How can Baptists consider themselves "Covenant Theologians"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
And yet, on the other hand, we have radically different ideas about the CoG itself. You believe that the various covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New) are not actually *part* of the CoG. Rather, you seem to believe that they merely *overlap* the CoG. You are telling me that only the elect are members of the CoG. Consequently, Ishmael, Esau, Korah, etc. could not be considered members of the CoG. That seems like a truly radical theological difference between us. (Though of course you and I would stand side by side when pouncing upon a New Covenant Theologian or Dispensationalist!) :D

I'm not sure what you mean by your assessment that I believe they "are not actually *part* of the COG. Rather, you seem to believe that they merely *overlap* the COG." Yes, that is what I am telling you, and, if we define the COG in an absolute, eternal, eschatological sense--or in its most foundational and basic form--then all agree (all of reformed orthodoxy) only the elect are in the COG. Again, the reason such paedobaptistic (and even Baptistic, as I have seen from a few) notion of "in but not of the CoG" (being members of the various adminisrations), is to consider the COG in two different aspects, temporal and eschatological. This is inseparably tied and correlated to the church visible/invisible distinction. How can one say "the holy catholic church" is both the universal invisible and universal visible church consisting of different members (elect and elect & reprobate). The invisible church is the absolute covenant of grace (the elect from all the ages). The visible church is the temporal covenant of grace (the elect and reprobate bound together in a common confession without destroying their testimony). So, one can be "in" the covenant of grace (i.e. Esau), or in the visible church (commonly denoted as the "covenant community"), but not "of" the invisible church. While I agree Esau was in the visible church, I deny the distinction of being "in" the covenant of grace, but not "of" the covenant of grace. I do this because I view the covenant of grace as the invisible church, or the inward covenant through faith alone. (Eg., From Adam to Abraham the covenant of grace existed, and people were either in it or not in it, but there was not temporal, structural medium--i.e. a visible church marked by religious ceremonies and collection of peoples.) And, while there is a connection between the visible and invisible, I do not it is one covenant with two different aspects (temporal and eternal). I see them as distinct and separate covenants through which the internal, eternal covenant of grace is administered unto the elect from all the ages. So, I do not say one was "in" but not "of" the covenant of grace. I say one was truly in, in full covenant with God (whether elect or reprobate), through these temporal, historical covenants that are distinct and separate from the one COG consisting of the elect from all the ages. In other words, the covenant of grace is more a theologemenon, or helpful theological construct (though it is necessary and valid). What I don't do is conflate the temporal covenants through which it is administered with the COG itself. By way of necessity, there is overlap, yes. The promises of the COG are imbedded and revealed in the promises of the temporal covenants. In the post-NC covenants, there was a temporal/historical dualism of antitypes and foreshadows of the eschatological reality solely revealed (apart from the temporal, historical promises such as the physical land of Canaan, the earthly kings, and the earthly people) in the NC. The NC, in this sense, is totally eschatological.

Now, I'm going to say something that might offend people, but that is not my intention. I believe Norman Shepherd is a consistent and logical paedobaptist covenantal theologian, specifically regarding his view of the Abrahamic Covenant as found in "The Call of Grace." Because of the dualistic nature of the Abrahamic Covenant (temporal/historical and eternal/eschatological), and because both aspects are identified as the covenant of grace by paedobaptistic covenant theologians, he does the natural, logical thing (in order to avoid a form of Platonic dualism, so I speculate, and to preserve an inseparable unity) and conflates the temporal/historical requirements of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants (i.e. obedience for the temporal blessings truly and genuinely promised in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants) with the eschatological promises of the COG revealed and hidden in them.

So, the Abrahamic Covenant is *ONE* covenant through which two promises are administered to all members (elect and reprobate). One of the two promises is equal to and indentified with the promises of the COG. Here you see the COG administered in types and shadows, but one cannot equate the eschatological promises administered through them with the types/signs. So, principally, the sign of baptism is not the reality of it, or the sign and the thing signified are not the same thing. There was a genuine, true promise for the physical land, kings, and peoples, as well as a genuine, true promise of the heavenly land, kings, and peoples. The requirements for each were different. The non-elect were truly in the Abrahamic Covenant, and both the promises were extended to them upon their contingency of obedience (whether obedience to the law of works or obedience to the law of faith--this is what Shepherd conflates--which is why, if the Abrahamic Covenant is equal to the COG, the covenant of grace necessitates your own personal obedience to the law as well as faith in order to maintain your membeship).

