Thread: On Covenant Theology

So far today I've listened to Matthew McMahon's three-part series on the basics of covenant theology and am in the process of listening to his two-part series on being reformed. I found CT to be very intriguing! I've never been in a church that has taught covenant theology and in fact have never lived near a church that is more than just soteriologically reformed. Thus, I am a baptist and I am really unsure about some theological issues, particularly new covenant versus covenant theology. I don't buy into dispensationalism (though NCT is called by some a "repackaging" of dispensationalism to have a reformed flavor).

Anyway, because of McMahon's explanation of progressive revelation and the continuity of the covenant(s?) I finally began to understand the case for infant baptism. Here is something I still don't quite understand though: is the new covenant really a new covenant? If it is a new covenant, then is the old covenant done and no longer binding because it is unnecessary? If it is not a new covenant, why does it seem different than before and what's up with the name? Also, what texts support that baptism is a "new" circumcision for those under the new covenant? Or, if it's not a new circumcision, why still apply it to children before they have given a confession of faith?

Boy am I confused. Any help would be much appreciated.

Andrew, it is not new with respect to substance, but with respect to accidents, or the manner of its administration. To use the language of the WCF, there is one covenant of grace, and two testaments or dispensations: one legal, one evangelical. Both testaments (the old and the new) administered the same promise; they both held forth the same Christ, the same terms (Repent and believe in Christ; and "I will be your God and you shall be my people"); but the former testament was administered by way of burdensome, legal requirements (Christ was not yet manifest, and the church was still "under age;" therefore they were kept as children in ward by the taskmaster/custodian/guardian of the law); whereas the new testament (the work of Christ being fulfilled) is administered more "sweetly," the promise and its fulfillment being more clearly and plainly set forth, the church having "come of age," the Spirit being poured out more plentifully, and the carnal, fleshly administration of ceremonies being ceased.

It might be helpful to define "Old Covenant".

Abraham's covenant was "new" relative to anything previous, and yet it was not a "new" faith or an entirely "new" people. But who would deny that the sign of circumcision was quite "new"?

Moses covenant is "new" relative to Abraham's, and yet as Galatians 3:17 points out, it did not thereby disannul anything of substance in Abraham's covenant.

Ignoring such as God's covenant with David, Moses' covenant is still in effect down to Jeremiah's and Ezekiel's days (when a "new" covenant is promised). It is still in effect in the intervening centuries. And when the Messiah comes on the scene it is still present, not having been replaced.

Until the Messiah comes, and there is a new Mediator, and necessarily a new covenant-administration. That which was of promise to Abraham (or earlier) is STILL in effect. Paul points out that none of that has changed. Outwardly things do change, as they invariably do when administrations change over. But there is substantial continuity.

Nevertheless, there are necessary, significant discontinuities in the new covenant, because there has been a major fulfillment of God's redemptive plan. That which was promised has become reality in Christ. The Gospel is now the new message of salvation (as opposed to the OT promise of salvation, wholly future in realization).

But only one covenant-of-grace, going back to the post-Fall interview, Gen.3.

Would you be interested in hearing a Reformed Baptist articulation of Covenant Theology with reference to the New Covenant?

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Would you be interested in hearing a Reformed Baptist articulation of Covenant Theology with reference to the New Covenant?

Please do tell!

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Would you be interested in hearing a Reformed Baptist articulation of Covenant Theology with reference to the New Covenant?

Please do tell!

Most Reformed Baptists embrace both the continuity and discontinuity between the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. Have you read Fred Malone's The Baptism of Believers Alone?. He addresses some of the chief questions that I believe you are grappling with.

Erm nope I haven't read it. It's on my reading list though

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Would you be interested in hearing a Reformed Baptist articulation of Covenant Theology with reference to the New Covenant?

