Baptism & New Covenant

[Dachaser]

As I said I do have problems with Reformed Baptist theology, but I think there is a problem using the word dispensational in this way. As I said dispensationalism as a theological system did not exist prior to the 19 century. It simply did not (the 1689 Baptist confession is a 17 century document). The concept of the covenant itself is defended in the WCF 7:1, and this is the same in the 1689 confession. Further the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis in 7:2 and 7:3. These are distinct Reformed terms. One may or may not like the way the way the 1689 confession structures its cvenantal framework but this is not the same as calling it dispensational.

I have found it interesting that some seem to identify and hold CT exclusive to the view held by the Reformers, ie infant baptism, and yet did not the CT Baptists agree to pretty much all items save for that thing though?
Holding to the One people of God, one saved out Body , based upon the election of God will be more the heart of CT it seems to me.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Stephen,
I will refer you to your previous interaction on the matter-specifically what Bruce B. intended for clarity-to which, he has said better than I and to which, I agree.

You may want to read through that thread again as I am not arguing any differently than what BB and MW said (even though my extrapolation lacked).

https://puritanboard.com/threads/are-reformed-baptists-dispensational.92917/#post-1133221

I have read it twice. In fact I interacted with paedobaptists on this post. I actually agree with the criticisms of the 1689 Federalism, but it does not change my argument itself in my above post. As I said one may disagree with how the 1689 Confession formulates its view of the covenant but this is not the same as calling it dispensational in any sense.

 

[Gforce9]

As I said I do have problems with Reformed Baptist theology, but I think there is a problem using the word dispensational in this way. As I said dispensationalism as a theological system did not exist prior to the 19 century. It simply did not (the 1689 Baptist confession is a 17 century document). The concept of the covenant itself is defended in the WCF 7:1, and this is the same in the 1689 confession. Further the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis in 7:2 and 7:3. These are distinct Reformed terms. One may or may not like the way the way the 1689 confession structures its cvenantal framework but this is not the same as calling it dispensational.

Stephen,
You are more capable than am I in defending the confessional Baptist position and I truly do trust you to do so fairly, though often, with humor added! I believe Rev. Winzer's point was to say that any system that "carves up" the people of God, is dispensational, not necessarily that confessional Baptists held to Dispensational teaching on a particular point. Maybe to state it another way, "carving up" or disinclusion is by definition, dispensational.

 

[Gforce9]

Was it this?
https://puritanboard.com/threads/are-reformed-baptists-dispensational.92917/#post-1133221

Brandon,
Thanks for finding this. This isn't the interaction I had in mind, I believe this is the second or third go around for this topic. Rev. Winzer does reiterate, however, from what I recall, the substance of what he started earlier...thanks again!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I believe Rev. Winzer's point was to say that any system that "carves up" the people of God, is dispensational,

As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis. Therefore it does not "carve up the people of God".

with humor added

You said humor. The Queens English is humour. Are you trying to "carve up" the Queens English. Sorry dear brother I could not resist

 

[Gforce9]

I have found it interesting that some seem to identify and hold CT exclusive to the view held by the Reformers, ie infant baptism, and yet did not the CT Baptists agree to pretty much all items save for that thing though?
Holding to the One people of God, one saved out Body , based upon the election of God will be more the heart of CT it seems to me.

David,
If I may: you stated that "...yet did not the CT Baptists agree to pretty much all items save for that thing though" (baptism of covenant children, I presume). The issue is not one of baptism. That is only a "symptom", if I may use the phrase. The real issue is the "covenantal-ness" of our differing theololgies. In other words, our (confessionally Reformed) baptism is "driven" by our covenantal theology. Baptism is not really a stand-alone issue to be argued. One must argue the "system" that undergirds the baptism.......

 

[Gforce9]

As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis. Therefore it does not "carve up the people of God".

You said humor. The Queens English is humour. Are you trying to "carve up" the Queens English. Sorry dear brother I could not resist

Humor is irresistible to you. Now I know your Achilles heel.....watch out.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I have read it twice. In fact I interacted with paedobaptists on this post. I actually agree with the criticisms of the 1689 Federalism, but it does not change my argument itself in my above post. As I said one may disagree with how the 1689 Confession formulates its view of the covenant but this is not the same as calling it dispensational in any sense.