So, what do I do? I simply divorce the identity of the COG with those earthly administered, temporal covenants. (Though it isn't completely radically different. After years of studying and reading, I came across a man's work who Berkhof speaks about, specifically Thomas Blake--Page 284.) This *IS* radically different, but I think radically necessary, especially in light of the present day controversy. I'm not saying anything radically new in substance, though. I'm simple re-organizing the categories for clarity in order to fight of confusion. What I'm addressing is the paedobaptist difficulty (without consensus) regarding the "Dual Aspect of the Covenant" (see pages 284-289). You are addressing this issue, but I do not think consciously. I'm merely arguing against a legal membership that does not include a membership of communion life, but only in regard to the definition of the COG. For instance, in the NC, I do believe there are those baptized people who are legally and truly in the NC with or without true faith by virtue of their covenant (with is a promise/covenant envoked by the name of the Triune God that includes the awareness of obligation in so taking the sign and seal upon yourself). Does this mean everyone in the NC is necessarily elect or receives the promises of the NC (which promises are solely the eschatological promises of the COG, as which is not the case of the previous pre-NC covenants)? No, it doesn't. One can be truly in the NC legally (through the cultic-laws, such as baptism, which is the same for, but not restricted to circumcision in the OT administrations) and not receive the promises of that covenant if they fail to uphold those obligations they voluntarily undertook in baptism (namely a life of faith and repentance). For instance, Adam was truly in the COW prior to receiving the promises of it or performing that which was contingent upon receiving the promises. The same was true with Abraham, Moses, and Israel. I think the same can be (and must be, due to Hebrews and other key passages) said of the NC in a similar (though not identical) manner.

But, because one is a member of these various temporal, historical covenants, it does not require one define them as being "in but not of the COG." This is the exception I take, and this is why my CT is a bit different in terminology, but, in substance, is not radically different.
 
At least upon my first reading of your post, I don't think I see any huge disagreement, mainly just different terminology.

I personally do not think of anyone as being "in but not of the CoG". I believe Korah was just as much a member of the CoG as Moses. The same goes for the apostles Judas and John.

Rather, I look at Korah and Judas as being "in the CoG, but not of the CoR". The CoR is a covenant between the Father and the Son, and as part of that covenant, the Father gives the Son the elect. So while the elect may not be "contracting parties" in the CoR, they are still very much "involved" or "affected" by it, if you will. Moses and John were among those given to the Son in the CoR. But Korah and Judas had no part in the CoR whatsoever.

I look at the CoG as being a sort of "delivery boy" for the CoR. The salvation of the elect is worked out through the CoG. But that doesn't mean that the CoG cannot have nonelect members. It just means that those nonelect members will ultimately prove themselves apostate, because they have no part whatsoever in the CoR.

Anyway, I'm not sure I see a huge disconnect between you and me here. . . . We both agree that there are both elect and nonelect members of the historical covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New).

Here's where I think I'm still failing to understand where you are coming from:

Why don't you think that the children of New covenant members are automatically New covenant members themselves?

We both know that the children of Abrahamic covenant members were automatically members of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Genesis 17).

If you agree that the NC contains unregenerate people, then why do you think God's M.O. has changed? Why were children automatically born into the Abrahamic covenant, but not the New covenant?
 
W.B.,

Good discussions on this thread. Clarification between the covenants was informing (to say the least).

What were the promises of the Covenant of Grace? I must have read past this or was it answered? If not answered, what is your understanding of the CoG promises?
 
At least upon my first reading of your post, I don't think I see any huge disagreement, mainly just different terminology.

Again, it may seem to be semantics, but I'm really saying something different in substance regarding the categories of the covenants and the relation of the temporal administrations to the eternal CoG.

I personally do not think of anyone as being "in but not of the CoG". I believe Korah was just as much a member of the CoG as Moses. The same goes for the apostles Judas and John.

Joseph, I understand this is what you're saying, but I am saying this is what you must distinguish. I think this is problematic, and I think most paedo covenant theologians have addressed this in the very manner you deny ("in but not of the covenant" as in Bavinck's language, or legal but not communion of life as in Vos' understanding).

Here is are a few questions in this line of thinking you must address:

(1) Is the CoG breakable?

(2) How does one enter the CoG?

(3) How does one remain in the CoG?

(4) Also, how is it you posit one is in both the CoW in Adam, yet in the CoG in Christ?

I think, Joseph, you simply have not worked out your understanding of the CoG as have historical paedos. In other words, I think you are still trying to understand the CoG and non-elect. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but I think you'll find clarification and understanding in works such as Berkhof (i.e. "Dualistic Nature of the Covenant of Grace").

Rather, I look at Korah and Judas as being "in the CoG, but not of the CoR". The CoR is a covenant between the Father and the Son, and as part of that covenant, the Father gives the Son the elect. So while the elect may not be "contracting parties" in the CoR, they are still very much "involved" or "affected" by it, if you will. Moses and John were among those given to the Son in the CoR. But Korah and Judas had no part in the CoR whatsoever.

