Paedo-Baptism Answers Critique of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (Renihan)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Stephen L Smith said:
Yes and No :) I am not sure that it clarifies in the Baptist vs. Paedobaptist debate. I can understand in a church you may consider adult believers elect based on external indicators. Reformed Baptists do that. But my question was how could you bold the word elect above if you were arguing infants were in the covenant household. You don't know if they are elect based on external indicators.
Click to expand...

If profession is the only external indicator, than you are correct. If the household is an indicator, than infants are also part of the church and therefore regarded as elect. "Children over your parents in the Lord."

If a covenant child dies in infancy, we believe that they are saved. If saved, they were also elected. We make this judgment not based on profession, but covenantal status.

I would presume you also believe that such a child is saved, is this correct? Wouldn't this mean you'd consider the infant elect even apart from a profession of faith? If so, haven't you judged one's election apart from a profession based on another external indicator?

Hopefully that helps clear things up some. :)
 
Jerusalem Blade said:
What brought me to this forum was to ask if anyone has read Pascal Denault's, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (which is big at the 1689 Fed site), and knew of a published critique of it?
Click to expand...

I have read that book. It actually made me a convinced Baptist for a while.

I am not aware of any published critiques of the book as of yet (it is still fairly new). However, one of the most helpful things I have read that deals with the material presented in the book is chapter 45 of Joel Beeke and Mark Jones' A Puritan Theology (pp. 725-742). In it, they analyze a historical debate between a confessional Presbyterian (John Flavel) and a confessional Baptist (Philip Cary) on the issue of their distinctives in covenant theology. While this was written, as far as I know, before Denault's book came out, it address the same issues and arguments, to some degree. What is especially useful is their examination of John Owen's covenant theology, which is really the basis for the development of a distinctive Reformed Baptist covenant theology, and they "show that his views on the new covenant in relation to the old in no way play into the hands of his antipaedobaptist opponents" (p. 726).
 
Taylor Sexton said:
However, one of the most helpful things I have read that deals with the material presented in the book is chapter 45 of Joel Beeke and Mark Jones' A Puritan Theology (pp. 725-742).
Click to expand...
Just for the record Dr Renihan has responded to it in a Baptist theological journal. I don't have a subscription so have not read the article. https://www.1689federalism.com/dolp...lar-baptist-covenant-theology-samuel-renihan/

I do recall in the Beeke and Jones work their concern about the more extreme dichotomy between the Old and the New Covenant in 1689 Federalism.

Taylor, I am aware you came to a paedobaptist position after being Baptist. Interested in your thoughts on the essay I posted in the first post and/or comments made since :)
 
Stephen L Smith said:
...open the door to a rather dangerous form of presumptive regeneration.
Click to expand...

If I could nudge your thinking a little in your reply to @RPEphesian , we would caution against the Credo position that, in effect, opens the door to a dangerous form of presumptive unregeneration. Shouldn't we expect that a better covenant also makes a judgment of charity? Shouldn't we expect that the promises are less restrictive than under the old dispensation as the grace of God shines ever brighter under this new administration?
 
Stephen L Smith said:
Taylor, I am aware you came to a paedobaptist position after being Baptist. Interested in your thoughts on the essay I posted in the first post and/or comments made since
Click to expand...

Thanks for the invite, brother. I will see if I can get to it. However, at the moment, I simply don't have the time to read a likely densely-packed 19-page article about distinct—and sometimes minute—disputes in covenant theology between Particular Baptists and Presbyterians. It took me years to get enough understanding to even make an informed decision on the issue to begin with!
 
Taylor Sexton said:
Thanks for the invite, brother. I will see if I can get to it. However, at the moment, I simply don't have the time to read a likely densely-packed 19-page article about distinct—and sometimes minute—disputes in covenant theology between Particular Baptists and Presbyterians. It took me years to get enough understanding to even make an informed decision on the issue to begin with!
Click to expand...

