"Reformed" Baptist becomes Reformed

Status
Not open for further replies.

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
Pastor Greco,

[quote:a7290c5bd7]
What do you think this sentence means:



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The "Gospel dispensation" is the new covenant. The new covenant is the covenant of grace in the sense that it is the best administration of it, but it is not EXACTLY EQUAL TO IT.
[/quote:a7290c5bd7]

Now wait a second..... Did you get that from Gill, or are you reading that into what Gill said?

Gill does not say here that the Gospel dispensation is the New Covenant; he said that the New Covenant is the covenant of grace. This New Covenant/Covenant of Grace is administered in the Gospel dispensation (but not in the gospel administration alone, for it was also administered through the Old Covenant, as he goes on to say).

[quote:a7290c5bd7]
Why is that important? Because the Abrahamic covenant is also the covenant of grace. So is the mosaic. Gill says that explicitly:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the old covenant, or former mode of administration of it
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



The "it" there is covenant of grace.
[/quote:a7290c5bd7]

Let's stop right there....

How do you know that the "it" is not the New Covenant? Why do you just assume that the "it" is the covenant of grace (apart from the New Covenant)?

It is very important here to notice his use of the word "it".

Look again:

[quote:a7290c5bd7]
for neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation; called new, not because newly made, for [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] is so called [u:a7290c5bd7]in distinction from the old covenant[/u:a7290c5bd7], or former mode of administration of [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7], under the Mosaic economy; and [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] [u:a7290c5bd7]is always new[/u:a7290c5bd7], and will be succeeded by no other; and [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others
[/quote:a7290c5bd7]

[i:a7290c5bd7]
1. called [u:a7290c5bd7]new[/u:a7290c5bd7], not because newly made, for [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] was made from everlasting;

2. or lately revealed, for [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall

3. [b:a7290c5bd7]It[/b:a7290c5bd7] is so called in distiction from the Old Covenant.

4. former mode or administration of [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7]

5. [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] is always new, and will be succeeded by no other.

6. [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7] provides for and promises new things. [/i:a7290c5bd7]

[b:a7290c5bd7]It[/b:a7290c5bd7] is the New Covenant.

1. It is the New Covenant which is "called new, not because newly made, for it was made from everlasting."

2. It is the New Covenant which was "made known to our first parents immediately after the fall".

3. It is the New Covenant which is "so called" (that is: called "new") in distinction from the Old Covenant.

4. It is the New Covenant which was formerly administered in the Old.

5. It is the New Covenant which is "always new and will be succeeded by no other".

6. And it is the New Covenant which "provides for and promises new things.

Hence, when Gill says, "the former mode and administration of [b:a7290c5bd7]it[/b:a7290c5bd7]", he means that the New Covenant/covenant of grace was formerly administered in the Old Covenant.


[b:a7290c5bd7]He uses "it" 6 times in reference to the New Covenant. Why would you think that all of a sudden, now "it" is supposed to refer to the [i:a7290c5bd7]covenant of grace, not the New Covenant[/i:a7290c5bd7]????[/b:a7290c5bd7]


By the way, Pastor Way has provided some good quotes from Spurgeon in which aparently Spurgeon (at least, aparently from those quotes) teaches the same.


[quote:a7290c5bd7]
To get to the point, your quote from Malone is not useful. To be blunt, Malone has no clue about what Owen is saying. You have just quoted a conclusion - and a monumentally wrong one - by Malone. I'm NOT criticizing you; but Malone.
[/quote:a7290c5bd7]

Your charge here is against an ordained minister of the gospel, who, as yourself, is Christ's gift to His church. I only ask that you would please back up your statement with some good evidence.

Thanks.




[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Dan....]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Dan,

Let me try and respond quickly here, since I think we are getting nowhere fast, and the next two days for me are beyond busy:

[quote:ed3551789f][i:ed3551789f]Originally posted by Dan....[/i:ed3551789f]
Let's stop right there....

How do you know that the "it" is not the New Covenant? Why do you just assume that the "it" is the covenant of grace (apart from the New Covenant)?

It is very important here to notice his use of the word "it".

