# The Sign of Circumcision: Symbolizing Justification, Regeneration, or Both?



## TheThirdandReformedAdam

Hello all, this is my first post here on the PB so please forgive me if this has been answered/discussed elsewhere (I couldn't find it), but I was looking for some opinions on the symbolism of circumcision. Let me explain how I presently understand it and then anyone can feel free to help me out/correct me: The sign of circumcision, given in Gen. 17, is a sign ultimately pointing to the purity/holiness needed in order for there to be covenantal relationship with God. This makes contextual sense to me, for the establishment of what O. Palmer Robertson calls the "Immanuel Principle" seems to be clearly stated in this chapter, "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you" (17:7). In other words, if there is to be relationship between a holy God and man, then man must be cut off from sin i.e. purified. This idea that circumcision in the flesh points to a needed circumcision of the heart becomes rather plain in various places in Scripture (Deut. 10:12-16; 30:6; Jer. 4:3,4; Rom. 2:25-29). However, this is where it gets confusing to me. In Romans 4, Paul states that Abraham received the sign of circumcision "as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith". So, this seems to indicate that Abraham received it as a symbol of the justification that was his via the imputed righteousness of Christ. But how does this square with the idea of the circumcised heart seeing how the concept seems to be referencing a change in behavior of the person who receives it (see previously cited texts), rather than a mere legal declaration? Is circumcision in the flesh pointing to justification (legal status) or regeneration?


----------



## Scott Bushey

TheThirdandReformedAdam said:


> Hello all, this is my first post here on the PB so please forgive me if this has been answered/discussed elsewhere (I couldn't find it), but I was looking for some opinions on the symbolism of circumcision. Let me explain how I presently understand it and then anyone can feel free to help me out/correct me: The sign of circumcision, given in Gen. 17, is a sign ultimately pointing to the purity/holiness needed in order for there to be covenantal relationship with God. This makes contextual sense to me, for the establishment of what O. Palmer Robertson calls the "Immanuel Principle" seems to be clearly stated in this chapter, "And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you" (17:7). In other words, if there is to be relationship between a holy God and man, then man must be cut off from sin i.e. purified. This idea that circumcision in the flesh points to a needed circumcision of the heart becomes rather plain in various places in Scripture (Deut. 10:12-16; 30:6; Jer. 4:3,4; Rom. 2:25-29). However, this is where it gets confusing to me. In Romans 4, Paul states that Abraham received the sign of circumcision "as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith". So, this seems to indicate that Abraham received it as a symbol of the justification that was his via the imputed righteousness of Christ. But how does this square with the idea of the circumcised heart seeing how the concept seems to be referencing a change in behavior of the person who receives it (see previously cited texts), rather than a mere legal declaration? Is circumcision in the flesh pointing to justification (legal status) or regeneration?



If I am understanding your question, I will give you the default answer:

WCF ch 7

"V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations."

Ch 27:

"I. Sacraments are holy signs and seals of the covenant of grace, immediately instituted by God, to represent Christ and his benefits, and to confirm our interest in him: as also to put a visible difference between those that belong unto the Church, and the rest of the world; and solemnly to engage them to the service of God in Christ, according to his Word.
II. There is in every sacrament a spiritual relation, or sacramental union, between the sign and the thing signified; whence it comes to pass that the names and effects of the one are attributed to the other.

III. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments, rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it, but upon the work of the Spirit, and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.

IV. There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in the gospels, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord: neither or which may be dispensed by any but a minister of the Word, lawfully ordained.

V. The sacraments of the Old Testament, in regard of the spiritual things thereby signified and exhibited, were, for substance, the same with those of the New."

Ch 28

"I. Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible Church, but also to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life: which sacrament is, by Christ’s own appointment, to be continued in his Church until the end of the world.
II. The outward element to be used in the sacrament is water, wherewith the party is to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, by a minister of the gospel, lawfully called thereunto.

III. Dipping of the person into the water is not necessary; but baptism is rightly administered by pouring or sprinkling water upon the person.

IV. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ, but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.

V. Although it be a great sin to contemn or neglect this ordinance, yet grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto it as that no person can be regenerated or saved without it, or that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.

VI. The efficacy of baptism is not tied to that moment of time wherein it is administered; yet, notwithstanding, by the right use of this ordinance, the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God’s own will, in his appointed time.

VII. The sacrament of Baptism is but once to be administered to any person."


----------



## TheThirdandReformedAdam

Scott, 
Thanks for responding, but my question isn't necessarily about the purpose of signs. Rather, I desire to know what physical circumcision symbolizes. I presently believe that it symbolized the purity needed for relationship with a holy God (I.e. circumcision of the heart). I am simply confused as to whether this is a reference to the absolute perfection that is ours in Christ, or the new, regenerate heart.


----------



## Scott Bushey

TheThirdandReformedAdam said:


> Scott,
> Thanks for responding, but my question isn't necessarily about the purpose of signs. Rather, I desire to know what physical circumcision symbolizes. I presently believe that it symbolized the purity needed for relationship with a holy God (I.e. circumcision of the heart). I am simply confused as to whether this is a reference to the absolute perfection that is ours in Christ, or the new, regenerate heart.



The sign and the thing signified are not one and the same thing.....

For the elect individual, upon regeneration (which could be at the placing of the sign, mind you) is 'a reference to the absolute perfection that is ours in Christ, or the new, regenerate heart.' To those that are reprobate, it is a sign of condemnation.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Don't take this wrong, but based on what you say, it seems as if you are thinking baptistically. Paedo-baptists place the sign because it is commanded, period. Being part of the local church is never a guarantee of true faith. The local church has always been made up of believers and unbelievers.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Simply, the sign represents the relationship to the covenant; some people have an internal relationship and others, externally.


----------



## TheThirdandReformedAdam

I think we may be misunderstanding one another. I understand that the sign and the thing signified are not the same thing. All I am wondering is: what was the symbolism of circumcision _as it relates to Abraham_. The physical sign often seems to be equated with circumcision of the heart (regeneration), yet Paul in Romans 4 seems to say that physical circumcision pointed to justification.


----------



## TheThirdandReformedAdam

Simply put, we both would distinguish between the legal act of justification and the creational act of regeneration. Was circumcision something that testified to the need for both? (I also, I hope, understand that the sign was administered as a means of covenant membership).


----------



## Scott Bushey

TheThirdandReformedAdam said:


> I think we may be misunderstanding one another. I understand that the sign and the thing signified are not the same thing. All I am wondering is: what was the symbolism of circumcision _as it relates to Abraham_



The covenant.




> The physical sign often seems to be equated with circumcision of the heart (regeneration), yet Paul in Romans 4 seems to say that physical circumcision pointed to justification.



If a man is regenerated, he is justified...so, both are correct.


----------



## TheThirdandReformedAdam

Well baptism demonstrates inclusion in the covenant, but there is a reason why we baptize instead of, oh I don't know, dance around a pit of flowers. The water, while demonstrating inclusion in the covenant, also symbolizes a spiritual reality. I only say this so that we can both understand my confusion. And yes, the man who is justified is also regenerated, but is it not beneficial to determine which the physical sign was symbolic of? Romans 2 seems to say regeneration, and Romans 4 justification. (Thanks for being patient with me, brother. Just trying to understand this topic a little better.)


----------



## Scott Bushey

TheThirdandReformedAdam said:


> The water, while demonstrating inclusion in the covenant, also symbolizes a spiritual reality.



Not always...


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> The local church has always been made up of believers and unbelievers.



While this is certainly true, isn't the New Covnenant made up of only the regenerate (Jer. 31:33-34)? If that is the case, since baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, shouldn't it only be administered only to believers? I know we can't discern who is and who is not a true believer, but a credible profession of faith is all we can do.

(Please note: Although I am currently a Baptist, I ask this in genuine sincerity, as I am still trying to crystallize what I believe about baptism.)


----------



## Taylor

Taylor Sexton said:


> While this is certainly true, isn't the New Covnenant made up of only the regenerate (Jer. 31:33-34)?



Basically, I am simply asking for an explanation of Jer. 31:33-34 from a Paedobaptist perspective. Hopefully this is not off-topic.


----------



## TheThirdandReformedAdam

Taylor Sexton said:


> If that is the case, since baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, shouldn't it only be administered only to believers?


 Well, the common counter-text would be Romans 4:11 - "He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised." Abraham received it as a sign of the righteousness that he had via his faith, but he was also commanded to give it to his offspring as well (who couldn't possess faith).


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The local church has always been made up of believers and unbelievers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While this is certainly true, isn't the New Covnenant made up of only the regenerate (Jer. 31:33-34)?
Click to expand...


Well, the covenant has internal and external distinctions. The internal side are just regenerated individuals. Consider the warning passages in hebrews as a singular example.



> If that is the case, since baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, shouldn't it only be administered only to believers?



See Gen 17 for the command...even the credo goes on confession and that is based on presumption alone. 



> I know we can't discern who is and who is not a true believer, but a credible profession of faith is all we can do.



Thats problematic in itself...what you're saying is that we should only be placing the sign on regenerate peoples, yet you acknowledge that we can never know for sure; hence, we are breaking the rule right out of the chute.



> (Please note: Although I am currently a Baptist, I ask this in genuine sincerity, as I am still trying to crystallize what I believe about baptism.)



One of the lynchpins for me was 'covenant'. All covenants are perpetual. None have been abrogated. Gen 17 tells us that the sign is for all generations...hence, we apply the sign, just like Abraham et. al.

Jeremiah is a now and not yet prophecy. It was efficacious in principle back to the garden.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Taylor Sexton said:
> 
> 
> 
> While this is certainly true, isn't the New Covnenant made up of only the regenerate (Jer. 31:33-34)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically, I am simply asking for an explanation of Jer. 31:33-34 from a Paedobaptist perspective. Hopefully this is not off-topic.
Click to expand...


In a less than scholarly fashion, I address that in this paper:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/presbyterianism/presbyterianism-index/paedobaptism/paedobaptism/


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> Well, the covenant has internal and external distinctions.



Is there a Scripture that describes the New Covenant as being like this? That's why I asked about Jer. 31:33-34.



Scott Bushey said:


> See Gen 17 for the command...even the credo goes on confession and that is based on presumption alone.



I realize the command given to Abraham, but I am speaking of the New Covenant.



Scott Bushey said:


> Thats problematic in itself...what you're saying is that we should only be placing the sign on regenerate peoples, yet you acknowledge that we can never know for sure; hence, we are breaking the rule right out of the chute.



I don't think so, not if the sign is only for the regenerate. The obligation is placed upon the regenerate to seek to become baptized, not upon the minister to seek them out to baptize them. Furthermore, the Paedobaptist runs into the same problem with people not born into the Church. Baptizing infants does little if not nothing to solve that dilemma.



Scott Bushey said:


> One of the lynchpins for me was 'covenant'. All covenants are perpetual. None have been abrogated. Gen 17 tells us that the sign is for all generations...hence, we apply the sign, just like Abraham et. al.
> 
> Jeremiah is a now and not yet prophecy. It was efficacious in principle back to the garden.



I understand this, but my contention is what Jeremiah 31:33-34 says about the New Covenant, which we are in _now_. If the sign of the New Covenant is baptism, and the New Covenant is only made of believers (unless we can be given a passage that describes the New Covenant as somehow including unregenerate people), then it seems perfectly logical to say that baptism is only for believers.

That is why I desperately want a satisfactory explanation of Jer. 31:33-34 from a Paedobaptist perspective. Right now, that passage is the issue for me.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> In a less than scholarly fashion, I address that in this paper:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/pres.../paedobaptism/



Sweet! I look very forward to reading it. I bothers me that all my favorite theologians are Paedobaptists. I want to see what they see.


----------



## MW

Circumcision was forward-looking, and was to have an end, so that eventually it would become "nothing." Romans 4:11 brings out its forward-looking significance. Circumcision had a direct connection with the promise that Abraham would be the father of many nations, "though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed to them also." When the uncircumcised came to receive the righteousness of faith, circumcision ceased, because it had fulfilled its purpose, which was to seal the righteousness of faith to the uncircumcised.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> In a less than scholarly fashion, I address that in this paper:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/pres.../paedobaptism/



I went to the link, but it only took me to an index of articles. I'm not sure which one you are referring to.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> In a less than scholarly fashion, I address that in this paper:
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/pres.../paedobaptism/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I went to the link, but it only took me to an index of articles. I'm not sure which one you are referring to.
Click to expand...


Strange. It worked for me...

Go to the site and do a search in the upper right corner for 'paedobaptism'. The paper is entitled, "paedobaptism".


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Is there a Scripture that describes the New Covenant as being like this? That's why I asked about Jer. 31:33-34.



Well, it is gotten to by good and necessary consequence and inference; Consider all the warning passages in scripture about falling away. 



Taylor Sexton said:


> I realize the command given to Abraham, but I am speaking of the New Covenant.



The Covenant of Grace began in Gen 3; I hold that the C of G is the NC. Westminster and the OPC use the terms interchangeably:

http://www.semperreformanda.com/2013/10/the-westminster-standards-use-covenant-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/




Taylor Sexton said:


> I don't think so, not if the sign is only for the regenerate. The obligation is placed upon the regenerate to seek to become baptized, not upon the minister to seek them out to baptize them. Furthermore, the Paedobaptist runs into the same problem with people not born into the Church. Baptizing infants does little if not nothing to solve that dilemma.



