WCF vs. 1689 LBCF on Covenant Theology

[Stephen L Smith]

Thank you to everyone who gave insightful comments re my Paedobaptist vs Credobaptist questions on the Paedobaptist questions Forum.

I continue to think through the issue. One of my main questons relates to the major theological/covenantal construct of the Bible. Namely, is the major theological construct "the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent" Gen 3:15, or "believers and their seed" Gen 17. Ch 7 of the 1689 Baptist confession seems to start with the former. Gen 3:15 would provide a foundation for Baptist covenant theology, whereas Gen 17 would provide a foundation for Paedobaptist covenant theology.

The 1689 confession 7:3 states:
"This covenant is revealed in the gospel. It was revealed first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation through the seed of the woman. After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament. This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect. Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence."

As a Reformed Baptist (now questioning my position) I previously argued"

• 7:3 in the 1689 Confession is an amazing statement of Historic-Redemptive theology. It anticipates Vos' later writings. It starts in Gen 3:5 and gives a grand 'sweep' of theology through to the New Testament cumulating in the New Covenant.
• It perfectly links the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace. If the plan/purpose of the Triune God is to redeem fallen sinners and give them eternal life, this is fully worked out in the Covenant of Grace. Therefore it logically follows that only those who repent and believe in Christ are to be baptised. To give Baptism to those who have not repented and believed in Christ forces a disconnect between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace.
• John the Baptist (he was NOT John the Presbyterian ) brings the theological construct back to Gen 3:15 because he made the link between baptism and repentance, which is greatly emphasised throughout the New Testament. The fact that John the Baptist is the link between the Old and New Covenant is very significant. He baptised for a baptism of repentance; this is worked out in an amazing way through the New Testament.

Pardon the pun, but traditionally I thought my argument was very 'watertight' But I am open and willing to learn from my paedobaptist friends. Feel free to critique me.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

I don't necessarily see why the Genesis 3 passages links only to credobaptist theology. We know that all of Eve's offspring were not at enmity with the serpent; see the next generation of kids and then some! We also see immediately that following the fall Adam and Eve are already trusting in the covenant promises given to them in as early as Genesis 4, especially Gen 4:25-26, as childbearing was the action by which Adam and Eve trusted in God's future redemption, especially with Seth, after Cain and Abel. And even then the promises were conferred upon the covenant elect (Abel, Seth) and the apostate (Cain). Just because it was spelled out more explicitly in Gen 17 doesn't mean it wasn't apparent in Genesis 3.

I don't see the logic you spell out where you say "Therefore it logically follows that only those who repent and believe in Christ are to be baptised" but you may have talked to others about it already.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

"Therefore it logically follows that only those who repent and believe in Christ are to be baptised"

I meant if the Covenant of Redemption is God's plan to save the elect, and this is worked out in the Covenant of Grace, then what logically follows is the Baptist position. Obviously I am making some assumptions in this logic.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

Right. I'm just saying that the logic doesn't follow for me, so you'll need to show your hand and list the assumptions to help me out here!

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Right. I'm just saying that the logic doesn't follow for me, so you'll need to show your hand and list the assumptions to help me out here!

Dr McMahon in his excellent "Covenant theology made easy" states that "Covenant theology graples with the manner in which God glorifies Himself in His work to save sinners through Jesus Christ in a covenantal framework". It was in this context that I referred to the Covenant of Redemption followed by the Covenant of Grace (1689 Confession 7:3). Now my main assumption is that the Reformed Baptist baptises believers (ie, the elect). In reality they baptise professing believers; yes there is a difference. But it is also true that paedobaptists baptise children of professing believers. So I am not sure that my assumption is a problem in and of itself. If you think I have made other assumptions feel free to point them out

 

[sc_q_jayce]

Thanks, Stephen! I appreciate your follow-up.

Dr McMahon in his excellent "Covenant theology made easy" states that "Covenant theology graples with the manner in which God glorifies Himself in His work to save sinners through Jesus Christ in a covenantal framework". It was in this context that I referred to the Covenant of Redemption followed by the Covenant of Grace (1689 Confession 7:3). Now my main assumption is that the Reformed Baptist baptises believers (ie, the elect). In reality they baptise professing believers; yes there is a difference. But it is also true that paedobaptists baptise children of professing believers. So I am not sure that my assumption is a problem in and of itself. If you think I have made other assumptions feel free to point them out

You are right. Your assumption does not match reality as you have yourself stated since the elect are unknowable in this life and all we have to work with is the fruitfulness of those who fall in the covenant (i.e. professing). There's a difference, though, and maybe someone will chime in and say more about it.

Paedobaptists baptize their children not because of any certainty that they're part of the elect. They baptize because they're part of the covenant. We know that the promise in Genesis 3 and Genesis 17 are fulfilled in the covenant. That's why Adam and Eve keep having children. Notice what Eve says when she has Abel. And notice what Eve says when she bears Seth. Both of these are statements of faith in God's promise. It's an outpouring of praise because she knows that through her seed God will complete what He has started, even if Cain seemed to undo so much of it. And Eve gave birth to Cain in faith, too!

We had our daughter baptized about six weeks into her life. I believe that the children of believers are holy, a la 1 Corinthians. It means they're set apart. That's the language of covenant. I will train and instruct her in the Christian faith. She will receive all the benefits of being in the covenant. God may have regenerated her at birth, at her baptism, or maybe ten years down the line. God forbid, maybe she'll become apostate. May it never happen. But I am trusting God that He will preserve His Church through me and my offspring and those who are far off. I believe that promise.

Infant baptism is an outworking of the promise of the covenant. The more you delve into Covenant Theology the more you'll see it.

 

[Dachaser]

I meant if the Covenant of Redemption is God's plan to save the elect, and this is worked out in the Covenant of Grace, then what logically follows is the Baptist position. Obviously I am making some assumptions in this logic.

