# Reformed Baptist vs. Presbyterian covenant theology?



## jwright82

I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?


----------



## Herald

jwright82 said:


> I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?



James,

Baptism and ecclesiology are the two major differences. Folks may say, "You only disagree on those two things? Certainly you can reconcile if that's the only thing separating you." What's missing is the depth of both disagreements.


----------



## SolaScriptura

Herald said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James,
> 
> Baptism and ecclesiology are the two major differences. Folks may say, "You only disagree on those two things? Certainly you can reconcile if that's the only thing separating you." What's missing is the depth of both disagreements.
Click to expand...


That said, I will happily worship in a solid Baptist church. (If a good Presbyterian church isn't within reasonable distance.)
In my opinion, better a good Baptist church than a bad Presbyterian church... just because they baptize babies and are members of an association (with teeth) does not automatically mean that they're a great church.


----------



## MW

jwright82 said:


> I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?


 
The "RB" eternalises and etherealises covenant theology by absorbing it into the decree of God and thereby separates it from God's revealed will in time and space. The Presbyterian sees both an eternal purpose and a temporal administration in God's covenant and thereby distinguishes the secret things which belong to the Lord and those things which are revealed for us and our children.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> jwright82 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know that we agree on a lot but what is/are the distinctions between a Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian covenant theology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "RB" eternalises and etherealises covenant theology by absorbing it into the decree of God and thereby separates it from God's revealed will in time and space. The Presbyterian sees both an eternal purpose and a temporal administration in God's covenant and thereby distinguishes the secret things which belong to the Lord and those things which are revealed for us and our children.
Click to expand...

 

In all due respect to Rev. Winzer's charges of us (credo only) absorbing our view of Covenant Theology into the decree of God and separating the revealed will of God in time and space, I would have to disagree somewhat. I think I understand his charge and his view. I believe those those things which are revealed are for us and our children also. (Dueteronomy 29:29) I do believe the Covenant of Grace is Eternal. There are some in the Presbyterian camp that believe the Covenant of Grace is made only with the Elect. If I am not mistaken his view is more broad and includes temporal blessings for the non elect and that they are still members in the Covenant of Grace. I believe in temporal blessings upon those who might not be elect but that does not mean they are members of the Covenant of Grace. 

Let's speak of the Abrahamic Covenant right now for an example. I do not believe the Abrahamic is purely one of the Covenant of Grace. Ishmael and Isaac were two brothers included in the Abrahamic Covenant. But where both brothers included in the Everlasting Covenant? I do not believe they were per what Genesis 17 reveals. I leave Charles Hodges thoughts on this as an example. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/hodge-abrahamic-covenants-479/


----------



## littlepeople

armourbearer said:


> The "RB" eternalises and etherealises covenant theology by absorbing it into the decree of God and thereby separates it from God's revealed will in time and space.



Is that longhand for confusing the covenant of redemption with the covenant of grace?

---------- Post added at 11:29 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:11 AM ----------

*confusing certain benefits of....*


----------



## jwright82

So am I to understand that the Reformed Baptist leans more towards a spiritualzation of the new covenant?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am not sure how to answer that because God's kingdom encompasses both spiritual material. He has all authority. His Kingdom is very present in the world.


----------



## Peairtach

So Reformed Baptists believe that the New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, as do Presbyterians, but they believe that - unlike the Abrahamic Covenant - the administration of it is to be restricted to those old enough who personally make a credible or accredited profession of regeneration? 

I.e. Although the New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, it's sign is to be applied only to those who say that they are Isaac?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Here's a way I've used before to describe the two ways the two sides view the crucial Abrahamic covenant.

The cross of Christ is a "watershed" event. What kind of watershed?

1) Either a change comparable to the War of Independence,
or
2) a change comparable to the crossing of the Atlantic.

In the first case, representing the Presbyterian position, a great deal changed in that event, but the colonists were still Americans. An immigrant to this country, when he becomes a citizen, has Geo.Washington for a father, and indeed has the Pilgrims for fathers.

