What Is Reformed Theology?

[Arial]

Dispensationalism, in my opinion, while it organizes the whole of Scripture, (minus certain passages it ignores, (snerk snerk!), for application to its eschatology), it is about eschatology, and not so much soteriology or the other disciplines. Covenant Theology I don't see that way at all, or, at most, if it can be said to be eschatological, it is only the final end to which it speaks. How we see it all unfolding just about runs the full spectrum of eschatological notions, yet all within Covenant Theology.

Though it does not affect soteriology or other disciplines necessarily (depending on an individual's view), it can. The problem with the Dispensational end times view, particularly their interpretation of Revelation is that it comes out of how they are viewing all the OT prophecy as pertaining only to national Israel. And no matter how much they claim it is not two redemptions and two modes of redemption, one for Israel and another for the church, it is two. The church is removed from planet earth while an intense tribulation takes place for seven years, which purifies ethnic/national Israel, Jesus returns, and rules on earth in Jerusalem, (and in some sects, MacArthur included) the temple is rebuilt, the OT temple worship reinstated with its animal sacrifices, and all Israel is saved. This takes place over a thousand year period, and then and only then, are the church and Israel joined together.

Because Covenant theology keeps a covenant relationship through covenant as the means of God bringing about redemption through Christ, it sees, to put it in simple terms, a continuation of the old and new covenant, rather than the sharp divide that is made in d'ism. It sees Israel as God's people, and as a type, for his purposes, of God's people from all nations. The first is temporary until the real comes which is Christ. The first did not solve the problem of sin. Christ solved forever the problem of sin and conquered his enemies and or enemies. The focus is different between the two interpretive means.

 

[Arial]

At least, that is my take. I don't see how McArthur is therefore opposed to Covenant theology. I have always assumed his take on eschatology to pretty much fit mine, that the end of God's creating is from beginning to end that we are (and will be) his people and he our God. To me, that is the core of Covenant theology. But I have never formally studied the matter. Correct me, please.

The core of Covenant Theology is the interpretive tool of covenant. That is not MacArthur's interpretive tool. Dispensations are. Even though the end result is the same, his theology says the end will not come until Israel as a nation has been dealt with. It sees all the promises given to Israel such as a restored nation, the eternal descendant of David on the throne, etc. as only applying to Israel and completely literal. National Israel is seen always as national/geopolitical Israel apart from the church, but after all the promises have been fulfilled, added to the church. When the Bible says we are adopted into Israel, not in a geopolitical way, but as God's people. And that happens at the point of adoption, by grace and through faith, not at the end.

 

[Josheb]

I agree with the concept that you're describing but employing the term "revelation" to denote both concepts can create ambiguity, particularly given the relevance of the divine canon (special revelation) being closed. This is why R. C. Sproul, as @Josheb mentioned, distinguished between revelation and illumination: It articulates the distinction in a way that avoids confusion. God's self-revelation is perfected in the incarnate Son and recorded throughout scripture. However, our understanding and application of that revelation at an institutional and personal level—orthodoxy and orthopraxy—both continue to grow by the Holy Spirit, as illustrated by the three examples I provided.

A little digressive but we're specifically talking about the canon of scripture or Reformed Bibliology or, as you've put it, "special revelation."

I make note of this because God has revealed Himself in more ways than just the written word. God's revelation of Himself occurs in at least five ways: creation, the moral code written as part of the human creature's design, the person of Jesus, the indwelling Holy Spirit, and the written word. None of these, when correctly understood, ever contradict any other. Perceptions of conflict invariably indicate either error or a lack of comprehension on the part of the recipient, never the source.

 

[Josheb]

DialecticSkeptic said:
Thus, we have Reformed theology (which is more than just Calvinist) and Particular Baptist theology (which is Calvinist but not Reformed). Their adoption of the term Reformed Baptist has led to needless confusion, especially their dispensationalist wing.

