# Critique on my Covenant Theology



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 14, 2013)

This is where my view on CT is at the moment. What camp do I fall in? 

Covenant Theology

1. The Supralapsarian, Inter-Trinitarian Covenant of Redemption was the eternal decree of God outside of time and space to redeem a people to himself. 

2. The Creation Mandate and instituting of the Covenant of Works upon Adam as the Federal head of all mankind (Romans 5) 

3. Adam sinned therefore breaking the Covenant of Works and immediately God shed the blood of an animal (without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins) and covered the naked shame of Adam and Eve in a foreshadowing of the ultimate atonement and covering of sin that would occur in the promised Messiah of Genesis 3:15. This is the beginning of the Covenant of Grace and the Proto-Evangelion. God Himself was the first and last to sacrifice for sin. 

4. The Noahic (Promise), Abrahamic (Prophet), Mosaic (Priest) and Davidic (King) were all fuller revelations of the Covenant of Grace. The Messiah instituting the Covenant of Grace by fulfilling the Covenant of Works becomes Prophet, Priest and King. 

5. Those of the elect before the cross were saved by grace through faith in looking forward to the promised work of Christ and those of the elect after the cross look back to the finished work of Christ on the cross. 

6. The Holy Spirit being the seal of the Covenant of Grace on the elect (takes out the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh. Circumcision of the heart) and the one that applies Christ righteousness on the elect (imputation). Also giving the faith to believe and the granting of repentance by grace. 

7. Salvation is of the Lord. We are justified by the Son, being sanctified by the Spirit and will be glorified by the Father in the Son. Salvation is threefold but He is faithful and just to complete the work He began in us as the Author and Finisher of our faith.


----------



## Cymro (Jun 14, 2013)

Like it! Whatever camp it is I fall into yours.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 14, 2013)

Cymro said:


> Like it! Whatever camp it is I fall into yours.



I grew up in a "Dispensational" background before I got serious about reading the scriptures. I am waiting for the book "Fatal Flaw" to arrive in my mailbox and wanted to write down how I see CT as written in the scriptures before I read this book. 
I have taken an ITunesU course from RTS on CT which is the Presbyterian view. I have also read Pink's "Divine Covenants"
Seems like the Mosaic Covenant is the point of contention. Some want to make it a part of the COW and others the COG. Could it be that the Mosaic encompasses both the beginning (COW) and the end (COG) in that it is a fuller revelation of how YHWH wants His people to live (moral law) it points to the atonement of the coming Messiah (ceremonial law) and it provides a holy, sanctified vehicle to bring forth the Christ (judicial law). 
The Mosaic seems to encompass the whole of the Covenant. We are shown our depravity and inability, pointed to the Anointed High Priest and what we are saved unto....holiness without which no one shall see the Lord.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jun 14, 2013)

Sounds pretty accurate according to me, the only thing is that Moses would be the ultimate type of Christ in his office of Prophet instead of Abraham, Aaron for his office of High Priest and then David his office of King.




> Deuteronomy 18:17-18
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 17 And the Lord said *unto me*, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. (Me is Moses)
> ...





Here the confirmation of this in Acts





> Acts 3:20-22
> King James Version (KJV)
> 
> 20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
> ...




If a type would be attributed to Abraham I believe it would be a type of Covenant Head since Christ is our Covenant Head the second Adam.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 14, 2013)

Thank you for pointing that out. Abraham as the type of Christ as covenant head seems clear. And Moses is clearly called a prophet but I would make the case that he is also a type of priest as he is from the tribe of Levi and he intercedes for his people. Also Moses would be a type of king as well, as he represents God as king and judge of the Israelites. 
Then again maybe I am just reading into the text the latter two types.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Jun 14, 2013)

You are right that the Mosaic covenant is a big point of contention. In fact, in The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism, Jeffrey Johnson identifies recognition of the Mosaic covenant as a Covenant of Grace as the "fundamental flaw" of paedobaptist's theology. This is the whole focus of chapter 5 and 6 in the book. He explicitly denies that the Mosaic Covenant was an extension of the eternal and spiritual promises to the Abrahamic Covenant.

