The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Baptism and Baptist Covenant Theology

To discuss Baptist Covenant Theology, and ultimately baptism (exclusively credo or accepting paedo) it might be worth posting an initial “position paper” for comment and critique and to get the ball rolling.

I hope this can be a constructive thread and ultimately help all views to see more clearly where and why we differ. Terminology will be initially full of pre-(and mis-)conceptions (for which I also apologise in advance) but hopefully we’ll get to a point where positions can be helpfully summarised and differences investigated with more focus.

For the sake of the thread –I’d ask one thing –unless for illustration, please post argument and not links to external works! (eg “You’ll have to read Witsius or the Complete Works of John Owen or John Gill or you’ll never understand”…etc). Discussion Boards have their limits, but they do permit discussion. If someone wants to present a whole alternative position paper then feel free – I expect topics will rise and fall “naturally” during the discussion or spin off to separate threads.

Up front I’m a Reformed Baptist, and my covenant theology is most closely that of John Owen. (yes I know he was pb –but his CT is historical Baptist CT despite his own pb convictions). I don’t subscribe to NCT.

So….We have to start sometime….deep breath…apologies for errors typos and omissions…

An Outline of Historic Baptist Covenant Theology.

1 Beginning in “eternity past”, within the Tri-une Godhead, a purpose, called by some “the Covenant of Redemption” (also called The Counsel of Peace by Louis Berkhof –see Num 37:26) between the First, Second and Third Persons is formed for the Glory of God by redemption of elect fallen sinners. Incidentally think this requires the supralapsarian position as per Robert L. Reymond’s order in “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith”. This may be thought of as a covenant (to work/of work) between the First Person as Father and the Second Person as Son and the third Person as Holy Spirit. This covenant (or purpose or decree - the term is debatable (as per John Murray) but adopted here for brevity) will form the judicial basis for the Covenant of Grace between God and Fallen Man. The purpose of Redemption, as that of all Creation, is to glorify God.

2 God makes an explicit stipulation on Adam (aka The Covenant of Works with Adam -). Adam breaches God’s Word and so breaks the terms of the Covenant of Works. The Creation is cursed as a result of Adam’s Fall. Note that no man was ever personally “saved” by the terms of God’s Covenant of Works. Within God’s pronouncement of sentence following Adam’s breach, the provision of a means of Redemption (The Covenant of Grace) is intimated as the Protoevengelium (Gen3.15). This Promise of a God-given means of Redemption is the way in which the Redemptive “Covenant of Grace” will function in throughout the OT. In the NT the prophesied Redeemer, God incarnate as the Lord Jesus Christ, will fulfil the Promise and legally realise the New Covenant in His blood.

3 Adam’s multiply under the terms of the Promise of the Covenant of Grace ie with hope there will be a Redeemer. Those who depend on a righteousness from God other than their own are “the godly” – the others, “ungodly”. The Covenant of Grace is spiritually understood and not carnal. The ungodly multiply quickly and God intervenes with the Great Flood.

4 The Noahic Covenant is a covenant of earthly security in force only until the end of the world. Both the godly and the ungodly may be said to benefit from the common grace inherent in this covenant. Following from Noah (perhaps starting with Ham) ungodliness re-establishes its presence.

5 Abraham, initially an idol worshipper, is called by God from Ur and God makes an important covenant with him. This covenant functions on both a typical temporal level and a spiritual eternal level. The typical aspect is national, temporal, and has conditional blessings. Even in its typical aspect, however, it is a covenant of grace as it is made with Abraham and his seed. It is not a covenant of works, but a covenant of grace that has conditions attached. Abraham will be the father of a great nation who will inherit the land of Canaan and be “as numerous as the stars in the sky”. This covenant does not require or provide that all Abraham’s descendants will be godly, and the subsequent nation may be lost if they do not walk in God’s ways. Deut 28:15 et sec. See repetitions of this national covenant, with conditions, to David, Solomon etc. This typical aspect of the covenant causes paedobaptists confusion because the type is the only “covenant membership” into which children are born .Circumcision is the outward sign of and a teaching reminder of the Faith of Abraham and the Messiah promised from his line.

6 The anti-typical aspect of the covenant made with Abraham is spiritual and eternal, and a) not all of Abraham’s physical descendants will enter into it and b) not all who enter into it will be Abraham’s physical descendants. Spiritual Israel will be the covenant destination of Abraham’s spiritual children (all the regenerate, pre-Jewish, Jewish and Gentile). No-one is actually born into this spiritual covenant. This is the “real” or antitypical covenant of grace with Abraham and it is The Covenant of Grace with mankind. “National” Jews may of course become regenerate and so enter “Spiritual Israel”.