To be honest, I don't see how Covenant Theology necessarily is eschatologically in opposition to Dispensationalism, but only in opposition to some Dispensationalists. I don't know McArthur's stance well, but I had for many years known only dispensational eschatology, but (mainly) without the notion of a different salvation in the OT vs in the NT. Dispensationalism, in my opinion, while it organizes the whole of Scripture, (minus certain passages it ignores, (snerk snerk!), for application to its eschatology), it is about eschatology, and not so much soteriology or the other disciplines. Covenant Theology I don't see that way at all, or, at most, if it can be said to be eschatological, it is only the final end to which it speaks. How we see it all unfolding just about runs the full spectrum of eschatological notions, yet all within Covenant Theology.

At least, that is my take. I don't see how McArthur is therefore opposed to Covenant theology. I have always assumed his take on eschatology to pretty much fit mine, that the end of God's creating is from beginning to end that we are (and will be) his people and he our God. To me, that is the core of Covenant theology. But I have never formally studied the matter. Correct me, please.

My understanding, and keep in mind, there are many branches of dispensationalism, but all if I am not mistaken, interpret from a framework of seven dispensations. The underlying principle of doing this is the conviction that God is dealing with mankind in different ways at different times. And though this is absolutely true, and Covenant theology does not deny that, Covenant theology does not use that as the framework of redemption. Instead it uses the way in which God always relates to and forms a relationship with mankind, and creation itself. And that is through covenant.

Dispensationalists do not deny covenant or covenant relationships, but focus on the different dispensations of grace, or relationship. And I will note here that in truth the Bible is eschatological in nature from its outset to its conclusion, as redemption progresses within our history, from its inception in Gen 3:15 with a curse and a covenant promise. "The seed of the woman will crush the serpents head, and the serpent will bruise his heel." (paraphrase).

The opposition between Covenant theology and dispensation interpretation comes when the Dispensation of Law (not sure that is how they identify it but is what it is) the covenant relationship with Israel in the Sinai covenant, separates a section from the whole, in effect dividing or chopping up, the continuous element of redemption played out in our history. It separates Israel and the church.

More later. My dog is imagining things to bark at so my attention will be drawn to the clock. His lunch time. He was successful in his efforts. It isn't really his lunchtime by the clock, but he does not believe in time jumping from daylight savings and back, and so he pays it no mind. I buckle to the expectant eyes or made up intrusions upon our abode, every time.

Are you guys setting temptation before me? LOL!

Dispensation is an entirely different theology. Prior to the rise of Dispensationalism/modern futurism eschatology was considered a minor doctrine and very little was said about it. The (sub-)doctrine of imminence unified the various viewpoints. Dispensationalism, more accurately, properly, and honestly called Dispensational Premillennialism (DP) elevated eschatology and ecclesiology above the more esteemed doctrines of Christology and soteriology, did it deliberately, and in the process compromised these other "superior" doctrines. I don't want to go far afield of this op on Reformed Theology, so I'll invited anyone with an interest to discuss these matters in any of the six ops critical of DPism I posted in the Eschatology board. DPism does teach the covenants but teaches a much different view than everyone else. Dispensationalism is a fundamentally and in some ways radically different structure for examining scripture. Mac straddles the fence(s) (and should not be considered a typical DPer or a typical CTer). What won't be found in Dispensationalism is non-premillennialists (which is why it's not accurate to speak of Dispensationalism apart from the inherent premil viewpoint). Conflict between the two is not limited to the Law. DPism teaches a different Christology and soteriology. They deny this but never address the true nature of their error.

