# 1689 and the Covenant



## Prufrock (Mar 17, 2009)

I have a baptist friend who has been talking with me about baptism, and I'd like some clarification from the baptists on the board regarding the intention of the 1689 confession and its wording in ch. 7.

Despite all the changes from the WCF's corresponding structure, I'm struck by the _substantial_ similarity between the two. Specifically here, in it's "new" section:



> 3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.



Though the WCF's wording has been thrown out, it seems the substance still stands; the New Testament, along with all salvific activity prior thereunto, belongs to the single covenant of grace: the language of "and afterwards by farther steps" seems to at least include the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances, thereby indicating an external administration of the covenant of grace which includes the unregenerate not simply _de facto_, but also _de jure_. 

I have more questions, but I want to make sure this is a true reading of the confession's language before moving on. So, baptists, is this on track so far?

Thanks, I'd really appreciate your help: I want to make sure I understand the reformed baptist argument as well as I can, but I just can't get past what seem to be "incongruities" to me, and I'd like them to be worked out.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 18, 2009)

Here is an article written by my friend Pastor Stefan Lindblad that might help. It's mostly a defense of confessionalism, but touches on the RB view of covenants, which is similar to that of those holding to the WCF. The primary difference, of course, is applying covenantal practice in the OT to the present (as in baptism). Nevertheless, I think the typical RB would consider himself to have a covenant theology.

Unashamedly Confessional | The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies

I'm not quite following the _de jure/de facto_ issue, but that's probably because I'm tired.


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 18, 2009)

You might also consider reading The Covenants by R. B. C. Howell online at The Reformed Reader - Committed to Historic Baptist Beliefs

His view, from what I understand, is inline with the 1689 Confession. He was also one of the founders of the SBC.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 18, 2009)

Thanks so far, guys. I've read lots of books, lectures, articles, etc. I'm mostly right now looking for someone here (an actual baptist) to give a confessional reading, so I can observe your method and thought process. I want to figure out what really makes you tick, as it were, and why some things I frequently hear or read don't seem to jive with how I read the confession. I'm sure I'm either reading the confession wrong, or misunderstanding where you all are coming from.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 03:46:35 EST-----

So, do _you_ confirm that the above is said by the 1689 confession, or are things that need to be cleared up in there before I can ask subsequent questions rightly.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 18, 2009)

We hold to one Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works. If you want to get a good understanding of the Confessional Baptist you really need to read Nehemiah Coxe's Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. He was one of the framers of the 1677 (1689). 

I have discussed this issue many times here. Just do a search on the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants or the Covenant of Works under the user name PuritanCovenanter. 

We hold that there is one and not two Covenant's of Grace. Some covenants administer both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. The New Covenant is purely the Covenant of Grace which is promised to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, and David fulfilled. I would ask Dr. Bob Gonzales if this sounds correct. I will have him look at your question.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 18, 2009)

Randy,

Thank you. I've actually read Coxe (incidentally, on account of your recommendation a while ago -- it was quite useful: thanks for the recommendation). I've also tried to read almost every thread on the topic here on the board.

While I may be desiring too simple an answer, I just want as simple an answer as possible to this question _from you guys_ -- does the 1689 LBC 7.3 imply an external administration of the Cov of Grace (even if temporally prior to the formal inauguration of the New Testament) which includes (not just _de facto_) those to whom God's salvific grace is not granted? 

(This is the first step of my questions: I just want to be sure of each step before I try building)

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 04:15:16 EST-----

I just want to add, Randy, that after reading _many_ of these threads in which you have participated, I want to say thank you and express my appreciation for your patience, gentleness and frequent great clarity in presenting the credo-baptist position


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 18, 2009)

I don't believe (as many Presbyterian's do) that the non elect were ever members of the Covenant of Grace. If I am correct, they may be members of Covenants administered by the Covenant of Grace such as the the Abrahamic, or Mosaic, but they were never members of the CofG itself. I have read some Presbyterian's who believe that only the elect were and are the only members of the Covenant of Grace. You might want to ask a Presbyterian for clarification on this. Not all are in agreement here. 

We differ on what administers and to whom. Some Paedo's believe that the Abrahamic and Mosaic are purely administrations of the Covenant of Grace. I believe that the Abrahamic and Mosaic administer the Covenant of Grace and Works side by side.

Does that make things even muddier?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 18, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Randy,
> 
> I just want to add, Randy, that after reading _many_ of these threads in which you have participated, I want to say thank you and express my appreciation for your patience, gentleness and frequent great clarity in presenting the credo-baptist position



Thanks for your gracious comment.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 18, 2009)

BTW, I don't necessarily recommend J. A. Haldane for Covenant Theology even though he became a credo.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 18, 2009)

How do you "exegete" the language, Randy, of 7.3? The language seems to imply to me that those Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances, according to the drafters of the confession, belong to the further revelation of the Covenant of Grace. This seems to be the simplest reading of this, regardless of the relationship by which one wishes to relate this all to the CoW. If these ordinances do pertain, though externally, to the Covenant of Grace, doesn't this imply, confessionally speaking, that even those non-elect who are a part of the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants, are also at least _externally_ a part of the administration of the Cov. of Grace? I don't see a way around this reading of the confession.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 04:26:52 EST-----

(If it helps in this conversation for you to know where the most fundamental outlines "Presbyterian notion of the covenant" are coming from, the greatest influences on my understanding are probably Ball, Roberts, Blake and Witsius.)


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 18, 2009)

I am running out of time here but I will look at Waldron's exposition of the 1689 and look at your question a bit more closely later tonight. Chapter 7 in the LBCF is lacking in some substance compared to the WCF In my humble opinion. Especially concerning the Covenant of Works. Understanding what Nehemiah Coxe taught and knowing of his influence upon the document, I would have to consider it in his light but I could be incorrect. I will look at it more intently after Nine O'Clock. Don't know if I will be able to respond quickly to your question because I want to do some reading. I appreciate your question. Thanks.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 18, 2009)

I'll look forward to it. Thanks.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Mar 18, 2009)

*Reformed Baptists, the 1689, and Covenant Theology*

Paul,

Thanks for the stimulating though somewhat broad question. What's the intention behind the 1689's portrayal of covenant theology in 7.3? To cite that paragraph again:3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.​My training is in biblical theology not in historical theology. I think, however, that Randy's brief reading is probably correct. The early Particular Baptists apparently agreed in substance with the Paedo-Baptist theology of a single overarching "covenant of grace," which was progressively revealed and administered through temporal covenants. They also, apparently, affirmed a covenant of works and a (inter-Trinitarian) covenant of redemption. 

