind. Their polemics seem to be clouding their exegesis. The more they write, the more I am turned away from it. Some of it is their tone....as if paedos are so stupid that they overlook the clear implications of Scripture. Or that paedos love to baptize their babies so much without biblical reasons, that they will create an entire theological construct in order to defend this one pet doctrine. Many Presbyterians/Reformed are also similarly partisan and unfair to their oppoenents (R. Scott Clark, for instance), but I see a spate of baptists writings doing the same thing (and I am sure I have also done the same).


First, all books that set out to refute one view or affirm another is to push an agenda. Welcome to the world of publishing. To write is to partake in the hubristic act that you have a view that you believe is worthy for others not only to hear but also to adhere. Consider this as well, to be a particular baptist in the 17th century could get you into heaps of trouble (ask Benjamin Keach). So if they published on the subject, they definitely had an axe to grind. But it would likely get them into major trouble too.

Secondly, and please be honest, which books have you read besides Denault (who was writing a historical theology not a polemical one)? I'm curious to know who you are getting your info from. You already demonstrated that you misunderstood Denault concerning the Abrahamic Covenant (see the other thread where I quoted his context which clears up the misunderstanding). Have you read much else?

Thirdly, I've not read anyone with a tone of "paedos are so stupid" as you have mentioned. The very recent Founders Journal was on 1689 federalism, and I didn't catch a whiff of that scent. This is why I'm curious to learn who you have been reading.


----------



## Parakaleo (Jul 17, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Thirdly, I've not read anyone with a tone of "paedos are so stupid" as you have mentioned.



I posted this link in another thread, but I'll repost here. It's a three-part review/refutation of Denault. Is the author not being fair/accurate in his characterization of Denault's dismissive language toward paedobaptists? Is it untrue that Denault strongly implies that paedobaptists are eisegetes and closet-sacramentalists that went looking to the Scripture in search of their position?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> I posted this link in another thread, but I'll repost here. It's a three-part review/refutation of Denault. Is the author not being fair/accurate in his characterization of Denault's dismissive language toward paedobaptists? Is it untrue that Denault strongly implies that paedobaptists are eisegetes and closet-sacramentalists that went looking to the Scripture in search of their position?



It might be easier to answer your questions if you would just cite Denault's book itself.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 17, 2017)

"Just for clarification, you seem to have skipped a step in the presentation of your reasoning. Circumcision was given to male infants so baptism should be given to male and female infants?"

Consider that OT women are included in the covenant-it was not just a male schemed covenant. How is this accomplished if women never received the sign? I say that it is via proxy of the federal head. Women cannot be circumcised-they do not possess the anatomy. So, in their case, as the male seed passes through the 'cut', they are circumcised by proxy of sorts.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 17, 2017)

"-The Covenant of Grace does not equal the New Covenant. The New Covenant is the culmination of the Covenant of Grace."

In the same way that many historic writers intermingle the terms *regeneration* and *conversion* to mean the same thing, they do the same many times with the C of G and the NC; I have posted this in the past and took some heat on it, but it is just one example:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/

Additionally, WLC does the same thing to the Mosaic, referring to it as a 'covenant of works:

"Q. 97. _What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?_
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience."

Personally, I disagree that the Mosaic IS the C of W's but an element of the covenant.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 17, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> First, all books that set out to refute one view or affirm another is to push an agenda. Welcome to the world of publishing. To write is to partake in the hubristic act that you have a view that you believe is worthy for others not only to hear but also to adhere. Consider this as well, to be a particular baptist in the 17th century could get you into heaps of trouble (ask Benjamin Keach). So if they published on the subject, they definitely had an axe to grind. But it would likely get them into major trouble too.
> 
> Secondly, and please be honest, which books have you read besides Denault (who was writing a historical theology not a polemical one)? I'm curious to know who you are getting your info from. You already demonstrated that you misunderstood Denault concerning the Abrahamic Covenant (see the other thread where I quoted his context which clears up the misunderstanding). Have you read much else?
> 
> Thirdly, I've not read anyone with a tone of "paedos are so stupid" as you have mentioned. The very recent Founders Journal was on 1689 federalism, and I didn't catch a whiff of that scent. This is why I'm curious to learn who you have been reading.



