I, too, am no longer a Baptist

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I'm still waiting to see how being a Particular Baptist is true to Covenant Theology?

As classically defined by Presbyterians, it is not. Presbyterians identify the Covenant of Grace with the Abrahamic Covenant, without making any distinctions in its particular parts. Particular Baptist Covenant Theology is rooted in Presbyterian Covenant Theology, in that it agrees on all points with the exception of the gospel/civil distinction I have made.

I was a Baptist for 20 years, and Reformed for 1. I loved the 1689 and believed everything in it. By all practical means, I was a Particular Baptist as you are boasting of in this thread.

Did you at any time adhere to the gospel/civil distinction within the Abrahamic Covenant as defined by Tombes refined by Coxe? If the answer is no, then you were certainly a Baptist, but not a Particular Baptist. This is the distinction that I have been trying to make throughout this whole thread.

I apologize, brother, if any of what I have said has appeared as boasting. That was not at all the intent. My intent from the beginning is not to debate, nor to boast, but to explain. I'm not so much concerned as to whether you agree, but whether you understand.
 
Yes, I understand everything you are saying, and yes I believed in the distinction you are talking about. I simply don't believe it is entirely accurate, in light of further study, however.

Also, I think you might be somewhat confused about the CoG as related to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the beginning of the CoG. It seems to me you think Presbyterians believe that? If I'm mistaken I apologize, but I'm somewhat confused as to what you think true Covenant Theology is asserting about the covenants?
 
In addition to what Gabriel pointed out, it is also a mistake to say that we "identify the Covenant of Grace with the Abrahamic Covenant, without making any distinctions in its particular parts." See Matt's chart for a quick idea of why that is not fully accurate.
 
Brother Kevin,

I think I am on the main understanding where you are coming from now.

Originally posted by kceaster
I guess what I am trying to get you to see is where the divide began and perhaps get you to question why and for what reason these divides occurred.

This is what I have sought to do. I have, if you will, gonead fontes on whole baptism issue. I was convinced of Reformed theology, Puritanism, and, apart from a few details, Covenant Theology. The point of divergence was the Particular Baptist movement that began in the Puritan Era. All that had gone before were by and large heretics and schismatics. But here were men who held firmly to all that flowed from the stream of Reformed doctrine, except for this one, little, piece. Why did they do that? Well, now I have had a chance to read it in their own words. Now I know, and I am convinced by it.

You and I probably believe the same things about much of our theology, yet a difference still divides us, and because of that, the church.

Amen, I agree, from what I have read of yours, that we are in agreement on almost all points, save this one. And as I read your post, I remember from those of yours in the past that you are particularly grieved to see Christ's church divided.

Find out why and for what reason, because up until that point, Christendom had been on the same page, unless we want to believe the speculative histories that have only emerged in the last 180 years.

That's my advice to you. And I take it for myself as well which is why I study the issues surrounding the Reformation on the continent and in the UK. If we do not have a reasonable idea as to why these things happened, then we are believing what we believe without being informed as to why we believe it.

Absolutely!
 
A big thing for me is the fact that the Covenant that is "unbreakable" is the CoR, between Christ and God the Father, in the redemption of Christ's Church. All who are elect receive the benefits of this covenant and its salvation; There is no breaking this covenant. If you're elect, you're elect and you produce fruit and persevere. It is not for humans to break or 'mess up'.

However, many people are part of the CoG (The 'Visible Church', if you will) and then "fall away", prove themselves as apostates, etc. and are judged "according to the Law" since they are turning away from God's grace that they have been identified with in baptism and other visible ways, turning themselves over to be accursed. All those who live by the law will die by the law. They receive the same punishment of eternal death as to all the pagans and unregenerate, but are also heirs of a harsher punishment as Heb 10 tells us, since they have trampled on the Son of God through their rebellion against His blood which they claimed as their own.
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Also, I think you might be somewhat confused about the CoG as related to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the beginning of the CoG. It seems to me you think Presbyterians believe that?

Nope! Sorry if it came across that way. I know Presbyterians don't believe that.

Originally posted by Me Died Blue
In addition to what Gabriel pointed out, it is also a mistake to say that we "identify the Covenant of Grace with the Abrahamic Covenant, without making any distinctions in its particular parts."

Yes it is a mistake, or rather a limitation inherent to short summaries. Hence the need for lengthly confessions. It would have been more precise for me to to have written "...without making quite the same distinctions...", were I attempting something more than a short summary.
 
Philip A:
Presbyterians identify the Covenant of Grace with the Abrahamic Covenant, without making any distinctions in its particular parts.

WrittenFromUtopia:
I think you might be somewhat confused about the CoG as related to the Abrahamic Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is not the beginning of the CoG. It seems to me you think Presbyterians believe that?

Philip A:
Nope! Sorry if it came across that way. I know Presbyterians don't believe that.


