Phillip A. What do you think is circular reasoning according to the distinction Scott has been pressing between the CoR and the CoG and the misunderstandings surrounding them? I am not following you in quoting Scott's "Your thinking Baptistically" with "here is what the CoR and CoG mean." Is there something in the LBC that "unconfuses the issue" and makes it more plain from a Baptistic standpoint? I think what Scott is driving at is that as the LBC creates a "presupposition" that is exegetically impossible to hold (i.e. the CoG IS Presdestination/Salvation - they are coexstensive) that this is what he means when he says "thinking Baptistically." No Reformer, no early Father, no Puritan (other than what was started witht he Anabaptists) held that position at all. They always made a distinction between how the CoG works, especially if they did not use the terminology of the CoR. Personally, in my wanderings through Baptist history, from Tomes to Howell to Shireff to Gill, etc., I do not see them offering explicit exegetical arguments that COULD deliver them from their presuppositions on this issue - it is simply not dealt with at all. Is there something else that you think they (or anyone has) say, for instacne, on the distinction or dealing with the CoR and CoG? I'm simply unaware of anything remotely intelligable on this (including attempts by Welty, Malone, etc...) that have even closely dealt with the issue. Usually they are simply trying to prove that the CoG is a regenerate membership, and they make a kind of leap to MEAN the "New" covenant. (How they make that leap is also interesting).