I believe that Adam was created as a covenantal being. Hence, I see the covenant of works and man's creation as God's image as _terminus a quo_. Consequently, I don't see the covenant of works as a _superadditum_. I have no problem using the terminology "covenant of grace" or "covenant of redemption," but I usually think of "covenants" as being related to the administration of God's kingdom on earth and, therefore, as historical. I prefer to view what is called "the covenant of grace" as _the gospel_ or _the redemptive promise_, which was first revealed in Genesis 3:15. This gospel or promise is then revealed progressively through a succession of historical covenants, including the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. I think this is what Paul has in view when he speaks of "the covenants of the promise" (Eph. 2:12), which, btw, must include the Mosaic covenant. Accordingly, the gospel or _ordo salutis_ is most clearly revealed in the New Covenant and most fully realized in the visible New Covenant community. Perfect realization of the _ordo salutis_ in the visible covenant community, however, awaits the eschaton. 

My


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 18, 2009)

Dr. Gonzales,

Thank your for your response. I will admit to being a little wary of the Covenant of Works and man _creatus ad imaginem dei_ being necessarily connected by nature, but fortunately (from what I can gather) this will not cause any great impediment (unless I have read your post incorrectly). 

To make sure I'm with you so far: as you read the confession, you agree that what is frequently called the Covenant of Grace (though, I realize, you don't prefer this term) has, at least externally, included _de jure_, certain reprobate. Is this correct? (I recall reading a thread based upon John 1 where you touched upon this issue) I realize that _you personally_ would prefer to view the covenant more historically as opposed to an "atemporal concept," but would you agree that, in the language which the LBC would use, those certain reprobates were (externally) in the Covenant of Grace (and not merely de facto)?

I realize there is more to your post than this, but I want to work through it as slowly as you are willing so that I don't miss anything.


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 18, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> but would you agree that, in the language which the LBC would use, those certain reprobates were (externally) in the Covenant of Grace (and not merely de facto)?



I'll chime in here even though I'm of out of my league. The distinction you describe is sort of foreign to my ears and thinking. I'd say pretty clearly that the LBCF does not contemplate reprobates being in the Covenant of Grace at any time.

As you've noted and others have said, the LBCF describes an over-arching covenant, and it is with regard to the elect. Highlighting the portion you quoted:



> . . . and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;



This is probably where you might find a bright line distinction between the paedo view as compared to the RB view.

I dare say that the RB view tends to look at it from present to past. By that I mean that we are fully accepting of the truth that God ordains who are (or in our time frame, apparently are) among the elect. We don't know who they are, but by faith and prudence we consider those who have professed faith to be so.

That's where the "tilt" comes in paedo/credo debates, in my opinion. I can see why the paedo believes what he does, and how, by beginning with a unified covenantal scheme, he feels bound to follow through on the truth as he understands it. Nevertheless, viewing it from the other end, from the perspective of the covenant being more fully revealed, I personally have trouble seeing the covenant in quite the same way as the paedo.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Mar 18, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> > Dr. Gonzales,
> >
> > Thank your for your response. I will admit to being a little wary of the Covenant of Works and man _creatus ad imaginem dei_ being necessarily connected by nature, but fortunately (from what I can gather) this will not cause any great impediment (unless I have read your post incorrectly).
> 
> ...


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 18, 2009)

I'll quickly give a simplified adumbration of where my questions are going for as long as you are willing to stay with me (but remember, I'm still on the first step).

1.) The LBC (note, I'm leaving our scriptural interpretation out as this point: just the confession) seems to clearly imply that the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances pertained to the Covenant of Grace; obviously, not internally, so at least externally. The Covenant of Grace, then, according to the LBC, has an external administration which included a.) children of covenant members, and b.) even those who will not internally or ultimately receive the benefits of the covenant. [This is my thesis concerning the LBC's wording -- it has yet to be validated.]

2.) Extrapolation from the various testaments (which the LBC _does_ say are a part of the Cov. of Grace) implies that this external administration of the Cov. of Grace, in general, involves by command the infant seed of covenant members.

3.) _If_ we consider these all to be various administrations of a single Covenant of Grace and not as separate entities from which we extrapolate the concept of a single overarching covenant , _and_ the New Testament is also a part of this same Covenant, _then_ can we say that the Covenant under this administration ceases to have reference to the seed? (This, of course, is where the argument will start to get messy; and where, I think, reformed baptist and "normal baptist" views may start to come into conflict)

4.) If 3, then it seems there ceases to be any actual connection between the Covenant of Grace under its NT administration and the Church. (Again, this will be a messy point).

5.) Baptism, then, would have nothing to do with being a covenant seal or sign, but merely a sign of the church (the church being a subset of the New Testament administration -- those of this administration who are actually regenerate).

Obviously, this will be a long process, and this is highly oversimplified. This is just so you see where I'm going, and what I'm trying to reconcile with how I read the LBC. I realize there are some big leaps in the above presentation; thus will be smoothed out later.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 18, 2009)

Vic,

I read "founded on" in such in such a way that it does not have to mean "identical in scope with." I'll jump back on this thread later this evening to explain further why I read it like that.

Dr. Gonzales, likewise, I'll be able to respond to your post later this evening. Thanks!


----------



## KMK (Mar 18, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> I'll quickly give a simplified adumbration of where my questions are going for as long as you are willing to stay with me (but remember, I'm still on the first step).
> 
> 1.) The LBC (note, I'm leaving our scriptural interpretation out as this point: just the confession) seems to clearly imply that the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances *pertained* to the Covenant of Grace; obviously, not internally, so at least *externally*. The Covenant of Grace, then, according to the LBC, has an external administration which included a.) children of covenant members, and b.) even those who will not internally or ultimately receive the benefits of the covenant. [This is my thesis concerning the LBC's wording -- it has yet to be validated.]
> 
> 2.) Extrapolation from the various testaments (which the LBC _does_ say are a part of the Cov. of Grace) implies that this external administration of the Cov. of Grace, in general, involves by command the infant seed of covenant members.



