Credo-Baptism Answers Distinctions in Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology

Blood-Bought Pilgrim

Blood-Bought Pilgrim

Puritan Board Sophomore
I'm posting this in this forum because I am looking specifically for information from Reformed Baptists. Mods feel free to move if you think it belongs in the covenant theology category instead.

I'm trying to better understand Reformed Baptist covenant theology. I've been studying 1689 Federalism, and I think I get the basics of that position, with the Cov. of Grace being promised in the OT, but not actually effected until the New Covenant.

My question is, are there Reformed Credobaptists who would see more continuity than the 1689 Federalist position? Even to the point where they would agree with the Westsminster formulation of "1 Covenant under 2 administrations"? If so, what would be the argument for Credobaptism from that particular perspective, since you can't as readily point to the discontinuity that the 1689 Federalists would point to?

Thanks!
 
I know I’m not credobaptist, so forgive me for breaking the the letter of the rules, although I believe I am within the spirit of them. (Mods, feel free to rebuke me if this is still out of bounds.)

I did struggle with this issue for a while, and in my studies I did discover that John Gill had (as far as I can tell) a more Westminsterian covenant theology in that he taught one covenant under two administrations. I believe another would be James Petigru Boyce, who was a student of Charles Hodge. Now, how these men argued for credobaptism under this scheme, somebody else will have to answer.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Greg Nichols who has published a covenant theology. Denault’s view certainly isn’t universal in the 1689 circle. Some say Al Martin (who worked with Greg Nichols) is also further away from Denault's view but I cannot verify that.

Nichols does things like expositing Gen. 3:15 to talk about the covenant of grace. He says things like the covenant was “declared, ratified, and instituted” in the Garden.

It is a matter of 'promissory revelations' vs formal administrations of the COG



@SeanPatrickCornell could chime in on your question.

Blessings
 
Last edited:
This is difficult to discuss, because it involves some distinctions so fine that things get lost in the weeds. Part of the problem is that (as I've said before), since the term "Covenant of Grace" doesn't appear in Scripture, everyone defines it as they see fit. Some see it as salvation applied across the ages, to every elect person from Adam's time till the Last Day; some see it as only the New Covenant in Christ's blood, inaugurated at the Last Supper; some see it as not guaranteeing salvation, as in non-elect children of believers (though not many Baptists do, of course, so it's irrelevant to this thread).
What all Reformed Baptists can agree on, Federalists or not, is that salvation in all ages is only in Christ--Adam is saved by Christ's work just as much as you or I.
What I wind up debating with Federalists is the scope of the Abrahamic covenant. They seem to contend (though they're slippery to pin down), that the Abrahamic covenant was only physical, and was fully fulfilled in all the land promises, and meant nothing more. I (and others) see the Abrahamic covenant having more meaning: there were physical promises that were pictures of spiritual ones: the land promises, which were fully fulfilled, were types of something better. Circumcision, the sign of the covenant, was a picture of something better. Being born physically into Abraham's family was a picture of something better. So the Abrahamic covenant, in all the glory of its true meaning, is fulfilled in the New Covenant, instituted by Abraham's Seed. And so we seek a heavenly country; we have a better inheritance than palestinian real estate; we have a sign, not of physical birth, but of New Birth, into Abraham's spiritual lineage. These things were the point of the Abrahamic covenant all along!

I believe the Abrahamic is still in force, and understood correctly, does in no way support the fantasy of paedobaptism, since one enters it by the New Birth.
 
