Question on Baptist Covenant Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.
The issue wasn't merely circumcision, but circumcision as the door to a whole slew of "obediences" that would be a necessary accompaniment of faith, for proving oneself unto God.

Ah, so it seems circumcision and baptism are not equal after all then. If baptism did replace circumcision, then there would be no problem in saying so, regardless of the situation. The fact that circumcision was associated with more than what baptism is proves there is not a 1:1 relationship. Galatians 5:3 is an excellent reference to show this difference.

Beth, your instincts are right.
 
I was so far over on the side of letting a Baptist-covenantalist be himself, that I had to say practically three times as much as I needed to say.

How humble of you.

Condescending. As before.
How long are we going to keep this up? I am quite aware of the points of agreement and disagreement between covenant theology proper, and its various strands of development, and divergence. I am because I've made it a point to study the issue to the point of being able to sympathetically express the other side. There are at least 10 posters on this board who have educated me profoundly on the Baptist position. Go ahead and ask folks who disagree with me if I have not played fair with them. I'm ready to be judged and accept whatever the verdict is.

That's not pride, that's effort.
Now, a sympathetic understanding doesn't limit me to only and always speaking without a critical bent. There seems to be a plain inconsistency in two affirmations by the good Rev. Waldron. In attempting to clarify that, it isn't wrong to press on it, either to show its incompatibility, or to have it removed in one way or another. All you've done is bitterly oppose even the suggestion that there is disconnect between one strand of Sam's analysis, and another.

I would never suggest that I myself had never crossed up my own analysis of any two things. So, criticizing someone who's gone into print is not illegitimate. It may be a bad analysis, but then you just keep up the effort of showing how bad it is. Drop the ad hominem, and dissect the sentences.
 
Last edited:
The issue wasn't merely circumcision, but circumcision as the door to a whole slew of "obediences" that would be a necessary accompaniment of faith, for proving oneself unto God.

Ah, so it seems circumcision and baptism are not equal after all then. If baptism did replace circumcision, then there would be no problem in saying so, regardless of the situation. The fact that circumcision was associated with more than what baptism is proves there is not a 1:1 relationship. Galatians 5:3 is an excellent reference to show this difference.

Beth, your instincts are right.

Beth,
Study the text to draw from it what IS present, rather that insisting that it SHOULD have said something. Act.15 can in no way be said to contradict the position that one sign has given way to another.

Brandon,
Where is your comparative analysis between the "more" that circumcision was associated with, vis a vis "what baptism is"? I'd be interested in learning what you think, and then comparing your analysis of the biblical data with my own (available on the PB homepage), so that if possible, I might correct some flaws in my reasoning.

Thanks!
 
Bruce, have you ever read anything from Sam Waldron? Specifically, have you read what he has written about covenant theology? If not, then you should commit to listening on this thread instead of contributing (as you said, it would have been better for you to simply let Matthew speak for himself). Your entire argument rested upon your view of the Abrahamic covenant and what circumcision meant. If Waldron rejects your view, then he is not inconsistent. That was my point. All you have done is show how Waldron is inconsistent with your personal view of covenant theology, not his. If you can show where Waldron says salvation was most certainly claimed for some infants because they were circumcised, then you may demonstrate his inconsistency. Until then, you're not helping anything.

Here is what Waldron says:
The Bible, however, never uses the word 'covenant' to refer to an overarching covenant of grace which spans the whole of human history. Each use of the term to refer to a divine covenant in the Bible refers to a covenant made by God at some specific historical epoch. None of these covenants may simply be equated with what the Confession describes as 'the covenant of grace'. Presbyterians have often spoken as if the covenant with Abraham were the covenant of grace, but this identification ignores its typical elements and its beginning in the lifetime of Abraham, not immediately after the Fall (note chapter 29). The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace. As the Confession remarks, 'the full discovery' of the covenant of grace 'was completed in the New Testament'. However, it is clear that the New Covenant was inaugurated in the events surrounding the first advent of Christ (Jer. 31:31; Heb 8:13). Thus it is crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the covenant of grace and the biblical, divine covenants. The divine covenants undoubtedly suggested this terminology, but no one of them ought to be equated with it.

