I have a baptist friend who has been talking with me about baptism, and I'd like some clarification from the baptists on the board regarding the intention of the 1689 confession and its wording in ch. 7.

Despite all the changes from the WCF's corresponding structure, I'm struck by the substantial similarity between the two. Specifically here, in it's "new" section:

Though the WCF's wording has been thrown out, it seems the substance still stands; the New Testament, along with all salvific activity prior thereunto, belongs to the single covenant of grace: the language of "and afterwards by farther steps" seems to at least include the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances, thereby indicating an external administration of the covenant of grace which includes the unregenerate not simply de facto, but also de jure.

I have more questions, but I want to make sure this is a true reading of the confession's language before moving on. So, baptists, is this on track so far?

Thanks, I'd really appreciate your help: I want to make sure I understand the reformed baptist argument as well as I can, but I just can't get past what seem to be "incongruities" to me, and I'd like them to be worked out.

__________________
Paul Korte
OPC
Flint, MI

They who perceive in themselves discoveries of the divine goodness, so full and absolutely perfect, and who make them the subject of earnest meditation, will never embrace new doctrines, by which the very grace they feel so powerfully in themselves is thrown into the shade. --John Calvin

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

Here is an article written by my friend Pastor Stefan Lindblad that might help. It's mostly a defense of confessionalism, but touches on the RB view of covenants, which is similar to that of those holding to the WCF. The primary difference, of course, is applying covenental practice in the OT to the present (as in baptism). Nevertheless, I think the typical RB would consider himself to have a covenant theology.

Unashamedly Confessional | The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies

I'm not quite following the de jure/de facto issue, but that's probably because I'm tired.

__________________
Raymond Victor Bottomly
Providence Reformed Baptist Church, Tacoma, WA

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

You might also consider reading The Covenants by R. B. C. Howell online at The Reformed Reader - Committed to Historic Baptist Beliefs

His view, from what I understand, is inline with the 1689 Confession. He was also one of the founders of the SBC.

__________________
Chris Thomas | SBC-Founders | Fairbanks, AK

"Whatever the cause, the Calvinists were the only fighting Protestants. It was they whose faith gave them courage to stand up for the Reformation. In England, Scotland, France, Holland, they,... did the work, and but for them the Reformation would have been crushed... If it had not been for Calvinists,... and whatever you like to call them, the Pope and Philip would have won, and we should either be Papists or Socialists." ~ Sir John Skelton

Thanks so far, guys. I've read lots of books, lectures, articles, etc. I'm mostly right now looking for someone here (an actual baptist) to give a confessional reading, so I can observe your method and thought process. I want to figure out what really makes you tick, as it were, and why some things I frequently hear or read don't seem to jive with how I read the confession. I'm sure I'm either reading the confession wrong, or misunderstanding where you all are coming from.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 03:46:35 EST-----

So, do you confirm that the above is said by the 1689 confession, or are things that need to be cleared up in there before I can ask subsequent questions rightly.

We hold to one Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works. If you want to get a good understanding of the Confessional Baptist you really need to read Nehemiah Coxe's Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. He was one of the framers of the 1677 (1689).

I have discussed this issue many times here. Just do a search on the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants or the Covenant of Works under the user name PuritanCovenanter.

We hold that there is one and not two Covenant's of Grace. Some covenants administer both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. The New Covenant is purely the Covenant of Grace which is promised to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, and David fulfilled. I would ask Dr. Bob Gonzales if this sounds correct. I will have him look at your question.

__________________

Norseman Moderator

R. Martin Snyder
1689er
http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/

"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?

Randy,

Thank you. I've actually read Coxe (incidentally, on account of your recommendation a while ago -- it was quite useful: thanks for the recommendation). I've also tried to read almost every thread on the topic here on the board.

While I may be desiring too simple an answer, I just want as simple an answer as possible to this question from you guys -- does the 1689 LBC 7.3 imply an external administration of the Cov of Grace (even if temporally prior to the formal inauguration of the New Testament) which includes (not just de facto) those to whom God's salvific grace is not granted?

