Questions for Reformed Baptist

[PhillipJLee]

Greetings All,

I'm not entirely sure where to post this question but I am wondering what the Reformed Baptist view is on the following issues:

(1) When/where does the Covenant of Grace "begin"? When does it "end"? And, in light of both, what role does the New Covenant play?
(2) How does the answer to (1) affect ecclesiology (number of offices, roles of each office)? Does it still subscribe to a connectional system of government and, if not, why?
(3) In light of the answers to (1) and (2), what is the role and function of the sacraments?

I understand these are very loaded questions but I am having a hard time (a) tracking down sound, Biblically informed RB's in person, (b) there are inconclusive threads on the forum on the matters above, and (c) I would prefer if individuals answered all 3 together, not different individuals answering one or the other causing disconnections in logic.

Thank you all!

 

[Loopie]

Greetings All,

I'm not entirely sure where to post this question but I am wondering what the Reformed Baptist view is on the following issues:

(1) When/where does the Covenant of Grace "begin"? When does it "end"? And, in light of both, what role does the New Covenant play?
(2) How does the answer to (1) affect ecclesiology (number of offices, roles of each office)? Does it still subscribe to a connectional system of government and, if not, why?
(3) In light of the answers to (1) and (2), what is the role and function of the sacraments?

I understand these are very loaded questions but I am having a hard time (a) tracking down sound, Biblically informed RB's in person, (b) there are inconclusive threads on the forum on the matters above, and (c) I would prefer if individuals answered all 3 together, not different individuals answering one or the other causing disconnections in logic.

Thank you all!

Hi Phillip,

I am by no means an expert on Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist Perspective. I have tried to study the subject in-depth, but have much more reading to do. I would say that the best book I have read so far is Greg Nichols' Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants.

To answer question (1), I am not exactly sure what you mean by the Covenant of Grace 'beginning'. Certainly it was all part of God's eternal plan of redemption, but I would say that it is first made explicit in Genesis 3:15 when God promises to bruise the head of the serpent. Essentially, the partakers are God's Elect, who are tied to Eve's seed. The promises are redemption, and to create enmity between the spiritual children of Eve (who are redeemed by her seed, the Messiah) and the devil's children. I suppose it 'ends' when all the Elect are gathered, but even then they are maintained and sustained for all eternity, so perhaps it never ends in that sense. I would say the New Covenant is the most explicit outworking/revealing/manifestation of the Covenant of Grace. The promised seed has come, he has crushed the serpent, and he has redeemed his people.

(2) I am not sure how this ties to ecclesiology in the way that you are asking. I believe the two offices are Elders and Deacons. With the roles generally being shepherding/teaching/leading/ruling by the former and serving/supporting by the latter. I do believe that the churches should be connected, but I am not sure how a Reformed Baptist view of God's Covenants would necessarily cause a deviation from a Presbyterian view of church connections.

(3) I believe the 'sacraments' are ordinances in the church. The church is responsible for administering baptism and the lord's supper in the appropriate manner. Baptism (from a credo-Baptist perspective) is to be given to those who make a credible profession of faith, and the lord's supper given to those who are able to discern what it is, who have made confessions of faith, and who can reflect upon what it means.

Again, I am not an expert in any way, and I have much more to learn and study. But I would say the biggest dividing factor between the paedo-Baptists (of which many of my friends are) and credo-Baptists is the understanding of the New Covenant in relation to the other covenants, the administration of that covenant, and the partakers/members of it as well. I hope I was able to help at least in some small way.

 

[VictorBravo]

Following up from what Eric posted, take a look at Chapter 7, paragraph 3 of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith (speaking on the covenant of Grace):

Paragraph 3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman,5 and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament;6 and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;7 and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.8
5 Gen. 3:15
6 Heb. 1:1
7 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2
8 Heb. 11;6,13; Rom. 4:1,2, &c.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56

Note that it is progressively revealed from Genesis forward, but founded in the eternal covenant of redemption.

(2) How does the answer to (1) affect ecclesiology (number of offices, roles of each office)? Does it still subscribe to a connectional system of government and, if not, why?

I don't think I can begin to answer the question without having a few handholds to grasp onto. I don't see an obvious connection between offices in the church and the covenant of grace. Are you thinking in terms of how it is administered?

Same sort of question regarding "connectional system of government." What I know of that is that Presbyterians sometimes use that term to mean that individual churches are connected but independent. I don't think I can draw a mandate for church government from my understanding the covenant of grace in itself.