To bring this back to the op, Reformed Theology is a response to real and perceived errors that existed in Roman Catholicism. Reformed Theology is not monolithic but what diversity exists occurs around a core set of commonly shared beliefs (thoughts, doctrines, practices, etc.). The sovereignty of God, for example, is asserted as a core, fundamental, and foundational truth. This conflicts with appeals to institutional authority and volitionalist soteriology (to name two places where Reformed views of divine sovereignty differ from non-Reformed povs). Accordingly, grace is likewise preeminent but seen as a function of divine sovereignty and eternal ordinance, not a situational nicety. Covenant Theology springs from these in the Reformed mindset as another aspect of monergistic design, purpose, and outcome (and not just in regard to salvation from sin).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I have no quarrel with that, but I do have some questions. I understand that Calvinism in the Baptist denomination is "particular" as to limited atonement, and that they differed from Reformed on infant baptism. But didn't Calvin also agree with infant baptism, just differently than the Roman Catholic Church? And since traditional Christianity, as it came out of the Reformation (with the exception of some aspects of TULIP and infant baptism) is held by all traditional denominations, are those doctrines dealing with all aspects of Christianity, not just soteriology, why does that make the "particular" Baptist not also Reformed in their theology? (That took me awhile to articulate, so I hope it makes sense.)

Since "all traditional denominations" in that Reformation period were either Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed, a "traditional Christianity" that could be "held by all" would not be Reformed—and, again, on account of the fact that Reformed theology is covenantal (whereas Lutheran theology, for example, is sacramental). Arguably, they all affirmed a traditional Christianity but that which sets Reformed theology apart is what the other traditions could not affirm. (Interestingly, infant baptism actually was something they all could and did affirm.)

What could be said, I suppose, is that they were all Reformational—originating with or being influenced by the principles of the Protestant Reformation.

But not Reformed. That is strictly a covenantal theology.

Why does that make the Particular Baptist not also Reformed in their theology?

Because their theology is either not quite (e.g., Baucham) or not at all covenantal (e.g., MacArthur). Their views diverge on key issues related to the covenants, their continuity, and implications for the church and sacraments (not only baptism but also the Lord's Supper). It might be more accurate to call their view Baptist Federalism.

In covenant theology (CT), there is a fundamental continuity between the old and new covenants; they both administer the same covenant of grace under different outward forms. But in Baptist Federalism (BF), the old covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) are not administrations of the covenant of grace but rather conditional and temporary types and shadows pointing forward to Christ through whom the covenant of grace was formally established. (Thus, for example, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs of the individual's faith, not seals of a broader covenant community.)

Element	Covenantal Theology (Sproul)	Baptist Federalism (Baucham)
Covenant of Grace	OT and NT both administer	NT alone is the CoG
Baptism	Believer and family	Believer only
Sacraments	Means of grace; signs and seals	Signs only

To bring a couple of well known Calvinist /Reformed into the conversation so that I can get my bearings ... How [do Sproul, Baucham, and MacArthur] fit in with what you've said?

R. C. Sproul: Westminster Confession of Faith, Covenant Theology (Reformed).

Voddie Baucham: 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith, Baptist Federalism (not Reformed).

John MacArthur: Independent Baptist, Premillennial Dispensationalism (not Reformed).

Again, I think it's safe to say that these men are all Reformational, but only Sproul is Reformed.

And perhaps you could agree, since you described the creeds and confessional standards along with the above mentioned persons and dozens if not hundreds of others "to be the full blown Reformation"—or Reformational?

Thanks for all the good info and for dealing with my questions. We need more of this on the forum.

And thank YOU for being so inquisitive and open. We need more of THAT in the forums.

 

[Arial]

Since "all traditional denominations" in that Reformation period were either Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed, a "traditional Christianity" that could be "held by all" would not be Reformed—and, again, on account of the fact that Reformed theology is covenantal (whereas Lutheran theology, for example, is sacramental). Arguably, they all affirmed a traditional Christianity but that which sets Reformed theology apart is what the other traditions could not affirm. (Interestingly, infant baptism actually was something they all could and did affirm.)

What could be said, I suppose, is that they were all Reformational—originating with or being influenced by the principles of the Protestant Reformation.