In the second case, representing the Baptist position, a great deal changed respecting the transference over the water. To illustrate further, I am pleased with my Scottish heritage, however no amount of love for William Wallace will make a Scotsman of me.


As Presbyterians, we truly view Abraham--as Americans of all stripes today should view the Puritans or Miles Standish (of Jamestown fame). We do not attach ourselves to him only in a "second-story" manner, that is, in the way that we might view an old Scottish or English (or German, or Dutch, or African, or Asian, etc.) hero of the past. We cannot identify with them, unless we return to that land, and make that heritage ours in a closer way. We identify with Abraham as if literally grafted into his true lineage. Some branches were broken off, says Paul, through unbelief, in order that we might be grafted in. *That vine is tangible.*


I do not think the Baptist views his connection in that fashion, and I mean no disrespect by that comment. Is it not a fair comparison? Honestly, when you think on it, does this illustration not seem fair to those on either side? What sort of cleavage has the cross instituted? Is it the Atlantic passage? or is it the War of Independence?


----------



## Herald

Richard Tallach said:


> So Reformed Baptists believe that the New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, as do Presbyterians, but they believe that - unlike the Abrahamic Covenant - the administration of it is to be restricted to those old enough who personally make a credible or accredited profession of regeneration?



Richard, I'm not sure I understand how you've come to this conclusion. The New Covenant is not an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant or the encompassing Old Covenant. The New Covenant is completely unlike the covenant that preceded it (Heb. 8:8-13). When a professor of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized he is baptized with the sign of the New Covenant alone. Sure, there is a shadow of the spiritual seed of Abraham, but there is not a one for one correlation between the signs (circumcision and baptism); at least not in the RB schema. The reason for this is because the New Covenant is built on better promises (Christ); Heb. 8:6.

This is not a baptism argument, it's simply a differentiation between the different views of the New Covenant.


----------



## jwright82

So I believe that the difference is one of how different each side views how different the new covenant is? Maybe spiritual wasn't the best word to use.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I believe in temporal blessings upon those who might not be elect but that does not mean they are members of the Covenant of Grace.



So the elect are the only members of the covenant of grace. Point proven -- the covenant is absorbed into the decree of God.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Let's speak of the Abrahamic Covenant right now for an example. I do not believe the Abrahamic is purely one of the Covenant of Grace. Ishmael and Isaac were two brothers included in the Abrahamic Covenant. But where both brothers included in the Everlasting Covenant? I do not believe they were per what Genesis 17 reveals. I leave Charles Hodges thoughts on this as an example. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/hodge-abrahamic-covenants-479/



For this line of argument to work one must assume that the covenant of grace is only to be identified with the everlasting covenant. Point proven -- the "RB" eternalises the covenant.


----------



## MW

littlepeople said:


> Is that longhand for confusing the covenant of redemption with the covenant of grace?


 
Not really. I don't believe Scripture sets forth an independent covenant of redemption, so I see no difficulty in regarding the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace as one and the same eternal arrangement with two aspects -- one as it concerns the Mediator and the other as it concerns the elect. It would be more correct to say that the RB collapses covenant theology into the everlasting covenant and thereby negates temporal administration.


----------



## MW

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I do not believe they were per what Genesis 17 reveals. I leave Charles Hodges thoughts on this as an example. http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/hodge-abrahamic-covenants-479/


 
If Hodge's Systematic Theology is permitted to explain his meaning, it is clear that Hodge only intended to state that two distinct kinds of promises were mingled together under the Abrahamic covenant. He writes (Systematic Theology, 3:553),