However, there are many errors in this. The Mosaic Covenant was a partial fulfillment. The law was given to a redeemed people for their sanctification as proven by the preamble to the 10 commandments (Ex. 20:2). The exodus from Egypt was the great typical event in the OT of salvation in Jesus Christ. 

You seem to agree with this, but here are some great sermons by @


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 14, 2013)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> You are right that the Mosaic covenant is a big point of contention. In fact, in The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism, Jeffrey Johnson identifies recognition of the Mosaic covenant as a Covenant of Grace as the "fundamental flaw" of paedobaptist's theology. This is the whole focus of chapter 5 and 6 in the book. He explicitly denies that the Mosaic Covenant was an extension of the eternal and spiritual promises to the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> However, there are many errors in this. The Mosaic Covenant was a partial fulfillment. The law was given to a redeemed people for their sanctification as proven by the preamble to the 10 commandments (Ex. 20:2). The exodus from Egypt was the great typical event in the OT of salvation in Jesus Christ.
> 
> You seem to agree with this, but here are some great sermons by @



Thanks for sharing the sermon. I will listen to it. 
I definitely do not see the Mosaic Covenant as solely a Covenant of Works as no one can keep that covenant save Christ. 
My only contention with paedobaptist is in the name. I just dont see the biblical basis for infant baptism, but that is a different topic that I do not want to open here.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jun 14, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> I definitely do not see the Mosaic Covenant as solely a Covenant of Works as no one can keep that covenant save Christ.
> My only contention with paedobaptist is in the name. I just dont see the biblical basis for infant baptism, but that is a different topic that I do not want to open here.



Remember that the Law (Mosaic Administration) was given over 400 years after the institution of the sacrament of circumcision. Even if the Mosaic Covenant was a CoW (which I don't believe it is) it doesn't affect the inclusion of children in the CoG and the administration of the seal of the covenant to children.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Jun 14, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> Thanks for sharing the sermon. I will listen to it.
> I definitely do not see the Mosaic Covenant as solely a Covenant of Works as no one can keep that covenant save Christ.
> My only contention with paedobaptist is in the name. I just dont see the biblical basis for infant baptism, but that is a different topic that I do not want to open here.



Right, Jeffrey Johnson does not believe that either, obviously. He takes a rather confusing stance the everyone is/always has been born into a Covenant of Works and enters into the Covenant of Grace through regeneration but does not affirm that one could ever be saved by works which he bases on his interpretation of Galatians 4:21-31 (p. 84-85). He again dismisses the partial fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham for a son in Isaac. Though Johnson denies it, I believe his view logically ends in salvation by works, at least for some in the OT.

It's interesting though that Johnson's whole case against infant baptism is that their view of Covenant Theology is fundamentally flawed. It's true one's view of Covenant Theology either logically ends in paedobaptism or credobaptism. Maybe you're closer to the paedobaptist's view then you thought


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 14, 2013)

You both make good points and I may be closer to a paedobaptist covenantal view but I still view circumcision as given to Abraham as an outward seal on the nation of Israel to be set apart as the national people God chose to give the oracles and ultimately whom the Messiah would come from and circumcision of the heart as the inward seal of the true Israel of God the universal invisible church.

I do not see a line of transmission from outward circumcision to outward infant baptism in the scriptures. In fact the earliest writings of the Apostolic Fathers that mentioned paedobaptism wasn't until the 3rd century by Origen and Tertullian. The Didache (2nd Century) does not even mention infant baptism.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 14, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> 3. Adam sinned therefore breaking the Covenant of Works and immediately God shed the blood of an animal (without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins) and covered the naked shame of Adam and Eve in a foreshadowing of the ultimate atonement and covering of sin that would occur in the promised Messiah of Genesis 3:15. This is the beginning of the Covenant of Grace and the Proto-Evangelion. God Himself was the first and last to sacrifice for sin.
> 
> 4. The Noahic (Promise), Abrahamic (Prophet), Mosaic (Priest) and Davidic (King) were all *fuller revelations of the Covenant of Grace. The Messiah instituting the Covenant of Grace *by fulfilling the Covenant of Works becomes Prophet, Priest and King.


