# Baptist arguments and London Confession.



## MW (May 2, 2007)

What does the London Confession teach as to the covenant of grace? My Baptist friends tell me it agrees with Westminster that there is one covenant of grace overarching all of Scripture; but then I come on this board, where the Baptists have stated they maintain the London Confession, and I see them constantly revert back to arguments which suggest there is not one covenant of grace. Brethren, please clarify once and for all what Baptists maintain as stated in the London Confession. Thankyou.


----------



## Herald (May 2, 2007)

> *1689 London Baptist Confession*
> 
> 7. God's Covenant
> 
> ...



Matthew, there is indeed a covenant of grace. This covenant is realized through Christ. Per the 1689 LBC the covenant of grace is not effective until an individual is saved by faith, "In this covenant He freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, *requiring from them faith in Him that they may be saved,"*

As a Baptist I believe that the covenant of grace was transacted in eternity past between the Father and Son and was consumated at the resurrection. It only applies to the elect and is realized by faith alone in Christ alone. This is one of the reasons why I disagree with the paedo view of "covenant children."


----------



## MW (May 2, 2007)

Bill, it says, "First of all to Adam." That tells me that it took effect before the resurrection of Christ. Moreover, you say it pertains only to the elect, but the London Confession agrees with Westminster that the covenant of grace is a free offer of salvation through Christ. Hence it must have some external aspect of administration to elect and non-elect alike.


----------



## Herald (May 2, 2007)

Matthew:



> ...and afterwards by further steps until the full revelation of it became complete in the New Testament.



The covenant of grace would have been of no effect if not for Christ's death and resurrection. This is how it "became complete in the New Testament." I am in complete agreement that it was first promised to Adam (Gen. 3:15) and continually reinforced through the O.T. (sacrificial system, Messianic prophecies etc.) until the time of Christ. The LBC goes on to say, "...and promising to give to all who are *appointed to eternal life* His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe." The elect are those appointed to eternal life. All who place their faith in Christ will be saved, but only "those appointed" (the elect) will do so.


----------



## JM (May 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> What does the London Confession teach as to the covenant of grace? My Baptist friends tell me it agrees with Westminster that there is one covenant of grace overarching all of Scripture; but then I come on this board, where the Baptists have stated they maintain the London Confession, and I see them constantly revert back to arguments which suggest there is not one covenant of grace. Brethren, please clarify once and for all what Baptists maintain as stated in the London Confession. Thankyou.



Article 10:
Jesus Christ is made the mediator of the new and everlasting covenant of grace between God and man, ever to be perfectly and fully the prophet, priest, and king of the Church of God for evermore.
1 Tim.2:5; Heb.9:15; John 14:6; Isa.9:6,7. LBC 1644 [updated in 46]


----------



## MW (May 2, 2007)

Bill, so London teaches the same as Westminster that the covenant of grace is in operation throughtout Scripture, Old and New Testaments. Also, that there is an outward administration of the covenant to all men, and an inward application of it to the elect alone. So why do Baptists on this board keep suggesting something different?


----------



## JM (May 2, 2007)

Pastor Winzer, that's the reason I like the First London Baptist Confession.


----------



## Herald (May 2, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Bill, so London teaches the same as Westminster that the covenant of grace is in operation throughtout Scripture, Old and New Testaments. Also, that there is an outward administration of the covenant to all men, and an inward application of it to the elect alone. So why do Baptists on this board keep suggesting something different?



Matthew - if by "outward administration" you mean a general call for all to repent and believe, I would concur. If your definition is different, please elucidate. 

Can you provide examples of Baptists on the PB who disagree with the covenant of grace? Perhaps they are reacting to the paedo vs. credo debate and disputing that the covenant in anyway extends to infants? You need to cite some specific instances were Baptists deny the covenant of grace as the London Baptist Confession defines it.


----------



## MW (May 2, 2007)

It comes up in nearly every thread discussing baptism. Here is one example from the ongoing Judaizers thread:



> And if it's a new, inaugurated covenant, why do you speak of "removing" children from the visible covenant? Jews were in the previous visible covenant, but they still needed to be baptized to be incorporated into this new, inaugurated visible covenant. Thus, there is no "removal" of children from the new visible covenant community. In my mind, it's a fundamental error to look to the Old Covenant to see how the New Covenant functions.