We would line up with John Owen's understanding. It is New in that it is the Promises fulfilled to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David. We do hold to the Covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace. The Covenants of Abraham, and Moses are subservient covenants to the Covenants of Works and Grace as I mentioned here concerning what Witsius said. The Gospel is preached in both of them. The Condemnation of the Covenant of Works is proclaimed in them also. The New Covenant is made up of those who are in union with Christ.

I would also recommend you read Nehemiah Coxe's book Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. It has commentary by John Owen on Hebrew's 8 added to it.

Also Covenant Children Today answers Matthew McMahon's book on Covenant Theology.
http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc%...04?productId=1

A couple of suggestions here and the Divine Covenants . A title written by paedobaptists here.

The title by Pink can be ordered for $10 bucks here: pietan at peoplepc.com

I've never been in a church that has taught covenant theology and in fact have never lived near a church that is more than just soteriologically reformed. Thus, I am a baptist

Yours is a remarkably consistent position ... as you look further, I think you'll find that covenant theology is the "glue" that holds everything together -- from Adam to the new heaven and the new earth.

This work may assist you:
Amazon.com: The Christ of the Covenants: O. Palmer Robertson: Books

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

I would also recommend you read Nehemiah Coxe's book Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. It has commentary by John Owen on Hebrew's 8 added to it.

Works of John Owen Online

Good questions, Andrew. Keep asking them!

Originally Posted by PuritanCovenanter

Originally Posted by rbcbob

Would you be interested in hearing a Reformed Baptist articulation of Covenant Theology with reference to the New Covenant?

We would line up with John Owen's understanding. It is New in that it is the Promises fulfilled to Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David. We do hold to the Covenants of Redemption, Works, and Grace. The Covenants of Abraham, and Moses are subservient covenants to the Covenants of Works and Grace as I mentioned here concerning what Witsius said. The Gospel is preached in both of them. The Condemnation of the Covenant of Works is proclaimed in them also. The New Covenant is made up of those who are in union with Christ.

I would also recommend you read Nehemiah Coxe's book Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. It has commentary by John Owen on Hebrew's 8 added to it.

Also Covenant Children Today answers Matthew McMahon's book on Covenant Theology.
Reformed Baptist Academic Press : Covenant Children Today

Didnt Owen affirm covenantal baptism of the children of believing parents. That was my understanding of his position.

Yes, Owen was a cheerful paedo-baptist.

The remarks of his (alluded to in the post) are affinities found between certain conclusions of his on aspects of covenant theology (as found in one of his treatises), and those of Nehemiah Coxe, a Baptist who felt those ideas resonated with his own understanding.

Yes,
Owen was a paedo-baptist. But the question was originally about ones view of the nature of the New Covenant. In that reqard we are in agreement on what New means in the New Covenant as related to Federal Covenant Theology.

Originally Posted by AThornquist

Also, what texts support that baptism is a "new" circumcision for those under the new covenant? Or, if it's not a new circumcision, why still apply it to children before they have given a confession of faith?

Brother, your first questions have already been answered. As for the questions quoted, Reformed paedobaptists understand baptism as the sacramental equivalent of circumcision. Like circumcision, it is a sign of covenant initiation. Baptism is believed to have come in place of circumcision. This is seen in the fact that converts to the true faith are now to be baptized and not circumcised (Matt. 28:19; Acts 2:38, 10:47) while converts to the true faith before the New Covenant were to be circumcised (Gen. 17:12; Exo. 12:48). What warrant did the apostles have for discontinuing a two thousand-year old practice? The NT narrative makes sense only if baptism did in fact replace circumcision. And it certainly did. Otherwise, there would be no entrance sign.

Some of the important Scripture texts Reformed Confessions (available in print or in the Internet) provide in their explanation of the relationship between circumcision and baptism are Rom. 4:11-12 and Col. 2:11-12.