> If, therefore, circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew nation, it was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew Church. All this arose from the nature of God’s covenant with Abraham. *In that covenant*, as we have seen, *were included both national and religious promises*. God selected the descendants of that patriarch through Isaac to be a people peculiar to himself, He constituted them a nation to be secluded and hedged around from other nations, He gave them the land of Canaan for a habitation, and He enacted for them a code of laws, embracing their civil, national, social, personal, and religious duties. *All these enactments were mingled together*. The people were not regarded as bearing distinct relations to the magistrate and to God. All their obligations were to Him. They were a holy people; a Church in the form of a nation. The great promise, as we have seen, was the promise of the redemption of the world by the Messiah. To this everything else was subordinate. The main design of the constitution of the Hebrews as a distinct nation, and of their separation from all other people, was to keep alive the knowledge of that promise. Almost the whole significancy and value of the priesthood, sacrifices, and temple service, were to prefigure the person, offices, and work of the Messiah. To the Hebrews as a people were committed the “oracles of God;” this was their grand distinction. Those oracles had reference to the great work of redemption. *To suppose a man to be a Jew*, *and not at least a professed believer in those promises and predictions*, *is a contradiction*. *A man*, *therefore*, *was a member of the Jewish commonwealth*, *only in virtue of his being a member of the Jewish Church*; at least, he could not be the former without being the latter. *Consequently*, *every child who was circumcised in evidence that he was one of the chosen people*, *was thereby sealed as a member of the Church of God as it then existed*.



Hopefully Hodge's system of thought will be taken into account when evaluating individual statements and thereby ensure that individual statements are not made to teach something he never intended to teach.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have responded to this twice Rev. Winzer and evidently I was timed out both times and lost both posts. I think I am going to have to write it in Microsoft Word first and the post it later. I am to tired to fully do it justice tonight. I apologize.

If I am not mistaken both quotes were written close to each other time wise and compliment each other in light of Galatians 4. I have worked on this post for the last hour and a half. I have written responses twice to only be frustrated by losing what I have written. 



> If, therefore, circumcision was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew nation, it was a sign and seal of membership in the Hebrew Church. All this arose from the nature of God’s covenant with Abraham. In that covenant, as we have seen, were included both national and religious promises. God selected the descendants of that patriarch through Isaac to be a people peculiar to himself, He constituted them a nation to be secluded and hedged around from other nations, He gave them the land of Canaan for a habitation, and He enacted for them a code of laws, embracing their civil, national, social, personal, and religious duties. All these enactments were mingled together. The people were not regarded as bearing distinct relations to the magistrate and to God. All their obligations were to Him. They were a holy people; a Church in the form of a nation. The great promise, as we have seen, was the promise of the redemption of the world by the Messiah. To this everything else was subordinate. The main design of the constitution of the Hebrews as a distinct nation, and of their separation from all other people, was to keep alive the knowledge of that promise. Almost the whole significancy and value of the priesthood, sacrifices, and temple service, were to prefigure the person, offices, and work of the Messiah. To the Hebrews as a people were committed the “oracles of God;” this was their grand distinction. Those oracles had reference to the great work of redemption. To suppose a man to be a Jew, and not at least a professed believer in those promises and predictions, is a contradiction. A man, therefore, was a member of the Jewish commonwealth, only in virtue of his being a member of the Jewish Church; at least, he could not be the former without being the latter. Consequently, every child who was circumcised in evidence that he was one of the chosen people, was thereby sealed as a member of the Church of God as it then existed.





> It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and His true people. The promises of the national covenant were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e., the covenant of grace), were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the Seed of the woman, the Son of God, the Savior of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the church founded on the other.
> 
> When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church remained. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts viii. 37) The Church, therefore, is, in its essential nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, requiring merely external profession as the condition of membership. While this is true and vitally important, it is no less true that believers make themselves visible by the profession of the truth, by holiness of life, by separation from the world as a peculiar people, and by organizing themselves for the worship of Christ, and for mutual watch and care.
> Charles Hodge, Church Polity (New York: Scribner, 1878), 66-67.






