tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post115222251911899826..comments2023-04-14T04:28:54.000-04:00Comments on Reformed Apologist: A Primer on Covenant Theology & BaptismReformed Apologisthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-79564860223622458582013-12-30T15:07:10.958-05:002013-12-30T15:07:10.958-05:00I'm delighted that the post is of use to you. ...<br />I'm delighted that the post is of use to you. I sincerely hope it can be a source of discussion for your baptist friends and you. <br /><br />I'm an ordained elder in the OPC and attend Tenth Presbyterian in Philadelphia. There's no bio (yet) on the blog so it's not that you couldn't find it. :) Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-52996403915358709142013-12-30T14:07:06.585-05:002013-12-30T14:07:06.585-05:00Ron
Great post! You present the clearest and most...Ron<br /><br />Great post! You present the clearest and most biblical presentation on infant baptism I have read that addresses the Baptist's concerns and objections. I will be steering my Baptist friends to your blog. I have been reading your blog for sometime, but I cannot find any bio on you on your blog. Is this by design or am I not looking in the right place?Chris Nylandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15064137830450413687noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-23685832051074028572013-06-17T00:24:35.033-04:002013-06-17T00:24:35.033-04:00Hey Ron,
I enjoyed talking with you as well! It&#...Hey Ron,<br /><br />I enjoyed talking with you as well! It's nice to be able to ask questions directly and specifically. Hopefully it makes sense now when I said "I have no desire to "debate" this issue" lol. As I think you learned from our conversation, I'm not settled on my position and am very much wanting to discuss this without the often associated "Hostile" feelings debate can muster. <br /><br />I would like to publicly thank you for your genuine hospitality and gentleness on the phone, it was refreshing and greatly appreciated!<br /><br />BryanBryan Halenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-65276393054504134562013-06-16T20:11:45.221-04:002013-06-16T20:11:45.221-04:00Bryan,
I enjoyed our talk and look forward to mor...Bryan,<br /><br />I enjoyed our talk and look forward to more as you have time. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-55807544313543665052013-06-13T21:01:34.040-04:002013-06-13T21:01:34.040-04:00As I said before, "It would, in all fairness,...As I said before, "It would, in all fairness, not be right to try to construct an argument from his entire work, as he doesn't really head in that direction.", I'll now restate myself clearer. Nichols work isn't a "Polemic" in the true sense that that usually entails. It is an approach to "God's Covenants with men" from a, as we Baptists obviously believe, consistent hermeneutic throughout. <br /><br />As I told you before, in this work, it's not like it's specifically set out to conquer Paedobaptism, but more to review the massively respected Theologian's that have written on these issues and see if they can be consistent with their own definitions, Paedobaptist's and Creedal Baptist's alike. Then Greg puts forth his own understanding, seeking strict consistency from start to finish. It is the "WHOLE WORK" that is compelling to me, not just some isolated argument, this was my point above.<br /><br />I don't have the time right now to type this all out, so I'm going to upload a few pics from the book that is in discussion of inconsistencies. Maybe this is what you're looking for? If this isn't allowed Ron, than you can just check them out yourself and delete the links. They go in this order;<br /><br />1. http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a434/cooter181/CAM00079_zps5ba41704.jpg<br /><br />2. http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a434/cooter181/CAM00081_zps5aa9a743.jpg<br /><br />3.http://i1035.photobucket.com/albums/a434/cooter181/CAM00082_zpsac654705.jpgBryan Halenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-30640791320092020102013-06-12T13:08:32.116-04:002013-06-12T13:08:32.116-04:00Bryan,
I don't think you were invited to deba...Bryan,<br /><br />I don't think you were invited to debate. I believe you were asked to put forth Nichols's case for infant baptism. :)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-81301341900509063312013-06-12T10:19:54.139-04:002013-06-12T10:19:54.139-04:00He must be referring to the effects of baptism, wh...He must be referring to the effects of baptism, which isn't relative to my point. Certainly, as Samuel Miller argued, the practice precedes the Protestant Reformation as far back as we can ascertain, Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-61602888540254362752013-06-12T09:00:17.659-04:002013-06-12T09:00:17.659-04:00Bryan is also confused on history of infant baptis...Bryan is also confused on history of infant baptism if he doesn't think it applies before the Refirmation. Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-35414909775441899982013-06-12T08:52:49.979-04:002013-06-12T08:52:49.979-04:00In other words, baptists came along and demanded t...In other words, baptists came along and demanded that nobody could baptize infants so holding to their convictions within a Reformed context wasn't good enough. Their insistence that all subscribe to this doctrinal departure from the historic church made them a sect. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-44409730119784249742013-06-12T08:32:43.160-04:002013-06-12T08:32:43.160-04:00Actually baptists can help start non baptist churc...Actually baptists can help start non baptist churches but the reverse isn't true. Baptists may practice their beliefs within a presbyterian context but a Presbyterian is forbidden to exercise infant baptism in a baptist church, hence the baptistic imposition of their convictions requiring them to separate. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-21841682438537951222013-06-12T07:48:29.129-04:002013-06-12T07:48:29.129-04:00Hard to believe that anyone can't see that the...Hard to believe that anyone can't see that the issue of baptism has without question divided the church more than anything else. How can baptists possibly plant a church with anyone other than baptists? Their sole distinctive is exclusive. Jonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-21761394148975825402013-06-12T06:47:34.544-04:002013-06-12T06:47:34.544-04:00Bryan,
You post that Nichol's argument is the...Bryan,<br /><br />You post that Nichol's argument is the most compelling you've read and then when asked to repeat it you say it's not that sort of argument - doesn't lend itself to formulation, (yet somehow you found it, the argument, compelling.) You then make a few contra-assertions to what I've said yet, again, warn me that you're not interested in debating. Are you only interested in espousing? Bryan, you are debating, like it or not. Just badly I'm afraid. What is it you want me to do, read a book that puts forth a non-argument that you found compelling as an arguement yet concludes with an unbiblical position? Please consider what you're really after here. <br /><br />Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-62588207799003232542013-06-12T00:33:13.069-04:002013-06-12T00:33:13.069-04:00Ron,
Again, I have absolutely no desire to "...Ron,<br /><br />Again, I have absolutely no desire to "Debate" over the issue, much greater men than I could ever hope to be have done so and the issue obviously isn't so "clear cut".<br /><br />In reference to this being an issue that has "divided the Church more than any other doctrine", I would find that a strange comment considering all of Church history lol. <br /><br />"They have excommunicated their children by perverting the Covenant", again, different understandings of the essence of the Covenants obviously. I would highly recommend Nichols work once again, it's by no means "Sophistry".<br /><br />"Baptists have separated themselves from the historical Christian church". Surely you're term "historical" here only extends as far back as the earliest reformers? Surely you wouldn't be trying to connect your concept of Paedobaptism to history beyond that, would you? It's pretty clear that such said practice was held in radically different approaches than your own throughout Church history. <br /><br />As I originally stated, I have no desire to debate this with you, I was simply trying to point out a new work on this issue that might shed some light on a much clearer Baptist position. And I'm not referring to any old Baptist's here, I'm talking about brothers that walk side by side with you on almost every topic in the Westminster Confession. I'll gracefully bow out at this point, I have nothing spectacular to say here other than I hope you'll actually give it a read before judging it.<br /><br />Grace and Peace to you in the name of The Lord Jesus Christ my brother.<br /><br />Bryan<br /><br /><br />Bryan Halenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-25989185014816566402013-06-11T22:03:50.861-04:002013-06-11T22:03:50.861-04:00Bryan,
My only concern is, what sort of "uni...Bryan,<br /><br />My only concern is, what sort of "unity" can there be on antithetical postions that have divided the church more than any other doctrine? Baptists have separated themselves from the historical Christian church. In the process they have excommunicated their children by perverting the covenant. Any attempt to minimize the antithesis can only be pure sophistry I'm afraid. I know that must sound harsh to you, but from where I'm standing this matter was never open for discussion in the apostolic age. They need to repent and quit looking for scholarly acceptance. They certainly have no audiance here for <i>that</i> sort of thing. <br /><br />Please consider, the answer is not to try to find some slice of supposed unity but rather for Baptists to quit trying to be big fish in small ponds and unite themselves with the historic Christian church. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-51309421732285460842013-06-11T20:39:23.233-04:002013-06-11T20:39:23.233-04:00Hello again,