(3) In light of the answers to (1) and (2), what is the role and function of the sacraments?

From the Confession's definition of the covenant of grace, I think there is very little information to answer this question. However, regarding how Reformed Baptists view the physical administration of the sacraments (more commonly called ordinances by many RBs), the emphasis is primarily memorial and symbolic, while allowing room for a "real presence" understanding during the Lord's Supper.

Baptism (see chapter 29) symbolizes and signifies several things: (1) union with Christ in his death and resurrection, (2) remission of sins, (3) yielding to God through Jesus Christ (4) newness of life. Connected to this is the practical effect that it is an announcement to the world that one has joined the visible church.

The Lord's Supper is a sign of obedience to Christ ("do this in remembrance of me"--chapter 28, 30), a remembrance and showing to all the world Christ's sacrifice in his death, a confirmation of faith and confirming of the benefits of faith, a confirmation of spiritual nourishment, etc., and a pledge of fellowship with him. It also is a pledge of fellowship with the visible church.

But I don't see these things as being directly mandated or required by the covenant of grace. They were indeed mandated by God, but I'd base that on his sovereignty.

 

[PhillipJLee]

...

Loopie: Thank you for the your input and help! Your answers certainly do help so thank you again! The reason I made a connection between the Covenant of Grace and ecclesiology was to be sensitive to how "covenantal" some may be over others.

Following up from what Eric posted, take a look at Chapter 7, paragraph 3 of the 2nd London Baptist Confession of Faith...

Baptism (see chapter 29) symbolizes and signifies several things: (1) union with Christ in his death and resurrection, (2) remission of sins, (3) yielding to God through Jesus Christ (4) newness of life. Connected to this is the practical effect that it is an announcement to the world that one has joined the visible church.

Likewise, thank you for the input! These answers have been greatly helpful! So, for clarification, baptism from the RB's perspective is not a sign and seal? Likewise, it is unrelated to membership in a covenant community?

Thank you again for these answers!

 

[Hemustincrease]

I am far from qualified to answer questions on this subject, but I would like to recommend a book by one who is qualified to do so. :

‘Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace’ Paul.K Jewett

In it, he goes into detail with regards to Baptism as a sign and a seal, sharing similarities with circumcision whilst also bearing distinctions of great importance. He is a Reformed Baptist and writes the book as an apology for that position, demonstrating with wonderful Biblical clarity the errors of infant baptism.

 

[VictorBravo]

So, for clarification, baptism from the RB's perspective is not a sign and seal? Likewise, it is unrelated to membership in a covenant community?

Not exactly. Reformed Baptists do use the language of covenant community, but that more or less coincides with the visible church. And, of course, you can only be a member on profession of faith in Christ with baptism.

Likewise, baptism is considered a sign and seal. As noted in my first answer, it "signifies" which means it is a sign. The Lord's Supper is also a pledge, which operates as a confirmation of God's promise.

We Reformed Baptists tend to look at terms like "covenant community" differently from the paedobaptists. That may be why I am having trouble understanding your questions. Simplistically speaking: our perspective tends to look back in remembrance of what Christ has done, and how it has been applied to us now. We do see a shifting point that centers on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The paedobaptists tend to look forward from Abraham, seeing a continuity in the method of administration of the covenant of grace.

To add to the confusion, some Reformed Baptists (and most regular Baptists) go so far as to say there are two different covenants: the old and the new. I don't go there, and I have a difficult time grasping why one would want to. But I keep trying to understand the details and nuances of all reasonable views of fellow Christians.

 

[VictorBravo]

‘Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace’ Paul.K Jewett

Just a caveat on Mr. Jewett. He wasn't exactly a Reformed Baptist in the historical sense. He drew from Karl Barth among others.

Later in his career, he advocated in favor of women elders.

 

[PhillipJLee]

I am far from qualified to answer questions on this subject, but I would like to recommend a book by one who is qualified to do so. :

‘Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace’ Paul.K Jewett

In it, he goes into detail with regards to Baptism as a sign and a seal, sharing similarities with circumcision whilst also bearing distinctions of great importance. He is a Reformed Baptist and writes the book as an apology for that position, demonstrating with wonderful Biblical clarity the errors of infant baptism.

‘Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace’ Paul.K Jewett

Just a caveat on Mr. Jewett. He wasn't exactly a Reformed Baptist in the historical sense. He drew from Karl Barth among others.

