Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yeah, they offer a “75 min. authentic worship experience.”. It looks like a rock concert venue with strobes and dimmed blue light but I guess that’s what makes it authentic.
20th/21st March 2020 Debate on paedo-baptism coming up
- Thread starter Catechised in Heidelberg
- Start date
- Status
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
They're a very broad Mennonite church. This is just weird.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fellowship_of_Evangelical_Churches
They used to be known as the Egly Amish and the Defenseless Mennonites. Not making that up.
Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
Not really. Anabaptists are known to get weird.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I just mean that Sproul has found a strange church to call home.
TylerRay
Puritan Board Graduate
I can't help but add that 'The Defenseless Mennonites' sounds like a teenage punk band that will never see a record deal.
So does 'The Egly Amish,' now that I think of it.
retroGRAD3
Puritan Board Senior
Based on what I've read it looks like he's been defrocked and discipled out of almost every reformed denomination.
Susan777
Puritan Board Sophomore
I have some pity for him. Hard to be the son of a great one. He has had his share of suffering with the loss of his wife. Then there’s the alcoholism. But many are guilty of more egregious sins than he. If he finds peace where he is then I’m happy for him. Just hope he stays out of the pulpit and lays off the booze.
To my mind the jury is still out on this. Have you seen Lane's blog responding to a 1689 Federalist. He sees some of the arguments as semi dispensational. So I struggle to see how a 1689 Federalist can give 'weighty' arguments in this regard. When I first read Pascal Denault's "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" my first reaction was 'this is a semi dispensational' work. Part of that was a misunderstanding on my part. Part of it may have been I was aware of the Covenant structure of Witsius.
U
Username3000
Guest
Woah nelly!
I wasn’t saying that this argument is in and of itself weighty. I was just saying that of all the Reformed Baptist positions, that one is the most weighty, in my mind.
Perhaps you even disagree with that, though. If so, what do you think? I’m just super interested in this because Denault's book had me wrestling with this for years.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
James White is my former Elder and a personal friend, but I don't think this is the debate that needs to happen.
The REAL debate needs to happen between a solid 1689 Federalism guy (James is not) and a solid Westminster CT guy (Wilson is not). Until that happens, any debate on infant sprinkling is a waste of time.
The REAL debate needs to happen between a solid 1689 Federalism guy (James is not) and a solid Westminster CT guy (Wilson is not). Until that happens, any debate on infant sprinkling is a waste of time.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
True statement.
Mostly true statement, except that 1689 Federalism is not a "new" position, and to the best of my knowledge and observations of discussions on this board, you should really know better than to say that.
U
Username3000
Guest
Why is he restricted to doing what you want him to do? Why is another’s assessment of debates that need to happen binding upon him?
Why don’t you debate a solid Westminster CT guy?
Yes I can see that. My concern is that 1689 Federalism appears to argue for more discontinuities between the OC and the NC, more so that how Reformed Baptists would argue for say 20 years ago. In other words if a solid Reformed paedobaptist was to debate a 1689 Federalist they would struggle to find as much Reformed common ground as they would with someone who rejects 1689 Federalism (such as Sam Waldron).
I acknowledge it is a difficult subject. I would be interested to see how 1689 Federalism works to development better communication with its Reformed paedobaptist brethren in the future.
I wholeheartedly agree.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
That was a bit of an overreaction to my comment, don't you think?
Yes, it is a new position. The name is new, as well as the insistence that Reformed Baptists have always possessed one unitary and well-developed doctrine of the covenants.
The truth is that baptists of the past were not even very consistent on their doctrine of baptism, let alone their covenant theology. We see a lot of variation. Some early baptists even allowed sprinkling or pouring. Their beliefs evolved and became more solidified later on.
The same has happened regarding their view of the covenants.
These baptist forefathers often wrote and struggled to formulate their own version of covenant theology in reaction to the more uniform covenant theology of the reformed. While some common features emerged among a great deal of variety we cannot say that they had one well-developed view. It was far from monolithic. It would be more accurate to describe, "Various attempts by Baptists to form an answer to Reformed covenant theology" rather than, "THE Reformed Baptist position on covenant theology."
