Paedo-Baptism Answers Response to Pascal DENAULT (the Distinctive Baptist Theology)

[Elias_Amare]

Reading through Covenant Theology Books, most people especially Baptists will suggest Pascal Denault's book to see the difference Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism. Although I didn't read the book thoroughly, the book's formulation of the paedobaptist covenant theology raises some serious questions at least for me.
1) under the title "Covenant of Grace" In Chapter 4:1 The Hermeneutical Comparisons it says that

The Baptists considered that paedobaptist federalism transgressed this rule by interpreting the biblical covenants based on a theological concept rather than on revelation.

what can we say about the hermeneutical difference between Baptists and paedobaptists, especially in the Old Testament?

2) Under the title "Covenant of grace" In chapter 4.2.2. The Range and Effectiveness of Grace in the Covenant of Grace

The Baptists compared this restrained efficacy of the death of Christ to a kind of limited Arminianism. Arminianism extended the reach of the death of Christ to all human beings, but limited its efficacy to believers. Presbyterian federalism extended the reach of the death of Christ to all the members of the covenant, but limited its salvific efficacy to the elect. Consequently, Presbyterian federalism was comparable to Arminianism, but limited to the Covenant of Grace.

This section deals with the Covenant of Grace and election then goes to Christ's mediation and pushes that Presbyterians hold some sort of limited Arminianism by making a distinction between the administration and the substance enforcing the argument by quoting John Owen and others.
Any thoughts on the limited Arminianism statement?
How to better understand Christ's mediation?

3) thoughts on the author's interpretation of John Owen's works especially Covenant Theology.


If I misread The book please correct me, and if you haven't read the book I encourage you to at least see it roughly and give your thoughts on the whole book.

 

[MilitaryBrat2007]

So basically, the first point is that Baptists accuse Presbyterians of being dogmatic and only interpret the Bible to conclude there that infant baptism is legitimate. Do I understand that correctly?

 

[Elias_Amare]

To add thought and a couple of quotes from the book( on the first point)
under the same section (4.1 The Hermeneutical Comparisons )
it says paedobaptists don't let the scripture define the covenants but alter them by defining them according to predefined parameters.
when I'm reading this kind of claim the author suggests that Presbyterian's covenant theology is a mere innovation which is built up only to defend infant baptism (at least to me)

Was this accusation towards paedobaptists justified? Was it true that they did not define the biblical covenants based on their promises and respective terms but on pre-established theological principles? In any case, it is undeniable that the paedobaptists practised paedobaptism on the basis of a covenant where baptism did not exist.145 The only reason that explains this hermeneutic – questionable to the Baptists – is the Presbyterian model of the Covenant of Grace. This model had a major hermeneutical impact since it led to the following logic: if the Covenant of Grace was administered respectively by the Old and the New Covenants, they were not really covenants, but only administrations of another covenant which is progressively revealed through the Bible. This logic explains the intertwining of the Old and New Testaments in the paedobaptist hermeneutic. Consequently, there is no longer any reason to define the terms and the ordinances of the New Covenant based solely on New Testament data.
"The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" Covenant of Grace" In Chapter 4:1 The Hermeneutical Comparisons"

 

[clawrence9008]

2) Under the title "Covenant of grace" In chapter 4.2.2. The Range and Effectiveness of Grace in the Covenant of Grace

This section deals with the Covenant of Grace and election then goes to Christ's mediation and pushes that Presbyterians hold some sort of limited Arminianism by making a distinction between the administration and the substance enforcing the argument by quoting John Owen and others.
Any thoughts on the limited Arminianism statement?
How to better understand Christ's mediation?

I am surprised to see such a misrepresentation of Reformed theology posited by those Particular Baptists of which you speak in the Denault book. The idea that Presbyterians teach a modified Arminianism with regards to the atonement because of the (biblical) visible/invisible church distinction that we hold to is one of the most absurd things I have heard in a while. Frankly, anyone who would posit such a view (not saying you are, but others who might) should know better and not act like that’s what confessional Presbyterians “truly believe.” There have always been those in the visible covenant community who partake in the outward blessings and ordinances of that community while not truly receiving the realities of the covenant of grace by faith (Rom. 2:28-3:2; Hebrews 4:1-2; 6:4-6).

