Proving that Baptist CAN have fun… since 2013 ;P

confessingbaptist:

Podcast #3: Pascal Denault On The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (2 Of 2) + Book Giveaway

On episode three of our podcast, we finish up our two part interview with Pascal Denault on his new book The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism.

After that, we talk about the book then some Reformed Baptist headlines and give you a preview of next week’s episode featuring Richard Barcellos on his newest book Better Than The Beginning: Creation In Biblical Perspective.

Podcast #3: Pascal Denault On The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (2 Of 2)

icon for podbean  [1:06:20]: Download | Subscribe to the podcast in a RSS readeriTunes or by Email

-

Books & Sites Mentioned:

-

Headlines Mentioned:

-

Post-Interview Music:

“Thy Mercy, My God” [music: Sandra McCracken | words: John Stocker]

confessingbaptist:

Podcast #2: Pascal Denault On The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (1 Of 2) + 3 Book Giveaways

On episode two of our podcast, we interview Pascal Denault on his new book The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism.

After that, we talk about some Reformed Baptist news and give you a preview of next week’s episode featuring the second part of our interview with Pascal Denault on his newest book.

(RSS & Email readers, click through to see below podcast audio and widget):

Podcast #2: Pascal Denault On The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology (1 Of 2)

icon for podbean  [1:06:28]: Download | Embeddable Player | Subscribe to the podcast in a RSS readeriTunes or by Email

-

Win The Book!

The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology

To celebrate our new podcast we’d like to give you some free stuff.  To be entered for a change to win, one of three of Pascal Denault new book The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, simply enter via the widget below:

a Rafflecopter giveaway

-

Articles Mentioned:

Is the law of Moses repeated in the New Testament?

The discussion in the previous post continues:

Antinomista questions the claim that the law of Moses and the law of Christ are the same for substance on the basis that not all of the ten commandments are not repeated in the NT. Evangelista replies, demonstrating each commandment’s presence in the NT. I have singled out the fourth commandment.

From Edward Fisher’s “Marrow of Modern Divinity.”

Click the image for a larger version.

Transcription:


Antinomista: Sir, I like it very well, that you say Christ should be a Christians teacher, and not Moses, but yet I question whether the ten commandments may be called the Law of Christ, for where can you find them repeated either by our Saviour or his Apostles in the whole New Testament.


Evangelista: Though we finde not that they are repeated in such a method as they are set down in Exodus and Deuteronomy, yet so long as we finde that Christ and his Apostles did require and command those things that are therein commanded, and reprove and condemn those things that are therein forbidden, and that both by their lives and doctrines, it is sufficient to prove them to be the Law of Christ.

Antinomista: I think, indeed they have done so touching some of the commandments, but not touching all.

Evangelista: Because you say so, I intreat you consider…Fourthly whether Christ’s rising from the dead the first day of the week, Mark 16:2,9. The disciples assembling, and Christ’s appearing unto them two severall first days of the week, John 20:19,26. And the Disciples coming together, and breaking bread, and preaching afterwards on that day, Acts 20:7, I Cor 16.2. and Johns being in the Spirit on the Lord’s day: I say, consider, whether these things do not prove that the first day of the week is to be kept as the Christians Sabbath.

from Particular Voices http://bit.ly/XPNj9c

Whatever Happened to the Covenant of Works?

Central to the theology of the Reformation is the contrast between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace.  The two concepts or structures go together, and it is in the light of them that the Reformed doctrine of justification and salvation as a whole is to be understood.  But the covenant of works has fallen on bad days and is widely denied even among evangelicals.  That is why it is crucial for us to have a clear understanding of the covenant of works and its biblical basis.  And that is why I asked the question in this message, Whatever Happened to the Covenant of Works?

Audio from the Deep South Founders Conference 2013: God’s Covenant

image

Sam WaldronThe sixth annual Deep South Founders Conference gathered under the banner of “God’s Covenant,” January 17-19, 2013 on the Reformed Theological Seminary Jackson, Mississippi campus. Our special guest, Dr. Sam Waldron brought three messages regarding covenant theology. Three other speakers, Dale Crawford, Chas Rowland, and Dewey Wise, filled the pulpit as we explored the biblical truth expressed in chapter seven of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith…

Conference Audio:

Pre-Conference Debate

On Thursday evening, January 17, 2013 (6:30 pm) Dr. Samuel E. Waldron and Dr. Elliott E. Johnson debated the topic of Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism in the chapel of the Reformed Theological seminary, Jackson MS. Dr. Johnson serves as Senior Professor of Bible Exposition at Dallas Theological Seminary.

New Covenant Theology and the 1644/1646 London Baptist Confession

There are some who choose to confess the 1646 London Baptist confession rather than the 1677 London Baptist confession. Their reasons for this choice vary, but among them are those who wish to adhere to what is known as “New Covenant Theology.” In making this move, it is claimed, they are identifying with Baptists who did not hold such a “rigid” stance on the law as it is expressed in the 1677 London Baptist confession. However, when examined in its historical context, there is no difference between the views of the early and later baptists concerning the law.

