WCF vs. 1689 LBCF on Covenant Theology

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi Stephen,

I was surprised to hear that Marcel endorsed presumptive regeneration, so I had another look and I am sure that is not correct and he clearly distances himself from that view. Here are some relevant sections from page 199 onwards:

"The covenant, together with its promises, constitutes the objective and legal basis of infant baptism. Infant baptism is the sign, seal, and pledge of all that these promises imply. As Calvin says in his work on The True method of reforming the church, : “The children of believers are holy from the time of their birth, because before coming into the world they are adopted into the covenant of eternal life; and there is absolutely no other reason for receiving them into the church except that already beforehand they belong to the body of Christ.”

H. Bavinck, the celebrated dogmatician, expresses himself as follows: "This covenant was the solid, biblical, and objective foundation upon which all the Reformers unanimously and without exception rested the legitimacy of infant baptism. They had no other deeper and more solid foundation" ....

While recognizing that children of believers are baptized because they are in the covenant and are, as such, heirs of the promises implying a right to justification and to the regenerating and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit, a certain number of Reformed theologians have attempted to add one of the effects of the covenant of grace to the foundation of infant baptism, namely, presumptive regeneration. They have considered that presumptive regeneration could be the ultimate ground of baptism, more so even than the covenant. It must be acknowledged that this attempt has failed. Presumptive regeneration cannot be regarded naturally as the legal ground of infant baptism, for this cannot be anything other than the promises of God contained in the covenant. The ground of baptism must be something objective. One cannot baptize on the basis of a presumption. To the question: "Why can you presume the regeneration of the children of believers?" one can only reply: "Because they are born of believing parents"; or, in other words, because they are born into the covenant. Besides, Scripture and experience afford proof that not all the children born into the covenant are regenerated to salvation.

It is obvious that to refuse to consider this presumptive regeneration as the foundation of baptism is not at all the same as saying that it is impossible or unjustifiable to assume that the little children of believers are regenerate .... In accordance with the indications of the Word of God, we do not wish in any way to restrict the divine liberty which acts in sovereign independence when and as it wills, and which is never confined to means. The promise of the regeneration of the children of the covenant is sufficient for us. It is not for us to define whether this regeneration in view of salvation is found in the elect children before or at the moment of baptism, or sometimes even years afterwards.

The ground of infant baptism is that "the Lord receives amongst His people the children of those to whom He has shown Himself as Savior, and that for the sake of the fathers he accepts their offspring .... The present truth which we must consider at baptism, when it is granted to little children, is that it testifies to their salvation by sealing and confirming the covenant of God upon them" (Institutes IV.xvi.15, 21) .... Calvin and his successors, together with practically all the modern Reformed dogmaticians, affirm very clearly that it is the covenant that is the ground of the baptism of both adults and children."

I think Marcel makes his position clear.
So would Calvin be stating that the children of saved parents would also themselves be viewed as being saved now, saved as in How baptists define that term?
 
So would Calvin be stating that the children of saved parents would also themselves be viewed as being saved now, saved as in How baptists define that term?
No.

The quote of Marcel's quote of Calvin is taken out of its context, wherein in the Letter Calvin concerning this topic he is primarily denouncing the claims of Rome. I have no idea how Marcel is using the quote from Calvin, as I have not read his work.

Nevertheless going to the actual source—ad fontes!!—in what immediately precedes the quote in Calvin's letter we read:

"Before proceeding, however, it may be worth while briefly to observe in regard to Baptism that what they say of its absolute necessity might better have been omitted. For, besides tying down the salvation of men to external signs, no small injustice is done to the promise, as if it were unable to give the salvation which it offers unless its sufficiency were aided from another quarter."
We also read preceding the quote given above:
"In the Sacraments our worthy and impartial pacificators shew this much moderation, that the number seven, which was rashly devised by the presumption of unlearned men, and crept in through the foolish credulity of the world, is to be retained as sacred. I must ever be entreating my readers to reflect on the weight and magnitude of the cause under discussion. Christ instituted the Sacraments to be not only symbols of the true religion, which might distinguish the children of God from the profane, but also evidences, and therefore pledges of the divine favour toward us. In Baptism, both forgiveness of sins and the spirit of regeneration are offered to us; in the Holy Supper we are invited to enjoy the life of Christ along with all his benefits. Where are we to stop if with these the fictions of men are intermingled?​

On Calvin's baptismal efficacy, see also:
http://www.reformation21.org/articl...regeneration-or-the-duplex-loquendi-modus.php

We then read the quote given by Mercer above in its full context, wherein the "they make" are the Romanists:
"The offspring of believers is born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, are included in the covenant of eternal life. Nor, indeed, are they admitted into the Church by baptism on any other ground than that they belonged to the body of Christ before they were born. He who admits any others to baptism profanes it. Now, then, when they make baptism to be so necessary that they exclude all who have not been dipped with it from the hope of salvation, they both insult God and also involve themselves in great absurdity. For how could it be lawful to put the sacred impress of Christ on strangers? Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause merely of a partial salvation, but bestows salvation entire, and is afterwards ratified by baptism.

"Hence, as error usually springs from error, the office of baptizing, which Christ committed to the Ministers of the Church alone, they delegate not to any common individual among the people, but to silly women. I do not notice that when discussing the form of baptism they postpone the explanation of the doctrine as if it were of little moment, and insist on the bare pronunciation of the words: as if Christ, when he ordered his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, had dictated some kind of magical charm, and not rather meant summarily to indicate whence the whole efficacy of baptism flows, in whose name and by whose order it is administered, on what faith it depends, and to what end it ought to be referred.