Also John Owen was not a Baptist and never would have become one, so it disgruntles me to see some Baptists so nonchalantly imbibe his theology as if it were “only a matter of time” before he “wisened up” and came to a Baptist understanding of things.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

1) under the title "Covenant of Grace" In Chapter 4:1 The Hermeneutical Comparisons it says that

what can we say about the hermeneutical difference between Baptists and paedobaptists, especially in the Old Testament?

2) Under the title "Covenant of grace" In chapter 4.2.2. The Range and Effectiveness of Grace in the Covenant of Grace

This section deals with the Covenant of Grace and election then goes to Christ's mediation and pushes that Presbyterians hold some sort of limited Arminianism by making a distinction between the administration and the substance enforcing the argument by quoting John Owen and others.
Any thoughts on the limited Arminianism statement?
How to better understand Christ's mediation?

3) thoughts on the author's interpretation of John Owen's works especially Covenant Theology.

1) That quote may express how things look to the Baptist; but how will that accusation ever strike a Presbyterian with convicting force? It is nonsense--as we see it--to allege that the Presbyterian may have begun with revelation; but then went on a merry spree of "theologizing" (presumably, just busy working out the implications of a postulate or two) in order to justify baptizing infants. As I am unsure what the "rule" is, that is supposedly broken by the Presbyterian, I will merely point out that the Baptists have ever since the Reformation been about supposedly pushing that movement beyond the stopping points of the more "timid" Reformed, to the proper limits which the Baptists have found.

There is marked difference between the hermeneutical methods of typical Presbyterians vs. Baptists. This is not to deny the similarities between those approaches, as well as a happy meeting of many Bible-believers of either camp upon the heights of theology; but it does affirm that there is more than one route to the summit. There are different answers given to important questions, whether from the typical Baptist or Presbyterian, questions that are intermediate to the conclusion but that impact the direction one follows and the shape of the contours at the result.

With respect to the OT, the issue of continuity/discontinuity (while at times overly simplified or too-broad) between the religion of the ages before Christ and the religion of the current NT age is perennial. How does one view Abraham? What is the relationship between Abraham and Moses? Between Abraham and Christ? Does Abraham's religion have more in common with Moses' or with the Apostles' religion? How does the New Covenant relate to God's covenant with Abraham? How about with the covenant of Sinai? These are not questions best answered with pat and summary replies; but require deep investigation of the text--the whole text of the Bible. There is no "theologizing" apart from Scripture, whether mining it for postulates or taking its guidance on developing that theology. "The new is in the old concealed; the old is in the new revealed."

2) Again, the comparison made is suited to the ears and conscience of the Baptist; but is false and powerless to the ears and conscience of the Presbyterian. It is an argument that could only exist in the wake of the Arminian controversy from the 17th century whence cometh its premises. In what way does the covenant theology (federalism) of the Presbyterian "extend the reach of the death of Christ to all the members of the covenant," to include (presumably) the reprobate? Well, the Baptist has a convenient and ready-made response to the straw-man construction he built: the New covenant has no reprobates. So, it's no problem for him; but the Presbyterian has this grand obstacle....

However, the Presbyterian never accepted this premise: The New covenant has no outward administration of it by men; but only the inward administration of it by the Holy Spirit. Since we never had this concept, we have never encountered this grand obstacle. The New covenant is the present expression of the single covenant-religion revealed in Holy Scripture. This religion has had various outward exhibits and emphases over millennia; however its substance is forever unchanged. The efficacy of animal sacrifice as far back as Adam, Noah, the patriarchs, and the Mosaic administration was due to 1) its conceptual tie to the Final Sacrifice provided by God; and 2) the reception of the promise of God BY FAITH on the part of the participant.