Ben Zartman said:
This is difficult to discuss, because it involves some distinctions so fine that things get lost in the weeds. Part of the problem is that (as I've said before), since the term "Covenant of Grace" doesn't appear in Scripture, everyone defines it as they see fit. Some see it as salvation applied across the ages, to every elect person from Adam's time till the Last Day; some see it as only the New Covenant in Christ's blood, inaugurated at the Last Supper; some see it as not guaranteeing salvation, as in non-elect children of believers (though not many Baptists do, of course, so it's irrelevant to this thread).
What all Reformed Baptists can agree on, Federalists or not, is that salvation in all ages is only in Christ--Adam is saved by Christ's work just as much as you or I.
What I wind up debating with Federalists is the scope of the Abrahamic covenant. They seem to contend (though they're slippery to pin down), that the Abrahamic covenant was only physical, and was fully fulfilled in all the land promises, and meant nothing more. I (and others) see the Abrahamic covenant having more meaning: there were physical promises that were pictures of spiritual ones: the land promises, which were fully fulfilled, were types of something better. Circumcision, the sign of the covenant, was a picture of something better. Being born physically into Abraham's family was a picture of something better. So the Abrahamic covenant, in all the glory of its true meaning, is fulfilled in the New Covenant, instituted by Abraham's Seed. And so we seek a heavenly country; we have a better inheritance than palestinian real estate; we have a sign, not of physical birth, but of New Birth, into Abraham's spiritual lineage. These things were the point of the Abrahamic covenant all along!

I believe the Abrahamic is still in force, and understood correctly, does in no way support the fantasy of paedobaptism, since one enters it by the New Birth.
Click to expand...
Thank you, this is helpful. Would you say that the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace, or that it was a covenant of works which topologically pointed to Christ? Or would neither of those be your position?
 
Ben Zartman said:
Part of the problem is that (as I've said before), since the term "Covenant of Grace" doesn't appear in Scripture, everyone defines it as they see fit.
Click to expand...
This is the problem for me. People talk right past each other referring to the CoG but meaning different things.

Ben Zartman said:
They seem to contend (though they're slippery to pin down), that the Abrahamic covenant was only physical, and was fully fulfilled in all the land promises, and meant nothing more. I (and others) see the Abrahamic covenant having more meaning...
Click to expand...
This is my second concern. I often get the uncomfortable feeling that some Baptists make Abraham less important than Scripture does.
 
NM_Presby said:
I'm posting this in this forum because I am looking specifically for information from Reformed Baptists. Mods feel free to move if you think it belongs in the covenant theology category instead.

I'm trying to better understand Reformed Baptist covenant theology. I've been studying 1689 Federalism, and I think I get the basics of that position, with the Cov. of Grace being promised in the OT, but not actually effected until the New Covenant.

My question is, are there Reformed Credobaptists who would see more continuity than the 1689 Federalist position? Even to the point where they would agree with the Westsminster formulation of "1 Covenant under 2 administrations"?
Click to expand...

Indeed so. Sam Waldron and Greg Nichols are examples of this. Although it may be that Dr. Waldron has come closer to the 1689 Federalism perspective.

NM_Presby said:
If so, what would be the argument for Credobaptism from that particular perspective, since you can't as readily point to the discontinuity that the 1689 Federalists would point to?

Thanks!
Click to expand...

In the "One Covenant, Two Administrations" flavor of Baptist CT, the argument for Credobaptism is that the ordinances of Circumcision and Baptism were positively commanded, and each is administered according to its own positive instructions.

Basically, just because one believes that the Old Covenant and New Covenant are the same in substance and essence, it doesn't automatically follow that the ordinances of the New Covenant are given based on the rules for the Old Covenant ordinances.

I hope that makes sense.
 
If I remember Denaults argument... It is that the promised seed has come, thus the Abrahamic physical seed administration is not needed. That and no positive command to baptise.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
In the "One Covenant, Two Administrations" flavor of Baptist CT, the argument for Credobaptism is that the ordinances of Circumcision and Baptism were positively commanded, and each is administered according to its own positive instructions.

Basically, just because one believes that the Old Covenant and New Covenant are the same in substance and essence, it doesn't automatically follow that the ordinances of the New Covenant are given based on the rules for the Old Covenant ordinances.

I hope that makes sense.
Click to expand...
Thank you, that’s helpful. To put it another way, would you say it’s simply a difference with Presbyterians as to the administration of the CoG in the New Covenant?
 