Personally, I don't 100% agree with Waldron's construction of the covenants, so I'm not here to defend that.
 
Bruce, have you ever read anything from Sam Waldron? Specifically, have you read what he has written about covenant theology? If not, then you should commit to listening on this thread instead of contributing (as you said, it would have been better for you to simply let Matthew speak for himself). Your entire argument rested upon your view of the Abrahamic covenant and what circumcision meant. If Waldron rejects your view, then he is not inconsistent. That was my point. All you have done is show how Waldron is inconsistent with your personal view of covenant theology, not his. If you can show where Waldron says salvation was most certainly claimed for some infants because they were circumcised, then you may demonstrate his inconsistency. Until then, you're not helping anything.

Here is what Waldron says:
The Bible, however, never uses the word 'covenant' to refer to an overarching covenant of grace which spans the whole of human history. Each use of the term to refer to a divine covenant in the Bible refers to a covenant made by God at some specific historical epoch. None of these covenants may simply be equated with what the Confession describes as 'the covenant of grace'. Presbyterians have often spoken as if the covenant with Abraham were the covenant of grace, but this identification ignores its typical elements and its beginning in the lifetime of Abraham, not immediately after the Fall (note chapter 29). The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace. As the Confession remarks, 'the full discovery' of the covenant of grace 'was completed in the New Testament'. However, it is clear that the New Covenant was inaugurated in the events surrounding the first advent of Christ (Jer. 31:31; Heb 8:13). Thus it is crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the covenant of grace and the biblical, divine covenants. The divine covenants undoubtedly suggested this terminology, but no one of them ought to be equated with it.

Personally, I don't 100% agree with Waldron's construction of the covenants, so I'm not here to defend that.

Thanks, Brandon. It's helpful to have a subject under discussion in his own words. And yes, per my regretful admission, I was and am sorry for not listening instead of contributing, and for adding heat rather than light. Now, in fact what rested my argument upon is what Paul says that circumcision meant to Abraham, Rom.4:11 (even if one is committed to the idea that it meant such to him alone). And "I will be God to your descendants" is a covenant-statement in the immediate context to which Paul refers.

Does the Waldron excerpt, in your opinion, Brandon, reflect his own conviction/construction of covenant theology, or does it express the LBC construction, and the convictions of its framers? It seems that question is one of the reasons behind the present exchange. In other words,, the commentary may not always represent a "pristine" view, but incorporate elements of developments in theology, which is what I presumed Rev. Winzer to be arguing for.

And with that, I will step away from the conversation entirely.
 
Does the Waldron excerpt, in your opinion, Brandon, reflect his own conviction/construction of covenant theology, or does it express the LBC construction, and the convictions of its framers? It seems that question is one of the reasons behind the present exchange. In other words,, the commentary may not always represent a "pristine" view, but incorporate elements of developments in theology, which is what I presumed Rev. Winzer to be arguing for.

It reflects his own personal construction. However, you may be surprised as to how that is so. (Matthew is way off in left field, which is why I want him to provide evidence for his claim about the "original framework") The view of the LBC is actually much closer to equating the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace. This is what Waldron has in mind when he says "The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace. As the Confession remarks, 'the full discovery' of the covenant of grace 'was completed in the New Testament'." I asked him about this and he confirmed that he had the LBC in mind, as well as Owen.

So yes, Waldron's comments do reflect his own conviction/construction, but his personal construction is much more influenced by his tremendous affinity for John Murray. Waldron's construction is actually a move further towards your view and away from the "original framework" of the LBC - not the other way around.
 
Rev. Buchanan,

Thank you very much for helping me step back and seeing the whole conflict of grace vs. works in Acts 15 rather than focusing on the specific issue of circumcision. Those verses take on a whole new light now.