What do you mean by "fuller revelations"? I'm no expert, but this may be one of the differences between the WCF and the 1689 view. At the very least, your language seems to echo it. Compare and contrast:

WCF: "5.* This covenant [the CoG] 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.

6. 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 fulness, 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."

1689: "3. *This covenant [the CoG] is 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;* and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and 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, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency."

It seems the WCF view sees the covenants as being actual administrations of the CoG, and so administered through those covenants (the WLC Q. 33-35 says the same), while the 1689 view sees the CoG as merely revealed--not being "fully discovered" until the New Testament times, by which I think they mean what you said: that it was not instituted until then. I don't know if I'm on to some important difference here or not (I'd appreciate corrections to my understanding here), but if I am, that will show your own consistency with the 1689 and so perhaps help show what "camp" you fall in. At the very least, it seems you do not fall into the WCF camp, depending on what you meant by "revealed."

Edit: Maybe there is something to it... http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/how-many-reformed-understandings-covenant-grace-there-78854/ http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/distinctiveness-baptist-covenant-theology-pascal-denault-77583/


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 14, 2013)

VG. 

I don't think Abraham is a type of anything, by the way, In my humble opinion, but he is the Father of the Faithful, and a great example of faith in action.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 14, 2013)

Afterthought said:


> 5-Point Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > 3. Adam sinned therefore breaking the Covenant of Works and immediately God shed the blood of an animal (without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins) and covered the naked shame of Adam and Eve in a foreshadowing of the ultimate atonement and covering of sin that would occur in the promised Messiah of Genesis 3:15. This is the beginning of the Covenant of Grace and the Proto-Evangelion. God Himself was the first and last to sacrifice for sin.
> ...



Sorry for the short reply but I am at work. 

What I mean by "fuller revelation" is that just as God has revealed Himself more and more through time in the scriptures (it took 1600 years from Genesis to Revelation to be written). He does the same in the Covenant of Grace. 
In other words God reveals more of His plan of redemption as He renews the Covenants in time. Same COG but more of the picture revealed.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 14, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> Sorry for the short reply but I am at work.
> 
> What I mean by "fuller revelation" is that just as God has revealed Himself more and more through time in the scriptures (it took 1600 years from Genesis to Revelation to be written). He does the same in the Covenant of Grace.
> In other words God reveals more of His plan of redemption as He renews the Covenants in time. Same COG but more of the picture revealed.


Very interesting! So far as I can see, that doesn't seem to be the WCF teaching. I would think that the WCF view would allow progressive revelation of God's plan of redemption, but it adds that each of those covenants were actual administrations of the Covenant of Grace and not only revelations of it (and also not some other sort of covenants along side the CoG that is being revealed more). The Covenant of Grace wasn't first instituted with the New Testament on the WCF view.

But given your agreement with the (presbyterian) message posted above, perhaps by your words you do mean the WCF view of each covenant being an administration of the CoG.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 14, 2013)

Yes same COG but a fuller more revealing administration each time the Covenant is renewed until the culmination in the New Covenant in Christ is fulfilled. 
Jesus fulfills the COW and COG in the New Covenant washed by His blood.


----------



## Afterthought (Jun 14, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> Yes same COG but a fuller more revealing administration each time the Covenant is renewed until the culmination in the New Covenant in Christ is fulfilled.
> Jesus fulfills the COW and COG in the New Covenant washed by His blood.