Question of clarification with regard to the points about Abraham above:

It's my understanding that 1689 Federalists would say that the specific conditions/rewards of the Abrahamic cov. are fulfilled temporally, but that the New Covenant was also promised to Abraham and is typified in the Abrahamic Covenant. So it would not be simply that the Abrahamic Covenant is merely temporal for them.

Is this a correct understanding?
 
NM_Presby said:
Question of clarification with regard to the points about Abraham above:

It's my understanding that 1689 Federalists would say that the specific conditions/rewards of the Abrahamic cov. are fulfilled temporally, but that the New Covenant was also promised to Abraham and is typified in the Abrahamic Covenant. So it would not be simply that the Abrahamic Covenant is merely temporal for them.

Is this a correct understanding?
Click to expand...

That sounds correct. Yes.
 
SeanPatrickCornell said:
Basically, just because one believes that the Old Covenant and New Covenant are the same in substance and essence, it doesn't automatically follow that the ordinances of the New Covenant are given based on the rules for the Old Covenant ordinances.
Click to expand...
Asking for clarity: are you saying that it's possible to read the CoG proper being made with Abraham, the promise of which was "I will be your God and the God of your seed," and recognize that the NC administration of the CoG has that same promise, but also recognize that baptism is meant to follow a profession of faith?
 
JD said:
Asking for clarity: are you saying that it's possible to read the CoG proper being made with Abraham, the promise of which was "I will be your God and the God of your seed," and recognize that the NC administration of the CoG has that same promise, but also recognize that baptism is meant to follow a profession of faith?
Click to expand...

I don't hold to that view myself, but insofar I understand your hypothetical, yes that's a possible view to hold as a baptist.
 
In my opinion, the best book I have come across outlining the 1689 Federalist view of Covenant Theology is Samuel Renihan's "The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom." Sam takes you through the storyline of the Bible from an RB/1689 Federalist perspective and explains the interrelationships of each of the covenants.

"From Shadom to Substance" is Sam's revised PhD dissertation meant for publication and gets quite a bit "in the weeds" about what Particular Baptists of the 17th century he surveyed believed. I would probably recommend that after getting a grounding through "Mystery of Christ." Both are useful - just depends what you are looking for.

I have asked on a couple occassions of who the "go to" person or work is on RB 1 Covenant/2 Adminstrations view and I haven't found a good answer yet. Some say John Gill, but @brandonadams has pointed out that Gill's view might not be so clear cut - https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/some-comments-on-john-gills-covenant-theology/ . The Renihans have observed that (in their view) the RB 1C/2A view promoted by RBs of the last century is more than likely a byproduct of having studied under and read Presbyterian & Reformed covenant theologians rather than having a knowledge of what the 17th Century Particular Baptists believed. That has been an area of contribution by the Renihans - uncovering and publicizing the thought of the 17th Century PBs. From what I have gathered, there were differing views among PBs of the 17th Century so I don't want to make a claim that 1689 Fed (as it is now called) was the only one. Its possible that the confession was written to accommodate some variance on this subject. That's about as far as I can contribute on the topic since I have not read much at this point from that era, apart from the confession and historical background of the confession, to offer much more.

Brandon Adams is really the go to guy (at least that I know of) on this topic if he chooses to chime in (of the guys that post here), having done quite a bit of work on the topic. He is squarely in the 1689 Federalist camp (as am I) but a great resource on the material out there. James Renihan, Sam Renihan or RB historians like Tom Nettles or Michael Haykin would be other sources.
 
TheInquirer said:
In my opinion, the best book I have come across outlining the 1689 Federalist view of Covenant Theology is Samuel Renihan's "The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant and His Kingdom." Sam takes you through the storyline of the Bible from an RB/1689 Federalist perspective and explains the interrelationships of each of the covenants.

"From Shadom to Substance" is Sam's revised PhD dissertation meant for publication and gets quite a bit "in the weeds" about what Particular Baptists of the 17th century he surveyed believed. I would probably recommend that after getting a grounding through "Mystery of Christ." Both are useful - just depends what you are looking for.

