# Reformed vs Baptist understanding of CT



## ReformedChapin (Apr 3, 2009)

What's the difference between the Baptist view of CT and the Reformed view of CT? I have been studying Horton's 'God of Promise' which pretty much speaks of the reformed view of CT but I'm wondering what's the difference between the baptist view? 

I know there is new variations between progressives of CT and Dispensationalists but I'm speaking about historical views.


----------



## AThornquist (Apr 3, 2009)

Reformed vs Baptist? Reformed baptists are sure in a pickle.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 3, 2009)

Reformed Baptists generally concur with the Paedobaptists regarding the Covenants: Redemption, Works, Grace. Any variation of views on that aspect of Covenant Theology among Credobaptists would be comparable to the variations of views among Paedos.

The primary difference, of course, is the administration of it. To be oversimplifying: the Reformed Baptists give the Regulative Principle priority in applying practice (with regard to Baptism, for example), whereas the Paedos (again with regard to Baptism) view the Covenantal structure as providing the overriding rationale their practice.

I think much of the difference comes to this: the Paedo says that truly understanding the covenants requires infant baptism, the Credo tends to say, "I'm not going to go that route unless expressly told to."

Again, that is way oversimplified, but it might provide a point of reference.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Apr 4, 2009)

AThornquist said:


> Reformed vs Baptist? Reformed baptists are sure in a pickle.



By reformed I ment 3 forms of unity and westminster adherents.


----------



## Hamalas (Apr 4, 2009)




----------



## Herald (Apr 4, 2009)

victorbravo said:


> Reformed Baptists generally concur with the Paedobaptists regarding the Covenants: Redemption, Works, Grace. Any variation of views on that aspect of Covenant Theology among Credobaptists would be comparable to the variations of views among Paedos.
> 
> The primary difference, of course, is the administration of it. To be oversimplifying: the Reformed Baptists give the Regulative Principle priority in applying practice (with regard to Baptism, for example), whereas the Paedos (again with regard to Baptism) view the Covenantal structure as providing the overriding rationale their practice.
> 
> ...



Vic,

The only addition I would make to your post is the RB view of the New Covenant. Paedos and Credos would be in agreement that, in the eternal state, the New Covenant only consists of believers. Where RB's and paedos disagree is how the New Covenant is administered in this life. RB's believe the New Covenant consists only of believers in this life; the same as in the eternal state. It is entered into by regeneration, through faith. Our inability to know for certain who is saved or not saved is immaterial to the RB position, although this uncertainty is often used as a criticism against the RB position. Ultimately, God is the only person who knows the invisible among the visible.


----------



## brandonadams (Apr 6, 2009)

ReformedChapin said:


> What's the difference between the Baptist view of CT and the Reformed view of CT? I have been studying Horton's 'God of Promise' which pretty much speaks of the reformed view of CT but I'm wondering what's the difference between the baptist view?
> 
> I know there is new variations between progressives of CT and Dispensationalists but I'm speaking about historical views.



FYI, there is great disagreement amongst paedobaptists regarding Horton's view of covenant theology. Search the archives here to see what I mean. Here is an article from WTJ that argues Horton's view is unconfessional In Defense of Moses Patrick’s Pensees

As for Reformed Baptist covenant theology - you will also find disagreement. Baptists have not written a tremendous amount about it and, in my opinion, it has not been fully worked out. 

The crux of the disagreement is the New Covenant. Paedos believe that one can apostatize from the New Covenant, while baptists believe that is impossible according to Jeremiah 31. For more on that see James White's article from the RBAP
http://www.google.com/url?sa=U&star...lJSnCg&usg=AFQjCNHuzfZQjl7g54QQmsHdm21zWFbcSA

Here are some recent blog posts of mine that I think highlight the differences between baptist covenant theology and paedo covenant theology. (Examine the differences between Ch. 7 of the LBC and WCF - to my disappointment, many RB think there is really no difference between the two, only slight changes in wording - I think the difference is significant)

The Westminster Confession of Faith is Dispensational Contrast

Obedience in the Covenants Contrast

Hope that helps a little.


----------



## lynnie (Apr 6, 2009)

Horton makes some really dumb ( sorry, but they ARE dumb) comments on a set of paedo tapes we have that Baptists have ZERO place for their children in the Covenant people.

Baptists believe that the children are set apart by the faith of the parents in a special way according to 1 Cor 7:14. They just don't baptize them any more than they'd baptize the unbelieveing spouse.

One Calvinist Baptist view is that the children are dedicated to the Lord (I think most if not all Baptists do baby dedications) after the pattern of Joseph and Mary dedicating Jesus at the Temple in the redemption ceremony of the first born ( where Anna and Simeon prophesied). We are church of the first born (Heb 12:23), the redeemed ones, and the child is dedicated as part of that. Although if you pin them down I don't think anybody believes in dedicational regneration any more than they believe in baby baptismal regeneration.