I disagree; you yourself said that the sign is for believers...



Taylor Sexton said:


> While this is certainly true, isn't the New Covnenant made up of only the regenerate (Jer. 31:33-34)? If that is the case, since baptism is the sign of the New Covenant, shouldn't it only be administered only to believers? I



the PaedoBaptist understands that the sign is just a sign, although God does use it at times and regenerate at the rite.




Taylor Sexton said:


> I understand this, but my contention is what Jeremiah 31:33-34 says about the New Covenant, which we are in now. If the sign of the New Covenant is baptism, and the New Covenant is only made of believers (unless we can be given a passage that describes the New Covenant as somehow including unregenerate people), then it seems perfectly logical to say that baptism is only for believers.



Did Abraham not have a new heart? What exactly did the OT saint lack in regard to jer 31? This is why I say that it is a now and not yet passage.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> the New Covenant as somehow including unregenerate people), then it seems perfectly logical to say that baptism is only for believers.



But every credo will acknowledge that the sign has been placed on unregenerated members over the ages...and if we follow your line of thinking, in error. Everyone works on presumption. But still, this misses the point as we have the positive command to place the sign on our children.



> I understand this, but my contention is what Jeremiah 31:33-34 says about the New Covenant, which we are in now.



It also says that we will no longer need teachers? Do we need teachers, elders, pastors? This is a now and not yet....it will be fulfilled in toto in glory.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> Well, it is gotten to by good and necessary consequence and inference; Consider all the warning passages in scripture about falling away.



I've heard Baptist arguments for those that make equal sense. A Baptist understanding would be a false convert which, for me, would make more more sense in light of the descriptors of the apostate in Heb. 6:4-5. Paedobaptists are not the only ones with explanations on these passages.



Scott Bushey said:


> The Covenant of Grace began in Gen 3; I hold that the C of G is the NC. Westminster and the OPC use the terms interchangeably:



That's interesting, because Baptists believe the exact same thing (c.f. Pascal Denault's book). However, is seems that your syllogism is as follows:

The Covenant of Grace began in Gen. 3; the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace; therefore Gen. 3 is the New Covenant.

The Baptist also understand that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, but that it is a Covenant revealed progressively in the Old Testament and formally ratified wit the blood of Christ.



Scott Bushey said:


> I disagree; you yourself said that the sign is for believers...



I'm confused. With what do you disagree? And of what relevance is my statement about baptism being a sign for believers? Have I contradicted that somehow?



Scott Bushey said:


> Did Abraham not have a new heart? What exactly did the OT saint lack in regard to jer 31?



That's a very good point. This is a complex question, because it begs a whole host of others. How then should we understand the word "New"? If Abraham was under the New Covenant (please correct me if that is not what you are saying), then why were there unregerates in the same covenant with him? Jer. 31:33-34 still seems to indicate that only regenerate people are in the New Covenant. If that is the case, then the circumcised unregenerate were certainly not under the New Covenant (or, rather, looking to the same promise) as Abraham. Were there then two different covenants made with Abraham? I know many Baptists would argue that.

Interesting stuff!


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> ...we have the positive command to place the sign on our children.



Where?



Scott Bushey said:


> It also says that we will no longer need teachers? Do we need teachers, elders, pastors? This is a now and not yet....it will be fulfilled in toto in glory.



Well, in order to answer that question, we must at the two causal clauses at the end. Why will no one need a teacher? Because everyone will know the Lord. Why will they know the Lord, and in what way? Because their sins will be forgiven. Again, it just seems to me that everyone in the New Covenant, according to this passage, knows the Lord in the salvific sense. Of course we still need teachers, but not to know the Lord in the way this passage describes. No amount of teaching can effect the knowledge of the Lord in the sense described in this passage.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I will just say this as it is bedtime for me:

The C of G has internal and external distinctions. The internal is local and universal. The external is only local. The internal side is made up of only regenerate people. This may reflect your understanding of the church and those who the credo baptizes. However, it is flawed in that you place the sign with the intent that all those you place the sign on are regenerate, to which you know is flawed and based on presumption, no matter how many confess openly. This is the issue I bring up and say that it is a inconsistency. One of the issues has to do with seeing circumcision or baptism as a 'sign'. The command in Gen 3 had to do with placing the 'sign'. In the Old, circumcision and in the New, water. The command never changed; the sign did. Covenants are perpetual!

I have no issue with the idea that the OT did progressively reveal God's outworkings-thats a gimme. But that changes nothing technically.

How should we understand new? Do a word search in either Testament and do a word study on 'new'. You will find that it doesn't always mean, 'brand new', but refreshed or renewed. 

You aks, 'If Abraham was under the New Covenant (please correct me if that is not what you are saying), then why were there unregerates in the same covenant with him?'

They were. Consider esau and Ishmael; they were in covenant-just externally. If you had the opportunity to go back in time to ask Father Abraham if his children were 'in covenant' he would tell you, 'of course! They have the sign of the covenant upon their flesh!'

There were not 2 different covenants. Just one with two distinctions (as I have described).

More in the a.m.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Where?



Gen ch 17

If we still need teachers and not everyone in the local church who has the sign placed on them is actually regenerated, one can see that this passage in Jer is a now and not yet prophecy.

Consider all the NT passages about teachers....If we follow your rationale and timeline, why are there so many examples in the NT, in the New Covenant, considering Jer 31, about teachers? Did not Paul, et. al. not get this idea?


----------



## Scott Bushey

edited above


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> The C of G has internal and external distinctions. The internal is local and universal. The external is only local. The internal side is made up of only regenerate people.



But, my problem is that this seems to directly contradict the exclusivity of the New Covenant as described in Jer. 31:33-34. It seems to say that only those you would say are in the covenant "internally" are the only ones who are actually in the New Covenant.



Scott Bushey said:


> However, it is flawed in that you place the sign with the intent that all those you place the sign on are regenerate, to which you know is flawed and based on presumption, no matter how many confess openly.



Hence the warning passage in Heb. 6. We cannot be held responsible for information we cannot know.



Scott Bushey said:


> I have no issue with the idea that the OT did progressively reveal God's outworkings-thats a gimme. But that changes nothing technically.



Well, I am not speaking of God's outworkings being progressively revealed, but the revealing of the New Covenant. It changes everything, actually. If the New Covenant was not ratified until the blood of Christ, then those circumcised under Abraham yet unregenerate were under a different covenant. This would mean that two covenants were made with Abraham, something many Baptists would argue, given the nature of the New Covenant.



Scott Bushey said:


> How should we understand new? Do a word search in either Testament and do a word study on 'new'. You will find that it doesn't always mean, 'brand new', but refreshed or renewed.



That would be an interesting study, for sure, and would surely have enormous implications for this very topic.



Scott Bushey said:


> Consider esau and Ishmael; they were in covenant-just externally. If you had the opportunity to go back in time to ask Father Abraham if his children were 'in covenant' he would tell you, 'of course! They have the sign of the covenant upon their flesh!'



Again, I think (at least for right now) that the internal/external language is begging the question. Jer. 31:33-34 seems to smash that distinction in regards to the New Covenant. One is either in the New Covenant and regenerate, or outside the New Covenant and unregenerate. I agree that Abraham would say that they are in covenant, but which covenant? Did he have the knowledge of the New Covenant that Jer. 31:33-34 reveals? That's something that can only be answered by speculation.



Scott Bushey said:


> More in the a.m.



Absolutely. I genuinely appreciate your time and effort (I mean that sincerely). Please keep in mind that I am pushing back against you as an unsure (i.e., not totally convinced) Baptist. Again, it truly bothers me that all my "heroes" of the faith believed differently than I do (not that I put history above Scripture!). So, I do this for my own learning, not to win an argument. If, Lord willing, I become an elder of a church one day, I absolutely cannot go into that not knowing what I believe about this. For this reason I am thankful for everyone here on The Puritan Board.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> Gen ch 17



Well, that command was given to Abraham. The issue at hand is: "What is the New Covenant?" If the covenant made to Abraham can be demonstrated to be the New Covenant, then I'm on board, for sure. My hangup, again, is what Jer. 31:33-34 says about the New Covenant.



Scott Bushey said:


> If we still need teachers and not everyone in the local church who has the sign placed on them is actually regenerated, one can see that this passage in Jer is a now and not yet prophecy.
> 
> Consider all the NT passages about teachers....If we follow your rationale and timeline, why are there so many examples in the NT, in the New Covenant, considering Jer 31, about teachers? Did not Paul, et. al. not get this idea?



I replied to this in a previous post (see post #25).


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Because everyone will know the Lord.



This is your statement from post 25. Lets just say that you are correct on your understanding. Didn't Paul get this? You are stuck with two options:
1) There will come a day when everyone will know the Lord and hence we will not need teachers.
2) Not everyone knows the Lord, hence this is why we still need teachers.

What does this do to your understanding of Jer 31 since even Paul understood we will still need teachers? This validates my premise that the passage is a now and not yet-it will be perfectly fulfilled in glory-everyone will know the Lord and we will no longer need teachers.


----------



## MW

Jeremiah is concerned with prophets and priests. These were established as official administrators of the covenant. These were the ones who would no longer "teach their neighbour." Hebrews 8-10 directly applies this prophecy to the cessation of the Aaronic priesthood. It is not a now/not-yet state of affairs. The new administration of the covenant has come in Christ, and the old administration under prophets and priests is finished.

Hebrews gives specific warnings against apostacy in covenantal terms. It does not consider all who are under the administration of the covenant to be elect.

God has His elect among infants; so reconstructing the "new covenant" to include only the elect does not lead to the exclusion of infants.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Well, that command was given to Abraham.



Why does that change anything? Didn't Moses receive the tablets of the law? If we follow your premise, we are not responsible to the law as it was given to Moses!

As mentioned, covenants are perpetual.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> If the New Covenant was not ratified until the blood of Christ, then those circumcised under Abraham yet unregenerate were under a different covenant.



You have to understand that all those in the C of G externally were in the Covenant of Works, internally. But in the same way that we place the sign, the forefathers of our faith were obedient to the same command, never mind there understanding, i.e. Abraham knew well that ishmael was not the chosen one, yet he was still obedient to fulfill the command.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> This is your statement from post 25. Lets just say that you are correct on your understanding. Didn't Paul get this? You are stuck with two options:
> 1) There will come a day when everyone will know the Lord and hence we will not need teachers.
> 2) Not everyone knows the Lord, hence this is why we still need teachers.
> 
> What does this do to your understanding of Jer 31 since even Paul understood we will still need teachers? This validates my premise that the passage is a now and not yet-it will be perfectly fulfilled in glory-everyone will know the Lord and we will no longer need teachers.



I don't think you are understanding me. Of course not everyone knows the Lord; not everyone is in the New Covenant. My argument is that it seems that Jer. 31 is saying that *everyone in the New Covenant* knows the Lord in the salvific sense (i.e., they have there sins forgiven). People outside of the New Covenant are irrelevant; my contention is the nature of those *within* the Covenant. You seem to think that I am saying that we don't need teachers at all, which I never said. I ask that you read precisely what I was arguing in post #25.




Scott Bushey said:


> Why does that change anything? Didn't Moses receive the tablets if the law? If we follow your premise, we are not responsible to the law as it was given to Moses!



You are not listening to me. I am not arguing that since the command was verbally given only to Abraham explicitly and historically that therefore it does not apply to us. Please follow my argumentation. I am asking what the relationship of the covenant made with Abraham is with the New Covenant. If the covenant made with Abraham was not the New Covenant, then the application of the sign to all those physically born within the community (what you call the "external" covenant) of the New Covenant does not carry over.



Scott Bushey said:


> You have to understand that all those in the C of G externally were in the Covenant of Works, internally.



I still contend that the internal/external distinction for the New Covenant is begging the question. I haven't seen any evidence where that is the case, which is especially necessary since Jer. 31 seems to exclude such a construct.


----------



## Taylor

Anyway, I have sermon preparation to work on. What an invigorating conversation! I wish I could forgo sleep to stay involved. Ha!

Until tomorrow, gentlemen...


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Of course not everyone knows the Lord; not everyone is in the New Covenant. My argument is that it seems that Jer. 31 is saying that everyone in the New Covenant knows the Lord in the salvific sense (i.e., they have there sins forgiven). People outside of the New Covenant are irrelevant; my contention is the nature of those within the Covenant.



So, you are saying that the people in the internal side of the NC don't need teachers any longer? Why does Paul et. al. describe the need for teachers in the NT then? 

For example:



> 2 Timothy 4:3
> 3*For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;



The above is speaking of believers...




Taylor Sexton said:


> I am asking what the relationship of the covenant made with Abraham is with the New Covenant.



The Abrahamic covenant is an administration of the C of G/NC. What relationship does it have? The same as any of the other administrations that fall under the C of G. The sign is commanded in Abrahams day and the sign is commanded in our day.




Taylor Sexton said:


> If the covenant made with Abraham was not the New Covenant, then the application of the sign to all those physically born within the community (what you call the "external" covenant) of the New Covenant does not carry over.



All the reformed agree that the Abrahamic is an admin of the C of G. You yourself said:




Taylor Sexton said:


> The Baptist also understand that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace



and finally:



Taylor Sexton said:


> I still contend that the internal/external distinction for the New Covenant is begging the question. I haven't seen any evidence where that is the case, which is especially necessary since Jer. 31 seems to exclude such a construct.



