Calling all Westminsterians (and TFU brothers as well)

  • Thread starter Deleted member 12919 by request
  • Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Deleted member 12919 by request

Guest
1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?

2) How does the reformed view get this correct?

3) How is the Covenant of Grace not as Baptists believe it to be?
 
If infants were not baptised no doubt you would hear Jewish Christians despairing and Jews who want to stir up trouble bring that up in Acts.

And it would also be raised in Acts 15.

But the silence on that is deafening.

If infants were not baptised, as one theologian would say, Pentecost was a day of excommunication of the Jewish children - in principle. Surely, one Jewish believer would have raised that up and caused it to be an issue of the early church.

This is one of the strongest of many arguments.
A historical deafening silence.
 
1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?

2) How does the reformed view get this correct?

3) How is the Covenant of Grace not as Baptists believe it to be?
I don’t know about one fatal flaw. I would say baptists confuse the nature of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in a number of ways. They also see the OT covenants as “pointing” to the covenant of grace, not as dispensations of it.

I think one of the biggest points to consider is that God made a covenant with Abraham as a believer and to his children. It was not to Abraham as a Hebrew.
 
@Lowlander I am sure you would find many threads here in the past to help you think through things.
Definitely, but I can’t interact with those threads like I hope to with this one. But yes, thank you for the reminder brother.
 
If infants were not baptised no doubt you would hear Jewish Christians despairing and Jews who want to stir up trouble bring that up in Acts.

And it would also be raised in Acts 15.

But the silence on that is deafening.

If infants were not baptised, as one theologian would say, Pentecost was a day of excommunication of the Jewish children - in principle. Surely, one Jewish believer would have raised that up and caused it to be an issue of the early church.

This is one of the strongest of many arguments.
A historical deafening silence.
Normally you don't argue from historical silence, we weren't there we don't know what happened. But it is some pretty strong evidence. You would consider that some hoopla would have happened whenever it was started but it doesn't seem to be the case.
 
If infants were not baptised no doubt you would hear Jewish Christians despairing and Jews who want to stir up trouble bring that up in Acts.

And it would also be raised in Acts 15.

But the silence on that is deafening.

If infants were not baptised, as one theologian would say, Pentecost was a day of excommunication of the Jewish children - in principle. Surely, one Jewish believer would have raised that up and caused it to be an issue of the early church.

This is one of the strongest of many arguments.
A historical deafening silence.
Is this similar to the burden of proof being upon Baptists regarding how a millennia-old covenant structure (household inclusion) could be changed without mentioning the change?
 
I don’t know about one fatal flaw. I would say baptists confuse the nature of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants in a number of ways. They also see the OT covenants as “pointing” to the covenant of grace, not as dispensations of it.

I think one of the biggest points to consider is that God made a covenant with Abraham as a believer and to his children. It was not to Abraham as a Hebrew.
Could you expand on the Abrahamic/Mosaic confusion?
 
Is this similar to the burden of proof being upon Baptists regarding how a millennia-old covenant structure (household inclusion) could be changed without mentioning the change?
Yes. And the presupposition is that the book of Acts and the Epistles would be the perfect place to look for this debate since there were so many arguments including discussion on the scope of circumcision and covenant badges etc.

If I were a Jew wanting to convince Jews not to turn to Christianity, I would argue that their covenant is too radical, their children do not have the covenant sign and nothing outwardly distinguishes them from pagans. I would tell them they are forsaking Abraham and not circumcising their children is horrific (Gen 17), Moses was almost killed for it.
 
Item #1 seems (possibly) intended to summon from Presbyterian thread participants a parallel response to the thesis of Jeffery D. Johnson's book: The Fatal Flaw: the fatal flaw of the theology behind infant baptism (Fwd by Tom J. Nettles).

I have a copy of this book, however I cannot find it right this moment. Thus, I have to "borrow" (risking inaccuracy) second-hand a summary of the book's thesis, which I expand and paraphrase as follows:
The New Covenant, with its attendant sign of baptism, is unconditional, whereas the Sinai Covenant (but in practice the whole Old Testament form of religion) is conditional. Ergo, advocates of infant baptism ERR when they allege essential continuity between the form of religion--including internal as well as external aspects--both prior to and after Christ's incarnation. Continuity is vitiated by a fundamental difference in the kind of covenant basis for religious expression.​

As with most books on baptismal theology from any side of the debate, the offering has a primary audience closer to its own convictions than any from the contrary side, who it might seek to persuade. It is exceeding difficult to not assume what should and must be proved; and the more effort that has to be plowed into establishing by reasoned argument agreed upon postulates, the longer the book and the more involved the case-to-be-made gets.