"All the Ceremonies by which posterity has partly vitiated, partly obscured, the pure Baptism of Christ, they order to be left untouched; nay, if they have been anywhere abolished they are to be restored. What else is this than to soil the heavenly laver of Christ with the muddy impurities of man? Christ commanded the simple symbol of water. With it, as was right, the Apostles were contented. The same soberness did not prevail with their successors. They became delighted with the oil and the taper and similar follies. At length, as is usual, perverse superstition crept in, and the chrism added by man was considered of more value than the water consecrated by Christ! The water itself behoved to be consecrated by a new and showy rite, as if it were otherwise profane. In short, the act of baptizing has been compounded of so many various parts that the symbol of water, which alone ought to have been conspicuous, is lost among the crowd.

"Our superstitious masters allege that these additions serve to adorn Baptism, but the fact proclaims that the pure administration of it is rather obscured. There was need at least of some correction? Our mediators, so far from admitting this, distinctly provide that nothing is to be touched. Let this much be granted to ancient custom, that things which are not only superfluous, but useless, may be tolerated. But what if any are found to be absurd and ridiculous, and little suited to the dignity of the ordinance? They will themselves be forced to admit that of this sort is the spittle with which they moisten the infant's lips. Christ anointed the mouth of the dumb man, whose speech he was about to restore, with spittle. How preposterous the imitation which tries the same thing on infants! Is it thus that the miracles of Christ behove to be commemorated? This mockery, (whence or when it arose is unknown, but it certainly has no authority of weight,) when they obstinately defend, do they not plainly shew that their object is not to leave us one spark of light?"

See the entire referenced Tract here:
http://ge.tt/7kE2fNp2 {Click the Download link to the Left of the Page}
 
No.

The quote of Marcel's quote of Calvin is taken out of its context, wherein in the Letter Calvin concerning this topic he is primarily denouncing the claims of Rome. I have no idea how Marcel is using the quote from Calvin, as I have not read his work.

Nevertheless going to the actual source—ad fontes!!—in what immediately precedes the quote in Calvin's letter we read:

"Before proceeding, however, it may be worth while briefly to observe in regard to Baptism that what they say of its absolute necessity might better have been omitted. For, besides tying down the salvation of men to external signs, no small injustice is done to the promise, as if it were unable to give the salvation which it offers unless its sufficiency were aided from another quarter."
We also read preceding the quote given above:
"In the Sacraments our worthy and impartial pacificators shew this much moderation, that the number seven, which was rashly devised by the presumption of unlearned men, and crept in through the foolish credulity of the world, is to be retained as sacred. I must ever be entreating my readers to reflect on the weight and magnitude of the cause under discussion. Christ instituted the Sacraments to be not only symbols of the true religion, which might distinguish the children of God from the profane, but also evidences, and therefore pledges of the divine favour toward us. In Baptism, both forgiveness of sins and the spirit of regeneration are offered to us; in the Holy Supper we are invited to enjoy the life of Christ along with all his benefits. Where are we to stop if with these the fictions of men are intermingled?​

On Calvin's baptismal efficacy, see also:
http://www.reformation21.org/articl...regeneration-or-the-duplex-loquendi-modus.php

We then read the quote given by Mercer above in its full context, wherein the "they make" are the Romanists:
"The offspring of believers is born holy, because their children, while yet in the womb, before they breathe the vital air, are included in the covenant of eternal life. Nor, indeed, are they admitted into the Church by baptism on any other ground than that they belonged to the body of Christ before they were born. He who admits any others to baptism profanes it. Now, then, when they make baptism to be so necessary that they exclude all who have not been dipped with it from the hope of salvation, they both insult God and also involve themselves in great absurdity. For how could it be lawful to put the sacred impress of Christ on strangers? Baptism must, therefore, be preceded by the gift of adoption, which is not the cause merely of a partial salvation, but bestows salvation entire, and is afterwards ratified by baptism.

"Hence, as error usually springs from error, the office of baptizing, which Christ committed to the Ministers of the Church alone, they delegate not to any common individual among the people, but to silly women. I do not notice that when discussing the form of baptism they postpone the explanation of the doctrine as if it were of little moment, and insist on the bare pronunciation of the words: as if Christ, when he ordered his Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, had dictated some kind of magical charm, and not rather meant summarily to indicate whence the whole efficacy of baptism flows, in whose name and by whose order it is administered, on what faith it depends, and to what end it ought to be referred.

"All the Ceremonies by which posterity has partly vitiated, partly obscured, the pure Baptism of Christ, they order to be left untouched; nay, if they have been anywhere abolished they are to be restored. What else is this than to soil the heavenly laver of Christ with the muddy impurities of man? Christ commanded the simple symbol of water. With it, as was right, the Apostles were contented. The same soberness did not prevail with their successors. They became delighted with the oil and the taper and similar follies. At length, as is usual, perverse superstition crept in, and the chrism added by man was considered of more value than the water consecrated by Christ! The water itself behoved to be consecrated by a new and showy rite, as if it were otherwise profane. In short, the act of baptizing has been compounded of so many various parts that the symbol of water, which alone ought to have been conspicuous, is lost among the crowd.