(This is the first step of my questions: I just want to be sure of each step before I try building)

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 04:15:16 EST-----

I just want to add, Randy, that after reading many of these threads in which you have participated, I want to say thank you and express my appreciation for your patience, gentleness and frequent great clarity in presenting the credo-baptist position

I don't believe (as many Presby's do) that the non elect were ever members of the Covenant of Grace. If I am correct, they may be members of Covenants administered by the Covenant of Grace such as the the Abrahamic, or Mosaic, but they were never members of the CofG itself. I have read some Presby's who believe that only the elect were and are the only members of the Covenant of Grace. You might want to ask a Presby for clarification on this. Not all are in agreement here.

We differ on what administers and to whom. Some Paedo's believe that the Abrahamic and Mosaic are purely administrations of the Covenant of Grace. I believe that the Abrahamic and Mosaic administer the Covenant of Grace and Works side by side.

Does that make things even muddier?

Thanks for your gracious comment.

BTW, I don't necessarily recommend J. A. Haldane for Covenant Theology even though he became a credo.

How do you "exegete" the language, Randy, of 7.3? The language seems to imply to me that those Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances, according to the drafters of the confession, belong to the further revelation of the Covenant of Grace. This seems to be the simplest reading of this, regardless of the relationship by which one wishes to relate this all to the CoW. If these ordinances do pertain, though externally, to the Covenant of Grace, doesn't this imply, confessionally speaking, that even those non-elect who are a part of the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants, are also at least externally a part of the administration of the Cov. of Grace? I don't see a way around this reading of the confession.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 04:26:52 EST-----

(If it helps in this conversation for you to know where the most fundamental outlines "presby notion of the covenant" are coming from, the greatest influences on my understanding are probably Ball, Roberts, Blake and Witsius.)

I am running out of time here but I will look at Waldron's exposition of the 1689 and look at your question a bit more closely later tonight. Chapter 7 in the LBCF is lacking in some substance compared to the WCF imho. Especially concerning the Covenant of Works. Understanding what Nehemiah Coxe taught and knowing of his influence upon the document, I would have to consider it in his light but I could be incorrect. I will look at it more intently after Nine O'Clock. Don't know if I will be able to respond quickly to your question because I want to do some reading. I appreciate your question. Thanks.

I'll look forward to it. Thanks.

Paul,

Thanks for the stimulating though somewhat broad question. What's the intention behind the 1689's portrayal of covenant theology in 7.3? To cite that paragraph again:

3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

My training is in biblical theology not in historical theology. I think, however, that Randy's brief reading is probably correct. The early Particular Baptists apparently agreed in substance with the Paedo-Baptist theology of a single overarching "covenant of grace," which was progressively revealed and administered through temporal covenants. They also, apparently, affirmed a covenant of works and a (inter-Trinitarian) covenant of redemption.

I believe that Adam was created as a covenantal being. Hence, I see the covenant of works and man's creation as God's image as terminus a quo. Consequently, I don't see the covenant of works as a superadditum. I have no problem using the terminology "covenant of grace" or "covenant of redemption," but I usually think of "covenants" as being related to the administration of God's kingdom on earth and, therefore, as historical. I prefer to view what is called "the covenant of grace" as the gospel or the redemptive promise, which was first revealed in Genesis 3:15. This gospel or promise is then revealed progressively through a succession of historical covenants, including the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. I think this is what Paul has in view when he speaks of "the covenants of the promise" (Eph. 2:12), which, btw, must include the Mosaic covenant. Accordingly, the gospel or ordo salutis is most clearly revealed in the New Covenant and most fully realized in the visible New Covenant community. Perfect realization of the ordo salutis in the visible covenant community, however, awaits the eschaton.

