So, Paul Gene away?

There might be some bias in there

__________________
Mark Maney
Kwanglim Korean Methodist Church - 1689'er Baptist Pastor (read profile for more info)
Master of Theological Studies emphasis Biblical Studies
Trinity Western University, ACTS Seminaries
Surrey, BC. (Vancouver), Canada

I think Hughes Oliphant Old did the best job of refuting that argument, in the fifth chapter of his The Shaping of the Reformed Baptismal Rite in the Sixteenth Century. That chapter demonstrates two things, in my mind: (1.) The Reformed developed their understanding of and argument for infant baptism in a way entirely unlike that of the Papists before them, so that they cannot be accused of blindly accepting this principle from their Romish upbringing. (2.) "A Baptist who affirms covenant theology" is an oxymoron. Covenant theology itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism. It's not that paedobaptists have taken this thing called covenant theology, and seized upon it, and forced it into serving their paedo purposes; the very existence of covenant theology is owed to the Reformers' polemic against the Anabaptists.

__________________
Sean P.M. McDonald
Communicant Member of Springs Reformed Church (RPCNA), Colorado Springs, CO
Attending Lisbon Reformed Presbyterian Church, Lisbon, NY
Infantryman, 10th Mountain Division, Fort Drum, NY
Engaged to Laura A. Doman of Grand Rapids, MI
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Lex praescribit, evangelium inscribit." (The law prescribes, the gospel inscribes.)

Mark,

I don't think Gene does read much here. He's kind of busy and barely ever responds to the few e-mails I send encouraging him.

One thing that I did notice about Gene just 9 days ago was a profound ignorance of the difference between even Roman Catholic baptism and Reformed Baptism. He didn't even know, really, about how the RC sacerdotal system of infused merit worked based on a couple of comments. I found that kind of shocking because I figured he would have that down pat if he was going to so impiously charge Calvin, a man who he relies on for practically all his systematic theology with being unable to reform this one Sacrament.

__________________
Rich
Northern VA
PCA

WebsiteMaven - Web Hosting Reviews, Guides, and Advice to build and promote your web site.
SoliDeoGloria.com - A Community for Reformed Thought and Discussion

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

The early Particular Baptists affirmed the CoW and CoG. It is biblical and they understood this. They were descendents from the Reformers and not from the Anabaptists. Covenant Theology rises above the doctrine of Baptism. It defines it. So your understanding of CT in Particluar or Reformed Baptist theology is lacking.

__________________

(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?

Yeah, that's too bad. I was really hoping for some good interaction. Sounds like I will be disappointed. Has anybody heard Gene's other Padeobaptism debate? I just noticed he has a debate with a Pastor Roger Wagner of Bayview O.P.C.

It will be interesting to hear/read both Gene and Paul's post-debate comments.

Martin, you misunderstand me. I'm very aware of the doctrine of covenants in early Particular Baptist theology. But, as I was saying, Old places the origins of covenant theology with the Reformers' polemics against the Anabaptists, in the 1520s and '30s -- long before there was such a thing as a Particular Baptist.

A Baptist saying that they affirm "covenant theology," is like an Arminian saying that they affirm "election." What do they mean when they say that? In both cases, they mean something quite out of accord with the historic Reformed faith.

BTW... I don't believe CT itself was developed as a way to explain infant baptism... That is just a really bad argument. CT is not an invention of paedo baptism. If one needs the CoW and the CoG to be defined so as to justify paedo baptism than something is really out of place.

Your analogy is totally out of accord with truth. I affirm Covenant Theology. I believe in all of the Covenants.... Covenant of Redemption, Grace, Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic.

We disagree with the paedo's on who a New Covenant member is and on whom the sign should be placed upon. But we agree that the New Covenant Administers the Covenant of Grace just as the others have. Some of the Covenants administer both the Covenant of Works and Grace. The New Covenant Administers only the Covenant of Grace.

Apparently I was not sufficiently clear. By "covenant theology," I am referring to a systematic explanation of God's covenants with men, with which we today ordinarily associate terms and concepts like "covenant of grace," "covenant of works," "covenant of redemption" (pactum salutis), etc. As an adherent of covenant theology, I believe that these are all real things, and really existed prior to the sixteenth century; but they were never explained in a clear, systematic fashion until the time of the Reformers. It is this systematizing which I refer to as "covenant theology," which was developed by the early Protestant Reformers (notably Zwingli and Bullinger) in prosecution of the polemic against the Anabaptistic rejection of paedobaptism.

I don't believe an intelligent baptist agrees with a "visible administration" of the CoG, NC era. White stated in his debate this very thing, a postulate I found independently in my own conversations with baptist brothers.