Very well! If that's the case, it's beyond me how one could make circumcision--a sign of a covenant that has been admitted to be an administration of the covenant of grace and the same in substance with all the other covenants (which were also all admitted to be administrations of one and the same CoG)--into a mere national marker. It just seems to me that once one has admitted the WCF view, the only thing keeping one from accepting paedobaptism is that one must see the children being in the covenant and receiving the covenant sign as part of the administration of the covenant rather than the substance, which was then of course changed with the NT administration of the CoG. And hence the argument tends to revolve around the nature of the church and the nature of positive warrant/necessary inferences. Perhaps I should temporarily disable the "Presbyterian filters" and take a look at the RB website recently mentioned in order to see how else the argument could be made.  But anyway, since you did not want to press the issue, I'll leave it there. Not that I'd be ready to go back and forth on something like that anyway...


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 14, 2013)

Afterthought said:


> 5-Point Baptist said:
> 
> 
> > Yes same COG but a fuller more revealing administration each time the Covenant is renewed until the culmination in the New Covenant in Christ is fulfilled.
> ...



I need to think about how to word my explanation a bit better. I am short on time but let me leave you with this thought. 
For God so loved the WORLD (meaning every tribe and tongue and people) that He gave His only begotten Son....
National Israel were Gods elect national people to bring forth the Messiah. After the cross salvation was for the Jew as well as the Greek. In Galatians Paul condemns the Judaizers that were trying to have the Galatians circumcised. Dont you think Paul as thorough as he was would say no worries just baptize the infants instead of circumcision as paedobaptism will now be in place instead of circumcision.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jul 7, 2013)

Here is a further explanation on how I see the Mosaic Covenant in view of the elect. (After reading half way through "The Fatal Flaw" I see my view closest to Charles Hodge's view.)

The giving of the law was an act of grace unto His elect. The fact that His holy law is revealed to us is an act of grace. To know what is His standard is an act of grace. That light would shine in darkness is grace. 
To say that the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works is where I disagree. 
It is all of grace because it shows us that there is none righteous, no not one. The law points to the very distinction between God and man, the very perfection that is God and the very depravity that is man. What grace to reveal this unto His people!!
Praise Him for His grace and mercy in giving the law through the further revealing of His covenant of grace, that we call the Mosaic Covenant. For it is a further revelation of the plan of redemption. With His "moral law" showing us what He requires and what we can not do. His "ceremonial law" pointing us to the One who can and will fulfill the righteous obedience required on our behalf. The Anointed One, The Messiah, Our Redeemer....The Christ!
Praise to the God that has revealed Himself throughout time, in various covenants of grace, to the saints of old, through greater revelations of His mighty sovereign plan; wrought before the foundation of the world and culminated in Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior!


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 7, 2013)

*Jason*


> National Israel were Gods elect national people to bring forth the Messiah. After the cross salvation was for the Jew as well as the Greek. In Galatians Paul condemns the Judaizers that were trying to have the Galatians circumcised. Dont you think Paul as thorough as he was would say no worries just baptize the infants instead of circumcision as paedobaptism will now be in place instead of circumcision.



Just some points that might or might not help:

Salvation was for non-Jews before Jesus came as well. They just had to exercise faith by grace in God as Saviour. 

But if they didn't become full Jews by circumcision, ritual laws, etc, and remained Gentile "God-fearers", they were - in a sense - second class, spiritually-speaking. This is why there was a wall in the Temple separating Gentile believers from Jews.

That wall has been broken down in Christ (Eph 2:14) and the Church - Jews and Gentiles who believe- is the Israel of God i.e. the Israel that belongs to God (Gal 6:16), in contrast to the unbelievers among Israel after the flesh who don't belong to God.(I Cor. 10:18)

Yet, because of the Patriarchs, God did not destroy Israel after the flesh in AD 70 or subsequently, has always preserved a remnant in them that are of the Israel of God, and promises to bring them en masse back into His Church/Israel, in the future. See Romans 9-11.



> As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. (Rom 11:28-29, ESV)



Your argument about baptism, I've never heard before. It's an argument from silence which is less than ideal. 

You also have to remember that circumcision was for adult males who were previously uncircumcised, as well as their sons, especially in the Gentile Galatian situation.You might as well wonder why the thorough Paul not refer to believer's baptism as inaugurating the Christian life of faith, instead of adult circumcision.



