# How do Baptists take Genesis 17:7-8?



## JTB.SDG (Jul 6, 2017)

And other texts that speak of God's covenant promises extending to the seed of believers (cf. Deut.7:9; 30:6; Ps.25:13, etc etc)? Thanks in advance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jul 7, 2017)

How do paedo baptists take them? I dont think there is a difference. As Henry says, "Those that fear God shall inherit the earth, shall have a competency in it and the comfort of it, and their children shall fare the better for their prayers when they are gone."

And Spurgeon, "Good men's sons have a goodly portion to begin the world with."


----------



## Bill The Baptist (Jul 7, 2017)

Galatians 3:16 is helpful in viewing such texts.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 7, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> And other texts that speak of God's covenant promises extending to the seed of believers (cf. Deut.7:9; 30:6; Ps.25:13, etc etc)? Thanks in advance.


I'm assuming you mean reformed baptists who hold to a federalism in line w/ the 1689 confession. 

Now the OP question is quite broad. Are you meaning it to be broad or are you specifically honing in on the "offspring" aspect of this as made use by the paedobaptists? That will help to answer your question more correctly.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> And other texts that speak of God's covenant promises extending to the seed of believers (cf. Deut.7:9; 30:6; Ps.25:13, etc etc)? Thanks in advance.


As a Baptist, i have always been taught that the first Promise was concerning the Covenant of Grace, while the second one listed there was part of the OT covenant made between God and national Israel.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> I'm assuming you mean reformed baptists who hold to a federalism in line w/ the 1689 confession.
> 
> Now the OP question is quite broad. Are you meaning it to be broad or are you specifically honing in on the "offspring" aspect of this as made use by the paedobaptists? That will help to answer your question more correctly.


Is there any difference though between how any Christian sees that first promise made listed, for is that not the promise of the New Covenant to come when the Messiah is born?


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 7, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Is there any difference though between how any Christian sees that first promise made listed, for is that not the promise of the New Covenant to come when the Messiah is born?


Yes, which is where the paedo- vs. credo- debate comes in.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 7, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Yes, which is where the paedo- vs. credo- debate comes in.


Could you elaborate a bit more on that?


----------



## JimmyH (Jul 7, 2017)

If you have a copy of The Heidelberg Catechism : A Study Guide, by G.I, Williamson the explanation for Lord's day 27, questions 72-74, gives a wonderful exegesis of God's command (Genesis 17) to perform the symbol of the covenant on children of believers. In that day it was circumcision, in our day it is Baptism.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 7, 2017)

Gill says on Psalm 25:13 that "his seed" refers to: "that is, those who tread in the same steps, and fear the Lord as he does. . .", taking it not as literally the children of believers but in a kind of spiritual-children sense. I assumed this might be a main line of thought for Baptists that also applied to more foundational texts like Genesis 17:7-8, but I didn't know. As a Presbyterian I see Ps.25:13 as relating intimately to the doctrine of the covenant, that the promises of the covenant of grace extend not only to the individual, but also to their offspring. I did look up Gill on Genesis 17:7-8 and he seemed to be saying there are actually two covenants with two different kinds of promises in those two verses. Seems to me it's pretty clear it's a single covenant with Abraham and his offspring receiving the same promises. But as a Presbyterian, this is where we also build our doctrine of the covenant, including our physical seed in the covenant promises, and therefore administer the covenant sign (now of baptism). But I don't think I've really heard in much detail exactly how Baptists would interpret Gen.17:7-8 (and the texts that echo the same truths) and wondering what the main schools of thought are for them.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 8, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Gill says on Psalm 25:13 that "his seed" refers to: "that is, those who tread in the same steps, and fear the Lord as he does. . .", taking it not as literally the children of believers but in a kind of spiritual-children sense. I assumed this might be a main line of thought for Baptists that also applied to more foundational texts like Genesis 17:7-8, but I didn't know. As a Presbyterian I see Ps.25:13 as relating intimately to the doctrine of the covenant, that the promises of the covenant of grace extend not only to the individual, but also to their offspring. I did look up Gill on Genesis 17:7-8 and he seemed to be saying there are actually two covenants with two different kinds of promises in those two verses. Seems to me it's pretty clear it's a single covenant with Abraham and his offspring receiving the same promises. But as a Presbyterian, this is where we also build our doctrine of the covenant, including our physical seed in the covenant promises, and therefore administer the covenant sign (now of baptism). But I don't think I've really heard in much detail exactly how Baptists would interpret Gen.17:7-8 (and the texts that echo the same truths) and wondering what the main schools of thought are for them.