> (Gen 17:16) I will bless her, and moreover, I will give you a son by her. I will bless her, and she shall become nations; kings of peoples shall come from her."
> 
> (Gen 17:17) Then Abraham fell on his face and laughed and said to himself, "Shall a child be born to a man who is a hundred years old? Shall Sarah, who is ninety years old, bear a child?"
> 
> (Gen 17:18) And Abraham said to God, "Oh that Ishmael might live before you!"
> 
> (Gen 17:19) God said, "No, but Sarah your wife shall bear you a son, and you shall call his name Isaac. I will establish my covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him.
> 
> (Gen 17:20) As for Ishmael, I have heard you; behold, I have blessed him and will make him fruitful and multiply him greatly. He shall father twelve princes, and I will make him into a great nation.
> 
> (Gen 17:21) But I will establish my covenant with Isaac, whom Sarah shall bear to you at this time next year."





> (Gal 4:22) For it is written that Abraham had two sons, one by a slave woman and one by a free woman.
> 
> (Gal 4:23) But the son of the slave was born according to the flesh, while the son of the free woman was born through promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:24) Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants. One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.
> 
> (Gal 4:25) Now Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia; she corresponds to the present Jerusalem, for she is in slavery with her children.
> 
> (Gal 4:26) But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.
> 
> (Gal 4:27) For it is written, "Rejoice, O barren one who does not bear; break forth and cry aloud, you who are not in labor! For the children of the desolate one will be more than those of the one who has a husband."
> 
> (Gal 4:28) Now you, brothers, like Isaac, are children of promise.
> 
> (Gal 4:29) But just as at that time he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit, so also it is now.
> 
> (Gal 4:30) But what does the Scripture say? "Cast out the slave woman and her son, for the son of the slave woman shall not inherit with the son of the free woman."
> 
> (Gal 4:31) So, brothers, we are not children of the slave but of the free woman.



I will respond more specifically with more detail as I tried to twice now concerning the natures of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. The Relation of the obligations of the people involved to God. The nature of the Covenant of Grace as it pertains to both the Elect and non-Elect. I will also discuss the nature of Covenant Theology as it is historical ,progressive, and narrowing in defining God's redemption concerning Christ and his bride through all ages. 

I apologize for the quicky. I am just frustrated with the board right now. I keep getting logged off as I am working.


----------



## jwright82

How does each view's covenant theology affect it's sacramentology and ecclesiology? I see these two as being intamently connected with each repesctive covenant theology. To me the differences between the two on sacramentology and ecclesiology point to a fundamental difference in covenant theology, although we agree on much something very important is different I am curious as to what that is?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Sorry guys. I have been overly busy today and will try to get up early tomorrow morning to finally respond. Thanks for your patience.


----------



## steadfast7

> How does each view's covenant theology affect it's sacramentology and ecclesiology?



Hopefullly not misrepresenting the baptist position, but it seems that if the sacraments and church membership are something applied only to those perceived as elect, then they would not be used as means of grace, as much as signifiers of a spiritual reality. It makes sense therefore that sacraments are mere ordinances, and membership is for believing adults.


----------



## SolaScriptura

I'm such a conciliatory guy.


----------



## Paul Trask

John Calvin tried to unite the different denominations but a Lutheran who didn't like Calvin would not agree. I think it sad that some think we cannot join together were Christians first and we agree on many things. The E Free Churches settled the Calvinism and Arminism debate by allowing their Churches to decide for themselves. 
I think I would become a great witness the world if we could join up together. Even if it a lose connecting agreement. I was member at one time in Reformed Baptist Church and they were covenantal but I am now a Presbyterian.


----------



## Herald

SolaScriptura said:


> I'm such a conciliatory guy.



Ben, you are. You really are.


----------



## eqdj

James,

Paedobaptist Covenant Theology is not a monolith. Ernest Kevan put the Puritans into two camps and Mark Karlberg has done a better job http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective.pdf and Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant

You'll find Covenantal Baptist who agree with these nuanced streams of Covenantal Theology.

To read them for yourself plese see here Covenant Theology & Baptism | Covenantal Baptist most of these resources are available for free as a pdf, epub or online.


