Would this be an accurate take on how Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians View CT?

Discussion in 'Covenant Theology' started by Dachaser, May 12, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

  2. Tom Hart

    Tom Hart Puritan Board Sophomore

    I'm just here to express my confusion at the term "Presbartarian".
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Funny Funny x 1
    • List
  3. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable Staff Member

    Heh. I thought that was some new way labeling Presbyterians who really like Barth.

    Thread title corrected. ;)
     
  4. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable Staff Member

    From a quick scan of the item, I lost interest upon seeing the author's inferences that the Covenant of Grace did not formally arrive until Abraham. If he is so confused about that matter of covenant and administrations of the same, I felt my time was better spent on other things.

    As I only scanned the item, perhaps he teased this out a wee bit more accurately and am open to correction.
     
  5. Harley

    Harley Puritan Board Sophomore

    The central point of the blog post is to expound the 1689 Federalist view, so the Presbyterian view of the covenants only receives a passing treatment. The overview of Presbyterian covenant theology is far too simplistic to be useful in understanding the Presbyterian view, and it’s only given for the purpose of contrasting against 1689F.

    It’d be more helpful to get an overview of Reformed CT from a Presbyterian.
     
  6. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    I have found the same treatment of the Presbyterian view from the 1689 baptists (of today). It is made to be far too simplistic and that creates a strawman argument. So here is an example from the 1689 federalism website that does this:

    [​IMG]
     
  7. Andrew P.C.

    Andrew P.C. Puritan Board Junior

    In a recent discussion on the Jerusalem Chamber, they spoke on the efficacy/virtue of the benefits of Christ. This discussion reminded me of the podcast. It would be beneficial to listen.

    It seems that the only way to properly understand how the OT saints were partakers is through a covenant of grace. Otherwise, there really is no true explanation on how the OT saints were really saved.
     
  8. sc_q_jayce

    sc_q_jayce Puritan Board Freshman

    What in the world! Certainly makes Presbyterians look somewhat schizophrenic.
     
  9. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    I differ with the WCF on this point; I agree as well (though, the timing the fed baptist takes is different) that the NC is the C of G; consummated at Christ's death and resurrection.
     
  10. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    All Reformed Baptists agree with this.
     
  11. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    true, as anyone who has every been saved by God is by Grace alone through faith alone, and that basis would be the Cross of Christ.
     
  12. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    Agreed, as the new Covenant in order to be ratified and put into place had to have the Messiah come, die, and be raised back up again first.
     
  13. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    My understanding on this article was that the author was highlighting the differences between how reformed Baptists and Presbyterian view the concept of Covenant theology itself.
     
  14. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    I think that it did a nice job to summarize that while both Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians affirm Covenant theology, there would still be some substantial differences between the 2 groups.
     
  15. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    The graphic is not intended to be a comprehensive treatise, so it's no surprise that it's going to be "simplistic".

    What exactly do you find untrue or misleading, or feel should have been said but was not?
     
  16. De Jager

    De Jager Puritan Board Freshman

    Based on my limited research, I am of the understanding that what we call the 'covenant of redemption', began in eternity past, when the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 'covenanted' to gather a people that would belong to God. (cf. John 6:39, & others).

    The thing we call the 'covenant of grace' would be an outworking of the covenant of redemption, which no doubt was also agreed to in eternity past, but began to be applied as soon as Adam and Eve sinned, at which point their sin needed to be covered by the future death of the Messiah.

    I would appreciate feedback on this post.
     
  17. Romans922

    Romans922 Puritan Board Professor

    This was alluded to above by another, but I have no issue with the baptist side. The Presbyterian side is flawed.

    It says the CoG is the Abrahamic, etc. That's wrong. By making a system simplistic to the reader is not an issue, to make it TOO simplistic is because then it is just wrong (that is the case here). CoG membership is also flawed I believe because it mischaracterizes putting "administrative (non-elect)".

