How concerned should we be?


  • Total voters
    46
Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought it was Paedobaptism leads to FV, not paedocommunion? I am a former Reformed Baptist and I am not FV. Nor do I hold to paedocommunion. Most of the paedocommunion guys I know were former Presbyterian who went FV.

FV reject the inner/outer distinction of the Covenant. Baptists are somewhat similar since everyone who is elect is in the New Covenant simpliciter.
 
Give the supper to everyone who is Baptized.

That's too simplistic and a non sequitur, as witnessed by the fact that the vast, vast majority of baptists are not PC (are there any?), while virtually all PC are peadobaptists, regardless of any former affiliations. To even begin to establish your claim it would have to be statistically substantiated that "most" PC are in fact former baptists. Then it would further need to be established that your proposed rationale was indeed the basis for those particular PB's reasoning on the matter. You can actually read a PC argue there is a logical connection between PC and PB here (starting with question 2).
 
Give the supper to everyone who is Baptized.

That is most certainly not a Baptist position.

The "Standard Baptist Position" on the Lord's Supper and who should get it is pretty much the same as the non-FV Presbyterian position:

1. Baptized person who is
2. capable of self-examination.

If that is NOT the non-FV Presbyterian view of who should take the Supper, please correct me.
 
That's too simplistic and a non sequitur, as witnessed by the fact that the vast, vast majority of baptists are not PC (are there any?), while virtually all PC are peadobaptists, regardless of any former affiliations. To even begin to establish your claim it would have to be statistically substantiated that "most" PC are in fact former baptists. Then it would further need to be established that your proposed rationale was indeed the basis for those particular PB's reasoning on the matter. You can actually read a PC argue there is a logical connection between PC and PB here (starting with question 2).
Did you understand his response to you? Both Baptists and PC advocates say something very similar, at least on the surface: Give the Supper to all the baptized. Referencing a PC advocate arguing that there's logic to his position (as flowing from PB) is merely confirmatory.

There is not one single historic Reformed or Presbyterian Confession that advocates PC. Ipso facto, there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists. There's no stampede of PBs to "get consistent" (because it isn't, actually). The position (and hermeneutic) of the PC community is the Baptist position "flipped."

On the basis of that (shared) hermeneutic, FV appears to some Baptist as the proper and logical endgame of such "flipping."
 
That is most certainly not a Baptist position.

The "Standard Baptist Position" on the Lord's Supper and who should get it is pretty much the same as the non-FV Presbyterian position:

1. Baptized person who is
2. capable of self-examination.

If that is NOT the non-FV Presbyterian view of who should take the Supper, please correct me.
We allow those who have been saved and walking in the light with the Lord, having confessed their sins, to partake of the ordinance with us. Believers Baptism required for membership, but not to partake at the Lords Supper.
 
Sort of, but the difference between the FV definition of Baptismal Regeneration and the Reformed Baptist definition of Baptismal Regeneration is like the difference between creamy peanut butter and sour cream.
there is no Baptist view on BR, as we would all deny it as being in the scriptures.
 
Did you understand his response to you? Both Baptists and PC advocates say something very similar, at least on the surface: Give the Supper to all the baptized. Referencing a PC advocate arguing that there's logic to his position (as flowing from PB) is merely confirmatory.

Perhaps I didn't. I took the interaction to be as follows:

1 The original assertion was "most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal."
2. I asked for elaboration, assuming a response would pertain to both aspects of the assertion, which in my reading seem to be connected - 1) those who hold the position (mostly former baptists) and 2) why they hold the position (per the response, because they follow the paradigm of "giv[ing] the supper to everyone who is Baptized.")
3. Hence my response.

I'm certainly open to being shown any possible disconnects in my understanding here.
 
Perhaps I didn't. I took the interaction to be as follows:

1 The original assertion was "most paedocommunists, with a few exceptions, were all former Baptists. They share same presuppositions on sign/seal."
2. I asked for elaboration, assuming a response would pertain to both aspects of the assertion, which in my reading seem to be connected - 1) those who hold the position (mostly former baptists) and 2) why they hold the position (per the response, because they follow the paradigm of "giv[ing] the supper to everyone who is Baptized.")
3. Hence my response.

I'm certainly open to being shown any possible disconnects in my understanding here.

I added the following above, while you were responding

There is not one single historic Reformed or Presbyterian Confession that advocates PC. Ipso facto, there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists. There's no stampede of PBs to "get consistent" (because it isn't, actually). The position (and hermeneutic) of the PC community is the Baptist position "flipped."