My

__________________
Bob Gonzales Jr., Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Easley, South Carolina

"Persons need not and ought not to set any bounds to their spiritual and gracious appetites." Jonathan Edwards

Dr. Gonzales,

Thank your for your response. I will admit to being a little wary of the Covenant of Works and man creatus ad imaginem dei being necessarily connected by nature, but fortunately (from what I can gather) this will not cause any great impediment (unless I have read your post incorrectly).

To make sure I'm with you so far: as you read the confession, you agree that what is frequently called the Covenant of Grace (though, I realize, you don't prefer this term) has, at least externally, included de jure, certain reprobate. Is this correct? (I recall reading a thread based upon John 1 where you touched upon this issue) I realize that you personally would prefer to view the covenant more historically as opposed to an "atemporal concept," but would you agree that, in the language which the LBC would use, those certain reprobates were (externally) in the Covenant of Grace (and not merely de facto)?

I realize there is more to your post than this, but I want to work through it as slowly as you are willing so that I don't miss anything.

I'll chime in here even though I'm of out of my league. The distinction you describe is sort of foreign to my ears and thinking. I'd say pretty clearly that the LBCF does not contemplate reprobates being in the Covenant of Grace at any time.

As you've noted and others have said, the LBCF describes an over-arching covenant, and it is with regard to the elect. Highlighting the portion you quoted:

This is probably where you might find a bright line distinction between the paedo view as compared to the RB view.

I dare say that the RB view tends to look at it from present to past. By that I mean that we are fully accepting of the truth that God ordains who are (or in our time frame, apparently are) among the elect. We don't know who they are, but by faith and prudence we consider those who have professed faith to be so.

That's where the "tilt" comes in paedo/credo debates, IMO. I can see why the paedo believes what he does, and how, by beginning with a unified covenental scheme, he feels bound to follow through on the truth as he understands it. Nevertheless, viewing it from the other end, from the perspective of the covenant being more fully revealed, I personally have trouble seeing the covenant in quite the same way as the paedo.

[quote=Prufrock;574104]I think the majority of Reformed theologians and commentators view the covenant of works as a superadditum. In my mind, that view doesn't jive with the exegetical or theological data of the Genesis account. Moreover, it creates problems for a consistent view of a covenant of works and minimizes the importance of prelapsarian eschatology. But that's probably a topic for another post.

I don't agree that what I view as the covenant of grace, namely, the gospel or the promise (Genesis 3:15) includes de jure the reprobate--not even externally. Cain and Esau, for example, were excluded from the promise since they were the seed of the Serpent.

Whether the framers of the LBCF did or did not is a different matter. I think some of them identify the "covenant of grace" with the New Covenant. Accordingly, they would argue that reprobates may be part of that covenant de facto but do not belong there de jure. God only confers the legal right to membership within God's visible covenant family on those who "receive" Jesus Christ (John 1:12) thus ending blood-ties as a de jure ground for inclusion within the covenant community (John 1:13). It is for this reason that Reformed Baptists restrict baptism (the NC initiation rite) to those who profess faith in Jesus, excluding the children of believers.

Hope this helps.

I'll quickly give a simplified adumbration of where my questions are going for as long as you are willing to stay with me (but remember, I'm still on the first step).

1.) The LBC (note, I'm leaving our scriptural interpretation out as this point: just the confession) seems to clearly imply that the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances pertained to the Covenant of Grace; obviously, not internally, so at least externally. The Covenant of Grace, then, according to the LBC, has an external administration which included a.) children of covenant members, and b.) even those who will not internally or ultimately receive the benefits of the covenant. [This is my thesis concerning the LBC's wording -- it has yet to be validated.]

2.) Extrapolation from the various testaments (which the LBC does say are a part of the Cov. of Grace) implies that this external administration of the Cov. of Grace, in general, involves by command the infant seed of covenant members.