OK. I understand what you are saying. But does that apply to what we call Reformed Theology today under its modern day umbrella?

In covenant theology (CT), there is a fundamental continuity between the old and new covenants; they both administer the same covenant of grace under different outward forms. But in Baptist Federalism (BF), the old covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) are not administrations of the covenant of grace but rather conditional and temporary types and shadows pointing forward to Christ through whom the covenant of grace was formally established. (Thus, for example, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs of the individual's faith, not seals of a broader covenant community.)

Element	Covenantal Theology (Sproul)	Baptist Federalism (Baucham)
Covenant of Grace	OT and NT both administer	NT alone is the CoG
Baptism	Believer and family	Believer only
Sacraments	Means of grace; signs and seals	Signs only

Thanks for that. I typically just know what I believe and why I believe it and not the technical source as defined above. For example: I believe both the OT and NT administer the covenant of grace. I tend toward "beleiver only" on baptism, though that is shifting somewhat away from ad adamant belief in believer only as I come to understand the "believer and family" better. Another conversation altogether. Some who agree with infant baptism simply mean it puts the children under the parents faith until they are old enough to make a personal profession. I won't argue with that. And I tend towards "signs only" on the sacraments---but what do I know about what I cannot see? So I would be a bit of a hybrid.

Again, I think it's safe to say that these men are all Reformational, but only Sproul is Reformed.

And perhaps you could agree, since you described the creeds and confessional standards along with the above mentioned persons and dozens if not hundreds of others "to be the full blown Reformation"—or Reformational?

I agree with what you say about MacArther and Sproul but on the fence with Voddie simply because I know he is confessional but the Baptist Confesion, which I have only read, "heard" in Part. Anyway, I think we are on the same page now, I just needed someone to sweep away the cobwebs, so thanks.

 

[makesends]

"doctrinal themes that were not known before"...when?

I don't understand the question. I didn't say anything about when anything. What, or why, are you asking?

Does (Philippians 3:15) specify Sola Scripture? "Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you."

Context, please.

Or, (1 Cor. 2:9-10) "But as it is written, eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea the deep things of God."

Do you by that mean to defeat "Sola Scriptura"? That is not new revelation external to scripture. Believe it or not, when we finally see him as he is, and the sons of God are revealed, it will still not be in addition to Scripture. Only, as has been said here, enlightenment of what already is, so far beyond our ken.

Again, no new revelation pertaining to new Scripture. The Cannon is closed. But plenty of truth in Scripture to be revealed to the individual Christian.

Understanding a truth in Scripture is revelation from God also. Just like knowing the truth about Jesus is a revelation. (Matt. 16:17) Though there was Scripture many missed Him. Yet the Pharisees were well versed in the Scriptures, yet many missed Him.

Call it what you like. The point here is that what the Reformed mean by "No new revelation" has to do with "Sola Scriptura". I don't claim to be Reformed, exactly, but monergist, so if I'm wrong about that, maybe one of the Reformed on here can set me straight.

And the same with the Father. We have the Scripture, of course. Yet, only the Son can reveal the Father to us. (Luke 10:21-22) "In that hour Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered to me of my Father: and no man knoweth who the Son is but the Father, and who the Father is but the Son, and he to whom the Son will reveal him."

Lees

 

[makesends]

My understanding, and keep in mind, there are many branches of dispensationalism, but all if I am not mistaken, interpret from a framework of seven dispensations. The underlying principle of doing this is the conviction that God is dealing with mankind in different ways at different times. And though this is absolutely true, and Covenant theology does not deny that, Covenant theology does not use that as the framework of redemption. Instead it uses the way in which God always relates to and forms a relationship with mankind, and creation itself. And that is through covenant.

Dispensationalists do not deny covenant or covenant relationships, but focus on the different dispensations of grace, or relationship. And I will note here that in truth the Bible is eschatological in nature from its outset to its conclusion, as redemption progresses within our history, from its inception in Gen 3:15 with a curse and a covenant promise. "The seed of the woman will crush the serpents head, and the serpent will bruise his heel." (paraphrase).