You are disqualified from PuritanBoard!
 
timfost said:
If I could nudge your thinking a little in your reply to @RPEphesian , we would caution against the Credo position that, in effect, opens the door to a dangerous form of presumptive unregeneration. Shouldn't we expect that a better covenant also makes a judgment of charity? Shouldn't we expect that the promises are less restrictive than under the old dispensation as the grace of God shines ever brighter under this new administration?
Click to expand...

I spent the first two years of my daughter's life in some distress at the thought of her dying before being old enough to understand the Gospel. It doesn't hit everyone. It did me somewhat.

I know a friend, converted at age 6, by her church's policy not allowed to be baptized until 16 or 17, and disallowed by her father until age 20. What good does it do a Christian converted child to hold them in doubt because they are children? The church was made for all believers. I think it is unintentionally bruising the weakest reeds.

Seeing as Owen is brought in...

There is a pamphlet published of John Owen on infant baptism. It appeared perhaps decades after he died, and some say it is likely just collected quotes from his auditors (it was too short and concise to be Owen's original work some say). The pamphlet may or may not resemble his way of thinking on the matter at death (I say be charitable to the compiler).

Owen makes an interesting argument: if no infant receives baptism, then it means that God does not ordinarily save them. The design of baptism is to mark out disciples and distinguish them from the world. Externally certainly, and to some real extent internally and really. Those who are not ordinarily saved are not baptized, thus the unbaptized impenitents give us little reason to hope they went into death in a saved state. Thus if infants of believers do not receive baptism, then ordinarily, believing parents of infants who pass away may not ordinarily expect their children are in glory.

Believers who have lost babes may take comfort knowing that Christ has said that of such is the Kingdom of God. If the Kingdom of God on earth, then certainly heaven.
 
timfost said:
I would presume you also believe that such a child is saved, is this correct? Wouldn't this mean you'd consider the infant elect even apart from a profession of faith? If so, haven't you judged one's election apart from a profession based on another external indicator?
Click to expand...
Tim, this is a difficult and personal issue. I am a single man but I have had more than one friend who has lost a child in infancy. A couple of months ago a friend of mine (who has almost completed his training to become a minister with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand, a very godly man) lost his infant son at 8 weeks old. He was born with a number of organ defects. I saw the funeral online and I wept when I saw the baby coffin carried into the church by his brothers and sisters. It was very moving.

The minister (also a personal friend) told the congregation that he was confident this infant was in heaven. He then briefly outlined the provisions of the covenant of grace.

My friend studied at MARS where Dr Venema is President. Dr Venema actually wrote an essay on this subject now included in his book "Christ and Covenant Theology". My heart tells me I agree with him, my head has a few extra cautions :)

I guess my caution has to do with equating covenant and election. In other contexts Dr Venema would agree with my caution (he is also a world expert on the Federal Vision movement).

I see you have made another response to my comments to Jake about my concerns over presumptive regeneration. I'll aim to respond later today and comment further on the issue of presumptive regeneration and the relationship between covenant and election. I can tell you, in spite of a few struggles, I do have a high regard for Paedobaptist covenant theology.

Actually a book I ordered recently "The Reformed faith: an exposition of the Westminster Confession of Faith" arrived today. Thank you so much Robert @Reformed Bookworm for recommending it. I know it teaches a rich Scottish Presbyterianism and covenant theology. I look forward to reading it.
 
https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=83

It is probably worth pointing out that the Westminster used the term "elect infants" but does not define which infants fall into that category. Elect infants, perhaps, could be its own discussion.

Stephen L Smith said:
An infant may be baptised, not believe on Christ, and clearly be reprobate. Another infant may be baptised, believe on Christ and be among the elect. Thus it is dangerous to presume.
Click to expand...
timfost said:
If a covenant child dies in infancy, we believe that they are saved. If saved, they were also elected. We make this judgment not based on profession, but covenantal status.
Click to expand...
 