Much of what he was referring to is in a thread in a FB 1689 group. Some of the "people are saying" quotes he posted are from posts in that thread by published authors.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jul 17, 2017)

"As Lane already said, not necessarily, although baptismal regeneration of some kind or other has been present in Protestantism in general (Lutherans and some Anglicans) and also even in Reformed circles (certain views on presumptive regeneration, et al.), although it isn't the majority view."

The Reformed held to baptismal regeneration-just not in the estimation of the erred doctrine that is prevalent today. It shouldn't be compared to such. For example:
http://www.semperreformanda.com/2013/12/what-did-westminster-believe-about-baptismal-regeneration/

To be accurate, as the confession states, the sign and thing signified are not 'tied to the moment'. However, regeneration does occur when the sign is placed in some instances-hence, the baptism is regeneratory.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 17, 2017)

Parakaleo said:


> I posted this link in another thread, but I'll repost here. It's a three-part review/refutation of Denault. Is the author not being fair/accurate in his characterization of Denault's dismissive language toward paedobaptists? Is it untrue that Denault strongly implies that paedobaptists are eisegetes and closet-sacramentalists that went looking to the Scripture in search of their position?


Whether he is or not, consider this. This was a revision of Denault's ThM thesis. How many people can say that their ThM thesis has had this kind of ripple effect? I know I can't say mine has. I have some of it published in journals, and I doubt it has even been mentioned yet in further writing. And as a ThM thesis, there is to be expected some level of scholarship that may not be up to snuff on a PhD level.

However, what you might call dismissive or accusations of eisegesis is simply an uncompromising assertion. We live in such a pluralistic and tolerant society, that any disagreement with out the slightest bit of self-doubt must imply only the worst. Thankfully for Martin Luther, he didn't live in our generation. I'm not condoning his rhetoric (although I never took at some paedo's have), but I am saying that it is no big deal. Have thicker skin. When I read others who accuse me of forcing something onto the text (I'm thinking of another thread specifically), my response is not to be offended but simply defend my view FROM Scripture.

On top of all that, most of what is deemed objectionable is easily answered by the mere fact that put into context he is referring to how the 17th century PB's understood things. The very first quote given (loc 1320) has in its context a historical examination. He was not saying what is or should be but what was for 17th century PB.

Which brings me to 2 final points: (1) Denault's work is on historical theology. If read as such, then much of the rhetoric put in that context falls away. He is pointing out how 17th cnetury PB's viewed Covenant Theology and the paedo brethren. (2) Denault is not the end all be all of 1689 federalism. He did move it up in popularity and accessibility. But there is more there at present and more to come (I know this in connection w/ key guys in the ARBCA). If Denault is the reason you don't like the system, then I can't think of another system that doesnt' have its bad eggs. So you will bounce around until you come up with your own (likely heterodox) system.

In Horton's "conversation" w/ Roger Olson about Calvinism, Horton (read his CT and didn't always agree but still enjoyed it) said something profound that has relevance here: "Don't go to Mike Horton or to any leader that you can think of that is better known than I am... Go to the reformed confessions... that's really where the church came together, not really smart people but the church saying 'this is what we believe'." If you, Pergamum or anyone else, can adhere to a view of CT that is consistent w/ the 1689 LBC, then great. It doesn't have to go hand in hand w/ Denault. There is plenty of diversity in the paedo views of CT. How much has Kline come up recently in various threads?


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2017)

It is getting difficult at this point in the thread to understand who is talking to whom. I am going to shut it down. If folks want to interact with what Denault has written, or what others have written about what Denault has written, please begin a new thread and provide citations.


----------