I'm not much of a debater so I&#...Hello again,<br /><br />I'm not much of a debater so I'll humbly decline entering into that arena with you lol. It would, in all fairness, not be right to try to construct an argument from his entire work, as he doesn't really head in that direction. The book I mentioned above takes more of an entire survey of "The Covenants" approach. He not only addresses the ideas Paedobaptist's have put forward in their works on the Covenants, but also Baptist's. If you ever get the chance and feel like reading the book, I think you'd actually appreciate the way in which the whole thing is approached. He's seeking unity much more than division. I just thought I'd make mention of it because it is such a different approach and very refreshing.Bryan Halenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-82185188375347379332013-06-11T07:17:12.175-04:002013-06-11T07:17:12.175-04:00Haven't read Nichols. If he doesn't appeal...Haven't read Nichols. If he doesn't appeal to Jer. 31 then his arguments are probably of the weakest variety, which I don't address here. Secondly, I'm quite sure his polemic does not overcome the deductive proof I offered because *sound* proofs cannot be refuted. Feel free to offer a deductive argument from his perspective and I'll try to show you his error. The baptist position is simply wrong, so if he has a valid argument, in that the form is cogent, then at least one of the premises must be false. Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-74530291365864922032013-06-11T03:20:36.838-04:002013-06-11T03:20:36.838-04:00Hey Ron,
I've enjoyed many of the topics cove...Hey Ron,<br /><br />I've enjoyed many of the topics covered and have been edified by the interaction in the comments area of those topics. I was wondering, in light of this topic, if you'd ever read Greg Nichols book, "Covenant Theology; A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants"? I think you would find that he doesn't appeal to the arguments you stated for his position. It's by far the most compelling approach to the subject I've read yet and I was on the fence for a while about it. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-80844345172425534662013-06-01T10:07:13.331-04:002013-06-01T10:07:13.331-04:00Both sides argue from silence. Baptists say that t...Both sides argue from silence. Baptists say that the NT is silent about commanding children to be baptized. Paedobaptists argue that the NT is silent on forbidding the practice. So, at the very least you may not use “silence” as a criteria. Not all arguments from silence are fallacious. A fallacy occurs when one argues from silence given the burden of proof to bring forth positive evidence. For instance, it would be fallacious to argue that the apostle Paul was an adulterer based upon the NT being silent on saying he wasn’t an adulterer. Yet it would not be fallacious to argue that he wasn’t an adulterer based upon the silence in the NT with respect to calling him an adulterer. The reason one is a fallacy and the other isn't is based upon burden of proof. What precedent is there to think the apostle was an adulterer? Is there any precedent to think he wasn't? <br /><br />Now then, children were always considered part of God’s people and whenever possible were to receive the mark of inclusion. Accordingly, the burden of proof based upon precedent points to the Baptist who wants to argue a change in precedent has occurred based upon silence with respect to repeating the precedent. <br /><br />Moreover, the NT, which spans about forty years, is silent with respect to a covenant child coming to faith and then receiving baptism. In other words, we don't see the baptistic model anywhere in the NT. To baptize adults on a mission field is not peculiar to baptistic thought. It's consistent with Reformed thought though. <br /><br />Finally, regarding "no clear teaching" in the NT for infant baptism, well is there clear teaching that bestiality is a sin in the NT, or do we presuppose continuity from the OT unless abrogated? Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-34126110022978440732013-06-01T08:06:54.183-04:002013-06-01T08:06:54.183-04:00Can you cite a single example where the New Testam...Can you cite a single example where the New Testament Church ever baptized an infant? An argument from silence is not very convincing. You are equating baptism as a sign of the New Covenant with circumcision as a sign of the Old Covenant. There is no clear teaching of that in the New Testament. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-75574245465613351382012-05-19T10:28:56.870-04:002012-05-19T10:28:56.870-04:00We do not treat people like elect anyway.