Kinghezy said:
https://www.opc.org/qa.html?question_id=83

It is probably worth pointing out that the Westminster used the term "elect infants" but does not define which infants fall into that category. Elect infants, perhaps, could be its own discussion.
Click to expand...

The Westminster uses wording that allowed for multiple views on the matter, but "elect infants" is agreeable to every camp, so to speak. I do think Westminster to be consonant with Dort 1.17,

"Since we are to judge of the will of God from His Word, which testifies that the children of believers are holy, not by nature, but in virtue of the covenant of grace, in which they together with the parents are comprehended, godly parents ought not to doubt the election and salvation of their children whom it pleases God to call out of this life in their infancy (Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14)."

Dort does not say that we can know a baby's election infallibly, but uses the words "ought not to doubt."

This has brought me great comfort in the wake of my twin nephew and niece who passed away with their mother only nine days before they were to be delivered. Having this comfort is a demonstration that the NC is indeed gracious in this regard as was the OC in its inclusion of the household.
 
Stephen L Smith said:
My heart tells me I agree with him, my head has a few extra cautions :)
Click to expand...

I hear you. I sincerely hope that your head and heart can agree soon. :)

Stephen L Smith said:
I guess my caution has to do with equating covenant and election.
Click to expand...

I agree we have to be careful here. It may help to define election from a) God's perspective and b) our perspective. But even from God's, He deals with those in the visible covenant community differently than those outside. This may be getting too far out of the realm of this conversation, though.

Again, thank you for a great discussion!
 
timfost said:
This has brought me great comfort in the wake of my twin nephew and niece who passed away with their mother only nine days before they were to be delivered. Having this comfort is a demonstration that the NC is indeed gracious in this regard as was the OC in its inclusion of the household.
Click to expand...

I too have found recent comfort in this, and it seems fitting given the covenant language, promises and structure. Even though I may still be working through the implications of this, I find that it embraces the essence of the covenant bonds, in a way that, without viewing in this inclusive framework, would seem detached and removed, and not in keeping with the expansion and greater 'benefits/blessings' of the NC. I'm anxious to work though this, as for me it has quite a central place in working forward towards a better understanding, and am finding the issue of the reprobate challenging at this very point.
 
timfost said:
If I could nudge your thinking a little in your reply to @RPEphesian , we would caution against the Credo position that, in effect, opens the door to a dangerous form of presumptive unregeneration. Shouldn't we expect that a better covenant also makes a judgment of charity? Shouldn't we expect that the promises are less restrictive than under the old dispensation as the grace of God shines ever brighter under this new administration?
Click to expand...
Tim I have some sympathy but also some reservation.
  1. This better covenant does not preclude the fact that the unrepentant will go to hell. Do we do people a service if we assume people are believers yet they are not. We need to be careful about mankind's souls. Did not our Lord say to the offspring of Abraham "you will seek me but you will die in your sin" See John 8:24, 37.
  2. I have worshipped in the Reformed Churches of New Zealand for a number of years. I have a very high regard for this denomination; they have a warm sister church relationship with the OPC and the URCNA. They have presumed their young people are in the covenant (baptised as infants) but do not call them to faith and repentance. Now they are discovering there are a growing number of teenagers who have lost interest in the church. Reformed Baptists are quick to make fodder of this. RB are not fully consistent themselves because as Iain Murray pointed out at a BOT conference they tend to preach doctrine and are slow to call people to faith and repentance in their sermons. It is a trend we all need to watch.
  3. The Paedobaptist pastor Joel Beeke made this comment I found very perceptive: "...others have argued that the children of believers be at least presumed to be regenerate unless there is evidence to the contrary. ... the communal dynamic of Reformed covenantal piety is seen to work independently of either personal, divinely initiated relationship or personal manifestation of ethical conformity. The covenantal community emphasis then swallows up the need for personal regeneration, conversion and holiness." [Bold = my emphasis] Beeke is saying here there needs to be an important balance between covenant membership and personal conversion.
  4. Finally I added these verses in a previous post.
    Stephen L Smith said:
    Scripture itself provides these warnings
    2 Cor 13:5 "Examine yourselves, to see whether you are in the faith. Test yourselves." and
    2 Pet 1:10-11 "Therefore, brothers, be all the more diligent to confirm your calling and election, for if you practice these qualities you will never fall. For in this way there will be richly provided for you an entrance into the eternal kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ."
    Click to expand...
 