I may be in over my head here as well. I hope I am not misreading your question.

The RB believes the Abrahamic and Mosaic etc were 'typical' and 'preparatory'. Therefore any administrations were also 'typical' and 'preparatory'.



Prufrock said:


> 3.) _If_ we consider these all to be various administrations of a single Covenant of Grace and not as separate entities from which we extrapolate the concept of a single overarching covenant , _and_ the New Testament is also a part of this same Covenant, _then_ can we say that the Covenant under this administration *ceases* to have reference to the seed? (This, of course, is where the argument will start to get messy; and where, I think, reformed baptist and "normal baptist" views may start to come into conflict)



The RB defines terms by starting with the NT and looking back, not the other way around. "The full discovery thereof was completed in the NT." (LBC 7:3) The RB denies that the CoG/Promise ever had any reference to the seed except what is 'typical' or 'preparatory'.



Prufrock said:


> 5.) Baptism, then, would have nothing to do with being a covenant seal or sign, but merely a sign of the church (the church being a subset of the New Testament administration -- those of this administration who are actually regenerate).



The RB denies that baptism is a 'seal'. The RB does not necessarily think of baptism as a sign of 'the church' but of (1) fellowship with Christ; (2) engrafting into Christ; (3) remission of sins; (4) walking in newness of life. (LBC 29:1)


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 19, 2009)

From all of your answers, I'm still hung up on my first question, then, regarding 7.3's reading.

For instance, Ken: let's just both assume your "preparatory and typical" position briefly. Even calling the Abrahamic or Mosaic ordinances preparatory and typical, I still can't get past that 7.3's wording assigns these as "farther steps" by which the "covenant is revealed," finally culminating in the New Testament (so 7.3). Doesn't the confession say that these things belong to the Covenant of Grace which is "founded on the eternal covenant transaction," though not identical with it? Obviously these "farther steps" were given to more than simply those effectively called, and that by right and command.

I don't see how these "farther steps" don't, according to ch.7, belong to the Cov. of Grace, as they are included in the chain of revelation in 7.3 that runs from the promise to Adam through the New Testament: surely, both of these belong _essentially_ to the Cov. of Grace, and if these "farther steps" are a part of that chain, it seems a logical injustice to remove them from the same Covenant. All of this heavily implies to me that the confession is considering an external administration of the covenant of grace which includes all those under the Mosaic and Abrahamic ordinances. (If someone is commanded to use certain ordinances, be instructed and guided, prepared and readied by them, what else can we say than that they are are under the care or the administration of these things?)

We can call them "preparatory and typical," but then what _are_ they if not pertinent to the CoG? They don't belong to the covenant of works, for they are included by 7.3 as "farther steps" in revealing the covenant of grace; are these revelations of God's covenant which exist outside of it? What, then, would they be? But if they are a part of the Covenant of Grace, with what other choice are we left than that the CoG may be described by an external administration which includes those commanded to submit to its ordinances (those "farther steps")?

I'm sorry if this lack clarity. I will revisit it tomorrow.


----------



## MW (Mar 19, 2009)

Waldron on chapter 28, Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: "Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and the 'covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church" (Exposition, 338).

I think paedobaptists can only properly understand the Baptist view of "covenants" and "baptism" when they step away from their own integrated view and realise that there cannot be any kind of relationship between them in antipaedobaptist thought.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Waldron on chapter 28, Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: "Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and the 'covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church" (Exposition, 338).
> 
> I think paedobaptists can only properly understand the Baptist view of "covenants" and "baptism" when they step away from their own integrated view and realise that there cannot be any kind of relationship between them in antipaedobaptist thought.



That's hard. Perhaps it's not as arduous a task as I think it would be, but that paradigm shift seems huge. But, that quote is helpful, and it seems to confirm one of the things with which I'm wrestling: the relationship between baptism and the Covenant in the LBC.


----------



## KMK (Mar 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Waldron on chapter 28, Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: "Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and the 'covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church" (Exposition, 338).
> 
> I think paedobaptists can only properly understand the Baptist view of "covenants" and "baptism" when they step away from their own integrated view and realise that there cannot be any kind of relationship between them in antipaedobaptist thought.



I don't think you are fully representing Waldrons' view. (Unless I am missing something in the conversation.) Here is the full paragraph:



> Paragraph 1 of the WC has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and 'the covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church. The effort to define the relationship between the symbol and the reality symbolized contained in paragraph 2 of the Westminster Confession and the statement in paragraph 3 concerning the efficacy of the sacraments are also absent. Also eliminated is the effort in paragraph 5 to define the relationship between the OT sacraments and those of the NT. *Much of this material contained in the WC is good and helpful, or at least touches on issues that need treatment.* It has probably been omitted either because it is covered in chapters 29 and 30 of the Baptist Confession or because it seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors.



I don't think Waldron is saying that because the material was dropped it is not necessarily true, or useful.


----------



## MW (Mar 19, 2009)

KMK said:


> > It has probably been omitted either because it is covered in chapters 29 and 30 of the Baptist Confession or because it seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors.



Chapter 29, Of Baptism, does not associate the ordinance of baptism with the covenant concept; this rules out the possibility that it was omitted because it is covered in chapter 29, which only leaves the reason that it "seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors."


----------



## py3ak (Mar 19, 2009)

[Moderator Note: Moved at Prufrock's request to enable paedo-baptists to reply. Be warned, however, that the tone of *all* posts (excepting this note) *will* be irenic or they will disappear without warning.]

To me it seems possible to be convinced that all Biblical covenants are made with "you and your seed"; to acknowledge that children are included the administration of the covenant of grace, and are rightly seen as part of the church; to recognize this as a point of unity between Old and New Testaments, as embraced by the covenant of grace: and yet still think that infant baptisms are somewhat irregular, though not invalid, because to those points there must be added a certain correspondence between circumcision and baptism and a certain relationship between sacrament and covenant. If those links are not demonstrated, acceptance of paedo-baptism still involves something of a leap, even in the absence of other disagreements. Although if the nature of the link between baptism and discipleship could be stated explicitly and defended exegetically that might go a long way.