I know Calvinist Baptists who are dispensational and others who are firmly in the more Piper-Grudem camp, as well as classic amils. Honestly, outside of a board like this I don't think most people have a really solid mental exegesis for what they do, they just go with what they were taught and don't even know the rationale on the other side.

We go to Presbyterian church and I know some of our old friends think we are in deception to go to a place that- gaaak- baptizes babies. My pastor is a WTS grad and he has had reasonably intelligent, educated Christians tell him that he must have never read the bible if he baptizes babies. It really does not help for Baptists to be so stupid, but neither does it help for guys like Horton to say baptists do not have any place for kids in the visible Covenant people.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 6, 2009)

lynnie said:


> . . .
> One Calvinist Baptist view is that the children are dedicated to the Lord *(I think most if not all Baptists do baby dedications)* after the pattern of Joseph and Mary dedicating Jesus at the Temple in the redemption ceremony of the first born ( where Anna and Simeon prophesied).



As a point of information, baby dedications are not common among the RBs I know. On the contrary, they are frowned upon as being either (1) an attempt to reinstitute part of the abrogated ceremonial law or (2) a backdoor attempt to have the social aspects and advantages of an infant baptism in a church service while saying that you don't believe in infant baptism.


----------



## KMK (Apr 6, 2009)

lynnie said:


> It really does not help for Baptists to be so stupid, but neither does it help for guys like Horton to say baptists do not have any place for kids in the visible Covenant people.



I agree that it doesn't help for anyone to be stupid, but...


> WLC Q. 28. What are the punishments of sin in this world?
> 
> A. The punishments of sin in this world are either inward, as blindness of mind,[101] a reprobate sense,[102] strong delusions,[103] hardness of heart,[104] horror of conscience,[105] and vile affections



Or did you mean to imply that some of mankind is stupid and other are not?


----------



## DonP (Apr 6, 2009)

lynnie said:


> Baptists believe that the children are set apart by the faith of the parents in a special way according to 1 Cor 7:14. They just don't baptize them any more than they'd baptize the unbelieveing spouse.


What exactly would, Holy, be to a Reformed Baptist if not that the child is in fact set apart to the Lord and not a heathen and is a member of the visible covenant. 

Please help me I don't see that RBs do respect this difference. Many will say their children are heathen going to hell. I have never heard an RB make a distinction between their child and a heathen. So if there are some would love to hear it. And by just adding to the word if God some false worship of an unBiblical practice of baby dedication which is a violation of the RP if done in worship does not help their case. This speaks of the parent doing something but not anything about them. And they use verses of a child being dedicated to the priesthood who will take a Nazarite vow for life Like Samuel. They make a perversion of this text suing it to apply to what they are doing. 
I am open if there is someone who can show me what some RB thinks about that verse. 

By the way what does it mean the believing spouse is sanctified by the believing?

The weakness some RBs have is they do not see the distinction between visible and invisible covenant / church. 

They are not all clear that a Jew in God's eyes was never intended to be one of the flesh but one of promise or the elect. That the church s also Israel along with elect Hebrews. 

So they do not see that whatever was going on in the worship of God and Ecclisiology continues unless clearly removed. Like plural elders, just as in the synagogue, the presbytery concept of ministers submitting to one another and checking in with others rather than independency etc. some sign for children being in the covenant, if not Baptism what replaces circumcision, that once the head of a household believed his whole house was in the visible covenant and got the blessings of being a Jew. 
See the thread on what benefit is there being a Jew or a covenant child.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/what-benefit-there-jew-covenant-child-46000/

Some are not clear on the covenant of grace. They confuse visible covenant with covenant of Grace or don't see that a distinction can be made at all. Thus you can only baptize believers, which of course you can't, you can only Baptize visible covenant members many of whom may not be true believers. The OT had both, those born into covenant and those who came from heathen lands as adults and made profession. 
And even slaves due to the headship of their master were circumcised without personal confession and were considered to be in Israel, the visible covenant. 
So there is a variety of differences. 

There are some who are just inconsistent and better in covenant theology like Walter Chantry who wrote a book on the Covenants of Works and Grace. 

*But I think the OP has said he was not referring to RBs but Dutch or Continental Reformed vs Presbyterian Reformed. 
*
Again a variety here but Kuyper's followers were often presumptive regenerationists.


----------



## Herald (Apr 6, 2009)

Keep in mind that there is a noticeable difference between Baptists and Reformed (confessional) Baptists.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 6, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> *But I think the OP has said he was not referring to RBs but Dutch or Continental Reformed vs Presbyterian Reformed.
> *
> Again a variety here but Kuyper's followers were often presumptive regenerationists.



Um, no, he clearly wanted to know the difference between (1) those who hold to the WCF and/or the 3FU and (2) Baptists. 

And now it is more clear that there are the Confessional Baptists who hold to the 1689 London Confession, and then there are other Baptists who do all sorts of different things.


----------



## DonP (Apr 6, 2009)

ReformedChapin said:


> By reformed I ment 3 forms of unity and westminster adherents.