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter 28. Of Baptism

4. Not only those that do actually profess faith in and obedience unto Christ,a but also the infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.b

a. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 8:37-38. • b. Gen 17:7, 9 with Gal 3:9, 14 and Col 2:11-12 and Acts 2:38-39 and Rom 4:11-12; Mat 28:19; Mark 10:13-16; Luke 18:15; 1 Cor 7:14.

Heidelberg Catechism

74. Are infants also to be baptized?

Yes, since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God,1 and both redemption from sin and the Holy Spirit, who creates faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to their parents.2 Therefore, by baptism, as a sign of the covenant, they must be grafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers,3 as was done in the Old Covenant by circumcision,4 in place of which in the New Covenant baptism was instituted.5

1 Gen 17:7; Mt 19:14; 2 Ps 22:11; Isa 44:1-3; Acts 2:38-39, 16:31; 3 Acts 10:47; 1 Cor 7:14; 4 Gen 17:9-14; 5 Col 2:11-13

Rom. 4:11-12 and Col. 2:11-12 clearly establish the relationship between circumcision and baptism. Baptism signifies the circumcision of the heart which circumcision also signified (cf. Deut. 30:6; Rom. 2:28-29). Circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom. 4:11-12), but it was administered to believing Abraham and to his infant Isaac who could not yet profess faith. If baptism's meaning is similar to that of circumcision (Col. 2:11-12, "In whom [Christ] also ye are circumcised....Buried with him in baptism...."), then it is appropriate to administer baptism to believers and their infants.

The Heidelberg Catechism provides several reasons why infants (in addition to believers) are also to be baptized: (1) They are members of the covenant and people of God (cf. WCF Chapter 25:2) and thus God commanded that the infants of those who profess faith receive the sign of covenant initiation, and, (2) God promises to run his grace in the line of generations (that is, to believers and their seed, Gen. 17:7; Acts 2:38-39). The purpose of baptism is to set apart people as God's people. He sets them apart from "all other peoples and false religions, to be entirely committed to Him..." (Belgic Confession Article 34). In the Old Testament, this was done by circumcision.

It has seemed to me that baby dedication, which I believe is quite common in Baptist circles (I am SBC), is essentially infant baptism given by another name, except there is no water involved. The symbolism seems to be similar, if not exactly the same--that these babies are being raised in Christian homes and the parents covenant with the body of Christ to continue raising the child(ren) as such.

I have tried a couple of times to understand CT and have not fully understood it, but honestly have quit digging a couple of times out of frustration in not getting it. Having been taught with dispensational presuppositions, I have been unable to fully shake that poisoned well. I just seem to be missing the distinctions that lead to a difference, other than clear things like "being left behind."

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter VII
Of God's Covenant with Man

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.[1]

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.[8]

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.[12]

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]

This is one very good summary of a substantial part of covenant theology. Note the word "dispensations" at the end. It doesn't mean dispensation in the sense of modern dispensationalism as a framework for interpreting Scripture (that system is contrary to covenant theology) but that there was one substance, grace by faith (in Christ's righteousness) alone that accomplishes salvation in both the Old and New Testaments.

In one sense, this is not the complete answer to your question, but only one part of it, what is called the New Covenant is the making of that underlying substance more explicit, more visible through Christ's first advent, resurrection.

Here a good, concise summary of Covenant Theology generally from Ligon Duncan, a PCA Pastor:
http://www.fpcjackson.org/resources/.../ligoncovt.htm

Originally Posted by Calvinist Cowboy

Good questions, Andrew. Keep asking them!

Ben, Great pic. Nice library!

More seriously there are primary sources here:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/classicalcovtheology.php

and some other resources here:

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/covtheology.php

These two brief histories will help orient you:

http://www.biblicaltheology.org/dcrt.pdf

http://www.wscal.edu/clark/briefhistorycovtheol.php

For more history see the titles listed here:

http://heidelblog.wordpress.com/

Originally Posted by Cary Loughman

It has seemed to me that baby dedication, which I believe is quite common in Baptist circles (I am SBC), is essentially infant baptism given by another name, except there is no water involved. The symbolism seems to be similar, if not exactly the same--that these babies are being raised in Christian homes and the parents covenant with the body of Christ to continue raising the child(ren) as such.

