Conditionality in the Davidic Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.
To the degree certain Baptist churches have maintained an old "revivalist" streak, and made the "altar call" a fixture of their services, you might be able to argue that those churches "continually called the attendees to faith and repentance," regardless of the typical sermon content. Did this help? That's the very point of contention, that assumes what must be proved.
This would not apply to Reformed Baptists who generally have been influenced by Martyn Lloyd-Jones critique of the alter call.
I preach the gospel every single week (by God's grace), and every week summon the whole congregation to confession of sin under the Law, and offer them pardon for sin through repentance and faith in Christ. I'm not unusual within our stable and confessional tradition.
Amen
Because covenant is larger/broader than the individual. When "active faith" (here, Vos seems to make room for the possibility of a "seed of faith"), which is the only discernible faith, takes in the reality of salvation--and his salvation--he views it in the covenant context. He takes in that ancient promise of God to his parents, and maybe his grandparents, and to a whole church replete with spiritual ancestors, and going all the way back to Abraham. "So, God has been interested in my salvation, ever since?"
So do you think this statement from the 1689 Baptist Confession [7:3] is not really consistent with Vos' comment on the Covenant of Redemption?
"This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect. Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence."
 
I have wondered if there is some difference between the 'Dutch' Reformed and the Presbyterians on this point. I worship with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand who have a warm relationship with the OPC. There are some elders in some churches who would be comfortable with a presumptive regeneration position

I think you would find differences in subscription to the different standards, not a difference in the standards themselves.

For instance, I think the WCF is fairly clear on how we are to consider the Lord's Day. At my church, at least 3 of the 4 elders (maybe all 4) hold to the Continental* view of the Lord's Day. They take an exception** to the WCF, to hold this. I do not think they can point to one standard that details a different view of it.

In the PCA, we have a wide range of how churches do things (band or no band; wine, grape, or halfsies [right @Grant Jones]; women "deaconesses": Psalm singing; catechical instruction; frequence of communion; women speaking during service; etc; etc). These differences are within the same standard and even the same BCO.

* Not that I am convinced there being a continental view, but for sake of brevity I am using the term.

** I understand in your example, they may not be taking an exception, but it seems like they are not following the standard. That is my focus.
 
I have wondered if there is some difference between the 'Dutch' Reformed and the Presbyterians on this point. I worship with the Reformed Churches of New Zealand who have a warm relationship with the OPC. There are some elders in some churches who would be comfortable with a presumptive regeneration position [I cannot be a member until I come a paedobaptist. Thus it is in my interest to become a paedobaptist but obviously a conviction has to arise from scrpture not convenience].

Dutch are not agreed on this point, but I think the majority would not be in favor of presumptive regeneration.

I have relected on Paedobaptist interpretations of this verse. Do you believe that they are holy in that they are set apart from the world, but if not actual Christians then still totally depraved.?

Absolutely.
 
This would not apply to Reformed Baptists who generally have been influenced by Martyn Lloyd-Jones critique of the alter call.
I understand, but as you presented FM's claim, it is a general one that "Baptist churches keep a higher proportion of Christians in the church over the decades." This assertion, minus marshaled evidence, he appears to credit to Baptists not "presuming" as much as Presbyterians--without addressing all the forms of Baptist-presumption out there.

If the churches he represents don't do altar calls or revivals, then how do they present the gospel, and how is it more and better than in Presbyterian churches? And if he be allowed to narrow his focus to those Baptist churches he considers more consistent, then why can't the other side do the same? It just sounds to me like Baptist-boilerplate: that somehow their procedure for recognizing members is logically superior, and obviously makes a better filter on the front end. [I'm not saying they aren't perfectly entitled to their own conviction]

So do you think this statement from the 1689 Baptist Confession [7:3] is not really consistent with Vos' comment on the Covenant of Redemption?
This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect. Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence.​
I'm very tempted to deny my competence outright to answer this question. Here's what I'll offer: Vos most likely distinguishes between substance and administration, which is not (as I mean to fairly describe) part of the Baptist regard for the New Covenant or Covenant of Grace (proper). Baptists I've interacted with tend to equate the Spirit's exclusive administration of the New Covenant as one of the major differences between this and all previous administrations.

WCL 31 asks, "With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."​

That's what Presbyterians confess. So, the covenant of grace is substantively confined to the elect, it always has been. Vos is writing, I'm confident, in complete agreement with this view. "All the elect" constitute a cross-temporal assembly, and not merely the act of individual selection. Cause-and-effect relationships are not excluded from the covenant idea. It is not 144,000 individual Covenants of Grace, with God on one side and a human on the other and Christ in between. It is one Covenant, and the saved individual awakens by faith entering onto one space in a grand design.
 
If the churches he represents don't do altar calls or revivals, then how do they present the gospel, and how is it more and better than in Presbyterian churches? And if he be allowed to narrow his focus to those Baptist churches he considers more consistent, then why can't the other side do the same? It just sounds to me like Baptist-boilerplate: that somehow their procedure for recognizing members is logically superior, and obviously makes a better filter on the front end. [I'm not saying they aren't perfectly entitled to their own conviction]
I think the Baptist argument is that they make a deliberate attempt to baptise confessng believers and not infants (who have not made a profession of faith) does lead the more likelihood of a pure church. I think this was what Rev F Malone was arguing. I do know that some Reformed Baptists preach theological sermons with little gospel preaching (Presbyterian pastor Rev Iain Murray made a criticism of this at a Banner of Truth conference some months ago). The point is where the gospel is clearly proclaimed and where sinners are urged to repent of their sins, maybe this original Baptist argument falters.

I'm very tempted to deny my competence outright to answer this question.
I am very sorry if my question was confusing. I am sincerely trying to nut this issue out. And with the rapid growth of Reformed Baptist literature over the past decade, to think through all the issues is a challange.
WCL 31 asks, "With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed."
That's what Presbyterians confess. So, the covenant of grace is substantively confined to the elect, it always has been. Vos is writing, I'm confident, in complete agreement with this view. "All the elect" constitute a cross-temporal assembly, and not merely the act of individual selection.
I love the WLC myself. A Reformed Baptist friend has made the argument that if Presbyterians took the WLC 31 consistently, they would hold a Baptist position. Indeed WLC 30-36 is all quite consistent with the 1689 Confession 7:2 and 7:3.

I guess I am still trying to this through how this relates to infant inclusion in the covenant. Working on it :)
 
OK, brother,
I'm not going to keep going 'round this tree. I think we're clear that no matter what Confession or Standards, pastors must ever lead gospel-centered worship, and ever preach gospel-infused messages. Or there won't be much of a church, worthy of the designation, having any degree of purity.

I love the WLC myself. A Reformed Baptist friend has made the argument that if Presbyterians took the WLC 31 consistently, they would hold a Baptist position.
:rolleyes:
Right. It's a Presbyterian statement, and ipso facto to hold it consistently is to be Presbyterian at that point. Those who composed the doctrinal standards well knew the theology they were synthesizing.

So, it's more likely that the friend has not the slightest idea how the statement could be written any different, so as to be "more consistent" with the Presbyterian position. If he honestly grasped what the other side believed and confessed, he would not speak in such an obtuse manner.

On the other hand, I suppose myself thankful that he, that you have affection for this catechism, you find it resonates with your theological understanding, expressing truth in language you can appreciate, even if you don't quite get how the same thoughts mesh in the mind of people thinking a bit differently from your own mode.

Peace.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top