But modern Reformed Baptists want their own identity. There is an attempt to bring all Reformed Baptists into a single position whereas great variety has occurred in the past. And they've fought for the semantic high ground by dubbing this new position "1689 Federalism" (meaning they've got the CONFESSIONAL position, and all others do not). So they have re-interpreted these older baptist forefathers to be teaching one unitary doctrine, which they dubbed 1689 Federalism when, in fact, there has always been a great deal of variety. The most we can do is to give some broad principles whereby baptists have always disagreed with the reformed on this issue.
If Reformed Baptists were truly "rediscovering" the baptist doctrine of the past then they'd be more descriptive of the variety in past belief. But many Reformed Baptists writers now write with an agenda to focus on the unity of these past beliefs to show that there is one "confessional" view of the covenants for baptists. The reality is that modern Reformed Baptists have largely been slowly evolving and creating this doctrine, instead of merely rediscovering what was already written previously. Some of these writers have found common ground with older baptist writers, but several are not doing well to acknowledge the variety of the past.
Last edited:
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
No, it most certainly is not new.
That is true.
Literally no one insists this.
You've got some serious lenses on. At this point I think you're only seeing what you want to see due to some kind of bias. So be it. You do you.
Pergy I have to agree with Sean here. If you read Dr Sam Renihan's thesis - now a book - (that means more reading for you
) "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)" he shows that the framers had a covenant theology similar to the 1689 Federalists, though he also acknowledges some variation, especially among the later Baptists. But I think you are right to acknowledge that later Baptists (especially Spurgeon) were not 1689 Federalists. So yes there has been variation.It is possible that the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession worded 7:2 and 7:3 in such a way as to allow for variation.
You are a Baptist. So you see with a particular type of lens on
U
Username3000
Guest
No, I do not.
Pergy I have to agree with Sean here. If you read Dr Sam Renihan's thesis - now a book - (that means more reading for you
It is possible that the framers of the 1689 Baptist Confession worded 7:2 and 7:3 in such a way as to allow for variation.
You are a Baptist. So you see with a particular type of lens on
I would say there is a great deal of variation. Almost as much as any unity displayed (most of the unity being centered around the starting point that, "We are not Presbyterian").
The newer 1689 writers are downplaying these variations.
If we count in the tendency towards Dispensationalism among the baptists, it really cannot be said that there is any ONE dominant position among the baptists for the last 300 years, even the Reformed Baptists.
FIGHT ME!
We had a cluster of framers (copy and pasters) who "wrote" the 1689 (adopting most of it from the WCF) who had held to some similarities in their covenantal views. It was hardly uniform, however.
The fact that they altered the portion of the 1689 Baptist Confession on the covenants is, indeed, evidence that they rejected Reformed Covenant Theology. This does not mean, however, that they themselves had a fully-formed or even uniform alternative covenant theology to set forth against the Reformed view. They only could affirm a few outline points in the positive, but even these men varied.
Then we have later baptists like Spurgeon, and then most baptists forgot these doctrines entirely and threw them aside to adopt a more dispensational view.
In the 20th Century there was a revival of reformed baptists who also had a good deal of variation in their covenant theology, and then, in the last 10-20 years there was a rediscovery, and a lot of rebranding, and modifications into what many now refer to as 1689 Federalism. And there is even variation among those authors now.
Perhaps these things will solidify and there will emerge ONE mainstream covenantal position.
I know that I have been hounded to read a lot of boring books on the covenants that were only partly convincing and which accused Presbyterians of basically forming all of covenant theology around a defense of their pet doctrine of baby-sprinkling.
I know there's been a lot of energy put into these 2ndary doctrines, but MEH.....I just can't get really interested with much of anything the Reformed Baptists are focusing on lately, whether it be impassibility or 1689 Federalism. Maybe I'm just jaded against the group and want out. I admit my biases. But I do think there are true weaknesses among them.