Taylor Sexton said:
It took me years to get enough understanding to even make an informed decision on the issue to begin with!
Click to expand...
I understand good brother. It has taken me a while to grapple with it too. I recall you saying a section or two in Vos' Reformed Dogmatics helped to convince you to a paedobaptist position. I love Vos but don't have his RD. Could you summarise his argument? That would be very helpful. I did make an agreement with Lane @greenbaggins some time ago that if I quoted Vos he would 'credit' it to my sanctification :) I am sure he would also do it for you :)

I have been reading the new Vos biography. It is excellent. I highly recommend it if you have not read it.
 
RPEphesian said:
Owen makes an interesting argument: if no infant receives baptism, then it means that God does not ordinarily save them. The design of baptism is to mark out disciples and distinguish them from the world. Externally certainly, and to some real extent internally and really. Those who are not ordinarily saved are not baptized, thus the unbaptized impenitents give us little reason to hope they went into death in a saved state. Thus if infants of believers do not receive baptism, then ordinarily, believing parents of infants who pass away may not ordinarily expect their children are in glory.

Believers who have lost babes may take comfort knowing that Christ has said that of such is the Kingdom of God. If the Kingdom of God on earth, then certainly heaven.
Click to expand...
A couple of things Jake. Firstly, it is wise to put quotes in quotation marks. I was not sure where Owen's quote finished. Secondly we need to beware of an implicit Arminianism here. Say for example a Reformed Baptist pastor does not baptise his child out of (you would say misplaced) conviction. The infant dies. Does the pastor's act modify the eternal electing purposes of God. Surely not!

I would also be interested in my comments in Post 43 :)
 
Stephen L Smith said:
A couple of things Jake. Firstly, it is wise to put quotes in quotation marks. I was not sure where Owen's quote finished. Secondly we need to beware of an implicit Arminianism here. Say for example a Reformed Baptist pastor does not baptise his child out of (you would say misplaced) conviction. The infant dies. Does the pastor's act modify the eternal electing purposes of God. Surely not!

I would also be interested in my comments in Post 43 :)
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll try to be more helpful in quoting.

For the RB pastor, the failure to baptize doesn't negate the fact that the child is a member of the church. Baptism or failure to baptize don't modify God's decrees one iota. I'd be wise to let the excerpt speak on its own:

The tract quote, taken from here:

Fifthly, God having appointed baptism as the sign and seal of regeneration, unto whom he denies it, he denies the grace signified by it. Why is it the will of God that unbelievers and impenitent sinners should not be baptized? It is because, not granting them the grace, he will not grant them the sign. If, therefore, God denies the sign unto the infant seed of believers, it must be because he denies them the grace of it; and then all the children of believing parents dying in their infancy must, without hope, be eternally damned. I do not say that all must be so who are not baptized, but all must be so whom God would not have baptized.

But this is contrary to the goodness and law [love?] of God, the nature and promises of the covenant, the testimony of Christ reckoning them to the kingdom of God, the faith of godly parents, and the belief of the church in all ages.

It follows hence unavoidably that infants who die in their infancy have the grace of regeneration, and consequently as good a right unto baptism as believers themselves.
Click to expand...

As for post #43...

To at least touch on the first point, where you said, "Do we do people a service if we assume people are believers yet they are not. We need to be careful about mankind's souls."