This tends to be a neat little cave into which the Baptist retreats whenever the matter is discussed so that he does not have to face the consequences of a prior theological commitment. I would like it stated once and for all whether there is one covenant or two. The London Confession says there is one. Subscribers to this board maintain the London Confession. Those who adhere to the Westminster Confession should be able to require their Baptist brethren to remain true to their Confessional commitment when discussing the matter of baptism. Blessings!


----------



## Herald (May 2, 2007)

> Those who adhere to the Westminster Confession should be able to require their Baptist brethren to remain true to their Confessional commitment when discussing the matter of baptism.



 Matthew, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think anyone can "require" a Baptist to do anything! Sorry, I just saw the humor in that statement.

Be careful about taking the paedo-Reformed hermeneutic and transposing it on the LBC. Please understand the covenant of grace from the Baptist perspective. While there is a general call for all to repent and believe, it is not the same as being "in" covenant. Being "in covenant" is for those who believe by faith. I am stressing this because it will preclude a back door attempt to put Baptists in agreement with the paedo-Reformed view of who is in the covenant. Matthew, you likened this to being in a cave. I would respectfully disagree. I believe I am faithfully explaining the Baptist hermeneutic.


----------



## MW (May 2, 2007)

Bill, those with whom I am in discussion simply say that baptism is not a sign of the covenant. They do not use unconfessional language which suggests there are two covenants. Yet because that is the language to which the Baptists on this board have recourse, the discussion can never progress to the real issues. All I am asking is for a definitive statement which says, Such and such is what the Confession teaches, and upon that basis we will argue our position.


----------



## Herald (May 2, 2007)

Matthew - I am in no position to represent all Baptists on the PB. I understand I am one of the most opinionated Baptists, but I hestiate to speak for my brethren. Perhaps some other of my Baptist brethren would care to weigh in?


----------



## staythecourse (May 2, 2007)

*About my level right now*

Can we define the phrase "baptism as a sign of being in covenant" as "those who have been baptised in the Holy Spirit" and who may or may not have undergone water baptism?


----------



## MW (May 2, 2007)

staythecourse said:


> I don't know the discussion going on at the other thread but to dissect "sign of baptism as being in the covenant" as being "those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit (ad who may or may not have been water baptised - though' it would be nice!)
> 
> Would that definition clear things up?



That is similar to the way I usually hear it argued. It would certainly move the debate up another level, so that the real issue could be argued as to whether there is NT warrant for asserting that baptism is a sign of the covenant. But it will be impossible to maintain a consistent debate on that point if recourse is had to the two covenant theory.


----------



## staythecourse (May 2, 2007)

*To be crude*

Baptize everyone that professes Christ and the liars (those not really baptized in the Holy Spirit) will be dealt with.


----------



## staythecourse (May 2, 2007)

*Lord knows I hate to grind this out again*

But why wouldn't the covenant, as spoken by Bill here, mean a "faith to faith" covenant.

My example would be of my being saved, my proclaiming the gospel to my enemy (actually my friend I grew up with but technically we were enemies as i was a child of God and he was not till conversion) and he (apparently) believes and gets baptized. Now, having no children, my view is slanted and I'm heavily credo. My "child" is Tim (the friend converted) who shows a God-honoring turnaround that puts me to shame in many ways (Praise be to God).


----------



## Herald (May 2, 2007)

> ...those with whom I am in discussion simply say that baptism is not a sign of the covenant.



Matthew - The LBC does not indicate a tangible sign that is to be administered to God's elect that is associated with the covenant of grace in the Old Testament. But the LBC does say (re: the covenant of grace), "is revealed through the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by further steps until the full revelation of it became complete in the New Testament." The Abrahamic Covenant did have a tangible sign, circumcision. I would not have a problem with circumcision fitting within the "further steps" of the LBC's definition of the covenant of grace. Circumcision was a sign of Abraham's faith and the covenant that God made with him. As such it pointed forward towards Christ. Circumcision also played a larger covenant role within Israel that did not necessarily require faith on the part of the individual. 

Now, there is a definite tangible sign of the New Covenant. This sign is baptism. The New Covenant is separate from the Old Covenant (which is Mosaic based) but under the umbrella of the covenant of grace.