Not sure if there is a question here, or just a statement...

Promising to raise the child in a Christian home is plainly not the same thing as promising to raise them as Christians, or as disciples.

What if they aren't elect? What if 23yr-old Bob, who professes new faith and gets baptized, isn't elect? Don't we look for evidence of growth in grace in either situation? Aren't old and young subject to church discipline and nurture?

I would say the difference is profound. It seems to me that either "baby dedication" is religious service without positive warrant (and thus constitutes will-worship), or it seeks to paper-over an apparent deficiency or gap in theology by borrowing choice items from rival theological systems.

Baby-dedication only reinforces the standard baptist view that ALL paedo-baptizing practice (Reformed, Roman, Eastern, etc) is essentially the same in nature. Baptists cherry-pick what they like (that is, understood according to their own lights) from this "common" practice, and discard "the rest".

So, in my view there is really no theological connection at all, BD to IB; no more than our practice is "connected" to RCC theology.

Originally Posted by Cary Loughman

I have tried a couple of times to understand CT and have not fully understood it, but honestly have quit digging a couple of times out of frustration in not getting it. Having been taught with dispensational presuppositions, I have been unable to fully shake that poisoned well. I just seem to be missing the distinctions that lead to a difference, other than clear things like "being left behind."

I don't know how to help with this, beyond things you may already have been told.

Try reading the Bible front to back--by which I mean, not "give it the once-over," but read it as the story of Christ. Starting with Adam and Eve, you read all those saints as putting their hope in a Christ who will come and die for their sins. Everything in their religious experience is designed to orient them to this one expectation.

So, you stop reading the focused story of the children Israel as though it had some separate significance beside the bringing of Christ into the world. You stop reading them as though they have earthly expectations that terminate in tangible blessings. You stop thinking of eternally distinct people groups.

You see in the person of Jesus the fulfillment of everything--absolutely everything--which is hoped for. And you see in earthly life for God's people, no essential difference between the past or the present. Those are your parents, your history you read about in the Old Testament. That is your heritage. The main differences being the Christ has come (once, he's still coming for us too), and the Spirit has been poured out in greater quantity.

Does one have to believe in infant baptism in order to believe in covenant theology?

I would recommend Michael Horton's book "Introducing Covenant Theology"

Originally Posted by cih1355

Does one have to believe in infant baptism in order to believe in covenant theology?

The answer to this question depends on how you define "covenant theology."

The Baptist Confessions of the 17th century typically contain a version of CT. That is to say, they have retained the covenant as the form of God's dealing with man, they typically employ some form of the Cov's of Works/Grace scheme.


Honestly, I don't think that there is a "core" of CT that a Baptist can legitimately take, and leave the rest alone, while still calling what he retains "CT". By which I mean that in rejecting the specific continuities that paedos accept between covenant now and then, the Baptist has something other than CT. He has a two-tiered system, that employs "covenant", while rejecting the unified aspect of the covenant of Grace.

It is the difference between one Covenant of Grace, with internal and external administrations, deployed in different eras; and two covenants: that of Grace being a pure, spiritual covenant only accessible to the elect, and other carnal covenants deployed in various eras for the purpose of typifying God's gracious dealing with the elect.

I hope this discussion will continue as I also want to learn more, but right now I do need it distilled as I have neither the time to read long dissertations nor the money to buy books. Any link to shorter articles on line are helpful.
To make it more simple...is there a chart that compares CT vs. dispy. main points? ..gotta go back to work now.