Look again:

[quote:ed3551789f]
for neither the cup, nor the wine in it, can be thought to be the covenant or testament itself, by which is meant the covenant of grace, as administered under the Gospel dispensation; called new, not because newly made, for [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] was made from everlasting; or lately revealed, for [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall, and to other saints in succeeding ages, though more clearly exhibited by Christ under the present dispensation; but [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] is so called [u:ed3551789f]in distinction from the old covenant[/u:ed3551789f], or former mode of administration of [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f], under the Mosaic economy; and [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] [u:ed3551789f]is always new[/u:ed3551789f], and will be succeeded by no other; and [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] provides for and promises new things, and which are famous and excellent, and preferable to all others
[/quote:ed3551789f]

[i:ed3551789f]
1. called [u:ed3551789f]new[/u:ed3551789f], not because newly made, for [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] was made from everlasting;
2. or lately revealed, for [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] was made known to our first parents immediately after the fall
3. [b:ed3551789f]It[/b:ed3551789f] is so called in distiction from the Old Covenant.
4. former mode or administration of [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f]
5. [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] is always new, and will be succeeded by no other.
6. [b:ed3551789f]it[/b:ed3551789f] provides for and promises new things. [/i:ed3551789f]
[b:ed3551789f]It[/b:ed3551789f] is the New Covenant. [/quote:ed3551789f]

Because of the English grammar. "called new" is an adjective. The antecedent is in the previous clause - "the covenant of grace." New refers back as an adjective to the covenant of grace. But notice that Gill does not say, "which is new," but rather "called new," that is [i:ed3551789f]given the designation new[/i:ed3551789f] or [i:ed3551789f]described as new[/i:ed3551789f]. There is only one covenant from everlasting - the covenant of grace. If the new covenant were the only covenant from everlasting - it would not be new! It would be old. That is the point of Hebrews. That is the point of Galatians 3-4. IT is the new administration of the covenant. How can something be the new version of itself? How can the old be the new?


[quote:ed3551789f]By the way, Pastor Way has provided some good quotes from Spurgeon in which aparently Spurgeon (at least, aparently from those quotes) teaches the same.[/quote:ed3551789f]

This is a good point. I will need to look at these quotes again, and in context. It may be that you are right about Spurgeon. I will withhold judgment.

[quote:ed3551789f]
Your charge here is against an ordained minister of the gospel, who, as yourself, is Christ's gift to His church. I only ask that you would please back up your statement with some good evidence. [/quote:ed3551789f]

Matthew has done this already on the board, and I will try and dig this up. But the most obvious thing should be that Owen was a great proponent of infant baptism. If he equated the covenant of grace and the new covenant, he would either be a fool for thinking that the sign of the covenant should be given to those whom it did not belong, or else he would contradict himself in thinking that the covenant could be broken - which he obviously did, since he talks about the penalties for covenant breaking. Malone is entitled to respect as a minister, but it is quiet shameful that he has twisted a dead saint's words to buttress his case. He knows that Owen does not agree with him - Owen has written as much both on baptism, and in Savoy 7.4-5, which he helped draft:
[quote:ed3551789f] IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the 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.

V. Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; upon the account of which various dispensations, it is called the Old and New Testament.[/quote:ed3551789f]

That is like me saying, "you know, it is like Spurgeon said - 'the promises are to believers and their children.' That is why Spurgeon would agree with me that infants should be baptized."
Your first reaction would be "what?!" "Everything Spurgeon wrote is against that. You better show something pretty definitive here, not just a summary of what you say Spurgeon said."

And I would agree. But obviously Malone wouldn't. He makes Owen (who was a rather strenuously opponent of the doctrine of credo baptism, but who loved men like Bunyan, a proponent of credo baptism. What?
 

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
In Defense of Fred Malone....

(not that Fred Malone is in need of defense, but just for the record.....)

Pastor Greco said:
[quote:1c0708af43]
Malone is on his way to antinomianism.

Now he may not be there - in fact I am pretty sure that he not only is not, but is critical of NCT; but his theology WILL be taken in the next generation or two to that point.
[/quote:1c0708af43]

Dr. Fred Malone is an associate editor of the [i:1c0708af43]Reformed Baptist Theological Review[/i:1c0708af43], (RBTR) along with such men as Richard Barcellos (who wrote [i:1c0708af43]In Defense of the Decologue[/i:1c0708af43]), Robert Martin, James Renihan and Samuel Waldron.