----------



## KMK (Mar 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> > > It has probably been omitted either because it is covered in chapters 29 and 30 of the Baptist Confession or because it seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors.
> ...



That does not change the fact that Waldron admits that much of the material that has been omitted is, "good and helpful, or at least touches on issues that need treatment." Perhaps an historian could shed more light on this.

I am not sure what you mean be 'associate'. 29:1 says that Baptism is a 'sign'.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 19, 2009)

So, is this thread about the over arching Covenant of Grace or the ordinances relationship to it? Is it about whether or not the Covenant of Grace administers the other Covenants (ie. the Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.) or is it about the ties between the sacraments (or ordinances) between the Covenants as they are viewed by the Particular Baptist framers of the 1689? I just want some clarification. If so, we need to address what is being questioned here. The 1689 was written with some wiggle room (as I would call it) for differing parties. Generalities were made in the 1689 Confession as they were in the Westminster Confession to allow for different understandings. For example it is debated whether or not the Westminster was purely supra or infralapsarian. There were parties on both sides. I recently read an article on Samuel Rutherford's Supralapsarianism that seemed to acknowledge this in the Confessional Presbyterian vl. IV by Dr. Guy Richards. The same goes with the generalities of the 1689 and the Covenant of Works. It is noticeably lacking in quantity (and quality in my opinion) in the 1689 to allow for a more diverse understanding of the doctrine. 

Now concerning the Sacraments. Dr. Waldron has a good paragraph to read on page 338. He also discusses the differences between the word sacrament and ordinance. He has no problem with the word ordinance as long as a salvific nature is not attached to its meaning as in the Roman Catholic understanding of the word.



> Other aspects of the Westminster treatment of the sacraments which have been eliminated are as follows. Paragraph 1 of the WC has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the the sacraments and 'the covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church. The effort to define the relationship between the symbol and the reality symbolized contained in paragraph 2 of the WC and the statement in paragraph 3 concerning the efficacy of the sacraments are also absent. Also eliminated is the effort in paragraph 5 to define the relationship between the Old Testament sacraments and those of the New Testament. Much of this material contained in the WC is good and helpful, or at least touches on issues that need treatment. It has probably been omitted either because it is covered in chapters 29 and 30 of the Baptist Confession or because it seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors.



I would personally like to find out where this thread is leading. What is being questioned? Prufrock (Paul).... Do you want to discuss the Baptist understanding concerning the relationship between the sacraments and the Covenant of Grace or the understanding of with whom the Covenant of Grace includes? 

Thanks,
Randy


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 19, 2009)

One more thing. If we get back to the first question about 7.3. I believe we are discussing the Covenant of Redemption it this phrase.


> and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect


 And this would only include the elect.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 19, 2009)

Randy,

Without appearing too ambiguous, I would like to say it's about both. There is a big mental disconnect for me in that 7.3 refers to what it seems can only be the revelations of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as "farther steps" by which "the covenant is revealed in the gospel."

Thus, this first step I'm trying to wrap my mind around is summarized:
1. These ordinances (farther steps) reveal the gospel; this is their purpose.
2. Even if they are typological, their substance then is still the substance of Christ and the Covenant of Grace.
3. These are _the_ means by which the gospel and covenant were revealed, and the means by which men were brought thereunto and guided therein.

How, then, can it be said that these Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances are anything but an administration of the Covenant of Grace? And, as these (the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations) contained externally _by command_ certain who were surely reprobates, then does it not follow that we can say there is an external administration of the Covenant which includes, de jure, certain reprobates? Perhaps I'm too obtuse, but I just can't see how the gospel/covenant can be administered by something without that thing being called an administration thereof.

-----Added 3/19/2009 at 01:11:02 EST-----



PuritanCovenanter said:


> One more thing. If we get back to the first question about 7.3. I believe we are discussing the Covenant of Redemption it this phrase.
> 
> 
> > and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect
> ...



Absolutely: founded upon, but I don't think this has to mean "coextensive with."


----------



## VictorBravo (Mar 19, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> How, then, can it be said that these Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances are anything but an administration of the Covenant of Grace? And, as these (the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations) contained externally _by command_ certain who were surely reprobates, then does it not follow that we can say there is an external administration of the Covenant which includes, de jure, certain reprobates? Perhaps I'm too obtuse, but I just can't see how the gospel/covenant can be administered by something without that thing being called an administration thereof.



Paul, I really wish I could have more time to address your questions, because I think you are identifying one of the big difficulties in the typical credo/paedo discussion. As Matthew rightly pointed out, there is a big difference in thinking at the beginning.

Here is a more specific difficulty I have with your line of reasoning: I see you using the term "external administration" in a way that I don't follow. Let me see if I can set it out.

1. Abrahamic Administration: external administration? Well, sure, if that means God stated plainly that the children of Abraham should be circumcized. Agreed. But what were the promises? Abraham would be father of many nations, God would be a God unto the and "thy seed," and the land of Canaan would be an everlasting possession.

2. Mosaic Administration: Certainly external in the sense of God giving Moses the law and specific promises and curses, externally administrated in the sense of God separating out for himself a people who were to be an example to the world, preserve his Word, etc.

So I agree with external administration in this sense, but I stumble on the idea that the Covenant of Grace must be applied to all people in exactly the same manner as it may have been understood by men at the time. To my benighted Baptist mind, it is putting the cart before the horse. I see the Covenant of Grace fully revealed now, founded upon the inter-trinitarian counsel before creation, and gradually revealed in types and shadows, but always reflecting the truth of the eternal Covenant of Grace that God will and does redeem his people.

For instance, in Gal. 3:16 and so forth, Paul says the promise was to Abraham's seed (singular). Paul identifies this seed with Christ. That bit of latter revelation explains something that may not have been completely clear to Abraham: that the covenant signified by circumcision was to secure a promise of one man as redeemer, Christ Jesus.

Similarly with the Mosaic, we see how the law was given to demonstrate through types and shadows the necessity of the sacrifice of that one seed, Christ. (Gal. 3:19 and elsewhere).

My point in bringing this up is that, by looking back from the standpoint of later revelation, we now see that the temporal covenants themselves were preparatory, acting to point to Christ and to preserve a physical line of descent to the one of promise. 