----------



## jwright82

eqdj said:


> James,
> 
> Paedobaptist Covenant Theology is not a monolith. Ernest Kevan put the Puritans into two camps and Mark Karlberg has done a better job http://www.ntslibrary.com/PDF Books/Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective.pdf and Reformed Interpretation of the Mosaic Covenant
> 
> You'll find Covenantal Baptist who agree with these nuanced streams of Covenantal Theology.
> 
> To read them for yourself plese see here Covenant Theology & Baptism | Covenantal Baptist most of these resources are available for free as a pdf, epub or online.


 
Thanks!


----------



## brandonadams

James,

Regretfully, there is no one/simple answer to your question. (Part of the reason is because there is not a single/standard Presbyterian covenant theology to compare it with). 

For the most part, as has already been mentioned, Reformed Baptists believe the New Covenant is made with the elect alone (though I have run into RBs on this board who deny that), and this is the primary difference.

However, among those who believe the New Covenant is made with the elect alone, you will find further differences over how the New Covenant relates to the Covenant of Grace. In his Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of 1689, Dr. Sam Waldron argues that we must not equate any historical covenant with the Covenant of Grace and must view them all as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. So Waldron would argue that the Covenant of Grace advanced/changed as to the nature of its members when the New Covenant was inaugurated.

On the other side would be those, like me, who would equate the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace (rather than just an administration of it). Though some disagree, this is likely the view in mind in LBC 7.3 Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF Nehemiah Coxe was the likely editor of the 1689LBC (he died before it was signed). In his book on covenant theology from Adam to Abraham he passingly equates the new covenant to the covenant of grace, though he does not elaborate because that was not the focus. In his preface he says he didn't finish his work to include his thoughts on the Mosaic and New covenants because he was "happily prevented" by the publication of Owen's commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13, which he agrees with. 

In that commentary, Owen argues that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, that it is made with the elect alone, and that "No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect." Owen was not a baptist, but he argued against the opinion of "most reformed divines" on the matter of the New Covenant, and since your question is about differences in our understanding of covenant theology, I mention it here.


----------



## jwright82

brandonadams said:


> James,
> 
> Regretfully, there is no one/simple answer to your question. (Part of the reason is because there is not a single/standard Presbyterian covenant theology to compare it with).
> 
> For the most part, as has already been mentioned, Reformed Baptists believe the New Covenant is made with the elect alone (though I have run into RBs on this board who deny that), and this is the primary difference.
> 
> However, among those who believe the New Covenant is made with the elect alone, you will find further differences over how the New Covenant relates to the Covenant of Grace. In his Exposition of the London Baptist Confession of 1689, Dr. Sam Waldron argues that we must not equate any historical covenant with the Covenant of Grace and must view them all as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. So Waldron would argue that the Covenant of Grace advanced/changed as to the nature of its members when the New Covenant was inaugurated.
> 
> On the other side would be those, like me, who would equate the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace (rather than just an administration of it). Though some disagree, this is likely the view in mind in LBC 7.3 Tabular Comparison of 1646 WCF, 1658 Savoy Declaration, the 1677/1689 LBCF, and the 1742 PCF Nehemiah Coxe was the likely editor of the 1689LBC (he died before it was signed). In his book on covenant theology from Adam to Abraham he passingly equates the new covenant to the covenant of grace, though he does not elaborate because that was not the focus. In his preface he says he didn't finish his work to include his thoughts on the Mosaic and New covenants because he was "happily prevented" by the publication of Owen's commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13, which he agrees with.
> 
> In that commentary, Owen argues that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, that it is made with the elect alone, and that "No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect." Owen was not a baptist, but he argued against the opinion of "most reformed divines" on the matter of the New Covenant, and since your question is about differences in our understanding of covenant theology, I mention it here.


 
Very interesting post, thank you very much! I was looking for some very distinct theological differences, though I think they are both good positions to hold (just that the presbyterian is the better position).


----------



## brandonadams

> I think they are both good positions to hold (just that the presbyterian is the better position).