After the publication of the first confession in 1644, certain criticisms and inquiries were made to the Baptists concerning their positions on certain issues. In reply, they revised the confession and republished it in 1646. Benjamin Coxe, father of Nehemiah Coxe, also published an appendix to the confession in 1646 in order to give added clarity to some of the issues in question.

Benjamin Cox, Appendix Preface

Benjamin Cox, Appendix to the 1644, 7

Their stance on the law is quite clear, meaning that if one desires to adhere to New Covenant Theology and use the early Baptist confessions to do so, it can only be against the original beliefs of those who penned those confession. Granted, we are not forced to reproduce or emulate the precise views of our forefathers in every point, especially in matters not addressed by the confession. But the claim that the early Baptists held a lighter stance on the law is untenable.


from Particular Voices

beggarsalll:

I have posted before of my view of arguing for Reformed Anti-paedobaptism and against Paedobaptism from Covenant/Biblical Theology instead of from Jeremiah 31, which is the more common argument among Baptists (see Thoughts on Covenantal Baptism, Why Baptize Infants, A Paradigm Shift in Defense of Covenantal Baptism, and The Abrahamic Pattern).

Recently I read Dr. Waldron make the same argument: 

Paedo-baptists “… have often spoken as if the covenant with Abraham were the covenant of grace, but this identification ignores its typical elements and its beginning in the lifetime of Abraham, not immediately after the Fall (note Chapter 29). The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace. As the Confession remarks, ‘the full discovery’ of the covenant of grace ‘was never completed in the New Testament’. However it is clear that the New Covenant was inaugurated in the events surrounding the first advent of Christ (Jer. 31:31; Heb. 8:13). Thus it is crucial to maintain a clear distinction between the covenant of grace and the biblical, divine covenants. The divine covenants undoubtedly suggested this terminology, but no one of them ought to be equated with it. 

The covenant with Abraham is one of the unifying structures of the Bible. Hence, in their argument for infant baptism paedo-baptists are fond of dwelling on it… The argument of paedo-baptists from the Abrahamic Covenant is as follows.

  1. Major premise: The Abrahamic covenant was made with believers and their seed.
  2. Minor premise: The Abrahamic covenant was the covenant of grace.
  3. Conclusion: The covenant of grace is made with believers and their seed.

It would  be enough to prove that there is a fallacy in just one of the premises of this syllogism. As it happens, both premises are fallacious.

The major premise is faulty. The Abrahamic covenant was made with Abraham and his seed. Let the paedo-baptists cite one verse which proves that the Abrahamic Covenant was made with believers and their seed.

The minor premise is also wrong. The Abrahamic covenant was a shadowy revelation of the covenant of grace, but that is quite different from being in every sense the covenant of grace. Does the covenant of grace promise us all as believers a literal land of Canaan? Paedo-baptists say no! But the Abrahamic covenant does promise such a Canaan! (Gen. 17:8). Thus paedo-baptists themselves do not equate the Abrahamic covenant with the covenant of grace. They do not insist on a literal Canaan. By what right, then, do they literally equate the Abrahamic covenant with the covenant of grace? The true seed of Abraham according to the New Testament is not believers and their seed, but Christ himself and all who are joined to him by faith (Gal. 3:29).

Dr. Samuel E. Waldron, A Modern Exposition of the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith, Chapter 7: Of God’s Covenant, Page 107, The Theological Propriety of “The Covenant of Grace”; and Chapter 29: Of Baptism, Page 356, The Covenant with Abraham and Infant Baptism (at Free Reformed University of Hurst)

Listen to MP3

Listen to readout of article:

John Owen, Gospel Church Government

by Jeffrey T

Runtime: 27:54 Words saved: 4,328 Size: 8.08 MB

Article summary:

Book Review John Owen, Gospel Church Government, simplified and abridged by Jeffrey T. Riddle (Grace Publications, 2012):  110 pp. Reviewed by W. G. Crampton, Th.D.  Gospel Church Government[1] is …

beggars all: The Abrahamic Pattern: A Response

beggarsalll:

A respondent on an email list made the following observations to my earlier post, “Why Baptize Infants?” It’s posted below with his gracious permission.

- - - - - - - - - -

Why Baptize Infants? Because God said to Abraham, ‘I’ll be a God to you and to your children after you’ that’s why……

A good read,.. this is $$$!

Listen to MP3

Listen to readout of article:

The Abrahamic Pattern: A Response

Runtime: 8:06 Words saved: 1,212 Size: 2.28 MB

beggarsalll:

Why Baptize Infants? (A Reformed Perspective) with Dr. R. Scott Clark, Professor of Church History and Historical Theology at Westminster Seminary, Escondido, California

I appreciate that Dr. Clark gets right to the point:

Because God said to Abraham, ‘I’ll be a God to you and to your children after you’ that’s why… Abraham is the pattern of the Covenant of Grace or the Administration of Salvation, that is what we mean. The administration of free, gracious, uncoditional acceptance with God. He’s the pattern of that all throughout scripture. And so it’s articulated in Genesis 17 where you see the institution of the Covenant children in the visible Covenant Community, into the sphere of the Administration of Salvation. You see that in Genesis 17 and everyone, all the male children are to be admitted into the visible Covenant Community.. Abraham is always the pattern.