    If I were doing it, I suppose I'd ONLY put Substance and Administrative and leave off the elect part as that has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to hear other suggestions from my Presbyterian brethren, but generally to describe an entire hermeneutic and/or system...doing so with venn-diagram is not the best way and like in this case puts forth a straw man.



    Yes substantial differences, but the differences that are noted must be accurate or it's a waste of time.
     
  18. Scott Bushey

    Scott Bushey Puritan Board Doctor

    Your timing is different from mine. If I am not mistaken, u see this happening at the crucifixion and death at Christ; I see it consummating at that point.
     
  19. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    I think pretty much all of that is generally agreed upon by those who claim the moniker "Reformed".
     
  20. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    I still think that you're expecting (or interpreting) the graphic to be attempting to teach more than it's intending to teach.

    Do not the paedobaptistic formulations of Covenant Theology hold that the historic Abrahamic, Mosiac, David, and New Covenants are all administrations of the one Covenant of Grace? Is this an error?

    Do not the paedobaptistic formulations of Covenant Theology hold that pertaining to membership of the Covenant of Grace, only the Elect / Regenerate participate in the substance of the CoG while non-Elect / non-Regenerate members of the CoG only participate in the outward administration?

    I suppose the wording of the graphic could be improved by replacing the word "elect" with the word "regenerate", but apart from that, is it really wrong?
     
  21. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    From the article:
    Larger Catechism 31:
    :scratch:
     
  22. Harley

    Harley Puritan Board Sophomore

    Far as the graph is concerned, I thought of the CG as being given at the Garden right after the Fall, and the AC onward facilitating the delivery of those promises.
     
  23. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    We (Reformed Baptists) know that Presbyterians look at it that way, but that wasn't exactly the point of the graphic.

    Am I mistaken in my belief that Presbyterians see the Covenant of Grace as not having any kind of formal, outward Administration between Adam and Abraham?
     
  24. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Yes, sir. The covenant line can be traced through Seth's descendants down to Noah, then through Shem's descendants down to Abraham. All along the way, you see sacrificial ordinances being observed, although you also see apostasy. However, God always preserves a remnant.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  25. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    ?????

    Ok... but the actual meat of your post suggests that you think I am?

     
  26. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Sorry, my post should have begun with, "Yes, sir."

    Corrected.
     
    Last edited: May 16, 2018
  27. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Professor

    So you see the CoG then in all of the OT Covenants God made with man? Such as with Abraham, Noah, David, Moses et all?
     
  28. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    Along with all covenantalists, I understand all of the covenants after the fall, including all OT covenants and the New Covenant, as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The only covenant which doesn't fall under this category is the Covenant of Works that God made with Adam in the Garden before the Fall.
     
  29. SeanPatrickCornell

    SeanPatrickCornell Puritan Board Freshman

    So, if there was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace between Adam and Abraham, what form did it actually take? What were / was the sign(s) / seal(s) of this historic covenant?

    I've never heard a paedobaptist claim that there was a formal administration of the CoG between Adam and Abraham before, so this concept it new to me.

    (Clarification: I understand that the substance of the CoG was in place and enjoyed by God's elect in all ages since the fall. All Reformed Covenantalists agree on this, whether they be Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, or Baptist. My question is solely about the "outward administration".)
     
  30. TylerRay

    TylerRay Puritan Board Senior

    We aren't given information about any signs/seals of the covenant as it was given to Adam after the Fall. All we have is the promise of the Seed of the Woman, who would crush the head of the serpent. That our first parents received this promise by faith is seen in Eve's comment when she had her firstborn (about whom she was sadly mistaken): "I have gotten a man from the LORD." It is further seen in her comment about Seth: "For God, said she, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."

    The only hint regarding ordinances that I see in these earliest years is about calling upon the name of the LORD, which was said to have characterized the revival of religion among the Sethites: "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD" (Gen. 4:26).
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page