My understanding is that Baptists holding to a form of Covenant Theology would see the Lord pretty much extending and dealing in Covenant with just those whom he indeed has a real spiritual relationship with, as in just His own elect.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

someone will chime in and say more about it.

I am hoping that too

They baptize because they're part of the covenant. We know that the promise in Genesis 3 and Genesis 17 are fulfilled in the covenant.

But I see Gen 17 etc as a covenant between Abraham and his physical seed. Yet the New Testament seems to me to make the link between Abraham and his spiritual seed. These are not the same. For example, an infant that was 100 generations removed from Abraham his ancestor, would be circumcised. But I am not aware of an infant been baptised on the basis that his ancestor 100 generations ago was a Christian.

I am not trying to be pedantic. I am just seeing if your argument has consistency.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

For example, an infant that was 100 generations removed from Abraham his ancestor, would be circumcised. But I am not aware of an infant been baptised on the basis that his ancestor 100 generations ago was a Christian.

What do you mean by this? Wasn't the child circumcised mostly because his immediate father was circumcised, and was obedient to the commandment, than because back in the mist of time his reputed ancestor was given this rite by God? Moreover, aliens attached to the commonwealth at later dates were circumcised and incorporated in the social body, along with their sons; and these had little or no biological trace to Abraham, though perhaps after another generation or more, there might be some intermarriage with a family of more direct heritage. I'm having a hard time following your logic, whatever it is.

As for the baptized infant, what you say seems to have some comparison to whatever you're trying to communicate relative to circumcision as parallel. Again, it would seem that a baptized parent would have more to do with his child's taking the rite, than a reputed baptized ancestor would. What legitimate claim could a distant descendant have on a promise to his ancestor, if in between time, his family line had been "cut off" by someone who forsook the faith of his fathers?

 

[Dachaser]

I am hoping that too


But I see Gen 17 etc as a covenant between Abraham and his physical seed. Yet the New Testament seems to me to make the link between Abraham and his spiritual seed. These are not the same. For example, an infant that was 100 generations removed from Abraham his ancestor, would be circumcised. But I am not aware of an infant been baptised on the basis that his ancestor 100 generations ago was a Christian.

I am not trying to be pedantic. I am just seeing if your argument has consistency.

Yes, all of the NT Covenant spiritual blessings are applicable to only those who are now in Christ.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

I'm having a hard time following your logic, whatever it is.

Bruce, I have often appreciated your wise comments on a wide variety of Biblical topics so happy to seek your counsel on this subject which has perplexed me. I outlined my convictions on the first post. I would be interested in your response. The 1689 Baptist Confession ch 7 has a 'unique approach' to covenant theology; some Reformed Baptist theologians argue that ch 7 of the Confession has a historic-redemptivce approach to the covenant that anticipates the Biblical theology of Vos.

I have acknowledged on another thread that my previous Baptist convictions on the New Covenant are problematic - thanks to an article sent to me by Lane. So I would be interested in your comments on my first post and see if it can be refuted. As I said I am open to changing my view on covenant theology and baptism.

Feel free to link me to previous posts on the subject if they cover this particular issue. Thanks.

 

[sc_q_jayce]

I am hoping that too


But I see Gen 17 etc as a covenant between Abraham and his physical seed. Yet the New Testament seems to me to make the link between Abraham and his spiritual seed. These are not the same. For example, an infant that was 100 generations removed from Abraham his ancestor, would be circumcised. But I am not aware of an infant been baptised on the basis that his ancestor 100 generations ago was a Christian.

I am not trying to be pedantic. I am just seeing if your argument has consistency.

What Reverend Buchanan said.

Genesis 17 is interpreted by Paul specifically to a physical seed, Jesus Christ himself (Gal 3). That interpretive framework needs to come first. But indeed Christ is a true son of Abraham and as a result so are we. It is not about spiritually connecting ourselves to Abraham - it's about our union in Christ and the effects of that to be "seeds."

Circumcision relies on the passing of the rite from father to son in each generation. An infant that was 100 generations removed from Abraham would be circumcised in so much as the child's parents believed in the promises of God. That is, so long as the parents call upon God as a covenant family, the parents will circumcise. Sounds like Adam and Eve. Sounds like baptism.

Again, there's absolutely no difference between the two and I'm just as puzzled as Reverend Buchanan is at how you're trying to create a distinction that doesn't exist!

 

[Beezer]

This thread illustrates clearly the difference of how Presbyterians and Baptists view the substance of the old and new covenants. As a Baptist it often appears that our Presbyterian brethren over emphasize the continuity of the two and fail to fully appreciate the discontinuity that exists, thus mixing and meshing the natural/fleshly with the supernatural/spiritual.

This is how Baptists tend to view the substance of the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant. I believe this is the lens through which Stephen is wrestling with the issues.

Old Covenant
- Entrance by physical birth
- Circumcision was a physical and outward act of the flesh
- Law was written upon stone
- Outward ceremonial worship
- A physical kingdom
- Earthly land
- Temporal

vs.

New Covenant
- Entrance by the new birth
- Circumcision as an act of the Spirit in the heart
- Law written upon the heart
- Worship in spirit and in truth
- A spiritual kingdom
- Heavenly city
- Eternal


To quote Jeffrey D. Johnson from his book The Fatal Flaw (p. 203), "the new covenant consists of a heavenly people and is continued and perpetuated throughout the gospel age not by natural birth, but by the new birth. It is a covenant in which all who are included know the Lord and have received the forgiveness of sins."


[ I hate to fire off this post and run, but I'm leaving for vacation and will not have access to a computer for a few days. ]

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I outlined my convictions on the first post. I would be interested in your response. The 1689 Baptist Confession ch 7 has a 'unique approach' to covenant theology; some Reformed Baptist theologians argue that ch 7 of the Confession has a historic-redemptivce approach to the covenant that anticipates the Biblical theology of Vos.

