Cause and Effect Between Covenant Theology and Church Polity

[SeanPatrickCornell]

It is a parable of the kingdom spoken to the covenant people and explains in part the truth about the secret kept hid from the foundation of the world. The "world" itself is sown with seed, after which the devil sows his tares. If the world in general were the referent and the wicked in general were the tares then the wheat would be sown among tares, not the tares sown among wheat.

The "world" is what indicates this is the visible church, or the church as it appears in the world.

Thanks. I disagree, of course. But thanks.

 

[Alive in Christ]

This is really a good question. There are people here way more qualified to answer, but I will add that the hermeneutical approach of the truly reformed is distinct from the hermeneutical approach of many Baptists in that reformed covenant theology (as opposed to federal vision) doesn't exist in a vacuum but is totally consistent with all facets of one's theology. It's one of the reasons that I now believe in paedobaptism - it's otherwise impossible to be hermeneutically consistent in your covenantalism.

 

[Ben Zartman]

This is really a good question. There are people here way more qualified to answer, but I will add that the hermeneutical approach of the truly reformed is distinct from the hermeneutical approach of many Baptists in that reformed covenant theology (as opposed to federal vision) doesn't exist in a vacuum but is totally consistent with all facets of one's theology. It's one of the reasons that I now believe in paedobaptism - it's otherwise impossible to be hermeneutically consistent in your covenantalism.

This is completely wrong. Baptists have a Reformed covenant theology that is perfectly consistent with both Scripture and their hermeneutic. That some don't/won't/can't understand it doesn't mean it is not there.
Also, when you mention federal vision, that is a separate thing from 1689 Federalism. No baptist on this forum is, I think, an adherent of federal vision.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

This is really a good question. There are people here way more qualified to answer, but I will add that the hermeneutical approach of the truly reformed is distinct from the hermeneutical approach of many Baptists in that reformed covenant theology (as opposed to federal vision) doesn't exist in a vacuum but is totally consistent with all facets of one's theology. It's one of the reasons that I now believe in paedobaptism - it's otherwise impossible to be hermeneutically consistent in your covenantalism.

That's one way to get the Baptists to speak brother!

This is really a good question. There are people here way more qualified to answer, but I will add that the hermeneutical approach of the truly reformed is distinct from the hermeneutical approach of many Baptists in that reformed covenant theology (as opposed to federal vision) doesn't exist in a vacuum but is totally consistent with all facets of one's theology. It's one of the reasons that I now believe in paedobaptism - it's otherwise impossible to be hermeneutically consistent in your covenantalism.

Could you go further with this brother. Could you explain the hermeneutical inconsistencies you see in the Reformed Baptist line of scriptural understanding?

 

[Alive in Christ]

This is completely wrong. Baptists have a Reformed covenant theology that is perfectly consistent with both Scripture and their hermeneutic. That some don't/won't/can't understand it doesn't mean it is not there.
Also, when you mention federal vision, that is a separate thing from 1689 Federalism. No baptist on this forum is, I think, an adherent of federal vision

You are correct. I had that term on the brain as I had literally just left a comment on another thread where someone had brought up federal vision. I obviously meant federalism.

That said, even as someone with a limited knowledge on the subject, I cannot deny that true reformed covenant theology seems to better account for the entire revelation of God. And I go to a Baptist church. And just this past Tuesday I read an article by R. Scott Clark where he did a great job explaining the distinctions between historic reformed covenant theology and that of the particular/reformed Baptists.

 

[Alive in Christ]

That's one way to get the Baptists to speak brother!


Could you go further with this brother. Could you explain the hermeneutical inconsistencies you see in the Reformed Baptist line of scriptural understanding?

