How many "Reformed" understandings of the covenant of grace are there?

Status
Not open for further replies.
In a reply to the Rev. Bruce Buchanan I have apologised for apparently thrusting the baptism issue to the fore. That wasn't my intention, I was just seeking to make clear which of the positions I was talking about.

Sorry if I gave the impression you were doing this; I was just speaking in general; I don't see it is in your posts.

I agree by the way that covenant theology is first and foremost soteriological. That is my interest too. I am working on PhD in which I am trying to bring N.T. Wright's covenantal context for justification and the various "Reformed" (in a broad sense of the term) covenant theologies, into conversation with the author of Luke-Acts. (i.e. test them against that portion of Scripture.)

That looks like it will be a very fruitful field of study. I hope it goes well for you.
 
With respect,

To say that the WCF is the only reformed position is overstating the case by presenting 17th and 16th reformed paedobaptist federal theology as a uniform entity. While the Westminster Confession represents consensus, there was development and diversity in thought and expression. I highly recommend: Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly Reformed Historical - Theological Studies: Amazon.co.uk: Andrew A. Woolsey: Books

I also recommend: Christ & the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto: Amazon.co.uk: Michael Brown: Books

Regarding Particular Baptist federal theology, as was mentioned Pascal's book is indispensible: The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: Amazon.co.uk: Pascal Denault, Mac & Elizabeth Wigfield: Books

His reading of the sources is not peculiar or idiosyncratic. He is bringing to light that which has been sadly neglected for far too long.

Regarding Keach's catechism, it is most likely to be connected to William Collins who was appointed by the 1693 General Assembly to draft it. Keach may have had a part in revising its later editions, and he may have been a co-owner of the rights to its publication, but it was commissioned to Collins. This makes sense not only because the documents show that Collins was tasked, but also because Collins is one of the two most likely editors of the confession itself (Nehemiah Coxe being the other). Keach could not have been the editor of the confession for a variety of reasons. (See Dr. James Renihan's True Confessions for an introduction to the catechism). For that reason, it is inaccurate to say that the catechism that bears Keach's name reproduces the federal theology of the WCF. Also, Keach's own writings show that he most certainly did deviate from the federal theology of WCF 7. Returning to the catechism, however, the only things posited by it regarding covenant theology are the covenant of works and covenant of grace as the covenants pertaining to damnation and salvation. It does not enter into how the Old Testament covenants relate to the covenant of grace (although it does interchange the covenant of grace and new covenant without comment, which was a very Particular Baptist thing to do). Furthermore, if we take Collins as the editor of the catechism (which claims to be in accord with the confession), and if we take Collins as a co-editor of the confession, then we need only note that LBCF 7 heavily edits WCF 7. The LBCF preface states that wherever possible they maintained the same words as the WCF. For that reason, the significant changes in chapter 7 are self-conscious, not an automatic adoption of WCF federal theology in the least.

This departure was not dispensational at all, and to make that claim is not only misguided, but is also unnecessary. The continuity of salvation via the covenant of grace in all of redemptive history is stated as clearly as possible (and all Reformed theologians see dividing epochs in redemptive history), what then is dispensational? The Particular Baptists did not construct their federal theology ex nihilo. They critiqued, refined, and reformed almost every reformed theologian you can think of from Calvin to Owen. They were conversant with the men of their time, and emerged out of the men of their time. Surely, they did not always agree amongst themselves, and I think they were wrong on a few points (so don't hear me putting them on a golden pedestal). My point is simply to prevent the metanarrative of 1. WCF is the only Reformed paradigm (even if you think RB's are not actually RB's), 2. The Baptist catechism belongs to Keach and default-adopts WCF federal theology, 3. LBCF is dispensational.

Pascal's work demonstrates the nature of the Particular Baptist self-conscious departure from WCF in detail. You will also find helpful thoughts from primary source Particular Baptists on federal theology here: Covenant Theology | Particular Voices

Neither side was uniform in its federal theology, before the WCF, during the composition of the WCF, and after the WCF. Was there unity and consensus in the confessional documents? Yes. Uniformity? No.