Here's your opening query:​

"Is the major theological construct "the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent" Gen 3:15, or "believers and their seed" Gen 17. Ch 7 of the 1689 Baptist confession seems to start with the former. Gen 3:15 would provide a foundation for Baptist covenant theology, whereas Gen 17 would provide a foundation for Paedobaptist covenant theology."​

The follow-on comment might make sense to a Covenantal-Baptist, but it's a statement made from within it's own paradigm. You posit a distinction between two camps and two starting points. But this just sounds weird to me.

The C-B doesn't avoid facing the pivotal role of the Abrahamic covenant, and the P-B doesn't avoid the origin of the promise of a Redeemer in Gen.3.

I find this proposition offered in hopes of making hay out of the Baptist allegedly finding the proper, earlier starting point for reasoning to a consistent covenant conclusion. But its not convincing to me, who as a classic covenant-theologian sees the NT revelation pointing me back to Abraham in Genesis (esp. chs.12-22) to find the paradigmatic expressions.

I would say, on the C-B proposal, that they have erroneously shrunk the Bible's properly defined prefatory material to a mere two-and-a-half chapters. Paul, in addressing the essential Jewish error, shows that they erroneously expanded the preface to the whole book of Genesis. No, the covenant-story proper begins with Abraham. That's what the NT seems to tell us. Gen.1-11 is prelude.

I wrote this next passage for another thread, but it has just as good an application here: "The covenant of grace has inception, or conception, in time and space at Gen.3:15. We can say it is living and operative, but "gestational" for the first 11 chapters. When Abraham appears ch.12, the labor pains begin, and in ch.15 comes the birth of that covenant by way of God's formal setting out the terms of it. ch.17 gives the sign of it; ch.22 is a grand exhibit of confirmation regarding it."

The Baptist won't agree, but in our view there was no proper circumcision without repentance and faith, no more that baptism is correct without repentance and faith. And since the former was applied in certain cases where the evidence followed the application, the same rule applies in the New Covenant, particularly when we see the promise to Abraham invoked in baptismal context. The claim that there's some uniquely secular point to the first rite strikes us as something that would be disingenuous on God's part, if it were true. It's not how we understand him to operate, ever.

Gen.3:15 stands on the border of the original Paradise. We think it's overrealized eschatology to suppose that the New Covenant age immediately took the church to that same border once again, and by means of the baptismal rite we see the (true) believers recrossing back into Eden.

Are the NT directions to the church, especially the epistles, new principles for life in Eden? No, they're directions for how we are to live on the way to our Promised Land. We aren't in heaven yet.

Anyway, that's my effort at responding; but I confess I'm still doubtful I've grasped the actual essence of your pursuit in the question.​

 

[Dachaser]

This thread illustrates clearly the difference of how Presbyterians and Baptists view the substance of the old and new covenants. As a Baptist it often appears that our Presbyterian brethren over emphasize the continuity of the two and fail to fully appreciate the discontinuity that exists, thus mixing and meshing the natural/fleshly with the supernatural/spiritual.

This is how Baptists tend to view the substance of the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant. I believe this is the lens through which Stephen is wrestling with the issues.

Old Covenant
- Entrance by physical birth
- Circumcision was a physical and outward act of the flesh
- Law was written upon stone
- Outward ceremonial worship
- A physical kingdom
- Earthly land
- Temporal

vs.

New Covenant
- Entrance by the new birth
- Circumcision as an act of the Spirit in the heart
- Law written upon the heart
- Worship in spirit and in truth
- A spiritual kingdom
- Heavenly city
- Eternal


To quote Jeffrey D. Johnson from his book The Fatal Flaw (p. 203), "the new covenant consists of a heavenly people and is continued and perpetuated throughout the gospel age not by natural birth, but by the new birth. It is a covenant in which all who are included know the Lord and have received the forgiveness of sins."


[ I hate to fire off this post and run, but I'm leaving for vacation and will not have access to a computer for a few days. ]

The Reformed Baptist position relating to this issue would have to be that the primary, perhaps only use of the Covenant theology, would be in the sense of God relating to now those who are really saved and indwelt by the Holy Spirit of promise. Not so much internal/external manifestation of the new Covenant of Grace, but that the promises and blessing now extend to just the spiritual descendants of Abraham, those who have received Jesus as Lord, and now have the Holy Spirit sealing within them.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Again, there's absolutely no difference between the two and I'm just as puzzled as Reverend Buchanan is at how you're trying to create a distinction that doesn't exist!

The following post after yours (post 13) gave the differences from a reformed Baptist view. But I am looking at that new website, and doing their course to help me look at this in a deeper level https://www.ruinandredemption.com/

 

[Stephen L Smith]

No, the covenant-story proper begins with Abraham. That's what the NT seems to tell us. Gen.1-11 is prelude.

Post 13 above lay out clearly the difference of how Presbyterians and Baptists view the substance of the old and new covenants. I refer you to that as he explained the position better than me

Are the NT directions to the church, especially the epistles, new principles for life in Eden? No, they're directions for how we are to live on the way to our Promised Land. We aren't in heaven yet.

You have used this phrase "We aren't in heaven yet" and I have come to understand that the reformed Baptist indeed has an over realised eschatlogy, especially the way they treat the new covenant.

Bruce, the new Ruin and Redemption course has been praised by many on the Puritanboard, and I noticed they do quote many top rate Reformed theologians. So I hope to do this course and Lord willing may help me better tie this together.

 

[Dachaser]

Post 13 above lay out clearly the difference of how Presbyterians and Baptists view the substance of the old and new covenants. I refer you to that as he explained the position better than me


You have used this phrase "We aren't in heaven yet" and I have come to understand that the reformed Baptist indeed has an over realised eschatlogy, especially the way they treat the new covenant.

Bruce, the new Ruin and Redemption course has been praised by many on the Puritanboard, and I noticed they do quote many top rate Reformed theologians. So I hope to do this course and Lord willing may help me better tie this together.