In your post below, you suggest to the OP to settle his conception of covenant. That's probably good advice for me too. Do you (or anyone else) have any resources to help?

Blessings,
 
Beth,
Some resources have been proposed above, notably brandonadams in #13, coming from the credo-baptist stance.

I'm partial to what is fairly termed the more traditionally Reformed and covenantal perspective. I think there is some excellent work by Thomas Boston,for example:
A view of the covenant of grace from ... - Google Books

See other sections of his works (I really wish this page had vol.12 on it, but it seems elusive)
http://www.puritanboard.com/f29/works-thomas-boston-online-28411/ , see volume 11, and the table of contents for a treatise on the covenant of Works


Let me explain what I'm talking about, though. The deep issue of covenant-theology, in my judgment, is not simply a matter of a particular way of understanding God's "method" of his dealings with mankind. It's not really a "structural" issue, as far as the literary nature of Scripture. It's is not a construct for defending some practice we like, or for finding a practice. It's possible that covenant theology can serve one or more of those interests legitimately, however, none of them get to the essence of covenant-theology.

The employment of a "covenantalistic" idea, motif, or template can be done by all sorts of people who are not beginning with what I identify as the base principle. And that fact goes a long way to explaining why there can be quite a few competing expressions of "covenant-driven" theology. Let me also state, that although I think one ought to start at the base principle which historically brought Covenant-Theology into being, I deny that simply being at this root makes it (ipso facto) the root of good theology. It is theoretically possible that such was a "back door" into a good interpretive idea, and the root of good theology lies elsewhere. But I don't think that's the case, which is why I defend it.

Covenant-theology describes, fundamentally, a wholistic method of reading, interpreting, and understanding the Bible. It begins with the assumption that the historical conditioning of the Bible, centered on a particular people, time, and place--the ancient Hebrew culture that forms and is formed by this sacred collection--that historic conditioning is accidental to the substantive message of the Bible, which is both unified and universal. Scripture begins by presenting a version of HUMAN history, from its beginning, and describing the universal sinful human condition in need of redemption. The purpose of salvation is presented initially as universal in scope, and not limited to the particular people to whom special revelation has been given--they as the means for realizing this end.

The universalistic impulse for Man's salvation comes to grand expression in the death and resurrection of Christ, the Promised One, when immediately that gospel-message is proclaimed to the whole world, an accomplished fact worthy of hope by any and all to whom word of it comes. The center of everything in Scripture is demonstrated to be God's self-revelation as it pertains to Christ. So, for example, national Israel is important only so far as they are the protective and illustrative vehicle by which Christ is to come into the world (and by whose lawless, rejecting hands he will die for the sins of a world of elect people, not just those from among the Israelites). Once this has been finished, there is no remaining purpose for retaining the "dividing wall" between Jew and Gentile, and it is broken down and removed forever.

More can and should be said, but I have to go for now.
 
Matthew, I would still appreciate a precise statement regarding what you believe the LBC teaches about membership in the covenant of grace. Your accusation that modern baptist views of the covenant of grace are deviations from historic particular baptist views is a serious charge that you have failed to backup. Until you do, I consider it nothing more than slander.

I have already stated the difference and shown it from two principal documents -- the Confession and its Exposition. As matters stand we have the Confession stating that infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ and we have Waldron claiming otherwise. If you consider that to be "nothing more than slander" then obviously you are not prepared to deal with my posts in good faith and we have no basis for a profitable discussion.
 
Rev. Winzer - as Brandon pointed out, the Confession doesn't appear to link elect infants with believing parents. So my question to you would be: what Confessional evidence do we have to assert that only infants of believers are possibly elect? Do we have any evidence to suggest that an infant of unbelieving parents cannot possibly be one of the elect?