The opposition between Covenant theology and dispensation interpretation comes when the Dispensation of Law (not sure that is how they identify it but is what it is) the covenant relationship with Israel in the Sinai covenant, separates a section from the whole, in effect dividing or chopping up, the continuous element of redemption played out in our history. It separates Israel and the church.

More later. My dog is imagining things to bark at so my attention will be drawn to the clock. His lunch time. He was successful in his efforts. It isn't really his lunchtime by the clock, but he does not believe in time jumping from daylight savings and back, and so he pays it no mind. I buckle to the expectant eyes or made up intrusions upon our abode, every time.

Well, maybe I never understood Dispensationalism as an attempt to frame redemption. (HA, sorry, I couldn't resist). Ok, I never understood Dispensationalism as an attempted framework for redemption. But maybe the brand I was exposed to was somewhat 'corrupted'. FWIW, I never did understand it as a cohesive system, though I knew they wanted it to be, and spent a lot of time trying. I thought, that for the most part, it was an attempt to demonstrate history's progression to Premillenial Pretribulational Rapture, and not a lot more than that.

 

[makesends]

In covenant theology (CT), there is a fundamental continuity between the old and new covenants; they both administer the same covenant of grace under different outward forms. But in Baptist Federalism (BF), the old covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) are not administrations of the covenant of grace but rather conditional and temporary types and shadows pointing forward to Christ through whom the covenant of grace was formally established. (Thus, for example, baptism and the Lord’s Supper are signs of the individual's faith, not seals of a broader covenant community.)

Element	Covenantal Theology (Sproul)	Baptist Federalism (Baucham)
Covenant of Grace	OT and NT both administer	NT alone is the CoG
Baptism	Believer and family	Believer only
Sacraments	Means of grace; signs and seals	Signs only

I need a little instruction, if Sproul considers the Sacraments as a means of grace, and seals. What are you saying there? How are they a means of grace, and to what extent? How do the sacraments make any different as to seals? What does that even mean?

 

[Arial]

Well, maybe I never understood Dispensationalism as an attempt to frame redemption. (HA, sorry, I couldn't resist). Ok, I never understood Dispensationalism as an attempted framework for redemption. But maybe the brand I was exposed to was somewhat 'corrupted'. FWIW, I never did understand it as a cohesive system, though I knew they wanted it to be, and spent a lot of time trying. I thought, that for the most part, it was an attempt to demonstrate history's progression to Premillenial Pretribulational Rapture, and not a lot more than that.

The Premellenial Pretribulation Raptue, is not, I don't think, a direct result of a Dispensational approach. It is simply a false teaching that came out of dispensationalism, and as far as I know is unique to it. It is because of the way they interpret Rev and because---- they interpret the NT by the OT, and because they have no correct understanding of what the book of Revelation really is or how to read and interpret apocalyptic prophecy. I mean, I know, that is a pretty sweeping indictment, so, consider it simply my opinion. There is also in that pre-trib rapture, and the tribulation itself, a willingness to allow the Bible to contradict itself. They solve that issue by saying "No it doesn't."

 

[Josheb]

Since "all traditional denominations" in that Reformation period were either Lutheran, Anglican, or Reformed, a "traditional Christianity" that could be "held by all" would not be Reformed—and, again, on account of the fact that Reformed theology is covenantal (whereas Lutheran theology, for example, is sacramental). Arguably, they all affirmed a traditional Christianity but that which sets Reformed theology apart is what the other traditions could not affirm. (Interestingly, infant baptism actually was something they all could and did affirm.)...................................................