The goal of the RBTR "[i:1c0708af43]is to present confessional Reformed Baptist doctrine in all branches of theology, with it practical outworking. With scripture as its ultimate satndard, RBTR will function within the theological framework of the Second London Confession of Faith (1677/1689).[/i:1c0708af43]"


If Malone's theology was as dangerous as Pastor Greco says it is, then why would such men as above listed allow him to be an associate editor of their periodical? Why would former Pastor Walter Chantry, editor of [i:1c0708af43]The Banner of Truth[/i:1c0708af43], have endorsed his book, saying "[i:1c0708af43]Every baptist will welcome Dr. Malone's volume as being a new champion of the cause of truth. It should have immense usefulness for pastors and churches as a tool for teaching covenant theology and as an aid in controversy about the subject of baptism."[/i:1c0708af43]???

If his theology were so dangerous, then why would such men endorse his work, and allow his association with them as defenders of Confessional Reformed Baptist theology?

The church of which he is pastor, First Baptist Church, Clinton, LA, is a member church of the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (A.R.B.C.A.), which requires member churches to hold strict adherance to the 1689 London Confession.

Why would he be allowed membership if his theology of the covenants were in opposition to the Confessional standard of the assocaition?

Yet, for some reason, Pastor Greco can openly say that, "Malone is on his way to antinomianism", while those who associate with him, including Waldron and Chantry, aparrently do not see a problem.

Either,
A. They are clueless to his theology. (I highly doubt that).
B. They agree with him on this point
or,
C. They do not consider Malones "deviation" a large enough issue to worry over (as does Pastor Greco).


Dr. Malone isn't somewhere out there in left field. He is highly regarded among Confessional Reformed Baptists as defender of the Reformed Baptist faith.

Let's think about these things before casting stones.

Thank you.


[Edited on 2-21-2004 by Dan....]
 

fredtgreco

Vanilla Westminsterian
Staff member
Dan,

I'll leave it at this since you make some good points. I thought I said (but I may not have, and if so, it is my fault) that I don't think Malone is antinomian. What I think is that men will latch onto some aspects of his theology and come to serious deviations in a few generations. That is how it works.

One good example: the work of Vos and Ridderbos was very helpful to the church, but they did take some "odd" positions. Take a look at Ridderbos on baptism. He talks about it in ways that make the reformed squeemish. He also is on record as saying that the ordo salutis really isn't in the Bible. Now did Ridderbos intend to start a salvation by works movement? No, of course not. Did his supporters then think he was dangerous? No, because he had careful caveats, was careful not to go too far, and was careful not to be dogmatic.

But 50-75 years later, the Auburn folks and the New Perspective folks have seized on his theology, taken the bad to new extremes and forgotten the good. Where Vos thought that Biblical theology was being given shjort shrift (and it was), now men are saying you don't even need systematics (that is NT Wright in a nutshell). We are fighting a major war now, and Vos and Ridderbos, while not responsible, are the spiritual ancestors of this bastardized theology because they were not careful enough.

That is what I think we will see in 50-75 in the reformed baptist camp. We are seeing it somewhat already. Not to cast stones - especially since New Perspectivism is the big problem in Presbyterianism - but do you wonder why New Covenant theology is almost exclusively a baptist phenomena? It is an outgrowth, I believe of the wrong view of the new covenant. That is why men who take a classical covenantal view like Barcellos, Reisenger and others are so vociferous in combatting it.

That's all. I'll let you have the last word.
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
While Barcellos disagrees with Wells and others in the NCT movement, he did write recently in his review of the book [i:c2ea9ab296]New Covenant Theology[/i:c2ea9ab296]:

[quote:c2ea9ab296]I would like to close on a positive note. Through various circumstances, I have come to know Tom Wells on a personal level and consider him to be a dear, highly esteemed brother in the Lord. We have had several friendly, challenging, and edifying email exchanges and phone conversations. I am sure that this would be true of many other New Covenant Theology adherents and trust that this review will be taken as constructive criticism from a differing friend and brother.[/quote:c2ea9ab296]

Further, Barcellos notes in the same review, that NCT is [i:c2ea9ab296]changing[/i:c2ea9ab296] as it develops and that some of the things he addressed directly in his own work [i:c2ea9ab296]In Defense of the Decalogue[/i:c2ea9ab296] no longer apply as a critique of NCT or its leaders.