I'm gathering in context that this question is relative to the Baptist Confession, not Westminster. As far as the Baptist Confession is concerned infants as a class dying in infancy are elect. Westminster is more particular in its qualification of "elect infants." My concern is simply to show that primitive Baptist theology had a specific place for infants in its covenant theology. Modern antipaedobaptist polemic has been concerned with showing the differences of the new covenant in terms of covenant membership. As far as I can see there has been an alteration in the doctrine of infant salvation. As "Reformed Baptists" have been concerned to stress their "Reformed" commitment to covenant theology they have been constrained to provide a covenant rationale for their practice of excluding the infants of believers. It is this rationale which I believe has created a disconnect with past thought.

Your final question asks for "evidence." It is at this point where genuine reformed sacramentology speaks of the promissory sign as providing evidence and the importance of church ministry for dispensing the means of grace.
 
As matters stand we have the Confession stating that infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ

No we don't. We have the Confession saying that elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ. Waldron does not disagree that God can save infants.

As far as the Baptist Confession is concerned infants as a class dying in infancy are elect.

Is it fair to say this is the source of your confusion? See here Frequently Asked Symbolics Questions: Elect Infants | The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies
Waldron addresses this in his Exposition and he correctly quotes the Confession in his book as well, so I'm not sure where your confusion came from.
I stand by my statement that you do not know what you are talking about and you should not be making statements about what 17th century particular baptists believed, much less accusing modern baptists of deviation.
 
As matters stand we have the Confession stating that infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ

No we don't. We have the Confession saying that elect infants dying in infancy are regenerated and saved by Christ. Waldron does not disagree that God can save infants.

On the textual question, if there has been an omission of "elect," I'm happy to accept the original; it is itself immaterial to the point I am making. The fact is that "elect" is omitted from the text as expounded by Waldron. And the fact remains the same that Waldron does not believe the Bible teaches what the Confession proposes.

I stand by my statement that you do not know what you are talking about and you should not be making statements about what 17th century particular baptists believed, much less accusing modern baptists of deviation.

And I stand by my statement that you lack good faith.
 
Brandon,

As I see it, this is the root of the issue:
His final point is to suggest that it is not wrong for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children in his saving purposes (p. 151). On what basis could they believe this if the Bible does not lead them to believe it
If, on the one hand, Waldron says that the "Bible is silent on this issue" regarding the salvation of infants then how can he come to a conclusion that it is "not wrong" for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children in his saving purposes?

Is this speculation on Waldron's part or does he ground this in Scripture?
 
Rich,

I appreciate the attempt to mediate here. Let me first say that whatever Waldron is or is not saying, it is irrelevant as to the claim of modern baptist covenant membership deviation - and that is my primary concern here.

Second, it is speculation on Waldron's part based upon "general, biblical perspectives", as he himself implies.

---------- Post added at 06:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:25 PM ----------

The fact is that "elect" is omitted from the text as expounded by Waldron.

What edition of Waldron's book are you referencing? My 2005 edition includes "elect" and Waldron discusses the issue of those who later removed "elect" in his comments on 10.3.

Modern antipaedobaptist polemic has been concerned with showing the differences of the new covenant in terms of covenant membership. As far as I can see there has been an alteration in the doctrine of infant salvation.

1. 17th century antipaedobaptist polemic had the exact same concern. 17th century particular baptists also argued that only the elect are members of the new covenant. So there is no deviation here either.
2. You are incorrect in claiming there has been alternation regarding infant salvation, as demonstrated.
 
Second, it is speculation on Waldron's part based upon "general, biblical perspectives", as he himself implies.

I guess what the point is that if one can only draw conclusions on the basis of God's Word then it is, in fact, "wrong" for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children for His saving purposes. Speculation would be ruled out of bounds for a basis of any knowledge concerning right or wrong according to the Confession.

It seems to me, at least, to be a departure on that point because the framers of the LBCF seemed to believe they had direct warrant, from the Word, to include infants dying in infancy among the elect and, by extension, in the CoG.
 
I guess what the point is that if one can only draw conclusions on the basis of God's Word then it is, in fact, "wrong" for God's children to believe that God frequently embraces their children for His saving purposes.

