# Alright Baptists, it's time to get your theology straight!



## Philip A (Sep 23, 2005)

*Alright Baptists, it\'s time to get your theology straight!*

It has long been my contention on this board that in the debate between Baptists and Paedobaptists, as it has manifested itself here, has ignored an undistributed middle. This undistributed middle is the covenantal antipaedobaptist view of the early English Particular Baptists, as expressed in the 1689 Confession.

While many claim adherence to the 1689 Confession, there still remains the challenge of interpreting the Confession in light of the Covenant Theology that was actually held to by its framers. This position is neither that of Westminster Presbyterians, nor the modern Baptist position that many of our paedobaptist brethren react against (and many Baptists still hold to). Hence, an undistributed middle.

What has been problematic in approaching a constructionist interpretation of the 1689 confession is the relative obscurity of those supporting documents, written by the framers and contributors to the confession, that give further light to the broader Covenant Theology that underlies the Confession.

Thankfully, that situation is now no longer the case.

_Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ_, a new publication from Reformed Baptist Academic Press, is now going to print. This book contains within it the Treatise by Nehemiah Coxe entitled "A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with Men before the Law". It is believed that Coxe is one of the men responsible for the 1689 Confession. For more on Nehemiah Coxe, follow this link.

_Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ_ is now available for pre-publication order from Solid Ground Christian Books.

[Edited on 9-24-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## Me Died Blue (Sep 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Philip A_
> It has long been my contention on this board that in the debate between Baptists and Paedobaptists, as it has manifested itself here, has ignored an undistributed middle. This undistributed middle is the covenantal antipaedobaptist view of the early English Particular Baptists, as expressed in the 1689 Confession.



With specific regard to the discussions on this board, however, would that middle view really have gone unseen and ignored in light of the fact that it is the view to which so many on the board (such as yourself) hold and is the very view for which you argue in those discussions? In any case, the book does look like it will paint a good historical picture of the matter.


----------



## Steve Owen (Sep 24, 2005)

> _Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ_ is now available for pre-publication order from Solid Ground Christian Books.



I'm looking forward very much to reading this book. I was greatly blessed by _Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes. _ I'm just ashamed that it is Americans who are publishing these works of early English Baptists and most English baptists today have never heard of them! Keep up the good work. I'd like to see other early Baptist writings re-published.

Will this book and the _Reformed Baptist Manifesto_ be available in Britain shortly? I'm sure the Metropolitan Tabernacle in London would stock them. If not, I'll order them up by post.

Martin


----------



## JonathanHunt (Sep 24, 2005)

Martin

It probably will stock them....

But when?

It usually takes a while for a book to make its way up the pile and get the nod!

JH


----------



## JohnV (Sep 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JonathanHunt_
> Martin
> 
> It probably will stock them....
> ...



...giving a different meaning to "undistributed" middle.


----------



## Puritanhead (Sep 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JohnV_
> ...giving a different meaning to "undistributed" middle.



Yeah, they're not very _logical_


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Sep 24, 2005)

*Did somebody say Logic?*


----------



## kceaster (Sep 24, 2005)

This is just my opinion, so you can take it for what it's worth.

Since the presupposition is that infant baptism is superstitious and a hold over from Roman Catholicism, the 1689'ers had to come up with a different view of covenants. But when we talk about covenant theology, I think it needs to be said that it can only have a particular hermeneutic to be consistent. This hermeneutic is not shared between classic covenant theologians and baptist covenant theologians. Thus, you get to a point where it doesn't matter what is believed or held to today. The hermeneutic is still divergent.

The Presbyterians and the Baptists do not use the same logic to get to different points. They may start with many points of agreement, but their hermeneutic, by and large, is quite different.

This hermeneutical difference is also apparent in the divergent ecclesiological views.

So, whether there is an undistributed middle or not, I don't think that the argument will change much. The two shall not be made one simply because both interpret the Bible differently.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 25, 2005)

Philip is somewhat correct. Now Reformed Baptists, 1689ers, and others of that vein, now have some historical writing to which they can build upon. For some reason it hadn't been published. Maybe because of bias and stigma. I for one am looking forward to getting my Copy. It will move to the top of my reading list. I still don't see that Colossians 2:11,12 ties Circumcumsion and Baptism together. 

Circumcision made without hands is regeneration. Baptism is our union with Christ.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Sep 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Circumcision made without hands is regeneration. Baptism is our union with Christ.



Circumcision made without hands is regeneration.

Baptism made without water is regeneration.

Circumcision points to regeneration.

Baptism points to regeneration.

Same thing signified, different signs.


----------



## pastorway (Sep 25, 2005)

not another baptism thread.......................



by the Way, I am eagerly awaiting this new work too!

Phillip


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 25, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> ...



Baptism is significant in that it signifies Redemption, not Creation or recreation as regeneration does.

Can't wait to get my Copy. 

Rich Barcellos told me about it the other day. You can order it from him also.

[Edited on 9-25-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Peters (Oct 8, 2005)

I'm sure this book will be useful, but the Scriptures are clear. Don't you baptists agree?


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Oct 8, 2005)

Those interested in the Coxe/Owen reprint can email me at [email protected] to order. It is available to those in the UK from our UK printer. You can order at the email address above as well. There is a discount for book sellers. I will offer it to PBers for $20. It is hardback, nearly 400pp. and has recommendations by Tom Ascol, Michael Haykin, Robert Oliver, and James Renihan.


----------



## Steve Owen (Oct 8, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Peters_
> I'm sure this book will be useful, but the Scriptures are clear. Don't you baptists agree?



 Tell me, Marcos; how does your seminary treat this question? I have found that quite a few evangelical Anglicans are really closet Baptists.

[For the benefit of non-Brits, Oakhill seminary is an Anglican foundation. It is now strongly evangelical]

Grace & Peace,
Hurrah for the F.I.E.C.! 

Martin

Martin


----------



## Peters (Oct 14, 2005)

Martin, 

The faculty at Oakhill are Reformed, Post-Millennial, Peadobaptst with strong leanings toward Theonomy. To be honest, they have set me some good challenges, but peadobaptism is not one of them. The only Baptist in the seminary is my professor for Greek. My professor for Church History, Dr. Garry Williams, is absolute dynamite! Also, Dr. David Field, who runs the Post-Graduate program, is excellent. 

It is the only seminary in the country that I would recommend.


----------