On the basis of that (shared) hermeneutic, FV appears to some Baptist as the proper and logical endgame of such "flipping."
So, if White or Piper or another Baptist person argues that FV (with PC) looks to them like the way PB is destined to go, there's a simple explanation for why it appears that way to them.
 
Ipso facto, there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists.

I just don't see this as an ipso facto result. Your logic provides a plausible theory, and perhaps its accurate, but I guess I would need to see some substantiation of the quantitative part of the assertion. Do we really know that there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists? That's the part that's throwing me. It's a central aspect of the original assertion, but as of now it's entirely unsubstantiated.
 
there is no Baptist view on BR

This is simply not true. You think Baptists are totally lacking in any kind of definition for what Baptismal Regeneration is and what it looks like???

Just because Baptists don't hold to the doctrine doesn't mean we don't have a definition for it.

And, as an aside, you are totally not helping even one bit.
 
This is simply not true. You think Baptists are totally lacking in any kind of definition for what Baptismal Regeneration is and what it looks like???

Just because Baptists don't hold to the doctrine doesn't mean we don't have a definition for it.

And, as an aside, you are totally not helping even one bit.
I agree that we have a definition of it, but you seemed to imply that we hold somehow to it. Sorry if I misunderstood you.
 
They all have a common interest of engaging the culture. I don't think anyone is changing anyones theology. If you listen to Cross Politic routinely and you will likely never even hear them talking about FV.
 
I just don't see this as an ipso facto result. Your logic provides a plausible theory, and perhaps its accurate, but I guess I would need to see some substantiation of the quantitative part of the assertion. Do we really know that there aren't too many PC which are not former Baptists? That's the part that's throwing me. It's a central aspect of the original assertion, but as of now it's entirely unsubstantiated.
If PC was actually persuasive to men with a clear and firm grasp of the historic Reformed-covenantal hermeneutic, we would have long since seen serious church splits and reconfigured Standards. Where are those examples?

PC is contra-confessional, so it necessarily involves a break from churches of historic confession in order to teach this view freely. Where is the evidence it is being taught openly or covertly in them, leading to siphoned members?

Are PC advocating bodies being led by former ministers of, and its members coming from, conservative P&R churches? What percentage of those who do come from there started off their theological journey there? I imagine there are some, inevitably; but a host?

Anecdotally, my experience is that those most drawn to PC are those with the shallowest roots in the P&R tradition. No, it isn't a uniform record; but the exceptions are noteworthy for being such. As to the logic of my theory, you may brush it off as mere rationalism. However, searching for rationales is essential to the quest for understanding.

There really ought to be some credence given to the lack of any PC traction in or nearby P&R churches for +400yrs. Baptists, by contrast, got traction; and there are separations and confessions that prove it. There's also identifiable hermeneutical markers that go along with Baptist distinctives.

White et al. theorize that FV (with PC as a hallmark) is simply PB logic pushed to extremes. Why do they think this way? Why don't their reasons resonate in the P&R world, if it is simply a matter of unpacking CT convictions all the way? If PC/FV was the telos of PB, we should find the historic trace of centuries of churches ending up there--why is it missing?

I suggest it makes sense from White's standpoint because it actually is his own hermeneutic flipped around. And if so (hypothesis proposed) then when the quantitative data does come in, it should show evidence that the defense of PC has the same deep architecture as White has, but reverse engineered. I.e., former Baptists validating White's thesis and embracing PC.
 
As to the logic of my theory, you may brush it off as mere rationalism.

How does this even accord with my saying your logic has theoretical plausibility and might even be correct? Seems a bit testy.

As I've been pointing out, the leading premise of the assertion in question remains factually unproven. That being the case, what reliable conclusions can possibly follow?

Having said all this, if the term Baptists hadn't been used in Jacob's original remark, I may have supposed he meant most PC are de facto baptists in their thinking, as opposed to a literal former affiliation... While I would still disagree with such an assessment, as an abstract opinion it would at least be more defensible than making a factually dubious claim.
 
How does this even accord with my saying your logic has theoretical plausibility and might even be correct? Seems a bit testy.
I didn't mean by my language to come across as peeved. Your language seemed dismissive, largely on the basis of a lack of counted noses, doubled checked for accuracy. Empiricism vs Rationalism. Let's agree that it would be ideal to bring together reason and test data. I'll repent if you will.