The death of Christ reaches to all them who draw near by faith, or who drew near in those pre-Christian times--and to no others. Nevertheless, it is proper to declare to the church--be it the OT church or the NT--that Christ has died for his church. Or to put it differently, he shed his blood and laid down his life for his sheep; and those sheep are identified in this sensibly-accessed world by their connection to his body on earth: the church. God was pleased before Christ to identify as "his people" those who without distinction belonged to his covenant; but many (different numbers in different generations) who were identified as "Israel" were not, in fact, "Israel," as the apostle reminds us Rom.9:6; and circumcision was of the heart not the flesh or the letter, Rom.2:29.

God continues to be so pleased since the coming of Christ to identify "his people" to each other and the whole world those who belong to his covenant--a covenant that continues (in the Presbyterian interpretation) to be administered both outwardly by men, and inwardly by the Holy Spirit. Just as in OT times, the Spirit handles the substance of the covenant relation, applying or withholding it to individuals as he wills (Jesus famously asked Nicodemus why he didn't understand such basic spiritual reality, as he was a leader of the Old Covenant church); while men handle the administration (outward) of the covenant in terms of the visible body comprised of tangible, ensouled bodies of men.

If the church was idealized on earth, and was only ever made up of the elect, of true professors never false, perhaps it would be appropriate to declare the death of Christ reaches head for head every member of the covenant. After all, if there be no human error to account for; and if so be none would ever be enrolled as citizens who did not take a hearty and true oath of allegiance to the heavenly kingdom; then it must be true that the death of Christ "reaches" all the baptized. Neither is there any use for embodied administration of the covenant (other than Christ himself bodily in heaven), but only the Spirit to the heart; acts of the visible church are trivial, scarcely deserving the term "ministry" which is exclusive to the Spirit.

The Presbyterian denies idealism of the church on earth. Even the New covenant is to be administered by embodied men to other embodied men. The New covenant has a visible component, a community; and its makeup is of families and individuals, its perpetuation and growth comes from both those who are reared in and embrace the faith, as well as from converts who come from without. As with all human institutions and organizations, not everyone is perpetually content with the membership requirements of the faithful. What do we make of those who come in and are "naturalized," only to go out again after a season; or who were upreared inside the bounds, but who depart for "greener pastures?" Have the promises of God been made of no effect?

We have an answer for the question of apostasy, and it doesn't involve dismissing biblical language of God's unfailing love for his church. It doesn't require affirming some members really possessed saving benefits through the covenant, but really lost those benefits because of lack of perseverance. We do not believe Christ engages in saving mediation--not even for a time--for those who were not given to him. All the same, Jesus is the unrivaled King, Prophet, and Priest of his church considered as a whole, which is the realm and sphere of his mediation. Proponents of the Reformed faith who have taught any kind of covenant-universalism are considered outliers by those committed to the historic confessions. It doesn't surprise me if a Baptist finds in one of these someone who is finally "consistent with his principles;" after all, the two share a perspective in common: only the Baptist finds it false, the covenant-universalist true.

3) If you search about on this Board, you will find some engagements that contend over the covenant views of John Owen. Some Baptists believe he articulates a perspective that, if more thoroughly worked out (in line with their convictions) should end up in a view of the New covenant that validates their theology. Suffice to say, Owen did not find himself at odds with infant baptism or its traditional defense. One should not read excerpts of his monumental Hebrews commentary in abstraction from the entire treatment, or from his several, lengthy prefatory essays treating the theology of that letter, principles of which then guard the exegetical process and conclusions therefrom.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Perhaps this is the "rule" about which I wondered above: (taken from post #3)

define the terms and the ordinances of the New Covenant based solely on New Testament data​

If indeed this is the principle by which a Baptist-hermeneutic is governed (advance apologies for the broad brush strokes), then one can see all the clearer how a deep and fundamental commitment to discontinuity in religion is marked by the cross of Christ, when the Baptist looks to ground his theology. It is not merely that the New covenant documents are the principal context for, and the necessary justification of the conditions of the Christian religion today: if that were so, many or even most Presbyterians would agree. No, but the purported Baptist position is that the NT is the only relevant data set.