"Our superstitious masters allege that these additions serve to adorn Baptism, but the fact proclaims that the pure administration of it is rather obscured. There was need at least of some correction? Our mediators, so far from admitting this, distinctly provide that nothing is to be touched. Let this much be granted to ancient custom, that things which are not only superfluous, but useless, may be tolerated. But what if any are found to be absurd and ridiculous, and little suited to the dignity of the ordinance? They will themselves be forced to admit that of this sort is the spittle with which they moisten the infant's lips. Christ anointed the mouth of the dumb man, whose speech he was about to restore, with spittle. How preposterous the imitation which tries the same thing on infants! Is it thus that the miracles of Christ behove to be commemorated? This mockery, (whence or when it arose is unknown, but it certainly has no authority of weight,) when they obstinately defend, do they not plainly shew that their object is not to leave us one spark of light?"

See the entire referenced Tract here:
http://ge.tt/7kE2fNp2 {Click the Download link to the Left of the Page}
Thanks, and having read the link, is Calvin saying then that the Ordinances are indeed the means of grace God extends towards us, but only towards those who faith in Jesus Himself? the Elect will be benefited, when grace of God is mixed with those who faith in Jesus receive them now?
 
To begin with, I'm simply casting the standard Baptist continuity/discontinuity criticism (one instance above in #13) in like terms but for my purposes; now the criticism is set not between the OT and the NT, but between two different OT figures and covenants.
Bruce, I am still reflecting on your comments. They are weighty and take time to digest which I am sure is a good thing. Is there a particular book that unpacks your argument more fully. I tend to learn best by reading books. Thanks :)

I think you have also put your finger on one of the debates I see within reformed Baptist churches today. The 1689 Federalism movement is consistent with the Baptist position you stated above. The reformed Baptist arguments I saw of about 15-20 years ago, tended to talk more of the 'admnistration of the covenant'. However 1689 Federalists argue this is conceding too much to the paedobaptists :)
 
Bruce, I am still reflecting on your comments. They are weighty and take time to digest which I am sure is a good thing. Is there a particular book that unpacks your argument more fully. I tend to learn best by reading books. Thanks :)

I think you have also put your finger on one of the debates I see within reformed Baptist churches today. The 1689 Federalism movement is consistent with the Baptist position you stated above. The reformed Baptist arguments I saw of about 15-20 years ago, tended to talk more of the 'admnistration of the covenant'. However 1689 Federalists argue this is conceding too much to the paedobaptists :)
The Baptist viewpoint would be that the COG of the New Covenant was fully manifested to us now in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as something new was added, maybe in the fullness of it being administered now happened.
 
Bruce, I am still reflecting on your comments. They are weighty and take time to digest which I am sure is a good thing. Is there a particular book that unpacks your argument more fully. I tend to learn best by reading books. Thanks

I think you have also put your finger on one of the debates I see within reformed Baptist churches today. The 1689 Federalism movement is consistent with the Baptist position you stated above. The reformed Baptist arguments I saw of about 15-20 years ago, tended to talk more of the 'admnistration of the covenant'. However 1689 Federalists argue this is conceding too much to the paedobaptists
1) If I were you, I would simply read classic works, such as Witsius' Economy of the Covenants, keeping the points I've made in mind, seeing them reflected in the language of the old masters. See this page for access to the whole online. www.apuritansmind.com/covenant-theology/

For a modern work, you might try Dr. McMahon's primer. I found Sacred Bond by Brown and Keele a fairly helpful modern treatment, though at a couple places a bit indulgent of Kline's idiosyncrasies (in my opinion). https://www.amazon.com/Sacred-Bond-...35369148/ref=cm_cr_arp_d_product_sims?ie=UTF8

2) As to the internal Baptist debate. For what it's worth, I think the 1689F group is correct about the late movement by those who came (first) to be called "Reformed Baptist": that they verge toward the P&R position, and the reasons are completely in accord with observations (e.g. that key published works for about 100yrs were virtually all by P&R). There was not much distinctively Baptist yet (in some sense) covenantal.

The move by Baptists generally diverging further from covenant theology, while inconsistent with the LBC1689, was (in my opinion) not wholly inconsistent with other Baptist tenets; and reflects extra emphasis put on those, and corresponding neglect of historic Baptist-covenantal arguments. The decline of theology as a discipline across the board meant some uniting of effort across denominational lines; and that tends to blur them.
 
The Baptist viewpoint would be that the COG of the New Covenant was fully manifested to us now in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus, as something new was added, maybe in the fullness of it being administered now happened.

David,
I think your post here is a good example of the murky water many of us feel like we're wading through to find out what you're intending to say in any given post. This is a criticism, but please don't see it as an attack. We all need to be more clear and I'm often as clear as mud.

"The Baptist viewpoint would be that the COG of the New Covenant"- I'm not sure what you mean with "...the COG of the New Covenant". It seems, at least, you have the covenants reversed in terms of which is the overarching covenant. The NC is the fuller expression/unveiling of the CoG, not the other way around. The CoG is the "master plan" of redemption and the NC is an expression/unveiling of it.

"...was fully manifested to us now in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus..."- Maybe a clearer way to state it would be "...ultimately revealed God's plan of redemption in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. All the attempted qualifiers actually makes the end point less clear.


"...as something new was added..."- Nothing new was added to the eternal, immutable (unchangeable) plan of God. What took place in history is the jot and tittle outworking of the plan of redemption as designed. Again, the extra qualifying language makes it less clear, not more, and gets you into deeper theological weeds.