Interesting, but I have not come across this before.

I look at the CoG as being a sort of "delivery boy" for the CoR. The salvation of the elect is worked out through the CoG. But that doesn't mean that the CoG cannot have nonelect members. It just means that those nonelect members will ultimately prove themselves apostate, because they have no part whatsoever in the CoR.

And, again, how does one enter the CoG? How does one break it? Can anyone and everyone break it? If so, how? If not, how?

Anyway, I'm not sure I see a huge disconnect between you and me here. . . . We both agree that there are both elect and nonelect members of the historical covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New).

Here's where I think I'm still failing to understand where you are coming from:

Why don't you think that the children of New covenant members are automatically New covenant members themselves?

We both know that the children of Abrahamic covenant members were automatically members of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Genesis 17).

If you agree that the NC contains unregenerate people, then why do you think God's M.O. has changed? Why were children automatically born into the Abrahamic covenant, but not the New covenant?

Because the Abrahamic and Mosaic were typological of the substance of the NC. The inclusion of children in the Abrahamic and Mosaic was not an example of how we are to view the children in the NC, but was to show something else typologically. In other words, there is no necessary demand of the inclusion of infants of NC members biblically theologically.

[Edited on 7-11-2005 by Theological Books]
 
Originally posted by Texas Aggie
W.B.,

Good discussions on this thread. Clarification between the covenants was informing (to say the least).

What were the promises of the Covenant of Grace? I must have read past this or was it answered? If not answered, what is your understanding of the CoG promises?

The promise of the CoG is the eschatological promise of redemption, in short. It is eternal life in Christ (and all that goes with it both here, temporally, and future--i.e. glorified bodies).
 
As a Baptist who holds to the 1689 Confession, I see the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as the 'Covenants of Promise' (Eph 2:12). I wonder if anyone has read the following extract from Pink?

God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures able to enter into covenant with their august and holy maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or to be sureties for others? The very question answers itself. What, for instance, could Noah possibly do which would ensure that the earth should never be destroyed again by a flood? These subordinate covenants were nothing more or less than the Lord's making manifest, in an especial and public manner, the grand covenant: making known something of its glorious contents, confirming their own personal interest in it, and assuring them that Christ, the great covenant Head, should be of themselves and spring from their seed.

'This is what accounts for that singular expression which occurs so frequently in Scripture: "Behold, I establish My covenant with you and your seed [cf. Gal 3:16, 29- Martin] after you" (Gen 9:9 ). Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? Because the "conditions" were to be fulfilled and the "work" was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings upon His people.' So when David says, "He hath made with me an everlasting covenant" ("2Sam 23:5 ), he simply means that God had admitted him into an interest in the Everlasting Covenant and made him a partaker of its privileges. Hence it is that when the Apostle Paul refers to the various covenants which God made with men in Old Testament times, he styles them not "covenants of stipulations", but "covenants of promise."
A.W.Pink. 'The Divine Covenants'

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]
 
Joseph,

In a previous post you spoke of the relation between the CoG and CoR regarding the elect/reprobate membership. You said:

I personally do not think of anyone as being "in but not of the CoG". I believe Korah was just as much a member of the CoG as Moses. The same goes for the apostles Judas and John.

Rather, I look at Korah and Judas as being "in the CoG, but not of the CoR". The CoR is a covenant between the Father and the Son, and as part of that covenant, the Father gives the Son the elect. So while the elect may not be "contracting parties" in the CoR, they are still very much "involved" or "affected" by it, if you will. Moses and John were among those given to the Son in the CoR. But Korah and Judas had no part in the CoR whatsoever.

This simply proves there isn't one monolithic view of covenant theology. What you have stated is no where mentioned in any resources I have at my disposal. Now, I could say that *YOU* are not a covenant theologian because of the way you delineate covenant membership, which isn't reflected by the majority of reformed covenant theologians.

So, to help you think about this some more, let me ask a few questions. How does one become a member of the covenant of grace? How does one maintain that membership? How was Esau a member of the CoG? How was Jacob a member of the CoG? What is the difference of membership between a believing, elect member and an unbelieving, reprobate member? How do they differ in membership? How are they identical in membership?
 
This post is actually a reply to a post in another thread, but we had gotten so wildly off-topic, it seemed to make more sense for me to make this post here in this thread.



Originally posted by puritancovenanter
While you're at it, have you read Pierre Charles-Marcel's book on infant baptism? I highly recommend it.

I am one that tries to post links to books. Please post me links to the books you recommend. It is very helpful.

022717027X.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism


1592447570.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries



1592445403.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

The Origins of Infant Baptism


0875521657.01._SCMZZZZZZZ_.jpg

Children of the Promise


thousand.jpg

To A Thousand Generations


Enjoy!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top