WHAT IS COVENANT THEOLOGY?
J. Ligon Duncan

Covenant theology is the Gospel set in the context of God’s eternal plan of communion with his people, and its historical outworking in the covenants of works and grace (as well as in the various progressive stages of the covenant of grace). Covenant theology explains the meaning of the death of Christ in light of the fullness of the biblical teaching on the divine covenants, undergirds our understanding of the nature and use of the sacraments, and provides the fullest possible explanation of the grounds of our assurance.

To put it another way, Covenant theology is the Bible’s way of explaining and deepening our understanding of: (1) the atonement [the meaning of the death of Christ]; (2) assurance [the basis of our confidence of communion with God and enjoyment of his promises]; (3) the sacraments [signs and seals of God’s covenant promises — what they are and how they work]; and (4) the continuity of redemptive history [the unified plan of God’s salvation]. Covenant theology is also an hermeneutic, an approach to understanding the Scripture — an approach that attempts to biblically explain the unity of biblical revelation.

When Jesus wanted to explain the significance of His death to His disciples, He went to the doctrine of the covenants (see Matthew 26, Mark 14, Luke 22, 1 Corinthians 11). When God wanted to assure Abraham of the certainty of His word of promise, He went to the covenant (Genesis 12, 15, and 17). When God wanted to set apart His people, ingrain His work in their minds, tangibly reveal Himself in love and mercy, and confirm their future inheritance, He gave the covenant signs (Genesis 17, Exodus 12, 17, and 31, Matthew 28, Acts 2, Luke 22). When Luke wanted to show early Christians that Jesus’ life and ministry were the fulfillment of God’s ancient purposes for His chosen people, he went to the covenants and quoted Zacharias’ prophecy which shows that believers in the very earliest days of ‘the Jesus movement’ understood Jesus and His messianic work as a fulfillment (not a ‘Plan B’) of God’s covenant with Abraham (Luke 1:72-73). When the Psalmist and the author of Hebrews want to show how God’s redemptive plan is ordered and on what basis it unfolds in history, they went to the covenants (see Psalm 78, 89, Hebrews 6-10).

Covenant theology is not a response to dispensationalism. It existed long before the rudiments of classical dispensationalism were brought together in the nineteenth century. Covenant theology is not an excuse for baptizing children, nor merely a convention to justify a particular approach to the sacraments (modern paedocommunionism and baptismal regenerationism). Covenant theology is not sectarian, but an ecumenical Reformed approach to understanding the Bible, developed in the wake of the magisterial Reformation, but with roots stretching back to the earliest days of catholic Christianity and historically appreciated in all the various branches of the Reformed community (Baptist, Congregationalist, Independent, Presbyterian, Anglican, and Reformed). Covenant theology cannot be reduced to serving merely as the justification for some particular view of children in the covenant (covenant successionism), or for a certain kind of eschatology, or for a specific philosophy of education (whether it be homeschooling or Christian schools or classical schools). Covenant theology is bigger than that. It is more important than that.

“The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenant of law and of grace. May God grant us now the power to instruct, and you the grace to receive instruction on this vital subject.” Who said this? C.H. Spurgeon — the great English Baptist preacher! Certainly a man beyond our suspicion of secretly purveying a Presbyterian view of the sacraments to the unsuspecting evangelical masses.

Covenant theology flows from the trinitarian life and work of God. God’s covenant communion with us is modeled on and a reflection of the intra-trinitarian relationships. The shared life, the fellowship of the persons of the Holy Trinity, what theologians call perichoresis or circumincessio, is the archetype of the relationship the gracious covenant God shares with His elect and redeemed people. God’s commitments in the eternal covenant of redemptive find space-time realization in the covenant of grace.



J. Ligon Duncan III, PhD
Senior Minister, First Presbyterian Church

.

Covenant Theology is the big picture, the whole shebang!

Not ever forgetting that our glorious Lord Jesus Christ, is at the centre of the whole scheme, being our Covenant Surety or Guarantor, and the Mediator (Prophet, Priest and King) of the New Covenant.