So, when you ask why the Covenant of Grace should not be administered in the same fashion as the Abrahamic covenant, it creates the disconnect I experience: I'd view it as saying that the Abrahamic covenant was administered in a way to reflect how the Covenant of Grace is administered, not the other way around. And, according to God's wisdom and timing, he revealed it in such a way as was necessary for that time to demonstrate both the promise and the importance of holiness and separateness.

Perhaps I've muddied this up too much. As I've said, I'd really like to be able to take the time to zero in on this, but I can't right now.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 19, 2009)

Vic, thank you for your response. I don't have time to read it carefully at the moment, but I will do later this evening.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 19, 2009)

Prufrock said:


> Randy,
> 
> Without appearing too ambiguous, I would like to say it's about both. There is a big mental disconnect for me in that 7.3 refers to what it seems can only be the revelations of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as "farther steps" by which "the covenant is revealed in the gospel."
> 
> ...



I will have to address the first part later since I am leaving for Lewie Ville in about 15 minutes. On the second part it says *founded in*, and not upon. 


> and it is *founded in that eternal covenant* transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect


 Doesn't that make a difference? Also it concludes with the phrase *"about the redemption of the Elect*." This is a prelapsarian Covenant that is being discussed. I believe it is the Covenant of Redemption. And the Elect are only a part of it.


----------



## Prufrock (Mar 19, 2009)

Randy, 

I hope your trip goes well to "Lewie Ville." 

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with that. The Covenant of Redemption being there spoken of pertains only to the elect, and the Covenant of Grace is therein or thereupon founded.


----------



## MW (Mar 19, 2009)

KMK said:


> I am not sure what you mean be 'associate'. 29:1 says that Baptism is a 'sign'.



But it is a sign of fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits. There is no mention of "covenant" or "federal" relations or standings.

Historically, there is no connection between covenant and baptism in Baptist thought. This is clear from its absence in the first London Confession, which has been consciously followed by the second 1677/89 London Confession.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Mar 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> But it is a sign of fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits. There is no mention of "covenant" or "federal" relations or standings. Historically, there is no connection between covenant and baptism in Baptist thought. This is clear from its absence in the first London Confession, which has been consciously followed by the second 1677/89 London Confession.


Huh? 

In Puritan Baptist thought Christ's redemptive work and benefits are not distinct from but inseparably bound to the biblical and theological concepts of _federal headship_ and _covenant_. Indeed, to be in "saving fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits" (of which Baptism is a "sign") is to be in "covenant" with Christ:Touching His office, Jesus Christ only is made the Mediator of *the New Covenant*, even *the everlasting covenant of grace* between God and man, to be perfectly and fully the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church of God for evermore (1st LBCF 1644, Art. X).

That all believers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of *the New Covenant*, and effect of the love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in truth and reality separated both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through *the blood of the everlasting Covenant*, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the commands, which Christ as Head and King in *this New Covenant* has prescribed to him (1st LBCF 1644, Art. XXIX).

All believers through the knowledge of that justification of life given by the Father, and brought forth by the blood of Christ, have this as their great privilege of *that New Covenant*, peace with God, and reconciliation .... (1st LBCF 1644, Art. XXX). 

To this Church He has made His promises, and given *the signs* of *His Covenant* presence ...." (1st LBCF, Art. XXXIV). [Note: Article XL identifies baptism as one of the "signs" of this "covenant."]​The wording of many of these articles is nearly identical to that of the 1596 True Confession, whose primary author was, apparently, Henry Ainsworth, a separatist congregationalist. The First London Baptist Confession also drew much of its language and phraseology from William Ames's _The Marrow of Sacred Divinity_.


----------



## MW (Mar 19, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> In Puritan Baptist thought Christ's redemptive work and benefits are not distinct from but inseparably bound to the biblical and theological concepts of _federal headship_ and _covenant_.



Certainly Christ and His benefits to the elect are inseparably bound to the everlasting covenant, but baptism is not considered as administering the covenant, admitting one into the covenant, or as a token that one is in covenant with God in Baptist thought; otherwise you would have temporary professors in the new covenant, which is anathema to the "reformed baptist" system.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The wording of many of these articles is nearly identical to that of the 1596 True Confession, whose primary author was, apparently, Henry Ainsworth, a separatist congregationalist.



The True Confession speaks very clearly to the point that the baptised are "made pertakers of the signe of Gods Couenant," and this includes infants. The removal of both the application to infants and of the tie to covenant membership is the more pronounced in the First London Confession given that it reflects or relies on the True Confession at various points.


----------



## Iconoclast (Mar 19, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Certainly Christ and His benefits to the elect are inseparably bound to the everlasting covenant, but baptism is not considered as administering the covenant, admitting one into the covenant, or as a token that one is in covenant with God in Baptist thought; otherwise you would have temporary professors in the new covenant, which is anathema to the "reformed baptist" system.


 Matthew this is correct when speaking of water baptism. Unless one is Spirit baptized nothing else matters. If a false professor gets wet,lives a lie, goes to the white throne, then goes into the second death, in what way was he ever in the COG? The padeo distinction between the Cov,of redemption[Father ,Son, Spirit] before creation/ said to be made only among the persons of the Godhead- and the Cog made with men after works cov.failed.
with an outward/inward administration allows for this idea using Ot Israelites who turned from the covenant as the model.

The credo view does not draw as sharp a distinction between the cov of redemption,and the covenant of grace as we do not speak of two categories of persons*in*the covenant of grace, ie outward+visible / inward+invisible.

If we were all agreed on this point we would have only one confession.
Because of the truth and reality of Spirit baptism placing everyone of the elect in Christ, we see believer's baptism of a *believer*
as the only accurate identification of the truth of the Spirit's work.
Both grow together until the harvest. 
Tares among the wheat.. Not wheat that turn into tares.
This is the heart of the matter. In what way are people said to be [ in] the covenant of grace, but some of them are not saved. Ot.Israelites who were covenant breakers were physically born, in a physical nation. The covenant sign was given to any male born in Israel as we know, yet not all were actually covenant keepers. The covenant breaker's are described as not having faith


> 2For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.


