How can there be conditional elements in the Covenant of Grace?

Status
Not open for further replies.

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Ken, I have not read Puritan interpretation of Jer 31 much. This interpretation is from Richard Pratt. The WS do not address the particular interpretation of Jer 31 in the area I raised. The several references to WS in the OPC version of the prooftexts mostly refer to the greater efficacy and simplicity of the new covenant and its ordinances. WCF 7.6, 19.7, 20.1, and SC 20 are the only places where the passage is cited. I don't know about how the 3FU cite it.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
What would you mean then by the term "over-realized eschatology?"

Standard Vosian (as in, Geerhardus Vos) eschatology understands the current age to have aspects of the heavenly final age (the "already") and aspects of the previous age (the "not yet"). Presbyterians argue that Baptists have too much of the "already" in their eschatology of covenant, in that Baptists argue that only believers are part of the covenant of grace in the New Testament.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Standard Vosian (as in, Geerhardus Vos) eschatology understands the current age to have aspects of the heavenly final age (the "already") and aspects of the previous age (the "not yet"). Presbyterians argue that Baptists have too much of the "already" in their eschatology of covenant, in that Baptists argue that only believers are part of the covenant of grace in the New Testament.
Would this be the same as the here, not yet here teaching had in school from GE Ladd then? And would only the saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit be members of the body of Christ in the new Covenant then? Or is the term Covenant of grace applied in a somewhat different fashion by Presbyterians?We tend to just use term New Covenant.
 

greenbaggins

Administrator
Staff member
Ladd was influenced a great deal by Vos, so I would say that there is definitely overlap. Presbyterians talk about the Covenant of Grace as having an inner substance (what Baptists usually mean when they say New Covenant), and an outward administration, which includes people not saved (Baptists usually deny this or downplay it). Only the saved have the inner substance of the new covenant. However, those who are members of the church but not saved belong to the administration (saved people belong to the administration as well). So the outward administration corresponds to the visible church, roughly speaking, and encompasses more people than the saved. Presbyterians believe that children belong to the administration by virtue of their birth into a covenant family. They can have the substance as well, though it is generally considered wisest to make no assumption one way or the other, but instead keep on sharing the gospel.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
Ladd was influenced a great deal by Vos, so I would say that there is definitely overlap. Presbyterians talk about the Covenant of Grace as having an inner substance (what Baptists usually mean when they say New Covenant), and an outward administration, which includes people not saved (Baptists usually deny this or downplay it). Only the saved have the inner substance of the new covenant. However, those who are members of the church but not saved belong to the administration (saved people belong to the administration as well). So the outward administration corresponds to the visible church, roughly speaking, and encompasses more people than the saved. Presbyterians believe that children belong to the administration by virtue of their birth into a covenant family. They can have the substance as well, though it is generally considered wisest to make no assumption one way or the other, but instead keep on sharing the gospel.
It sounds like that you are describing what we as Baptists call the Universal Church, the true Christians, and the Visible Church, as you have stated comprised of both lost and saved in local assemblies.
You would use infant baptism than as like a confirming sign that they are to be seen included in the church, and yet need to confirm that in truth by receiving Jesus as Lord at some later stage, correct?
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Ladd was influenced a great deal by Vos, so I would say that there is definitely overlap. Presbyterians talk about the Covenant of Grace as having an inner substance (what Baptists usually mean when they say New Covenant), and an outward administration, which includes people not saved (Baptists usually deny this or downplay it). Only the saved have the inner substance of the new covenant. However, those who are members of the church but not saved belong to the administration (saved people belong to the administration as well). So the outward administration corresponds to the visible church, roughly speaking, and encompasses more people than the saved. Presbyterians believe that children belong to the administration by virtue of their birth into a covenant family. They can have the substance as well, though it is generally considered wisest to make no assumption one way or the other, but instead keep on sharing the gospel.
An assumption is already made by the administering of the covenant sign.
 

Contra_Mundum

Pilgrim, Alien, Stranger
Staff member
An assumption is already made by the administering of the covenant sign.
This is not accurate; because we administer the sign based only on things we can see and know in earthly terms. Those are not assumptions; they are objective criteria. The relationship of those criteria to the secret things of God (Dt.28:28) is not something we know any better than a credo-Baptist knows them.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
By "voluntaryist" do you mean a "Free" church i.e. one that is not a state church? If so, that doesn't really have much to do with this other than the fact that it is not now a criminal offense to withhold baptism from one's children.

Something a little stronger than non-state church. Kuyper's argumentation was more along the lines that baptism only "works" if someone is regenerate.
 

Pilgrim

Puritanboard Commissioner
Something a little stronger than non-state church. Kuyper's argumentation was more along the lines that baptism only "works" if someone is regenerate.

That is interesting, and it is different that what I had been led to believe was Kuyper's position. But I'm not seeing the relevance when the question is about whether or not baptism should be applied to the non-professing children of believers.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
That is interesting, and it is different that what I had been led to believe was Kuyper's position. But I'm not seeing the relevance when the question is about whether or not baptism should be applied to the non-professing children of believers.

Simple: all regenerate people should be baptized.
Babies are presumed regenerate.
Therefore, babies should be baptized.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Simple: all regenerate people should be baptized.
Babies are presumed regenerate.
Therefore, babies should be baptized.

The doctrinal downgrade of the MAJORITY of the Reformed groups out there over the last century appears to challenge your 2nd premise.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top