Speaking from my own perspective now, those in the RB camp do not see NCT as a serious threat/doorway to heresy in the church. It is a different system in some respects, but not a threat or a heresy.

Perhaps it is finally happening that Reformed Baptists are reading their own theologians without a WCF bias! Gill, Spurgeon, and others are thoroughly Baptist, and while their language at times sounds like the WCF...they are BAPTISTS and do not hold to full blown Covenant Theology.

Baptist theologians should not be read through a lense of the WCF. Many involved in framing the WCF and many churches that are WCF churches still had NOTHING to do with Baptists in their day. Why? Because they knew that the Baptists had a differing system when it came to defining the covenants from the Bible.

If Spurgeon and Gill and all the others had been saying the SAME thing as the WCF does, then they would not have been rejected solely on the basis of their view of baptism, would they? There had to be more to it than that and the more to it is quite simply their understanding of the covenants!

So I suggest that we strive to read what these guys wrote and hear what they preached without ASSUMING that they are speaking the language of the WCF. They were NOT.

I would also suggest that we do not need to set up any systematic theology and man made confession of faith as "the faith once for all delivered to the saints."

The Bible is our rule. It alone is infallible. And while we may derive differing systematics, we in Presbyterian and Reformed Baptist churches are still preaching the [i:c2ea9ab296]same gospel[/i:c2ea9ab296], are we not?

Systematics are not the gospel. Covenant Theology is not the gospel. The WCF and LBCF are not the gospel.

Do you hear me here guys and gals?

They are man made systems of interpretation that did not exist until hundreds and hundreds of years after the founding of the church and the closing of the canon. And the gospel was being preached and Christ was building His church long before the 1500s.

Systematics can be helpful, but as soon as we think that our entire belief system must fit neatly into one man made package then [i:c2ea9ab296]we have elevated the work of men over the Word of God[/i:c2ea9ab296]. May it never be.

You do not need a systematic to know Christ. Nor is there an elevated place in heaven on His right and left sides for those who have put all the ways and thoughts of God into an easily understood and structured system with available flow charts.

I want to be sure that while we disagree on these things that we admit that we all have biases and presuppositions, and that no one here is completely committed to the very same system as others are - for no theologian on this earth has ever agreed 100% with even one other theologian. Why? Because God's ways and thoughts are so high above ours how dare we ever think that we have Him figured out.

Look at all the differences in denominatiosn that all claim to adhere to CT as presented in the WCF or some other man made confession. Look at the variety of Baptists out there. Are any of so vain as to think that "our church" alone has it all figured out?

How proud we would be if we thought our "system" was "the faith."

Phillip

[Edited on 2-21-04 by pastorway]
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Here we go again....

Phillip,

Thanks so much for telling us all for the 100th time that the Bible is our only rule of faith. As if we do not practice this.

I get rather tired every time we bring up a good point to which you have no answer, you pull out the old, "the Bible is the final authority." Could you answer the point instead of side-step the issue?

Are there any Baptists from the time of the reformation to Spurgeon that actually thought that the new covenant=CoG?

Again, it is not as if all these things were not written in English. There is nothing lost in translation here. Plain English stands against you on this point. To interpret it otherwise does damage to what they intended.

A further point. The LBCF changed the language it disagreed with. If the language is the same, then the meaning is the same as the WCF. They didn't agree with a different meaning of the same words. Although we may do that in our day, they did not, for they were more precise in their language.

We all agree that the Bible is the final authority on this. But unfortunately, we are not arguing against it. We are arguing that your interpretation of your own confession is novel and does damage to the meaning of it.

Could you please answer that one? If you do not know of any difference, then say so. It is okay if your stance is novel as long as you admit it is. We can go on from there. What we cannot go on from is when you insist that these baptist writers from the reformation are saying things that agree with your novel theology. If you can show where they did, fine. But I would ask you for some references.

In Christ,

KC
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
The references have been given and we were told that we were misreading them because obviously they were speaking the language of the WCF.

Read Spurgeon and Gill - and most any other Baptist theologian - without a WCF lence and they sure sound like what Dan and I hae been saying. This is not a new phenomenon in the RB world, guys.