 Did they *have salvation and lose it?*
or
Did only those among Physical Israel* have a God given faith mixed with the promise?*


> 8That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.


----------



## MW (Mar 19, 2009)

Hello Anthony, We are agreed on the point of difference between paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists, and the various ways assurance and apostasy are construed within the two schemes. I was only answering an historical question and don't really see any point trampling over the same old ground. As noted previously, as far as I can see, the antipaedobaptist denies the connection of baptism with covenant standing or that the non-elect are in covenant with God, which means there is no subjective assurance or apostasy in the antipaedobaptist scheme; all that is left is the objective belief that God knows them that are His.


----------



## Iconoclast (Mar 20, 2009)

Matthew,
Yes we have discussed this,and I am still working at it. I guess I am still trying to figure out in what sense is it considered grace, if it is not saving grace?
i see this in Romans3
1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision? 

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God. 

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 
Here having the oracles of God was said to be a great * advantage*
I see that. But without being mixed with faith they perished.

I know that the outward administration teaching gives an explanation with this in mind, and all the apostasy warning verses in Hebrews ,can plug into this. I can see how the model can work. Just not certain that it is the model that best fits and remains consistent with the doctrines of grace.
I am hoping to re-study Hebrews again, and will look to get a copy of Dickson as you had recommended. For now I am going to try to work through Gouge"s commentary and try to read it thinking of both models.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Mar 20, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > In Puritan Baptist thought Christ's redemptive work and benefits are not distinct from but inseparably bound to the biblical and theological concepts of _federal headship_ and _covenant_.
> ...



Matthew,

You say, "But baptism is not considered as administering the covenant." What do you mean by "administering the covenant"? The verb "administer" means "to manage; have executive charge of" or "to bring into use or operation." I can't see baptism as "managing" the New Covenant. I, as a Reformed Baptist, do not believe water baptism brings the New Covenant into effect or operation. Christ inaugurated the New Covenant 2000 years ago, and the Holy Spirit brings the blessings of the New Covenant into effect via regeneration. 

You say, "But baptism is not considered as ... admitting one into the covenant." Well, we do believe water baptism is a sacrament or ordinance that admits one into the visible church, which is also the visible New Covenant community. But we do not believe water baptism _ex opere operato_ admits one into the redemptive blessings proffered by the New Covenant. 

You say, "But baptism is not considered as ... as a token that one is in covenant with God." I say, the NT does intend water baptism to serve as a token or sign of our saving fellowship in the benefits of Christ's redemptive work which are the core of the NC blessing-sanctions. Are you suggesting that Baptists believe that one may enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant and yet not be "in covenant with God"? I don't follow your logic. Instead, I see it as follows:*Major premise:* The Puritan Baptists viewed baptism as a sign of one's "saving fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits." 
*Minor premise:* The Puritan Baptists viewed "saving fellowship with Christ and His redemptive work and benefits" as the essential blessings proffered in the New Covenant.
*Conclusion:* The Puritan Baptists viewed baptism as a sign (an outward sign intended to portray an inward reality) of the New Covenant. ​You say, "Temporary professors in the new covenant ... is anathema to the 'reformed baptist' system." That's not quite accurate. Reformed Baptists acknowledge the existence of "temporary professors" in the visible NT church, which is the visible NC community. These spurious believers are members of the New Covenant community _de facto_ but not _de jure_. They don't really belong in the NC community and have no claim to its blessings. That's why the punishment for them will be more severe than that under the Old Covenant (Heb. 10:26-29). To be born into the Old Covenant and then to apostatize was a bad thing. But it's a much more severe crime to profess repentance and faith in Christ, receive the NC sign of baptism, be admitted into the NC community, and then to turn your back on the NC Mediator.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> The wording of many of these articles is nearly identical to that of the 1596 True Confession, whose primary author was, apparently, Henry Ainsworth, a separatist congregationalist.





> The True Confession speaks very clearly to the point that the baptised are "made pertakers of the signe of Gods Couenant," and this includes infants. The removal of both the application to infants and of the tie to covenant membership is the more pronounced in the First London Confession given that it reflects or relies on the True Confession at various points.



That water baptism is a sign of the New Covenant and a rite of admittance into the NC community I've affirmed above and believe the Puritan Baptists would have affirmed the same. That they excluded infants as the proper recipients of this sign is, of course, understandable given their view of the New Covenant. In fact, I suspect that the rationale for their wording of the Confession (stressing the blessing-sanctions of the NC) was to highlight the impropriety of infant baptism. How dare a pastor or parent communicate to a child that he is a partaker of New Covenant blessing when he has not professed repentance and faith in Christ and is not, therefore, of the true seed of Abraham! They found no positive warrant, clear biblical precedent, or good and necessary inference to warrant such a practice. So though they embraced much of the covenant theology of their Paedo-Baptist brothers, they could not follow the extended reasoning and strained logic that insisted on making infants of believers members of the NC.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2009)

Anthony, It is interesting you bring up Romans 3, because I was studying this the other week, and noted something precious in the "advantage" which is not always apparent in commentaries. The Jews did not only _possess_ the oracles of God, but there is something distinct in the privilege in connection with them being circumcised. To be circumcised meant they were regarded as God's covenant people, and the oracles specifically addressed them as enjoying this unique relationship which others did not enjoy. In other words,, to them belongs the oracles of God does not only mean they possessed the Scriptures, but that they were addressed by God with unique privileges and responsibilities. It is in this light that we can understand something of the "grace" involved in being a part of the church as a covenant community, albeit not all who are a part of that community are brought to a saving communion with God.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Mar 20, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> It is in this light that we can understand something of the "grace" involved in being a part of the church as a covenant community, albeit not all who are a part of that community are brought to a saving communion with God.


Concerning that part of the community who are not brought into saving communion with God, shall we view the "grace" as _saving_ or _common_?


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Well, we do believe water baptism is a sacrament or ordinance that admits one into the visible church, which is also the visible New Covenant community.



We are venturing onto a doctrinal discussion and leaving behind the historical question, but in the interest of clarity:

You say you ("Reformed Baptists") believe this, but the reality is that you ("Reformed Baptists") deny this when you come to explain what you mean by the new covenant. The new covenant consists of the elect. Baptism is sometimes "administered" to the non-elect even in Baptist ecclesiology. Hence baptism has no connection with new covenant membership according to the "Reformed Baptist" definition of terms.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > It is in this light that we can understand something of the "grace" involved in being a part of the church as a covenant community, albeit not all who are a part of that community are brought to a saving communion with God.
> ...



