# Beeke/Jones "A Puritan Theology" on Covenant Theology



## Taylor (Jun 26, 2016)

Hello, brothers and sisters.

As some of you may know, I have been frustrated by the fact that I have not found a helpful resource that deals clearly with the covenant theology of the Puritans from a paedobaptist perspective and emphasis, particularly in a way that it can be set side-by-side with and as a response to Pascal Denault's work on the English Baptists' covenant theology. Well, at a local Bible conference I picked up Joel Beeke's and Mark Jones' _A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life_ volume published by Reformation Heritage Books. In it, the two authors deal directly with the paedobaptist Puritans' response to the "antipaedobaptists" in England, with an emphasis on their understanding of the covenant of grace, making it among the most helpful works I have read on this subject. No longer am I forced to suffer through endless and fruitless conversation about whether or not there were infant in the households in Acts. Rather, the real issue of the differences in covenant theology are becoming clearer to me through this work. I highly recommend it.

Has anyone else picked up this volume?


----------



## johnny (Jun 27, 2016)

QUOTE: Has anyone else picked up this volume?

Yes that book has been discussed a lot on PB. I have both the hard copy and logos edition.

http://www.puritanboard.com/showthr...Doctrine-for-Life-Cheapest-price-I-have-found

Also, Reverend Marsh (Reagan) posted a great link to the Joel Beeke Lectures which are fantastic as well

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=FBGZ7ZD9rqA&list=PLHKxt9HSA8B6SGgxqOQB4rC34ZBX2ijNW


----------



## Logan (Jun 27, 2016)

Yes, I've read through it.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 27, 2016)

Hi Taylor,

It's a terrific book (actually, I have yet to find a bad Beeke book), and very much worth your time for both the initial read and return trips. I ran across this reading plan for APT a while back: http://www.joelbeeke.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/Read-A-Puritan-Theology-in-one-year.pdf

Those lectures are very helpful as well! 

You're in for a treat. Enjoy!


----------



## zsmcd (Jun 27, 2016)

It is for sure one of the top 5 books on my "to buy" list.


----------



## ZackF (Jun 27, 2016)

I haven't read it through yet but what I have read is excellent. I feel like a wounded crow complimenting the New York Symphony on its sound.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 27, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> It is for sure one of the top 5 books on my "to buy" list.



It is well wroth the money, for sure.


----------



## Dekybo (Jun 27, 2016)

I was fortunate to buy it, but have yet to read it through.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 27, 2016)

Yes it's a very useful book, and I found it very good on covenant theology, and especially useful for anyone working through the contrast between Westminister, R2K, Owen/1689 Federalism and indeed New Covenant Theology.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 27, 2016)

Yes, I've read the work. I don't know why it's been so hard for you to find works that deal with the issue at hand. I don't engage much in debate on paedobaptism any more but never found historical narratives to be decisive either way nor have I ever understood Reformed theology to rest on that point.

I will say that you may be interested to know that even Reformed confessions note that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and the elect and the Westminster Standards are careful to make the point that the graces signified in the sacraments belong to the elect alone.

The difference between the paedobaptist and the antipaedobaptist is not found in whether or not the CoG is made with Christ and, in Him, the elect but whether or not this truth actually bears on the subjects of baptism and the nature of the visible Kingdom.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 28, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> I don't know why it's been so hard for you to find works that deal with the issue at hand.



It's definitely my fault. I have only just recently been made aware of the issues between paedobaptists and credobaptists regarding covenant theology. I was made aware through Pascal Denault's book and found it so enlightening that I felt it almost unfair that I hadn't found anything of that nature from the paedobaptist side. I realize that there are numerous Puritan books written by paedobaptists on covenant theology, and it is my fault for not picking those up, but I wanted something that, like Denault's book, compiled and distilled the issues in a readable and concise manner. I think _A Puritan Theology_ does that so, so well. I am thoroughly enjoying it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 28, 2016)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know why it's been so hard for you to find works that deal with the issue at hand.
> ...



Understood. The irony is that it's the issue of how the antipaedobaptist approaches the Covenant and, more specifically, what it means to be a disciple that is at the root of the hermeneutical difference. It's even in the preface of the 1689 LBCF as they explain themselves.

Something to think about, however, is that (as I pointed out) deciding who is *in* the Covenant doesn't really address the issue. There's a misunderstanding that assumes that baptism is somehow coextensive with Covenant membership. Baptists tend to reason that since the New Covenant is perfect and made with the elect that we ought no longer signify that people "participate" in that Covenant unless we (as the Church) have some confidence that they actually are *in* that Covenant. In other words, because Christ is seen as the Perfect Mediator (and all the passing away elements replaced by involioble promises) then we should never "purposefuly" baptize someone we know is not elect. Oh, but then let's back up because we don't know such things anyway so we'll only baptize those who have a genuine profession that we can most probably determine means that the people that we admit by baptism are elect. Baptists will even acknowledge that baptism does not confer nor guarantee that the Church made the correct decision but at least (they say): "We are not purposefully baptizing people that are not elect and we put people out if they show signs of not being so."