> To say that the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works is where I disagree.



It wasn't a covenant of works, nor could it have been after Man had sinned, but grace was revealed in a way appropriate to the childhood of the Church, which may sometimes seem relatively "less gracious" to us in the New Testament. 

According to e.g. Numbers 15 the judicial law was related to the sacrificial system, in that there was no expiatory sacrifice available for high-handed sins, resulting in the possibility of cutting-off (excommunication) by death penalty. This is not a possibility under the New Testament.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jul 7, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> *Jason*
> 
> 
> > National Israel were Gods elect national people to bring forth the Messiah. After the cross salvation was for the Jew as well as the Greek. In Galatians Paul condemns the Judaizers that were trying to have the Galatians circumcised. Dont you think Paul as thorough as he was would say no worries just baptize the infants instead of circumcision as paedobaptism will now be in place instead of circumcision.
> ...



Thanks for your input. See my responses above in parenthesis.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 7, 2013)

Men like David and King Manasseh, who committed high-handed crimes, had no animal sacrifice for their sins, but rather than looking to Christ _through_ the typological sacrifices, had to look at Christ _beyond_ the sacrifices which they didn't have. No doubt the design of the typological Mosaic economy was ordered by God to serve this purpose of pointing men to Christ under the blessing of the Spirit.

Christ's sacrifice wasn't limited to dealing with non-presumptuous sin, as were the typological sacrifices.



> Now look at how God dealt with Ananias and Sapphira under the new covenant administration in the early church. Looks like justice and not grace to me.
> God in His grace will show His hand in justice that the elect may have a holy fear of Him.)



God can still do this in His Providence if He wishes to, in judgment. If we are true believers in Christ we will go straight to Heaven. Otherwise we won't. Often His chastisements are less severe and remarkable.

Unlike under the Old Testament, He does not ask His people to exercise cutting-off (kareth) by death on those who commit high-handed sins, but to administer church discipline and sanctions 

(see Matthew 18; I Corinthians 5 (cf. II Corinthians 2:5-11); I Corinthians 11:17-34).

I apologise if some this has strayed somewhat from the OP  but it's partly relevant to the difference(s) between the Old Covenant and the New.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jul 7, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> Men like David and King Manasseh, who committed high-handed crimes, had no animal sacrifice for their sins, but rather than looking to Christ _through_ the typological sacrifices, had to look at Christ _beyond_ the sacrifices which they didn't have. No doubt the design of the typological Mosaic economy was ordered by God to serve this purpose of pointing men to Christ under the blessing of the Spirit.
> 
> Christ's sacrifice wasn't limited to dealing with non-presumptuous sin, as were the typological sacrifices.
> 
> ...



No problem Richard it was good dialogue. I think we agree much more than we disagree.

Cheers,
Jason


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 9, 2013)

> The giving of the law was an act of grace unto His elect. The fact that His holy law is revealed to us is an act of grace. To know what is His standard is an act of grace. That light would shine in darkness is grace.
> To say that the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works is where I disagree.
> t is all of grace because it shows us that there is none righteous, no not one. The law points to the very distinction between God and man, the very perfection that is God and the very depravity that is man. What grace to reveal this unto His people!!



Hi Jason,

We have to be careful with terms here. I think you're confusing your categories. To say that a covenant was a covenant of works does not deny that there was any graciousness on God's part in establishing the covenant. The question is: what was the condition for obtaining blessings - works or faith? That is where you need to focus your efforts in order to arrive at a conclusion. Everything you said above could equally be applied to a covenant of works. It could be gracious of God to demonstrate the distinction between God and man and highlight our depravity by setting before a people covenantal blessings that are conditioned upon their obedience to the law. That they are unable to meet such demands and thus recognize their sinfulness would be gracious of God, but this would not therefore mean it was not a covenant of works.

If you believe the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of grace, that is fine - but make sure you are doing so for the right reasons. Focus your studies on Leviticus 18:5; Ezk 20:11, 13, 21; Romans 10:5; Gal 3:12; Luke 10:28 to answer the question.

