# On the Heidelblog: the Federal (Baptist) Revision



## Philip A (Aug 27, 2007)

Scott Clark summarizes the reasons I had to give up my Baptist revisions to Reformed Theology, and shows why the arguments I used to use about the New Covenant in relation to the old have no impact on Abraham, circumcision, and infant inclusion:

Ishmael and Infant Baptism

You all may now feel free to comment on the article without actually reading it


----------



## AV1611 (Aug 27, 2007)

A good read


----------



## aleksanderpolo (Aug 27, 2007)

I also read the two articles by Scott Clark and Dennis Johnson linked within the article, both are excellent!


----------



## VictorBravo (Aug 28, 2007)

I want to thank Scott Clark for the article, and Phillip for posting it.

It concisely helped me understand a lot of the paedo perspective. I'm not saying I'm buying it, but I'm glad to understand it a bit more. 

BTW, I had a similar view of the old covenant as Prof. Clark, but his articulation of it clears a few things up for me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 28, 2007)

Sorry Philip but it doesn't adequately deal with my questions on Genesis 17, Romans 4, and Galatians 3,4, and 5.

I believe the Abrahamic administers the CoG but that isn't all it administers. And that is where I think the confusion comes from. It seems it is assumed that the Abrahamic just administers the Covenant of Grace. There are also promises made to the unelect outside of the CoG. I have started a thread on it.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Aug 28, 2007)

Thank you for this article. It is very informative. One question I was going to ask but was answered in the article is, "In relation to what is the New Covenant new?" I had viewed it as the article explained, but for some reason, in my conversations here got to thinking that Paedos viewed it as new in relation to Abraham.

Incidentally, Progressive Dispensationalists view the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New covenants in the same way. Both the Old and the New are progressive administrations of the Abrahamic. Where I think they miss the boat (one place at least) is the failure to see an over-arching Covenant of Grace.

BTW, I still don't buy the complete continuity of the sign, but I'm still learning.


----------