Anyone reading the NT can easily see the implications; we have warning passages. We have the gsoepl message continually preached. We have Judas, Demas etc. If everyone in the local church, i.e. those who have had the sign placed, are regenerate, why do we have all the warnings and exhortations to: continue, run the race, fight the good fight, etc. then?

There are many doctrines gotten to by good and necessary consequence; why are u struggling so with this one?


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> So, you are saying that the people in the internal side of the NC don't need teachers any longer? Why does Paul et. al. describe the need for teachers in the NT then?



Again, you're not listening to me, because you keep saying things that I am not saying at all. What role do the teachers of Jer. 31 have? It does not say that no one will need a teacher because everyone will know everything *about* God, but because they will *know* God (which he explains means that their sins are forgiven; this is a salvific knowing). In this sense, then no, nobody within the New Covenant needs a teacher.



Scott Bushey said:


> The Abrahamic covenant is an administration of the C of G/NC. What relationship does it have? The same as any of the other administrations that fall under the C of G. The sign is commanded in Abrahams day and the sign is commanded in our day.



This, you understand, is absolutely begging the question. You are trying to prove your point by asserting its veracity.



Scott Bushey said:


> All the reformed agree that the Abrahamic is an admin of the C of G. You yourself said:



The Baptists, as far as I am aware, do not understand the covenant made with Abraham to be the New Covenant or the Covenant of Grace. I am unsure where you read that in my statements.



Scott Bushey said:


> Anyone reading the NT can easily see the implications; we have warning passages.



That's clearly an overstatement. The Baptists didn't see it, and I don't see it. As for the warning passages, I have already demonstrated a Baptist understanding of these which, again, make more sense to me, considering the descriptors of the apostate in Heb. 6.



Scott Bushey said:


> We have Judas, Demas etc.



Where does it say these were in the New Covenant?



Scott Bushey said:


> If everyone in the local church, i.e. those who have had the sign placed, are regenerate, why do we have all the warnings and exhortations to: continue, run the race, fight the good fight, etc. then?



Because only those who persevere will be saved. I don't understand how this seems troublesome within the Baptist scheme.



Scott Bushey said:


> There are many doctrines gotten to by good and necessary consequence; why are u struggling so with this one?



Because, try as I might to get satisfactory answers, I have yet to receive one. I am sorry, I am at this point unconvinced. I agree that there are many doctrines arrived at by good and necessary consequence (such as the Trinity), but with this I am just not seeing it. Jer. 31 seems to plainly teach that all those within the New Covenant know the Lord. No one, including you, has yet to demonstrate this internal/external distinction from Scripture. One is either in the New Covenant (and know the Lord) or they are not (and they do not know the Lord). It seems very simple to me.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I was a credo for 1/2 of my walk. That would be 12 years. Anyone who I know who are credo-baptist would admit that the sign had been placed on unregenerate members erroneously who at one time confessed Christ only to apostatize ultimately. If the church is made up of only elect and regenerate individuals, how does this occur? The elect will not fall away...If you say to me 'It is because only those who persevere, are the true church', this shows that the local church has internal, i.e. the elect, and the external, unregenerate members in the fold. 

When Paul mentions 'that they went out from us because they never were actually part of us', he is doing the same thing. 'They were part of us while they remained, though externally'.

You make a dispensational distinction with the C of G; The Abrahamic covenant is an administration of the C of G; All men in that age were saved in the same fashion as us; under the same gospel appeal. By justification by faith alone. In the same way we appreciate, the other administrations and submit to them, you shrink away form the sign that was commanded of Abraham-even though, you appeal to it in the NT w/ water baptism. The only difference, is that you exclude the covenant child-which goes directly against the words of Christ when He says that 'the Kingdom belong's to such as these'.


----------



## Scott Bushey

http://www.semperreformanda.com/presbyterianism/presbyterianism-index/paedobaptism/quotes-from-the-fathers-of-the-faith-on-paedobaptism/


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> If the church is made up of only elect and regenerate individuals, how does this occur?



Because people can make false professions, can they not?



Scott Bushey said:


> The elect will not fall away...If you say to me 'It is because only those who persevere, are the true church', this shows that the local church has internal, i.e. the elect, and the external, unregenerate members in the fold.



No, I would be saying that there are those who appear to be part of the Church, but are not. It appears to me that there is no way in which we can say they benefit from the New Covenant at all, because they do not know the Lord and their sins are not forgiven.



Scott Bushey said:


> When Paul mentions 'that they went out from us because they never were actually part of us', he is doing the same thing. 'They were part of us while they remained, though externally'.



I would argue that you are making an imposition upon the text. Where does it say these people were in some sort of external covenant? Where even in Scripture is the New Covenant described as having an internal/external division? You keep referring to this, but have yet to prove it. You keep mentioning apostates, but it is easy to see that they were never under the New Covenant at all, because they did not know the Lord and their sins were never forgiven. That is what *John** is saying. He nowhere speaks of an internal/external division of the New Covenant. Again, Jer. 31 (for which I have yet to see an explanation) appears to exclude that possibility.



Scott Bushey said:


> The Abrahamic covenant is an administration of the C of G;



Not if the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant (and vice-versa). Thus, the issue here.



Scott Bushey said:


> All men in that age were saved in the same fashion as us; under the same gospel appeal. By justification by faith alone.



Of course, I absolutely agree. However, the Baptists would argue that anyone saved before Christ were saved by looking to the *promise* of the New Covenant, not from being under the New Covenant itself, seeing as it had not been formally ratified until the shedding of Christ's blood.



Scott Bushey said:


> ...you shrink away form the sign that was commanded of Abraham-even though, you appeal to it in the NT w/ water baptism.



Of course, because I have yet to see biblically how this covenant made with Abraham with the accompanying sign of circumcision is the New Covenant. As soon as that is proven, I am on board completely.



Scott Bushey said:


> you exclude the covenant child-which goes directly against the words of Christ when He says that 'the Kingdom belong's to such as these'.



Well, before we start throwing the accusation of disobedience to Christ around (I hope this conversation does not devolve into that as so many others have), I think the purpose of this pericope is clear. Christ does not say, "The kingdom belongs to children," but, "The kingdom belongs to *such as* (quite literally: "to those who are like") these [children]," i.e., those who "receive the kingdom of God as a little child." I have always found the citation of this passage and its parallels to support infant baptism to be strange.


----------



## Scott Bushey

You are aware that there are only two covenants between God and man; that being, the C of W;s and the C of G. All the reformed understood this. No one held to the idea that that the Abrahamic stood alone. Hence, if the Abrahamic is an administration of the C of G, you are left with either obedience to it or dispensationalism.



> Of course, because I have yet to see biblically how this covenant made with Abraham with the accompanying sign of circumcision is the New Covenant. As soon as that is proven, I am on board completely.



I Said earlier that the Divines used the terms 'new covenant' and 'C of G' interchangeably and provided a citation, to which you said in response:



> The Baptist also understand that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, but that it is a Covenant revealed progressively in the Old Testament and formally ratified wit the blood of Christ.



I suggest you do some reading of some good reformed materials as all I am citing is what history holds, from a reformed perspective. You may do with it as you will.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> You are aware that there are only two covenants between God and man; that being, the C of W;s and the C of G. All the reformed understood this. No one held to the idea that that the Abrahamic stood alone. Hence, if the Abrahamic is an administration of the C of G, you are left with either obedience to it or dispensationalism.



All I know is that Reformed Baptists understood the Covenant of Grace to be the New Covenant, which was "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."



Scott Bushey said:


> I suggest you do some reading of some good reformed materials as all I am citing is what history holds, from a reformed perspective. You may do with it as you will.



Most all of my contentions come from my reading of the survey of the London Baptists given by Pascal Denault. In his book he shows how the Baptists did not understand the Abrahamic Covenant as dispensing grace, but that grace was given through the promise of the New Covenant, which was concluded at Christ's blood. I quote Denault:

"The paedobaptists, by applying the distinction between the substance and the administration of the Covenant of Grace, conceived that all the members of the Abrahamic Covenant did not benefit from the grace of God even if they were under the same Covenant of Grace. The Baptists, by applying the distinction between the revelation and the conclusion of the Covenant of Grace, conceiveed that all the members of the Abrahamic Covenant did not benefit from the grace of God, because the Covenant of Grace was not concluded with the members of this covenant. The Covenant of Grace was revealed and only those who, like Abraham, believe, participated in the Covenant of Grace manifested in the Abrahamic Covenant. Consequently, the Baptists had a fundamentally different understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant than that of the Presbyterians."

He then goes on to discuss the duality of the Abrahamic Covenant as seen by the Baptists. I would suggest reading this section of his book.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> All I know is that Reformed Baptists understood the Covenant of Grace to be the New Covenant, which was "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.



Taylor,
You're talking in circles....Is the Abrahamic Covenant an administration of the C of G or not?
*If men are saved by faith alone, in Christ alone, it must fall under the C of G!



Taylor Sexton said:


> Most all of my contentions come from my reading of the survey of the London Baptists given by Pascal Denault. In his book he shows how the Baptists did not understand the Abrahamic Covenant as dispensing grace, but that grace was given through the promise of the New Covenant, which was concluded at Christ's blood.



I believe you have misunderstood. As I mentioned earlier, yes, it is not that the Abrahamic administers grace but the C of G itself-however, the Abrahamic, just like the other covenants in the C of G are administrations. The C of G over arches the administrations; this is exactly why I said that the reformed hold to two covenants between God and manking, i.e. the C of W's and the C of G.




Taylor Sexton said:


> I quote Denault:
> 
> "The paedobaptists, by applying the distinction between the substance and the administration of the Covenant of Grace, conceived that all the members of the Abrahamic Covenant did not benefit from the grace of God even if they were under the same Covenant of Grace. The Baptists, by applying the distinction between the revelation and the conclusion of the Covenant of Grace, conceiveed that all the members of the Abrahamic Covenant did not benefit from the grace of God, because the Covenant of Grace was not concluded with the members of this covenant. The Covenant of Grace was revealed and only those who, like Abraham, believe, participated in the Covenant of Grace manifested in the Abrahamic Covenant. Consequently, the Baptists had a fundamentally different understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant than that of the Presbyterians."



I s that quote accurate as it is a bit wonkey...can you double check and if so, I will respond.



Taylor Sexton said:


> He then goes on to discuss the duality of the Abrahamic Covenant as seen by the Baptists. I would suggest reading this section of his book.



Duality? Can you enlighten me to what he thinks?


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> Taylor,
> You're talking in circles....Is the Abrahamic Covenant an administration of the C of G or not?
> *If men are saved by faith alone, in Christ alone, it must fall under the C of G!



I am literally quoting literature, just as you were. According to the Baptist understanding as I understand it, anyone saved before Christ was saved by looking to the promise of the New Covenant, which was different from the covenant made with Abraham and his physical posterity.



Scott Bushey said:


> Is that quote accurate as it is a bit wonkey...can you double check and if so, I will respond.



Yes, the quote is accurate.



Scott Bushey said:


> Duality? Can you enlighten me to what he thinks?



The best thing to do would be to buy a copy for yourself and read it. It is a worthwhile book. Kindle does not allow me to copy and paste, and I am already in the middle of writing a paper that is due Friday. I simply haven't the time to quote extensively. Again, Denault's book is a worthwhile book to read. It is the book to which I wish a paedobaptist would respond.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> I am literally quoting literature, just as you were. According to the Baptist understanding as I understand it, anyone saved before Christ was saved by looking to the promise of the New Covenant, which was different from the covenant made with Abraham and his physical posterity.



Again, I am asking, since you have previously acknowledged a number of times that the NC and C of G are synonymous, what covenant is the Abrahamic,Davidic, Noahic and Mosaic under? Since there are only two main covenants, which is it that they are under?


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> Again, I am asking, since you have previously acknowledged a number of times that the NC and C of G are synonymous, what covenant is the Abrahamic,Davidic, Noahic and Mosaic under? Since there are only two main covenants, which is it that they are under?



Again, the best thing for you to do would be to pick up a copy of Denault's book. But, since you insist, I quote him:

"The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it; however, *the Covenant of Grace was revealed under these various covenants*."


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking, since you have previously acknowledged a number of times that the NC and C of G are synonymous, what covenant is the Abrahamic,Davidic, Noahic and Mosaic under? Since there are only two main covenants, which is it that they are under?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the best thing for you to do would be to pick up a copy of Denault's book. But, since you insist, I quote him:
> 
> "The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it; however, *the Covenant of Grace was revealed under these various covenants*."
Click to expand...


Thank you.

Preposterous; how is it that men were saved in these epochs if it wasn't for grace. Dumb.


----------



## MW

Taylor Sexton said:


> "The paedobaptists, by applying the distinction between the substance and the administration of the Covenant of Grace, conceived that all the members of the Abrahamic Covenant did not benefit from the grace of God even if they were under the same Covenant of Grace. The Baptists, by applying the distinction between the revelation and the conclusion of the Covenant of Grace, conceiveed that all the members of the Abrahamic Covenant did not benefit from the grace of God, because the Covenant of Grace was not concluded with the members of this covenant. The Covenant of Grace was revealed and only those who, like Abraham, believe, participated in the Covenant of Grace manifested in the Abrahamic Covenant. Consequently, the Baptists had a fundamentally different understanding of the Abrahamic Covenant than that of the Presbyterians."