There seems to be a big difference between how Baptists and Presbyterian in this area, in just to whom is the New Covenant of Grace extended towards? My understanding is the the new Covenant of Grace extends and confers the promised spiritual blessings only on those who are into a relationship with Jesus, being a a descendant of Abraham, as having believed unto Jesus Christ. The Holy Spirit indweling us is the sign that we are now into the New Covenant.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Post 13 above lay out clearly the difference of how Presbyterians and Baptists view the substance of the old and new covenants. I refer you to that as he explained the position better than me

What that post makes clear is not the difference (there's no comparisons made) but it does lay out the Baptist conception of the relationship of the Old Testament (everything from Gen.-Mal.) to the New. I'm pretty clear about our points of contrast.

What's a lot harder to do is move from identifying distinct points of contrast to a fair representation of "why" there is contrast. Partly, this results from one or both sides' interest (not bad in itself) in maintaining good fellowship, for emphasizing our agreements.

So, let me say 1) I have no dislike for my Baptist brothers and I want them to embrace--fully and accurately--what it is that makes them Baptist; so then, 2) when I name our difference, it is not from lack of charity or an eagerness to incite any discomfort with where a man stands theologically. 3) There's good reason why contrast exists, and it doesn't have to do with one side's failure to apply a principle common to both.

In other words, don't look for some error respecting what we have in common. Not that those never exist; but given the persistency of the contrast, either that is not where the best explanation lies, or else the problem is "moral." When the Baptist alleges that his Presbyterian brother didn't reform far enough in the 16th century (common principle: sola scriptura), he's reaching for the moral explanation of our difference.

No, the distinction is in hermeneutics. It is variation within the "Scripture alone" principle, respecting starting points, perspective, paradigm, the place of reason, and suchlike.

The "substance" that Brian, there in post#13, refers to in a two-fold manner--one substance wrt the Old Covenant, a second substance wrt the New Covenant--may helpfully describe the Baptist position; but even then the Presbyterian will note variation in our use of common terminology.

It will not do for the Presbyterian to argue (on the basis of that proposal) for "one substance" concerning both of those covenants when we haven't agreed on the definition of at least the term "Old Covenant." Is Abraham an "Old Covenant' figure, or (in principle) a New Covenant figure? Presbyterians will say "New," the Baptist may say either "Old" or "mixed" as in old-and-new.

The Old Covenant is, according to the Presbyterian, strictly "that covenant I made with them when they came out of Egypt," meaning Sinai. Abraham is not Moses.

For most Baptists, the Old Covenant is (largely) synonymous with Old Testament. There is tremendous continuity between Abraham and Moses, "too much continuity," we'd say.

Presbyterians see Paul in the NT highlighting discontinuity between the covenants of Abraham and Moses, e.g. Gal.3:17.

All I'm aiming at here is showing how hard it is to fairly represent one side and the other, at the same time making a sincere effort to express the points of contrast that exist, and explain why they exist in a way that makes the same sense to all sides.

 

[KMK]

All I'm aiming at here is showing how hard it is to fairly represent one side and the other, at the same time making a sincere effort to express the points of contrast that exist, and explain why they exist in a way that makes the same sense to all sides.

Such a work would be very helpful and difficult. I have been trying to wrap my head around this very thing for years.

 

[richardnz]

Hi Stephen,

I am not sure exactly what your first question is asking. You mention Genesis 3:15 and state that the 1689 starts with Genesis 3:15, but that perhaps the paedobaptist position would start with Genesis 17. However, the Westminster Confession of Faith 7:3 uses Genesis 3:15 as a proof text of "the Lord being pleased to make a second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace". We quite happily start with the covenant of grace being inaugurated with the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15.

The primary difference on Genesis 3:15 between the WCF and the 1689 is that the 1689 speaks of the covenant of grace being revealed, whereas the WCF speaks of the covenant of grace being set forth and administered. If you hold that the covenant of grace was merely revealed and not established until the cross, then you hold the same position as Particular Baptist Nehemiah Coxe. If you hold that the covenant of grace was actually established in Genesis 3:15, then you are well on your way to receiving the glorious "second blessing" of paedobaptist covenant theology!



You said "Therefore it logically follows that only those who repent and believe in Christ are to be baptised." However, you have not shown your working, so it is a little difficult to see exactly how it follows on from your previous statement. One important doctrine to understand is that of the visible and invisible membership of the covenant community. As I am sure you will agree, many people profess faith and are baptised but are not saved. Under both the Abrahamic and Old Covenants, many professed faith and were circumcised but were not saved. Certainly they were members of those covenants until they broke the covenants, yet they were never going to be saved and thus were never redeemed by the Covenant of Redemption. So it is not necessarily so that those who are visible members of the Covenant of Grace are thus redeemed by the Covenant of Redemption.



You might then argue that there is some distinction between the older covenants and the New Covenant. I do disagree, but even if that were the case we know that the New Covenant operates in the same way as the older covenants, with both a visible and an invisible membership. Hebrews 10 makes this very clear, and in particular verse 29. There are those in the New Covenant who are sanctified in some way by the blood of the covenant, who yet trample Christ under foot and count the covenant an unholy thing. The Lord shall judge his people; there are those who are externally, visibly "God's people", but are going to be judged and sent to the lake of fire. This was the case in the older covenants, and is the case in the New Covenant also.



Finally, you bring up the tying of repentance with baptism. I am sure you will agree that repentance involves the turning away from sin, and the turning towards the law of God in obedience. This is not only a New Testament concept. In Exodus 12:48-49, we have the instructions given regarding the taking of the Passover by foreigners. The only foreigners that could take part of the Passover were those who were circumcised and followed the law that was given to the Israelites. Once they were circumcised, they were to "be as one that is born in the land". That is, they became Israelites, with every attendant privilege including the land (eg Caleb). By agreeing to follow the law of God, they must necessarily turn from their sin, and be circumcised externally and internally. Seems an awful lot like repentance followed by baptism, allowing us to eat the Lord's Supper!