See here as well: Objection! There’s grace in every covenant! | Particular Voices


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jul 9, 2013)

brandonadams said:


> > The giving of the law was an act of grace unto His elect. The fact that His holy law is revealed to us is an act of grace. To know what is His standard is an act of grace. That light would shine in darkness is grace.
> > To say that the Mosaic Covenant is a covenant of works is where I disagree.
> > t is all of grace because it shows us that there is none righteous, no not one. The law points to the very distinction between God and man, the very perfection that is God and the very depravity that is man. What grace to reveal this unto His people!!
> 
> ...



Hello Brandon,

Blessings were bestowed upon God's elect by the grace of God in the Old as well as the New. There is none righteous, no not one. Are you saying that God did not bless anyone during the time of the Mosaic Covenant or do you believe that there were righteous saints that obeyed all of the law and thus were blessed? 
That is my point. They were all held accountable unto God to perfectly obey the law but none, no not one did. 
Therefore God's elect within national Israel who looked to the coming Messiah to fulfill the promise of actively obeying the law perfectly on their behalf and passively as the ultimate final sacrifice for sin, were given blessings by grace from God. 
Salvation is all of grace and not the law from the point that Adam and Eve broke the covenant of works and God showed grace by covering their sin until the in gathering of all the elect and the consummation of time. 
So in one sense you can say the Mosaic Covenant is a COW in that it is Gods righteous requirement but it points to the only One who could ever fulfill this law...Christ. And that is grace unto His people. 

By the providence of God I heard this message by RC Sproul shortly after writing this. Has to do with blessings and cursing's. what does the word blessing actually mean?

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?m=t&s=827101323311

Say Hi to Brandon Solberg for me.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 11, 2013)

After the Fall the penalty for breach of the CoW and the legal standard of the CoW - the perfect observance of God's law at all times - continues, but the possibility of reward for the keeping of God's law as a CoW becomes completely hypothetical for all siinners.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Jul 11, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> The argument of paedobaptism is an argument from silence.



The arguments for paedobaptism cannot rightly be called arguments from silence anymore than arguments in favor of the trinity can be called arguments from silence. Both doctrines are derived from good and necessary consequence - there is tons of information in the NT that does not make sense without the oikos (household) principle continuing from the OT from which we derive that a man comes to God with everything that he has and that most importantly includes his family. Furthermore, since the reformed hermeneutical principle is that unless something is repealed in the NT it continues, it is therefore necessary to show where the children are excluded from the covenant under the NT administration.

If you mean, however, that paedobaptism has no explicit command in Scripture, that's very true. But neither does the exclusive credobaptism position - both are derived from inference. Robert Shaw skillfully shows the error in baptist theology that is inferred from the NT examples of baptism:



> Is it objected, that we have no express example of the baptism of infants under the New Testament? All the cases of baptism recorded in the New Testament, we reply, are cases in which it was administered to converts from Judaism or Paganism to Christianity; and if we do not find it explicitly stated, that any infant born of Christian parents was baptised, as little do we find any example of those who were born of Christian parents being baptised in adult age. This entirely accords with our practice at the present day. We baptise adult converts from among Jews or Heathens; and as the apostles baptised "households" on the faith of their domestic heads, we also, consider ourselves warranted to baptise the children of professing Christians. But those who defer the baptism of the children of professing Christians until they arrive at adult age, have no precedent or example for their practice; for, though the Book of the Acts contains the history of the Church for upwards of thirty years, in which time the children of those who were first baptised by the apostles must have reached maturity, yet we have no record of the baptism of a single individual born of Christian parents. From this silence, we justly infer that they must have been baptised in their infancy; and we defy the advocates of adult baptism to adduce a single scriptural example of their practice.