3.) If we consider these all to be various administrations of a single Covenant of Grace and not as separate entities from which we extrapolate the concept of a single overarching covenant , and the New Testament is also a part of this same Covenant, then can we say that the Covenant under this administration ceases to have reference to the seed? (This, of course, is where the argument will start to get messy; and where, I think, reformed baptist and "normal baptist" views may start to come into conflict)

4.) If 3, then it seems there ceases to be any actual connection between the Covenant of Grace under its NT administration and the Church. (Again, this will be a messy point).

5.) Baptism, then, would have nothing to do with being a covenant seal or sign, but merely a sign of the church (the church being a subset of the New Testament administration -- those of this administration who are actually regenerate).

Obviously, this will be a long process, and this is highly oversimplified. This is just so you see where I'm going, and what I'm trying to reconcile with how I read the LBC. I realize there are some big leaps in the above presentation; thus will be smoothed out later.

Vic,

I read "founded on" in such in such a way that it does not have to mean "identical in scope with." I'll jump back on this thread later this evening to explain further why I read it like that.

Dr. Gonzales, likewise, I'll be able to respond to your post later this evening. Thanks!

I may be in over my head here as well. I hope I am not misreading your question.

The RB believes the Abrahamic and Mosaic etc were 'typical' and 'preparatory'. Therefore any administrations were also 'typical' and 'preparatory'.

The RB defines terms by starting with the NT and looking back, not the other way around. "The full discovery thereof was completed in the NT." (LBC 7:3) The RB denies that the CoG/Promise ever had any reference to the seed except what is 'typical' or 'preparatory'.

The RB denies that baptism is a 'seal'. The RB does not necessarily think of baptism as a sign of 'the church' but of (1) fellowship with Christ; (2) engrafting into Christ; (3) remission of sins; (4) walking in newness of life. (LBC 29:1)

__________________


http://www.villagecommunitychurch.org/


"Preparing a sermon is like cooking a meal. You need pots and pans and utensils, but you don't bring them out to the table where people are eating." Derek Thomas


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

From all of your answers, I'm still hung up on my first question, then, regarding 7.3's reading.

For instance, Ken: let's just both assume your "preparatory and typical" position briefly. Even calling the Abrahamic or Mosaic ordinances preparatory and typical, I still can't get past that 7.3's wording assigns these as "farther steps" by which the "covenant is revealed," finally culminating in the New Testament (so 7.3). Doesn't the confession say that these things belong to the Covenant of Grace which is "founded on the eternal covenant transaction," though not identical with it? Obviously these "farther steps" were given to more than simply those effectively called, and that by right and command.

I don't see how these "farther steps" don't, according to ch.7, belong to the Cov. of Grace, as they are included in the chain of revelation in 7.3 that runs from the promise to Adam through the New Testament: surely, both of these belong essentially to the Cov. of Grace, and if these "farther steps" are a part of that chain, it seems a logical injustice to remove them from the same Covenant. All of this heavily implies to me that the confession is considering an external administration of the covenant of grace which includes all those under the Mosaic and Abrahamic ordinances. (If someone is commanded to use certain ordinances, be instructed and guided, prepared and readied by them, what else can we say than that they are are under the care or the administration of these things?)

We can call them "preparatory and typical," but then what are they if not pertinent to the CoG? They don't belong to the covenant of works, for they are included by 7.3 as "farther steps" in revealing the covenant of grace; are these revelations of God's covenant which exist outside of it? What, then, would they be? But if they are a part of the Covenant of Grace, with what other choice are we left than that the CoG may be described by an external administration which includes those commanded to submit to its ordinances (those "farther steps")?

I'm sorry if this lack clarity. I will revisit it tomorrow.

Waldron on chapter 28, Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: "Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and the 'covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church" (Exposition, 338).

I think paedobaptists can only properly understand the Baptist view of "covenants" and "baptism" when they step away from their own integrated view and realise that there cannot be any kind of relationship between them in antipaedobaptist thought.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

That's hard. Perhaps it's not as arduous a task as I think it would be, but that paradigm shift seems huge. But, that quote is helpful, and it seems to confirm one of the things with which I'm wrestling: the relationship between baptism and the Covenant in the LBC.