That's fine. But again, it's irrelevant to what is being asserted by Matthew. The confession does not state that believers should "believe that God frequently embraces their children for His saving purposes." So whether or not Waldron's position is tenable is separate from whether or not he is deviating from 17th century particular baptist views on infant salvation and covenant membership.

they had direct warrant, from the Word, to include infants dying in infancy among the elect

Please see above. The LBC does not asset that infants dying in infancy will be saved. All the statement says is that it is possible, if an infant is elect, for them to be saved the same way we are.

and, by extension, in the CoG.

And as I said previously, I agree that if an infant is elect they are saved and they are part of the CoG - and Waldron does not disagree. All the Confession says is that the Spirit moves how He wishes and if He wishes, He can regenerate an infant and save them.
 
What edition of Waldron's book are you referencing? My 2005 edition includes "elect" and Waldron discusses the issue of those who later removed "elect" in his comments on 10.3.

My edition is 1989. There he states, "In the Westminster Confession the word 'elect' is present, while it is deleted in the 1689 Confession" (p. 149). It appears further light on the original wording of the Confession has led to revision in a later edition of his Exposition. Fair enough! But the extract you have provided from the new edition makes the same assertion which is in the 1989 edition, namely, an exception to the claim of the Confession relative to "elect infants."

The point here revolves around the question as to whether there are infants in the new covenant. The Confession is clear as to how "elect infants" are saved, that is, by Christ. As far as paedobaptist polemic is concerned this means there is a fixed truth that Baptists cannot dismiss, namely, that elect infants are members of the covenant of grace. On the basis of Waldron's Exposition, however, it is not possible to fix this truth precisely because it has been dismissed. If infants are saved, according to Waldron, it is on the basis of God's character and general considerations of God's saving purpose. The paedobaptist is now left without any certain knowledge as to how a particular Baptist conceives of the salvation of elect infants. It is at this juncture that a clear difference is detected.
 
The point here revolves around the question as to whether there are infants in the new covenant.

I understand that is what you are attempting to make it about. But Waldron does not deny that infants can be in the new covenant/CoG. So once again, you have created a problem where there is none.

If infants are saved, according to Waldron, it is on the basis of God's character and general considerations of God's saving purpose.

And Waldron would absolutely affirm that this is accomplished through the New Covenant. If you believe otherwise, you have misread him. Waldron's discussion is entirely revolved around our perspective. We cannot look to any covenantal promise that God will save our infants, but we can look to God's character, etc. That does not mean that an elect infant is not saved through covenant.
 
We cannot look to any covenantal promise that God will save our infants, but we can look to God's character, etc. That does not mean that an elect infant is not saved through covenant.

"We admit also that baptism should be given to all who are members of the New Covenant" (p. 351, emphasis added).
 
"We admit also that baptism should be given to all who are members of the New Covenant"

So we should baptize elect infants who die in infancy?

Why are you asking someone whom, according to your opinion, doesn't know what he is talking about and has no right to point out divergent views amongst Baptists?
 
Why are you asking someone whom, according to your opinion, doesn't know what he is talking about and has no right to point out divergent views amongst Baptists?

Because you're continuing to persist in your unwarranted accusation and misrepresentation of reformed baptists. (Btw, the question was rhetorical)
 
If you ever change your high-minded opinion, let me know and we might be able to discuss the subject to some advantage.

Likewise.

In case there is a need to clarify, the question was rhetorical because we cannot know which infants dying in infancy are elect, therefore we cannot know which to baptize.

Waldron's statement that we should baptize all members of the New Covenant was very obviously made from the standpoint of human knowledge and judgment. If Waldron knew which infants were elect, he would baptize them.
 
Last edited:
I wanted to thank you all for the links and discussion on this topic. I haven't had a chance to look at all of the information cited here yet, but I will take some time this weekend to do that. Much of this conversation is over my head, but hopefully, it will make more sense as I continue to study God's Word.