> Baptism is an ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be to the person who is baptised - a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection; of his being engrafted into Christ; of remission of sins; and of that person's giving up of himself to God, through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life.



Notice that the LBC describes baptism as, "...a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection..." Here is a tangible sign which is not indicated in the LBC's definition of the covenant of grace.


----------



## staythecourse (May 2, 2007)

*Do me a favor Bill and Pastor Winzor*

Look at my last statement (the example of Tim and myself) and see what you think of it. Is it Biblical?


----------



## Herald (May 2, 2007)

Bryan - how does your story impact the topic of the covenant of grace? Don't get me wrong. I appreciate your story (especially if it actually happened). I just don't see where it fits in with the topic at hand.


----------



## MW (May 3, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> Notice that the LBC describes baptism as, "...a sign of his fellowship with Christ in His death and resurrection..." Here is a tangible sign which is not indicated in the LBC's definition of the covenant of grace.



This is my point. You fellows should be arguing along these lines, not along the lines of two covenants. What you have said right here and now should be made the status quaestionis. We should be arguing whether baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace, and not go backwards and forwards on whether or not we live under the same covenant as the saints of the OT. The London Confession has already said that it is a single covenant of grace. That should be taken for granted. So then, all that needs to be shown to prove antipaedobaptism is that baptism is not a sign of the covenant of grace. Alternatively, all that needs to be shown to prove paedobaptism is that baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace. It is that simple.


----------



## Herald (May 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> This is my point. You fellows should be arguing along these lines, not along the lines of two covenants. What you have said right here and now should be made the status quaestionis. We should be arguing whether baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace, and not go backwards and forwards on whether or not we live under the same covenant as the saints of the OT. The London Confession has already said that it is a single covenant of grace. That should be taken for granted. So then, all that needs to be shown to prove antipaedobaptism is that baptism is not a sign of the covenant of grace. Alternatively, all that needs to be shown to prove paedobaptism is that baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace. It is that simple.



Actually, it's not that simple. Matthew, I appreciate your desire to boil this argument down to the lowest common denominator. It certainly would simplify things. But there is a real differentiation between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant and it is does not render the Covenant of Grace useless.

The Covenant of Grace is basically God's promise of redemption for His elect. It plays out through a temporary animal sacrifice system, the New Covenant in Christ's blood and the continued redemption of God's elect until the end of this present age. The Covenant of Grace is not a biblical term. It is an extrapolation of the whole redemptive story. What is biblical are two distinct covenants: the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Both of these covenants provide for forgiveness of sin. Only one of these two covenants contains the power to super-cede the other. Both exist within the Covenant of Grace, but both are separate (albeit linked) entities.

P.S. Putting it another way, the Covenant of Grace has two major sections: the Old and the New.


----------



## MW (May 3, 2007)

Bill, please note the subject line. The point of this thread is not to give people an opportunity to express personal opinion, but to show what the London Confession teaches. You can't make the covenant of grace God's promise of redemption for His elect, when you have already admitted the Confession teaches there is an external element to it which involves the non-elect. You can't make two covenants where the Confession only speaks of one. Please, Bill, as much as I respect your right to have personal opinions and express them in particular contexts, could we please restrict comment to what the Confession requires?


----------



## Herald (May 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> Bill, please note the subject line. The point of this thread is not to give people an opportunity to express personal opinion, but to show what the London Confession teaches. You can't make the covenant of grace God's promise of redemption for His elect, when you have already admitted the Confession teaches there is an external element to it which involves the non-elect. You can't make two covenants where the Confession only speaks of one. Please, Bill, as much as I respect your right to have personal opinions and express them in particular contexts, could we please restrict comment to what the Confession requires?



Matthew - you're attempting to pigeon hole me into something I did not say. May I remind of you an earlier post in this discussion:

by Baptistincrisis:



> The LBC goes on to say, "...and promising to give to all who are appointed to eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe." The elect are those appointed to eternal life. All who place their faith in Christ will be saved, but only "those appointed" (the elect) will do so.



Matthew - I clearly indicated that the covenant is made with those who believe. These I described as "in covenant." I also said this:

by Baptistincrisis:



> Matthew - if by "outward administration" you mean a general call for all to repent and believe, I would concur. If your definition is different, please elucidate.