I don't think you are fully representing Waldrons' view. (Unless I am missing something in the conversation.) Here is the full paragraph:

I don't think Waldron is saying that because the material was dropped it is not necessarily true, or useful.

Chapter 29, Of Baptism, does not associate the ordinance of baptism with the covenant concept; this rules out the possibility that it was omitted because it is covered in chapter 29, which only leaves the reason that it "seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors."

[Moderator Note: Moved at Prufrock's request to enable paedo-baptists to reply. Be warned, however, that the tone of all posts (excepting this note) will be irenic or they will disappear without warning.]

To me it seems possible to be convinced that all Biblical covenants are made with "you and your seed"; to acknowledge that children are included the administration of the covenant of grace, and are rightly seen as part of the church; to recognize this as a point of unity between Old and New Testaments, as embraced by the covenant of grace: and yet still think that infant baptisms are somewhat irregular, though not invalid, because to those points there must be added a certain correspondence between circumcision and baptism and a certain relationship between sacrament and covenant. If those links are not demonstrated, acceptance of paedo-baptism still involves something of a leap, even in the absence of other disagreements. Although if the nature of the link between baptism and discipleship could be stated explicitly and defended exegetically that might go a long way.

__________________
Ruben
Moderator
F.P.C.I.
Indiana

Vanities and disguises have covered us, and thereby we are naked; licenciousness hath inflam'd us, and thereby we are frozen; voluptuousness hath fed us, and thereby we are sterved, the fancies and traditions of men have taught and instructed us, and thereby we are ignorant.
John Donne

Board Rules - Signature Requirements - Suggestions?

Calvinistas Conversando
Teología en Mexico
The Howling Wilderness

That does not change the fact that Waldron admits that much of the material that has been omitted is, "good and helpful, or at least touches on issues that need treatment." Perhaps an historian could shed more light on this.

I am not sure what you mean be 'associate'. 29:1 says that Baptism is a 'sign'.

So, is this thread about the over arching Covenant of Grace or the ordinances relationship to it? Is it about whether or not the Covenant of Grace administers the other Covenants (ie. the Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.) or is it about the ties between the sacraments (or ordinances) between the Covenants as they are viewed by the Particular Baptist framers of the 1689? I just want some clarification. If so, we need to address what is being questioned here. The 1689 was written with some wiggle room (as I would call it) for differing parties. Generalities were made in the 1689 Confession as they were in the Westminster Confession to allow for different understandings. For example it is debated whether or not the Westminster was purely supra or infralapsarian. There were parties on both sides. I recently read an article on Samuel Rutherford's Supralapsarianism that seemed to acknowledge this in the Confessional Presbyterian vl. IV by Dr. Guy Richards. The same goes with the generalities of the 1689 and the Covenant of Works. It is noticeably lacking in quantity (and quality in my opinion) in the 1689 to allow for a more diverse understanding of the doctrine.

Now concerning the Sacraments. Dr. Waldron has a good paragraph to read on page 338. He also discusses the differences between the word sacrament and ordinance. He has no problem with the word ordinance as long as a salvific nature is not attached to its meaning as in the Roman Catholic understanding of the word.

I would personally like to find out where this thread is leading. What is being questioned? Prufrock (Paul).... Do you want to discuss the Baptist understanding concerning the relationship between the sacraments and the Covenant of Grace or the understanding of with whom the Covenant of Grace includes?

Thanks,
Randy

One more thing. If we get back to the first question about 7.3. I believe we are discussing the Covenant of Redemption it this phrase. And this would only include the elect.

Randy,

Without appearing too ambiguous, I would like to say it's about both. There is a big mental disconnect for me in that 7.3 refers to what it seems can only be the revelations of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as "farther steps" by which "the covenant is revealed in the gospel."