Fully agreed. However, Christ spoke those words "you will die in your sins" to the openly obstinate. Clear fruit. But in the Ten Virgins, there's no visible distinctions between who has grace and who doesn't. Only Christ's coming reveals it. Until that point, charity demanded that the wise virgins treat the foolish as real attendants to the wedding. To know the true state of anyone in this situation is impossible. The former case--impenitency and obstinancy--it's clear how to treat them. But what about the latter case? How can you be faithful to treat someone as an unbeliever when it's not clear to you that they are an unbeliever? In an effort to faithful you can end up crushing a bruised reed, or quelling the smoking flax.

Applying this to children, where do they fall? Do we treat them as obstinate unbelievers, or as among the virgins? They too have a duty to examine themselves, and we teach them how to do that, but that's different from treating them as though they are on their way to dying in their sins. How you address members in good standing and how you treat the impenitent members are much different.

Difficult, because of their age. I don't know how to evaluate grace in someone under 5. For myself, if I see signs of grace I will encourage them. If I see warning signs, I'll address them. In either case, keep giving the Gospel to either draw to conversion, or to enliven the grace that is there. I call them to faith and repentance not because I am convinced that they are unsaved, but because whether saved or not, it is their duty to believe and repent. By faith and repentance they will either come into a saving relationship, or the graces they possess will be brightened. That's all one bridesmaid can do for another.

That's a much safer path than the eldership keeping them in suspense until age 16. No wonder if a converted child in such a situation will have some major assurance issues.

So not knowing their hearts, following that pathway I can safely commend their real state to God. And my children will testify someday that I did indeed call them to faith and repentance, and did it early, and did it often. I have no sympathy or love for presumptive regeneration. None.
 
Last edited:
@timfost @Stephen L Smith

I think prudence now demands I bow out. Busy season is nigh, and my responsibilities are about to enlarge. That, and I can't make a quick reply to save my life. It's been good to be refreshed on this topic.

But again, the very best way to resolve all of this.. Push off all books and other helps and focus on the Scriptures themselves, vigorously meditate, compare, take notes, pray, pray, pray, and bring in the books and sermons only once you have thoroughly digested the texts yourself and can no longer substantially profit without help. You'll build a Scriptural bulwark that way, whichever way you ultimately go.

Blessings!
 
Last edited:
Stephen L Smith said:
I recall you saying a section or two in Vos' Reformed Dogmatics helped to convince you to a paedobaptist position. I love Vos but don't have his RD. Could you summarise his argument? That would be very helpful.
Click to expand...

Yes, it was a combination of Vos and Dabney that convinced me. I will see if I can summarize those here in a little while.

Stephen L Smith said:
I did make an agreement with Lane @greenbaggins some time ago that if I quoted Vos he would 'credit' it to my sanctification.
Click to expand...

You and I need to make sure he holds up his end of the deal!
 
timfost said:
I agree we have to be careful here. It may help to define election from a) God's perspective and b) our perspective. But even from God's, He deals with those in the visible covenant community differently than those outside. This may be getting too far out of the realm of this conversation, though.
Click to expand...

I think it is applicable because of your reference to Dort 1.7. Someone who has a credible profession of faith, I would think we would be charitable and assume them to be Christians. The consequence is that some of those will eventually be proved to not be Christians. I assume you are using that same logic in assuming the best for infants of parents with a credible profession of faith. Is that a fair characterization? If so, I think I can co-sign.
 
Stephen L Smith said:
I believe I am getting the point now :) Baptists want to equate OT circumcision with temporary land promises but you are saying there is a spiritual aspect that goes far deeper - as you have argued in the above posts.

I can see a caution here on how this argument is structured. If you link this to infant baptism and say "Christ gave circumcision to an infant as a sign and seal to assure him that believing on Christ, he really was saved and redeemed" it seems to me you will open the door to a rather dangerous form of presumptive regeneration. I guess this has been my caution all along in coming to grips with paedobaptism. Don't worry, I won't jump to conclusions here. I am soon going to read Bavinck's "Saved by grace" - I have been told he deals with this in a particularly helpful manner.

