Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I'm assuming you mean reformed baptists who hold to a federalism in line w/ the 1689 confession.And other texts that speak of God's covenant promises extending to the seed of believers (cf. Deut.7:9; 30:6; Ps.25:13, etc etc)? Thanks in advance.
As a Baptist, i have always been taught that the first Promise was concerning the Covenant of Grace, while the second one listed there was part of the OT covenant made between God and national Israel.And other texts that speak of God's covenant promises extending to the seed of believers (cf. Deut.7:9; 30:6; Ps.25:13, etc etc)? Thanks in advance.
Is there any difference though between how any Christian sees that first promise made listed, for is that not the promise of the New Covenant to come when the Messiah is born?I'm assuming you mean reformed baptists who hold to a federalism in line w/ the 1689 confession.
Now the OP question is quite broad. Are you meaning it to be broad or are you specifically honing in on the "offspring" aspect of this as made use by the paedobaptists? That will help to answer your question more correctly.
Yes, which is where the paedo- vs. credo- debate comes in.Is there any difference though between how any Christian sees that first promise made listed, for is that not the promise of the New Covenant to come when the Messiah is born?
Could you elaborate a bit more on that?Yes, which is where the paedo- vs. credo- debate comes in.
We would tend to see it mainly as Gill did, as the Promise of God coming now towards all who have been saved and now in the Body of Christ.Gill says on Psalm 25:13 that "his seed" refers to: "that is, those who tread in the same steps, and fear the Lord as he does. . .", taking it not as literally the children of believers but in a kind of spiritual-children sense. I assumed this might be a main line of thought for Baptists that also applied to more foundational texts like Genesis 17:7-8, but I didn't know. As a Presbyterian I see Ps.25:13 as relating intimately to the doctrine of the covenant, that the promises of the covenant of grace extend not only to the individual, but also to their offspring. I did look up Gill on Genesis 17:7-8 and he seemed to be saying there are actually two covenants with two different kinds of promises in those two verses. Seems to me it's pretty clear it's a single covenant with Abraham and his offspring receiving the same promises. But as a Presbyterian, this is where we also build our doctrine of the covenant, including our physical seed in the covenant promises, and therefore administer the covenant sign (now of baptism). But I don't think I've really heard in much detail exactly how Baptists would interpret Gen.17:7-8 (and the texts that echo the same truths) and wondering what the main schools of thought are for them.
Yes, which is where the paedo- vs. credo- debate comes in.
And that would be why. among us Baptists, that there was no water baptizing of infants, as the sign of the new Covenant was not the water, but the sealing of and by the Holy Spirit of those now among the Community of faith. This is NOT intended to be an insult to my brethren here who hold the different view on water baptism, just addressing the OP as to how we view those passages.If this is the specific nature of the OP, then consider the Orthodox Catechism, by Baptist Hercule Collins says...
"We must know the Covenant made with Abraham had two parts: first, a spiritual, which consisted in God's promising to be a God to (e) Abraham, and (f) all his Spiritual-Seed in a peculiar manner, whether they were circumcised or uncircumcised, which believed as Abraham the Father of the Faithful did. And this was signified in God's accepting such as his People which were not of (g) Abraham's Seed, but brought with his Mony, and this Promise was sealed to Abraham by Circumcision, that through Jesus Christ (whom Isaac typified out) the Gentiles, the Uncircumcision which believed, should have their Faith counted for Righteousness, as Abraham's was before he was circumcised.
(e) Gen.17. 19,21. Gen. 21.10. Gal. 4.30. (f) Acts 2.39. Rom. 9.7,8 & c. (g) Gal. 3.16, 28, 29. (h) Rom. 4.9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14.
This Promise consisted of temporal good: so God promised Abraham's Seed should enjoy the (i) Land of Canaan, and have plenty of outward blessings, so sealed this Promise by Circumcision. It was also a distinguishing character of the Jews being God's People from all the Nations of the Gentiles, which as yet were not the Seed of Abraham: but when the Gentiles came to believe, and by Faith became the People of God as well as the Jews, then (j) Circumcision, that distinguishing Mark, ceased; and the character of being the Children of God now is Faith in Christ, and Circumcision of the Heart."
(i) Gen. 15.18. Gen. 17.8, 9, 10, 11. Gen. 12.6, 7. Gen. 13.15, 16, 17. Gen. 15.16. (j) John 1.12. Rom. 2.28, 29. Phil. 3.3. Gal. 3.26, 27, 28
Could you elaborate a bit more on that?
If you have a copy of The Heidelberg Catechism : A Study Guide, by G.I, Williamson the explanation for Lord's day 27, questions 72-74, gives a wonderful exegesis of God's command (Genesis 17) to perform the symbol of the covenant on children of believers. In that day it was circumcision, in our day it is Baptism.
So the OP was geared more toward the issue of baptism (as I suspected). I'll try to comment more later when I have a chance. Long story short, Gal. 4 speaks of 2 covenants related to Abraham (See the catechism quoted above in a recent post by H. Collins). Also, 1689 federalism would not put the Abraham covenant as the covenant of grace but only that it reveals the covenant of grace (which is the new covenant). Therefore, the matter of "seed" here doesn't transfer since we (1689 federalists) reject the 1 covenant 2 administration model. More on this later.Gill says on Psalm 25:13 that "his seed" refers to: "that is, those who tread in the same steps, and fear the Lord as he does. . .", taking it not as literally the children of believers but in a kind of spiritual-children sense. I assumed this might be a main line of thought for Baptists that also applied to more foundational texts like Genesis 17:7-8, but I didn't know. As a Presbyterian I see Ps.25:13 as relating intimately to the doctrine of the covenant, that the promises of the covenant of grace extend not only to the individual, but also to their offspring. I did look up Gill on Genesis 17:7-8 and he seemed to be saying there are actually two covenants with two different kinds of promises in those two verses. Seems to me it's pretty clear it's a single covenant with Abraham and his offspring receiving the same promises. But as a Presbyterian, this is where we also build our doctrine of the covenant, including our physical seed in the covenant promises, and therefore administer the covenant sign (now of baptism). But I don't think I've really heard in much detail exactly how Baptists would interpret Gen.17:7-8 (and the texts that echo the same truths) and wondering what the main schools of thought are for them.
we (1689 federalists)
And other texts that speak of God's covenant promises extending to the seed of believers (cf. Deut.7:9; 30:6; Ps.25:13, etc etc)? Thanks in advance.