So, yes, I have a lens. Maybe even an ax to grind (but not a lens to grind, because I don't make eyeglasses...though I do sometimes make a spectable of myself). And I suppose now I might have to read another boring book or two to go deeper into this issue.
p.s. I did read Shadow to Substance, I believe, already. But it sure wasn't memorable nor earthshaking for me like O' Palmer Robertson's Christ of the Covenants was. Nehemiah Coxe was also very boring. I've read a whole list of books. My assumption is the basic unity of the Scripture and the People of God, so maybe I've already given up the boat to Presbyterians, even as a baptist. Those OT folks who believed participated in the Covenant of Grace. You cannot participate in something that does not yet exist.
Last edited:
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
And yet on almost every show White dredges up some KJV Only guy to ridicule. It is endlessly frustrating how he can be so good and indeed brave on the CRT stuff infecting the church and then spiral into these pathologies of his.
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Honestly I don't think that is the problem. The problem is in Durbin himself and his entourage. The idea that someone who looks and dresses and behaves the way Durbin does is a theonomist in the "classical" sense seems bizarre to me. I see a lot of Driscoll in Durbin. Which is a real shame because Durbin has done excellent work interacting with sects but there's a lot that's problematic there.
And to bring this back to the OP I think that does suggest why there is this link with Wilson as Bill suggests. Wilson and his guys are very vocal (and good) on social/cultural issues and White is willing to excuse a lot because of that. I'm not saying we should be listening to the Moscow people (I don't) but what they say on these issues is right. The problem is that the orthodox denominations are not taking a stand. Instead they are being compromised.
Last edited:
alexandermsmith
Puritan Board Junior
Is this the one where White gets offended because the Presbyterian brings up the very legitimate pastoral dimension to baptism? Whichever debate it was White got very annoyed. Maybe because he had no response.
RamistThomist
Puritanboard Clerk
He might not be a "classical theonomist," but he is a normal one. Guys like Gentry and Bahnsen were classical theonomists. Unfortunately, there really was no norm for how a theonomist should be.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
Ok. Rest assured, it was quite inappropriate and out of proportion.
Edit to add: Let's not clutter up with thread with this side conversation. If you think my criticism is in error, feel free to send me a message and we can talk about it as brothers in Christ.
Last edited:
Good idea. I will be David, you can be GoliathFIGHT ME!
I get the impression you are following me to a Reformed paedobaptist position
Have you read Pink's Divine Covenants? This is one of the most sane Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology books I have read. I find him more balanced than many.
Andrew35
Puritan Board Sophomore
To be perfectly frank, I always felt (now and as an RB) that much of the activity of Reformed Baptists over the past several decades has seemed like a massive effort to identify themselves over and against Presbyterians (even more specifically, in the model of the OPC).
The formation of ARBCA, the eagerness with which 1689 Federalism was embraced, even the sustained focus on the doctrines of God (which has produced some excellent fruit, I readily admit)... all appear like the outworking of a project, part theological, but perhaps a greater part psychological, to form a distinct identity. Even the now-defunct "Confessing Baptist Podcast" felt a little like it could be re-titled the "We're not Presbyterians and here's why" podcast.
I'm not saying any of these things are bad, necessarily. Only that was the impression I couldn't escape as an RB layman.
I may take some heat for saying this; and please, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on any, some of whom I greatly love and respect. But this impression always nagged at me a bit.
The formation of ARBCA, the eagerness with which 1689 Federalism was embraced, even the sustained focus on the doctrines of God (which has produced some excellent fruit, I readily admit)... all appear like the outworking of a project, part theological, but perhaps a greater part psychological, to form a distinct identity. Even the now-defunct "Confessing Baptist Podcast" felt a little like it could be re-titled the "We're not Presbyterians and here's why" podcast.
I'm not saying any of these things are bad, necessarily. Only that was the impression I couldn't escape as an RB layman.
I may take some heat for saying this; and please, I'm not trying to cast aspersions on any, some of whom I greatly love and respect. But this impression always nagged at me a bit.
Good idea. I will be David, you can be Goliath
I get the impression you are following me to a Reformed paedobaptist position
Have you read Pink's Divine Covenants? This is one of the most sane Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology books I have read. I find him more balanced than many.
Yes, I've also read that and thought the same.
You are also failing as a credobaptist? We are like the chick-flick movie Thelma and Louise, heading off the cliff together in a car?
- Status