Jacob is loved and Esau is hated. Election and covenant are not identical, but special election is manifest within the covenant, as explained by the apostle in Romans 9. The special election of Jacob continues to operate in connection with Jacob's children. They are not all Israel who are of Israel. The word of God has its effect in the election. Reformed paedobaptists are credobaptists in terms of the efficacy of the outward administration of the covenant. The problem for the antipaedobaptist is that he still has to reckon with "elect infants" who are saved by the covenant of grace. Even with his reconstruction of the covenant he has failed to exclude infants. At that point it becomes clear that the issue has nothing to do with the members of the covenant of grace. The issue is with the relation of baptism to the covenant. The antipaedobaptist has no place for baptism as a proper, visible sign of the covenant of grace.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> Preposterous; how is it that men were saved in these epochs if it wasn't for grace. Dumb.



Why the condescending, offensive tone and remarks? There is no need for that, Christian brother.

If you want answers, pick up a copy of Pascal Denault's book rather than making uncharitable (as well as false) statements. He addresses how people were saved in those epochs at length, and so have I briefly in this thread, i.e., by looking to the promise.

If you want answers, make the effort and search them out yourself. Starting with the 1689 Confession would be a good start, which claims that "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." But do not act as you currently are choosing to in your speech. It grossly misrepresents and dishonors the One whom you and I both worship.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it;



No one worth any theological salt believes that in the history of the Christian church. It doesn't get any more dispensational than that.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Preposterous; how is it that men were saved in these epochs if it wasn't for grace. Dumb.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why the condescending, offensive tone and remarks? There is no need for that, Christian brother.
> 
> If you want answers, pick up a copy of Pascal Denault's book rather than making uncharitable (as well as false) statements. He addresses how people were saved in those epochs at length, and so have I briefly in this thread, i.e., by looking to the promise.
> 
> If you want answers, make the effort and search them out yourself. Starting with the 1689 Confession would be a good start, which claims that "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." But do not act as you currently are choosing to in your speech. It grossly misrepresents and dishonors the One whom you and I both worship.
Click to expand...



Tyler,
Please don't take this personally. It was not directed at you. The statement is preposterous and in light of historic Christianity, dumb. Sorry, but thats how I feel. Again, not directed at you. If I offended you, forgive me.


----------



## Taylor

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> No one worth any theological salt believes that in the history of the Christian church. It doesn't get any more dispensational than that.



That's a remarkable overstatement, one that Denault's book seeks to dispel.

I am simply quoting Denault who is in turn giving a survey of covenantal Baptist understanding in the 16th and 17th centuries. I know Paedobaptists like to throw the Dispensationalist accusation around. I wish we would dispense with that temptation. It does nothing to further the argument, much less make an argument; it brings heat without light. It should not matter whether a theology is deemed Dispensational or Covenantal, but whether it is faithful to the teaching of Scripture, no?


----------



## Tyrese

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one worth any theological salt believes that in the history of the Christian church. It doesn't get any more dispensational than that.
Click to expand...


As much as you all like throwing around 'dispensational', it really doesn't make one a dispensationalist. Is that why some of you are paedobaptist because you don't want to be called a dispensationalist? Just askin


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> Please don't take this personally. It was not directed at you. The statement is preposterous and in light of historic Christianity, dumb. Sorry, but thats how I feel. Again, not directed at you. If I offended you, forgive me.



Understood, I apologize for my offense and my subsequent remarks.

In all seriousness, I would love it if you could read Denault's book (it is short) and write up a series of articles rebutting it. It would me immensely helpful to me. Even if you don't do that, Denault's book is something everyone, regardless of theological conviction, needs to read. Honestly, if I found an argument that effectively dismantled the arguments put forward by the Baptists as presented in Denault's book, I would without hesitation recant my beliefs. But, so far, I have been presented with none.


----------



## Tyrese

Taylor Sexton said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one worth any theological salt believes that in the history of the Christian church. It doesn't get any more dispensational than that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's a remarkable overstatement, one that Denault's book seeks to dispel.
> 
> I am simply quoting Denault who is in turn giving a survey of covenantal Baptist understanding in the 16th and 17th centuries. I know Paedobaptists like to throw the Dispensationalist accusation around. I wish we would dispense with that temptation. It does nothing to further the argument, much less make an argument; it brings heat without light. It should not matter whether a theology is deemed Dispensational or Covenantal, but whether it is faithful to the teaching of Scripture, no?
Click to expand...


Absolutely! with that said I'll delete my last comment. I really appreciate the time and labor that you put into this discussion. I for one found it helpful and edifying. Thanks brother!


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tyrese said:


> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one worth any theological salt believes that in the history of the Christian church. It doesn't get any more dispensational than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as you all like throwing around 'dispensational', it really doesn't make one a dispensationalist. Is that why some of you are paedobaptist because you don't want to be called a dispensationalist? Just askin
Click to expand...


To be perfectly honest, most all of us come out of a dispensational theology, to which we now have a disdain for the error.


----------



## Scott Bushey

This all comes down to one's understanding of covenant and how God works in time. This is a gospel issue; to which, Denaults statement thrashes the gospel.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Taylor Sexton said:


> It should not matter whether a theology is deemed Dispensational or Covenantal, but whether it is faithful to the teaching of Scripture, no?



What I was saying, based on my personal extensive reading of historic primary sources, is that Dennault's statement is dispensational.


----------



## Tyrese

Scott Bushey said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one worth any theological salt believes that in the history of the Christian church. It doesn't get any more dispensational than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as you all like throwing around 'dispensational', it really doesn't make one a dispensationalist. Is that why some of you are paedobaptist because you don't want to be called a dispensationalist? Just askin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest, most all of us come out of a dispensational theology, to which we now have a disdain for the error.
Click to expand...


Understood. But do you understand that a confessional Baptist is not a dispensationalist? This begs the question: did you leave dispensational theology or confessional Baptist theology? There's a difference. Btw, I too left a dispesational Church and I'm telling you it's not the same thing.


----------



## Scott Bushey

If the named covenants are NOT under the C of G, then what covenant are they under? As I have said a number of times, there are only two major covenants in time. If these covenants were not gracious, how were men saved in those times?


----------



## Taylor

Tyrese said:


> Absolutely! with that said I'll delete my last comment. I really appreciate the time and labor that you put into this discussion. I for one found it helpful and edifying. Thanks brother!



I appreciate the encouragement. I just hope my brothers here understand that I am not trying to be combative or disagreeable. I genuinely want to understand each position as best I can. Heck, I _want_ to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here. However, until I am convinced scripturally, I cannot subscribe to it, no matter how much I may want to.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Scott Bushey said:


> To be perfectly honest, most all of us come out of a dispensational theology, to which we now have a disdain for the error.



This is very important. Dispensational theology is a blinder for those wrestling with the issues until they come out of the issue.


----------



## Tyrese

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Taylor Sexton said:
> 
> 
> 
> It should not matter whether a theology is deemed Dispensational or Covenantal, but whether it is faithful to the teaching of Scripture, no?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I was saying, based on my personal extensive reading of historic primary sources, is that Dennault's statement is dispensational.
Click to expand...


Dispensationalist wouldn't recognize the language in Deennalt's book. Actually, we're accused of being closet Presbyterians. Fact is we're not closet Presbyterians nor are we dispensationalist.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> If the named covenants are NOT under the C of G, then what covenant are they under? As I have said a number of times, there are only two major covenants in time. If these covenants were not gracious, how were men saved in those times?



I believe this has been said ad nauseum at this point. Anyone who is ever saved is saved by virtue on the New Covenant—those in the Old Testament by believing the promise, those in the New Testament having the fully revealed New Covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tyrese said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C. Matthew McMahon said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one worth any theological salt believes that in the history of the Christian church. It doesn't get any more dispensational than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As much as you all like throwing around 'dispensational', it really doesn't make one a dispensationalist. Is that why some of you are paedobaptist because you don't want to be called a dispensationalist? Just askin
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To be perfectly honest, most all of us come out of a dispensational theology, to which we now have a disdain for the error.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Understood. But do you understand that a confessional Baptist is not a dispensationalist? This begs the question: did you leave dispensational theology or confessional Baptist theology? There's a difference. Btw, I too left a dispesational Church and I'm telling you it's not the same thing.
Click to expand...


Well, not in the Ryrie, Scofield, Lehaye strain. However, for example, the Denault statement is dispensational (when you compare this to historic Christianity).

I was saved in a Calvary Chapel and moved from there into a 'particular' baptist setting...

it is not the same, but as I said above.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the named covenants are NOT under the C of G, then what covenant are they under? As I have said a number of times, there are only two major covenants in time. If these covenants were not gracious, how were men saved in those times?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe this has been said ad nauseum at this point. Anyone who is ever saved is saved by virtue on the New Covenant—those in the Old Testament by believing the promise, those in the New Testament having the fully revealed New Covenant.
Click to expand...


So they had to be under the C of G as the NC is an administration of that covenant...there are only two covenants.


----------



## Taylor

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> This is very important. Dispensational theology is a blinder for those wrestling with the issues until they come out of the issue.



Again, the issue is faithfulness to Scripture, and that _alone_—not faithfulness to a doctrinal scheme. If my understanding of Scripture gets me labelled a Dispensationalist (again, an emotional non-argument; it simply isn't true no matter how many times one repeats it), then so be it. My only concern is faithfulness to the Scriptures, not the approval of a certain Christian sect.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Tyrese said:


> Dispensationalist wouldn't recognize the language in Deennalt's book. Actually, were accused of being closet Presbyterians.



The idea that the Left Behind, Prophecy Today crowds, as dispensationalists, wouldn't recognize Denault's language, doesn't mean I don't recognize dispensational language.
Regardless of whether ultra-dispensationalists would have ever recognized that, does not mean Denault has escaped the Dispensational camp. It just means he is more polished in his language.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> So they had to be under the C of G as the NC is an administration of that covenant...there are only two covenants.



You simply are choosing to not read what is being said. Please, pick up a copy of Denault's book and read it.


----------



## MW

Tyrese said:


> But do you understand that a confessional Baptist is not a dispensationalist?



Some, like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession. Others, like Denault, have challenged that understanding, and have presented their antipaedobaptism in terms that deny there was any actual administration of the covenant of grace under the OT. In comparison with the former view the latter formulation is dispensational. If there is no actual administration of the covenant of grace under the OT, what are those OT covenants?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Taylor Sexton said:


> If my understanding of Scripture gets me labelled a Dispensationalist then so be it. My only concern is faithfulness to the Scriptures, not the approval of a certain Christian sect.



But labels mean something, so the label Dispensational would be rather important in that way.

For example, Jonathan Edwards did not want to be labeled an Arminian, and Calvin did not want to be labeled a Papist. Labels instantly tell the reader what one believes.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> So they had to be under the C of G as the NC is an administration of that covenant...there are only two covenants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You simply are choosing to not read what is being said. Please, pick up a copy of Denault's book and read it.
Click to expand...


I am reading was is being said; to which I am a bit shocked...it makes absolutely no sense. Men are saved by grace, but it's not under a gracious covenant, it's under a covenant that is a New Testament Phenomenon....which shows it's dispensationalism.


----------



## Scott Bushey

MW said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> But do you understand that a confessional Baptist is not a dispensationalist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some, like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession. Others, like Denault, have challenged that understanding, and have presented their antipaedobaptism in terms that deny there was any actual administration of the covenant of grace under the OT. In comparison with the former view the latter formulation is dispensational. If there is no actual administration of the covenant of grace under the OT, what are those OT covenants?
Click to expand...


Matthew,
Exactly-I've asked this a number of times.


----------



## Taylor

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> But labels means something, so the label Dispensational would be rather important in that way.
> 
> For example, Jonathan Edwards did not want to be labeled an Arminian, and Calvin did not want to be labeled a Papist. Labels instantly tell the reader what one believes.



I do not care what people choose to label me. I only care about being faithful to the Scriptures, not a theological scheme.


----------



## Taylor

Scott Bushey said:


> Exactly-I've asked this a number of times.



And I've given you an answer at least a couple...

Besides, where in Scripture does it say that individual covenants made between God and men have to fall under either the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace (extrabiblical terms, by the way).

Part of the reason why this conversation is getting nowhere is because all the question begging.


----------



## Tyrese

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dispensationalist wouldn't recognize the language in Deennalt's book. Actually, were accused of being closet Presbyterians.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea that the Left Behind, Prophecy Today crowds, as dispensationalists, wouldn't recognize Denault's language, doesn't mean I don't recognize dispensational language.
> Regardless of whether ultra-dispensationalists would have ever recognized that, does not mean Denault has escaped the Dispensational camp. It just means he is more polished in his language.
Click to expand...


Fair enough. However I will say this: I have nothing but the utmost respect for paedobaptist. In fact 99% of my books are authored by paedobaptist. that's how much I appreciate their (and your) perspectives on Scripture and related issues. But as our brother has said (or perhaps implied), infant baptism cannot be supported by Scripture. And not only that, each and every scripture used to defend that position comes up short. And that's an understatement. At the end of the day I think many of us just want to be heard and treated fairly. From experience I would tell you that many of our Reformed Baptist congregations are far more reformed than many Presbyterian Churches that I've been to, and I'm sure you would agree with me.


----------



## MW

Taylor Sexton said:


> Besides, where in Scripture does it say that individual covenants made between God and men have to fall under either the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace (extrabiblical terms, by the way).