I believe it is safe to say that all of us agree that there are varying degrees of what dispensationalism is. In my opinion, all of us agree that God has dispensations. The covenanters understand covenant in a different fashion than what the credo schema is; it is here that we apply the term dispensational to their thinking. Just because they say they appreciate the covenant in the same way via the 1689, does not make it so, else they would all be Paedobaptists. So for the sake of argument, I never meant to imply that they were a Darby type of (D)ispensationalist, but a type of hyper (d)ispensationalism when compared to those that hold to the WCF as they add dispensations that we would reject.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Now I know your Achilles heel.....watch out.

I see your Avatar is Gforce. Is this a warning you may apply a scientific G force to me?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Just because they say they appreciate the covenant in the same way via the 1689, does not make it so, else they would all be Paedobaptists. So for the sake of argument, I never meant to imply that they were a Darby type of (D)ispensationalist, but a type of hyper (d)ispensationalism when compared to those that hold to the WCF as they add dispensations that we would reject.

As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis so it has a definite Reformed construct. And it agrees with the WCF 7:1. Thus I am arguing the word dispensational is misleading and unhelpful. Perhaps the theological spectrum continuity vs discontinuity is more appropriate.

See also https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/. As I have said I find 1689 Federalism unconvincing, but the basic argument is helpful. I beieve the article is correct to conclude "On each of these essential points, 1689 Federalism is not merely contrary to Dispensationalism; it is contradictory to Dispensationalism. Its Christological (“spiritualizing”) hermeneutic “is indicative of a nondispensational approach” resulting in a typological view of Israel that fails “the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

1689 Federalism is Anti-Dispensational (just ask a Dispensationalist)."

 

[Gforce9]

I see your Avatar is Gforce. Is this a warning you may apply a scientific G force to me?

No sir, but I might return the joke and, before you know it, North and South will be hurling jokes and insults and war may break out......

 

[Stephen L Smith]

before you know it, North and South will be hurling jokes and insults and war may break out

Not sure what you mean by North and South. I live in New Zealand - "down under"

 

[Gforce9]

Not sure what you mean by North and South. I live in New Zealand - "down under"

You're the South....like wayyyyyyyyy south!

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Brandon,
Thanks for finding this. This isn't the interaction I had in mind, I believe this is the second or third go around for this topic. Rev. Winzer does reiterate, however, from what I recall, the substance of what he started earlier...thanks again!

Probably in this thread:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/critiques-of-pascal-denault.88262/#post-1091376

 

[Dachaser]

David,
If I may: you stated that "...yet did not the CT Baptists agree to pretty much all items save for that thing though" (baptism of covenant children, I presume). The issue is not one of baptism. That is only a "symptom", if I may use the phrase. The real issue is the "covenantal-ness" of our differing theololgies. In other words, our (confessionally Reformed) baptism is "driven" by our covenantal theology. Baptism is not really a stand-alone issue to be argued. One must argue the "system" that undergirds the baptism.......

One can be a confessional Christian and still differ on the issues such as water baptism and church government, as still see God having but one saved body of people throughout the Bible.

 

[Dachaser]

As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis. Therefore it does not "carve up the people of God".

You said humor. The Queens English is humour. Are you trying to "carve up" the Queens English. Sorry dear brother I could not resist

Reformed Confessing Baptist would agree in but one Body, Spiritual Israel, so why would RB be classified as Dispensational leaning then?

 

[Dachaser]

As I said the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis so it has a definite Reformed construct. And it agrees with the WCF 7:1. Thus I am arguing the word dispensational is misleading and unhelpful. Perhaps the theological spectrum continuity vs discontinuity is more appropriate.

See also https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/. As I have said I find 1689 Federalism unconvincing, but the basic argument is helpful. I beieve the article is correct to conclude "On each of these essential points, 1689 Federalism is not merely contrary to Dispensationalism; it is contradictory to Dispensationalism. Its Christological (“spiritualizing”) hermeneutic “is indicative of a nondispensational approach” resulting in a typological view of Israel that fails “the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.”

1689 Federalism is Anti-Dispensational (just ask a Dispensationalist)."

The point of just how new is the new Covenant to me seems to be where the real dividing line between us in CT seems to be.

 

[Gforce9]

One can be a confessional Christian and still differ on the issues such as water baptism and church government, as still see God having but one saved body of people throughout the Bible.

David,
I'm not angry, but I took time to explain the issue isn't really baptism, but covenantalism, and you went right to baptism in your response. I agree we can disagree, but it isn't about baptism (directly), but about covenantalism.