Thus, this first step I'm trying to wrap my mind around is summarized:
1. These ordinances (farther steps) reveal the gospel; this is their purpose.
2. Even if they are typological, their substance then is still the substance of Christ and the Covenant of Grace.
3. These are the means by which the gospel and covenant were revealed, and the means by which men were brought thereunto and guided therein.

How, then, can it be said that these Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances are anything but an administration of the Covenant of Grace? And, as these (the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations) contained externally by command certain who were surely reprobates, then does it not follow that we can say there is an external administration of the Covenant which includes, de jure, certain reprobates? Perhaps I'm too obtuse, but I just can't see how the gospel/covenant can be administered by something without that thing being called an administration thereof.

-----Added 3/19/2009 at 01:11:02 EST-----

Absolutely: founded upon, but I don't think this has to mean "coextensive with."

Paul, I really wish I could have more time to address your questions, because I think you are identifying one of the big difficulties in the typical credo/paedo discussion. As Matthew rightly pointed out, there is a big difference in thinking at the beginning.

Here is a more specific difficulty I have with your line of reasoning: I see you using the term "external administration" in a way that I don't follow. Let me see if I can set it out.

1. Abrahamic Administration: external administration? Well, sure, if that means God stated plainly that the children of Abraham should be circumcized. Agreed. But what were the promises? Abraham would be father of many nations, God would be a God unto the and "thy seed," and the land of Canaan would be an everlasting possession.

2. Mosaic Administration: Certainly external in the sense of God giving Moses the law and specific promises and curses, externally administrated in the sense of God separating out for himself a people who were to be an example to the world, preserve his Word, etc.

So I agree with external administration in this sense, but I stumble on the idea that the Covenant of Grace must be applied to all people in exactly the same manner as it may have been understood by men at the time. To my benighted Baptist mind, it is putting the cart before the horse. I see the Covenant of Grace fully revealed now, founded upon the inter-trinitarian counsel before creation, and gradually revealed in types and shadows, but always reflecting the truth of the eternal Covenant of Grace that God will and does redeem his people.

For instance, in Gal. 3:16 and so forth, Paul says the promise was to Abraham's seed (singular). Paul identifies this seed with Christ. That bit of latter revelation explains something that may not have been completely clear to Abraham: that the covenant signified by circumcision was to secure a promise of one man as redeemer, Christ Jesus.

Similarly with the Mosaic, we see how the law was given to demonstrate through types and shadows the necessity of the sacrifice of that one seed, Christ. (Gal. 3:19 and elsewhere).

My point in bringing this up is that, by looking back from the standpoint of later revelation, we now see that the temporal covenants themselves were preparatory, acting to point to Christ and to preserve a physical line of descent to the one of promise.

So, when you ask why the Covenant of Grace should not be administered in the same fashion as the Abrahamic covenant, it creates the disconnect I experience: I'd view it as saying that the Abrahamic covenant was administered in a way to reflect how the Covenant of Grace is administered, not the other way around. And, according to God's wisdom and timing, he revealed it in such a way as was necessary for that time to demonstrate both the promise and the importance of holiness and separateness.

Perhaps I've muddied this up too much. As I've said, I'd really like to be able to take the time to zero in on this, but I can't right now.

Vic, thank you for your response. I don't have time to read it carefully at the moment, but I will do later this evening.

I will have to address the first part later since I am leaving for Lewie Ville in about 15 minutes. On the second part it says founded in, and not upon.
Doesn't that make a difference? Also it concludes with the phrase "about the redemption of the Elect." This is a prelapsarian Covenant that is being discussed. I believe it is the Covenant of Redemption. And the Elect are only a part of it.

Randy,

I hope your trip goes well to "Lewie Ville."

For what it's worth, I absolutely agree with that. The Covenant of Redemption being there spoken of pertains only to the elect, and the Covenant of Grace is therein or thereupon founded.

But it is a sign of fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits. There is no mention of "covenant" or "federal" relations or standings.

Historically, there is no connection between covenant and baptism in Baptist thought. This is clear from its absence in the first London Confession, which has been consciously followed by the second 1677/89 London Confession.