This is the cornerstone of Reformed Paedobaptism. It is an unquestioned assumption. In this eight minute video Dr. Clark does not provide us with the reasoning behind this assumption. In fact, I haver never read a published work that has answered the “Why Abraham?” question. Every book on paedobaptism answers the question, “Why do we baptise infants?’ with “The Abrahamic Covenant.” but none of the books I have read has ever given a reason why this covenant. At the end of this video Dr. Clark repeats the phrase, “If Abraham is the pattern…” but he has not answered the question, “(Why) Is Abraham the pattern?”. As I’ve stated these are unquestioned assumptions in paedobaptist theology. If you are aware of a published work that answers this please share it with me, I would love to read it. As a Reformed Anti-paedobaptist I would ask, “Is there ‘free, gracious, uncoditional acceptance with God’ before Genesis 17? According to Hebrews I believe there is a Covenant Community before Abraham.

As a Reformed Anti-paedobapist I believe Abraham is not the pattern or prototype. Reformed Biblical Theologians agree that Adam and Eve in Eden are the Pattern/Prototype. I’m thinking here of Ed Clowney, G.K. Beale, Bill Dumbrell, T. Desmond Alexander, and Graeme Goldsworthy, to name a few. Adam and Eve in Eden are the prototype. After the Fall Redemptive History presents us with types such as Abel, Enoch, Noah, and yes, Abraham. Type. Not prototype or pattern. As a Reformed Anti-paedobapist I believe we should point to Redemptive History for our position and not to Jeremiah 31 as is so common among us. I believe the Jeremiah 31 response should only come from Dispensationalists, not Covenantalists.

Here are some verses and other comments Dr. Clark mentioned:

Romans 6 “What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. We who died to sin, how shall we any longer live therein? Or are ye ignorant that all we who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him through baptism unto death: that like as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, so we also might walk in newness of life.”

Can this be true of infants?

Colossians 2:11-12 Take heed lest there shall be any one that maketh spoil of you through his philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ: for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily, and in him ye are made full, who is the head of all principality and power: in whom ye were also circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of Christ; having been buried with him in baptism, wherein ye were also raised with him through faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead. And you, being dead through your trespasses and the uncircumcision of your flesh, you, I say, did he make alive together with him, having forgiven us all our trespasses; having blotted out the bond written in ordinances that was against us, which was contrary to us: and he hath taken it out that way, nailing it to the cross; having despoiled the principalities and the powers, he made a show of them openly, triumphing over them in it.

Can this be true of infants?

Circumcision was nothing but a ritual death. And so that was true for Abraham as an adult who was circumcised, it was true for Isaac who was circumcised as an infant. Those were ritual deaths.

Was it true for Ishmael and Esau? What about Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah?

Is it true that infants have died to their old selves and now live to Christ?

Acts 2:38-39 For the promise is to your and to your children And Peter said unto them, Repent ye, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ unto the remission of your sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For to you is the promise, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him.

I don’t understand why Paedobaptists keep bringing this verse up. The phrase “even as many as the Lord our God shall call unto him” qualifies the three groups mentioned.

  • As many (of you) as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
  • As many (of your children) as the Lord our God shall call unto him.
  • As many (that are afar off) as the Lord our God shall call unto him.

Using Paedobaptist logic why shouldn’t we go ahead and baptise the whole world?

The Baptist Confession of Faith and The Baptist Catechism (Paperback)

Publisher: Solid Ground Christian Books
Author: Association of Reformed Baptists
ISBN-13: 9781599253220
Cover Type: Paperback
List Price: $12.00 
Westminster Bookstore: $6.00 - 50% Off  (1 WEEK ONLY!)




DESCRIPTIONENDORSEMENTS

Buy 5 or more 
for $5.50 each (54% off)

Listen to a lecture by Jim Reniham from entitled Origin of the Reformed Baptist(Sermon Audio)


Publisher’s Description: If you appreciate sound theology in a quality volume you will love to be able to have the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith and Catechism in a handy and durable leather binding. We are using the accepted editions of both Confession and Catechism along with the Scripture Proofs for both. We have also included a brief Introduction by Dr. Jim Renihan, and the original Appendix on Baptism.

Enduring Value: Finally the Reformed Baptists have their most important doctrinal statements in a form that will endure for generations to come. This beautiful edition sends the right message to the watching world about the enduring value of these documents. Be a part of history!

Joint Project: This outstanding edition is a joint venture between Solid Ground Christian Books and the Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America.

128 Pages
Published July 2012

Tim Challies on "When Should My Children Be Baptized?"


Listen to MP3

Listen to readout of article:

When Should My Children Be Baptized?

Runtime: 7:58 Words saved: 1,321 Size: 2.31 MB

Article summary:

Every Christian parent longs for his children to trust in Christ and to make this profession public. In Baptist churches such a profession is made public through baptism. One of the ongoing discussion

Read article

To Tumblr, Love Pixel Union