I don't want to derail the thread, but I quickly want to say that I do not think my fellow Baptists are at all inconsistent. I believe that the covenant theology of reformed Baptists isn't broad enough and applied consistently enough across the entire revelation of scripture. Obviously the biggest difference is baptism - many might think that Presbyterians baptize children because it is simply a holdover - a tradition that survived the reformation. I used to think that. But it not's true. The reason Presbyterians baptize children is because their covenant theology is far more broadly and consistently applied to every area of their theology. It's not limited to the new covenant to the extent that Baptist covenant theology seems to be. Though I do say to take my thoughts with a grain of salt, as I am not educated on these matters.

 

[Ben_Leevey]

I don't want to derail the thread, but I quickly want to say that I do not think my fellow Baptists are at all inconsistent. I believe that the covenant theology of reformed Baptists isn't broad enough and applied consistently enough across the entire revelation of scripture. Obviously the biggest difference is baptism - many might think that Presbyterians baptize children because it is simply a holdover - a tradition that survived the reformation. I used to think that. But it not's true. The reason Presbyterians baptize children is because their covenant theology is far more broadly and consistently applied to every area of their theology. It's not limited to the new covenant to the extent that Baptist covenant theology seems to be. Though I do say to take my thoughts with a grain of salt, as I am not educated on these matters.

Thank you brother!

 

[Ploutos]

It's not limited to the new covenant to the extent that Baptist covenant theology seems to be.

I don't think this is accurate. Presbyterian theology is tied to the New Covenant just as much as Baptist theology; we just disagree about the nature of the New Covenant and the extent and manner of its realization in the present day.

 

[Alive in Christ]

I don't think this is accurate. Presbyterian theology is tied to the New Covenant just as much as Baptist theology; we just disagree about the nature of the New Covenant and the extent and manner of its realization in the present day.

I am surprised that you would feel this way as a Presbyterian. I had a little argument with my Baptist brother the other day about this very thing. I pointed out that circumcision as a physical sign of the first covenant was extended to one's entire household - including manservants, and that this is mirrored in the New Testament by the conversion of Lydia and the Philippian jailer, as well as Paul's baptizing of the household of Stephanas. Yet my Baptist friend argued that any apparent link between circumcision and baptism is completely incidental on the basis that the old covenant has been superseded by the new. I will admit that I am still learning about these things, but nonetheless it strikes me as hermeneutically inconsistent.

 

[Ploutos]

I am surprised that you would feel this way as a Presbyterian. I had a little argument with my Baptist brother the other day about this very thing. I pointed out that circumcision as a physical sign of the first covenant was extended to one's entire household - including manservants, and that this is mirrored in the New Testament by the conversion of Lydia and the Philippian jailer, as well as Paul's baptizing of the household of Stephanas. Yet my Baptist friend argued that any apparent link between circumcision and baptism is completely incidental on the basis that the old covenant has been superseded by the new. I will admit that I am still learning about these things, but nonetheless it strikes me as hermeneutically inconsistent.

The difference is in the degree of continuity between Old and New.

 

[No Other Name]

on the basis that the old covenant has been superseded by the new.

Are you sure he confesses 1689? I would object to this language. It sounds like he outright rejects all continuity between the Old and New. The Covenant of Grace is one covenant originated in Gen. 3:15 (in human perspective - I do not reject Covenant of Redemption) and revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant. Are you sure you have looked as far as you can into any covenant theology before accusing one side of hermeneutical inconsistency?

 

[Alive in Christ]

Are you sure he confesses 1689? I would object to this language. It sounds like he outright rejects all continuity between the Old and New. The Covenant of Grace is one covenant originated in Gen. 3:15 (in human perspective - I do not reject Covenant of Redemption) and revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant. Are you sure you have looked as far as you can into any covenant theology before accusing one side of hermeneutical inconsistency?

If I accused anyone of hermeneutical inconsistency, I apologize. What seems inconsistent to me is of hardly any consequence - I am the farthest thing from an authority on such matters.

I wouldn't say he rejects all continuity between the old and the new, just that the covenant of grace is uniquely administered under the new covenant relative to the old in such a way as to negate any correlation between circumcision and baptism.

To be honest, I am in a little over my head here, and I never meant to derail this thread.