steadfast7
Puritan Board Junior
I was looking at the tabular comparison of the WCF and LBC and noting that the LBC does not (necessarily?) confess that Baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace but rather an ordinance of the New Testament.
One of the arguments for paedobaptism asks whether the covenant sign should be placed on covenant members (the obvious answer: yes). However if Baptists do not confess that baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace, the argument rests on a category that is not common to both sides. Another argument is necessary.
Many Reformed Baptists might prefer calling baptism the sign of the New Covenant, which is in keeping with the New Testamental emphasis of the ordinance.
I don't think this view downplays covenant theology for the Reformed Baptist, but it shows that their theology of baptism is not as dependent on covenant theology as it is for paedobaptists.
One of the arguments for paedobaptism asks whether the covenant sign should be placed on covenant members (the obvious answer: yes). However if Baptists do not confess that baptism is a sign of the covenant of grace, the argument rests on a category that is not common to both sides. Another argument is necessary.
Many Reformed Baptists might prefer calling baptism the sign of the New Covenant, which is in keeping with the New Testamental emphasis of the ordinance.
I don't think this view downplays covenant theology for the Reformed Baptist, but it shows that their theology of baptism is not as dependent on covenant theology as it is for paedobaptists.