I have asked on a couple occassions of who the "go to" person or work is on RB 1 Covenant/2 Adminstrations view and I haven't found a good answer yet. Some say John Gill, but @brandonadams has pointed out that Gill's view might not be so clear cut - https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/some-comments-on-john-gills-covenant-theology/ . The Renihans have observed that (in their view) the RB 1C/2A view promoted by RBs of the last century is more than likely a byproduct of having studied under and read Presbyterian & Reformed covenant theologians rather than having a knowledge of what the 17th Century Particular Baptists believed. That has been an area of contribution by the Renihans - uncovering and publicizing the thought of the 17th Century PBs. From what I have gathered, there were differing views among PBs of the 17th Century so I don't want to make a claim that 1689 Fed (as it is now called) was the only one. Its possible that the confession was written to accommodate some variance on this subject. That's about as far as I can contribute on the topic since I have not read much at this point from that era, apart from the confession and historical background of the confession, to offer much more.

Brandon Adams is really the go to guy (at least that I know of) on this topic if he chooses to chime in (of the guys that post here), having done quite a bit of work on the topic. He is squarely in the 1689 Federalist camp (as am I) but a great resource on the material out there. James Renihan, Sam Renihan or RB historians like Tom Nettles or Michael Haykin would be other sources.
Click to expand...
Thank you for this thoughtful response. "From Shadow to Substance" is the next book on my reading list after I finish Denault.
 
NM_Presby said:
Thank you, this is helpful. Would you say that the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace, or that it was a covenant of works which topologically pointed to Christ? Or would neither of those be your position?
Click to expand...
All the covenants were parts of the journey, but trying to pin down whether something was an administration of something else just gets us in the weeds of obscure definitions. It's helpful to take a high-altitude view and realize that everything from the fall onward has been a working out of the Covenant of Redemption, in which Christ redeems a people chosen from eternity past. The Mosaic drew many portraits of Christ and the church, and believing in the promises--trusting in the coming Messiah, was how OT saints were saved. Salvation was not by the works of the law, but by faith.
I personally define the CoG as promised in Gen 3, and worked out in various stages throughout history, culminating in Christ, the messenger of the covenant, in whom alone is and has ever been salvation.
Salvation has always been by grace, through faith.
 
Ben Zartman said:
What I wind up debating with Federalists is the scope of the Abrahamic covenant. They seem to contend (though they're slippery to pin down), that the Abrahamic covenant was only physical, and was fully fulfilled in all the land promises, and meant nothing more. I (and others) see the Abrahamic covenant having more meaning: there were physical promises that were pictures of spiritual ones: the land promises, which were fully fulfilled, were types of something better. Circumcision, the sign of the covenant, was a picture of something better. Being born physically into Abraham's family was a picture of something better. So the Abrahamic covenant, in all the glory of its true meaning, is fulfilled in the New Covenant, instituted by Abraham's Seed. And so we seek a heavenly country; we have a better inheritance than palestinian real estate; we have a sign, not of physical birth, but of New Birth, into Abraham's spiritual lineage. These things were the point of the Abrahamic covenant all along!
Click to expand...
This may be how some people you have discussed the matter have understood things, but it is not an accurate understanding of 1689 Federalism. There is some variety among proponents of how best to articulate the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision, but all agree that it includes types/pictures that point to better, heavenly things. Where disagreement lies is over whether "In you shall all nations of the earth be blessed" was strictly part of the New Covenant (i.e. the New Covenant promised that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah) or if it was strictly part of the Covenant of Circumcision. Coxe and others in the 17th century take the former view. Myself, Renihan, and Pink take the latter view. So we would agree with you that the third Abrahamic promise in the Covenant of Circumcision is fulfilled in the New Covenant. But we would argue that it was fulfilled and is thus the covenant is not ongoing. We are not members of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision. As Renihan has put it, the Covenant of Circumcision gives us Christ. Christ gives us the New Covenant.