We are not Baptists who want to sound like Presbyterians without infant inclusion. We are Baptists who hold historically to a different understanding of the covenants than does Covenant Theology.

I wanted to make the point that we are arguing about the interpretation of the covenants and not about the GOSPEL itself. There is a difference.

And I will always go back to Sola Scriptura, I don't care who gets tired of it, because we all need to be reminded from time to time that the Bible is MORE than our puny systematic theologies!

It is not a cop out. You said we did not read our guys right. We said yes we did. You said no we did not. Who wins?

Take off the WCF glasses, and read what these guys wrote. Read Spurgeon on Hebrews and Jeremiah 31. Read Gill. Read Haldane. Read others. They are not Presbyterians - they are Baptists. And Baptists have ALWAYS had a different view of the covenants that full blown CT.

If you were in a Reformed Baptyrian church that thought that the LBCF was a CT document, sorry. The 1644 and 1689 are Baptist documents and they differ from the WCF in many things.

Phillip

PS - notice the significant change in language between the WCF and the LBCF on the covenant of grace (chapter 7):

[quote:f8ad8eaac9][b:f8ad8eaac9]WCF[/b:f8ad8eaac9]
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: 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; 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, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.

Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, 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: 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, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.


[b:f8ad8eaac9]LBCF[/b:f8ad8eaac9]
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.
[/quote:f8ad8eaac9]

Seems to me the Baptists changed quite a bit!! Because they understand the Covenant differently!



[Edited on 2-22-04 by pastorway]
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Phillip...

[quote:ba224f2bce]
Read Spurgeon and Gill - and most any other Baptist theologian - without a WCF lence and they sure sound like what Dan and I hae been saying. This is not a new phenomenon in the RB world, guys.[/quote:ba224f2bce]

I asked for references and you say most any other Baptist theologian. Wow. So, I should just take your word for it. Will you give me the same courtesy? I did ask for specific references, did I not?

[quote:ba224f2bce]And I will always go back to Sola Scriptura, I don't care who gets tired of it, because we all need to be reminded from time to time that the Bible is MORE than our puny systematic theologies![/quote:ba224f2bce]

You will go back to your version of Sola Scriptura. We will always disagree about that because yours is revisionist. It is not the Sola Scriptura of the reformation, because that Sola Scriptura includes the regula fidei. You seem to think that it is perfectly fine to come up with your own regula fidei. That is Solo Scriptura. Sorry.

[quote:ba224f2bce]It is not a cop out. You said we did not read our guys right. We said yes we did. You said no we did not. Who wins?[/quote:ba224f2bce]

Well we do until you actually come up with a reference that shows you are interpreting your own standards correctly.

[quote:ba224f2bce]Take off the WCF glasses, and read what these guys wrote. Read Spurgeon on Hebrews and Jeremiah 31. Read Gill. Read Haldane. Read others. They are not Presbyterians - they are Baptists. And Baptists have ALWAYS had a different view of the covenants that full blown CT.[/quote:ba224f2bce]

No one is disputing their difference from CT. We are disputing your difference from them. You equate the NC with the CoG. They did not.

And, without the WCF, your glasses would be very cloudy. How much of the WCF is included in your LBCF word for word, and without any explanation as to why they duplicated so much "errant" theology.

[quote:ba224f2bce]If you were in a Reformed Baptyrian church that thought that the LBCF was a CT document, sorry. The 1644 and 1689 are Baptist documents and they differ from the WCF in many things.[/quote:ba224f2bce]

What is a Baptyrian? Is that a cross between a Presbyterian and and a baptist? I seriously have never heard that term before.

[quote:ba224f2bce]PS - notice the significant change in language between the WCF and the LBCF on the covenant of grace (chapter 7):

[quote:ba224f2bce][b:ba224f2bce]WCF[/b:ba224f2bce]
This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: 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; 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, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.

Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, 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: 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, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.


[b:ba224f2bce]LBCF[/b:ba224f2bce]
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.
[/quote:ba224f2bce][/quote:ba224f2bce]

What I noticed is that when I paralleled these a couple of weeks ago so that we could all get on the same page with the same definitions, neither you nor Dan would touch that thread. Why did you not interact with it then? If they are so different, why not show us how they are different. And please, do not read the LBCF through your novel lens. Try some of the writers of the time and see if they say the Abrahamic and Mosaic were not a part of the CoG.