Not to get too much into infant baptism, but your objection clearly is not a valid one and if held consistently you could hold to no position on baptism.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Jul 11, 2013)

5-Point Baptist,

The main argument from Reformed Baptists against Paedobaptism comes from their misinterpretation of Jer. 31 which includes their belief that the covenant of Grace was only instituted in time in the New Covenant (I say "their" because you seem to disagree). To them, New Covenant and COG are synonymous. This, in turn, causes them to look at the historical covenants and ask "Is it a COG or COW?" Consistently, they would have all been COWs, if that were the case, but that's besides the point. Since they create such a stark contrast between the NC and historical covenants, they can say "the children are no longer in the covenant and therefore should not receive the covenant sign because we are now under a covenant of grace and grace is only for the elect."

Presbyterians, on the other hand, rightly recognize that the COW was broken by Adam and its curse is on all his posterity. Each historical covenant after the fall was on outworking of the COG. Therefore, only those things which are explicitly repealed from one administration to the next were indeed repealed as each covenant progressed towards the fullness of the COG revealed in the NC. Therefore, since children are nowhere explicitly excluded from the covenant (quite the opposite - their inclusion is assumed) with the administration of the NC, they are therefore still members of it and should thus be given the covenant sign. 

in my opinion, if you allow that the COG was instituted in time prior to the NC (which would mean baptists define the COG wrongly), then you give up even that sinking sand which the credo-only position is built upon. I mean, for what reason do you reject it?


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jul 12, 2013)

First of all you quoted my response to another poster who stated that my argument for baptism was from silence. Thus I replied that the argument for paedobaptism is one from silence. 

Second I did not want this thread to become a paedo-credo debate as I do NOT see baptism as the seal of the New Covenant. 

But since you so strongly argued for paedo- baptism I must answer back with a few questions and statements. 

1. What form of circumcision did the infant females have to go through under the Mosaic Covenant?

2. Why do you baptize infant females under the New Covenant?

3. What does the New Testament state is the seal of the New Covenant?

4. Why does the New Testament say that believers are circumcised of the heart? (Takes out the heart of stone and gives a heart of flesh)

5. There are about 4 different views on paedo-baptism. Which one do you hold?

6. Whats the difference between a child of a paedo or credo parent if both children must repent and believe at some point in their life?

7. Why is it that the Didache, which is the earliest written instructions of the church on baptism does not say a single word about infants being baptized? Nor did the Apostolic Fathers.

8. Why didnt Paul in the letter to the Galatians say anything about baptism, adult or infant; when a major issue in the epistle was about circumcision?

9. Does faith and repentance proceed baptism?

10. Why in Acts chapter 2 does Peter tell Jews, devout men who were circumcised according to the flesh to Repent and be baptized? Shouldnt these Jews and their male children already be in the covenant? Why would they need to be baptized as well?

Baptism is only an outward profession of an inward circumcision of the heart.


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Jul 12, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> First of all you quoted my response to another poster who stated that my argument for baptism was from silence. Thus I replied that the argument for paedobaptism is one from silence.
> 
> Second I did not want this thread to become a paedo-credo debate as I do NOT see baptism as the seal of the New Covenant.
> 
> ...



You know, I feel it is not fair if I answer these questions since you have not adequately answered my objections or even acknowledged them. I've looked at paedo vs credo from a covenantal perspective and shown how an acceptance of Presbyterian covenant theology logically leads to an acceptance of infant baptism. All your questions can be easily answered, however, they are secondary issues and so the answers will not be accepted unless the presuppositions are changed which begins with hermeneutics. I've shown that your "argument from silence" argument is not valid. Is it proper biblical exegesis to assume that whatever the New Testament does not explicitly repeat or change regarding the Old Covenant is thusly abolished? Or should we assume that whatever is not explicitly abolished or changed is implicitly continued? Clearly it is the latter. The first is what people like John MacArthur use to argue against the Sabbath.

However, we know that circumcision and everything ceremonial is abolished due to many specific and explicit commands that void it (Col. 2:4-17; Eph. 2:15-16; Heb. 9:23-24, 10:1-14 etc). The very good reason given for this is that theologically, Jesus is the fulfillment of all ceremonial law which the believer is now free from. So if children are now no longer part of the covenant, then we would need an explicit verse to tell us just that according to a consistent reformed hermeneutic. If the baptist cannot provide one then his position is already defeated. 

