David, I am not sure if you have reflected on the full nature of covenant theology from both a Reformed Paedobaptist and a Reformed Baptist perspective. You might find both these fairly brief books helpful "Covenants Made Simple: Understanding God's Unfolding Promises to His People" [Paedobaptist] and "Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Perspective" [Baptist]
Thank you, as what I have read from a RB position was Parts of John Gil, and most of AH Strong so far.
Scott, I have come to see there are problems with the Reformed Baptist argument, especially in relation to the New Covenant. But I don't think the 'dispensational' argument is a good argument:
You mean Historic Premill. Not the same as dispensationalism. You are comparing apples and oranges.
Dispensationalism , at least the classic version as made famous by Scofield, would hold that God saved under the law in the OT, and under Grace in the NT. Israel and the Church are always seen to be 2 separate parts of the salvation plans of God.
One of the main positions of the ECF would be what would be called later on Historical premil. Just curious as to what you meant "Not the same way>"
Many of the ECF did hold a premil version of the Second Coming though, as they looked the Kingdom to come upon the earth at that time it seems.
good question, and my answers would be that Peter was addressing Jews who would have tied that into what they knew of the OC, was during the transition time between OC/NC, and that children does not have to refer to babies.
Yes, a sign of His own personal faith towards God and His promises, but not directly tied into infants from just that passage by itself.
I always though thtat the advanatge for the children being raised up inside a Christian home would be exposure to the Gospel, and also being raised up in the church setting.
It seems that the grek term has a wide variety of meanings though, and some of them seem to be describing one older than an infant.
I think the basic problem here would be that the historical way that reformed theology was determined to be ion the be at time of the Reformation was indeed the Covenant viewpoint of Presbyterians, but the Baptists who also took on Covenant theology as expressed in the 1689 Confession would to same theology, save for baptism and certain other Baptist views.If memory serves me correctly, about 2 years ago, Rev. Winzer made an interesting case, one in which I hadn't previously thought about: that any system and/or hermeneutic that isn't covenantal and Reformed, is by definition, dispensational. He is no longer here to defend his position (maybe someone can come up with the thread with his case), but, in part, I think he was getting at something recently debated: if the visible church is no longer covenantal (in the sense it is not for believers and their children), how can it be deemed covenantal? That is a legitimate question to ask and wrestle with
As I said I do have problems with Reformed Baptist theology, but I think there is a problem using the word dispensational in this way. As I said dispensationalism as a theological system did not exist prior to the 19 century. It simply did not (the 1689 Baptist confession is a 17 century document). The concept of the covenant itself is defended in the WCF 7:1, and this is the same in the 1689 confession. Further the 1689 confession develops the pactum salutis, the historia salutis and the ordo salutis in 7:2 and 7:3. These are distinct Reformed terms. One may or may not like the way the way the 1689 confession structures its cvenantal framework but this is not the same as calling it dispensational.
~MW