If the tone seems blunt, forgive the unpolished style. I'm trying to be straightforward, not dismissive.
 
I agree with Renihan the Younger. He has learned well from Renihan the Elder. LOL There was diversity but they all had a Federal Theology of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Like Ruben stated about Cocceius' view, which sounds similar to what I use to hold to as a Reformed Baptist, doesn't seem to be supported by the Reformed Confessions. I am not so sure it is supported by the LBCF either.

As a Reformed Baptist I wouldn't have used the word Ruben used in describing the Covenant of Works being abrogated but think I understand it. I would have made the distinction of which Covenant was imputed upon the Elect by Federal Head. I did see the Covenant of Works being administered along side the Covenant of Grace in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants as did John Tombe and Nehemiah Coxe. Obviously I don't hold to that position any longer.

Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions.
 
If the tone seems blunt, forgive the unpolished style. I'm trying to be straightforward, not dismissive.

Straightforward speaking is helpful.

Reformed covenant theology was formulated in opposition to Romanism and Radicalism, including the Radicalism of Anabaptism. The unity of the covenant of grace is the historically reformed position and comes to mature development in the Westminster formulary. Divergence from it is divergence from the historically reformed position. The fact that a different covenant theology may be traced historically through the same time periods does not entitle it to the name "Reformed."

When the unity of the covenant of grace is understood as the standard reformed position, any introduction of disunity will by definition be dispensational. One might play with words but the concepts are non-negotiable.

And the final authorship of "Keach's Catechism" will not alter its contents.
 
"The unity of the covenant of grace is the historically reformed position and comes to mature development in the Westminster formulary."

That is where I ended up after I started understanding the substance of the Administration of the Covenant of Grace.
 
When the unity of the covenant of grace is understood as the standard reformed position, any introduction of disunity will by definition be dispensational. One might play with words but the concepts are non-negotiable.

The debate is not over whether there are dispensations. Of course there are. Nor is the debate over the number of dispensations. You can make as many as you wish by introducing finer distinctions. Hence, properly speaking, “dispensationalism” is an inaccurate and confusing label for the distinctiveness of D-theologians. But some terminology is needed to talk about the distinctiveness of D-theologians. For the sake of clarity, their distinctive theology might perhaps be called “Darbyism” (after its first proponent), “dual destinationism” (after one of its principal tenets concerning the separate destinies of Israel and the church), or “addressee bifurcationism” (after the principle of hermeneutical separation between meaning for Israel and significance for the church). However, history has left us stuck with the term “dispensationalism” and “dispensationalist.” (Vern Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 12)

The 1689 Confession is not "Darbyism", "dual destinationism", nor "addressee bifurcationism".
 
Reformed covenant theology was formulated in opposition to Romanism and Radicalism, including the Radicalism of Anabaptism. The unity of the covenant of grace is the historically reformed position and comes to mature development in the Westminster formulary. Divergence from it is divergence from the historically reformed position. The fact that a different covenant theology may be traced historically through the same time periods does not entitle it to the name "Reformed."

When the unity of the covenant of grace is understood as the standard reformed position, any introduction of disunity will by definition be dispensational. One might play with words but the concepts are non-negotiable.

Are you implying that the Particular Baptists were Anabaptists? They did not come from anabaptists, nor were they anabaptists (as they repeatedly attempted to communicate to their paedobaptist brethren).

It is misleading to say that the Particular Baptists denied the unity of the covenant of grace. As the confession states, the covenant of grace is one pure entity from Genesis onward. It is never disrupted, circumvented, or eclipsed. The issue is that the Particular Baptists do not affirm the unity of the covenant of grace in substance with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. But that is not a uniquely Particular Baptist move (e.g. Petto and Owen on the Mosaic covenant). To say that the unity of the covenant of grace (i.e. its relation to the OT covenants) was or can only be articulated in one way (the way of the WCF), and all else is dispensational, is overstating the case.