For those individuals who are not brought to faith it proves to be "common," but for those who do believe it is the power of God unto salvation.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Mar 20, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> You say you ("Reformed Baptists") believe this, but the reality is that you ("Reformed Baptists") deny this when you come to explain what you mean by the new covenant. The new covenant consists of the elect. Baptism is sometimes "administered" to the non-elect even in Baptist ecclesiology. Hence baptism has no connection with new covenant membership according to the "Reformed Baptist" definition of terms.


Here's what I really say (again): The visible new covenant community consists of the elect and non-elect. There are no pure churches this side of glory, which is affirmed by the LBCF 1689. Only the elect, however, belong in the New Covenant community by legal right (John 1:12-13). Yes, baptism is sometimes "administered" to false professors (who are non-elect) in Baptist ecclesiology (no Baptist debates this). But your conclusion is a _non sequitur_ because you fail to distinguish between _de facto_ membership in the visible New Covenant community and _de jure _enjoyment of the New Covenant blessings, as do Reformed Baptists like myself. So baptism DOES IN FACT HAVE connection with new covenant membership according to the "Reformed Baptist" definition of terms.

-----Added 3/20/2009 at 12:27:29 EST-----



armourbearer said:


> For those individuals who are not brought to faith it proves to be "common," but for those who do believe it is the power of God unto salvation.


Matthew,

Do you endorse the concept of "common grace"?


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Here's what I really say (again): The visible new covenant community consists of the elect and non-elect. There are no pure churches this side of glory, which is confirmed by the LBCF 1689. Only the elect, however, belong in the New Covenant community by legal right (John 1:12-13).



OK; now to connect this with baptism in the modern "reformed baptist" scheme of things-- does your "covenant baptism" apply to the "spiritual" or antitypical seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only true members of the new covenant, or to the "visible new covenant community" which "consists of elect and non-elect?" If the former, then baptism has nothing to do with covenant membership; if the latter, then you cannot rule out the continuity of the covenant as it applies to non-elect, and hence leave yourself with no basis for denying baptism to infants.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Do you endorse the concept of "common grace"?



With certain qualifications, yes; sometimes the NT presents the means of grace as grace itself, as in 1 Cor. 6, Tit. 2.


----------



## Iconoclast (Mar 20, 2009)

Paragraph 2. Those who do actually profess repentance towards God, faith in, and obedience to, our Lord Jesus Christ, are the only proper subjects of this ordinance.6 

So it would belong to the first group


> OK; now to connect this with baptism in the modern "reformed baptist" scheme of things-- does your "covenant baptism" apply to the "spiritual" or antitypical seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only true members of the new covenant,



I have always understood our confession to speak of Actual ,real, born again believers, as the only proper subjects of baptism.
I do not know of any unbeliever's baptism, if their profession is false so is their baptism. It would be a lie subject to church discipline,and or the final judgment.


> If the former, then baptism has nothing to do with covenant membership


 Again, without Spirit baptism there is no covenant membership.


> 9But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.





> if the latter, then you cannot rule out the continuity of the covenant as it applies to non-elect, and hence leave yourself with no basis for denying baptism to infants.


This is where the clear difference is and as you have challenged me in the past, I or any other Reformed Baptist has to address the passages in Hebrews , and 1Cor 10 on this issue of continuity is it corporate and among households, or individual stones built together into the habitation of God.
as usual I am enjoying the interaction .


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Mar 20, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Here's what I really say (again): The visible new covenant community consists of the elect and non-elect. There are no pure churches this side of glory, which is confirmed by the LBCF 1689. Only the elect, however, belong in the New Covenant community by legal right (John 1:12-13).
> ...



Matthew,

You present me with two alternatives above: "Does your "covenant baptism" apply to the "spiritual" or antitypical seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only true members of the new covenant? Or to the "visible new covenant community" which "consists of elect and non-elect?" This is known as a false dilemma or fallacy of the excluded middle. You'd like me to choose either choice one or choice two. Instead, I'll provide something of a "both ... and" response. I'll even employ the language of our standards. 

First, Yes, "covenant baptism" does apply to the true seed of Abraham, the elect, as the only rightful members of the New Covenant. For such, water baptism functions as an "effectual means of salvation, not from any virtue in [the recipient], or in him that doth administer them; but only by the blessing of Christ, and working of the Spirit in them that by faith receive them" (WSC Q/A 91; 1693 Baptist Catechism [BC] Q/A 96). Again, for such water baptism "doth signify and seal [their] engrafting into Christ, and partaking of the [saving] benefits of the covenant of grace, and [their] engagement to be the Lord's" (WSC Q/A 94), that is, "a Sign of his Fellowship with [Christ], in his Death, Burial, and Resurrection; of his being engrafted into him, of Remission of Sins, and of his giving up himsef unto God through Jesus Christ, to live and walk in newness of life" (1693 BC Q/A 97). Since water baptism symbolizes to the recipient and others the proffered blessing-sanctions of the New Covenant, it is indeed "connected" with _de jure_ or _legally warranted_ NC covenant membership. 

(BTW, I've always wondered how water baptism could "signify (symbolize) and seal (authenticate) [a child's] engrafting into Christ" when said child may yet be unconverted and may, in the end, prove apostate.)

Second, Yes, "covenant baptism" does apply to the "visible new covenant community" which "consists of elect and non-elect." "Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the Visible Church, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience unto him" (WSC Q/A 95a). "Baptism is to be administered to all those who actually profess Repentance toward God, Faith in, and Obedience to our Lord Jesus Christ; and to none other" (1693 BC Q/A 98). Since baptism is the initiation rite of the New Covenant to be administered to those who profess faith in Christ, then covenant baptism is indeed connected with _de facto_ or _what exists with or without legal authority_ NC covenant community membership. 