Let's not forget John Knox and the Church of Scotland (which was neither Catholic, Anglican, nor Anabaptist) from whence we have the Presbyterians. Of much less influence were the English Dissenters (who would also not be Catholic, Anglican, or Anabaptist). Knox split from the RCC about 30 years after Calvin and the Dissenters split from the Church of England about the same time, both seeking less state control in the Church and favoring the presbytery model of ecclesiology. Personally, I don't think Knox gets his due, historically (maybe that's because he married a 17-year-old when he was like 50, and that's kinda creepy). Granted, he was a late comer to the game but markedly influential, nonetheless. Things might have turned out much different for both Mary Stuart, England, the Anglican Church, and the Continental Reformation had Knox not been around.

The Anabaptists were a big part of the Reformation (mostly in antithesis because while the opposed the RCC they also opposed, and they did not affirm infant baptism, nor the Church governance espoused by the Reformers). Theirs was a different ecclesiology and ecclesiastic structure, and as the Reformation developed the Reformers spent much of their efforts countering Anabaptist beliefs and practices, not just those of the RCC.

Otherwise, another great post. Very informative.

 

[Arial]

Let's not forget John Knox and the Church of Scotland (which was neither Catholic, Anglican, nor Anabaptist) from whence we have the Presbyterians.

As an aside, the Scottish reformation is of great interest to me. I had at least one relative involved in it. Master Robert Bruce, Minister of the Kirk of Edinburgh. I suspect there were at least few more, as there is a long line of Presbyterians in the family.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Okay, I understand what you are saying. But does that apply to what we call Reformed theology today under its modern day umbrella?

That is a controversial question because there has been a persistent fight to retain the historic definition of Reformed, not only since the Particular Baptists appropriated the term but more recently in response to the so-called Young, Restless, and Reformed movement (New Calvinism, c. 2008) which spawned a bunch of theo bros who call their minimalist Calvinism "Reformed" theology. No, dude, it's not.

R. Scott Clark, "Who or What Gets to Define ‘Reformed’," The Heidelblog (January 23, 2009).

Who or What Gets to Define "Reformed" (re-posted) - The Heidelblog

In response to the post on Bob Godfrey's Unexpected Journey, Arthur writes to ask, "So does someone who does not hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions be considered “Reformed”. More to the point, can a credobaptist not be truly Reformed?" The answer to that question depends…

heidelblog.net

I tend toward believer-only baptism, though that is shifting somewhat away from an adamant belief as I come to understand the believer-and-family [view] better.

I found the following resource helpful and recommend it for your web browser bookmarks:

R. Scott Clark, "[A Curriculum For Those Wrestling Through] Covenant Theology And Infant Baptism," The Heidelblog (n.d.).

Covenant Theology And Infant Baptism - The Heidelblog

As evangelical Christians continue to come into contact with historic Reformed writers and the Reformed confessions they often notice some significant discrepancies between what they have known and believed, what is being presented as “Reformed,” and what they are reading in older sources...

heidelblog.net

I know Voddie is confessional, but [it's] the Baptist Confession.

Which is what I acknowledged above, but his 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith does not espouse covenant theology and is therefore not Reformed, as historically defined.

So, Baucham is confessional Calvinist, yes, but he is not Reformed.

Anyway, thanks for the engagement on this question. It was enjoyable (and cleared some cobwebs).

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

I need a little instruction, if Sproul considers the Sacraments as a means of grace, and seals. What are you saying there? How are they a means of grace, and to what extent? How do the sacraments make any different as to seals? What does that even mean?

I answered you in a standalone thread in a relevant forum, since it's a little off-topic here.

-- https://christcentered.community.forum/threads/the-means-of-grace.2435/

 

[makesends]

That is a controversial question because there has been a persistent fight to retain the historic definition of Reformed, not only since the Particular Baptists appropriated the term but more recently in response to the so-called Young, Restless, and Reformed movement (New Calvinism, c. 2008) which spawned a bunch of theo bros who call their minimalist Calvinism "Reformed" theology. No, dude, it's not.