Jacob has lived experience at AAPC. I have my own anecdotal engagements. So, you do have the witness of two men, that of those acquaintances we've known who have tested the PC stance or gone all in, to the degree we've known their backgrounds/trajectories most such people had not spent very long settled in confessional P&R convictions (re. sacramentology).

I know that in my case, I have been driven by the effort to make sense (to my mind) of the attractiveness some have found in PC. The sheer absence of PC plausibility on a full set of Reformed grounds led me to the hypothesis that only partially Reformed grounds form the basis of typical PC defense.

The Reformed sacramental paradigm views the first sacrament as initiation, the second as confirmation; maintaining clear distinction of those two ideas. The Baptist paradigm views both sacraments (or ordinances) as confirmation: baptism as a personal faith affirmation, just as much as it may initiate the baptized into formal membership followed by future confirmations by the LS.

The PC paradigm views both rites as administered to/for initiates, baptismal water automatically qualifying even a small child for the table (as soon as he is capable of solid food). The self-exercise of confirmatory faith and the duty of personal examination is deferred, and responsibility is referred to the child's guardian until such time as the guardian relinquishes it.

White's and similar critiques see the latter as wrong (quite!), but consistent. Why? Why would a Baptist (but not a P&R) see consistency here? If your hermeneutic already reads the sacs/ords as indivisible, then those who adopt PB and persist in the a priori that the sacs/ords are indivisible could reasonably come to the conclusion that consistency presumes the validity of PC.
 
I'll repent if you will.

Well, I can't say I'm a big fan of conditional repentance, but alright... ;)

Jacob has lived experience at AAPC. I have my own anecdotal engagements. So, you do have the witness of two men, that of those acquaintances we've known who have tested the PC stance or gone all in, to the degree we've known their backgrounds/trajectories most such people had not spent very long settled in confessional P&R convictions (re. sacramentology).

Sure. In my own admittedly limited experience with PC (3), to my knowledge none of them were former Baptist's.

The Baptist paradigm views both sacraments (or ordinances) as confirmation: baptism as a personal faith affirmation, just as much as it may initiate the baptized into formal membership followed by future confirmations by the LS.

Typically yes. Yet as I've infamously stated here before, I personally view baptism as both an initiation/confirmation and an ordained means of grace to efficaciously strengthen the true believers' faith. With respect to taking the Lord's Supper, I think Sean's point that ultimately the qualification to participate among CB and P/R-PB is substantially the same, is important. But again, I also see the Lord's Supper as being more than just a memorial. I've always been open to being shown how my understanding on these things is unscriptural.

If your hermeneutic already reads the sacs/ords as indivisible, then those who adopt PB and persist in the a priori that the sacs/ords are indivisible could reasonably come to the conclusion that consistency presumes the validity of PC.

Sacs/ords... hmmm, I think you may have coined a new term... has quite a ring to it. With your permission I may adopt it to express my equally odd position! Seriously, again, I can see your point. But just out of curiosity, any thoughts on this statement by John Murray (which I've seen PC latch on to for support)?

It is objected that paedobaptists are strangely inconsistent in dispensing baptism to infants and yet refusing to admit them to the Lord’s table … At the outset it should be admitted that if paedobaptists are inconsistent in this discrimination, then the relinquishment of infant baptism is not the only way of resolving the inconsistency. It could be resolved by going in the other direction, namely, that of admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper. And when all factors entering into this dispute are taken into account, particularly the principle involved in infant baptism, then far less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism. This will serve to point up the significance of infant baptism in the divine economy of grace. (Christian Baptism, P&R, 1980, pp. 73-74)​
 
It is objected that paedobaptists are strangely inconsistent in dispensing baptism to infants and yet refusing to admit them to the Lord’s table … At the outset it should be admitted that if paedobaptists are inconsistent in this discrimination, then the relinquishment of infant baptism is not the only way of resolving the inconsistency. It could be resolved by going in the other direction, namely, that of admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper. And when all factors entering into this dispute are taken into account, particularly the principle involved in infant baptism, then far less would be at stake in admitting infants to the Lord’s Supper than would be at stake in abandoning infant baptism. This will serve to point up the significance of infant baptism in the divine economy of grace. (Christian Baptism, P&R, 1980, pp. 73-74)
Well,
It is an odd statement in which to find genuine support; it is self-evidently no intentional comfort to the PC position, to have a well-regarded theologian say of it: "The best that may be said for it is how it isn't as bad as giving up the positive Scriptural injunction respecting infant baptism."