Jake, I have greatly appreciated your insights. I know the busy tax season will soon be upon you so I will minimise my questions and do more of my own study of this. May Romans 15:13 be an encouragement to you as you head into another tax season.
Click to expand...

I have included below one of the best treatises on the historical Reformed doctrine of the efficacy and utility of infant baptism. I think this treatise may help clarify some of the questions you have. It was penned by Herman Witsius, who many know from his magisterial work on Covenant Theology. Witsius writes with a pen that seeks to heal not divide. Below is an excerpt from J. Mark Beach's introduction. I trust it will be enough to gain your interest.
I would also ask my fellow paedobaptist brothers and sisters to read it as well.

In this work on the efficacy of baptism, Witsius takes up a topic that has great practical import for believers, especially believing parents who face the task of nurturing covenant children in the Lord or who have faced the sorrowful episode of burying a small child. How should covenant children be regarded—as saved prior to baptism, at the moment of baptism, or sometime subsequent to their baptism? Moreover, are baptized children certainly to be saved? Should it be expected? Or is their salvation a matter of doubt, or perhaps no more than a hopeful wish beyond what might be expected of persons who cannot lay claim to the covenant promises of God? To state the question differently, are baptized children more fit or likely candidates of salvation than unbaptized children?
Distinct from these queries are another set of questions relative to baptism’s function, such as, what does baptism do relative to the salvific standing of covenant children? Does it impart salvation itself? Is it an instrument effecting or bringing about salvation? Is salvation tied to the rite or the very act of baptism?
In Witsius’s treatise, presented in English translation below, the author treats these sorts of questions and demonstrates how Reformed authors have understood Scripture to address them. He is careful to set forth the Reformed consensus regarding the efficacy of baptism and the status of covenant children before God.

ON THE EFFICACY AND UTILITY OF BAPTISMIN THE CASE OF ELECT INFANTS WHOSE PARENTSARE UNDER THE COVENANT by Herman Witsius

https://www.midamerica.edu/uploads/files/pdf/journal/17-witsius.pdf
 
Reformed Bookworm said:
I have included below one of the best treatises on the historical Reformed doctrine of the efficacy and utility of infant baptism. I think this treatise may help clarify some of the questions you have. It was penned by Herman Witsius, who many know from his magisterial work on Covenant Theology. Witsius writes with a pen that seeks to heal not divide. Below is an excerpt from J. Mark Beach's introduction. I trust it will be enough to gain your interest.
I would also ask my fellow paedobaptist brothers and sisters to read it as well.
Click to expand...
Thank you Robert. I have a high respect for Mark Beach's writings. I loved his essay on Bavinck's "Saved by Grace". Witsius' book on covenant theology was one of the first I read on the subject.

It is our Sabbath day here, and it is yours tomorrow. I'll respect both days and make a few follow up comments after that. Thanks.
 
RPEphesian said:
But again, the very best way to resolve all of this.. Push off all books and other helps and focus on the Scriptures themselves, vigorously meditate, compare, take notes, pray, pray, pray, and bring in the books and sermons only once you have thoroughly digested the texts yourself and can no longer substantially profit without help. You'll build a Scriptural bulwark that way, whichever way you ultimately go.
Click to expand...
Thank you Jake. Actually my book arrived today "A Discourse on Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism" by Cuthbert Sydenham (Puritan Publications). Sydenham says the same.
 
Hello Stephen – and friends,

As I have been working my way through the Renihan brothers’ essay, it is troubling to see the tortuous—one could almost call it labyrinthine—argumentation of their presentation on the covenants and the resultant disallowance of baptism for believers’ infants. Why can’t plain teachings of the Bible be presented simply? It must be admitted, however, that part of the problem is the complexity of many Reformed paedobaptists’ presentations of their views.