The WCF could be matured in its covenant theology with regard to the covenant of redemption (while that doctrine can be said to be present in substance, it nevertheless represents an underdeveloped area of covenant theology in the WCF). The Westminster was not the last stop on the road of development in federal theology (don't hear me saying the 1689 was either).

One source worth consulting for the historical "baptist" position is Keach's Catechism. The system of Westminster is adopted, and the paedobaptist position is rejected without any reworking of covenant theology, but simply on the basis that it is not explicitly commanded. For myself, the nature of the church and of divine warrant are the primary issues relating to the subjects of baptism.
And the final authorship of "Keach's Catechism" will not alter its contents.

From the catechism, please substantiate the claim that the Baptist catechism, which claims to be in line with the confession, which in turn rejects WCF 7, adopted the system of Westminster "without any reworking of covenant theology." From the following data, that claim cannot be substantiated (when the catechism is understood in light of the confession).

Q. What special act of providence did God exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him upon condition of perfect obedience: forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death (Gal. 3:12; Gen. 2:17).

Q. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression (Gen. 2:16, 17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22).

Q. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life (Eph. 1:4, 5), did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer (Rom. 3:20-22; Gal. 3:21, 22).

I am pressing these issues because, as is being gradually noticed, there has been a great deal of misinformation and a great lack of primary source knowledge with regard to our confession in general and its federal theology in particular. These claims about the catechism, in such a public forum, will only further that misunderstanding. I also do not want the Anabaptist slur thrown at our heritage (if that was the connection you intended or implied). Nor do I want the dispensational label thrown at our confession. You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational). I do not feel obligated to free them from the net which you have constructed.
 
When I read the accusation of 'dispensationalism' it is very difficult to take the post seriously.
 
But when one necessarily separates the Mosaic Covenant as a Superadded covenant, that is a dispensational understanding. I as a Reformed Baptist understood that Brandon just as I understood that a Reformed Baptist wasn't Reformed. Don't be scared of the terms if you own them properly. Sure it is not Darbyism. But it is still a separation and a disunity that isn't there in the mature Reformed Thought. As Ruben noted earlier, even Coccieus' thought was not propagated in the Confessions. Sure the term dispensation is not a bad term. But when you divide the Covenant of Grace and make admixtures of other Covenants with it, it dilutes the truth of the Biblically Reformed position and the substance of the Covenants.
 
The issue is that the Particular Baptists do not affirm the unity of the covenant of grace in substance with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. But that is not a uniquely Particular Baptist move (e.g. Petto and Owen on the Mosaic covenant).

And it is hard to find their view propagated by their contemporaries and not rejected by many who would recognize their view to look more like the Lutheran view. The Mosaic is necessarily a dispensation that is superadded. Thus the reality of the term dispensational.
 
Are you willing to include Cameron, Bolton, Owen, and Petto in your dispensational category? You must see what an anachronism this is.
 
When I read the accusation of 'dispensationalism' it is very difficult to take the post seriously.

Jason, the terminology is not bad. Learning to use it properly is very important. I remember being called dispensationalist and hating it as a Baptist. I kept thinking they were calling me a follower of John Darby, Woolvard, Scoffield.....etc. But that wasn't what they were doing. Even the Westminster uses the word dispensation in the WCF chapter 7. One has to have a broader understanding sometimes to understand those with whom he is communicating with. I learned that in Communications class. That is about all I learned.
 
It is misleading to say that the Particular Baptists denied the unity of the covenant of grace. As the confession states, the covenant of grace is one pure entity from Genesis onward. It is never disrupted, circumvented, or eclipsed. The issue is that the Particular Baptists do not affirm the unity of the covenant of grace in substance with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. But that is not a uniquely Particular Baptist move (e.g. Petto and Owen on the Mosaic covenant). To say that the unity of the covenant of grace (i.e. its relation to the OT covenants) was or can only be articulated in one way (the way of the WCF), and all else is dispensational, is overstating the case.