This seems to be a novel term that pops up around here from time to time. Does '1689 federalist' = 'LBC 1689 Subscriber'?
As I remarked earlier, this was what I was taught in spiritual infancy. The 1689 covenant view was still alive in the 1950s. I remember as a very young man being surprised on first running into dispensationalism, and then being even more surprised to find that some Calvinistic Baptists had adopted a modified Presbyterian view, accepting the Mosaic order as an administration of the covenant of grace. They took the view that after the Fall there has been only one covenant – that of grace – administered in different ways in the Old and New Testaments. In other words, they took the ‘one-covenant two-administration’ view.
The heyday of dispensationalism almost crowded out the old view, then in the 1950s a renewed enthusiasm for good systematic theology swept in, but being largely from a Presbyterian stable, it led many Baptists to adopt their one-covenant position. The authentic Baptist view was not rendered altogether extinct, however, and it is grand to see it enjoying a considerable revival, several excellent studies having emerged in the USA in recent years**. I used to visit the USA often years ago and it seemed to me that the historic Baptist view of covenants had died out there. It was a kind of side-hobby for me to chat to pastors about the authentic Baptist view of covenants, and I believe they viewed me as an eccentric, speaking of something unknown to mankind. But the revival of the historic view in recent years is immensely valuable, for few things are so scripturally logical, illuminating and practical.
"20th Century Reformed Baptist" covenant theology
For the sake of brevity, can you tell us some names of who these people are who lost their way from the original intent of the 1689?
I'm not sure that they name names, but as I understand it, they say that practically all RB leaders adopted this view largely for want of other resources besides Presbyterian ones. Peter Masters seems to indicate that all of the American RBs he talked to held to what he terms the "modified Presbyterian" view.
I've heard this before, but I have never met one or heard of anyone who actually teaches, that I know of, a modified Presbyterian view. Perhaps they refer to Calvinistic Dispensationalists like MacArthur? I don't see much latitude in the 1689 for other views.
Pilgrim0297 and Pergamum, really appreciate the honesty.
Can any of my Baptist friends recommend a trusted/accepted book that in particular truly interacts with these kinds of Scriptural promises to infants of believers in the covenant; texts like Genesis 17:7-8 (and the others)? Thanks.
Yes and no. There has been a recent resurgence of 17th century particular baptist federal theology. 20th century reformed baptist lost that and relied upon paedobaptist federalism minus the paedobaptism. This leads to problems in how we talk about covenant theology. 1689 federalism makes the distinction and upholds credobaptism via covenant theology.This seems to be a novel term that pops up around here from time to time. Does '1689 federalist' = 'LBC 1689 Subscriber'?
Reformed baptists would hold to the new Covenant as being shown back there at the time of Abraham , as to still be a future event, as we do see the church as being created at Pentecost, There is a single Covenant of Grace in the sense that all who have been saved are through and by the Grace of the Christ , but that the New Covenant of Grace was ushered in at time of the Cross/death and resurrection of Jesus, as the church came in at Pentecost.Yes, but it means something more specific with regard to historic Baptist covenant theology. The name probably comes from a website Brandon Adams (I think it was) set up. At least that's where I first came across it. This video explains how they differentiate themselves from what they term "20th Century Reformed Baptist" covenant theology.
It had been clear to me for years that at least some older Calvinistic Baptist writers did not espouse the one covenant, two administrations view that I had been told was the RB view 15 or so years ago while they were also not Dispensational or NCT. (Most of these older writings would not have been widely available in the mid-late 20th Century.) Coming across this recent article by Peter Masters is more evidence of the older view:
There does seem to be a real difference between saying then that there is but One Covenant of Grace throughout the scriptures, and to be saying that there is the New Covenant of Grace that began with the ministry of Jesus and the church at Pentecostal, as Baptists traditionally have ascribed it to being.So the OP was geared more toward the issue of baptism (as I suspected). I'll try to comment more later when I have a chance. Long story short, Gal. 4 speaks of 2 covenants related to Abraham (See the catechism quoted above in a recent post by H. Collins). Also, 1689 federalism would not put the Abraham covenant as the covenant of grace but only that it reveals the covenant of grace (which is the new covenant). Therefore, the matter of "seed" here doesn't transfer since we (1689 federalists) reject the 1 covenant 2 administration model. More on this later.
The promise land to Israel would thus be corresponding to the promised land of heaven to those now saved by messiah then?Regarding Gen 17:7, 1689 Federalism believes that promise was fulfilled in the Mosaic Covenant, which was made with Abraham's physical descendants, the nation of Israel. Note Deuteronomy 29:12-13 "so that you may enter into the sworn covenant of the Lord your God, which the Lord your God is making with you today, that he may establish you today as his people, and that he may be your God, as he promised you, and as he swore to your fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob." And we believe the Mosaic Covenant was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan and did not offer eternal life. Of course, we see this as all typological of the New Covenant.
For more extended quotations and references for further reading on Gen 17:7, see http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/genesis-177/