"...maybe in the fullness of it being administered now happened..."- I looked at this part several times and I don't understand, at all, what you are trying to communicate here.

You have caught a lot of fire PB for both your writing style/grammar and with your theological assertions. If you simplify and correct your writing style, you would eliminate 50% of criticism. That would be very worth it to me; as one who prefers peace over conflict.......:2cents:
 
David,
I think your post here is a good example of the murky water many of us feel like we're wading through to find out what you're intending to say in any given post. This is a criticism, but please don't see it as an attack. We all need to be more clear and I'm often as clear as mud.

"The Baptist viewpoint would be that the COG of the New Covenant"- I'm not sure what you mean with "...the COG of the New Covenant". It seems, at least, you have the covenants reversed in terms of which is the overarching covenant. The NC is the fuller expression/unveiling of the CoG, not the other way around. The CoG is the "master plan" of redemption and the NC is an expression/unveiling of it.

"...was fully manifested to us now in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus..."- Maybe a clearer way to state it would be "...ultimately revealed God's plan of redemption in the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus. All the attempted qualifiers actually makes the end point less clear.


"...as something new was added..."- Nothing new was added to the eternal, immutable (unchangeable) plan of God. What took place in history is the jot and tittle outworking of the plan of redemption as designed. Again, the extra qualifying language makes it less clear, not more, and gets you into deeper theological weeds.

"...maybe in the fullness of it being administered now happened..."- I looked at this part several times and I don't understand, at all, what you are trying to communicate here.

You have caught a lot of fire PB for both your writing style/grammar and with your theological assertions. If you simplify and correct your writing style, you would eliminate 50% of criticism. That would be very worth it to me; as one who prefers peace over conflict.......:2cents:
Thanks for your comments, as do find at times really hard to frame exactly what I am attempting to state, as I know how baptists would take what was being said, but still seeking to be able convert that into what Reformed Presbyterians and some Reformed baptists would be understanding what was being stated.
I will restate this as follows: The COG is found throughout both the OT/NT in the scriptures, but I would not see it as being on earth in its fullest expression until the coming of Jesus Christ, as until that time of His birth/death and resurrection, was not yet realized its ultimate and complete manifestation.
i do not know what differences there are between 1689 Reformed baptists and other reformed baptists, but there does seem to be a difference between Presbyterians and Baptists in regards to how the COG is seen through the scriptures.
 
Thanks for your comments, as do find at times really hard to frame exactly what I am attempting to state, as I know how baptists would take what was being said, but still seeking to be able convert that into what Reformed Presbyterians and some Reformed baptists would be understanding what was being stated.
I will restate this as follows: The COG is found throughout both the OT/NT in the scriptures, but I would not see it as being on earth in its fullest expression until the coming of Jesus Christ, as until that time of His birth/death and resurrection, was not yet realized its ultimate and complete manifestation.
i do not know what differences there are between 1689 Reformed baptists and other reformed baptists, but there does seem to be a difference between Presbyterians and Baptists in regards to how the COG is seen through the scriptures.

David,
The point was not to 1) call attention to the differences between Presbyterians and Baptists or 2) to even clarify this particular post but, rather, to draw your attention to a systemic issue of language and grammar that 1) forces folks to spend lots of time and effort "interpreting" you and 2) causes you undue hardship of criticism. Your response to me contained the same unclear language I attempted to bring to your attention.

I sincerely don't mean to be harsh or combative, but until there is forward movement in the literary department, difficulties will necessarily follow. We (rightly) reject the Evangelicals "WWJD", but I think it might be appropriate here "What would the English professor say?"
 
David,
The point was not to 1) call attention to the differences between Presbyterians and Baptists or 2) to even clarify this particular post but, rather, to draw your attention to a systemic issue of language and grammar that 1) forces folks to spend lots of time and effort "interpreting" you and 2) causes you undue hardship of criticism. Your response to me contained the same unclear language I attempted to bring to your attention.

I sincerely don't mean to be harsh or combative, but until there is forward movement in the literary department, difficulties will necessarily follow. We (rightly) reject the Evangelicals "WWJD", but I think it might be appropriate here "What would the English professor say?"
I will try my very best to make an improvement on articulating in a better fashion what I am attempting to state.
 
I was surprised to hear that Marcel endorsed presumptive regeneration, so I had another look and I am sure that is not correct and he clearly distances himself from that view.
Hello again Richard. When I received your reply I was actually listening to an interview by Fred Malone on the "Iron Sharpens Iron" radio show. I think I was wrong to say Malone said Marcel believed in an extreme presumptive regeneration view. Instead Malone believes Marcel holds to an 'extreme' hypercovenantalism. If you want to check, Malone's comments are about 46 minutes into the interview http://www.ironsharpensironradio.co...rgument-for-credobaptism-versus-paedobaptism/ Part 2 of the interview http://www.ironsharpensironradio.co...-for-credobaptism-versus-paedobaptism-part-2/ Malone was a former pastor in the PCA. When he was considering a Baptist view, his church gave him Marcel to convince him of paedobaptism. Malone said that Marcel's hypercovenantalism actually convinced him of a Baptist view! So it may not be a 'safe' book for me to read :) Seriously am interested in your critique.

