Prufrock
Arbitrary Moderation
I have a baptist friend who has been talking with me about baptism, and I'd like some clarification from the baptists on the board regarding the intention of the 1689 confession and its wording in ch. 7.
Despite all the changes from the WCF's corresponding structure, I'm struck by the substantial similarity between the two. Specifically here, in it's "new" section:
Though the WCF's wording has been thrown out, it seems the substance still stands; the New Testament, along with all salvific activity prior thereunto, belongs to the single covenant of grace: the language of "and afterwards by farther steps" seems to at least include the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances, thereby indicating an external administration of the covenant of grace which includes the unregenerate not simply de facto, but also de jure.
I have more questions, but I want to make sure this is a true reading of the confession's language before moving on. So, baptists, is this on track so far?
Thanks, I'd really appreciate your help: I want to make sure I understand the reformed baptist argument as well as I can, but I just can't get past what seem to be "incongruities" to me, and I'd like them to be worked out.
Despite all the changes from the WCF's corresponding structure, I'm struck by the substantial similarity between the two. Specifically here, in it's "new" section:
3. This covenant 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.
Though the WCF's wording has been thrown out, it seems the substance still stands; the New Testament, along with all salvific activity prior thereunto, belongs to the single covenant of grace: the language of "and afterwards by farther steps" seems to at least include the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances, thereby indicating an external administration of the covenant of grace which includes the unregenerate not simply de facto, but also de jure.
I have more questions, but I want to make sure this is a true reading of the confession's language before moving on. So, baptists, is this on track so far?
Thanks, I'd really appreciate your help: I want to make sure I understand the reformed baptist argument as well as I can, but I just can't get past what seem to be "incongruities" to me, and I'd like them to be worked out.