That seems a bit premature, given that you're asking to understand the differences


----------



## eqdj

Unless paedobaptists are specifically discussing the subject of the application of the "covenant sign and seal" to their literal seed, I'm not sure how much difference is in doctrine.


----------



## Peairtach

Herald said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> So Reformed Baptists believe that the New Covenant is an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant, as do Presbyterians, but they believe that - unlike the Abrahamic Covenant - the administration of it is to be restricted to those old enough who personally make a credible or accredited profession of regeneration?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, I'm not sure I understand how you've come to this conclusion. The New Covenant is not an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant or the encompassing Old Covenant. The New Covenant is completely unlike the covenant that preceded it (Heb. 8:8-13). When a professor of faith in the Lord Jesus Christ is baptized he is baptized with the sign of the New Covenant alone. Sure, there is a shadow of the spiritual seed of Abraham, but there is not a one for one correlation between the signs (circumcision and baptism); at least not in the RB schema. The reason for this is because the New Covenant is built on better promises (Christ); Heb. 8:6.
> 
> This is not a baptism argument, it's simply a differentiation between the different views of the New Covenant.
Click to expand...

 
Abraham is our father in the faith. The promises to Abraham didn't extend just to the Israelites but to all the families of the earth. Abraham is the father of many nations. Abraham is the heir of the whole world.

The New Covenant is the third phase of the unfolding Abrahamic Covenant

(a) The first phase being from Abraham to Moses

(b) The second phase being from Moses to Christ

(c) We're in the third phase.



> The New Covenant is not an administration of the Abrahamic Covenant or the encompassing Old Covenant.



What do you mean by "the encompassing Old Covenant"? The Old Covenant is what has fallen away to the extent that it was provisional and was a legal caste to help the infant Church. A child needs stabilisers on her bike when she is learning to ride it. But it is the same child that was born and grew up before she started learning to ride her bike, and it is the same child and bike when she throws away the stabilisers.

The Abrahamic Covenant of Promise remains but the sign and seal of the covenant has changed with the coming of Christ. 

The only thing that the Abrahamic Covenant shared with the Mosaic legal caste was the fact that the sign and seal of the Covenants was circumcision. The fact that children were included in the Abrahamic Covenant was of God's gracious provision to them. 

The Baptists are asking us to believe that it is of God's gracious provision in the New Covenant to exclude children from its administration. It is of the essence of the administration of the Covenant of Grace to include children, until such time as we are in the Heavenly Kingdom and marriage and the family - as we know them - are ended.

_And Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage, but those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die anymore, because they are equal to angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. (Luke 20:34-36, ESV) _

I see that you're turning Abraham into Moses in order to support your view. This is one of the major weaknesses of the Baptists. Also you don't see the organic unfolding and flowering of the Abrahamic Covenant.



> The New Covenant is completely unlike the covenant that preceded it (Heb. 8:8-13).



But is the New Covenant completely unlike the Abrahamic Covenant or a phase and administration of it? 

The Baptists don't seem see the broad historical sweep of the Abrahamic Covenant from circa 2,000 B.C. to the end of the World.

Where the Presbyterians (Covenantal Baptists) see expansion, the Baptists see contraction.

The Baptists seem to be ignoring the fact that in the New Covenant era, many believers still have families. Not all of us are single.

I don't see much profit in the paedo/credo debate except that it gets us looking closely at our Bibles, and sometimes Baptists are persuaded to become Covenantal Baptists 

Someone should design smilies that aren't so smug and patronising looking!


----------



## brandonadams

Now you're going to take the name Covenantal Baptists away from us too? Are we allowed to call ourselves anything?


----------



## eqdj

Covenantal Anti-paedobaptists?


----------



## Herald

brandonadams said:


> Now you're going to take the name Covenantal Baptists away from us too? Are we allowed to call ourselves anything?


 
Brandon, just eat the crumbs that have fallen off the table and be happy that you have them.


----------