Now that I got off the horns of that false dilemma, allow me to address an invalid inference you draw from a NT phenomenon. The NT acknowledges that spurious believers or false professors may receive baptism and become attached to the NC community (Matt. 13:20; Acts 8:13-23; Heb. 6:1-8; 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2; 1 John 2:18-19). Both our Confessions recognize this making a distinction between an "invisible" and "visible church" and acknowledging that "the purest churches of Christ are subject to mixture and error" (WCF 25.1-3; LBCF 26.1-3). But though the NT acknowledges that "false professors" may enter the visible church, it does not identify any apostate as one having entered the visible NC community through infant baptism. That is a Paedo-Baptist unproven assumption. 

Most the NT apostasy passage describe individuals who made a false profession of faith and who, in some cases, even enjoyed some measure of (short of saving) spiritual enlightenment, experience, and reformation (see Matt. 13:20; Heb. 6:1-8; 10:26-29; 2 Peter 2). So at best the NT phenomenon of apostasy from the visible NC community proves that false professors may infiltrate the church. It does not by any stretch of logic provide warrant for the inclusion of believers' non-professing infant children any more than it provides warrant for the inclusion of believers' non-professing spouses, parents, siblings, servants, neighbors, etc. 



armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Do you endorse the concept of "common grace"?
> ...



I am glad to hear that you embrace the concept of common grace. I had (perhaps wrongly) supposed that all High Calvinists rejected the concept of "common grace," arguing that for anything to be called "grace," it had to be saving and effectual. I'm wondering then, do you believe God grants "the grace" of water baptism to a child as a token of his desire that the child experience the saving blessings signified by that token even though some children who receive it may never experience those benefits? Or does God desire "the grace" of water baptism in the case of unbelieving children only to secure their greater damnation? Or something in between?

Respectfully yours,


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 20, 2009)

This is a great thread.... Thanks guys.


----------



## MW (Mar 20, 2009)

Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> Now that I got off the horns of that false dilemma, allow me to address an invalid inference you draw from a NT phenomenon. The NT acknowledges that spurious believers or false professors may receive baptism and become attached to the NC community



It is here, Bob, that you evidence you have not rid yourself of the dilemma as easily as you might hope. As soon as you allow for the fact that the qualifications for baptism are broader than "new covenant membership" (election), you have denied your first principle, namely, that baptism is for the spiritual seed of Abraham. By making broader qualifications, you deliberately open the door to receive candidates for baptism which you cannot guarantee are "true members" of the new covenant community. In actual fact, every one of those candidates for baptism might turn out to be a false professor. You allow that the subjects of baptism may in fact be people who are not in the new covenant, and thereby repudiate the idea that baptism has any connection with being in covenant with God.

It is at this point that your bracketed statement concerning water baptism of infants applies as equally to your own practice. You write:



> (BTW, I've always wondered how water baptism could "signify (symbolize) and seal (authenticate) [a child's] engrafting into Christ" when said child may yet be unconverted and may, in the end, prove apostate.)



Any person with any sense will be inclined to state the very same curiosity with respect to your false professor who has received baptism, who by definiton is still unconverted. The fact that there is chaff among the wheat does not prejudice doing what can be done for the sake of the wheat. So the only difference between a paedobaptist and an antipaedobaptist is the conviction held by the paedobaptist that God has His wheat amongst the smallest infants, a conviction which is practically denied by the antipaedobaptist.



Dr. Bob Gonzales said:


> I am glad to hear that you embrace the concept of common grace. I had (perhaps wrongly) supposed that all High Calvinists rejected the concept of "common grace," arguing that for anything to be called "grace," it had to be saving and effectual. I'm wondering then, do you believe God grants "the grace" of water baptism to a child as a token of his desire that the child experience the saving blessings signified by that token even though some children who receive it may never experience those benefits? Or does God desire "the grace" of water baptism in the case of unbelieving children only to secure their greater damnation? Or something in between?



I think you know by now that I only speak of God's desire for the futurition of an event as something which pertains to His exhaustive decree concerning whatsoever comes to pass in time. There are no unfulfilled desires in God. Insofar as "desire" is connected with God's precepts, the correct language is that God desires this "should" happen, not that it "shall" happen.

I highly recommend James Durham's excursus in his commentary on Revelation for an excellent treatment of the subject of common grace in relation to outward church privileges. Historically, it is in this connection, that the term common grace was discussed. "Common operations of the Spirit" is confessional language, and language which specifically applies to the area of external calling.

The question of God's intention in giving a non-elect child visible church privileges of course applies equally to the non-elect adult who is a false professor, and yet receives what is unfitly called credobaptism. Reformed people maintain that there is an eternal counsel and a temporal administration. In the eternal counsel of God the means which are used for the softening of the elect become the very means for the hardening of others. But this does not prejudice the temporal administration, where every ordinance is sincerely administered by the church so as to prejudice none in coming to Christ to receive salvation.


----------



## Dr. Bob Gonzales (Mar 20, 2009)

armourbearer said:


> Dr. Bob Gonzales said:
> 
> 
> > Now that I got off the horns of that false dilemma, allow me to address an invalid inference you draw from a NT phenomenon. The NT acknowledges that spurious believers or false professors may receive baptism and become attached to the NC community
> ...



Matthew,

Just got back from a Bible study and it's late so I don't have time to give a lengthy response. I've got three ministries of the Word this Lord's Day, so I might not have time tomorrow either. I did want to write a brief note, though, to thank you for the gentlemanly way in which you debate. The more I've interacted with you the more I've come to appreciate the gifts God given to you and your evident desire to do justice to the whole counsel of God. May the Lord bless your weekend and Sabbath day!

Your servant,


----------



## brandonadams (Mar 30, 2009)

Paul, I have recently written two blog posts directly related to your question. In my opinion, the debate over "republication" in the Mosaic Covenant sheds tremendous light on the issue.

Obedience in the Covenants Contrast

The Westminster Confession of Faith is Dispensational Contrast

-----Added 3/30/2009 at 04:20:14 EST-----

And I would add that in private correspondence asking for clarification, Waldron basically said that the view he articulates in his Exposition is not exactly that of the LBC. Waldron states that the NC is an historical covenant that did not begin until Christ's advent. When I asked for references to opposing views, he pointed me toward the confession and Coxe, saying that they tended to equate the NC with the CoG.

My only point being, please don't take Waldron's comments on Ch7 of the LBC as the only or best explanation of it.


----------