In addition to the typical Covenant with Abraham and his seed specifically, The antitypical aspects of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace with mankind apply to all mankind so there are gentile regenerate men on earth. (Melchisedec, etc).

All men (save Christ incarnate) are born unregenerate so gentile ungodly and unregenerate National Jews have the same (lost) “status” until personally redeemed.

7 At Sinai three (at least!) distinct “applications” of the commandments and ceremonial laws can be traced.
A) The typical conditional national covenant of works for the Jewish nation state. (Deu 28:15-68 , Hos 1-3).
B) The (unachievable) “covenant of works” for the education of the ungodly. No-one (Christ alone excepted) ever kept the Ten Commandments (The law as schoolmaster Ex 19.6, Gal 3.24)
C) The Rule of Life for believers depending on God’s Grace (Gal 3.25).

8 During David and Solomon’s reigns both the typical-national-conditional and the spiritual- eternal-anti-typical aspects of the covenant of grace made with Abraham are repeated. David’s kingship is increasingly employed in typical Messianic prophetic statements. No “new” covenants are formed.

9 The typical national covenant is formally renewed in Josiah (8:30-34; 24:1-28 and 2Kings 23:1-3)

10 At some point, (586 BC?) the conditional nature of the national covenant is realised and the negative side of the national covenant invoked. The “national covenant curses”(Deut 28:15-68) supersede the national covenant blessings and the nation of Israel begins to be lost (gradually loses nationhood). From this point on, the national covenant is negatively applied but retains its value as a type, a prophetic picture of the spiritual reality of God’s chosen people. Even the negative aspect has its spiritual antitype in the “spiritually lost” of the reprobate, both Jewish and gentile.

11 At the incarnation of Christ the typical and almost all of the prophetic function of the national covenant is fulfilled. (Gal 3.16). [I think most agree that prophecy allows of multiple fulfilment, although in a single sense each time] All the Messianic prophecies are realised. Jesus Christ, as God-Man-Redeemer:
a) fulfils the work terms of the Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Son
b) fulfils the Covenant of Works between God and Man breached by Adam,
c) keeps the entire Sinaitic Law.
d) fulfils the typical Davidic Kingdom prophecies.

12 I take it as a principle of interpretation that since the Lord came there are no more “types”. Types were an OT teaching tool (Hebrews 6.1, 8:5 & 10.1). Christianity is now clear light. Christian baptism, for example, is not a type of anything. Types differ fundamentally from illustrations, parables, prophecies, metaphors etc.

With Christ the division between Jew and Gentile is removed to leave the mankind as one family to remember the historically typical teaching of a chosen people. There is an elect of God. The church is the antitype of the chosen people. (Gal 3.7, Rom 8:2-4). Beware the false conclusion that since not all Israel were of Israel in the type (ie not all OT Jews were regenerate), the same should be true in the antitype (ie the church). While there was an OT salvation reality let’s set it aside just for a few moments. The OT picture, the type, was of a people set apart to God - in the NT this is now a reality in the church, everyone else being unregenerate and therefore not eligible to be part of the church. The OT saints (to bring them back) were saved by the method of the antitype and not of the type.

The Gospel of Grace now explicitly and unambiguously proclaims The Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Works is formally revoked, having been fulfilled by Christ alone. No typical national covenant remains as the Church, its antitype, has arrived. No man is now born into a typical covenant. No man is born into a positive covenant status. TE Watson’s chapter contra Vos in “Should Babies be Baptised” is useful here.

As John Owen described, The New Covenant is New in that it is realised and established with the death and resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. But this same redemptive transaction had saving efficacy from the first as the great Promise revealed by the Holy Spirit to all who would be redeemed by it, both during and before the Old Covenant.

13 The unregenerate children of believers and unregenerate churchgoers (not to say members… which sadly do occur due to human fallibility and sinfulness) are under precisely the same covenant standing as unbelievers. This is the argument against paedobaptism and covenant membership of infants: Baptists hold that paedobaptism erroneously harks back to the Jewish (Abrahamic) typical national covenant only. The special covenantal status paedobaptists want to have for those solely in the visible church (not members of the regenerate invisible church ) is seen as spurious and a misapplication of OT typology.