Consequently, baptists deny the necessity of a mixed administration. Paedo-covenantalists affirm it. We say it is a natural consequence of living in this world, it is a necessary condition. So, to our way of thinking, attempts to make the church function "as if" it is possible to baptize only the elect, and regenerate, is a hopeless attempt. It is impossible. Read my lips: NOT POSSIBLE. So, God has never required of the church what it is not possible for her to accomplish, NOT EVEN IN THEORY. Ergo, the basis for baptism must be something other than election/regeneration.

Paul made a strong, biblically based argument that the basis for baptism is "kingdom inclusion". And he showed how the Bible defined then who are those kingdom citizens. He did this by citing two forms of texts almost exclusively. OT citations from "New Covenant" texts, and NT citations. Gene's accusation of Paul relying on the OT to teach him how to interpret the NT did not materialize. Paul quoted far more of the OT than Gene did, but then agian, he also quoted FAR MORE OF THE NT AS WELL in support of his argument.

Seriously, if the debate went to the person who marshalled the most Scripture as "some defense or other" for his case, Paul would win on that point alone. He did not simply "shotgun" Scripture either. Each text was chosen for the purpose of defending a proposition he was using to build his case.

Gene's case rested on fewer Scriptures, texts he stated repeatedly had an "obvious meaning." Paul did challenge those "obvious" meanings, and offered how they could be made comportable with the view he defended. Mostly, Gene just ridiculed Paul's alternatives; I don't think he did well showing that Paul's suggestions actually failed.

__________________
Rev. Bruce G. Buchanan
ChainOLakes Presbyterian Church, CentralLake, MI


When posting friends, kindly bear those words of earthly wisdom in mind:
Oh, that God the gift would give us
To see ourselves as others see us.
--Robert Burns, 1786 (modernized) ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦ Click to get: Board Rules -- Signature Requirements -- Suggestions? --

I agree with your assesment that CT was more defined by the Reformers. I also think that the Particular Baptists which are descendents of the Reformers came to understand the Covenants and the New Covenant more like John Owen and aligned themselves to their biblical understanding of baptism. As per your charge of anabaptist theology they have no part in it. And I think you are an honest man and would acknowledge that. They were covenant theologians. They were not anabaptists. The Particular Baptists did not share in the heritage of the anabaptist who were mostly anarchists and had other various weird beliefs depending on who and were they were. They may have shared in thought concerning antipaedobaptism but that is probably about all. That is why the first London Baptist Confession of Faith was written in 1644. It was written to answer some false charges against them and to affirm their beliefs as orthodox. They were Covenant Theologians and held to a bi-covenantal system also.

I am not one to argue the possibility of having unregenerate members in a congregation. It is a moot argument for me. There will always be some who crawl over the wall as Jesus noted or who aren't wearing the appropriate apparel. That is why I believe it is based upon a confession. It gets us one step closer so to speak. I also believe repentance is an important step. I can not discern true repentance but I can see and judge some fruit.

We all assume our Elders are qualified men and regenerate. There is a reason for this. There are qualifications that are set up for this. I also believe there are qualifications for recepients of baptism and Church membership. Faith, Repentance, and Confession are a couple of good places to start. When I was in the RPCNA they examined me before I could partake of the Lord's table. It works on the same principle.

Anyways. I am tired and will converse more on this after I actually listen to the debate.

For Christ's Crown,
Randy

I fully agree. I don't understand why non-paedobaptists continue to debate the nature of the new covenant, when it is clear that baptism is not related to covenant in their view.

__________________
Yours sincerely,


"Illum oportet crescere me autem minui."

If you really think that's all you disagree on, compare Chapter VII of the Westminster Confession of Faith with Chapter VII of the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith.

I was trying to distinguish the English Particular Baptists from the Anabaptists, not identify the two with each other. Remember, I said that this was largely developed in the 1520s and '30s, against the Anabaptists; name for me just one Particular Baptist from that period, if you can.

I was there and sat in the front row with my friend J.D.
Paul Manata did great. Paul was last to say his closing statements and dropped the bomb on all of Genes arguments. After it was over the Pastor said next Sunday evening all the elders of Murrieta and Gene Cook only would be their to answer all the questions that didn't get asked because of time. There going to need more than 1 sunday evening to clean up Pauls bomb debri.
Gene had said that the Reformers didn't reform the doctrine of baptism from Roman Catholic just modified it.
At the end during the questions from the audience there was a ? given to Gene about baby dedications and if that was biblical and Gene said no it was a tradition.
So Paul using the same argument said that Baptist have not reformed baby dedications.
All I know is that Gene was no match for Paul Manata.

__________________
Ruben Cimental
Ontario California
United Reformed Church URCNA
member 4yrs

I made a blog post that touched a bit on this a while back. It didn't garner too much discussion on the PB; but interestingly enough, someone linked some of it to Gene Cook. He replied that Hebrews 8 had nothing to do with visible church membership. I had to chime in myself, after that. So yeah... these same inconsistencies were popping up back in March.

http://tnma.blogspot.com/2007/03/ope...-show-773.html

"Regenerate church membership" is something very different than "church membership on the ba