Yet tied here with their repentance and circumcision and covenant membership is the circumcision of "all his males", which would be his male children and any male slaves or servants or those under his care. His household was to be circumcised along with him. The entire household became Israelites, part of the covenant of God. So when the New Covenant began, it was entirely natural for them to continue to have entire households join the covenant of God, as this was the pattern in the Old Covenant. The substance of the Old and New Covenants is the same, as the substance is the Covenant of Grace.



I see you are in New Zealand, and if you like I can courier you a copy of Pierre Marcel's The Biblical Doctrine Of Infant Baptism to borrow and read.

 

[Dachaser]

Hi Stephen,

I am not sure exactly what your first question is asking. You mention Genesis 3:15 and state that the 1689 starts with Genesis 3:15, but that perhaps the paedobaptist position would start with Genesis 17. However, the Westminster Confession of Faith 7:3 uses Genesis 3:15 as a proof text of "the Lord being pleased to make a second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace". We quite happily start with the covenant of grace being inaugurated with the protoevangelium in Genesis 3:15.

The primary difference on Genesis 3:15 between the WCF and the 1689 is that the 1689 speaks of the covenant of grace being revealed, whereas the WCF speaks of the covenant of grace being set forth and administered. If you hold that the covenant of grace was merely revealed and not established until the cross, then you hold the same position as Particular Baptist Nehemiah Coxe. If you hold that the covenant of grace was actually established in Genesis 3:15, then you are well on your way to receiving the glorious "second blessing" of paedobaptist covenant theology!



You said "Therefore it logically follows that only those who repent and believe in Christ are to be baptised." However, you have not shown your working, so it is a little difficult to see exactly how it follows on from your previous statement. One important doctrine to understand is that of the visible and invisible membership of the covenant community. As I am sure you will agree, many people profess faith and are baptised but are not saved. Under both the Abrahamic and Old Covenants, many professed faith and were circumcised but were not saved. Certainly they were members of those covenants until they broke the covenants, yet they were never going to be saved and thus were never redeemed by the Covenant of Redemption. So it is not necessarily so that those who are visible members of the Covenant of Grace are thus redeemed by the Covenant of Redemption.



You might then argue that there is some distinction between the older covenants and the New Covenant. I do disagree, but even if that were the case we know that the New Covenant operates in the same way as the older covenants, with both a visible and an invisible membership. Hebrews 10 makes this very clear, and in particular verse 29. There are those in the New Covenant who are sanctified in some way by the blood of the covenant, who yet trample Christ under foot and count the covenant an unholy thing. The Lord shall judge his people; there are those who are externally, visibly "God's people", but are going to be judged and sent to the lake of fire. This was the case in the older covenants, and is the case in the New Covenant also.



Finally, you bring up the tying of repentance with baptism. I am sure you will agree that repentance involves the turning away from sin, and the turning towards the law of God in obedience. This is not only a New Testament concept. In Exodus 12:48-49, we have the instructions given regarding the taking of the Passover by foreigners. The only foreigners that could take part of the Passover were those who were circumcised and followed the law that was given to the Israelites. Once they were circumcised, they were to "be as one that is born in the land". That is, they became Israelites, with every attendant privilege including the land (eg Caleb). By agreeing to follow the law of God, they must necessarily turn from their sin, and be circumcised externally and internally. Seems an awful lot like repentance followed by baptism, allowing us to eat the Lord's Supper!



Yet tied here with their repentance and circumcision and covenant membership is the circumcision of "all his males", which would be his male children and any male slaves or servants or those under his care. His household was to be circumcised along with him. The entire household became Israelites, part of the covenant of God. So when the New Covenant began, it was entirely natural for them to continue to have entire households join the covenant of God, as this was the pattern in the Old Covenant. The substance of the Old and New Covenants is the same, as the substance is the Covenant of Grace.



I see you are in New Zealand, and if you like I can courier you a copy of Pierre Marcel's The Biblical Doctrine Of Infant Baptism to borrow and read.

The Covenant of Grace as in the New Covenant though seems to be stating that God's spiritual blessings of Grace are applied and enabled with just those who have received Jesus as Lord, and have been sealed by the Holy Spirit, as that is what makes them part of the people now of God.

 

[richardnz]

The Covenant of Grace as in the New Covenant though seems to be stating that God's spiritual blessings of Grace are applied and enabled with just those who have received Jesus as Lord, and have been sealed by the Holy Spirit, as that is what makes them part of the people now of God.

Dachaser,
It is correct that there are blessings that are only effectual to the regenerate, both in the older covenants and the New Covenant. However, Hebrews 10 and other passages make it abundantly clear that there is an external membership of the New Covenant that is not only for the regenerate. The people of God has always included unregenerate professing members.

"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
- Hebrews 10:28-31

Heb. 10:30 is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35-36, where God declares that those of his covenant people who are faithless will be judged and destroyed. This Old Covenant passage is applied to the New Covenant people of God. Surely the covenant membership in Hebrews 10:29 is not the membership that results from regeneration, yet nevertheless they are regarded by God as real covenant members who can break the covenant they are party to, who have been sanctified and yet have despised this favor of God.

Otherwise how do you explain the direct statements of Hebrews 10 that warn of those who are in the covenant, who are the people of God, sanctified by it, yet trample it underfoot? They are not the elect, or they would not behave in that way. When I was a struggling Baptist I had no explanation for this passage, but when the light of Reformed covenantal theology shone upon me it all became clear. My happiness increased and I felt a warm glow of solidarity as I read Calvin. The Three Forms of Unity and the WFC became my friends and I enthusiastically applied myself to the task of raising covenantal children. All these benefits can be yours if you will come over from the Dark Side!

 

[Dachaser]

Dachaser,
It is correct that there are blessings that are only effectual to the regenerate, both in the older covenants and the New Covenant. However, Hebrews 10 and other passages make it abundantly clear that there is an external membership of the New Covenant that is not only for the regenerate. The people of God has always included unregenerate professing members.