Huh?

In Puritan Baptist thought Christ's redemptive work and benefits are not distinct from but inseparably bound to the biblical and theological concepts of federal headship and covenant. Indeed, to be in "saving fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits" (of which Baptism is a "sign") is to be in "covenant" with Christ:

Touching His office, Jesus Christ only is made the Mediator of the New Covenant, even the everlasting covenant of grace between God and man, to be perfectly and fully the Prophet, Priest, and King of the Church of God for evermore (1st LBCF 1644, Art. X).

That all believers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the New Covenant, and effect of the love of God, manifested to the soul, whereby the believer is in truth and reality separated both in soul and body, from all sin and dead works, through the blood of the everlasting Covenant, whereby he also presseth after a heavenly and evangelical perfection, in obedience to all the commands, which Christ as Head and King in this New Covenant has prescribed to him (1st LBCF 1644, Art. XXIX).

All believers through the knowledge of that justification of life given by the Father, and brought forth by the blood of Christ, have this as their great privilege of that New Covenant, peace with God, and reconciliation .... (1st LBCF 1644, Art. XXX).

To this Church He has made His promises, and given the signs of His Covenant presence ...." (1st LBCF, Art. XXXIV). [Note: Article XL identifies baptism as one of the "signs" of this "covenant."]

The wording of many of these articles is nearly identical to that of the 1596 True Confession, whose primary author was, apparently, Henry Ainsworth, a separatist congregationalist. The First London Baptist Confession also drew much of its language and phraseology from William Ames's The Marrow of Sacred Divinity.

Certainly Christ and His benefits to the elect are inseparably bound to the everlasting covenant, but baptism is not considered as administering the covenant, admitting one into the covenant, or as a token that one is in covenant with God in Baptist thought; otherwise you would have temporary professors in the new covenant, which is anathema to the "reformed baptist" system.

The True Confession speaks very clearly to the point that the baptised are "made pertakers of the signe of Gods Couenant," and this includes infants. The removal of both the application to infants and of the tie to covenant membership is the more pronounced in the First London Confession given that it reflects or relies on the True Confession at various points.

Matthew this is correct when speaking of water baptism. Unless one is Spirit baptized nothing else matters. If a false professor gets wet,lives a lie, goes to the white throne, then goes into the second death, in what way was he ever in the COG? The padeo distinction between the Cov,of redemption[Father ,Son, Spirit] before creation/ said to be made only among the persons of the Godhead- and the Cog made with men after works cov.failed.
with an outward/inward administration allows for this idea using Ot Israelites who turned from the covenant as the model.

The credo view does not draw as sharp a distinction between the cov of redemption,and the covenant of grace as we do not speak of two categories of personsinthe covenant of grace, ie outward+visible / inward+invisible.

If we were all agreed on this point we would have only one confession.
Because of the truth and reality of Spirit baptism placing everyone of the elect in Christ, we see believer's baptism of a believer
as the only accurate identification of the truth of the Spirit's work.
Both grow together until the harvest.
Tares among the wheat.. Not wheat that turn into tares.
This is the heart of the matter. In what way are people said to be [ in] the covenant of grace, but some of them are not saved. Ot.Israelites who were covenant breakers were physically born, in a physical nation. The covenant sign was given to any male born in Israel as we know, yet not all were actually covenant keepers. The covenant breaker's are described as not having faith
Did they have salvation and lose it?
or
Did only those among Physical Israel have a God given faith mixed with the promise?

__________________
Anthony D'Arienzo
Sunday School Teacher
Hope Reformed Baptist Church:
Medford, N.Y.

Hello Anthony, We are agreed on the point of difference between paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists, and the various ways assurance and apostasy are construed within the two schemes. I was only answering an historical question and don't really see any point trampling over the same old ground. As noted previously, as far as I can see, the antipaedobaptist denies the connection of baptism with covenant standing or that the non-elect are in covenant with God, which means there is no subjective assurance or apostasy in the antipaedobaptist scheme; all that is left is the objective belief that God knows them that are His.