Adam and Christ contrasted, Romans 5; 1 Corinthians 15; Hebrews 2.

The Gentiles receive the blessings promised to Abraham by faith in Christ, Romans 4; Galatians 3.

We are not at liberty to ignore what Scripture so clearly states and systematises. It is foolishness to ignore Scripture in seeking to understand Scripture.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Taylor Sexton said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly-I've asked this a number of times.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've given you an answer at least a couple...
> 
> Besides, where in Scripture does it say that individual covenants made between God and men have to fall under either the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace (extrabiblical terms, by the way).
> 
> Part of the reason why this conversation is getting nowhere is because all the question begging.
Click to expand...


As I have said, many things are gotten to by good and necessary consequence or inference; the church at large over the centuries have come to solid conclusions on certain doctrines, to which we subscribe; and for good reason. I am sure you have no issue with:

1) deleted as you aren't paedo...

2) The Trinity

3) The Covenant of grace and redemption

4) The change in the sabbath from the last day of the week to the first day

5) Woman taking the supper

6) The local church vs the Universal Church

7) The Regulative Principle

8) Membership

9) Baptism of adult children belonging to Christian parents

10) Mode of baptism

11) Church Polity


----------



## Taylor

Tyrese said:


> At the end of the day I think many of us just want to be heard and treated fairly.



That is impossible when every conversation devolves into labeling (i.e., non-argumentation), as if orthodox truth was about conforming to a doctrinal scheme rather than the Scriptures.

All I can say is to please pick up a copy of Denault's book and read it. It is very enlightening. You all don't have to agree with it, but you should read it, at least (if you desire to be fair, that is).

As for me, I cannot spend any more time on this thread. I simply have too much school work to do.

I enjoyed it, gentlemen, truly.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

Taylor Sexton said:


> You simply are choosing to not read what is being said. Please, pick up a copy of Denault's book and read it.



If Scott reads John Calvin, Beza, Oecolampadius, Augustine, William Ames, William Perkins, Thomas Hooker, Cornelius Burgess, William Strong, Michael Harrison, Richard Rawlin, Francis Taylor, Cuthbert Sydenham, John Ball, John Owen, Edmund Calamy, Peter Bulkeley, Francis Roberts, John Arrowsmith, Nathaniel Vincent, Thomas Blake, Samuel Rutherford, John Brinsley, Herman Witsius, Samuel Willard, Samuel Petto, and Francis Turretin (among _just a few_) - and then reads John Spilsbury, Henry Lawrence, Benjamin Keach, Hansard Knolleys, William Sherriff, Thomas Patient, John Bunyan, Edward Hutchison, and Nehemiah Coxe, would he really need to read Denault? Does Denault really matter at that point?


----------



## Tyrese

MW said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> But do you understand that a confessional Baptist is not a dispensationalist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some, like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession. Others, like Denault, have challenged that understanding, and have presented their antipaedobaptism in terms that deny there was any actual administration of the covenant of grace under the OT. In comparison with the former view the latter formulation is dispensational. If there is no actual administration of the covenant of grace under the OT, what are those OT covenants?
Click to expand...


That's a good question brother. To be honest with you I haven't looked into Waldron's perspectives on Covenant Theology. However he does have a course on Covenant Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Semianary that seems to endorse Dennaults perspective. Obviously that doesn't mean Dr. Waldron endorses this view, I just thought I'd throw that out there. I have two books on Covenant Theology and I think Greg Nicols book supports 'Some, like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession.' I'm not 100% sure who's right, but I know 'the substance is of Christ', which is in the New Covenant, not the Old.


----------



## MW

Tyrese said:


> That's a good question brother. To be honest with you I haven't looked into Waldron's perspectives on Covenant Theology. However he does have a course on Covenant Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Semianary that seems to endorse Dennaults perspective. Obviously that doesn't mean Dr. Waldron endorses this view, I just thought I'd throw that out there. I have two books on Covenant Theology and I think Greg Nicols book supports 'Some,the substance is of Christ. like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession.' I'm not 100% sure who's right, but I know 'the substance is of Christ', which is in the New Covenant, not the Old.



The whole point of saying that the substance is Christ is that He was the substance under the "Old." That is, the grace of Christ was present in the Old Testament, though set forth under promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the Passover, and other types and ordinances. If I mistake not, this affirmation is retained in the 1689 Confession when speaking of the Mediator.


----------



## Tyrese

MW said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good question brother. To be honest with you I haven't looked into Waldron's perspectives on Covenant Theology. However he does have a course on Covenant Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Semianary that seems to endorse Dennaults perspective. Obviously that doesn't mean Dr. Waldron endorses this view, I just thought I'd throw that out there. I have two books on Covenant Theology and I think Greg Nicols book supports 'Some,the substance is of Christ. like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession.' I'm not 100% sure who's right, but I know 'the substance is of Christ', which is in the New Covenant, not the Old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of saying that the substance is Christ is that He was the substance under the "Old." That is, the grace of Christ was present in the Old Testament, though set forth under promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the Passover, and other types and ordinances. If I mistake not, this affirmation is retained in the 1689 Confession when speaking of the Mediator.
Click to expand...


I'll be humble and tell you that your last comment is right and makes sense.  However, you all have failed to explain the 'newness' of the new covenant. Why make a new covenant and call it new if its not really new?


----------



## Tyrese

MW said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's a good question brother. To be honest with you I haven't looked into Waldron's perspectives on Covenant Theology. However he does have a course on Covenant Theology at Covenant Baptist Theological Semianary that seems to endorse Dennaults perspective. Obviously that doesn't mean Dr. Waldron endorses this view, I just thought I'd throw that out there. I have two books on Covenant Theology and I think Greg Nicols book supports 'Some,the substance is of Christ. like Waldron, seek to explain their antipaedobaptism in terms of the covenantal theology of the Westminster Confession.' I'm not 100% sure who's right, but I know 'the substance is of Christ', which is in the New Covenant, not the Old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of saying that the substance is Christ is that He was the substance under the "Old." That is, the grace of Christ was present in the Old Testament, though set forth under promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the Passover, and other types and ordinances. If I mistake not, this affirmation is retained in the 1689 Confession when speaking of the Mediator.
Click to expand...


Brother I also meant to ask you do you have any audio sermons on the net?


----------



## MW

Tyrese said:


> I'll be humble and tell you that your last comment is right and makes sense.  However, you all have failed to explain the 'newness' of the new covenant. Why make a new covenant and call it new if its not really new?



Consider Heb. 9:22, the "first testament" was dedicated with blood. Likewise the "new testament" in heaven itself. Again, Heb. 10:8-10, it is the second "will" requiring the death of Christ which replaces the first will requiring sacrifices and offerings. In each case it is the covenant considered as a "testament" or "will" that is new, not the covenant itself. The covenant itself is the same, otherwise Christ could not be called the substance and fulfilment of the covenant; and if Christ were not the substance and fulfilment of the covenant, the first testament would still be in operation, which would be contrary to the whole tenor and teaching of the New Testament.


----------



## MW

Tyrese said:


> Brother I also meant to ask you do you have any audio sermons on the net?



Sorry, I don't.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

I've thought several times, in reading this thread, about John 15:1-2- "I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman. Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth more fruit." The branches that bear no fruit and are eventually taken away were said by Christ to be in him. This passage among others has helped me toward covenant theology and paedobaptism, since I see by it that biblically, one can be said to be in Christ, and so in the Covenant, in a temporary or external sense. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Why I became Reformed after having been a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I defended the RB Position here for a few years even as a Moderator. The Substance of the Covenants matter. 
Just saying. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/

Follow the links in blue of the blog post below if you really want to follow my thought process. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/

If you are a Reformed Baptist you can read most of my Reformed Baptist Arguments on my early Puritanboard blogs. I left them alone as I believe they support my findings through the years. There is a dichotomous view of the Law and Grace that is not supported as some theologize by making the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant different in substance and nature. I believed that. Thus making the Church of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to be different. One was made up of an invisible regenerate people and the other of non regenerate and regenerate. The Covenant of Grace only overshadowed the regenerate in the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a mixed Covenant of those who were to submit to a Covenant of Works in some sense and a group who found faith. In other words the Mosaic Covenant administered both a New Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Salvation for eternity called the Everlasting Covenant. I have even left most of my Baptist arguments everywhere where I blogged. There are a lot of various ideas on these topics. But the 1644 and 1689 Baptist's, the 1646 Westminster, and Savoy Declarations hold the best prolific theologies handed down to us. I honestly believe that.

The Substance of the Mosaic and the New Testament were my arguments against Paedobaptism and Covenant Theology for Particular Baptist Theology for many years. Around 2011 or 2010 that changed. I started looking away from John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe because their theology was leading towards things I found out of bounds when I looked at the Doctrines of Grace in any age. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/

You also might want to read the Jeremiah passages with more light than assumption. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/

If you have ever tried to defend your position of the Covenant of Circumcision and the Everlasting Covenant you should know that there is a lot of reading to do. I and many of the guys on this forum have done this. Some remain unmoved in their arguments and some of us have changed for various reasons. But I honestly believe we do hold the Word of God to be Central to our understanding. Some are just wrong. I hope I am not one of those. I can say that some declare to be of a Reformed Theology and they are not. It is new. That has to be declared. It is a new thing. It is an odd mix.


----------



## Cymro

Interestingly we read this at family worship this morning, Jeremiah9:26,"Egypt, and Judah, and Edom the children of Ammon, and Moab,and all that are in the utmost corners, that dwell in the wilderness: for all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart." There was an external relationship by the sign and seal of the promise, that God would be a God unto them and to their children. So it first of all was a covenantal promise, but then indicated the need of an internal work of the circumcision of the heart, regeneration. Israel made the promise of none effect by their unbelief in the promises of God. So there was no differences between them and the uncircumcised nations. Ihe new covenant is the same covenant, but administrated in a new way, with enlarged privileges, and water replacing the cutting, but the promise remains and the necessity of an inward work of regeneration vital. Both are required, both are comprehended in both dispensations.


----------



## Tyrese

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Why I became Reformed after having been a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I defended the RB Position here for a few years even as a Moderator. The Substance of the Covenants matter.
> Just saying. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/
> 
> Follow the links in blue of the blog post below if you really want to follow my thought process.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> If you are a Reformed Baptist you can read most of my Reformed Baptist Arguments on my early Puritanboard blogs. I left them alone as I believe they support my findings through the years. There is a dichotomous view of the Law and Grace that is not supported as some theologize by making the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant different in substance and nature. I believed that. Thus making the Church of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to be different. One was made up of an invisible regenerate people and the other of non regenerate and regenerate. The Covenant of Grace only overshadowed the regenerate in the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a mixed Covenant of those who were to submit to a Covenant of Works in some sense and a group who found faith. In other words the Mosaic Covenant administered both a New Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Salvation for eternity called the Everlasting Covenant. I have even left most of my Baptist arguments everywhere where I blogged. There are a lot of various ideas on these topics. But the 1644 and 1689 Baptist's, the 1646 Westminster, and Savoy Declarations hold the best prolific theologies handed down to us. I honestly believe that.
> 
> The Substance of the Mosaic and the New Testament were my arguments against Paedobaptism and Covenant Theology for Particular Baptist Theology for many years. Around 2011 or 2010 that changed. I started looking away from John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe because their theology was leading towards things I found out of bounds when I looked at the Doctrines of Grace in any age.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> You also might want to read the Jeremiah passages with more light than assumption. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/
> 
> If you have ever tried to defend your position of the Covenant of Circumcision and the Everlasting Covenant you should know that there is a lot of reading to do. I and many of the guys on this forum have done this. Some remain unmoved in their arguments and some of us have changed for various reasons. But I honestly believe we do hold the Word of God to be Central to our understanding. Some are just wrong. I hope I am not one of those. I can say that some declare to be of a Reformed Theology and they are not. It is new. That has to be declared. It is a new thing. It is an odd mix.



Hi brother Snyder,

Thank you for your input. However, I maintain that many brothers become Paedobaptist because they simply don't want to be called a Baptist and they definitely don't want to be called a dispensationalist. I'm not saying this was you, but I'm uncomfortable with even your words:

'I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.' 

I'm not saying you're wrong for your hard work and effort that you have put into your studies but the concept of figuring 'this stuff out for years' is unsettling to me. Could it be that the paedobaptist construct is simply not in scripture, and as a result one has to do endless reading and reading before he finds an argument that makes a little sense to him? I fear our brother Taylor Sexton could be going down this road as well. He himself said:

'Heck, I want to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here.'

He has a right to do as he pleases, but it's discouraging to know one can read the Bible for years and years and still be carried about with every wind of doctrine and not have a foundation to stand on. Or, one is looking to intentionally undermine and destroy the foundation that He has from scripture and replace it with something that is not in scripture simply because it sounds good. Do you disagree? I ask because you all treat the Bible like it's not written in English. Many of you argue down our brothers for promoting the KJV and you say it's 'hard to understand' and people won't understand it. But it seems to me you all treat other translations the same way.

Like I said I respect you men, but I for one am satisfied with being a Baptist. Colossians 2:11-12 says, 'In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.' A plain reading of this passage tells us that we need to be born again. We need a changed heart and the evidence that we've been circumcised by Christ is we'll put 'off the body of the sins of the flesh,...'. This is how circumcision is applied under the NC, not infant baptism. When one of you circumcise/baptise and infant 'without hands', I'll take back everything that I've said. 

Your brother,
Tyrese


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tyrese said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I became Reformed after having been a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I defended the RB Position here for a few years even as a Moderator. The Substance of the Covenants matter.
> Just saying. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/
> 
> Follow the links in blue of the blog post below if you really want to follow my thought process.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> If you are a Reformed Baptist you can read most of my Reformed Baptist Arguments on my early Puritanboard blogs. I left them alone as I believe they support my findings through the years. There is a dichotomous view of the Law and Grace that is not supported as some theologize by making the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant different in substance and nature. I believed that. Thus making the Church of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to be different. One was made up of an invisible regenerate people and the other of non regenerate and regenerate. The Covenant of Grace only overshadowed the regenerate in the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a mixed Covenant of those who were to submit to a Covenant of Works in some sense and a group who found faith. In other words the Mosaic Covenant administered both a New Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Salvation for eternity called the Everlasting Covenant. I have even left most of my Baptist arguments everywhere where I blogged. There are a lot of various ideas on these topics. But the 1644 and 1689 Baptist's, the 1646 Westminster, and Savoy Declarations hold the best prolific theologies handed down to us. I honestly believe that.
> 
> The Substance of the Mosaic and the New Testament were my arguments against Paedobaptism and Covenant Theology for Particular Baptist Theology for many years. Around 2011 or 2010 that changed. I started looking away from John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe because their theology was leading towards things I found out of bounds when I looked at the Doctrines of Grace in any age.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> You also might want to read the Jeremiah passages with more light than assumption. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/
> 
> If you have ever tried to defend your position of the Covenant of Circumcision and the Everlasting Covenant you should know that there is a lot of reading to do. I and many of the guys on this forum have done this. Some remain unmoved in their arguments and some of us have changed for various reasons. But I honestly believe we do hold the Word of God to be Central to our understanding. Some are just wrong. I hope I am not one of those. I can say that some declare to be of a Reformed Theology and they are not. It is new. That has to be declared. It is a new thing. It is an odd mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi brother Snyder,
> 
> Thank you for your input. However, I maintain that many brothers become Paedobaptist because they simply don't want to be called a Baptist and they definitely don't want to be called a dispensationalist. I'm not saying this was you, but I'm uncomfortable with even your words:
> 
> 'I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.'
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong for your hard work and effort that you have put into your studies but the concept of figuring 'this stuff out for years' is unsettling to me. Could it be that the paedobaptist construct is simply not in scripture, and as a result one has to do endless reading and reading before he finds an argument that makes a little sense to him? I fear our brother Taylor Sexton could be going down this road as well. He himself said:
> 
> 'Heck, I want to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here.'
> 
> He has a right to do as he pleases, but it's discouraging to know one can read the Bible for years and years and still be carried about with every wind of doctrine and not have a foundation to stand on. Or, one is looking to intentionally undermine and destroy the foundation that He has from scripture and replace it with something that is not in scripture simply because it sounds good. Do you disagree? I ask because you all treat the Bible like it's not written in English. Many of you argue down our brothers for promoting the KJV and you say it's 'hard to understand' and people won't understand it. But it seems to me you all treat other translations the same way.
> 
> Like I said I respect you men, but I for one am satisfied with being a Baptist. Colossians 2:11-12 says, 'In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.' A plain reading of this passage tells us that we need to be born again. We need a changed heart and the evidence that we've been circumcised by Christ is we'll put 'off the body of the sins of the flesh,...'. This is how circumcision is applied under the NC, not infant baptism. When one of you circumcise/baptise and infant 'without hands', I'll take back everything that I've said.
> 
> Your brother,
> Tyrese
Click to expand...



Tyrese,
Much can be said of the study of God; Consider Calvin's Institutes and how many volumes; or Owen's work. A man can spend his lifetime studying God's word and barely scratch the surface. Hence, devoted study, examining those who have gone before us (God uses the bride and it's men to reveal things-not all men are capable and teachers-in the counsel of many, there is safety).

As well, as I asked Taylor, I ask you: A few posts back I submitted a list of items that are gotten to by good and necessary consequence or inference, i.e. the Trinity to name one here-I don't imagine you have any issue with these items. One cannot see any positive command to change the sabbath day from the last day of the week to the first, yet, you submit to it and maybe even blindly, if you have not reconciled this doctrine. The church has studied these things, by much greater minds than anyone here on PB. To say that we can get everything from scripture alone is an error. Consider Solo scriptura vs sola scriptura. 





Blessings.


----------



## Tyrese

Scott Bushey said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I became Reformed after having been a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I defended the RB Position here for a few years even as a Moderator. The Substance of the Covenants matter.
> Just saying. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/
> 
> Follow the links in blue of the blog post below if you really want to follow my thought process.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> If you are a Reformed Baptist you can read most of my Reformed Baptist Arguments on my early Puritanboard blogs. I left them alone as I believe they support my findings through the years. There is a dichotomous view of the Law and Grace that is not supported as some theologize by making the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant different in substance and nature. I believed that. Thus making the Church of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to be different. One was made up of an invisible regenerate people and the other of non regenerate and regenerate. The Covenant of Grace only overshadowed the regenerate in the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a mixed Covenant of those who were to submit to a Covenant of Works in some sense and a group who found faith. In other words the Mosaic Covenant administered both a New Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Salvation for eternity called the Everlasting Covenant. I have even left most of my Baptist arguments everywhere where I blogged. There are a lot of various ideas on these topics. But the 1644 and 1689 Baptist's, the 1646 Westminster, and Savoy Declarations hold the best prolific theologies handed down to us. I honestly believe that.
> 
> The Substance of the Mosaic and the New Testament were my arguments against Paedobaptism and Covenant Theology for Particular Baptist Theology for many years. Around 2011 or 2010 that changed. I started looking away from John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe because their theology was leading towards things I found out of bounds when I looked at the Doctrines of Grace in any age.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> You also might want to read the Jeremiah passages with more light than assumption. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/
> 
> If you have ever tried to defend your position of the Covenant of Circumcision and the Everlasting Covenant you should know that there is a lot of reading to do. I and many of the guys on this forum have done this. Some remain unmoved in their arguments and some of us have changed for various reasons. But I honestly believe we do hold the Word of God to be Central to our understanding. Some are just wrong. I hope I am not one of those. I can say that some declare to be of a Reformed Theology and they are not. It is new. That has to be declared. It is a new thing. It is an odd mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi brother Snyder,
> 
> Thank you for your input. However, I maintain that many brothers become Paedobaptist because they simply don't want to be called a Baptist and they definitely don't want to be called a dispensationalist. I'm not saying this was you, but I'm uncomfortable with even your words:
> 
> 'I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.'
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong for your hard work and effort that you have put into your studies but the concept of figuring 'this stuff out for years' is unsettling to me. Could it be that the paedobaptist construct is simply not in scripture, and as a result one has to do endless reading and reading before he finds an argument that makes a little sense to him? I fear our brother Taylor Sexton could be going down this road as well. He himself said:
> 
> 'Heck, I want to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here.'
> 
> He has a right to do as he pleases, but it's discouraging to know one can read the Bible for years and years and still be carried about with every wind of doctrine and not have a foundation to stand on. Or, one is looking to intentionally undermine and destroy the foundation that He has from scripture and replace it with something that is not in scripture simply because it sounds good. Do you disagree? I ask because you all treat the Bible like it's not written in English. Many of you argue down our brothers for promoting the KJV and you say it's 'hard to understand' and people won't understand it. But it seems to me you all treat other translations the same way.
> 
> Like I said I respect you men, but I for one am satisfied with being a Baptist. Colossians 2:11-12 says, 'In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.' A plain reading of this passage tells us that we need to be born again. We need a changed heart and the evidence that we've been circumcised by Christ is we'll put 'off the body of the sins of the flesh,...'. This is how circumcision is applied under the NC, not infant baptism. When one of you circumcise/baptise and infant 'without hands', I'll take back everything that I've said.
> 
> Your brother,
> Tyrese
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese,
> Much can be said of the study of God; Consider Calvin's Institutes and how many volumes; or Owen's work. A man can spend his lifetime studying God's word and barely scratch the surface. Hence, devoted study, examining those who have gone before us (God uses the bride and it's men to reveal things-not all men are capable and teachers-in the counsel of many, there is safety).
> 
> As well, as I asked Taylor, I ask you: A few posts back I submitted a list of items that are gotten to by good and necessary consequence or inference, i.e. the Trinity to name one here-I don't imagine you have any issue with these items. One cannot see any positive command to change the sabbath day from the last day of the week to the first, yet, you submit to it and maybe even blindly, if you have not reconciled this doctrine. The church has studied these things, by much greater minds than anyone here on PB. To say that we can get everything from scripture alone is an error. Consider Solo scriptura vs sola scriptura.
> 
> View attachment 4574
> 
> Blessings.
Click to expand...


Hi brother Scott,

Trust me I agree with everything you just said. But would you agree that it's problamatic for brothers who are never certain about what they believe? How can a man be confident in what he says if he's always unsure about his position? By all means we need to study that might show ourselves to be approved, but I don't believe we should study to constantly go from this view to that one. I believe (and I assume you do as well) that we reform according to Scripture; if we don't do that why read the Bible? Especially if our beliefs don't even have to come from out of it?

Your brother,
Tyrese


----------



## Scott Bushey

Tyrese said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I became Reformed after having been a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I defended the RB Position here for a few years even as a Moderator. The Substance of the Covenants matter.
> Just saying. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/
> 
> Follow the links in blue of the blog post below if you really want to follow my thought process.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> If you are a Reformed Baptist you can read most of my Reformed Baptist Arguments on my early Puritanboard blogs. I left them alone as I believe they support my findings through the years. There is a dichotomous view of the Law and Grace that is not supported as some theologize by making the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant different in substance and nature. I believed that. Thus making the Church of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to be different. One was made up of an invisible regenerate people and the other of non regenerate and regenerate. The Covenant of Grace only overshadowed the regenerate in the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a mixed Covenant of those who were to submit to a Covenant of Works in some sense and a group who found faith. In other words the Mosaic Covenant administered both a New Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Salvation for eternity called the Everlasting Covenant. I have even left most of my Baptist arguments everywhere where I blogged. There are a lot of various ideas on these topics. But the 1644 and 1689 Baptist's, the 1646 Westminster, and Savoy Declarations hold the best prolific theologies handed down to us. I honestly believe that.
> 
> The Substance of the Mosaic and the New Testament were my arguments against Paedobaptism and Covenant Theology for Particular Baptist Theology for many years. Around 2011 or 2010 that changed. I started looking away from John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe because their theology was leading towards things I found out of bounds when I looked at the Doctrines of Grace in any age.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> You also might want to read the Jeremiah passages with more light than assumption. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/
> 
> If you have ever tried to defend your position of the Covenant of Circumcision and the Everlasting Covenant you should know that there is a lot of reading to do. I and many of the guys on this forum have done this. Some remain unmoved in their arguments and some of us have changed for various reasons. But I honestly believe we do hold the Word of God to be Central to our understanding. Some are just wrong. I hope I am not one of those. I can say that some declare to be of a Reformed Theology and they are not. It is new. That has to be declared. It is a new thing. It is an odd mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi brother Snyder,
> 
> Thank you for your input. However, I maintain that many brothers become Paedobaptist because they simply don't want to be called a Baptist and they definitely don't want to be called a dispensationalist. I'm not saying this was you, but I'm uncomfortable with even your words:
> 
> 'I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.'
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong for your hard work and effort that you have put into your studies but the concept of figuring 'this stuff out for years' is unsettling to me. Could it be that the paedobaptist construct is simply not in scripture, and as a result one has to do endless reading and reading before he finds an argument that makes a little sense to him? I fear our brother Taylor Sexton could be going down this road as well. He himself said:
> 
> 'Heck, I want to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here.'
> 
> He has a right to do as he pleases, but it's discouraging to know one can read the Bible for years and years and still be carried about with every wind of doctrine and not have a foundation to stand on. Or, one is looking to intentionally undermine and destroy the foundation that He has from scripture and replace it with something that is not in scripture simply because it sounds good. Do you disagree? I ask because you all treat the Bible like it's not written in English. Many of you argue down our brothers for promoting the KJV and you say it's 'hard to understand' and people won't understand it. But it seems to me you all treat other translations the same way.
> 
> Like I said I respect you men, but I for one am satisfied with being a Baptist. Colossians 2:11-12 says, 'In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.' A plain reading of this passage tells us that we need to be born again. We need a changed heart and the evidence that we've been circumcised by Christ is we'll put 'off the body of the sins of the flesh,...'. This is how circumcision is applied under the NC, not infant baptism. When one of you circumcise/baptise and infant 'without hands', I'll take back everything that I've said.
> 
> Your brother,
> Tyrese
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese,
> Much can be said of the study of God; Consider Calvin's Institutes and how many volumes; or Owen's work. A man can spend his lifetime studying God's word and barely scratch the surface. Hence, devoted study, examining those who have gone before us (God uses the bride and it's men to reveal things-not all men are capable and teachers-in the counsel of many, there is safety).
> 
> As well, as I asked Taylor, I ask you: A few posts back I submitted a list of items that are gotten to by good and necessary consequence or inference, i.e. the Trinity to name one here-I don't imagine you have any issue with these items. One cannot see any positive command to change the sabbath day from the last day of the week to the first, yet, you submit to it and maybe even blindly, if you have not reconciled this doctrine. The church has studied these things, by much greater minds than anyone here on PB. To say that we can get everything from scripture alone is an error. Consider Solo scriptura vs sola scriptura.
> 
> View attachment 4574
> 
> Blessings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi brother Scott,
> 
> Trust me I agree with everything you just said. But would you agree that it's problamatic for brothers who are never certain about what they believe? How can a man be confident in what he says if he's always unsure about his position? By all means we need to study that might show ourselves to be approved, but I don't believe we should study to constantly go from this view to that one. I believe (and I assume you do as well) that we reform according to Scripture; if we don't do that why read the Bible? Especially if our beliefs don't even have to come from out of it?
> 
> Your brother,
> Tyrese
Click to expand...