"He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:
Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?
For we know him that hath said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.
It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God."
- Hebrews 10:28-31

Heb. 10:30 is quoting Deuteronomy 32:35-36, where God declares that those of his covenant people who are faithless will be judged and destroyed. This Old Covenant passage is applied to the New Covenant people of God. Surely the covenant membership in Hebrews 10:29 is not the membership that results from regeneration, yet nevertheless they are regarded by God as real covenant members who can break the covenant they are party to, who have been sanctified and yet have despised this favor of God.

Otherwise how do you explain the direct statements of Hebrews 10 that warn of those who are in the covenant, who are the people of God, sanctified by it, yet trample it underfoot? They are not the elect, or they would not behave in that way. When I was a struggling Baptist I had no explanation for this passage, but when the light of Reformed covenantal theology shone upon me it all became clear. My happiness increased and I felt a warm glow of solidarity as I read Calvin. The Three Forms of Unity and the WFC became my friends and I enthusiastically applied myself to the task of raising covenantal children. All these benefits can be yours if you will come over from the Dark Side!

Baptists see this as wheat and tares in the body, as those who are regenerated/saved, are all indwelt by the promised Holy Spirit and now part of the NC with God, as His Covenant people.
Within every local church will be saved/unsaved, and just the saved are under the administration of the NW now.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Presbyterians see Paul in the NT highlighting discontinuity between the covenants of Abraham and Moses, e.g. Gal.3:17.

I appreciated your helpful explanation Bruce. I am little sure what you mean by this comment. How does this relate to the debate in modern Presbyterianism re is the Mosaic covenant a covenant of grace or a covenant of works?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I appreciated your helpful explanation Bruce. I am little sure what you mean by this comment. How does this relate to the debate in modern Presbyterianism re is the Mosaic covenant a covenant of grace or a covenant of works?

To begin with, I'm simply casting the standard Baptist continuity/discontinuity criticism (one instance above in #13) in like terms but for my purposes; now the criticism is set not between the OT and the NT, but between two different OT figures and covenants.

I'm not co-opting their argument (and turning it on its head; I'm not sure that's even possible). I'm merely using the same form and terminology (and enlisting Paul's use of such contrast in Galatians and Romans) to acknowledge the point about the significance of continuity (or its breaks); and to show where we believe discontinuity of the most significance is actually found.

It is Abraham vs. Moses, rather than OT vs. NT (meaning, everything up till Christ vs. Christ and his New Covenant). Neither side in the debate calls into question the place of both continuity and discontinuity; the questions are where and how much.

Hence the question: is Abraham and the nature of his covenant essentially or prototypically New Covenant, as we argue? Or is he fully or partly anticipatory of the Old Covenant, that is a Mosaic figure with a prototype Mosaic covenant, as is variously argued by the Baptist side? One proposal by the latter is that there are actually two distinct covenants set up with Abraham (i.e. all his covenant-arrangements are not unified and whole-cloth).

The Baptist-covenantalism proposals don't satisfy, in the classic CT view, because we see those things that are below for Abraham and the chosen nation as all signs of the reality above that he and his seed already possess. Yes, there is anticipation of the fulfillment; but in principle they own already that which awaits an historic expression. Administration happens.

That's the difference between the two sides, because we say the Covenant of Grace was actually administered spiritually under the physical signs; but the other side says only that the substance of the CG was being revealed part-by-part over time, but not administered. They agree there was proleptic enjoyment by Abraham and his believing seed, in virtue of a future NC administration; but do not agree that the CG proper was administered.

As they say: ALL OT types of Christ and the NT/NC were just that and no more; earthly, physical pantomime of later heavenly and spiritual reality. So there's a huge discontinuity they see existing between OT and NT.

On our side is radical disagreement of that reading. For one thing, we say the CG was and is really administered, through signs, both in the OT and in the NT. Abraham had sacrifices and circumcision, along with preaching, and these served his generation administratively. Israel had a much more elaborate system, but still administered the CG under similar signs. And, in our NT age, the CG/NC has an earthly administration through the church. Which is a point, once again, of significant difference with our Baptist friends.

Classic CT sees what we do today as fundamentally the same as that which Abraham did. And to the extent that the Mosaic covenant served as the vehicle for administering Abraham's covenant, they were also doing as Abraham did and administering the CG; however, the form of the Sinai/Old Covenant incorporated an "overlay" of another, quite different kind of covenant.

That form gave the Old Covenant a distinct character, one that was in some ways at odds with the character of the Abrahamic covenant; Moses had a legal cast, as opposed to a promissory cast.

For our part, we deny that Abraham's covenant (or a part of it, or a second covenant) had any legal cast. Only the temporary, passing-covenant of Moses had that legal character; and that existed to serve divine purposes for the chosen people: to bring the world's Savior into history, to make a centuries-long object lesson for the world, and to witness the world that there was an original works-covenant with man in the very beginning that was broken and the race

ruined thereby.​

The discontinuity, then, between Abraham and Moses is one of promise vs. duty, permanence vs. transience, international and universal vs. national and parochial. Whereas, the continuity between Abraham and Christ is in accord with all those first terms.

On the state of the "debate" (if we may call it that) over the essential nature of the Mosaic covenant--this is precipitated by certain proposals, a tendency to see (or read accordingly) that covenant as a truly even radically works-based covenant. The least-favorable aspects of this reading are how Abrahamic embeds are largely eclipsed, as well as a form of "congruent merit" used in place of perfect obedience. The substance of this covenant is thus regarded as works, rather than merely the administration of it being heavily freighted with duty, along with rewards and punishments.

If you'll notice, this treatment of Moses has greater appeal to our Baptist brethren. This proposal really resonated with some on that side; here's a view of the Mosaic covenant both as having a substantively legal nature, and as rather defining of the whole pre-NC span (all earthly, all type, no actual/spiritual CG administration, only its foresignification).