Then... what were you saying?? :eek:
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Then... what were you saying?? :eek:

I'll put it this way, perhaps it will be clearer. We both recognize that the CoG started before Abraham. But the Presbyterian nevertheless derives more of a pattern for how the CoG is administered from the Abrahamic Covenant than the Particular Baptist is willing to grant. I recognize, however, that the Presebyterian viewpoint on that particular detail is an important part of classical Covenant Theology as it is defined historically; I am more than willing to confess that the Particular Baptist view is a modification to Covenant Theology proper on this point.



Catching up from earlier....


Originally posted by Me Died Blue
So then is it just a coincidence that the word used to describe that spiritual concept in the New Testament is the very same word used to describe the physical sign in the Old? Surely there is a connection, from a linguistic perspective if none other.

Yes, there is absolutely a connection, it is know by the term "typology"! ;)


Then since all of the promises are made to the children of believers, and you acknowledge that some of them are Gospel Covenant Promises, how can you logically say that such children have no promise in the Covenant of grace?

Because I do not agree that these promises are all made to the children of believers; you have presupposed that based on your own systematic, not mine. You think "children of believers" ; I think (and read) "children of the nation"- which nation is a type of the holy nation of which all beleivers are citizens.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
A big thing for me is the fact that the Covenant that is "unbreakable" is the CoR, between Christ and God the Father, in the redemption of Christ's Church. All who are elect receive the benefits of this covenant and its salvation; There is no breaking this covenant. If you're elect, you're elect and you produce fruit and persevere. It is not for humans to break or 'mess up'.

However, many people are part of the CoG (The 'Visible Church', if you will) and then "fall away", prove themselves as apostates, etc. and are judged "according to the Law" since they are turning away from God's grace that they have been identified with in baptism and other visible ways, turning themselves over to be accursed. All those who live by the law will die by the law. They receive the same punishment of eternal death as to all the pagans and unregenerate, but are also heirs of a harsher punishment as Heb 10 tells us, since they have trampled on the Son of God through their rebellion against His blood which they claimed as their own.

The same applies here. You have jumped far, far downstream logically, without having cleared the issues at hand. Again, the things that you state are based on things that you have presupposed based on your own systematic, not mine. I'll only say that what you are describing has to do with the distinction between the subjective and objective nature of the Covenant. Read Owen on these types of passages in volume 10 ( or Death of Death) if I am being too cryptic.

These things cannot be discussed profitably unless all parties are willing and able to, for the sake of discussion, put off their own systematic presuppositions, and take upon themselves the opposing set of presuppositions. Anything less than that will serve only to cloud the argument with false assumptions regarding the other party's logical steps. There is far too much that has been skipped over for the handling of these issues in any more detail.
 
Philip A:
These things cannot be discussed profitably unless all parties are willing and able to, for the sake of discussion, put off their own systematic presuppositions, and take upon themselves the opposing set of presuppositions. Anything less than that will serve only to cloud the argument with false assumptions regarding the other party's logical steps. There is far too much that has been skipped over for the handling of these issues in any more detail.


No offense, but this seems like nothing more than a cop-out. :um:

I'm very much willing to discuss the continuity of the Covenant of Grace throughout redemptive history as it has been more fully revealed and ultimately revealed in Christ. I have no problem listening to what you have to say, but you really haven't made an attempt to clearly say anything in this post, other than some seemingly condescending rhetoric towards myself and the other CT'ers in this thread. :2cents:

[Edited on 24-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]
 
Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
Philip A:
These things cannot be discussed profitably unless all parties are willing and able to, for the sake of discussion, put off their own systematic presuppositions, and take upon themselves the opposing set of presuppositions. Anything less than that will serve only to cloud the argument with false assumptions regarding the other party's logical steps. There is far too much that has been skipped over for the handling of these issues in any more detail.


No offense, but this seems like nothing more than a cop-out. :um:

I'm very much willing to discuss the continuity of the Covenant of Grace throughout redemptive history as it has been more fully revealed and ultimately revealed in Christ. I have no problem listening to what you have to say, but you really haven't made an attempt to clearly say anything in this post, other than some seemingly condescending rhetoric towards myself and the other CT'ers in this thread. :2cents:

[Edited on 24-1-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

Phillip,
I have to agree with you there. If one attempts to understanc CT with the credo glasses, they will never come to the understanding. However, I have come from the credo camp; I know how and what the credo thinks and does. The theology has fractures. One of the major dysfunction is the attempt at raising one's child in the way they should go. The credo acts as if their child is a believer, by teaching them to pray, to call God father etc. This is an inconsistancy. On one hand you tell your child, you must be saved. You must repent. You are at odds with God, yet the credo confuses the child by teaching them to pray to God. Would you tell the pagan next door to tell his child this? CT reconciles this inconsistancy in that in light of the promise, we are able to approach God in confidence that His promises are true. The credo's child is cut off from this benefit..........

[Edited on 1-24-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The credo acts as if their child is a believer, by teaching them to pray, to call God father etc. This is an inconsistancy. On one hand you tell your child, you must be saved. You must repent. You are at odds with God, yet the credo confuses the child by teaching them to pray to God. Would you tell the pagan next door to tell his child this? CT reconciles this inconsistancy in that in light of the promise, we are able to approach God in confidence that His promises are true.