R. Scott Clark, "Who or What Gets to Define ‘Reformed’," The Heidelblog (January 23, 2009).

Who or What Gets to Define "Reformed" (re-posted) - The Heidelblog

In response to the post on Bob Godfrey's Unexpected Journey, Arthur writes to ask, "So does someone who does not hold to every point of doctrine in the Reformed confessions be considered “Reformed”. More to the point, can a credobaptist not be truly Reformed?" The answer to that question depends…

heidelblog.net

Within the link you posted, the author says,

"What do the Reformed Churches confess regarding baptism? We confess that God has one covenant of grace, one church, throughout the history of redemption. We confess that there is fundamentally one pattern in the administration of that kingdom/church. We have always had essentially two sacraments: one for admission and one for renewal. Before Christ that church/kingdom was administered with bloody types. With the advent of God the Son incarnate, those types were fulfilled but the pattern of signs of initiation and renewal continue. In other words, we understand that we are in the same church as Abraham. We understand that the Mosaic church/kingdom introduced a temporary, parenthetical, cultic and theocratic administration that ended with the advent of Christ.​

​

"Our Baptist friends reject that reading of redemptive history. They insist that the adjective “old covenant” refers to everything that occurred before the incarnation (despite Paul’s definition of “old covenant” in 2 Cor 3 and despite the way it is used in Hebrews) and therefore the new covenant is so utterly different from Abraham that, despite God’s command to initiate covenant children into the visible church/kingdom, we can no longer initiate covenant children thus."​

Not that I'm qualified to speak on this, but in my experience this is far from the impression I get from my contact with Reformed Baptists. As far as I have experienced it, the only real difference in doctrine and practice has to do with paedobaptism vs credo, and in worship, not as liturgical as most of the Presbyterian (PCA) services I have attended. Not that I, being new to the church I currently attend, have pressed anyone on the question of covenant, but the teaching I have so far heard on it is entirely of one covenant, from Adam to Rev. 21, which as I noted earlier is at the core, "they will be my people and I will be their God."

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

In my experience, this is far from the impression I get from my contact with Reformed Baptists. As far as I have experienced it, the only real difference in doctrine and practice has to do with paedobaptism versus credobaptism, and with worship ...

Clark is identifying WHY these Baptists reject paedobaptism in favor of credobaptism, that it's due to their rejection of covenant theology.

 

[makesends]

Clark is identifying WHY these Baptists reject paedobaptism in favor of credobaptism, that it's due to their rejection of covenant theology.

Ok, but does Covenant Theology imply paedobaptism? I can see it might induce someone to go with paedobaptism, via implications into, for example, the authority of federal headship, and dedication of family. But I don't see how rejection of paedobaptism at all rejects covenant theology/ or is a rejection of covenant theology.

 

[Josheb]

Ok, but does Covenant Theology imply paedobaptism? I can see it might induce someone to go with paedobaptism, via implications into, for example, the authority of federal headship, and dedication of family. But I don't see how rejection of paedobaptism at all rejects covenant theology/ or is a rejection of covenant theology.

If I may....