You never provided a counter argument to this statement so I assumed you accepted it. That said, I have been consistent. What you are trying to do is tie all Baptists to the LBC in order to hold their feet to the fire. I may be wrong, but I smell a set up. You also mentioned that Baptists should frame their arguments based on the LBC's defintion of the one coventant (Covenant of Grace) and forsake discussion about the two covenants (Old and New). How was my response to that off topic? Your suggestion deserved a response. I gave it.

Oh, and the subject line is: "Baptist arguments and London Confession." Chalk my previous post up to "Baptist arguments."


----------



## Herald (May 3, 2007)

And would some other Baptist please get involved in the fray? I'm tired of doing your light work!  



Or maybe it's just that the rest of my Baptist brethren know better and are content to throw me under the bus.


----------



## MW (May 3, 2007)

Bill, the words of the Confession are, "it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, WHEREIN he freely offereth unto SINNERS life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; AND promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." You are not at liberty to ignore the first aspect of the covenant of grace and say that the covenant of grace is God's purpose of redemption for His elect. I am not pigeon-holing you, setting you up, or anything else. I desire an approach to the issue that is based on the agreement of our respective confessions -- no more, no less.


----------



## staythecourse (May 3, 2007)

*My mistake*

I saw where I made my mistake. We are not children of the person through whom we believed in Christ and that was my error. Forgive me.


----------



## Herald (May 3, 2007)

Matthew - I am looking at the LBC right now. I understand perfectly well what it says.



> Moreover, as man had brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace. In this covenant He freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give to all who are appointed to eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe.



1. Man is under the curse of the law because of the fall.
2. It pleased God to make a covenant of grace.
3. Sinners are offered (freely) salvation by Jesus Christ.
4. All that is required is faith in Christ in order to be "in covenant."
5. All who "are appointed to eternal life" will receive the Holy Spirit so 
that they may become willing and able to believe.

Matthew - what do you think the framers of the LBC meant when they wrote, "all who are appointed to eternal life"? This is the language of election. So just using simple logic and the rules of grammar, who benefits from the Covenant of Grace? Those who are appointed to eternal life, i.e. the elect. 

Does anyone outside of Matthew disagree with me?


----------



## MW (May 3, 2007)

Bill, your point 4 requires faith that they may be saved, not be "in covenant." That is your addition. It has already said that the covenant of grace is offered to sinners. Hence there is recognition of an external administration of the covenant. And this is quite beside the OP, which was concerned to find out if the London Confession teaches one covenant or two.


----------



## Herald (May 3, 2007)

Matthew - I previously said that there is a general call that is part of the Covenant of Grace. This is the offer of salvation to everyone. You call it an administration. So be it. If we are agreed that the offer goes out to all then I would consider that no minor hurdle that you and I have leaped. But I hold firm to the fact that the LBC is crystal clear on who benefits from the Covenant of Grace....those who believe by faith.



> ...requiring from them faith in Him that they may be saved,



I believe there is a distinct difference between offering a Covenant of Grace and being in the Covenant of Grace. As I read the LBC it seems very clear to me that the only ones in the covenant are those who have fulfilled the above quote.



> And this is quite beside the OP, which was concerned to find out if the London Confession teaches one covenant or two.



If you're looking for a strict grammatical answer on whether the LBC teaches one covenant or two, the answer is one. There is one redemptive covenant. If you're looking for Baptists to stand by that _alone_ and forsake discussing the New Covenant, good luck. When you find that Baptist let me know.


----------



## MW (May 3, 2007)

BaptistInCrisis said:


> If you're looking for a strict grammatical answer on whether the LBC teaches one covenant or two, the answer is one. There is one redemptive covenant. If you're looking for Baptists to stand by that _alone_ and forsake discussing the New Covenant, good luck. When you find that Baptist let me know.



Thankyou, Bill. This is all that I was enquiring about. I am glad we can at least agree that the Confession teaches the unity of the covenant of grace.


----------



## jenney (May 3, 2007)

armourbearer said:


> the London Confession agrees with Westminster that the covenant of grace is a free offer of salvation through Christ. Hence it must have some external aspect of administration to elect and non-elect alike.



The offer is to all men, not just members of the visible church.
This would be the external aspect.

It is only effective for the elect.
This would be the internal aspect.

This is different from the paedo view? I'm unclear how.


----------