That was really my challenge to you - show me how an explicit verse to refute paedobaptism is not required or show me an explicit verse that removes the inclusion of believer's children in the covenant. Then I will take a wack at answering your questions


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jul 14, 2013)

Boosterseat_91 said:


> That was really my challenge to you - show me how an explicit verse to refute paedobaptism is not required or show me an explicit verse that removes the inclusion of believer's children in the covenant. Then I will take a wack at answering your questions


Again, I did not want this to become another debate on baptism.......but. 

There is no explicit verse to refute paedobaptism because there is NO explicit verse that states that circumcision has been replaced by infant baptism. 
If you can show me one explicit verse to prove me otherwise then I will show one to refute. 
The command is "repent and be baptized". Tell me how can a newborn child repent?


----------



## Boosterseat_91 (Jul 15, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> Boosterseat_91 said:
> 
> 
> > That was really my challenge to you - show me how an explicit verse to refute paedobaptism is not required or show me an explicit verse that removes the inclusion of believer's children in the covenant. Then I will take a wack at answering your questions
> ...



Not entirely. The question is: Are the children of believers still in the covenant or were they abruptly excluded in the NC administration? The first would be proven by silence on the issue and implicit affirmations of it in the NT (which is what we see). If children are in the covenant then it follows they are to be given the covenant sign. 

If children are no longer in the covenant then there _must_ be an explicit verse to tell us such. As John Murray puts it, "“In view of the fact that the NC is based upon and the unfolding story of the Abrahamic covenant, in view of the basic identity of meaning attached to circumcision and baptism, in view of the unity and continuity of the covenant grace administered in both dispensations, we can affirm with confidence that evidence of revocation or repeal is mandatory if the practice of principle has been discontinued under the NT.”

Now, if you're saying that Acts 2:38-39 qualifies as such a verse, you are sadly mistaken. In fact, Peter's reference to their children is easily recognizable as covenant language - it's built off of the "thee and thy seed" promise of Genesis 17:17. This, again, silently assumes covenant inclusion of children. In other words, it proves the opposite of what you are trying to say! 

As to your question about an infant repenting: First of all, God can regenerate infants. We certainly have no foundation to say a child cannot be regenerated until he can adequately profess his faith. Secondly, yes the adults were to repent and then be baptized and when they did so, their children were to be baptized as well for the promise was to them too. Think of the OC - any Gentile proselyte had to repent and believe in Jehovah to receive the covenant sign. But not only did he receive it, his whole household did as well, including his sons who may not have been "able" to repent. Your objection could be used as much against the OT as it could infant baptism, then. The answer is Peter is not changing anything in Acts 2, he's speaking covenantally and saying you repent and believe and be baptized and all your family with you by virtue of your faith. It is the same concept as in the OT.

Do you not agree that there must be evidence of revocation in order for something to be repealed (not that it must simply not be repeated in the NT like Dispensationalists believe)? Does it not make sense that the children of believers, having been included in the historical covenants with their parents which are out workings of the COG, would not only _not_ be excluded but be expanded to include females as well as it expands to include Gentiles in the fullness of the COG in the NC?

This is an inherent aspect to your view of covenant theology, so I believe infant baptism is very pertinent to the discussion.


----------



## Peairtach (Jul 15, 2013)

You'd probably be better moving this baptism debate to the baptism section guys, although I'm not a moderator, so you can take or leave my advice.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jul 15, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> You'd probably be better moving this baptism debate to the baptism section guys, although I'm not a moderator, so you can take or leave my advice.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



Good advice and as I really do not wish to rehash the many arguments on this issue as I have already stated, I would respectfully like to leave it where it is in a spirit of charity. 

I do welcome any other discussion having to do with CT other than baptism.


----------



## Sovereign Grace (Jul 18, 2013)

Brother Jason, I think you pretty much nailed it in your OP!!! WTG!!!


----------