Originally Posted by Contra_Mundum

Originally Posted by Cary Loughman

It has seemed to me that baby dedication, which I believe is quite common in Baptist circles (I am SBC), is essentially infant baptism given by another name, except there is no water involved. The symbolism seems to be similar, if not exactly the same--that these babies are being raised in Christian homes and the parents covenant with the body of Christ to continue raising the child(ren) as such.

Not sure if there is a question here, or just a statement...

Promising to raise the child in a Christian home is plainly not the same thing as promising to raise them as Christians, or as disciples.

What if they aren't elect? What if 23yr-old Bob, who professes new faith and gets baptized, isn't elect? Don't we look for evidence of growth in grace in either situation? Aren't old and young subject to church discipline and nurture?

I would say the difference is profound. It seems to me that either "baby dedication" is religious service without positive warrant (and thus constitutes will-worship), or it seeks to paper-over an apparent deficiency or gap in theology by borrowing choice items from rival theological systems.

Baby-dedication only reinforces the standard baptist view that ALL paedo-baptizing practice (Reformed, Roman, Eastern, etc) is essentially the same in nature. Baptists cherry-pick what they like (that is, understood according to their own lights) from this "common" practice, and discard "the rest".

So, in my view there is really no theological connection at all, BD to IB; no more than our practice is "connected" to RCC theology.

I guess that is why I am a Baptist. I raise my children in a Christian home with no guarantee that doing so will save them, since God's election unto salvation is his call and is not based on my election or my wife's election. I guess I must plead ignorance to the intent of infant baptism, but if by so doing that is intended to be a statement of God's election unto salvation, then again, I guess that is why I am a Baptist.

Quote from Cory

I guess that is why I am a Baptist. I raise my children in a Christian home with no guarantee that doing so will save them, since God's election unto salvation is his call and is not based on my election or my wife's election. I guess I must plead ignorance to the intent of infant baptism, but if by so doing that is intended to be a statement of God's election unto salvation, then again, I guess that is why I am a Baptist.

Then you'll still have the problem of why God set apart the Jews by circumcision and engrafted whole families of Gentiles into that Jewish tree, while out of that number he had only elected some of them to salvation. What was God doing and why was He doing it that way?

Originally Posted by Richard Tallach

Quote from Cory

I guess that is why I am a Baptist. I raise my children in a Christian home with no guarantee that doing so will save them, since God's election unto salvation is his call and is not based on my election or my wife's election. I guess I must plead ignorance to the intent of infant baptism, but if by so doing that is intended to be a statement of God's election unto salvation, then again, I guess that is why I am a Baptist.

Then you'll still have the problem of why God set apart the Jews by circumcision and engrafted whole families of Gentiles into that Jewish tree, while out of that number he had only elected some of them to salvation. What was God doing and why was He doing it that way?

That seems to beg the question of the parallel between circumcision and baptism. The remaining seems to be answered by Romans 9:6-8, whereby it is not because of ethnicity or other claim to be of Israel, or claim to Abraham as Father, but salvation is according to the promise, by analogy, Isaac. What does that have to do with infant baptism?

I just wanted to mention that in trying to rectify my ignorance re: infant baptism, I have started to consider the issue and understand the position and have been incredibly blessed as I attempt to reconcile issues I have encountered with respect to the profession of faith and subsequent baptism of children in my church and my consideration of "what is a Christian home without the covenant family?" and the implications thereof with respect to infant baptism through listening to an mp3 on monergism.com by Gregg Strawbridge.

I will add that I am Baptist as an adult convert and grew up with no religious training, so my Baptist leanings have sprung from "that's what Baptists believe" and study of the Scriptures raising more questions than are answered by "what Baptists believe." I am in the process of exploring various aspects of "being Reformed." This is the first time I have tackled this one.

Sorry for intervening there, Cary.

It's a bit inappropriate for me anyway to take up the subject of infant baptism anyway, as there are other fora on this site for discussing these specific baptism questions.

Yours in Christ,

Richard.