Makes sense. It also makes one wonder if the position in the WCF is one of hyper unity, not acknowledging the differences as other Reformed infant baptists of the 17th century believed...
 
Are you willing to include Cameron, Bolton, Owen, and Petto in your dispensational category? You must see what an anachronism this is.
Oh absolutely. Their views were definitely minority and on the fringe so much the topic wasn't even discussed as I can find during the commission of the Divines at the assembly. Cameron being the Father if I remember correctly. I believe he was the proponent and developer for that position around 1600. They are few in number. That is why it is called a minority position.
 
When I read the accusation of 'dispensationalism' it is very difficult to take the post seriously.

Jason, the terminology is not bad. Learning to use it properly is very important. I remember being called dispensationalist and hating it as a Baptist. I kept thinking they were calling me a follower of John Darby, Woolvard, Scoffield.....etc. But that wasn't what they were doing. Even the Westminster uses the word dispensation in the WCF chapter 7. One has to have a broader understanding sometimes to understand those with whom he is communicating with. I learned that in Communications class. That is about all I learned.

Brother,

I do understand how Reformed theologians have used it in the past and I also understand how it is used today. I object to the play on theological terms. see post 39
 
It also makes one wonder if the position in the WCF is one of hyper unity,

That would be monocovenantalism Jason. There is Trichotomist and dichotomist included in this discussion when it comes to understanding the positions of Covenant Theologians as I understand it. To use the term hyper might be true when considering a Reformed position in comparison to a Baptist position but but it is truly incorrect to start throwing around such a term I believe. As noted, the term dispensation is not necessarily bad. It is a legit term. I don't think you could apply the adjective hyper here correctly when referring to the Reformed position.
 
The rhetoric is making this more complex than it needs to be. We have "covenants" and "dispensations." When a "dispensation" is reformulated to be a "covenant" we have dispensationalism. Now Westminster teaches one covenant of grace under the dispensations of law and gospel. Revised theories turn one or more of the Old Testament "dispensations" into distinct "covenants." That is dispensationalism from the Westminsterian and Reformed perspective.

A distinct covenant of redemption was not regarded as a development so far as Scottish reformed orthodoxy and the Marrow Controversy is concerned. But that is another topic.

And the "Baptist" catechism is in line with the covenant theology of the Westminster Catechism, however one understands the differences between the two confessions or the relationship of the "Baptist" catechism with the "Baptist" confession. The point here is that there is no need to reformulate covenant theology in order to arrive at the "Baptist" distinctive of the 17th century.
 
I object to the play on theological terms. see post 39

Are we speaking about the same thing here? Where is the term being played? I don't see it. In post 39, I see someone else is taking offense because some might be talking past each other. And that happens when someone who knows history much better than the other person does sometimes. Even when it is about his own confessional standards. Actually post 39 started to get garbled for me half way through when I started reading about the catechism. And I wasn't going to respond to it anyways.

From the catechism, please substantiate the claim that the Baptist catechism, which claims to be in line with the confession, which in turn rejects WCF 7, adopted the system of Westminster "without any reworking of covenant theology." From the following data, that claim cannot be substantiated (when the catechism is understood in light of the confession).

Q. What special act of providence did God exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created?
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him upon condition of perfect obedience: forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death (Gal. 3:12; Gen. 2:17).

Q. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression (Gen. 2:16, 17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22).

Q. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life (Eph. 1:4, 5), did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer (Rom. 3:20-22; Gal. 3:21, 22).

Actually this sounds like a summation of the Westminster to me. But I think I will leave that for Rev. Winzer to speak about.
 
Just a quick comment on the "Anabaptist/Baptist" difference in the 17th century. The "Baptists" certainly made the effort to present themselves as different to the "Anabaptist" tradition and more in line with the "Reformed" tradition; but (1) the fact they had to make this effort alerts us to the reality of their estrangement at the time, (2) they made this effort through confessions which agreed with Reformed confessions, such that differences with Reformed confessions must then be taken as representing differences with the "Reformed" position, and (3) how little they succeeded in convincing their Reformed brethren is seen in the fact that Reformed polemicists of the time continued to call these "Baptist" differences by the name "Anabaptist."
 