This paper elaborates if anyone is interested http://www.1689federalism.com/wp-co...IRBS_PromiseLawFaith.ReviewArticle.Adams_.pdf
 
JD said:
Asking for clarity: are you saying that it's possible to read the CoG proper being made with Abraham, the promise of which was "I will be your God and the God of your seed," and recognize that the NC administration of the CoG has that same promise, but also recognize that baptism is meant to follow a profession of faith?
Click to expand...
Both reformed baptist views agree that the New Covenant includes only the elect. I don't think that any baptists in the "more continuity" camp would argue the New Covenant includes the promise of Gen 17:7, but you'd have to ask them.
 
There was an old episode of Reformed Forum's Christ the Center from 10+ years ago where they had a reformed baptist WTS student on to make an argument for credobaptism. He articulated the "more continuity" position. Can't find it now though. His name was something like James DeRoca, but I don't recall exactly.
 
brandonadams said:
There was an old episode of Reformed Forum's Christ the Center from 10+ years ago where they had a reformed baptist WTS student on to make an argument for credobaptism. He articulated the "more continuity" position. Can't find it now though. His name was something like James DeRoca, but I don't recall exactly.
Click to expand...
Maybe Bob LaRocca?
 

Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology): Schreiner, Thomas R., Wright, Shawn: 9780805432497: Amazon.com: Books

Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (New American Commentary Studies in Bible and Theology) [Schreiner, Thomas R., Wright, Shawn] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Believer's Baptism: Sign of the New Covenant in Christ (New American Commentary Studies in...
www.amazon.com

This book has Schreiner, Wellum, Dever, Kostenberger. It may be of interest. Some of their arguments are used by baptists of all stripes (i.e new covenant members cannot apostatize)
 
brandonadams said:
This may be how some people you have discussed the matter have understood things, but it is not an accurate understanding of 1689 Federalism. There is some variety among proponents of how best to articulate the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision, but all agree that it includes types/pictures that point to better, heavenly things. Where disagreement lies is over whether "In you shall all nations of the earth be blessed" was strictly part of the New Covenant (i.e. the New Covenant promised that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah) or if it was strictly part of the Covenant of Circumcision. Coxe and others in the 17th century take the former view. Myself, Renihan, and Pink take the latter view. So we would agree with you that the third Abrahamic promise in the Covenant of Circumcision is fulfilled in the New Covenant. But we would argue that it was fulfilled and is thus the covenant is not ongoing. We are not members of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision. As Renihan has put it, the Covenant of Circumcision gives us Christ. Christ gives us the New Covenant.

This paper elaborates if anyone is interested http://www.1689federalism.com/wp-co...IRBS_PromiseLawFaith.ReviewArticle.Adams_.pdf
Click to expand...
This is the most brief and direct summary of the differences you've ever given--I appreciate it.
The question that follows then, is, if the Abrahamic covenant is over, how does Paul say that we are sons of Abraham? How is he the father of the faithful, if there's no relation?
Also, Christ is the seed promised to Abraham: would you not say that the promise is still coming true, even as Christ is still being preached to the nations?
 
I never said there's no relation. He's the father of the faithful
1) As a pre-eminent model of a believer
2) As the biological father of Christ, in whom we are blessed

He's not the father of the faithful as our covenant head (as he was the father in the Covenant of Circumcision). And conversely Christ is not the head of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision.
 
Sam Waldron would hold to more continuity I believe. It has been over a decade since I was a Reformed Baptist. I just found too much continuity between all of the Covenants as revelation was progressively promised and being fulfilled all in the Head and Captain of Israel. Every Sacrifice testified as did the Law. They all point to one God and His Messiah. They all testify of his goodness and holiness. They testify of our need of reconciliation to God and where to look for it. A lot of the time was spent in groping but there has always been a light. It just shines brighter for the world to see now.

Baptists and Reformed have a lot in Common.
 
brandonadams said:
I never said there's no relation. He's the father of the faithful
1) As a pre-eminent model of a believer
2) As the biological father of Christ, in whom we are blessed

He's not the father of the faithful as our covenant head (as he was the father in the Covenant of Circumcision). And conversely Christ is not the head of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision.
Click to expand...
This is helpful in understanding your position.
Do you believe the promises made to Abraham are still being fulfilled in Christ's work?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top