In other words, baptism and Church membership for a baptism (or for that matter discipleship) is seen primarily as maintaining a sense of more pure "correspondence" to the ideal reality that the New Covenant consists of the elect. Whereas the OC was shadowy and not yet consommate so it could allow a mixed multitude, the NC is perfect and should no longer admit any suspect in its membership. It may occur but it is not designed that way.

As I've studied discipleship both Biblically and in my own lived experience now, I think the main problem I have is that such idealist attempts miss the nature of discipleship itself and man's creatureliness in spite of the administration of the COG and what sacraments are intended to minister to people. Discipleship is not a "you are mature and so now be joined" but it is a "be joined that you might mature". It is not a "you have fallen back, you must not be one of us" but a "press on together with us for it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God". I see the Church's role in purity not in trying to drive out people who are suspect but an encouraging/exhorting/rebuking place to the point that the only time a person is put out is when they refuse to hear/repent. I'm not trying to dichotomoize Baptists as not doing these things but simply noting that the nature of discipleship is approached from a fundamental point fo sign/signification and the idea that the Church merely ministers Word and Promise and lets the Holy Spirit decide who *really* receives evangelical graces.


----------



## Taylor (Jun 28, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> Taylor Sexton said:
> 
> 
> > Semper Fidelis said:
> ...



Thank you, brother. That is helpful. I am very appreciative of all of you here on this board and your individual and collective devotion to the Lord.


----------



## zsmcd (Jun 29, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> As I've studied discipleship both Biblically and in my own lived experience now, I think the main problem I have is that such idealist attempts miss the nature of discipleship itself and man's creatureliness in spite of the administration of the COG and what sacraments are intended to minister to people. Discipleship is not a "you are mature and so now be joined" but it is a "be joined that you might mature". It is not a "you have fallen back, you must not be one of us" but a "press on together with us for it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God". I see the Church's role in purity not in trying to drive out people who are suspect but an encouraging/exhorting/rebuking place to the point that the only time a person is put out is when they refuse to hear/repent. I'm not trying to dichotomoize Baptists as not doing these things but simply noting that the nature of discipleship is approached from a fundamental point fo sign/signification and the idea that the Church merely ministers Word and Promise and lets the Holy Spirit decide who *really* receives evangelical graces.



This was really helpful. Are there any resources that address this understanding of discipleship further? I remember reading somewhere that the Great Commission is a formula on how to disciple. We are to "go and make disciples" and the way that is done is by 1. baptizing them and 2. teaching them to obey. Baptism is not to be administered only when the minister is _absolutely_ sure that the individual has been regenerate by waiting months and months to see if their lives have been radically flipped upside down by Gospel. Rather, baptism is that first step in discipleship that is administered to believers and their children and is used in discipleship to point them back to God's promises and commands. Am I understanding correctly?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jun 30, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> Semper Fidelis said:
> 
> 
> > As I've studied discipleship both Biblically and in my own lived experience now, I think the main problem I have is that such idealist attempts miss the nature of discipleship itself and man's creatureliness in spite of the administration of the COG and what sacraments are intended to minister to people. Discipleship is not a "you are mature and so now be joined" but it is a "be joined that you might mature". It is not a "you have fallen back, you must not be one of us" but a "press on together with us for it is fearful to fall into the hands of the living God". I see the Church's role in purity not in trying to drive out people who are suspect but an encouraging/exhorting/rebuking place to the point that the only time a person is put out is when they refuse to hear/repent. I'm not trying to dichotomoize Baptists as not doing these things but simply noting that the nature of discipleship is approached from a fundamental point fo sign/signification and the idea that the Church merely ministers Word and Promise and lets the Holy Spirit decide who *really* receives evangelical graces.
> ...



I don't know about books that might describe it. I think, in general, the light of nature demonstrates to us that any "en-culturation" or "discipleship" is not a once-for-all but a maturing process. Many metaphors and descriptions are given of being planted, growing, maturing,following, etc. When we think about our children, I think some forms of Christianity are a bit schizophrenic where they realize that in every other sphere of life their children mature into understanding and responsibility. I sometimes have to simply trust that my kids will actually be good husbands and wives because I sometimes have very few evidences that some of them won't end up being bums some day. 

As for baptism of adults, I think we ought to administer to those who have been instructed to some extent and understand the nature of their salvation and the Body they will be joining themselves to. They don't have to know everything they can know but we shouldn't have any doubt that they sincerely receive what Christ offers in salvation.


----------



## earl40 (Jun 30, 2016)

Semper Fidelis said:


> As for baptism of adults, I think we ought to administer to those who have been instructed to some extent and understand the nature of their salvation and the Body they will be joining themselves to. They don't have to know everything they can know but we shouldn't have any doubt that they sincerely receive what Christ offers in salvation.



This sounds to me that the Pastor has to make some kind of decision if the adult is saved or not which is not in his preview. Are not adults baptized into the visible church and do we not trust God to only know when and if they are regenerate?

This thread ( http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/86894-Should-An-Unbelieving-Spouse-Be-Baptized )spoke on this a tad and Pastor Bruce's post #11 was In my most humble opinion fantastic on baptizing some adults, like spouses and other adults in a household, who are willing to be baptized who may or may not have faith.

Sould we deny baptism to any adult who is willing to learn and believe in Jesus?


----------