We would tend to see it mainly as Gill did, as the Promise of God coming now towards all who have been saved and now in the Body of Christ.


----------



## KMK (Jul 8, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Yes, which is where the paedo- vs. credo- debate comes in.



If this is the specific nature of the OP, then consider the Orthodox Catechism, by Baptist Hercule Collins says...


"We must know the Covenant made with Abraham had two parts: first, a spiritual, which consisted in God's promising to be a God to (e) Abraham, and (f) all his Spiritual-Seed in a peculiar manner, whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised, which believed as Abraham the Father of the Faithful did. And this was signified in God's accepting such as his People which were not of (g) Abraham's Seed, but brought with his Mony, and this Promise was sealed to Abraham by Circumcision, that through Jesus Christ (whom Isaac typified out) the Gentiles, the Uncircumcision which believed, should have their Faith counted for Righteousness, as Abraham's was before he was circumcised.
(e) Gen.17. 19,21. Gen. 21.10. Gal. 4.30. (f) Acts 2.39. Rom. 9.7,8 & c. (g) Gal. 3.16, 28, 29. (h) Rom. 4.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.

*This Promise consisted of temporal good: so God promised Abraham's Seed should enjoy the (i) Land of Canaan, and have plenty of outward blessings, so sealed this Promise by Circumcision.* *It was also a distinguishing character of the Jews being God's People from all the Nations of the Gentiles, which as yet were not the Seed of Abraham: but when the Gentiles came to believe, and by Faith became the People of God as well as the Jews, then (j) Circumcision, that distinguishing Mark, ceased; and the character of being the Children of God now is Faith in Christ, and Circumcision of the Heart.*"
(i) Gen. 15.18. Gen. 17.8, 9, 10, 11. Gen. 12.6, 7. Gen. 13.15, 16, 17. Gen. 15.16. (j) John 1.12. Rom. 2.28, 29. Phil. 3.3. Gal. 3.26, 27, 28


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 8, 2017)

KMK said:


> If this is the specific nature of the OP, then consider the Orthodox Catechism, by Baptist Hercule Collins says...
> 
> 
> "We must know the Covenant made with Abraham had two parts: first, a spiritual, which consisted in God's promising to be a God to (e) Abraham, and (f) all his Spiritual-Seed in a peculiar manner, whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised, which believed as Abraham the Father of the Faithful did. And this was signified in God's accepting such as his People which were not of (g) Abraham's Seed, but brought with his Mony, and this Promise was sealed to Abraham by Circumcision, that through Jesus Christ (whom Isaac typified out) the Gentiles, the Uncircumcision which believed, should have their Faith counted for Righteousness, as Abraham's was before he was circumcised.
> ...


And that would be why. among us Baptists, that there was no water baptizing of infants, as the sign of the new Covenant was not the water, but the sealing of and by the Holy Spirit of those now among the Community of faith. This is NOT intended to be an insult to my brethren here who hold the different view on water baptism, just addressing the OP as to how we view those passages.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Could you elaborate a bit more on that?





JimmyH said:


> If you have a copy of The Heidelberg Catechism : A Study Guide, by G.I, Williamson the explanation for Lord's day 27, questions 72-74, gives a wonderful exegesis of God's command (Genesis 17) to perform the symbol of the covenant on children of believers. In that day it was circumcision, in our day it is Baptism.



This, by JimmyH is why.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 9, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Gill says on Psalm 25:13 that "his seed" refers to: "that is, those who tread in the same steps, and fear the Lord as he does. . .", taking it not as literally the children of believers but in a kind of spiritual-children sense. I assumed this might be a main line of thought for Baptists that also applied to more foundational texts like Genesis 17:7-8, but I didn't know. As a Presbyterian I see Ps.25:13 as relating intimately to the doctrine of the covenant, that the promises of the covenant of grace extend not only to the individual, but also to their offspring. I did look up Gill on Genesis 17:7-8 and he seemed to be saying there are actually two covenants with two different kinds of promises in those two verses. Seems to me it's pretty clear it's a single covenant with Abraham and his offspring receiving the same promises. But as a Presbyterian, this is where we also build our doctrine of the covenant, including our physical seed in the covenant promises, and therefore administer the covenant sign (now of baptism). But I don't think I've really heard in much detail exactly how Baptists would interpret Gen.17:7-8 (and the texts that echo the same truths) and wondering what the main schools of thought are for them.