So…..by way of Conclusions:

1 There was only one Covenant of Works for Salvation between God and Man, made with Adam as his probation which he failed..
2 The need for the Covenant of Grace arises from God’s eternal purpose and Man’s (Adam’s) breach of the Covenant of Works
3 There is only one salvific Covenant of Grace between God and Man all the way through from the protevangelium…Men are saved by trusting only in the Atonement and Righteousness provided by God in the person of the Lord Jesus Christ.
4 The judicial basis for the Covenant of Grace is Atonement and Righteousness provided by Christ’s fulfilment of the Covenant of Redemption between the Father and the Son in eternity past.
5 Christ in fulfilling the Covenant of Redemption (the covenant between the God the Father and the Son) fulfilled the terms of the Adamic Covenant of Works and all the types in the Law delivered at Sinai and provided the judicial justification for the Covenant of Grace toward Man.
6 Abraham was given and understood the Covenant of Grace as Salvation by Christ’s atonement alone as the spiritual, eternal and antitypical truth of the national and “land” covenants of Genesis (Heb:11-10).
Circumcision was a badge of separation from the world and membership of the typical covenant. It was the teaching reminder of the faith Abraham had and that the Promised Messiah would be from the nation sprung from Abraham. Real membership of the Covenant of Grace in the OT was “circumcision of the heart” (no physical sign).
7 NT Baptism is not a continuation of Circumcision, but a new ordinance for believers. It is neither the sign nor the seal of the New Covenant. The seal of the New Covenant is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit (Eph1:13, 4:30).

Thanks for the post. Since it is fairly lengthy I will respond to a single point at a time. I'll start with the final conclusion. Here are some other threads where this has been discussed fairly recently, Visible/Invisible Church, Some covenant understandings, Covenant Continuity, and argument from languages for family inclusion, OIKOS, a dilemma of exclusion, command to exclude children?, and a thread that was closed but a good question, Who Departed.


I take issue with believers baptism. Since we cannot guarantee only true believers are baptized, I prefer professors baptism. How does the baptist overcome this?


This begs another question, Credible Profession?.


God bless,

william

First, I'd like to say that some Reformed Baptists will conclude that baptism replaces circumcision, and yet they remain credobaptist. For example, see David Kingdon's The Children of Abraham amd Paul K. Jewett's Infant Baptistsm and the Covenant of Grace.

Secondly, Will, I would not use the argument that, since we cannot infallibly baptize disciples alone, that that negates the purpose. It's like saying that we should not fence the Lord's Table at all because when we say it's for believers only, there may be nonbelievers partaking of it.

Simply claiming an equality with the Lords Table isn't enough. I believe scripture teaches baptism for all professors and their families, and fencing the table to only professors. Could you show otherwise? Or could you show how scripture equivocates the two sacraments?

Second, I do not use the argument, as some have stated, to claim we should not fence baptism. We should, but by Biblical standards. My argument is stated here, Visible/Invisible. I have never claimed we should baptize the entire world. Scripture upholds professors baptism as well as their families. We cannot make baptism fit the elect alone. Scripture does not offer this by way of example.

There is no "may be". Scripture gives examples of both members of Israel and member of the visible church receiving the sign and not being elect. This gives way to another question, Credible profession.

Allow me to state once again, we should not baptize the children of unbelievers. I am simply making the point that believers baptism is an untrue label, and the Baptist Confession upholds my view.


God bless,

william

William,

I think you have made a valid point here. The caveat for the "typical" Baptist is that they will argue from this point, i.e., only "believers" are to be baptized and thus infants are of necessity excluded. For those that want to use this type of reasoning, THEN your counter-argument is a valid one; i.e., there is no infallibly method for discerning true faith in those which profess such. So, although the argument is a limited one, I do think it is legitimate, if for no other reason than to show the incongruity of holding to the terminology of "beleiver's baptism". <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" />

In His Grace,

Will,
Unless we are double minded, we profess what we believe. Taken seriously the credible profession is just that... it is a profession of belief and it is credible. Credible to whom? Mature spirit-filled believers who constitute the local church leadership usually.
What renders it credible? Well, we could go to lots of places but 1st John provides signs of conversion. In a local church setting this is a much more reliable system than might appear. It is amenable to investigation and to assessment and it is not normally "rushed". Frequently a candidate will instigate the request for baptism when his own understanding is led to it. With Christian charity and prayer it is not as unreliable as some might think.

Regards,
Dan

While I am not going to disagree entirely with your premise I'd like to point out that I have no infallible method for determining that you exist, nor that any other consciousness than my own exists.

However, proceeding on "common sense" and Christian charity leads me both to dialogue with you, and accepting a credible profession of faith from a fellow believer.

D.

Due to what has transpired in the past on this Board with discussion concerning "Paedobaptism vs. Credobaptism" I am compelled to give this sober warning. This discussion will be CLOSELY monitored. Although there will be some allowance for passion to be expressed, what will NOT be allowed is flaming, name-calling, going off-topic, schism (either public or private) or anything else "I" deem worthy of disciplinary intervention. Any and all individuals who it is deemed in violation of these simple, albeit open guidelines, will be given a private warning. If after a warning is given, such individual(s) persist in their unacceptable behaviour, they will be banned permanently from this Board.