Some people will never land on a position. Consider Christ's words when He tells us that some seed produce 30%, 60% and 100%. The man who has a desire to understand doctrine will pursue truth, in a deeper fashion. 

I agree. There comes a time when one should find comfort in his positions. However, boards like this one or even FB, spur those on to more truth as it is constantly challenging our belief systems. Most believers don't care about that stuff, but if you happen to be one who wants to defend their ideas, there will be sifting and change-it comes w/ the territory. 

We do 'reform' according to scripture-but it is not by scripture alone. The Church itself and the blood it has spilled in pursuit of the truth says much; consider the creeds and our confessions. 

I have never met a man who wasn't grounded in scripture, even when he quotes a creed or confession, or a man of God who has gone before us. All of these things fortify what we believe.


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Tyrese said:


> Scott Bushey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why I became Reformed after having been a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I defended the RB Position here for a few years even as a Moderator. The Substance of the Covenants matter.
> Just saying. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...chapter-19-the-law-and-the-covenant-of-works/
> 
> Follow the links in blue of the blog post below if you really want to follow my thought process.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> If you are a Reformed Baptist you can read most of my Reformed Baptist Arguments on my early Puritanboard blogs. I left them alone as I believe they support my findings through the years. There is a dichotomous view of the Law and Grace that is not supported as some theologize by making the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant different in substance and nature. I believed that. Thus making the Church of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant to be different. One was made up of an invisible regenerate people and the other of non regenerate and regenerate. The Covenant of Grace only overshadowed the regenerate in the New Covenant. The Mosaic Covenant was a mixed Covenant of those who were to submit to a Covenant of Works in some sense and a group who found faith. In other words the Mosaic Covenant administered both a New Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Salvation for eternity called the Everlasting Covenant. I have even left most of my Baptist arguments everywhere where I blogged. There are a lot of various ideas on these topics. But the 1644 and 1689 Baptist's, the 1646 Westminster, and Savoy Declarations hold the best prolific theologies handed down to us. I honestly believe that.
> 
> The Substance of the Mosaic and the New Testament were my arguments against Paedobaptism and Covenant Theology for Particular Baptist Theology for many years. Around 2011 or 2010 that changed. I started looking away from John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe because their theology was leading towards things I found out of bounds when I looked at the Doctrines of Grace in any age.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
> 
> You also might want to read the Jeremiah passages with more light than assumption. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/
> 
> If you have ever tried to defend your position of the Covenant of Circumcision and the Everlasting Covenant you should know that there is a lot of reading to do. I and many of the guys on this forum have done this. Some remain unmoved in their arguments and some of us have changed for various reasons. But I honestly believe we do hold the Word of God to be Central to our understanding. Some are just wrong. I hope I am not one of those. I can say that some declare to be of a Reformed Theology and they are not. It is new. That has to be declared. It is a new thing. It is an odd mix.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi brother Snyder,
> 
> Thank you for your input. However, I maintain that many brothers become Paedobaptist because they simply don't want to be called a Baptist and they definitely don't want to be called a dispensationalist. I'm not saying this was you, but I'm uncomfortable with even your words:
> 
> 'I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.'
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong for your hard work and effort that you have put into your studies but the concept of figuring 'this stuff out for years' is unsettling to me. Could it be that the paedobaptist construct is simply not in scripture, and as a result one has to do endless reading and reading before he finds an argument that makes a little sense to him? I fear our brother Taylor Sexton could be going down this road as well. He himself said:
> 
> 'Heck, I want to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here.'
> 
> He has a right to do as he pleases, but it's discouraging to know one can read the Bible for years and years and still be carried about with every wind of doctrine and not have a foundation to stand on. Or, one is looking to intentionally undermine and destroy the foundation that He has from scripture and replace it with something that is not in scripture simply because it sounds good. Do you disagree? I ask because you all treat the Bible like it's not written in English. Many of you argue down our brothers for promoting the KJV and you say it's 'hard to understand' and people won't understand it. But it seems to me you all treat other translations the same way.
> 
> Like I said I respect you men, but I for one am satisfied with being a Baptist. Colossians 2:11-12 says, 'In Him you were also circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, by putting off the body of the sins of the flesh, by the circumcision of Christ, buried with Him in baptism, in which you also were raised with Him through faith in the working of God, who raised Him from the dead.' A plain reading of this passage tells us that we need to be born again. We need a changed heart and the evidence that we've been circumcised by Christ is we'll put 'off the body of the sins of the flesh,...'. This is how circumcision is applied under the NC, not infant baptism. When one of you circumcise/baptise and infant 'without hands', I'll take back everything that I've said.
> 
> Your brother,
> Tyrese
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Tyrese,
> Much can be said of the study of God; Consider Calvin's Institutes and how many volumes; or Owen's work. A man can spend his lifetime studying God's word and barely scratch the surface. Hence, devoted study, examining those who have gone before us (God uses the bride and it's men to reveal things-not all men are capable and teachers-in the counsel of many, there is safety).
> 
> As well, as I asked Taylor, I ask you: A few posts back I submitted a list of items that are gotten to by good and necessary consequence or inference, i.e. the Trinity to name one here-I don't imagine you have any issue with these items. One cannot see any positive command to change the sabbath day from the last day of the week to the first, yet, you submit to it and maybe even blindly, if you have not reconciled this doctrine. The church has studied these things, by much greater minds than anyone here on PB. To say that we can get everything from scripture alone is an error. Consider Solo scriptura vs sola scriptura.
> 
> View attachment 4574
> 
> Blessings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi brother Scott,
> 
> Trust me I agree with everything you just said. But would you agree that it's problamatic for brothers who are never certain about what they believe? How can a man be confident in what he says if he's always unsure about his position? By all means we need to study that might show ourselves to be approved, but I don't believe we should study to constantly go from this view to that one. I believe (and I assume you do as well) that we reform according to Scripture; if we don't do that why read the Bible? Especially if our beliefs don't even have to come from out of it?
> 
> Your brother,
> Tyrese
Click to expand...


Some here took a while to see and embrace the doctrines of grace. The struggle was good. It may have seemed like a man was "always going to be unsure about his position." But all the while a good thing was happening (in spite of the misery he felt!). For some it took years, I'm sure. 

The key for me in coming closer to paedobaptism has been seeing the OT more as a whole with the NT than I did. It's been a further paradigm shift, and I think that's the difficulty Martin was expressing by "figuring this out"... the difficulty is not with the Scriptures, but with the decades of cultural immersion (hehe) into a worldview and way of interpreting Scripture through a certain grid. It makes sense that this would be more difficult for folks coming later in life to covenantal views than for someone raised in a culture of more continuity between the testaments. But again, the struggle and even uneasiness is worth it. Uneasiness about a doctrine is not a sign that the doctrine is not true. We are only human. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Tyrese said:


> Hi brother Snyder,
> 
> Thank you for your input. However, I maintain that many brothers become Paedobaptist because they simply don't want to be called a Baptist and they definitely don't want to be called a dispensationalist. I'm not saying this was you, but I'm uncomfortable with even your words:
> 
> 'I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.'
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong for your hard work and effort that you have put into your studies but the concept of figuring 'this stuff out for years' is unsettling to me. Could it be that the paedobaptist construct is simply not in scripture, and as a result one has to do endless reading and reading before he finds an argument that makes a little sense to him? I fear our brother Taylor Sexton could be going down this road as well. He himself said:
> 
> 'Heck, I want to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here.'



Thanks for your question and seeking to understand my motives. I could be wrong but I don't think my motivation for becoming Reformed was based upon what you seem to be assuming. I had plenty of them as a Reformed Baptist. Gill, Spurgeon, Keach, Bunyan, Tombes... I also have many good friends I rub elbows with across this Country who are Professors and Writers. I can call them anytime. You would recognize their names. I will say I could be wrong because it may have played in at some level as a motivator and we all know we shouldn't trust our heart. The thing we should always trust is the Word of God. If you are going to question my motive the way you are then allow me to say I had more motivation in the eyes of men to Remain a Reformed Baptist. I wholeheartedly was satisfied being one based upon my view of Scripture. If you read the blog post you will see I defended the Reformed Baptist position for many years on this board and I have many good friends who were saddened when I announced I was convinced of the Reformed view. I also thought I stood on the shoulders of good men such as Keach, Bunyan, Tombes, Spurgeon, Gill, and a few others. So I don't think I was looking to change to realign myself for the reason you are assuming. Who wouldn't want to identify with Spurgeon the Prince of Preachers? 

If you have read my blog and read the reasons I gave for my change they are based upon scripture. Not the thoughts of men. I have found men in the past who back up my understanding and that is comforting. At least I am not alone in my understanding. But it started with me as a review of how the Law applies in our lives. How do we understand the Law and how does it apply differently or similarly from Covenant to Covenant. If you know my past and understand that I was an apologist for Particular Baptist Theology then you must know that my view concerning the Covenants and how they related to each other determined who I understood could be a member of any Covenant. At least do you understand that point? The Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. It was a Covenant that had both regenerate and unregenerate membership. The New Covenant was not one with a mixed membership of Regenerate and Unregenerate people were members. It was purely a Covenant of Grace. Therefore its Membership was regenerate. This also applied to how we determined who was a member of a Church. A Confession, Repentance, and Baptism gave a person the right to the blessing of Church Membership. In my understanding the Presbyterians were flattening out the Covenants as Fred A. Malone wrote in his book. He was a Presbyterian Pastor who became a Reformed Baptist after many years. 

Ty, Let me stop here and get your answer to my question of whether or not you are understanding why I was a Particular Baptist? I hope you can repeat it back to me. I will then proceed on what changed that understanding. I don't like long posts. People get lost in them. And to answer your question about my motivation, I don't think that played the role you are assuming. But I understand it. At least I think I do. I think I somewhat understood the Everlasting Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision in the Reformed Baptist sense. BTW, the WCF uses the word dispensation. It is in Chapter 7.


----------



## Tyrese

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Tyrese said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi brother Snyder,
> 
> Thank you for your input. However, I maintain that many brothers become Paedobaptist because they simply don't want to be called a Baptist and they definitely don't want to be called a dispensationalist. I'm not saying this was you, but I'm uncomfortable with even your words:
> 
> 'I was trying to figure this stuff out for years. Not sure I have it down yet but I think I have pin pointed some things that have even caused other denominations to rethink some of their own Professors stances on Covenant Theology.'
> 
> I'm not saying you're wrong for your hard work and effort that you have put into your studies but the concept of figuring 'this stuff out for years' is unsettling to me. Could it be that the paedobaptist construct is simply not in scripture, and as a result one has to do endless reading and reading before he finds an argument that makes a little sense to him? I fear our brother Taylor Sexton could be going down this road as well. He himself said:
> 
> 'Heck, I want to be a paedobaptist so that I feel I have better fellowship with those theologians whom I admire (Calvin, Turretin, Hodge, etc.), including those whom I admire on here.'
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your question and seeking to understand my motives. I could be wrong but I don't think my motivation for becoming Reformed was based upon what you seem to be assuming. I had plenty of them as a Reformed Baptist. Gill, Spurgeon, Keach, Bunyan, Tombes... I also have many good friends I rub elbows with across this Country who are Professors and Writers. I can call them anytime. You would recognize their names. I will say I could be wrong because it may have played in at some level as a motivator and we all know we shouldn't trust our heart. The thing we should always trust is the Word of God. If you are going to question my motive the way you are then allow me to say I had more motivation in the eyes of men to Remain a Reformed Baptist. I wholeheartedly was satisfied being one based upon my view of Scripture. If you read the blog post you will see I defended the Reformed Baptist position for many years on this board and I have many good friends who were saddened when I announced I was convinced of the Reformed view. I also thought I stood on the shoulders of good men such as Keach, Bunyan, Tombes, Spurgeon, Gill, and a few others. So I don't think I was looking to change to realign myself for the reason you are assuming. Who wouldn't want to identify with Spurgeon the Prince of Preachers?
> 
> If you have read my blog and read the reasons I gave for my change they are based upon scripture. Not the thoughts of men. I have found men in the past who back up my understanding and that is comforting. At least I am not alone in my understanding. But it started with me as a review of how the Law applies in our lives. How do we understand the Law and how does it apply differently or similarly from Covenant to Covenant. If you know my past and understand that I was an apologist for Particular Baptist Theology then you must know that my view concerning the Covenants and how they related to each other determined who I understood could be a member of any Covenant. At least do you understand that point? The Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. It was a Covenant that had both regenerate and unregenerate membership. The New Covenant was not one with a mixed membership of Regenerate and Unregenerate people were members. It was purely a Covenant of Grace. Therefore its Membership was regenerate. This also applied to how we determined who was a member of a Church. A Confession, Repentance, and Baptism gave a person the right to the blessing of Church Membership. In my understanding the Presbyterians were flattening out the Covenants as Fred A. Malone wrote in his book. He was a Presbyterian Pastor who became a Reformed Baptist after many years.
> 
> Ty, Let me stop here and get your answer to my question of whether or not you are understanding why I was a Particular Baptist? I hope you can repeat it back to me. I will then proceed on what changed that understanding. I don't like long posts. People get lost in them. And to answer your question about my motivation, I don't think that played the role you are assuming. But I understand it. At least I think I do. I think I somewhat understood the Everlasting Covenant and the Covenant of Circumcision in the Reformed Baptist sense. BTW, the WCF uses the word dispensation. It is in Chapter 7.
Click to expand...