 

[Gforce9]

Probably in this thread:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/critiques-of-pascal-denault.88262/#post-1091376

Thanks, Patrick.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

Reformed Confessing Baptist would agree in but one Body, Spiritual Israel, so why would RB be classified as Dispensational leaning then?

Just a few posts prior to your response is a pointer to a topic that may help you understand the issues, including that no one is "classifying" Reformed Baptists, but rather indicating that some aspects of their covenantal hermeneutic may not escape an a relatively easy move towards what is commonly known as dispensationalism today.

Again, per my previous post, perhaps this will be useful:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/critiques-of-pascal-denault.88262/#post-1091376

 

[Stephen L Smith]

You're the South....like wayyyyyyyyy south!

Yes, down in Middle Earth. Pretty good here

 

[Dachaser]

David,
I'm not angry, but I took time to explain the issue isn't really baptism, but covenantalism, and you went right to baptism in your response. I agree we can disagree, but it isn't about baptism (directly), but about covenantalism.

Please see my post in # 227, as i think this is the core central issue concerning this topic we are now discussing.

 

[Dachaser]

Just a few posts prior to your response is a pointer to a topic that may help you understand the issues, including that no one is "classifying" Reformed Baptists, but rather indicating that some aspects of their covenantal hermeneutic may not escape an a relatively easy move towards what is commonly known as dispensationalism today.

Again, per my previous post, perhaps this will be useful:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/critiques-of-pascal-denault.88262/#post-1091376

This to me would really identify the main question that has to be answered is just how new was/is the New Covenant than itself?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

There has been some discussion on PB ON the idea of “testaments” when thinking about the one covenant of grace. If you read Hebrews in the KJV you’ll see how the translators sometimes translated the Greek word that way. If you do a PB search on “testament” and put MW in the “by member” field, some of that discussion may come up.

 

[Cymro]

I think of it after this wise. That it is not a new covenant ,for how can the covenant of grace that existed in the OT be altered for the NT? Rather it is a new administration of the same covenant of grace. As scaffolding and plastic screens shroud a building that is being refreshed and renewed, hides the building, but it is obviously by design and shape a building, -so it was, that the shadows and types that shrouded the covenant dimly indicated its existence. But when the scaffolding is taken down the building stands forth in its pristine glory. But it is the same building, the same structure, the same glorious ingenuity of the same great architect. The covenant emerges in the simplicity of the gospel. The newness is the stripping away of all the imageries, similutudes and types that were used for the church when it was in its minority, and the truth as it is in Jesus is set forth in all its glory and beauty.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

That it is not a new covenant ,for how can the covenant of grace that existed in the OT be altered for the NT? Rather it is a new administration of the same covenant of grace.

A Reformed Baptist friend recently said to me that confessional Paedobaptists give the Lord's supper to believers based on the clear teaching of the New Testament 1 Cor 11:27 ff. He argued that Paedobaptists are inconsistent at this point re baptism, because the clear teaching of the New Testament is to repent and be baptised. He points out there are more commands to repent and be baptised than the command in 1 Cor 11:27 ff. How do you answer this specific argument re the relationship between Baptism and the Lord's supper.

 

[Cymro]

If I am understanding the question properly, then your “Reformed Baptist” is mixing up two positions that are different. The commands to repent and be baptised were directed in the preaching of the gospel to unbelieving adults.Whereas, (1Cor 11:27) is an instruction to the church in observing the ordinance of the Lord’s supper, and the necessity of examining themselves (v28) as to their spiritual state as Believers. So chalk and cheese.
It’s like saying that because the All blacks have beaten Wales so many times, then Wales should not play rugby! But we know we play it as it should be played.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

A Reformed Baptist friend recently said to me that confessional Paedobaptists give the Lord's supper to believers based on the clear teaching of the New Testament 1 Cor 11:27 ff.

There's more to it than that. One verse might be enough, but the fact is that there's a whole theology of sacraments, and of the Lord's Supper in particular, that comprises "the clear teaching" of the New Testament whole Bible on the topic.

Are there different prerequisites for coming to the Supper, for different sorts of participants? I don't know of anyone who argues for such things, except for paedocommunion advocates. 1Cor.11:27, in the context of a teaching passage on the conduct of the Supper, is a strong argument for an unwaiverable requirement for all participants at the time it is served.

He argued that Paedobaptists are inconsistent at this point re baptism, because the clear teaching of the New Testament is to repent and be baptised. He points out there are more commands to repent and be baptised than the command in 1 Cor 11:27 ff. How do you answer this specific argument re the relationship between Baptism and the Lord's supper.