So the OP was geared more toward the issue of baptism (as I suspected). I'll try to comment more later when I have a chance. Long story short, Gal. 4 speaks of 2 covenants related to Abraham (See the catechism quoted above in a recent post by H. Collins). Also, 1689 federalism would not put the Abraham covenant as the covenant of grace but only that it reveals the covenant of grace (which is the new covenant). Therefore, the matter of "seed" here doesn't transfer since we (1689 federalists) reject the 1 covenant 2 administration model. More on this later.


----------



## KMK (Jul 9, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> we (1689 federalists)



This seems to be a novel term that pops up around here from time to time. Does '1689 federalist' = 'LBC 1689 Subscriber'?


----------



## Pilgrim0297 (Jul 9, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> And other texts that speak of God's covenant promises extending to the seed of believers (cf. Deut.7:9; 30:6; Ps.25:13, etc etc)? Thanks in advance.



Good question! And providential at that. I just preached on this very verse this morning. I am at a reformed-ish SBC church, but a Presbyterian at heart. (...and praying for the opportunity to plant a Presbyterian church in South Texas... ). We've been studying the book of Genesis on Sunday nights and we came across Gen. 17:7-8 a couple of weeks ago and it has been gnawing at me. I have kept going back to it and exploring it, especially the "thy seed" and "in/through the generations" phrases. 

Well, I have been preaching through Luke on Sunday mornings and the passage that I had planned to preach was Luke 18:15-27. My main theme was the question: Who does the Kingdom belong to? Well the more I meditated on Luke 18:15-17, I couldn't shake Genesis 17:7. So i decided to call an audible, shortened the passage and preached on Luke 18:15-16. I kept the title and preached on the fact that God gives a special grace to families with Christians in them (I. God welcomes the children of believers (Luke 18:15-16, Mk. 10:13-16, Luke 9:47-48; Matthew 18:2-5 [whole chapter]); II. God gives grace through the generations of Christian families (Gen. 17:7; Gal. 3:16; Romans 4:11-17; Galatians 3:29; 1 Cor. 7:13-16; Mal. 2:14-15; 2 Tim. 1:5.); III. Responsibilities of Parents as Chief Disciple-makers (Deut. 6:4-9; Eph. 5:17-6:4). 

I'm not sure if I was right in any of that, but I preached it. Let me know if any of you see any flaws in that logic.

While I know the overall message of Luke 18:15-27 is that we must have faith like a child to enter the Kingdom of God (we will get to that next week), I just couldn't pass up the opportunity to encourage parents to push past the rebuking disciples like the families in the passage who were bringing their infants to Jesus and take up their own responsibility as a parent to bring their children to Jesus. 

I'm waiting to see if I'm in trouble or not...


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 9, 2017)

KMK said:


> This seems to be a novel term that pops up around here from time to time. Does '1689 federalist' = 'LBC 1689 Subscriber'?



Yes, but it means something more specific with regard to historic Baptist covenant theology. The name probably comes from a website Brandon Adams (I think it was) set up. At least that's where I first came across it. This video explains how they differentiate themselves from what they term "20th Century Reformed Baptist" covenant theology.

It had been clear to me for years that at least some older Calvinistic Baptist writers did not espouse the one covenant, two administrations view that I had been told was the RB view 15 or so years ago while they were also not Dispensational or NCT. (Most of these older writings would not have been widely available in the mid-late 20th Century.) Coming across this recent article by Peter Masters is more evidence of the older view:



> As I remarked earlier, this was what I was taught in spiritual infancy. The 1689 covenant view was still alive in the 1950s. I remember as a very young man being surprised on first running into dispensationalism, *and then being even more surprised to find that some Calvinistic Baptists had adopted a modified Presbyterian view, accepting the Mosaic order as an administration of the covenant of grace.* They took the view that after the Fall there has been only one covenant – that of grace – administered in different ways in the Old and New Testaments. In other words, they took the ‘one-covenant two-administration’ view.
> 
> The heyday of dispensationalism almost crowded out the old view, then in the 1950s a renewed enthusiasm for good systematic theology swept in, but being largely from a Presbyterian stable, it led many Baptists to adopt their one-covenant position. The authentic Baptist view was not rendered altogether extinct, however, and it is grand to see it enjoying a considerable revival, several excellent studies having emerged in the USA in recent years**. * I used to visit the USA often years ago and it seemed to me that the historic Baptist view of covenants had died out there. It was a kind of side-hobby for me to chat to pastors about the authentic Baptist view of covenants, and I believe they viewed me as an eccentric, speaking of something unknown to mankind. But the revival of the historic view in recent years is immensely valuable, for few things are so scripturally logical, illuminating and practical.*


----------



## KMK (Jul 9, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> "20th Century Reformed Baptist" covenant theology



For the sake of brevity, can you tell us some names of who these people are who lost their way from the original intent of the 1689?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 9, 2017)

KMK said:


> For the sake of brevity, can you tell us some names of who these people are who lost their way from the original intent of the 1689?