Malone states that the main reason he became a Baptist was that paedobaptists argue for infant baptism using the Old Testament but believer communion using the New Testament. I understand this can be resolved by considering that Baptism is initiation into the covenant; communion is confirmation one is truly in the internal aspect of the covenant of grace.
 
If I were you, I would simply read classic works, such as Witsius' Economy of the Covenants, keeping the points I've made in mind, seeing them reflected in the language of the old masters.
Thanks Bruce. Actually I was thinking of Witsius after I sent you the last post. I am presently reading Thomas Blake's "The covenant of God"; will read Witsius after this.

For those on the Puritanboard interested in reading Witsius' Economy of the Covenants, Reformation Heritage books has produced an edition that includes Joel Beeke's insightful essay "The life and theology of Herman Witsius".


 
Malone states that the main reason he became a Baptist was that paedobaptists argue for infant baptism using the Old Testament but believer communion using the New Testament. I understand this can be resolved by considering that Baptism is initiation into the covenant; communion is confirmation one is truly in the internal aspect of the covenant of grace.
This is an interesting comment.

Reason: I have met with the same basic impression as to the alleged argumentation for the Reformed view of the sacraments. Except that the result was inverse; instead of becoming Baptist by moving all the argument to the NT side; the result was paedocommunion (P-C), ostensibly by deriving the whole argument from the OT side.

I forget, was Malone a Baptist who became a Presbyterian, and reverted back to Baptist? If this is the case, a reasonable conclusion is that his fundamental hermeneutical cast never changed even when he became a Presbyterian. And in working out his views to a comfortable consistency, he had to jettison the "bolted-on" portions of classic CT.

For my part, I think the proposition starts off completely wrong. If your first premise is that from a typical Reformed perspective the argument for one sacrament (baptism) "gets its start" out of an OT perspective, and the other (communion) a NT, I see the approach as skewed from the very beginning. Any effort to "get consistent" on the presumed accuracy of the first premise has some chance of resulting in one of those alternate positions, Baptist or P-C.

Actually, the proper way to find one's way to correct Reformed sacrament practice is by systematic theology. One needs a sacramental theology, a theology of baptism, and a theology of communion. Forget about that false dichotomy over "which perspective" one should start with, OT or NT, whether for one or both sacraments.

There are two facts that must be brought together and meshed in working order to obtain the Reformed working premise. One is that we are in a NT arrangement, and this forms our existential perspective. The second is that the Bible of two Testaments is an historic document, so it has a forward gear, a progression in biblical-theology terms; but it is still essentially one organic whole; it is the Constitution of the Covenant of Grace.

From this perspective, neither the Baptist (a kind of NT-theology approach) nor P-C (a kind of OT-theology approach) quite sees the questions or issues the same as classic CT does. We're not going to concede to either that one and the other actually has the true approach (nor do we expect either to admit ours).

Frankly, I have greater issues with the P-C, mainly due to the frequent allegation that they finally got CT internally consistent; when in fact rationalist a priori colors their approach. The problem is that they assume they are employing "our" hermeneutic, not recognizing their own distinctive method.
 
I forget, was Malone a Baptist who became a Presbyterian, and reverted back to Baptist?
Yes I believe that is correct

There are two facts that must be brought together and meshed in working order to obtain the Reformed working premise. One is that we are in a NT arrangement, and this forms our existential perspective. The second is that the Bible of two Testaments is an historic document, so it has a forward gear, a progression in biblical-theology terms; but it is still essentially one organic whole; it is the Constitution of the Covenant of Grace.
I guess it depends what you mean by progression. Malone would argue progression leads to believer communion and believer baptism, all within the one covenant of grace. When Malone wrote his book he was NOT a 1689 Federalist.

You mighbe interested in listening to the full interview to get his full argument.
 
Hello again Richard. When I received your reply I was actually listening to an interview by Fred Malone on the "Iron Sharpens Iron" radio show. I think I was wrong to say Malone said Marcel believed in an extreme presumptive regeneration view. Instead Malone believes Marcel holds to an 'extreme' hypercovenantalism. If you want to check, Malone's comments are about 46 minutes into the interview http://www.ironsharpensironradio.co...rgument-for-credobaptism-versus-paedobaptism/ Part 2 of the interview http://www.ironsharpensironradio.co...-for-credobaptism-versus-paedobaptism-part-2/ Malone was a former pastor in the PCA. When he was considering a Baptist view, his church gave him Marcel to convince him of paedobaptism. Malone said that Marcel's hypercovenantalism actually convinced him of a Baptist view! So it may not be a 'safe' book for me to read :) Seriously am interested in your critique.

Malone states that the main reason he became a Baptist was that paedobaptists argue for infant baptism using the Old Testament but believer communion using the New Testament. I understand this can be resolved by considering that Baptism is initiation into the covenant; communion is confirmation one is truly in the internal aspect of the covenant of grace.

Hi Stephen,

I listened to the podcast of Dr Fred Malone explaining his position. First of all his claim that Marcel’s hypercoventalism convinced him of his Baptist position is very strange, because Marcel is not hypercovenantal, and certainly does not believe that a baptised baby does not carry the guilt of Adam’s sin as Malone claims. But it gets weirder when Malone says Marcel believes that a baptised baby is neither under the covenant of works or the covenant of grace! Where does he get this stuff from? Did he actually read the book? Would a presbytery give him an oddball book to read to convince him of their position? Of course not, they would give a Reformed “standard” book to read, which is what they did.