What is the OT for, in that case, other than for a description of the preparations for the interruption of Christ on the world scene? It is a long prelude, filled with ups and downs in the fortunes--material and spiritual-- of the Old covenant people. But is this people a church of God? More exactly, on this view it seems more accurate to assess that covenant nation as a place where (more than other places in the world) one might find, here or there, the occasional man, woman, or child of faith. The church, such as it was, could be found within the Old covenant bounds; or prior to that, within the tents of Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then the twelve patriarchs and their houses; but in no sense would it be right to identify the tents of Abraham as THE CHURCH.

But, doesn't the NT refer to "the church in the wilderness," Act.7:38? My Presbyterian-hermeneutic teaches me to recognize the constituting of the Exodus people a nation as also constituting them "the church" in that age. The things that were written for them--as instruction and promise, as background and prophecy, as a record of their engagement to be the Lord's and of their progress--are part and parcel of the guidance we have inherited for our present needs (1Cor.10:11) as the indispensable interpretive context for the capstone of revelation in Jesus Christ. There was a church in those ancient times as well as the institution founded by Christ and his apostles. Abraham's tents were the best expression of the true church in his day, even if other relics also remained from the church of Noah in men like Melchizedek.

Calvin writes in his exposition of Gen.4:26, "Seth was an upright and faithful servant of God. And after he begat a son, like himself, and had a rightly constituted family, the face of the Church began distinctly to appear." If Calvin's statement were rebutted to him as representative of a theological a priori, "a mere innovation which is built up only to defend infant baptism," what should he say to that? The fact there was a church before "church" was the name of it is simply recognition of the distinction between a concept and its description, or how a concept may transition from simple to complex, without altering its essence. And if there was a church back in Genesis, then is it really a textual imposition to note comparable elements of that church with present day church analogues? It was the "infant church;" and while there are extraordinary differences between infants and adults, there is undeniable continuity as well.

There is a kind of "intertwining of the Old and New Testaments in the paedobaptist hermeneutic." It is the hermeneutic that discovers the manifold ways that Christ is in the Old Testament concealed, yet brought to light by the clarity of his coming. Because he was the Hope of Israel, one wonders how the New Testament could be faithfully interpreted as the fulfillment of that hope, if not by finding the depth of Old Testament support for every predicate.

I want to close by affirming: I believe Baptists who focus on the NT--even to ignoring the OT--and such are not all Baptists!--these are not to be despised. As a Presbyterian, I think they have devoted themselves to a false principle, that they reckon Jesus Christ started what amounts to a new religion. It is so radical a break with the past--breaking hard even with revealed religion that appeared in the world between Adam and Moses and carried down to the days of John the Baptist--that they think of God and one another in ways that are quite distinct from the thinking manner (as they conceive it) of OT heroes and heroines of faith, ala Heb.11. The reason we ought not despise them, besides behavior dishonoring to Christ and his name on us, is that sometimes they love our mutual Lord better than those who take pride in their religion, or their harmony of OT/NT witness, or their covenant theology, or whatever. People with whom we may seriously disagree can still be our brother and sister through sincere faith in Jesus, in whom we too have put our whole confidence.

 

[Gforce9]

Perhaps this is the "rule" about which I wondered above: (taken from post #3)

define the terms and the ordinances of the New Covenant based solely on New Testament data​

If indeed this is the principle by which a Baptist-hermeneutic is governed (advance apologies for the broad brush strokes), then one can see all the clearer how a deep and fundamental commitment to discontinuity in religion is marked by the cross of Christ, when the Baptist looks to ground his theology. It is not merely that the New covenant documents are the principal context for, and the necessary justification of the conditions of the Christian religion today: if that were so, many or even most Presbyterians would agree. No, but the purported Baptist position is that the NT is the only relevant data set.

What is the OT for, in that case, other than for a description of the preparations for the interruption of Christ on the world scene? It is a long prelude, filled with ups and downs in the fortunes--material and spiritual-- of the Old covenant people. But is this people a church of God? More exactly, on this view it seems more accurate to assess that covenant nation as a place where (more than other places in the world) one might find, here or there, the occasional man, woman, or child of faith. The church, such as it was, could be found within the Old covenant bounds; or prior to that, within the tents of Abraham, then Isaac, then Jacob, then the twelve patriarchs and their houses; but in no sense would it be right to identify the tents of Abraham as THE CHURCH.