In Christ,

KC
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
A Reformed Baptyrian is a term I coined in this discussion to make a point. Some Baptists are really just Presbyterians that don't baptize their children.

As for references, I have provided a whole post of quotes from Spurgeon and Dan quoted Gill. Do you need more? Or are you disputing what we have already posted and won't be convinced until and unless we produce mroe on top of what has already been submitted?

And I appreciate your assessment of my skewed view of Sola Scriptura. I am just a lone nut out here to destroy the faith of generations, aren't I?

As I stated before, the system of theology to which each of us holds is NOT the gospel. It is simply our way of interpreting Scripture. Neither view, CT or Baptist is novel....and we know this because the CT view did not exist until the 1500s and later. Further, we know this because as I also already stated, Covenant Theology is NOT the "faith once for all delivered to the saints." And if anyone thinks it is, then they have elevated the works of men above the Word of God.

So lets quit pretending like Baptists are unorthodox and ever beholden to the Westminster "divines". We are both searching for truth as revealed in the Word of God. Can we at least agree on that?

Phillip
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Phillip...

[quote:d9f81c55a6]A Reformed Baptyrian is a term I coined in this discussion to make a point. Some Baptists are really just Presbyterians that don't baptize their children.[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

Thanks for the explanation.

[quote:d9f81c55a6]As for references, I have provided a whole post of quotes from Spurgeon and Dan quoted Gill. Do you need more? Or are you disputing what we have already posted and won't be convinced until and unless we produce mroe on top of what has already been submitted?[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

Unfortunately, none of these quotes excludes either the Abrahamic or the Mosaic from being parts and parcels of the CoG. The NC is certainly a part of it, and the most essential one. We all agree on that. What we do not agree with is your new languages that excludes all the previous covenants from the covenant of grace.

Do you have any quotes from Gill or Owens that do that?

Also, is it not strange that given the prime opportunity to distance themselves from the reformed understanding, the baptists of 1689 did not show the CoG to be separate and apart from the other covenants? I mean, if their definition really is that different, would they not have had to explicitly state that the old covenants are not a part of the covenant of grace. That was the understanding up to that point. Why would they not have clarified this? Why would they not have clarified it in their other writings?

[quote:d9f81c55a6]And I appreciate your assessment of my skewed view of Sola Scriptura. I am just a lone nut out here to destroy the faith of generations, aren't I?[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

No, you are simply stating an illogical premise. You state that you have no systematic. But in doing so, in borrowing from everything you agree with, you create your own systematic. And, you call it Sola Scriptura. SS is not defined by you. I didn't define either. It is defined historically. And right now, you do not agree with the historical meaning because you replace the regula fidei with your own.

[quote:d9f81c55a6]As I stated before, the system of theology to which each of us holds is NOT the gospel.[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

I don't ever remember saying it was, nor was it my intention to imply that. I have never advocated that systems of theology are the gospel. This is a red herring.

[quote:d9f81c55a6]It is simply our way of interpreting Scripture. Neither view, CT or Baptist is novel....and we know this because the CT view did not exist until the 1500s and later.[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

Did you mean, "Both views, CT and Baptist is novel."

This sounds as if you are stating a fact. Can you back this up? The clearly defined terms have taken some time, but the doctrine of covenants has always been there. Paul says so.

[quote:d9f81c55a6]Further, we know this because as I also already stated, Covenant Theology is NOT the "faith once for all delivered to the saints." And if anyone thinks it is, then they have elevated the works of men above the Word of God.[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

This is an argument ad baculum. You are saying that if we believe this we are guilty of extra-biblical heresies. And, it is also another herring because no one has claimed that CT is the faith once for all delivered to the saints. Can you stick to the arguments we're making?

[quote:d9f81c55a6]So lets quit pretending like Baptists are unorthodox and ever beholden to the Westminster "divines". We are both searching for truth as revealed in the Word of God. Can we at least agree on that?[/quote:d9f81c55a6]

We are both searching for truth. That is true. Some of us find it more in the preponderance of witnesses that God has blessed the church with. While others of us assume that unless it comes from within or because we do not agree with it, it cannot be truth.