Assume (purely for the sake of argument) that infants should be baptized. Is it then reasonable that the NT historical books should contain one or numerous instances of evangelistic proclamation, which relate repentance/faith and baptism? What would be unreasonable about such a record?

Work out the requisite premise(s), so that the actual argument purporting to show: infants shouldn't be baptized, follows from the record of evangelistic calls that include a summons to baptism.

If (for the sake of argument) infants should be baptized, still they are in no position to comprehend this call, or the summons, or bring themselves to conform to either. In which case, the prerequisites for a confessor's baptism and for an infant's baptism would have to differ. That is all that is needed to show that appeals to (several) evangelistic calls do not invalidate the PB argument.

This, by the way, does not mean that there are two (or more) baptisms, if the meaning of baptism has no difference in either case. But if a Baptist does not see how this can possibly be the case for those of the Presbyterian persuasion, then it is probably true to conclude (presuming his views are "standard") that Baptists and Presbyterians differ at least in part on their understanding of what baptism essentially is/does/means. This contrast also gets reflected in differences over ecclesiology.

To sum up, variation in the number of passages (which might contain imperatives, 1Cor.11:27 does not have; yet v28 does) to which one may appeal for support is not alone an indicator of the relative "strength" of an argument.

A simple test of some position (whether favorable or contrary) might be persuasive to someone already of a particular mind. But generally, those are some of the least compelling to those looking on from another angle.

 

[Dachaser]

There's more to it than that. One verse might be enough, but the fact is that there's a whole theology of sacraments, and of the Lord's Supper in particular, that comprises "the clear teaching of the New Testament whole Bible on the topic.

Are there different prerequisites for coming to the Supper, for different sorts of participants? I don't know of anyone who argues for such things, except for paedocommunion advocates. 1Cor.11:27, in the context of a teaching passage on the conduct of the Supper, is a strong argument for an unwaiverable requirement for all participants at the time it is served.

Assume (purely for the sake of argument) that infants should be baptized. Is it then reasonable that the NT historical books should contain one or numerous instances of evangelistic proclamation, which relate repentance/faith and baptism? What would be unreasonable about that?

Work out the requisite premise(s), so that the actual argument purporting to show: infants shouldn't be baptized, follows from the record of evangelistic calls that include a summons to baptism.

If (for the sake of argument) infants should be baptized, still they are in no position to comprehend this call, or the summons, or bring themselves to conform to either. In which case, the prerequisites for a confessor's baptism and for an infant's baptism would have to differ. That is all that is needed to show that appeals to (several) evangelistic calls do not invalidate the PB argument.

This, by the way, does not mean that there are two (or more) baptisms, if the meaning of baptism has no difference in either case. But if a Baptist does not see how this can possibly be the case for those of the Presbyterian persuasion, then it is probably true to conclude (presuming his views are "standard") that Baptists and Presbyterians differ at least in part on their understanding of what baptism essentially is/does/means. This contrast also gets reflected in differences over ecclesiology.

To sum up, variation in the number of passages (which might contain imperatives, 1Cor.11:27 does not have one) to which one may appeal for support is not alone an indicator of the elative "strength" of an argument.

A simple test of some position (whether favorable or contrary) might be persuasive to someone already of a particular mind. But generally, those are some of the least compelling to those looking on from another angle.

Those whp would be able to partake of the Lord's Supper would be ones who have been saved, and whose lifestyle right now is not harboring unrepentant sinful practices.

 

[Dachaser]

I think of it after this wise. That it is not a new covenant ,for how can the covenant of grace that existed in the OT be altered for the NT? Rather it is a new administration of the same covenant of grace. As scaffolding and plastic screens shroud a building that is being refreshed and renewed, hides the building, but it is obviously by design and shape a building, -so it was, that the shadows and types that shrouded the covenant dimly indicated its existence. But when the scaffolding is taken down the building stands forth in its pristine glory. But it is the same building, the same structure, the same glorious ingenuity of the same great architect. The covenant emerges in the simplicity of the gospel. The newness is the stripping away of all the imageries, similutudes and types that were used for the church when it was in its minority, and the truth as it is in Jesus is set forth in all its glory and beauty.

Hebrews does lay to us though that we do a much better and much surer relationship with God now under the NC something that was not available to us until Messiah came, died, and was raised up again.