Later in his career, he advocated in favor of women elders.

Thank you for the recommendation -- I will have to look into this book for a better understanding on the matter!

So, for clarification, baptism from the RB's perspective is not a sign and seal? Likewise, it is unrelated to membership in a covenant community?

Not exactly. Reformed Baptists do use the language of covenant community, but that more or less coincides with the visible church. And, of course, you can only be a member on profession of faith in Christ with baptism.

Likewise, baptism is considered a sign and seal. As noted in my first answer, it "signifies" which means it is a sign. The Lord's Supper is also a pledge, which operates as a confirmation of God's promise.

We Reformed Baptists tend to look at terms like "covenant community" differently from the paedobaptists. That may be why I am having trouble understanding your questions. Simplistically speaking: our perspective tends to look back in remembrance of what Christ has done, and how it has been applied to us now. We do see a shifting point that centers on the life, death, and resurrection of Christ. The paedobaptists tend to look forward from Abraham, seeing a continuity in the method of administration of the covenant of grace.

To add to the confusion, some Reformed Baptists (and most regular Baptists) go so far as to say there are two different covenants: the old and the new. I don't go there, and I have a difficult time grasping why one would want to. But I keep trying to understand the details and nuances of all reasonable views of fellow Christians.

Indeed, when it comes to the Reformed Baptist theology, I am still very unclear what exactly it entails as different folks seem to quote the LBCF in different ways. Were there a Reformed Baptist denomination, I think I'd find some of my questions answered (which is why I asked about the RB's view on connectional system of government -- if they are truly Congregationalists, then there seems to be no way for a denomination to exist, regarding a presbytery/synod/etc and a general assembly; however, how can one be a Congregationalist and hold to an ecclesiology that is rooted in orthodox covenant theology?) ... Some clarification and help would be greatly appreciated as I am about to make a decision on whether or not to go under-care in a denomination that I, in good conscious, still have some hesitations about.

 

[VictorBravo]

how can one be a Congregationalist and hold to an ecclesiology that is rooted in orthodox covenant theology?

Phillip, I think this is the assumption I'm trying to understand in order to answer your questions. Could explain why you think Congregationalism and covenant theology cannot go together?

I'm not challenging your assumption, I'm just trying to understand what the basis for it is.

A side note: Reformed Baptists (which is a fairly modern term) ought to be synonymous with confessional Baptists. Indeed, there are calvinistic Baptists who do not subscribe to the LBCF. ARBCA is an association of confessional Reformed Baptist Churches who in fact have general assemblies for mutual consultation and edification. The LBCF contemplates such associationalism yet distinguishes it from a presbyterian form of government.

There are also confessional churches who consider themselves to be Reformed Baptist who do not follow the associationalism model that I think is found in the confession.

 

[PhillipJLee]

Phillip, I think this is the assumption I'm trying to understand in order to answer your questions. Could explain why you think Congregationalism and covenant theology cannot go together?

I'm not challenging your assumption, I'm just trying to understand what the basis for it is.

A side note: Reformed Baptists (which is a fairly modern term) ought to be synonymous with confessional Baptists. Indeed, there are calvinistic Baptists who do not subscribe to the LBCF. ARBCA is an association of confessional Reformed Baptist Churches who in fact have general assemblies for mutual consultation and edification. The LBCF contemplates such associationalism yet distinguishes it from a presbyterian form of government.

There are also confessional churches who consider themselves to be Reformed Baptist who do not follow the associationalism model that I think is found in the confession.

Ah I see I see, please do not let my lack of understanding offend or mislead -- I am asking out of a genuine desire to learn so I am not entirely certain how to be sensitive about the ways I phrase my questions regarding the matter. Perhaps to rephrase my question and intent, I should just explain that I believe I am Presbyterian in virtually all of my views except for pedobaptism, which has led some of my mentors to suggest that I do not truly understand my Covenant Theology because, if I did, then membership in the covenant community via baptism directly supports pedobaptism.

Well, in light of that suggestion, I decided to work backwards from my hesitation to subscribe to pedobaptism onto the definition of "household" and membership via baptism, then onto the sacrament as a sign and seal. As such, I began to realize just how on the fence I was, so I was hoping some could shed light into the entire matter so that I could compare and contrast my beliefs to those of a typical RB and a typical Presbyterian. Doing so would help me with ordination in the near future as well as my pastoral ministry all together so I welcome as much of it as possible.