I am pressing these issues because, as is being gradually noticed, there has been a great deal of misinformation and a great lack of primary source knowledge with regard to our confession in general and its federal theology in particular. These claims about the catechism, in such a public forum, will only further that misunderstanding. I also do not want the Anabaptist slur thrown at our heritage (if that was the connection you intended or implied). Nor do I want the dispensational label thrown at our confession. You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational). I do not feel obligated to free them from the net which you have constructed.

Exactly.
 
Randy, I think you are answer me and talking past the points already posted.
 
You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational).

My comment -- on leaving it to "Baptists" to sort out the difficulties -- relates to the division which has arisen within "Baptist" circles as to the proper understanding of the "Baptist" confession. I have not construed any difficulty except the one which is already inherent in this division. If the "Baptist" stream ends up interpreting its Confession in another light than the Westminster/Savoy light which one school of thought has generally followed, I think that will be a loss; but that is its prerogative.
 
Thank you Randy and Rev. Winzer, you good fellas have given me more to think about.

j
 
I just wanted to select this one statement from the above exchange to make two observations.

The WCF could be matured in its covenant theology with regard to the covenant of redemption (while that doctrine can be said to be present in substance, it nevertheless represents an underdeveloped area of covenant theology in the WCF). The Westminster was not the last stop on the road of development in federal theology (don't hear me saying the 1689 was either).

First, the "transitional" nature of the WCF becomes clearer when it is studied in relation to the Savoy Declaration (SD) and the 1689 BCF. I have read various papers about the WCF which agonise over whether it teaches the substance of the active-passive distinction with regard to the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers, as well as whether the covenant of redemption is present. Both these doctrines became clearer as the 17th century rolled around, and are more explicitly spelt out in the SD and the 1689 BCF. Great though the WCF undoubtedly was, and ... from a Presbyterian point of view, perhaps it is the greatest confession yet - nevertheless it is not perfect, nor even the most mature extant confession on matters such as the imputation of Christ's righteousness that are shared by all "reformed" (in a broad inclusive sense of that word).

Secondly, given the fact that theological discourse has continued, I wonder whether it is not time to re-start the writing of great confessions. Certainly, not for centuries, have conservative Reformed thinkers been so well educated and aware of (and committed to) the tradition within which they stand. Furthermore, never before has it been so easy to coordinate a truly international team of Reformed theologians - through the use of the web, Skype, the Puritan-Board, etc.

I can't help thinking that there are things to add to a new confession, so that it addresses issues like, the inerrancy debates, the hermeneutic debates, postmodernism, the openness debates, the Federal vision/New Perspective debates, as well as the renewed appreciation of Trinitiarian teaching that has occurred in the last couple of decades. It would be kind of cool to have "official" paedobaptist/Baptist recensions of the same core confession ... but perhaps that is me just dreaming!

My one reservation about such an enterprise arises from reading about the piety of the Westminster divines ... those guys really knew how to pray ... and I am not sure our churches have that degree of holiness that God would use us in the same way.
 
Last edited:
My one reservation about such an enterprise arises from reading about the piety of the Westminster divines ... those guys really knew how to pray ... and I am not sure our churches have that decree of holiness that God would use us in the same way.

I think another reservation is that, in order to make progress in a Confessional discussion, one has to understand what has already been understood to be the case. Development on Confessions in the 16th and 17th century was not a process of tearing out old foundations and building new foundations but building upon what was laid down, agreed upon, and then developed further.

Today, we have a major problem of not only historical ignorance as to the original understanding of the Confessions but also a fairly widespread indifference to such matters. Many are simply willing to equivocate on what the Confessions teach because it is easier to make a Confession a "wax nose" where the reading can be suited to new developments rather than seeking to see if the new developments are at odds with what came before.