Matthew,
Yes we have discussed this,and I am still working at it. I guess I am still trying to figure out in what sense is it considered grace, if it is not saving grace?
i see this in Romans3
1What advantage then hath the Jew? or what profit is there of circumcision?

2Much every way: chiefly, because that unto them were committed the oracles of God.

3For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect?
Here having the oracles of God was said to be a great advantage
I see that. But without being mixed with faith they perished.

I know that the outward administration teaching gives an explanation with this in mind, and all the apostasy warning verses in Hebrews ,can plug into this. I can see how the model can work. Just not certain that it is the model that best fits and remains consistent with the doctrines of grace.
I am hoping to re-study Hebrews again, and will look to get a copy of Dickson as you had recommended. For now I am going to try to work through Gouge"s commentary and try to read it thinking of both models.

Matthew,

You say, "But baptism is not considered as administering the covenant." What do you mean by "administering the covenant"? The verb "administer" means "to manage; have executive charge of" or "to bring into use or operation." I can't see baptism as "managing" the New Covenant. I, as a Reformed Baptist, do not believe water baptism brings the New Covenant into effect or operation. Christ inaugurated the New Covenant 2000 years ago, and the Holy Spirit brings the blessings of the New Covenant into effect via regeneration.

You say, "But baptism is not considered as ... admitting one into the covenant." Well, we do believe water baptism is a sacrament or ordinance that admits one into the visible church, which is also the visible New Covenant community. But we do not believe water baptism ex opere operato admits one into the redemptive blessings proffered by the New Covenant.

You say, "But baptism is not considered as ... as a token that one is in covenant with God." I say, the NT does intend water baptism to serve as a token or sign of our saving fellowship in the benefits of Christ's redemptive work which are the core of the NC blessing-sanctions. Are you suggesting that Baptists believe that one may enjoy the blessings of the New Covenant and yet not be "in covenant with God"? I don't follow your logic. Instead, I see it as follows:

Major premise: The Puritan Baptists viewed baptism as a sign of one's "saving fellowship with Christ in His redemptive work and benefits."
Minor premise: The Puritan Baptists viewed "saving fellowship with Christ and His redemptive work and benefits" as the essential blessings proffered in the New Covenant.
Conclusion: The Puritan Baptists viewed baptism as a sign (an outward sign intended to portray an inward reality) of the New Covenant.

You say, "Temporary professors in the new covenant ... is anathema to the 'reformed baptist' system." That's not quite accurate. Reformed Baptists acknowledge the existence of "temporary professors" in the visible NT church, which is the visible NC community. These spurious believers are members of the New Covenant community de facto but not de jure. They don't really belong in the NC community and have no claim to its blessings. That's why the punishment for them will be more severe than that under the Old Covenant (Heb. 10:26-29). To be born into the Old Covenant and then to apostatize was a bad thing. But it's a much more severe crime to profess repentance and faith in Christ, receive the NC sign of baptism, be admitted into the NC community, and then to turn your back on the NC Mediator.

That water baptism is a sign of the New Covenant and a rite of admittance into the NC community I've affirmed above and believe the Puritan Baptists would have affirmed the same. That they excluded infants as the proper recipients of this sign is, of course, understandable given their view of the New Covenant. In fact, I suspect that the rationale for their wording of the Confession (stressing the blessing-sanctions of the NC) was to highlight the impropriety of infant baptism. How dare a pastor or parent communicate to a child that he is a partaker of New Covenant blessing when he has not professed repentance and faith in Christ and is not, therefore, of the true seed of Abraham! They found no positive warrant, clear biblical precedent, or good and necessary inference to warrant such a practice. So though they embraced much of the covenant theology of their Paedo-Baptist brothers, they could not follow the extended reasoning and strained logic that insisted on making infants of believers members of the NC.