As I get to page 11 of their essay I find I must take a break and ponder this whole endeavor. The Renihan brothers (RBs) seek to bolster their position from so many sources, and redefine so many terms (Old Testament, Old Covenant, New Testament, New Covenant, Covenant of Grace, Abrahamic Covenant, Mosaic or Sinaitic Covenant)—as does Pascal Denault in his, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, that one would almost have to write a book, or at least a lengthy essay in reply. And each of hundreds of points could then be argued and wrangled about!

Years ago, while in a Presbyterian church, a Baptist friend of mine (who went to the same church) remarked that as parents presented their infant children for baptism, the ministers were vague or inadequate as regards their bringing the children into the covenant of God’s people, and what their status was as regards election, and I had to agree.

At that time I was also pondering the PRCA (Protestant Reformed Church in America) and their view on so-called common grace (see this post in another thread), and while doing that became familiar with their views on infant baptism (at the time I was in charge of this Presbyterian church’s bookstore, so was constantly engaged in discussions of these sorts, procuring whatever books I wanted to, etc). I thought their position on infant baptism was both simple and coherent. This was around 20 years ago.

Recently I have again been drawn into the credo-paedo discussion as a Baptist pastor gave me the Pascal Denault book mentioned above. I’d steered clear of such for years being a member in a Baptist church. (Earlier paedo-baptism discussions I've been involved in on PB here, here, and here.). So I’ve returned to examining the PRCA books I have (and I just ordered a bunch more). It is clear that mere proof texts for one side or the other do not really address the root of the baptism debate, but rather it is the issue of the covenant of God, what it is, and who are its members. That is where the answer lies. The ping-pong discussions are futile, in respect to breaking the impasse.

This involves looking afresh at the covenant. I’m convinced that the PRC is sound in their view, but it means reexamining things we – the Reformed – have long held to be true. For instance, what is the nature of the pre-fall covenant in Eden? Was it a covenant of works? Or was it a covenant, as I now think, of grace and of divine friendship to the first of God’s creatures – Adam – made in His image? Adam failed of that covenant by disobedience to his Creator and going over to the side of His enemy, Satan.

Did the covenant of grace and friendship cease with Adam’s betrayal and death? No, it was picked up again immediately after the fall, in the Proto-evangelion, when the Last Adam—the new Mediator of God’s covenant with humankind—was announced: One was coming to destroy the vast ruination of the devil, continue the covenant of grace and friendship, redeem that which was lost, and bring man to an infinitely more blessed position than the earthy first Adam could have done, all of which would be established in the line of continued generations of the seed of the woman in Eden.

I ordered the additional books I did so I could study and get very clear on this matter, and the precision of its language. If I am going to teach something I need to know it very well. I believe it was Albert Einstein who said (to the effect of), “If you can’t explain something simply, it is because you don’t understand it well enough.”

I attach a link to a pamphlet by David Engelsma, which broaches this topic: The Covenant of God and the Children of Believers. Here’s a quote from it:

“It is the covenantal election of God that determines the viewpoint that believing parents and church take toward the children and that governs the approach in rearing them. We do not view them as unsaved heathens (‘little vipers’), though there may well be vipers among them, any more than we view the congregation as a gathering of unbelievers because of the presence of unbelievers among the saints. But we view them as children of God.

God realizes his covenant in the line of generations. He gathers his church from age to age from the children of believers. As the Puritans were fond of saying, ‘God casts the line of election in the loins of godly parents.’ For the sake of the elect children, all are baptized.” [Emphasis added]​

Which simply reiterates what Paul said in Romans 9:6, “For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel”

So all were circumcised after Abraham, although not all were the children of the promise, the elect. The same with baptism. I know the Baptists like to have a congregation of the regenerate, but the outward profession of faith is very often not genuine (though the professor may, at the moment, her or himself think it is), and so it was with the children of Abraham after the flesh, not all the circumcised were the elect.