Secondly, as Malone explained his hermeneutical principles I found them unorthodox and inconsistent. I was going to say something about these problems but Dr Gregg Strawbridge has done a much better job than anything I could do:-

http://www.wordmp3.com/files/gs/malonemore.htm

Strawbridge has a short version and a long version of his critique of Malone, but I think the detail of the long one is very important and well worth the read. Strawbridge knows Malone personally and is very familiar with his teaching.

Thirdly it seems to me that Malone follows New Covenant Theology which has arisen to try to help Reformed Baptists distance themselves from the magnetic effect of Covenant Theology. They want to somehow drive a wedge between the New and Old Covenants, but not too much of a wedge, just enough to avoid disaster. This is so difficult when Hebrews is full of exhortations to New Covenant believers based on the Old Covenant; Col 2:11ff talks about the circumcision of Christ being achieved through baptism; Phil 3:3 says we are the circumcision. The implication of the presence of these passages is we cannot understand our place in Christ without understanding circumcision, and we cannot understand baptism without understanding circumcision.

Strawbridge says that Malone has no real answer to the problem of Heb 10:28-30, and although I have not read the book this does not surprise me because the passage seems to be a stumbling block to all Reformed Baptists. Strawbridge explains how Malone tries to handle this text and I do not know whether it is intentional but I found this section amusing.
 
I guess it depends what you mean by progression. Malone would argue progression leads to believer communion and believer baptism, all within the one covenant of grace.
I'm not sure this was your intent, but this illustrates why there's so much talking-over or past each other, Baptist and Presbyterian. There's no guesswork involved. I am talking about *my* premise, the Presbyterian, so of course it is "a progression" on my terms, biblical-theologically speaking.

First, I said that Malone's first premise got wrong the idea of two Reformed "starting points" (one per sacrament). That may be how he understood the Presbyterian position, or even the way in which he received the position from others as he explored Presbyterianism for a time. But it's not accurate; yet it reveals something about the competing underlying hermeneutics that were at work.

Then I made this statement: "There are two facts that must be brought together and meshed in working order to obtain the Reformed working premise." [emphasis added].

I mean: it's that premise, and not the one Malone was working with, that yields our interpretation. When Malone argues that "progression" lands on his views, he's starting with an equivocation: assuming baseline consent on a definition of that term that doesn't, in fact, obtain.

In the end, Malone retained the basic hermeneutical stance he started with, as a Baptist before he turned WCF for a while. And let me state plainly, that while I think mine is the proper stance, I would rather have a consistent Malone than an inconsistent one as an ally.

We're stronger as co-belligerents on important matters of agreement when the Baptist does not feel "torn" in some way, pressured to agree with his Reformed brethren on sacraments when his hermeneutic takes him to another conclusion.

Instead of endless, futile contentions over who's being "inconsistent," we should note how out two "routes" up the theological mountain deposit us on the same soteriological height--our common ground.
 
I'm not sure this was your intent, but this illustrates why there's so much talking-over or past each other, Baptist and Presbyterian. There's no guesswork involved. I am talking about *my* premise, the Presbyterian, so of course it is "a progression" on my terms, biblical-theologically speaking.

First, I said that Malone's first premise got wrong the idea of two Reformed "starting points" (one per sacrament). That may be how he understood the Presbyterian position, or even the way in which he received the position from others as he explored Presbyterianism for a time. But it's not accurate; yet it reveals something about the competing underlying hermeneutics that were at work.

Then I made this statement: "There are two facts that must be brought together and meshed in working order to obtain the Reformed working premise." [emphasis added].

I mean: it's that premise, and not the one Malone was working with, that yields our interpretation. When Malone argues that "progression" lands on his views, he's starting with an equivocation: assuming baseline consent on a definition of that term that doesn't, in fact, obtain.

In the end, Malone retained the basic hermeneutical stance he started with, as a Baptist before he turned WCF for a while. And let me state plainly, that while I think mine is the proper stance, I would rather have a consistent Malone than an inconsistent one as an ally.

We're stronger as co-belligerents on important matters of agreement when the Baptist does not feel "torn" in some way, pressured to agree with his Reformed brethren on sacraments when his hermeneutic takes him to another conclusion.

Instead of endless, futile contentions over who's being "inconsistent," we should note how out two "routes" up the theological mountain deposit us on the same soteriological height--our common ground.
This is what shoudl be the end result, as you stated here well, that we understand that while there are some significant differences in how Presbyterians and Baptists view just what is Reformed theology, that we are still one in Jesus. Being in Jesus now and redeemed is our most important consideration.
 
This is what shoudl be the end result, as you stated here well, that we understand that while there are some significant differences in how Presbyterians and Baptists view just what is Reformed theology, that we are still one in Jesus. Being in Jesus now and redeemed is our most important consideration.

I don't believe that was Rev. Buchanan's point at all, but the statement on its own merit is true enough.....
 
