Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Would either viewpoint affirm that the church was given to us by God under the NC, and that while the saved under the OC were due to saving grace and included within the Church, its institution was under the NC itself?Patrick, see https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/ to understand what he is referring to.
David, have you viewed the material at http://www.1689federalism.com ?
A large difference is the view of Israel and the Mosaic Covenant. The 20th century view follows WCF in saying the law was given to Israel as a guide, not as a covenant of works. They also speak regularly of Israel as the church, rather than as a type of the church (though they at times also affirm the latter). They would say that in the Covenant of Grace during the Old Covenant administration, both the regenerate and unregenerate were members, but in the New Covenant administration, only the regenerate are members.
Here are some lectures from Waldron explaining the 20th century view http://deepsouthfounders.com/previous-conferences/2013-Christ-our-mediator/
and here are some comments on Waldron's lectures https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/
Brandon,Patrick, see https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/ to understand what he is referring to.
I have read modern language versions of the 1689 Confession, but have never seen any Baptist Confession other then the 1689 one.Brandon,
My question stands:
If so, what exactly are these Modern Reform Baptists affirming confessionally?
Where is it (the Modern RB confession) that I can read it?
Mod Reminder:I have read modern language versions of the 1689 Confession, but have never seen any Baptist Confession other then the 1689 one.
I am going to assume the last sentence bears no connection to the preceding sentence clause related to infant baptism. Correct?In my opinion, you can be a committed Baptist and hold to this view without feeling the pressure to embrace infant baptism. If it's not in the Bible you don't have to accept it.
I am going to assume the last sentence bears no connection to the preceding sentence clause related to infant baptism. Correct?
In the future, unless you are posting here, I suggest emphatic statements, "If it's not in the Bible you don't have to accept it" being made in the context of infant baptism on this site, be carefully moderated as personal opinions.I think that depends. A Presbyterian friend told me once that my view of covenant theology leads to infant baptism. There seems to be a number of Reformed Baptist who share that sentiment. My response to that is my view of covenant theology does not lead to infant baptism because I don't see it in scripture. I don't feel the need to force something that I don't believe it's there.
In the future, unless you are posting here, I suggest emphatic statements, "If it's not in the Bible you don't have to accept it" being made in the context of infant baptism on this site, be carefully moderated as personal opinions.
I'm a bit perplexed by the "20th Century" title. Are we to be believe that there were no Paticular Baptist in the year 1689 or before who held to the view that the covenant of grace was one substance with multiple administrations?
Would either viewpoint affirm that the church was given to us by God under the NC, and that while the saved under the OC were due to saving grace and included within the Church, its institution was under the NC itself?
If so, what exactly are these Modern Reform Baptists affirming confessionally?
For example, where would Blackburn/Chantry, Van Dorn, Johnson, Griffiths, & Nichols fit into the scheme?
I hold and accept the 1689 LBC Confession .Mod Reminder:
d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "Can two walk together unless they be agreed?"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.
e. Under some circumstances, the Admins may approve an applicant who does not fully confess one of these historic Reformed confessions but whose soteriological and ecclesiological journey is taking them down that path. This has included some Lutherans, Episcopalians, and some independents in the process of Reforming.
The point being, for a waiver one must genuinely be on the journey towards what we hold to be the Confessional basis of the board. If one's journey finally arrives at a place beyond the boundaries of the Confessions stated above, they need to be honest about it and move on.
Why do some here though insist that a RB cannot see the church as being founded in the NC/NT times, as that would make one a Dispensational? That we must hold with the 1 Covenant of Grace, but with 2 administrations of it?Yes, take a look at some recent threads that discuss this point.