@timfost, this is similar to what you said in your post 28, “In short, Peter could call his readers elect based on external indicators-- they show evidence of election and he regards them as such. If some were to fall away in that same number, Peter would not have to rescind his statement.” As with a grape vine, even though some of the branches were not fruitful, and would be cut off and burned, one doesn’t say of the vine it is a mixed vine, but simply it is the vine.

For the sake of the elect children, all are baptized, it being understood that not all of Israel are Israel. This is the Biblical approach.
 
Last edited:
A few more thoughts on that all-encompassing matter, the identity of the covenant of God’s gracious dealings with man. It was that in which Adam, unfallen and newly created stood before his Creator, made in His own image, and own likeness (Gen 1:26, 27), naturally able to fellowship with Him, lovingly and joyfully responding to the gracious favor and friendship of the divine Being who walked and talked with Him, learning of the responsibilities, as well the fellowship, He had created him to assume, and to partake of. This was the first historical manifestation of the covenant of redemption the Godhead decreed, called the covenant of grace. As noted above, this covenant was resumed immediately after the fall by God’s announcing, in the Proto-evangelion, a One to come by the seed of the woman, Eve. It was in this covenant, going through the line of Seth, to Enoch, a man who walked with God, to Noah. Of Noah, Herman Hoeksema writes,

“Noah does not enter into the ark as the representative of the whole world as it is outside of Christ, but as head of the visible church. The church is saved in the ark; the world perishes in the flood. Presently the church comes forth again from the ark; and with the church the Lord God establishes His covenant. The fact that in this connection the covenant of God is revealed as embracing the whole creation does not change matters and is easily understandable in the light of the history of the flood. A covenant of friendship with the wicked world outside of Christ God, the Holy and Righteous One, certainly could not establish. The covenant is essentially always the same. For this reason, also here Scripture does not speak of ‘a covenant,’ but of ‘my covenant.’ That is, My one covenant, which is always the same, and which I establish with My people in Christ Jesus. And when, therefore, the Lord establishes that covenant with Noah, He says, ‘And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you’ (Gen. 9:9). Also here, therefore, you have the same idea. When God establishes His covenant in the world, then He does that with believers and their seed.” (Believers and Their Seed: Children in the Covenant; p 92)​

There is a beautiful simplicity—and Biblical fidelity—in this presentation.

Among the books I’ve ordered from Hoeksema, Engelsma, and Hoeksema’s son, Homer, are some dealing with the spiritual life, as I sense a healthy spiritual life in these men.

Paul, in Galatians 3, writes that the law does not annul the covenant made with Abraham, but “was added because of transgressions” (Gal 3:19), teaching Israel of their sin (and the whole world’s), and their need for a righteousness they could never attain on their own—thus their need for the Messiah / Christ. The law also typified the sacrifice in minute detail, and the law also prophesied of the coming Saviour.

There is one covenant unilaterally conceived, established, and concluded by the Almighty God, to bring His elect in Christ into the love-life within the Trinity in the new Paradise of the age to come.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Elias_Amare
Paedo-Baptism Answers Response to Pascal DENAULT (the Distinctive Baptist Theology)
Replies
8
Views
465
Elias_Amare
Elias_Amare
P
  • Locked
Help me find resources to deepen my understanding of Covenant Theology/paedobaptism
Replies
5
Views
5K
Rev. Todd Ruddell
Rev. Todd Ruddell
mrhartley85
  • Locked
I need your advice
2
Replies
50
Views
6K
JTB.SDG
JTB.SDG
Sonoftheday
  • Locked
Relation of Cov's of Redemption and New Covenant
Replies
1
Views
2K
Contra_Mundum
Contra_Mundum
Poimen
  • Locked
Presbyterians and Baptist Members
Replies
17
Views
4K
DonP
DonP
Back
Top