I also wanted to say that I believe God's word is infallible, so I didn't mean to imply that I think Acts 15 is lacking, nor am I insisting that it SHOULD have said something. My point was just that Acts 15 didn't say that circumcision replaced baptism when that chapter dealt specifically with the controversy of circumcision in the NT church.

I've thought about just letting the topic of baptism go since my youngest is 8, and we're way past the time to decide whether or not to baptize our babies, but then I remembered that we will have grandchildren one of these days...

So, what do paedo-baptists do with adult converts like myself? Do you allow for credo-baptism after the infant stage? I grew up in an unbelieving home, so there's no way that I would have been baptized as an infant, but I consider myself one of God's elect now. I apologize if the overly simplistic questions, but prior to a year ago, I thought that only Roman Catholics (and Episcopalians) baptized babies because it was a sacrament required for salvation. Paedo-baptism in the reformed faith as a non-salvation sacrament is a whole new ballgame for me.

I do adhere to the WCF, but I will admit that I struggle with Chapter 28 Of Baptism part IV which states that "infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized and part V which states "that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."

Blessings,
 
Beth,
No one thinks ill of your questions. I did not think or say you thought Act.15 or any Scripture lacking.
So, what do paedo-baptists do with adult converts like myself? Do you allow for credo-baptism after the infant stage?
This might sound odd to someone with your background and knowledge base, but we believe no one should be baptized again who was once baptized. Now, a Baptist will not think a baby was ever baptized--not by us or by the sacerdotalists (Rome, etc.). But that has to do at least in part with the order of things that is very important to the Baptist view of the ordinance.

Not everyone who has been so-called "baptized" (whether old or young) has really been baptized. We might not recognize many sects' and certainly not cults' baptisms. But the most vital thing is not WHO baptized or WHERE or HOW, but can we see it having any connection to the Christian church and the sacrament Christ instituted? And we believe in ONE baptism per person.

But a new believer? Yes, when he confesses his faith publicly--on his credo (Latin: "I believe"), he should be baptized. You should be baptized, if you never have been before.

I grew up in an unbelieving home, so there's no way that I would have been baptized as an infant, but I consider myself one of God's elect now. I apologize if the overly simplistic questions, but prior to a year ago, I thought that only Roman Catholics (and Episcopalians) baptized babies because it was a sacrament required for salvation. Paedo-baptism in the reformed faith as a non-salvation sacrament is a whole new ballgame for me.
Praise the Lord.

If I have any counsel for you based on this paragraph, it would not be "get more information on infant-baptism." No, it would be: When your assurance of election wanes (inevitably confidence ebbs and flows), look to the promises of God unto FAITH for sinners, and believe them. Election is a foundation under the house you live in by faith. You show your confidence in the foundation when you remain in the house, not because you can see what is buried in the hidden things of God. He told us the foundation is there. We can believe him on that as well.

I do adhere to the WCF, but I will admit that I struggle with Chapter 28 Of Baptism part IV which states that "infants of one, or both, believing parents, are to be baptized and part V which states "that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated."
The first part you read is a part that a credo-baptist will not agree with.

The second part you have misread, I think. Note the NEGATIVE particle:
28.5. ... grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto [baptism], as ... that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
In other words, the paragraph is actually stating the contrary to what you seem to have thought. We do not believe that every baptized person is most certainly, or shall be, a participant in the new birth.

Blessings.
 
The second part you have misread, I think. Note the NEGATIVE particle:
28.5. ... grace and salvation are not so inseparably annexed unto [baptism], as ... that all that are baptized are undoubtedly regenerated.
In other words, the paragraph is actually stating the contrary to what you seem to have thought. We do not believe that every baptized person is most certainly, or shall be, a participant in the new birth.

Rev Buchanan--You're quite right. I was definitely reading that through my presuppositions on infant baptism. You have been very helpful and patient as I think aloud.

Particular Baptist--My apologies for intruding on your thread.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top