Hi Brother, 

I really appreciate your thoughtful response here. First, let me say that I think you are on to something when it comes to motives. I for one cannot judge a mans motives, only what he says or does. So in no way do I want you to think that I'm in the business of judging motives. So for me to suggest with 100% certainty that you left your Reformed Baptist convictions because you were desperate to be a Paedobaptist is unfair to you and to anyone else. Fact is I don't know for sure, I'm only trying to understand the things that are posted here for all to see and interpret. So I interpret what is written knowing that I don't know for sure that what I think is in fact truth. Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt. I think we all do that to a certain extent. Would you agree? I just wanted to be sure that I cleared that up before answering your question.

Now on to your question. You wrote: 'Ty, Let me stop here and get your answer to my question of whether or not you are understanding why I was a Particular Baptist?' 

My answer to your question is sorta. I say that because on the one hand I understand that you defended Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology, but then on the other hand you said 'I was trying to figure this stuff out for years.' Now that's fine, but I'm confused about how one can defend something that he's not entirely sure about. Or is there something more here? Now here is where I want to be as transparent and honest with you as possible. I don't understand half of this stuff either and our brother Matthew Winzer made things more difficult for me because I've been trying to figure out Romans 4 (post 78), and Hebrews 9 (post 86) since last night. Now I know these chapters don't imply peadobaptism (I know you disagree), but I do believe they are essential to this discussion and I think there's an answer that's at least satisfactory; that is to me.

In post 95 Jeri Tanner seems to compare infant baptism to the doctrines of grace but that's not a good comparison to me. The doctrines of grace are rather clear in scripture and from my experience there's two different types of Christians. There's the Christian who denies the plain teaching of scripture, and then there's the one who tries to explain it away. And as a result of this behavior it can take 'year's' to accept what the Bible says. If this is what is meant than I agree. But neither case applies to infant baptism. It's certainly not plain, and from a scriptural perspective, there's nothing to deny. Even brother Scott wrote, 'To say that we can get everything from scripture alone is an error.' Is he admitting that infant baptism is not in scripture? And does not our confession say, 'The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience,...'? 

You wrote: "BTW, the WCF uses the word dispensation. It is in Chapter 7."

I don't have a problem with that. Our brother C. Matthew McMahon keeps throwing that around. 

Your brother,
Tyrese


----------



## Tyrese

Brother Snyder,

I thought it would be a good idea to add this post to clarify a few things and help in the area of patience. I'm sure you agree with me when I say we have to be patient with our brothers on the net because we're interacting with real people who bring real life experiences to their discussions. This is important because it undermines the idea that one's opinion is authority because of his or her bad experiences. The same is true for me. Please understand that I don't mean to sound condescending in anyway when I ask why men debate and preach on things that they're not entirely sure about. My question is not authoritative, but rather a genuine question for teachers of the Bible. Do these men not understand that their people are confused when they go back and forth? One day they're ardently defending position X with a 15 sermon series, and then a year later it's all undermined in less than a minute. Do husbands not understand that wives are confused when men go from church to church because they're constantly evolving? I've seen these things play out in person and so I bring my experiences here. 

So with that said, I have no desire to offend but to understand why things happen the way they do. And I do appreciate your willingness to help me understand your journey to Presbyterianism. 

Your brother,
Tyrese


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ty,

Just to give you some background about myself, I have not been a person who has been moved to make many major Theological shifts in my life. I was even born into the faith as one who believed in God's choosing certain men unto salvation as I read the four gospels in a Navy barracks in 1981. Many people take years to understand the doctrines of grace. I have usually been slow to stand on some doctrines but that doctrine wasn't one I had to struggle with as most do who have little knowledge of the Bible. Even when it came to eschatology I didn't have to struggle as hard. Most of my early Christian friends were premil despensationalists. I had problems with that because I believed what the Scriptures said about there being a Church in the Old Testament. That was Israel, the Church in the wilderness. I wasn't raised in church so I didn't have the baggage some people have. My early years were spent being discipled in the Navigators and attending the Base Chapel, some Independent Baptist Churches, and a small Reformed Baptist Church out the back gate of NAS Oceana. I also fellowshipped with many different kinds of people from many various Church backgrounds on the USS Forrestal and Saratoga. I learned a lot about Non Christian cults during that time also. What I am trying to convey is that I have tried to listen to the scriptures and gain understanding before I stood firmly on doctrine. I fear misunderstanding the Word of God because there are consequences. Because of that I have not been a person who has made but a few major Theological shifts in life. I am certain of a few things. I have studied the words for grace (charis) very intently. I know the American Church has a very truncated understanding of the word. I know the scriptures to teach a Triune God. I also believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the scriptures. Those things are solid. But does that mean I fully understand them? I definitely do not fully comprehend them but I do have some understanding. And things can be built upon those understandings.

The same has been true for me concerning Covenant Theology. Particular Baptist Theology has not been widely written about and a lot of it remained in shadows so I had to rely upon works like A. W. Pink who wrote about it. I had to sit and learn from Pastors, Profs, and teachers who guided me through the thoughts of good men. And I have to admit that my resources for many years were slow in coming. In fact it was years after I read Fred Malone that I finally felt like I was gaining a good grasp on CT because my good friend Rich Barcellos published Nehemiah Coxe's Covenant Theology book. 

Enough for now. It is late. I will say this. My understanding of Grace has remained consistent and it has been a guiding hermeneutic that hasn't changed. My understanding of Grace and Law is still the same as it was before but my understanding concerning the Mosaic Covenant as a stand alone Covenant has changed. The language of the MC does not reveal to me that it was ever meant to be taken as a Covenant of works in any substantial form. And that plays a big part in credo only Particular Baptist Theology. It does in many areas such as ecclesiology, soteriology, the person and work of Christ are just a few areas that are affected by it. Right now I want to focus on the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace and dispel the notion that it is a stand alone Covenant administering the Covenants of Grace and Works. Does that make sense?

Please be patient for my responses. I don't spend as much time chasing these things like I was once able to. I have significantly slowed the past few years.


----------



## MW

Tyrese said:


> I don't understand half of this stuff either and our brother Matthew Winzer made things more difficult for me because I've been trying to figure out Romans 4 (post 78), and Hebrews 9 (post 86) since last night. Now I know these chapters don't imply peadobaptism (I know you disagree), but I do believe they are essential to this discussion and I think there's an answer that's at least satisfactory; that is to me.



Sorry if my posts were confusing. I was merely attempting to bring out the plain sense of the words. In Romans 4, circumcision seals the promise that Abraham would be the father of many nations and the Gentiles would receive justification by faith. In Hebrews 9 and 10, it is the "will and testament" that is new. I don't think either text proves infant baptism, although the unity of the covenant of grace has a bearing upon it. Romans 4 shows that the purpose of grace revealed to Abraham is extended to the Gentiles, making it one and the same; and Hebrews 9-10 shows that the "will" of the covenant is new, not the covenant itself.

If I were to speak about infant baptism in this context I would simply make the following point. The 1689 Confession maintains the salvation of elect infants by the grace of Jesus Christ. Elect infants under the Old Testament and elect infants under the New Testament were saved in precisely the same way. Even when antipaedobaptists reconstruct covenant theology to make the "new covenant" something altogether new, they have not excluded infants as members of it. Their reconstructed covenant theology, therefore, is irrelevant to the issue; which might help explain why there have been numerous antipaedobaptists who have maintained the teaching of the Westminster Confession that there is one covenant of grace under both Testaments. They do not exclude infants from baptism because of their understanding of covenant theology; it is rather owing to their understanding of the purpose which baptism serves.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ty,

The next place I would like to take this discussion toward, if you are satisfied with the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant as being the same substantially, would be who is a Covenant Member. But maybe we need to first establish that the New Covenant is in fact the same substantially as the Mosaic Covenant. Also I hope that I have satisfied you with my commitment to be as solid as I can be when I believe something. In fact I will also let you know that I didn't come out professing my change for sometime. I got advise from both Reformed Baptists and Reformed Theologians to pray and seek the Lord and counsel. I did that. Even the Leadership of this forum had a part to play in that. And they are both very Godly Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. I have always maintained the quote in my signature. William Symington was a great man and mentor to the great missionary George Paton. When the time seemed appropriate and my understanding was firm I sought out if the time was appropriate. I did it in a small post concerning Kline and his view of Law and the Mosaic Covenant. I didn't come out guns ablaze to make anyone defend their position or mine. I still haven't participated much in the debate about anti-paedobaptism. I do think this is an important issue but it has more to do with what the Bible Conveys about our responsibility towards the Lord than a debate about sprinkling, dunking, or who got wet. It has to do with the Kingdom of God and for whom is the Church responsible for and who is responsible to the Church as she is the mother of the believers. 

I wrote this a few years ago. 

The Mosaic Covenant, the same in substance as the New Covenant
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

The Importance of the Church in Sovereign Grace
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/the-importance-of-the-church-in-sovereign-grace-2/


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013

There are a few things that helped me become Presbyterian:

1. The church is a continuation of the covenant made with Abraham, and therefore it makes sense to administer the sign and seal of it in the same way continually. The covenant made with Abraham was never abolished, but the Mosaic covenant was. 
2. Though the covenant of grace is administered to all, only the elect are truly members of the covenant of grace. Outwardly, we would say all the church is in covenant with God, but only the elect are in the covenant of grace in the truest sense. So I would agree with a Baptist who says only the elect are made up of the covenant of grace, but I think Biblically the sign of that covenant should be administered in the same way it always has, and that there is still some covenant between the unregenerate in church and the Lord, even if it isn't in a saving way. "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which *he was sanctified*, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?"

I know this is way off topic, but maybe someone will benefit from the things that helped me understand Paedo.


----------



## Tyrese

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Ty,
> 
> The next place I would like to take this discussion toward, if you are satisfied with the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant as being the same substantially, would be who is a Covenant Member. But maybe we need to first establish that the New Covenant is in fact the same substantially as the Mosaic Covenant. Also I hope that I have satisfied you with my commitment to be as solid as I can be when I believe something. In fact I will also let you know that I didn't come out professing my change for sometime. I got advise from both Reformed Baptists and Reformed Theologians to pray and seek the Lord and counsel. I did that. Even the Leadership of this forum had a part to play in that. And they are both very Godly Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. I have always maintained the quote in my signature. William Symington was a great man and mentor to the great missionary George Paton. When the time seemed appropriate and my understanding was firm I sought out if the time was appropriate. I did it in a small post concerning Kline and his view of Law and the Mosaic Covenant. I didn't come out guns ablaze to make anyone defend their position or mine. I still haven't participated much in the debate about anti-paedobaptism. I do think this is an important issue but it has more to do with what the Bible Conveys about our responsibility towards the Lord than a debate about sprinkling, dunking, or who got wet. It has to do with the Kingdom of God and for whom is the Church responsible for and who is responsible to the Church as she is the mother of the believers.
> 
> I wrote this a few years ago.
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant, the same in substance as the New Covenant
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/
> 
> The Importance of the Church in Sovereign Grace
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/the-importance-of-the-church-in-sovereign-grace-2/



Sorry brothers, I will get back to you all and respond to your post as soon as I'm able. Today was an unusually busy day of Pest Control.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> There are a few things that helped me become Presbyterian:
> 
> 1. The church is a continuation of the covenant made with Abraham, and therefore it makes sense to administer the sign and seal of it in the same way continually. The covenant made with Abraham was never abolished, but the Mosaic covenant was.
> 2. Though the covenant of grace is administered to all, only the elect are truly members of the covenant of grace. Outwardly, we would say all the church is in covenant with God, but only the elect are in the covenant of grace in the truest sense. So I would agree with a Baptist who says only the elect are made up of the covenant of grace, but I think Biblically the sign of that covenant should be administered in the same way it always has, and that there is still some covenant between the unregenerate in church and the Lord, even if it isn't in a saving way. "How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which *he was sanctified*, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?"
> 
> I know this is way off topic, but maybe someone will benefit from the things that helped me understand Paedo.


Thank you for chiming in. But that is precisely why I remained a RB for years. Stay tuned. I believe you are very wrong based upon the very first verses of Genesis 17. We will get into that I am sure. I prefer to keep this coversation focused and ask why. I also don't want to deal with multi persons. If you would rather take Ty's position I am willing. But I don't want to deal with more than one person. Those coversations become too scattered and unfruitful. Read John Tombe or a Reformed Baptist. Your membership would be more in line. Just my humble opinion


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just as an fyi... https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/12/13/the-mosaic-covenant


> [_13. The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was._



I have dealt with this misnomer.


----------