The video (which features Richard Barcellos, Mike Renihan, Samuel Renihan, and maybe others, so it isn't some kind of fringe thing) is pretty brief and the chart is really brief. I'm not sure that they name names, but as I understand it, they say that practically all RB leaders adopted this view largely for want of other resources besides Presbyterian ones. Peter Masters seems to indicate that all of the American RBs he talked to held to what he terms the "modified Presbyterian" view. A lot of older works are now available via Early English Books Online and other sources, and this has largely fueled the recovery of older Particular Baptist writings from what I understand. The "1689 Federalist" men say that what they teach is what most of the 17th Century leaders taught, but also say that the confession is sufficiently broad to allow for both views.

The sticking point seems to be whether or not one views the Mosaic Covenant as an administration to the covenant of grace. It appears that most older Baptists denied that it was. The "1689 Federalists" equate the covenant of grace with the New Covenant. I understand that Waldron has said that the CoG is not to be strictly equated with any particular biblical covenant.

For what it's worth, I am not committed to 1689 Federalism but was simply relating what was meant by it. I'm not sure myself about equating the NC with the CoG. It is a complicated issue and one that I haven't devoted much time to in recent years. It appears that others who have posted here would be better equipped to answer your questions.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 9, 2017)

I am currently struggling over this issue.


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 9, 2017)

Pilgrim0297 and Pergamum, really appreciate the honesty.

Can any of my Baptist friends recommend a trusted/accepted book that in particular truly interacts with these kinds of Scriptural promises to infants of believers in the covenant; texts like Genesis 17:7-8 (and the others)? Thanks.


----------



## KMK (Jul 9, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> I'm not sure that they name names, but as I understand it, they say that practically all RB leaders adopted this view largely for want of other resources besides Presbyterian ones. Peter Masters seems to indicate that all of the American RBs he talked to held to what he terms the "modified Presbyterian" view.



I've heard this before, but I have never met one or heard of anyone who actually teaches, that I know of, a modified Presbyterian view. Perhaps they refer to Calvinistic Dispensationalists like MacArthur? I don't see much latitude in the 1689 for other views.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 9, 2017)

KMK said:


> I've heard this before, but I have never met one or heard of anyone who actually teaches, that I know of, a modified Presbyterian view. Perhaps they refer to Calvinistic Dispensationalists like MacArthur? I don't see much latitude in the 1689 for other views.



It is pretty clear they are referring to Waldron, Malone, Nichols, Kingdon, Chantry, etc. They express great respect for them but think their covenant theology is off a bit.

The idea is that they unwittingly adopted a modified Presbyterian view because there were few other resources to draw on in that day at a time when the churches generally were overrun by liberalism on the one hand and dispensationalism on the other. (Even many Presbyterians in the mid-20th Century were dispensationalists.) There was nowhere you could go and learn Baptist covenant theology and you couldn't scan and digitize old books and access them anywhere within a moment's notice.

From what I've seen, there is no attempt to denigrate "20th Century Reformed Baptists" but rather the "1689 Federalists" simply believe that their view provides a more solid foundation on which to build a covenant theology, a Biblical theology, etc. Brandon even says nice things about them in the comments of that YouTube video.

A.W. Pink's "The Divine Covenants" is said to be closer to the old view. I wonder if that's why Iain Murray said that Pink had a different definition of covenant or that his CT was different. (It has been a long time since I've read that book, so I can't remember what Murray's specific remark was.) Murray also reported that Pink carried around huge chests of books as he sailed around the world, many of which he had picked up in old bookshops. (I wonder what happened to those books?) I don't know to what extent Pink's CT owed to older writers, though. But given his travels throughout the English speaking world, he would have had as much opportunity to get his hands on works of that vintage as anyone else. Surely one of things that made his writing so valuable at the time was the fact that he drew upon so many older Puritan and other works that were long out of print.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 10, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Pilgrim0297 and Pergamum, really appreciate the honesty.
> 
> Can any of my Baptist friends recommend a trusted/accepted book that in particular truly interacts with these kinds of Scriptural promises to infants of believers in the covenant; texts like Genesis 17:7-8 (and the others)? Thanks.