So is presumptive regeneration a pillar of CT without which CT crumbles? I though that even Reformed paedos disagreed and debated this particular point. Did not John Gerstner, for one, teach parents to tell their children that they must repent and be saved?
 
You are correct Gregory, it is not an essential part of it. In fact, you can see a long discussion we had about that from both sides here.
 
Originally posted by Philip A
These things cannot be discussed profitably unless all parties are willing and able to, for the sake of discussion, put off their own systematic presuppositions, and take upon themselves the opposing set of presuppositions. Anything less than that will serve only to cloud the argument with false assumptions regarding the other party's logical steps. There is far too much that has been skipped over for the handling of these issues in any more detail.

Phillip, I would appreciate the attempt at presenting your views. Please start a thread regarding it. Start from square one with the Particular Baptist view of Continuity and Discontinuity regarding the covenant of grace and Abraham. I think we would all appreciate the interaction. The only things I thought were different about the Particular Baptists from other Baptists was their eschatology and their Calvinism. John Gill is really the only Particular Baptist I'm familiar with, unless you want to throw Spurgeon in there. So please, take the time to explore the issue. We would all benefit.
 
This thread is just to cool. You go Philip. I haven't laughed out of despair so hard as I did when I got to the part Particular Baptist. I needed that. Use Abraham to explain the differences. There are differences between circumcision and baptism even though they have similarities. I will stick with my thread on Welty. I have to look over on the Paedo side now. I haven't attended to it yet. I kind of drop in and out. I know Paul has written on who is considered a New Covenant member. I am sure I will disagree with him as his Mommy would. God bless our Mummys. They are the coolest.
 
Originally posted by doulosChristou
Originally posted by Scott Bushey
The credo acts as if their child is a believer, by teaching them to pray, to call God father etc. This is an inconsistancy. On one hand you tell your child, you must be saved. You must repent. You are at odds with God, yet the credo confuses the child by teaching them to pray to God. Would you tell the pagan next door to tell his child this? CT reconciles this inconsistancy in that in light of the promise, we are able to approach God in confidence that His promises are true.

So is presumptive regeneration a pillar of CT without which CT crumbles? I though that even Reformed paedos disagreed and debated this particular point. Did not John Gerstner, for one, teach parents to tell their children that they must repent and be saved?

Greg,
PR or PE is not at all relevant in my approach to rearing my child. I tell my child that I must repent and so do you. I must believe and so do you. I must obey God and so do you. It is Gods command and promises which I hold dear. God commands that the sign be placed; rebellion to this command can be eternal. By placing the sign, the odditiy of rearing my child and reconciling it along the lines of the pagan child whom lives next door is comfortably couched and reconciled scripturally in Gods promise to me and my family. There is a vast difference.

Greg,
As far as the credo's theology; does it crumble under the weight of this one truth-no. But it is a major fracture that cannot be reconciled. So as far as presuppositions go, I believe the credo has ultimately more that has to be unwound. The American evangelical majority is wound tight as a drum under these presups. How do I know this, I was a credo for 15 years.

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]

[Edited on 1-25-2005 by Scott Bushey]
 
:pilgrim: I'm a Reformed Baptist and stickin' it!

I'm proud of my Congregationalist and Baptist roots, but it twas grace that saved me.

[Edited on 2-4-2005 by Puritanhead]
 
Originally posted by joshua
So, when did you become a Paedobaptist?
When I saw that you posted in a thread called "I, too, am no longer a Baptist", my first thought was, "Oh no, another one bites the dust!"
 
Originally posted by joshua
So, when did you become a Paedobaptist?
Speak you of his signature, which now reads "Confessional Presbyterian in a RB church"? I was wondering about that, myself. His post was made in 2005, after all.
 
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by blhowes
Originally posted by matthew
Does anyone know why a log in box for www.federaltheology.org pops up when one opens the link to this thread?
Good question. That happened to me too, on a different thread.

:ditto:
You don't suppose that the moderators/supermoderators are 'playing with our minds', behind the scenes, by...

Nah, they would never do that...though I still can't believe I fell for that April fools prank...Nah, never mind. I'm "sure" they wouldn't...
 
Originally posted by blhowes
Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot
Originally posted by blhowes
Originally posted by matthew
Does anyone know why a log in box for www.federaltheology.org pops up when one opens the link to this thread?
Good question. That happened to me too, on a different thread.

:ditto:
You don't suppose that the moderators/supermoderators are 'playing with our minds', behind the scenes, by...

Nah, they would never do that...though I still can't believe I fell for that April fools prank...Nah, never mind. I'm "sure" they wouldn't...

:lol:
 
I am not sure that Philip would agree with some of the statements on that page --such as
What is being claimed is that Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are freed from "The law of ten commands, on holy Sinai given." (Isaac Watts) Believers are brought into Gospel Liberty, which is a New Rule that is based on the New Covenant and set in New Creation.

Given some of the statements earlier in this thread it seems somewhat unlikely.
 
federaltheology.org is Kevin Easterday's site. I think that pop up is because he linked to an image on his site or something.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top