If Abraham's covenant (or any covenant with him) has the same nature as Moses', this bespeaks substantive continuity with Moses, where our side argues for greater discontinuity. If Abraham's covenant as a whole has the same nature as the NC, the continuity underwrites our appeal to him (after the NT we think) in practical as well as doctrinal exemplars.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Hello Richard,

The primary difference on Genesis 3:15 between the WCF and the 1689 is that the 1689 speaks of the covenant of grace being revealed, whereas the WCF speaks of the covenant of grace being set forth and administered. If you hold that the covenant of grace was merely revealed and not established until the cross, then you hold the same position as Particular Baptist Nehemiah Coxe. If you hold that the covenant of grace was actually established in Genesis 3:15, then you are well on your way to receiving the glorious "second blessing" of paedobaptist covenant theology!

Thank you for that insight. I did not realise the WCF made reference to Gen 3:15 so I stand corrected on that point! By your reference to Nehemiah Coxe it looks like you have read many serious Particular Baptist works. I'm sure you are aware that Dr Jim Renihan printed Coxe's work and put in a book together with John Owen's work on the new covenant.

You actually raised a point where I am uncomfortable with 1689 Federalism. 1689 Federalism follows Coxe and argues that covenant of grace was merely revealed and not established until the cross. I am uncomfortable with this because it implies that the blesings of the covenant of grace are greatly minimised prior to the cross.

You might then argue that there is some distinction between the older covenants and the New Covenant. I do disagree, but even if that were the case we know that the New Covenant operates in the same way as the older covenants, with both a visible and an invisible membership. Hebrews 10 makes this very clear, and in particular verse 29. There are those in the New Covenant who are sanctified in some way by the blood of the covenant, who yet trample Christ under foot and count the covenant an unholy thing. The Lord shall judge his people;

Agreed and I acknowledge that the Reformed Baptist view of the new covenant is defective because of this.

Finally, you bring up the tying of repentance with baptism. I am sure you will agree that repentance involves the turning away from sin, and the turning towards the law of God in obedience. This is not only a New Testament concept.

I guess here I am struggling with the link between John the Baptist linking Baptism and repentance, and the New Testament doing the same. Reformed Baptists would say John the Baptist is the model example here. He anticipates the New Testament model that one repents of their sin THEN is baptised.

I see you are in New Zealand, and if you like I can courier you a copy of Pierre Marcel's The Biblical Doctrine Of Infant Baptism to borrow and read.

Thank you very much for the kind offer. Two things:

1. I have been a little suspicious of Marcel's book on Infant Baptism because my Reformed Baptist friends tell me he takes a hardline presumptive regeneration that many padeobaptists themselves would be uncomfortable with. I also understand that the particular Baptist pastor Fred Malone argued this in his review in his book "The baptsm of disciples alone". Feel free to comment on that. I did wonder if this is the same problem that Herman Bavinck dealt with in his classic book "saved by grace".
2. I actually have a lot of serious reformed material to read n this subject including Blakes "Covenant of God", and Mark Beach's work on Turretin's covenant theology. I also hope to do the course "Ruin and Redemption" prooted on another Puritanboard forum. This course quotes my favourite theologians including Bavinck, Vos, and the Puritans so looks very good. But thank you again for your kind offer.

All these benefits can be yours if you will come over from the Dark Side!

Actually, being a South Islander, I have told my North Island reformed Baptist friends that Romans 14 has relevance to the mode of baptism. You see, North Islanders are not as used to cold water like us hardy Southerners. Therefore to avoid cold water being a stumbling block (per Rom 14) to North Island reformed Baptists, I have suggested that they should be baptised by sprinkling I could not resist

 

[Timotheos]

This thread illustrates clearly the difference of how Presbyterians and Baptists view the substance of the old and new covenants. As a Baptist it often appears that our Presbyterian brethren over emphasize the continuity of the two and fail to fully appreciate the discontinuity that exists, thus mixing and meshing the natural/fleshly with the supernatural/spiritual.

This is how Baptists tend to view the substance of the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant. I believe this is the lens through which Stephen is wrestling with the issues.

Old Covenant
- Entrance by physical birth
- Circumcision was a physical and outward act of the flesh
- Law was written upon stone
- Outward ceremonial worship
- A physical kingdom
- Earthly land
- Temporal

vs.

New Covenant
- Entrance by the new birth
- Circumcision as an act of the Spirit in the heart
- Law written upon the heart
- Worship in spirit and in truth
- A spiritual kingdom
- Heavenly city
- Eternal


To quote Jeffrey D. Johnson from his book The Fatal Flaw (p. 203), "the new covenant consists of a heavenly people and is continued and perpetuated throughout the gospel age not by natural birth, but by the new birth. It is a covenant in which all who are included know the Lord and have received the forgiveness of sins."


[ I hate to fire off this post and run, but I'm leaving for vacation and will not have access to a computer for a few days. ]

Since I cannot message you, where are you located in VA and to which church do you attend? I'm in Roanoke.

 

[richardnz]

Hello Richard,

Thank you for that insight. I did not realise the WCF made reference to Gen 3:15 so I stand corrected on that point! By your reference to Nehemiah Coxe it looks like you have read many serious Particular Baptist works. I'm sure you are aware that Dr Jim Renihan printed Coxe's work and put in a book together with John Owen's work on the new covenant.

You actually raised a point where I am uncomfortable with 1689 Federalism. 1689 Federalism follows Coxe and argues that covenant of grace was merely revealed and not established until the cross. I am uncomfortable with this because it implies that the blesings of the covenant of grace are greatly minimised prior to the cross.


Agreed and I acknowledge that the Reformed Baptist view of the new covenant is defective because of this.


I guess here I am struggling with the link between John the Baptist linking Baptism and repentance, and the New Testament doing the same. Reformed Baptists would say John the Baptist is the model example here. He anticipates the New Testament model that one repents of their sin THEN is baptised.