But, doesn't the NT refer to "the church in the wilderness," Act.7:38? My Presbyterian-hermeneutic teaches me to recognize the constituting of the Exodus people a nation as also constituting them "the church" in that age. The things that were written for them--as instruction and promise, as background and prophecy, as a record of their engagement to be the Lord's and of their progress--are part and parcel of the guidance we have inherited for our present needs (1Cor.10:11) as the indispensable interpretive context for the capstone of revelation in Jesus Christ. There was a church in those ancient times as well as the institution founded by Christ and his apostles. Abraham's tents were the best expression of the true church in his day, even if other relics also remained from the church of Noah in men like Melchizedek.

Calvin writes in his exposition of Gen.4:26, "Seth was an upright and faithful servant of God. And after he begat a son, like himself, and had a rightly constituted family, the face of the Church began distinctly to appear." If Calvin's statement were rebutted to him as representative of a theological a priori, "a mere innovation which is built up only to defend infant baptism," what should he say to that? The fact there was a church before "church" was the name of it is simply recognition of the distinction between a concept and its description, or how a concept may transition from simple to complex, without altering its essence. And if there was a church back in Genesis, then is it really a textual imposition to note comparable elements of that church with present day church analogues? It was the "infant church;" and while there are extraordinary differences between infants and adults, there is undeniable continuity as well.

There is a kind of "intertwining of the Old and New Testaments in the paedobaptist hermeneutic." It is the hermeneutic that discovers the manifold ways that Christ is in the Old Testament concealed, yet brought to light by the clarity of his coming. Because he was the Hope of Israel, one wonders how the New Testament could be faithfully interpreted as the fulfillment of that hope, if not by finding the depth of Old Testament support for every predicate.

I want to close by affirming: I believe Baptists who focus on the NT--even to ignoring the OT--and such are not all Baptists!--these are not to be despised. As a Presbyterian, I think they have devoted themselves to a false principle, that they reckon Jesus Christ started what amounts to a new religion. It is so radical a break with the past--breaking hard even with revealed religion that appeared in the world between Adam and Moses and carried down to the days of John the Baptist--that they think of God and one another in ways that are quite distinct from the thinking manner (as they conceive it) of OT heroes and heroines of faith, ala Heb.11. The reason we ought not despise them, besides behavior dishonoring to Christ and his name on us, is that sometimes they love our mutual Lord better than those who take pride in their religion, or their harmony of OT/NT witness, or their covenant theology, or whatever. People with whom we may seriously disagree can still be our brother and sister through sincere faith in Jesus, in whom we too have put our whole confidence.

Yet another time when I walk away from a response by Rev. Buchanan doxologically......... God is gracious to His people.......

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Also John Owen was not a Baptist and never would have become one, so it disgruntles me to see some Baptists so nonchalantly imbibe his theology as if it were “only a matter of time” before he “wisened up” and came to a Baptist understanding of things.

John Owen was not a Presbyterian. He was an Independent. Thus his view of the church was similar to a Baptist view.

I do not agree with all this article (I am not a Baptist) but it gives an argument for why Baptists appeal to Owen

A Summary of Why Baptists Appeal to Owen

In published works (see here, here, here, and here), baptists have pointed out that Owen’s covenant theology, as articulated in his commentary on Hebrews, departs from Westminster Federalism …

contrast2.wordpress.com

 

[Elias_Amare]

Well said Rev Buchanan! On every point

Just as in OT times, the Spirit handles the substance of the covenant relation, applying or withholding it to individuals as he wills (Jesus famously asked Nicodemus why he didn't understand such basic spiritual reality, as he was a leader of the Old Covenant church); while men handle the administration (outward) of the covenant in terms of the visible body comprised of tangible, ensouled bodies of men.

And this a very good point.
This is what I'm missing form baptist-hermeneutic especially in their "two-tier typology".