This is what he says he meant

Maybe He thinks some RBs hold to Westminister and not London Baptist Confession.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Apr 8, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> ReformedChapin said:
> 
> 
> > By reformed I ment 3 forms of unity and westminster adherents.
> ...



No, I was defining my terminology. I know that people don't agree but I am calling "reformed" three froms of unity and wesminters adherents. London Baptist adherents I am not referring to reformed at all.

-----Added 4/8/2009 at 12:02:47 EST-----



victorbravo said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > *But I think the OP has said he was not referring to RBs but Dutch or Continental Reformed vs Presbyterian Reformed.
> ...





pretty much WCF and 3FU (reformed) vs LBC (baptist)


----------



## bug (Apr 8, 2009)

Perhaps the quickest way to understand the differences between baptist covanant theology and presbyterian covenant is simply to study the differences in chapter 7 of the westminster and 1689 baptist confession.Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 8, 2009)

bug said:


> Perhaps the quickest way to understand the differences between baptist covanant theology and presbyterian covenant is simply to study the differences in chapter 7 of the westminster and 1689 baptist confession.Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF



That is useful, but it is good also to note that LBCF Ch 19 and 20 address the covenant of works, even though it is left out of Ch 7. If you only read Chapter 7, you might conclude that the LBCF does not hold to a covenant of works.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 8, 2009)

PeaceMaker said:


> ReformedChapin said:
> 
> 
> > PeaceMaker said:
> ...



Moderation

Don, please refrain from this distraction. Everyone else understands his question.

To set it out plainly, he wants to know the difference between what he has defined as Reformed and what he has defined as Baptist.

His definition is clear:

"Reformed": those who hold to the WCF or the 3FU.

"Baptist": those who hold to the LBCF.

If you have any insight on the differences in how the WCF and 3FU treats covenant theology as opposed to the LBCF, then please feel free to answer.

Otherwise, please refrain from making spurious observations.


----------



## DonP (Apr 8, 2009)

OK I stand corrected sorry I read it wrong. Got his last line.


----------



## ReformedChapin (Apr 8, 2009)

victorbravo said:


> PeaceMaker said:
> 
> 
> > ReformedChapin said:
> ...



No offence to anyone here but I defined my terms so that it would be easier to understand. Not to offend anyone or cause further confusion. I apologize if I wasn't clear enough.


----------



## bug (Apr 9, 2009)

victorbravo said:


> bug said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps the quickest way to understand the differences between baptist covanant theology and presbyterian covenant is simply to study the differences in chapter 7 of the westminster and 1689 baptist confession.Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF and 1689 LBCF
> ...



Thanks for the responce, it is good to meet you.

Yes the 1689 does mention the covenant of works later, referring to 'a covanant works, in ch 19:6 and 'the covenant of works' ch 20:1. the fact that those who formed the baptist confession noticably left out this point though in chapter 7; 'The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.' seems significant to me.

This is one of the extensive departures from the westminster confession that I sometimes wonder if we, as baptists, look into enough. The covenant of works is also absent from chapter 6 as well. Perhaps there were misgivings about the terminology. God's dealings with Adam not being expressly detailed in scripture as a covenant and the formers of the confession being mindful of the 'necersay inference' phrase they removed from chapter 1. 

It is interesting that whilst Coxe argues that God did deal with Adam in the form of a covanant, he referrs to it more often as a transaction. Keach also speaks of a covanant of works as well. 

I don't have all the answer to why the 1689 does not talk about the covenant of works in ch7, but I do think a study of the differences between baptist and presbyterian covanant theology should consider it significant enough to investigate further.


----------



## VictorBravo (Apr 9, 2009)

bug said:


> Yes the 1689 does mention the covenant of works later, referring to 'a covanant works, in ch 19:6 and 'the covenant of works' ch 20:1. the fact that those who formed the baptist confession noticably left out this point though in chapter 7; 'The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.' seems significant to me.
> 
> This is one of the extensive departures from the westminster confession that I sometimes wonder if we, as baptists, look into enough. The covenant of works is also absent from chapter 6 as well. Perhaps there were misgivings about the terminology. God's dealings with Adam not being expressly detailed in scripture as a covenant and the formers of the confession being mindful of the 'necersay inference' phrase they removed from chapter 1.
> 
> ...




I agree it is worth looking into, and I have only a little. I suspect it was a worry about terminology, somewhat like that qualm of John Murray, but I don't know at this point.

I do note that in Ch. 19, sec. 1, there is something described that sounds like the covenant of works and is patterned after the WCF, but avoids the terms:



> 1. God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart, and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; 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.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Apr 9, 2009)

In my reading, it seems that the primary difference among confessional Reformed Baptists and Paedo-Baptists on the subject of CT does involves one's understanding of the New Covenant and its relationship to the Abrahamic Covenant. Most RB's, like myself, affirm a Covenant of Works on both exegetical as well as theological grounds. 

Your servant,


----------