If you find the above unacceptable then I would suggest you do not get involved in this particular discussion.

Is a sign for the elect alone or is it a sign grounded in a profession? The two are not symonymous.

Or shall we concede that you uphold professors baptism, of which, the elect are included but not solely?


God bless,

william

Actually - is sign the right word? I see an ordinance that has a meaning and a right application. The right application is to believers. Any unbelievers who are baptised, are not baptised into the name of the Father the Son and the Holy spirit, are they?

More constructively perhaps...and this was the reason for my looooong first post...what is Baptism? If we're going to discuss it...what is it?

I didn't think we'd go right here straight away which was why I had thought the BCT summary might have taken some critique first.

Could you provide a command stating that baptism is for professors alone? What about all those OIKOS baptisms? I'm not buying that only believers are baptised.


God bless,

william

William,
Thanks for your question:
“Could you provide a command stating that baptism is for professors alone? What about all those OIKOS baptisms? I'm not buying that only believers are baptised.”

It’s a fair challenge. And I don’t want to fall into the trap of superficially scanning scripture for ammunition for “my side” of the discussion nor encourage others to do so. I would drop my Baptist understanding in a hot minute for a better one. But so far it’s the best I’ve got so I’ll show how I would address your question.

The reason I “hesitated” and asked what baptism was ( in my last post) is a large part of my thinking on the full response. I’m working through Greg Strawbridge’s Defence of Infant Baptism and while I’m grateful he has set out his reasoning and bases so graciously and succinctly, I am seeing where I would differ and where I think his reasoning is flawed. There are no radical new insights unfortunately (actually…fortunately) but rather the root differences concern the accurate determination, tracking and application of type and antitype between the OT and the NT. Baptists would maintain that paedobaptists (and mostly presbyterians) carry too much that was intended to be ‘merely’ typical of the church, literally into the NT church.
There is a very succinct and useful summary of this in the Appendices included in James Haldane’s Commentary on Galatians. Haldane was a Scottish presbyterian minister who changed his views and as such is educational to both sides (just as Dr Strawbridge is).

Is there a command for baptism for professors alone?
Straighforwardly, yes. Mark 16:15-16.

Mark 16:15 And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.
Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Note also that theWCoF implicitly regards baptism as a sign “not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church, but also,” of “his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.” Explicitly this requires understanding and belief prior to baptism.
West. Conf., chap. 28, Sect. 1

The Oikos baptisms are very interesting. But if you depart from the Baptist understanding of them (that there were no infants in these households –a fact rendered plausible by the demography of the households) you may find yourself trying to prove too much. Are unbelievers to be baptised on the authority of the head of the house? Or do we conclude that everyone baptised in these households was given by the Holy Ghost to understand the Gospel and believe.

Even if we list the household baptisms exhaustively, two explicitly qualify that the baptism was on understanding and belief.

Cornelius (Acts 11:14)” and he shall speak words to you by which you will be saved , you and all your household.”

Lydia (Acts 16:15)

The Phillipian Jailor (Acts 16:33)

Crispus (Acts 18:8) “And Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard [u][/u]were believing and being baptized.”

Stephanas (1 Cor 1:16)
I believe that unless we really are going to depart from Sola Scriptura or (equally unbiblically but with at least “logical”consistency ) baptise unbelieving relatives and servants, no case for infant baptism (explicitly or inferrentially) can be made from the household baptisms.


I still think it useful to discuss precisely what Baptism is. Ironically, Baptists probably have the “lowest” view of Baptism of any theological grouping. I don’t mean that irreverantly but rather technically in view of its place, purpose and effects.
Best Regards,
Dan

I'm sorry but I don't believe in believers baptism. I hold to professors baptism. Until we can agree on this point, we have no reason to move forward.


God bless,

william

The foundation for an understanding of Baptist (and actually Presbyterian as well) covenantal theology is that which creates the wrong ideas as to what a covenant is in the first place. Thus, setting a wrong foundation, one is quickly quagmired and sinks into a theology which allows for no escape.

To properly baptize, you must properly understand the nature of what a covenant is. It is not, as those of the Reformed persuasion insist A CONTRACT! This view comes from the legal and court room understanding that is predominant among all Reformers. They simply do not have the Biblical view of covenant:

Ezekiel 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.

Please note what is happening here. Union is happening. Two are becoming one. Marriage is taking place. This is the Biblical description and this is far far from the legal understanding in which Reformers describe a contract.

Let's tear apart Mr. Owen's statements: