I'm not familiar with the project, but does it take sides on ecclesiology and other topics pretaining to the sacriments/ordinances? If this is too , I'll start a new thread, because this is interesting.

I want clearly defined and unchanging terms as much as the next person, but I'm to the point that I don't even care about the titles anymore.

__________________
Dan Pemberton
Vacaville, CA

Member, First Baptist Church San Luis Obispo
Formerly ABUSA (We left, so I guess that makes us American Baptists Unleashed!)

Was I the only one that had to look up fissiparous ? lol

__________________
Geoff/Reformed Baptist
Acworth, GA
John 6:37
All that the Father giveth me shall come to me; and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.


"Show me your war face."

I don't see how one could "allow both" or have a confession that "won't come down on one side or another."

Without expressing an opinion on this, and for the sake of this point, allowing that there is a biblical case that can be made for both, each view flows from a *very* significant way of interpreting covenant and the covenant community in Scripture. To avoid the scriptural implications of this would abandon a whole set of inter-related doctrines and make only some sort of compromise guideline without doctrine. It would not be a confession, but something less.

We need to understand that we could be wrong on this issue, but the doctrines behind the way we get there, in either case, are very important, and necessarily related to other important doctrines.

__________________
Scott
PCA
North Carolina

I agree. I find it rather strange that they would not take side with such an issue as that, especially when it is directly linked with one’s interpretation and hermeneutic regarding the relationship between the covenants. I’m wondering if the language and rhetoric as well as the other topics are more WCF or LBC.

I just started reading through this thread so I apologize if this has been addressed.

The Reformed baptist position is that the Ten Words is moral law. It has been a force because it is based upon the law of God from creation.

I also think that the writer of this understands this, and would also acknowledges that the Mosaic Covenant and circumcision have been abrogated. But the Decalogue has not been abrogated. St. Paul does acknowledge that circumcision profits nothing in the book of Galatians and in Corinthians acknowledges that the Mosaic is done away. He also neglects that the understanding that the term for Teknon theo (the children of God) is meant for converted Christians in the New Covenant. The children of the New Covenant are found in their Covenant Head Christ Jesus. Covenant Children of the New Covenant are spiritual and not carnal.

Even though he claims to have a long understanding of the Reformed Baptist position he is misrepresenting them in my opinion.

The New Covenant is definitely more excellent and the Mosaic is done away. The decalogue is an eternal moral law that is now written on the children of God's hearts.

__________________

(Norseman Moderator)

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
Harmony Baptist Church (Member)
PuritanCovenanter MSN Blog
PuritanCovenanter's MySpace Page

"Our object should not be to have scripture on our side but to be on the side of scripture; and however dear any sentiment may have become by being long entertained, so soon as it is seen to be contrary to the Bible, we must be prepared to abandon it without hesitation."
William Symington

Click to get:Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Could you explain the *very* different sources of each view?

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/

(Uncle Etexas is thinking: "Boy! Things were far less confusing when I was an Anglican.")

__________________
~etexas~

I have not worked through the implications of both views enough to give a thorough answer.

It seems to me the notion of children being members of the church is recognized by infant baptism, not on the basis of certain regeneration, but on the basis of covenant promise. A promise to believers and their children and baptism is a sign and seal of that.

This has implications for the visible/invisible church distinction and the idea that baptism replaces circumsicion as an ordinance of entry into the covenant community. For example, among ethnic Israel, there was a "remnant" and "the rest." Though all were circumsized, not all were saved yet God worked specially within the covenant community. There is a parallel seen here with infant baptism.

It has been helpful for me to understand that adult baptisms are also common in churches that infant baptise because baptism there is viewed as having more than one purpose. For example, last Sunday we had a six month old infant and a 60 year old lady baptized- same service!

These are a few things that come to mind as to the difference.

This seems to be a standard answer.

Paedos often talk of huge 'covenantal gaps' between Reformed Presbys and Reformed Baptists but I submit to you that the gaps in our understanding of the covenant are not as big as you think.

There are, to be sure, very big 'covenantal gaps' between Reformed Presbys and most Baptists. But, as has been pointed out, Reformed Baptists are much closer in covenantal views than you think.

I want to learn more about this.

Dear Scott, thanks for your thoughts. I would struggle to agree with your point because:

[1] I don't see that the differences are that "very significant" covenantally.

[2] The differences between the credo / paedo positions aren't based on clear and explicit biblical texts, but rather inferences. In other words, it's not a black and white knock down issue in Scripture. If people think it is, they haven't heard the other side of the argument very well.

But, as I said before, the proof of the pudding is in the eating: if theological differences are serious we should be able to empirically see it in the their godliness: does it affect the way they love God and love their neighbours as themselves. I know too many godly, caring, and wise reformed credos.

God bless brother.

__________________
Marty
Minister / Theological Educator
Anglican Church of Australia
(On Sabbatical) Cambridge, UK.
"There is nothing so necessary to draw us to repentance as good thoughts of God." (Thomas Manton)

Sure there are differences, but certainly not the kinds of differences that you would find with most other kinds of Baptists.

Also, this is a very helpful book in understanding RBs: http://www.shop.rbap.net/product.sc?...=1&productId=2

Yes, I see a similar understanding of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace here, even similar very clear and profound language.

It is more to who is in the "covenant community" and how that continued from the old to the new testaments. For example:

Chapter XXV of the Westminster Confession defines the visible church from this as:

It was helpful for me to understand that when we say children of believers are "holy" we do not mean in the sense of necessarily being saved, but set apart by a position of privilege- having Christian parents who would bring them up in the nuture and admonition of the Lord, and being part of the visible church, where there is in a very real way, God's grace.

Also, in terms of "covenant community" continuity, in the old testament infants were circumsized as an ordinance entryway. Outsiders (gentiles) were baptized to get in. In this understanding, in the new testament, baptism replaces circumsicion and has more than one purpose, paralelling what was done in the old testament- and can apply to infants and adults.

I grant that there are differences in the views of administration, but I have yet to have someone show me how the two views of the covenants/testaments are *very* different.

That being said, it does sound like a very difficult task to write any kind of useful confession that doesn't come down on either side. I am anxious to see the confession that Rev Foord speaks of.

It is refreshing to hear a paedo admit this. I have often argued that paedo baptism is not the most explicit Presbyterian distinctive. Something like male headship is much more explicit.

"Distinctive"??? Don't tell that to the approximately 2.3 million members, more than 10,000 congregations and 14,000 ordained and active ministers in the PRESBYTERIAN Church USA.


Percentage of Women Pastors by Size of Church Membership in the PCUSA (2000)
Membership Size vs. Percent of Pastors Who Are Women
1-50 --- 31%
51-100 --- 27%
101-150 --- 20%
201-300 --- 16%
301-500 --- 11%
501-800 --- 8%
801-1,201 --- 7%
1,201-1,600 --- 2%
1601+ --- 1%

__________________
Dennis E. McFadden, Ex Mainline Baptist (in Remission)
Atherton Baptist Homes, CEO
First Baptist Church of Alhambra, Member, Transformation Ministries (CA)

Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions?

Marty, you have been challenged on this board before, because of a weak soteriology. I think you are again displaying muddled thoughts because of a weak view of the confessions and the importance of a clear conviction on the sacrament of baptism, especially as that reflects one's view of how God administers the promise of his covenant and the subsequent praxis of covenantal nurture.

Sure, there are reformed Baptists who raise their children in godliness, but as has been pointed out in this thread, that is because they are living inconsistently with their own principles. However, when you receive essays from a reformed Baptist friend as I have, describing holy children as depraved sinners in the clutches of Satan and who shouldn't be encouraged to pray until we can see a clear conversion, then one must wonder how long it will be until either a) the parents see the implications of that theology and leave for a Reformed congregation, or b) become more consistent as several of my RB friends have, and begin to fail to view their children as being holy and beloved in God's sight as members of the covenant community of the Church. "Little reprobates" as they now call them, which is a sad testimony to the real theological damage that the RB view can inflict upon the people of God when it is consistently employed.

However, since when was the truth of doctrinal formulation ever validated primarily by empirical evidence, and who is to be the judge of that produce - you? Good doctrine can be loosely held with a bad heart and the bad produce of the heart could convince the observers that it the product of holding "bad" doctrine. Likewise, you will also find many cult members living honorable and morally straight lives in my community. Should we now say that there is something going on in the local Mormon stake, because they are hard working and modest? You know the answer. You could believe that you love God and your neighbor, and completely botch justification (regarding which I think St. Paul would have a thing or two to say).

Again, since when is it that Marty gets to pontificate on which confessions get to be included as Reformed, or that the difference between the positions is really not that significant (tossing it all off with a wave of the hand)? If it is clear that the 3FU, Helvetic Consensus, and Westminster Standards are all in conflict with the later Baptist confessions on issues as significant as the nature of the covenants and sacraments we should reject them as being un-Reformed (as defined by earlier Reformed confessions) in those key areas, and therefore doctrinally deficient.

And, come on, WRF shouldn't be attempting to write a confessional statement for anybody. They are a revivalist influenced, doctrinally lax (by their own admission) para-church fellowship whose stated intent is to downplay doctrine in order enlarge ecumenical relations. Would you really expect a clear statement on the sacrament of baptism to be issued by a group who could write this:

Look at the inconsistency. You have otherwise theologically sound men such as Joel Beeke, Phil Ryken, and Robert Norris signed on to the same list as the Mormon-friendly president of Fuller Seminary, Richard Mouw, the str