I listened to the podcast of Dr Fred Malone explaining his position. First of all his claim that Marcel’s hypercoventalism convinced him of his Baptist position is very strange, because Marcel is not hypercovenantal, and certainly does not believe that a baptised baby does not carry the guilt of Adam’s sin as Malone claims. But it gets weirder when Malone says Marcel believes that a baptised baby is neither under the covenant of works or the covenant of grace! Where does he get this stuff from? Did he actually read the book? Would a presbytery give him an oddball book to read to convince him of their position? Of course not, they would give a Reformed “standard” book to read, which is what they did.
Thank you for clarifying this. I admit I am puzzled as to why he made such inaccurate statements.
Strawbridge has a short version and a long version of his critique of Malone, but I think the detail of the long one is very important and well worth the read. Strawbridge knows Malone personally and is very familiar with his teaching.
Thanks. I will read with interest.
Thirdly it seems to me that Malone follows New Covenant Theology which has arisen to try to help Reformed Baptists distance themselves from the magnetic effect of Covenant Theology.
No I don't think so. New Covenant Theology denies the perpetuity of the moral law. Malone would uphold this Reformed conviction. Also, as I understand it, NCT denies the covenant of works whereas Malone upholds this. However I can understand how that the discontinuity of a Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology can sound a bit like NCT.
Strawbridge says that Malone has no real answer to the problem of Heb 10:28-30, and although I have not read the book this does not surprise me because the passage seems to be a stumbling block to all Reformed Baptists. Strawbridge explains how Malone tries to handle this text and I do not know whether it is intentional but I found this section amusing.
Agreed. As a former Reformed Baptist, this passage troubled me :)
 
We're stronger as co-belligerents on important matters of agreement when the Baptist does not feel "torn" in some way, pressured to agree with his Reformed brethren on sacraments when his hermeneutic takes him to another conclusion.
I don't know if you have read Sam Renihan's essay on Baptist Covenant Theology but many Baptists regard Renihan as more theologically astute than Malone
 

Attachments

  • rb-cov-theo-renihans.pdf
    236.8 KB · Views: 6
I don't know if you have read Sam Renihan's essay on Baptist Covenant Theology but many Baptists regard Renihan as more theologically astute than Malone

Brother I did read this paper and study it closely and make a real effort to see where they are coming from. I think a careful study of the covenants from the Scriptures provide clear witness against their position.

I personally think 1689 Federalism will cause great damage the RB movement, as it does not coincide with what either the OT or NT clearly say about God’s activities in those covenants, and it puts a lackluster gloss on God’s work in the Old Testament.

The paper states that the covenants were not either of the substance nor administrations of the Covenant of Grace, of which the result must be that God did not—could not—use those covenants as means of grace to draw in His elect. The paper doesn’t say that, but I think that’s the result. That will inevitably collapse under the weight of Scripture. You cannot preach that Christ was given under types and shadows but then say they were not means of grace to draw the elect to salvation. Christ is revealed directly to that purpose, whether plainly or in shadows, that the elect in Christ will come to salvation and receive the benefits of Christ’s death.

But suppose someone wanted to say God was revealing the New Covenant through them, aren’t we still at the same position? The ceremonies, types and shadows being a means to reveal Christ and draw in the elect? Doesn’t it again just prove that the covenants are administrations of the Covenant of Grace?

Whatever one says about the Mosaic or Davidic covenants, the book of Hebrews alone is more than enough to repudiate such a view of the Abrahamic Covenant, and the testimony of Romans and Galatians stand in clear witness too. That covenant is most clearly a means of revealing and giving Christ to us even today, and I think the adaptation of the language of the AC by the passages speaking about the NC is just more evidence.

Whether Baptist or Presbyterian, it’s sad to see God’s work in the OT relegated to a sort of sanctified but ineffectual pantomime. Did God really establish a covenant of which the effect was to keep them focused on temporary land with temporary benefits, or is it more like God to get them to do like Abraham did and look for the city whose builder and maker is God?

Now of course Malone, Waldron and others do view the covenants as administrations of the CG, and had I stayed a Baptist I would still stick to that view. I might disagree that things have changed in such a way as to exclude children from church membership, but that administrative view is more faithful to the Biblical data. From there it’s a question of what’s changed and what hasn’t with the coming of the NC.

You can probably support that view too from the 1689. Even if you want to say the NC was revealed in progressive steps through the AC and OC you still have to admit those prior covenants as effectual to the saving of the elect, because the elect would have looked at what was meant by the ceremonies etc., saw Christ and the forgiveness of sins in the NC/CG through the types and shadows, and even as further commentary on the promise in Genesis 3:15, think it all through, be enlightened by Christ through the Spirit, and say, “I get it, and I believe!”
 
Last edited:
Brother I did read this paper and study it closely and make a real effort to see where they are coming from. I think a careful study of the covenants from the Scriptures provide clear witness against their position.

I personally think 1689 Federalism will cause great damage the RB movement, as it does not coincide with what either the OT or NT clearly say about God’s activities in those covenants, and it puts a lackluster gloss on God’s work in the Old Testament.

The paper states that the covenants were not either of the substance nor administrations of the Covenant of Grace, of which the result must be that God did not—could not—use those covenants as means of grace to draw in His elect. The paper doesn’t say that, but I think that’s the result. That will inevitably collapse under the weight of Scripture. You cannot preach that Christ was given under types and shadows but then say they were not means of grace to draw the elect to salvation. Christ is revealed directly to that purpose, whether plainly or in shadows, that the elect in Christ will come to salvation and receive the benefits of Christ’s death.

But suppose someone wanted to say God was revealing the New Covenant through them, aren’t we still at the same position? The ceremonies, types and shadows being a means to reveal Christ and draw in the elect? Doesn’t it again just prove that the covenants are administrations of the Covenant of Grace?