Perhaps one way to respond to both that book's thesis and the OP request for a comparative "fatal flaw" in the Baptist covenantal perspective is: to challenge the book's thesis (as I have put it above) with a contrasting claim:
There is no difference in the essential (beneath the visuals) form of true religion, whether the time in view is prior to or after Christ's incarnation. There is but one covenant (of grace) across multiple administrations; the New Covenant is the continuation and (yea more) the fulfillment of an original covenant expression made with Abraham. Ergo, opponents of infant baptism ERR when they overlook or minimize the unity of the covenant of grace; while not distinguishing Abraham from Moses.​

I am not pretending to unpack the entire logic of the Presbyterian position contained in that claim, any more than I'm attempting to dismantle the book-length defense of the first thesis. Someday, perhaps, there is a book review (also not a dismantling) in the offing that could appear in the pages of The Confessional Presbyterian. Each thesis is predicated upon its own set of axioms and arguments that give it stability; and also make it largely impervious to anything other than an internal critique (i.e. challenging the consistency of its premises).

But I think the two theses seen in contrast can serve advocates of both sides, when they compare the claims made. They reveal something of the distinctive priorities belonging to each. It could lead to new combined rejoicing in what both sides actually agree on, even as they come to meet on shared ground from very different starting points.
 
I believe that among confessional baptists there are different positions and they may vary a lot... so it would be hard/unfair to mention just one fatal flaw for all of them... I believe though that the trendy view today is the 1689 federalism led by Barcellos, the Renihans et.al. These are some of the views I do not agree with:

1. "...How then do Old Testament believers take part in the covenant of grace, since the Old Testament’s covenants reveal but do not apply the covenant of grace?" to read more about it see this
2. Their way to define and see the biblical covenants seem to me is a bit odd...e.g: some say that the AC was a dichotomous covenant; they make a too strong contrast/difference between promise and covenant and so on... I do not see many of their definitions and nuances as biblical but as careful definitions to fit their covenantal model whose final purpose is to deny infant baptism.

Historically... if sneaky paedobaptists corrupted the apostolic practice of only (professing) believer's baptisms... we see no a single historical data of such a supposedly "distortion"/imposition/dispute. What we see is the opposite: the only-believers-baptism position reading of Scriptures was a novelty and practically unheard of for 1500 years.
 
And it would also be raised in Acts 15.

But the silence on that is deafening.
That's interesting. As I read the chapter (don't skip the first few verses), the silence is deafening in the other direction.

I guess one of us must be wearing some really good noise canceling headphones. :)
 
That's interesting. As I read the chapter (don't skip the first few verses), the silence is deafening in the other direction.

I guess one of us must be wearing some really good noise canceling headphones. :)
I don’t understand the insinuation. Anyway I didn’t post in this thread to engage in debate, but just to state my opinion. Have a good week ahead.
 
Are unbelieving children of believers in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace at the same time?
 
I don’t understand the insinuation. Anyway I didn’t post in this thread to engage in debate, but just to state my opinion. Have a good week ahead.
Just highlighting that arguing from silence is a poor argument (as was already pointed out).. I'm sure there's some fancy Latin phrase for that logical fallacy.

Also, the silence can actually be argued both ways. To that point, I have a humorous memory of a brother in my church who, after a sermon on Acts 15, walked into the room in which I was and loudly exclaimed "where's the water??" (he was, of course, not in support of infant baptism). I just like that memory and your post reminded me of it. Sorry for the vague insinuation!
 
Last edited:
Are unbelieving children of believers in the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace at the same time?
1) An unbeliever is "in Adam." A believer is "in Christ." The two do not mix. This is fundamental.

2) There are two ways of being in covenant: substantially and administratively. Ideally, each participant will possess both the substantive or internal relationship of the covenant, and the administrative or external (visible) relationship. The fact that some people show themselves to have only a superficial connection to Christ through his church is a reality of living in the world before the Second Coming.

3) Describe the "unbelieving child" you have in mind. Does anything short of a informationally detailed, rationally coherent, self-conscious embrace of a fully worked out soteriology qualify as unbelief? At the other end of the spectrum, is the standard for faith such belief content as may be found in a bare-bones gospel tract presentation? Does a quick "sinner's prayer" make a disciple or a Christian? Aren't some very young children sat weekly in a Sunday School class possibly the purest disciples anywhere to be found, absorbing biblical truth like sponges? Children are natural believers. The issue for religion is the truth content and value of what they are taught to believe. And as Christians we invoke the indispensable Spirit for efficacy.

4) Calvin astutely observed that all of us Christians are still partly unbelievers all our lives. We contend with our faithless flesh daily through the grace given us to believe. We repent constantly, and are renewed in faith through perseverance. True members of Christ's body don't oscillate between belonging to the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. When we are faithless, he remains faithful, 2Tim.2:13. Therefore, those whom he claims as his, on account of election, are forever counted as belonging to his covenant of grace. He knows them that are his, 2Tim.2:19. We, however, only know what we can see. Baptism is a visible sign telling us to regard such disciples as (so far as we know) his covenant people, who we pray will endure to the end and be saved.