Thank you very much for the kind offer. Two things:

1. I have been a little suspicious of Marcel's book on Infant Baptism because my Reformed Baptist friends tell me he takes a hardline presumptive regeneration that many padeobaptists themselves would be uncomfortable with. I also understand that the particular Baptist pastor Fred Malone argued this in his review in his book "The baptsm of disciples alone". Feel free to comment on that. I did wonder if this is the same problem that Herman Bavinck dealt with in his classic book "saved by grace".
2. I actually have a lot of serious reformed material to read n this subject including Blakes "Covenant of God", and Mark Beach's work on Turretin's covenant theology. I also hope to do the course "Ruin and Redemption" prooted on another Puritanboard forum. This course quotes my favourite theologians including Bavinck, Vos, and the Puritans so looks very good. But thank you again for your kind offer.

Actually, being a South Islander, I have told my North Island reformed Baptist friends that Romans 14 has relevance to the mode of baptism. You see, North Islanders are not as used to cold water like us hardy Southerners. Therefore to avoid cold water being a stumbling block (per Rom 14) to North Island reformed Baptists, I have suggested that they should be baptised by sprinkling I could not resist

Hi Stephen,

I was surprised to hear that Marcel endorsed presumptive regeneration, so I had another look and I am sure that is not correct and he clearly distances himself from that view. Here are some relevant sections from page 199 onwards:

"The covenant, together with its promises, constitutes the objective and legal basis of infant baptism. Infant baptism is the sign, seal, and pledge of all that these promises imply. As Calvin says in his work on The True method of reforming the church, : “The children of believers are holy from the time of their birth, because before coming into the world they are adopted into the covenant of eternal life; and there is absolutely no other reason for receiving them into the church except that already beforehand they belong to the body of Christ.”

H. Bavinck, the celebrated dogmatician, expresses himself as follows: "This covenant was the solid, biblical, and objective foundation upon which all the Reformers unanimously and without exception rested the legitimacy of infant baptism. They had no other deeper and more solid foundation" ....

While recognizing that children of believers are baptized because they are in the covenant and are, as such, heirs of the promises implying a right to justification and to the regenerating and sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit, a certain number of Reformed theologians have attempted to add one of the effects of the covenant of grace to the foundation of infant baptism, namely, presumptive regeneration. They have considered that presumptive regeneration could be the ultimate ground of baptism, more so even than the covenant. It must be acknowledged that this attempt has failed. Presumptive regeneration cannot be regarded naturally as the legal ground of infant baptism, for this cannot be anything other than the promises of God contained in the covenant. The ground of baptism must be something objective. One cannot baptize on the basis of a presumption. To the question: "Why can you presume the regeneration of the children of believers?" one can only reply: "Because they are born of believing parents"; or, in other words, because they are born into the covenant. Besides, Scripture and experience afford proof that not all the children born into the covenant are regenerated to salvation.

It is obvious that to refuse to consider this presumptive regeneration as the foundation of baptism is not at all the same as saying that it is impossible or unjustifiable to assume that the little children of believers are regenerate .... In accordance with the indications of the Word of God, we do not wish in any way to restrict the divine liberty which acts in sovereign independence when and as it wills, and which is never confined to means. The promise of the regeneration of the children of the covenant is sufficient for us. It is not for us to define whether this regeneration in view of salvation is found in the elect children before or at the moment of baptism, or sometimes even years afterwards.

The ground of infant baptism is that "the Lord receives amongst His people the children of those to whom He has shown Himself as Savior, and that for the sake of the fathers he accepts their offspring .... The present truth which we must consider at baptism, when it is granted to little children, is that it testifies to their salvation by sealing and confirming the covenant of God upon them" (Institutes IV.xvi.15, 21) .... Calvin and his successors, together with practically all the modern Reformed dogmaticians, affirm very clearly that it is the covenant that is the ground of the baptism of both adults and children."

I think Marcel makes his position clear.

 

[Dachaser]

Hello Richard,

Thank you for that insight. I did not realise the WCF made reference to Gen 3:15 so I stand corrected on that point! By your reference to Nehemiah Coxe it looks like you have read many serious Particular Baptist works. I'm sure you are aware that Dr Jim Renihan printed Coxe's work and put in a book together with John Owen's work on the new covenant.

You actually raised a point where I am uncomfortable with 1689 Federalism. 1689 Federalism follows Coxe and argues that covenant of grace was merely revealed and not established until the cross. I am uncomfortable with this because it implies that the blesings of the covenant of grace are greatly minimised prior to the cross.


Agreed and I acknowledge that the Reformed Baptist view of the new covenant is defective because of this.


I guess here I am struggling with the link between John the Baptist linking Baptism and repentance, and the New Testament doing the same. Reformed Baptists would say John the Baptist is the model example here. He anticipates the New Testament model that one repents of their sin THEN is baptised.


Thank you very much for the kind offer. Two things:

1. I have been a little suspicious of Marcel's book on Infant Baptism because my Reformed Baptist friends tell me he takes a hardline presumptive regeneration that many padeobaptists themselves would be uncomfortable with. I also understand that the particular Baptist pastor Fred Malone argued this in his review in his book "The baptsm of disciples alone". Feel free to comment on that. I did wonder if this is the same problem that Herman Bavinck dealt with in his classic book "saved by grace".
2. I actually have a lot of serious reformed material to read n this subject including Blakes "Covenant of God", and Mark Beach's work on Turretin's covenant theology. I also hope to do the course "Ruin and Redemption" prooted on another Puritanboard forum. This course quotes my favourite theologians including Bavinck, Vos, and the Puritans so looks very good. But thank you again for your kind offer.

Actually, being a South Islander, I have told my North Island reformed Baptist friends that Romans 14 has relevance to the mode of baptism. You see, North Islanders are not as used to cold water like us hardy Southerners. Therefore to avoid cold water being a stumbling block (per Rom 14) to North Island reformed Baptists, I have suggested that they should be baptised by sprinkling I could not resist

Hebrews though does tell us that we are now under a much better Covenant, as the prior one was rendered obsolete when the NC of Jesus was now inaugurated.