The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology

Discussion in 'Covenant Theology' started by Matthew1344, Jan 7, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Matthew1344

    Matthew1344 Puritan Board Freshman

    Has anyone ever read this book?
    Is it confusing to you?

    A couple months ago, I was told by a baptist friend that my view of Cov theology is not baptist. I had no idea what he was talking about. I thought what i learned from Edwards and Calvin was just reformed understanding of cov theology. I had no idea it was different than baptist cov theology.

    He told me that if i view the Cov the way that i say i do, then i would have to baptize infants. He said a 1689 federalist does not baptize infants because of their view of the cov. Their view is different than yours.

    So I got this book. Confused the mess out of me. When i read presbyterian stuff, i understand. And when i listen to Dr. McMahon lectures on the subject they were extremely confusing 6 months ago, but i listened to them again very slowly taking notes. Took me around 20 hours to get through his 6hour set. I now feel as if i am presbyterian.

    So i started out baptist, looking for presby arguments.
    Now I seem to be presby, looking for baptist argument.

    So i decided to reread the distinctiveness of baptist covenant theology once more, and see what i find. But as of now, still really confusing. I am having trouble with the dualistic nature of the abrahamic cov.
  2. Pilgrim

    Pilgrim Puritan Board Doctor

    I think there have been some threads about this in the past, but I'm not sure how many active posters here are really into that particular expression of Baptist CT. If you're on FB, you may want to ask your question in the big Reformed Baptist group. Several of the main "1689 Federalism" authors are members.
  3. Tyrese

    Tyrese Puritan Board Sophomore

    'He told me that if i view the Cov the way that i say i do, then i would have to baptize infants.'

    I find these sort of statements frustrating because it implies that we should have an answer for every detail of the covenants. I don't follow this sort of thinking becuase we wont understand everything this side of heaven. I disagree with the more recent developments of Baptist federalism, and yet I'm still a baptist. I think the Westminster Confessions chapter on Gods Covenants is an (in my opinion) accurate representation of what the Bible teaches, and yet I reject infant baptism. Here's the bottom line: the scriptures do not teach nor imply infant baptism. Not only that, whenever you listen to someone give a 'biblical' explanation of infant baptism, they always cherry pick their favorite text and ignore the odvious dangers of the door they've opened. For example, household baptisms. This is a major stumbling block for me. Not only is it all based on assumption, but they never give guidelines concerning who should be baptized in a particular household. And when you find guidelines there's no agreement even among paedobaptist. Should your 29 year old son be baptized becuase he's a member in your household? How about your 70 year old unbelieving grandmother who happens to live with you? They'll say well we'll apply wisdom in who to baptize and who we should not. Brother, None of it makes sense. Odviously it's good that you're studying the topic, but in the end I'd encourage you to just stick to the scriptures.
  4. MW

    MW Puritan Board Doctor

    Tyrese, shouldn't household baptism be considered in its biblical context first? Regardless of the difficulties we might find in applying the principle in the present, it is of first importance to ascertain what the Bible teaches. If the Bible teaches household baptism we should first accept what the Bible teaches and then set about working through the difficulties of application as God gives us wisdom.

    To the OP, perhaps it would be helpful to look at Samuel Waldron's Exposition of the 1689 Confession, in which he offers an antipaedobaptist perspective on the continuity of the covenant of grace.
  5. BG

    BG Puritan Board Junior

    Yes to both the 29 and 70 year old if they are willing.
  6. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Graduate

    Good question, as there are some subtle differences between how Presby and Baptist Refomed view them.
  7. puritanpilgrim

    puritanpilgrim Puritan Board Junior

  8. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Graduate

    Presby Reformed tie infant baptism into the concept of idenitifing it to circumcision under the Old Covenant, but Baptists such as yourself and I wold not see it in that regard. That is why the 1689 Bptist Confession has a difference regarding this issue, correct?
  9. Shane2336

    Shane2336 Puritan Board Freshman

    I just finished the book myself. It left me with exactly zero answers and 1,000 questions!
  10. arapahoepark

    arapahoepark Puritan Board Senior

    Nehemiah Coxe's work should be more helpful in that regard.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page