I hope this is helpful.
 
Hello Elijah @Lowlander , you asked,

1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?
2) How does the reformed view get this correct?
3) How is the Covenant of Grace not as Baptists believe it to be?

For #1 I would say (as 1689 Federalists and some others believe), that the LORD made two covenants with Abraham, one a spiritual, and one a temporal / physical.

For #2 these two posts may help: #73 https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-theology-renihan.100676/page-3#post-1233969 [Taylor's post 32 is here]

#75 https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-theology-renihan.100676/page-3#post-1234315

In fact, the entire thread may be edifying to you: Critique of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (Renihan)

I think #3 is covered in the above. Please note, there is a divergence among Reformed Baptists, some holding a more traditional view of the Covenant of Grace in the OT, and others alleging various covenants.

 
Also, the silence can actually be argued both ways. To that point, I have a humorous memory of a brother in my church who, after a sermon on Acts 15, walked into the room in which I was and loudly exclaimed "where's the water??" (he was, of course, not in support of infant baptism). I just like that memory and your post reminded me of it. Sorry for the vague insinuation!

Do you see any strength in my 'from silence' argument? (Admitting yes does not mean admitting my view is right and your view is wrong). ... Any strength at all? Does the fact that the early church baptized children not give weight to what I think happened in Acts?

Let me grant that a Baptist has strength in his own 'from silence' argument when he says no recorded, clear child baptisms gives strength to his view.

Unless your presupposition is "Only recorded acts are permissible in the debate." Then of course, rightly and according to your presupposition, you would dismiss my view immediately.
 
Last edited:
Here’s how I navigate this issue, presented as a syllogism:

P1: I am always right.
P2: I am Presbyterian.
P3: Presbyterians are pædobaptist.
C: Pædobaptism is right.
 
1) An unbeliever is "in Adam." A believer is "in Christ." The two do not mix. This is fundamental.

2) There are two ways of being in covenant: substantially and administratively. Ideally, each participant will possess both the substantive or internal relationship of the covenant, and the administrative or external (visible) relationship. The fact that some people show themselves to have only a superficial connection to Christ through his church is a reality of living in the world before the Second Coming.

3) Describe the "unbelieving child" you have in mind. Does anything short of a informationally detailed, rationally coherent, self-conscious embrace of a fully worked out soteriology qualify as unbelief? At the other end of the spectrum, is the standard for faith such belief content as may be found in a bare-bones gospel tract presentation? Does a quick "sinner's prayer" make a disciple or a Christian? Aren't some very young children sat weekly in a Sunday School class possibly the purest disciples anywhere to be found, absorbing biblical truth like sponges? Children are natural believers. The issue for religion is the truth content and value of what they are taught to believe. And as Christians we invoke the indispensable Spirit for efficacy.

4) Calvin astutely observed that all of us Christians are still partly unbelievers all our lives. We contend with our faithless flesh daily through the grace given us to believe. We repent constantly, and are renewed in faith through perseverance. True members of Christ's body don't oscillate between belonging to the covenant of grace and the covenant of works. When we are faithless, he remains faithful, 2Tim.2:13. Therefore, those whom he claims as his, on account of election, are forever counted as belonging to his covenant of grace. He knows them that are his, 2Tim.2:19. We, however, only know what we can see. Baptism is a visible sign telling us to regard such disciples as (so far as we know) his covenant people, who we pray will endure to the end and be saved.

I hope this is helpful.
Thanks, brother. I’ll have to go through this when I have time.

For sake of the discussion, let’s say it is a month old, unregenerate (from God’s perspective) baby.

Technically, are they in the CoW substantially, and in the CoG administration?
 
Hello Elijah @Lowlander , you asked,

1) What do you see as the fatal flaw in Confessional Baptist covenant theology?
2) How does the reformed view get this correct?
3) How is the Covenant of Grace not as Baptists believe it to be?

For #1 I would say (as 1689 Federalists and some others believe), that the LORD made two covenants with Abraham, one a spiritual, and one a temporal / physical.

For #2 these two posts may help: #73 https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-theology-renihan.100676/page-3#post-1233969 [Taylor's post 32 is here]

#75 https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...l-theology-renihan.100676/page-3#post-1234315

In fact, the entire thread may be edifying to you: Critique of Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (Renihan)

I think #3 is covered in the above. Please note, there is a divergence among Reformed Baptists, some holding a more traditional view of the Covenant of Grace in the OT, and others alleging various covenants.

I’ll have to look later. Thank you.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top