Whether, in fact, it would involve less compromise or fewer compromised factors or principles to allow PC, than to abandon PB, is a matter of debate; certainly it is no settled opinion. For my part, I find PC (in its ordinary expression today) involves more than a dozen explicit exceptions to the Westminster Standards (HT, LaneK). How many would be required to accommodate an anti-PB position by comparison, I have no idea, but 12+ is no modest divergence.

Murray wrote his Baptism treatise in 1952, before the PC issue arose as a matter of discipline over doctrine and practice in the OPC; that took place about 35yrs later. So, it is too strange to ask Prof. Murray to express himself (when defending PB) with the same precision he might have done in a sideways reference to PC if it were a matter of equal weight in 1952 as it came to be in the 1980s.

That said, I believe Murray's point was to lay the greatest possible emphasis on the importance of PB in the economy of the Covenant of Grace, since in the P&R understanding it (like circumcision before it) is the first sign of the covenant; it marks the door of admission to the church. His point would be a certain priority to baptism, and thus to abandon PB as it is no mere adjunct to the rite would be worse (after such consideration) than mistaken admittance of as-yet-unqualified persons yet members to the Table within the church.

Murray's statement examined yields none of its hypothetical-laden ground to PC advocates, who are left with no concession in it that either PB is false, or that PC is true.
 
In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.
 
In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.
Covenant overload.
Baptized? You are really united to Christ. Who cares if you believe! Well...if you don't after awhile (with works) then you lose your salvation.. Also NT Wright and the NPP is the best thing ever! Duh!
 
In a shortish sentence, what is the Federal Vision and which church(es) believes in FV? I've seen this subject on PB for many years.
Duh in my other post is facetious referring to the Wright bit, not you or your ignorance of the FV beliefs. I used it for rhetorical effect.
 
I am concerned, not because I think Apologia is necessarily embracing neonomian FV, but because they are looking to neonomian FV to understand the kingdom of God and its relation to culture... which necessarily has ramifications, intended or not, manifested yet, or not.

Apologia (as Baptists) partnering with FV Paedobaptists on topics that have nothing to do with Covenant Theology issues

I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.

In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.

It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).

I'll leave it at that for now.
 
I am concerned, not because I think Apologia is necessarily embracing neonomian FV, but because they are looking to neonomian FV to understand the kingdom of God and its relation to culture... which necessarily has ramifications, intended or not, manifested yet, or not.



I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.

In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.

It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).

I'll leave it at that for now.

That is a frightening view.
 
I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.

In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.

It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).
Joe Boot founded and heads the Ezra Institute in Grimsby, Ontario. Andrew Sandlin is involved with that group as a faculty member of the Evan Runner International Academy for Cultural Leadership.

Boot is known for his stances. I admit don't know a great deal about the man, but I've known people who've attended the church he pastors (and I visited once myself, though he was not preaching that week). The reputation is that of a man who stands for Christian principles. You used the word "reactionary". That would seem to fit what I know of him.
 
I am concerned, not because I think Apologia is necessarily embracing neonomian FV, but because they are looking to neonomian FV to understand the kingdom of God and its relation to culture... which necessarily has ramifications, intended or not, manifested yet, or not.



I have not been able to listen to the recordings yet (are they available?), but the topic is relevant. From my listening of their material, Apologia's view of culture and the kingdom of God is founded upon a rejection of the Covenant of Works (monocovenantalism). Durbin often points to Wilson and Joe Boot, for example, to explain the kingdom of God. Both Wilson and Boot explicitly reject any "works" aspect of the Adamic Covenant of Works.

In this debate, Boot argues that there was no eternal reward offered to Adam upon condition of his obedience to the law. He says all Adam was doing was living a life of faithful obedience to the gospel. Adam, before the fall, was in a covenant of grace with God and this same covenant continued after the fall, with the same mandate to develop creation in faithful obedience to God. That's a big problem. That's central to FV. And Boot is a baptist.

It is my opinion that Durbin is following this idea unwittingly. I don't think he's considered the monocovenantalism debate at all or realizes how it is related. I haven't studied enough of Boot yet, but I suspect he is also learning from FV men to develop his ideas on this and he does seem rather reactionary in his theology (developing it in contrast to what he opposes - 2K).

I'll leave it at that for now.
So they see the NC installed in Eden?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top