Stan Reeves' FAQ page may help you see where Baptists are coming from. It is too bad that most of the links there are dead (mainly owing to the recent redesign of the Founders Ministries website) but you should be able to copy the links and paste them here and be able to view the old pages. 

There are so many books that have come out in recent decades that it is hard to know where to begin. And it must be said that how one handles these texts in many cases won't have anything to do with whether one is a "1689 Federalist" or a "20th Century Reformed Baptist." I'm sorry that the thread has gotten somewhat off into the weeds in that regard.

More recent books that come to mind (some of which I have not read) are Fred Malone's "Baptism of Disciples Alone," Gary Crampton's "From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism," and Alan Conner's "Covenant Children Today: Physical or Spiritual?" with the last two being available from Reformed Baptist Academic Press. Jeffrey Johnson's book "The Fatal Flaw" is also one to take a look at, although in my opinion the author would be well served to have it much more thoroughly edited and then re-release it. I haven't read Pascal Denault's "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" but I'm sure much of this territory is also covered there. Some that are a little bit older are David Kingdon's "Children of Abraham" (OOP and typically very hard to find, especially at a reasonable price) and Paul King Jewett's "Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace." Jewett ended up being a rather progressive evangelical, but that book probably still deserves honorable mention simply because of how well written it is. But it has really been superseded at this point.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 10, 2017)

KMK said:


> This seems to be a novel term that pops up around here from time to time. Does '1689 federalist' = 'LBC 1689 Subscriber'?


Yes and no. There has been a recent resurgence of 17th century particular baptist federal theology. 20th century reformed baptist lost that and relied upon paedobaptist federalism minus the paedobaptism. This leads to problems in how we talk about covenant theology. 1689 federalism makes the distinction and upholds credobaptism via covenant theology.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Yes, but it means something more specific with regard to historic Baptist covenant theology. The name probably comes from a website Brandon Adams (I think it was) set up. At least that's where I first came across it. This video explains how they differentiate themselves from what they term "20th Century Reformed Baptist" covenant theology.
> 
> It had been clear to me for years that at least some older Calvinistic Baptist writers did not espouse the one covenant, two administrations view that I had been told was the RB view 15 or so years ago while they were also not Dispensational or NCT. (Most of these older writings would not have been widely available in the mid-late 20th Century.) Coming across this recent article by Peter Masters is more evidence of the older view:


Reformed baptists would hold to the new Covenant as being shown back there at the time of Abraham , as to still be a future event, as we do see the church as being created at Pentecost, There is a single Covenant of Grace in the sense that all who have been saved are through and by the Grace of the Christ , but that the New Covenant of Grace was ushered in at time of the Cross/death and resurrection of Jesus, as the church came in at Pentecost.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 11, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> So the OP was geared more toward the issue of baptism (as I suspected). I'll try to comment more later when I have a chance. Long story short, Gal. 4 speaks of 2 covenants related to Abraham (See the catechism quoted above in a recent post by H. Collins). Also, 1689 federalism would not put the Abraham covenant as the covenant of grace but only that it reveals the covenant of grace (which is the new covenant). Therefore, the matter of "seed" here doesn't transfer since we (1689 federalists) reject the 1 covenant 2 administration model. More on this later.


There does seem to be a real difference between saying then that there is but One Covenant of Grace throughout the scriptures, and to be saying that there is the New Covenant of Grace that began with the ministry of Jesus and the church at Pentecostal, as Baptists traditionally have ascribed it to being.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 17, 2017)

Regarding Gen 17:7, 1689 Federalism believes that promise was fulfilled in the Mosaic Covenant, which was made with Abraham's physical descendants, the nation of Israel. Note Deuteronomy 29:12-13 "so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." And we believe the Mosaic Covenant was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan and did not offer eternal life. Of course, we see this as all typological of the New Covenant.

For more extended quotations and references for further reading on Gen 17:7, see http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/genesis-177/


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Regarding Gen 17:7, 1689 Federalism believes that promise was fulfilled in the Mosaic Covenant, which was made with Abraham's physical descendants, the nation of Israel. Note Deuteronomy 29:12-13 "so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." And we believe the Mosaic Covenant was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan and did not offer eternal life. Of course, we see this as all typological of the New Covenant.
> 
> For more extended quotations and references for further reading on Gen 17:7, see http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/genesis-177/


The promise land to Israel would thus be corresponding to the promised land of heaven to those now saved by messiah then?


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

It would correspond as type to antitype, yes.


----------

