# The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology



## Matthew1344 (Jan 7, 2017)

Has anyone ever read this book?
Is it confusing to you?

A couple months ago, I was told by a baptist friend that my view of Cov theology is not baptist. I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought what i learned from Edwards and Calvin was just reformed understanding of cov theology. I had no idea it was different than baptist cov theology. 

He told me that if i view the Cov the way that i say i do, then i would have to baptize infants. He said a 1689 federalist does not baptize infants because of their view of the cov. Their view is different than yours.

So I got this book. Confused the mess out of me. When i read presbyterian stuff, i understand. And when i listen to Dr. McMahon lectures on the subject they were extremely confusing 6 months ago, but i listened to them again very slowly taking notes. Took me around 20 hours to get through his 6hour set. I now feel as if i am presbyterian. 

So i started out baptist, looking for Presbyterian arguments.
Now I seem to be Presbyterian, looking for baptist argument.

So i decided to reread the distinctiveness of baptist covenant theology once more, and see what i find. But as of now, still really confusing. I am having trouble with the dualistic nature of the abrahamic cov.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jan 7, 2017)

I think there have been some threads about this in the past, but I'm not sure how many active posters here are really into that particular expression of Baptist CT. If you're on FB, you may want to ask your question in the big Reformed Baptist group. Several of the main "1689 Federalism" authors are members.


----------



## Tyrese (Jan 8, 2017)

'He told me that if i view the Cov the way that i say i do, then i would have to baptize infants.'

I find these sort of statements frustrating because it implies that we should have an answer for every detail of the covenants. I don't follow this sort of thinking becuase we wont understand everything this side of heaven. I disagree with the more recent developments of Baptist federalism, and yet I'm still a baptist. I think the Westminster Confessions chapter on Gods Covenants is an (in my opinion) accurate representation of what the Bible teaches, and yet I reject infant baptism. Here's the bottom line: the scriptures do not teach nor imply infant baptism. Not only that, whenever you listen to someone give a 'biblical' explanation of infant baptism, they always cherry pick their favorite text and ignore the odvious dangers of the door they've opened. For example, household baptisms. This is a major stumbling block for me. Not only is it all based on assumption, but they never give guidelines concerning who should be baptized in a particular household. And when you find guidelines there's no agreement even among paedobaptist. Should your 29 year old son be baptized becuase he's a member in your household? How about your 70 year old unbelieving grandmother who happens to live with you? They'll say well we'll apply wisdom in who to baptize and who we should not. Brother, None of it makes sense. Odviously it's good that you're studying the topic, but in the end I'd encourage you to just stick to the scriptures.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## MW (Jan 8, 2017)

Tyrese, shouldn't household baptism be considered in its biblical context first? Regardless of the difficulties we might find in applying the principle in the present, it is of first importance to ascertain what the Bible teaches. If the Bible teaches household baptism we should first accept what the Bible teaches and then set about working through the difficulties of application as God gives us wisdom.

To the OP, perhaps it would be helpful to look at Samuel Waldron's Exposition of the 1689 Confession, in which he offers an antipaedobaptist perspective on the continuity of the covenant of grace.


----------



## BG (Jan 8, 2017)

Yes to both the 29 and 70 year old if they are willing.


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 10, 2017)

Matthew1344 said:


> Has anyone ever read this book?
> Is it confusing to you?
> 
> A couple months ago, I was told by a baptist friend that my view of Cov theology is not baptist. I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought what i learned from Edwards and Calvin was just reformed understanding of cov theology. I had no idea it was different than baptist cov theology.
> ...


 
Good question, as there are some subtle differences between how Presbyterian and Baptist Refomed view them.


----------



## puritanpilgrim (Jan 10, 2017)

Here is one on *The Primacy of the Abrahamic Covenant:






http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2181316164010

Here is a conference that worked through the topic:

http://www.sermonaudio.com/search.a...nference&keyworddesc=2015+Founders+Conference

I hit on the topic while preaching through exodus 24 last Sunday, but it hasn't been posted yet.


*


----------



## Dachaser (Jan 11, 2017)

Tyrese said:


> 'He told me that if i view the Cov the way that i say i do, then i would have to baptize infants.'
> 
> I find these sort of statements frustrating because it implies that we should have an answer for every detail of the covenants. I don't follow this sort of thinking becuase we wont understand everything this side of heaven. I disagree with the more recent developments of Baptist federalism, and yet I'm still a baptist. I think the Westminster Confessions chapter on Gods Covenants is an (in my opinion) accurate representation of what the Bible teaches, and yet I reject infant baptism. Here's the bottom line: the scriptures do not teach nor imply infant baptism. Not only that, whenever you listen to someone give a 'biblical' explanation of infant baptism, they always cherry pick their favorite text and ignore the odvious dangers of the door they've opened. For example, household baptisms. This is a major stumbling block for me. Not only is it all based on assumption, but they never give guidelines concerning who should be baptized in a particular household. And when you find guidelines there's no agreement even among paedobaptist. Should your 29 year old son be baptized becuase he's a member in your household? How about your 70 year old unbelieving grandmother who happens to live with you? They'll say well we'll apply wisdom in who to baptize and who we should not. Brother, None of it makes sense. Odviously it's good that you're studying the topic, but in the end I'd encourage you to just stick to the scriptures.


 Presbyterian Reformed tie infant baptism into the concept of idenitifing it to circumcision under the Old Covenant, but Baptists such as yourself and I wold not see it in that regard. That is why the 1689 Bptist Confession has a difference regarding this issue, correct?


----------



## Shane2336 (Jan 15, 2017)

I just finished the book myself. It left me with exactly zero answers and 1,000 questions!


----------



## arapahoepark (Jan 15, 2017)

Nehemiah Coxe's work should be more helpful in that regard.


----------