I don't see CT as a rejection of paedobaptism (and having not read the entire exchange, I'm unsure how that conclusion was reached) but an affirmation of it. The CT Covenantalist will say the covenant with Abraham covered everyone in his household, whether old or young, free or servant, willfully conceding or not, able to independently decide or not. Circumcision (a confirming sign and requirement of the Abrahamic covenant relationship) was performed when a child was eight days old! Even more basically than the post covenant-initiation work of circumcision, the basic fact of all the covenant initiations is that God chose, called, and commanded (confirming signs He'd initiated the covenant) monergistically. The Anabaptist position an adult needed to consent to his/her conversion and be baptized is, in the CTist mind, precluded and excluded as both a necessity and a possibility. Moving forward into the post-incarnation, post Calvary era, there are reports of entire households being baptized. The implication being there were old and young, free and servant, willfully conceding and not, those able to independently decide and not, all included in those baptized when everyone in a household was baptized. The retort, "That's not specifically what is stated," is an argument from silence in the mind of a CTer. The normal, ordinary meaning of both the words and the condition described by those words is that there is a very real possibility and likelihood children and infants were baptized (both in water and the Spirit). And, again, none of it occurs outside God being the single, solitary causal agent of all that is involved. If God led a mane to be baptized that is the same agency involved in God leading another man to have himself and everyone in his household baptized. Abraham was never asked if he wanted to be a covenant participant. Neither was Paul. The idea that a covenant is always and everywhere a two-party, equally participating relationship is hugely erroneous. It is not until after the covenant is established that God asks any already chosen, called, and commanded to make any covenant related choice. If that's true of adults, why then would God even both asking an infant?

Besides, in most modern CT denoms, sects, and congregations paedo baptism is not considered salvific unless or until the person later is converted (again: monergistically) and makes post hoc choices within the covenant relationship.

 

[makesends]

If I may....

I don't see CT as a rejection of paedobaptism (and having not read the entire exchange, I'm unsure how that conclusion was reached) but an affirmation of it. The CT Covenantalist will say the covenant with Abraham covered everyone in his household, whether old or young, free or servant, willfully conceding or not, able to independently decide or not. Circumcision (a confirming sign and requirement of the Abrahamic covenant relationship) was performed when a child was eight days old! Even more basically than the post covenant-initiation work of circumcision, the basic fact of all the covenant initiations is that God chose, called, and commanded (confirming signs He'd initiated the covenant) monergistically. The Anabaptist position an adult needed to consent to his/her conversion and be baptized is, in the CTist mind, precluded and excluded as both a necessity and a possibility. Moving forward into the post-incarnation, post Calvary era, there are reports of entire households being baptized. The implication being there were old and young, free and servant, willfully conceding and not, those able to independently decide and not, all included in those baptized when everyone in a household was baptized. The retort, "That's not specifically what is stated," is an argument from silence in the mind of a CTer. The normal, ordinary meaning of both the words and the condition described by those words is that there is a very real possibility and likelihood children and infants were baptized (both in water and the Spirit). And, again, none of it occurs outside God being the single, solitary causal agent of all that is involved. If God led a mane to be baptized that is the same agency involved in God leading another man to have himself and everyone in his household baptized. Abraham was never asked if he wanted to be a covenant participant. Neither was Paul. The idea that a covenant is always and everywhere a two-party, equally participating relationship is hugely erroneous. It is not until after the covenant is established that God asks any already chosen, called, and commanded to make any covenant related choice. If that's true of adults, why then would God even both asking an infant?

Besides, in most modern CT denoms, sects, and congregations paedo baptism is not considered salvific unless or until the person later is converted (again: monergistically) and makes post hoc choices within the covenant relationship.

What I think I said was, that I don't see how rejection of paedobaptism is rejection of CT. Maybe I wasn't clear. What you refer to as 'that conclusion' --CT being a rejection of paedobaptism-- is not what I meant.

By the way, I see MANY reasons to consider God's dealing with familial units (and therefore paedobaptism) as valid, in CT. I do not oppose it. After all, a person included within the genetic or adopted boundaries of old Israel, were considered Israel and shared in the benefits of the nation.

 

[Josheb]

What I think I said was, that I don't see how rejection of paedobaptism is rejection of CT. Maybe I wasn't clear. What you refer to as 'that conclusion' --CT being a rejection of paedobaptism-- is not what I meant.

By the way, I see MANY reasons to consider God's dealing with familial units (and therefore paedobaptism) as valid, in CT. I do not oppose it. After all, a person included within the genetic or adopted boundaries of old Israel, were considered Israel and shared in the benefits of the nation.

No need to defend. I was just answering the question asked, covering prior points made and some of the bases that might ensue.