Whatever one says about the Mosaic or Davidic covenants, the book of Hebrews alone is more than enough to repudiate such a view of the Abrahamic Covenant, and the testimony of Romans and Galatians stand in clear witness too. That covenant is most clearly a means of revealing and giving Christ to us even today, and I think the adaptation of the language of the AC by the passages speaking about the NC is just more evidence.

Whether Baptist or Presbyterian, it’s sad to see God’s work in the OT relegated to a sort of sanctified but ineffectual pantomime. Did God really establish a covenant of which the effect was to keep them focused on temporary land with temporary benefits, or is it more like God to get them to do like Abraham did and look for the city whose builder and maker is God?

Now of course Malone, Waldron and others do view the covenants as administrations of the CG, and had I stayed a Baptist I would still stick to that view. I might disagree that things have changed in such a way as to exclude children from church membership, but that administrative view is more faithful to the Biblical data. From there it’s a question of what’s changed and what hasn’t with the coming of the NC.

You can probably support that view too from the 1689. Even if you want to say the NC was revealed in progressive steps through the AC and OC you still have to admit those prior covenants as effectual to the saving of the elect, because the elect would have looked at what was meant by the ceremonies etc., saw Christ and the forgiveness of sins in the NC/CG through the types and shadows, and even as further commentary on the promise in Genesis 3:15, think it all through, be enlightened by Christ through the Spirit, and say, “I get it, and I believe!”
God has always saved His Elect on the basis of the death of Jesus had atoned for their own sins, and that God raised Him from the dead to fully Justify them before God, but the Old Covenant was a time when God remitted the sins committed by His own people, but the full manifestation of His Grace was under the new Covenant, as the Lord Jesus had to come, live, die, and be raised again to have the COG fully set into place. the NC is the surer and better covenant, as now we have all spiritual blessings granted to us in Christ, full fellowship directly God, something the OT believers were longing to see.
 
God has always saved His Elect on the basis of the death of Jesus had atoned for their own sins, and that God raised Him from the dead to fully Justify them before God, but the Old Covenant was a time when God remitted the sins committed by His own people, but the full manifestation of His Grace was under the new Covenant, as the Lord Jesus had to come, live, die, and be raised again to have the COG fully set into place. the NC is the surer and better covenant, as now we have all spiritual blessings granted to us in Christ, full fellowship directly God, something the OT believers were longing to see.

Either way the OT believers got the benefits, so it was as surely administrated and given then as it is now.

I may have updated my post since you quoted it.
 
Either way the OT believers got the benefits, so it was as surely administrated and given then as it is now.

I may have updated my post since you quoted it.
We are though under now a new and better covenant than the OC was under, so we have direct access to the throne of God, all have the indwelling Holy Spirit, all spiritual blessings in Christ.
 
Brother I did read this paper and study it closely and make a real effort to see where they are coming from. I think a careful study of the covenants from the Scriptures provide clear witness against their position.
Perhaps I should clarify - when I said Renihan was more astute than Malone, I was not defending him, just to state what many Reformed Baptists say. But it is Renihan that is promoting the 1689 Federalism which would not agree with 'administrations of the covenant of grace'.
I personally think 1689 Federalism will cause great damage the RB movement, as it does not coincide with what either the OT or NT clearly say about God’s activities in those covenants, and it puts a lackluster gloss on God’s work in the Old Testament.
Exactly. It also makes it harder to discuss covenant theology with Reformed Paedobaptists as they talk more of a discontinuity between the OC and the NC, more so than what Reformed Baptists were saying 15-20 years ago.
But suppose someone wanted to say God was revealing the New Covenant through them, aren’t we still at the same position? The ceremonies, types and shadows being a means to reveal Christ and draw in the elect? Doesn’t it again just prove that the covenants are administrations of the Covenant of Grace?
Agreed.
Now of course Malone, Waldron and others do view the covenants as administrations of the CG, and had I stayed a Baptist I would still stick to that view. I might disagree that things have changed in such a way as to exclude children from church membership, but that administrative view is more faithful to the Biblical data. From there it’s a question of what’s changed and what hasn’t with the coming of the NC.
It is interesting to note that the 1689 Confession 7:1 is the same as the WCF. It is after this the theological difference arises.

I suspect part of the problem arises because OT saints were saved BEFORE the cross of Christ and this is why, I think, the 1689 Federalists argue the covenant of grace was promised (not administered) to OT saints. But we must remember Rev 13:8 refers to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. [NKJV]
 
Last edited:
Perhaps I should clarify - when I said Renihan was more astute than Malone, I was not defending him, just to state what many Reformed Baptists say. But it is Renihan that is promoting the 1689 Federalism which would not agree with 'administrations of the covenant of grace'.

Exactly. It also makes it harder to discuss covenant theology with Reformed Paedobaptists as they talk more of a discontinuity between the OC and the NC, more so than what Reformed Baptists were saying 15-20 years ago.

Agreed.

It is interesting to note that the 1689 Confession 7:1 is the same as the WCF. It is after this the theological difference arises.

I suspect part of the problem arises because OT saints were saved BEFORE the cross of Christ and this is why, I think, the 1689 Federalists argue the covenant of grace was promised (not administered) to OT saints. But we must remember Rev 13:8 refers to the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. [NKJV]
The NC though was and is a new and better Covenant though, so there was something new ushered in during the time of Jesus and His Apostles later on.
The question always seem to be hindged on just how new, and what was actually improved?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top