In Christ,

KC
 

pastorway

Puritan Board Senior
Of course I have a systematic....I just can't find a label for it! I try my theology against the Scripture. Shouldn't we all?

Does anyone on this forum who adheres to Covenant Theology actually AGREE with every other Covenant Theologian 100% of the time? Even the Puritans and the Westminster Divines disagreed on things.

What do we do if we disagree? We make sure that we are correctly interpreting the Bible, because it is infallible, our systems are not. And if we continue to disagree we take the Bible OVER the system.

For Owen on the Covenant, read his commentary on Hebrews 8:6. He says that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and that the others pointed to it.

As for your last statement, KC, are you saying that we should not rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth? That is, after all, part of what He promises to do. He was sent to lead us into all truth.

Does He use men? Yes. Pastors, teachers, theologians? Surely.

But does that mean the men are always right? No because we are all fallen. And that is exactly why the Bereans were praised, for they went to the Scriptures and in doing so questioned the teachings of an Apostle of the Lord Jesus. And they are praised for doing so.

Here we are again at that old argument about the Bible and the Spirit.

And here we are again to say that if Luther listened to you there would have been no reformation, because he surely would have esteemed his teachers as speaking as tools of the Holy Spirit to lead him. Instead he questioned his teachers by going to the Word of God....and when he challenged the systematized doctrine of his day with the Words of the Bible, the Spirit through him sparked the greatest recovery of the gospel in history.

But lets not start all that again.

I do not want anyone to think that because a Baptist rejects the teachings of the covennt according to CT that they are then opening the door for heresy, and stepping away from their Baptist heretiage. That simply is not true.

I am through with this thread for now lest we go round this circle again and again......

Phillip
 

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
Phillip....

[quote:05a6cd7ec4]As for your last statement, KC, are you saying that we should not rely on the Holy Spirit to lead us into all truth? That is, after all, part of what He promises to do. He was sent to lead us into all truth.[/quote:05a6cd7ec4]

Not at all, and you very well know it.

This was a jab and a red herring.

Thanks for bowing out of the argument. It is clear that you do not want to be logical, nor do you want to clarify. I suggest you read your own posting in the other thread. Several times, Owen does not agree with your interpretation. You posted a source of reference for our side not for yours. If you take all of what he is saying, he agrees with us, not you.

In Christ,

KC
 

Dan....

Puritan Board Sophomore
Pastor Greco,

[quote:dbb8d7ad35]
I'll leave it at this since you make some good points. I thought I said (but I may not have, and if so, it is my fault) that I don't think Malone is antinomian.
[/quote:dbb8d7ad35]

True. You did not say that he was. (Had you said that he was, you'd have seen a couple of these things -> :flaming: with my last post to you). :)

What you said was, "[i:dbb8d7ad35]Malone is on his way to antinomianism. Now he may not be there - in fact I am pretty sure that he not only is not, but is critical of NCT; but his theology WILL be taken in the next generation or two to that point. [/i:dbb8d7ad35]"

I appreciate your concern that we do not fall into antinomianism. Personally, I don't believe that Malone is anywhere near antinomianism in his theology. Now what other people will do with it.... only time will tell.

I just want to make it clear that he isn't somewhere in left field out there, but that he is highly respected among confessional baptists.


[quote:dbb8d7ad35]
That's all. I'll let you have the last word.
[/quote:dbb8d7ad35]

Okay, I'll make this my last word:

I am a confessional baptist. I do have a few minor disagreements with the confession, but overall I truly love and highly esteem the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. It is not only my confession of faith, it is also my churches confession of faith (as it is the confession of all A.R.B.C.A. churches).

Yes, I believe in Sola Scriptura; but I also understand that it would be quite arrogant of me to think that I have enlighted to some truth that very few others have been privilaged to have obtained. I most certainly may be wrong, and I have great respect for those among my brothers who disagree (not only among the Reformed Baptists brothers, but also among Reformed Paedo-Baptist brothers).

I am very appreciative of the confessions. I do appreciate the Westminster Confession; but of course I am biased :smilegrin:, hence I appreciate the London Confession even more so.

The confessions are very important. They are a means which holds the people of God from straying off into every wind of doctrine from the sleight of man. We are all so prone to wander. God has been gracious to give us orthodox confessions to keep us in line.

Let us all be thankful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top