What often happens, then, is not that someone wants to develop Covenant theology building upon what has already been confessed for centuries but a new Covenant theology is proposed and then the person comes to the Church and says "I can read the Confession in such a way that I can see my Covenant Theology within this Confession." I find it very rare the minister who will admit that their new idea actually demands that the Church decide to reject a previous understanding of the WCF in favor of the new understanding. Rather, the Church has been generally content to allow for the subversion of the Confession permitting new paradigms to be "read into" the existing Confession.

In summary, the Church would actually have to start taking existing Confessions more seriously if their aim was to allow for development on a Confessional basis because, today, development or "schools of thought" are seen to be matters of personal conviction and not something that should be constrained by a common Confession.
 
Just a quick comment on the "Anabaptist/Baptist" difference in the 17th century. The "Baptists" certainly made the effort to present themselves as different to the "Anabaptist" tradition and more in line with the "Reformed" tradition; but (1) the fact they had to make this effort alerts us to the reality of their estrangement at the time, (2) they made this effort through confessions which agreed with Reformed confessions, such that differences with Reformed confessions must then be taken as representing differences with the "Reformed" position, and (3) how little they succeeded in convincing their Reformed brethren is seen in the fact that Reformed polemicists of the time continued to call these "Baptist" differences by the name "Anabaptist."

The Baptist option seemed to have created a strong visceral reaction from many who opposed it. Some of this no doubt arose from misunderstanding and fear. What was known was that there were some socially disruptive (and perhaps even seditious) Anabaptists in the early days of the Reformation ... and no-one wanted that in England. Then the General Baptists seemed to have formed first (maybe by as much as a decade), and "Baptist" had come to mean "Arminian" in the minds of many, and these were in the days when the Arminian mistake was not considered insignificant. Finally, there were scurrilous rumours about the indecency that was involved in the baptism of adults by immersion. In these heated debates fairness was not always paramount, and some polemicists seemed to think casting aspertions was justified in fighting off a dangerous deviation. The failure to convince is not necessarily a safe measure of the value of the argument or the evidence.

A recent paper on the origins of the Particular Baptists is "Gordon L. Belyea, "Origins of the Particular Baptists", Themelios, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2007. Balyea argues that there were no links between the Anabaptists and the Particular Baptists.

With regard to the differences in the confessions, there is a lot of sense in what you say about the differences. However, it is not entirely safe. There appear to be places in the 1689 concerning the covenant of works where the confessions diverge not because of theological differences, but because they were trying to improve wording, and the slightly awkward mess the WCF gets into with its headings. Waldron's commentary on the 1689 provides details.
 
Just a quick comment on the "Anabaptist/Baptist" difference in the 17th century. The "Baptists" certainly made the effort to present themselves as different to the "Anabaptist" tradition and more in line with the "Reformed" tradition; but (1) the fact they had to make this effort alerts us to the reality of their estrangement at the time, (2) they made this effort through confessions which agreed with Reformed confessions, such that differences with Reformed confessions must then be taken as representing differences with the "Reformed" position, and (3) how little they succeeded in convincing their Reformed brethren is seen in the fact that Reformed polemicists of the time continued to call these "Baptist" differences by the name "Anabaptist."

The Baptist option seemed to have created a strong visceral reaction from many who opposed it. Some of this no doubt arose from misunderstanding and fear. What was known was that there were some socially disruptive (and perhaps even seditious) Anabaptists in the early days of the Reformation ... and no-one wanted that in England. Then the General Baptists seemed to have formed first (maybe by as much as a decade), and "Baptist" had come to mean "Arminian" in the minds of many, and these were in the days when the Arminian mistake was not considered insignificant. Finally, there were scurrilous rumours about the indecency that was involved in the baptism of adults by immersion. In these heated debates fairness was not always paramount, and some polemicists seemed to think casting aspertions was justified in fighting off a dangerous deviation. The failure to convince is not necessarily a safe measure of the value of the argument or the evidence.

Well said, allow me to add some historical data for the consideration of all involved: Were the Particular Baptists Anabaptists? | Particular Voices
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top