Don,
N...<i>We do not treat people like elect anyway.</i><br /><br />Don,<br /><br />Not only do we treat people as elect, we treat them as converted too. For instance, when Paul praised the saints in Ephesus for their faith he was granting the members of the churches (plural) in Ephesus (circular letter) the status of being elected in Christ and united to Him by the Spirit. He was regarding them according to their baptism without any conditional reservation. When he addressed the children in chapter six, they were regarded as being among those who were seated in heavenly places in Christ (chapter 1).Reformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-71518454116305217242011-08-03T13:58:12.919-04:002011-08-03T13:58:12.919-04:00New covenant and old are often confused with Cov o...New covenant and old are often confused with Cov of Works and Cov of Redemption. This 1st has to be corrected. Old covenant is the OT administration of the Cov of Grace which is why the 10 Commands were not a republication of the Adamic cov. And the new covenant is just a better admiistration of the covenant of grace after the reality of Christ has come. Scripture is clearly written to the visible covenant people, and they are addressed as if they are all saved. Proof, God says, leave the tares in with the wheat because you can't tell them apart always and the angels will separate at the end. Therefore the instruction is if one walks like a believer they are regarded as a believer. Other warnings and admonitions would be unnecessary of the books were only intended to be read by the elect. If one is tempted to think it was I hope they can see how seriously blinded they have become. <br /><br />Not only was the new covenant to be know the Lord, but also it was said, the law will be written on their heart. <br />So do you believe the law has been written on every person's heart in your church?<br />Of course not. So again this speaks only of the invisible covenant with the elect and how much stronger and better benefits the new covenant will offer. But it has nothing to do with who is included in the visible church or how to gain acceptance. <br />Acceptance is by a simple profession of faith as the Eunuch had and baptism is administered to such.<br />So when a Baptisticaly conditioned mind looks at scripture, wanting to be right, they mix the statements about the invisible covenant, the elect, with the visible church, wheat and tares. <br />When you compare apples with apples you come out there was no outcry of the mothers as to how this new covenant could be better if the children were no longer included and there was no statement it had changed and there was no argument explaining why children were no longer included. <br /><br />Ron you said:<br />The sign was to be put on all those that the people and prophets were to regard as God’s elect people. Again, the covenant included a promise of salvation. The covenant was made only with the elect, yet all who qualified to receive the mark of the covenant were to be regarded as God’s elect people (until they should demonstrate otherwise).<br /><br />I hope by this extreme language you do not believe in presumptive regeneration. <br />More clearly it might be good to say, were made partakers of the benefits of the covenant people and treated as any member. <br /><br />We do not treat people like elect anyway. We have nothing to do with who is elect. All our judgments are made based on visible outward conformity. So the children are treated as members, but we know they may not be yet converted so we pray for them and have great hope in the general promises, but God may not save all of them. we do not presume they are elect. <br /><br />Otherwise great article, keep putting this out, precise clear teaching on this is far to scarce and it is far too important especially with the heresy of dispensationalism weakening man's view of God, His plan of Redemption and so much more of the wordDon Phttp://donpartridge.wordpress.com/2011/06/11/covenant-of-works-clarifying-the-uses-of-covenant-in-scripture/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-6619218477165211662010-12-23T22:03:25.882-05:002010-12-23T22:03:25.882-05:00Covenant breaker is a term for one who no longer l...Covenant breaker is a term for one who no longer lives his life in accordance with the requirements of the covenant. The term and the theology behind it can be reconciled with the paedobaptist postion. The unconverted who receive the outward administration of the covenant are to be regarded as God's covenant children until such time they prove otherwise. <br /><br />Regarding Hebrews there are many warnings given in the book yet the warnings in Scripture end with statements such as "we're persuaded of better things of you - the things that accompany eternal life..." In other words, even though the authors of Scripture realize that non-elect persons are on the "roles" so to speak, Scripture regards them as united to Christ - hence, we're persauded of better things of you. Some might argue that Scripture is only written to the elect, but I would say that Scripture is written to the visible church which is treated as the elect. The reason I opt for the latter is that it is possible that the severe instructions written to the churches did not pertain to the elect because it is possible that those who were walking disorderly may have all been unconverted and not elect. In other words, the apostles and prophets had to regard the visible church as the elect because the only thing they knew was who was in the visible church. They did not know who was converted. <br /><br />Thoughts?<br /><br />RonReformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-16899691956724656342010-12-23T14:18:35.062-05:002010-12-23T14:18:35.062-05:00Hey Mr. Giacomo, I recently started reading your w...Hey Mr. Giacomo, I recently started reading your work on TAG and Covenant Theology and it has been very helpful.<br /><br />With that aside I would like to ask a question. Objections have been brought up recently by friends of mine in the Reformed baptist camp about Scripture's identification of "Covenant breakers".<br /><br />Well my question is, if the Covenant promises are made to the elect, does it follow that the unregenerate cannot be in the covenant as well? If so, why does the Old Testament Scripture use "Covenant Breakers'? Is it just to identify the same thing as John Identifies in 1 John 2:19? and the author of Hebrews identifies throughout the book?Resbyhttp://www.grassfireapologetics.wordpress.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-564824755737726862010-03-06T16:35:46.491-05:002010-03-06T16:35:46.491-05:00Daniel,
I'm not sure I'm following anythi...Daniel,<br /><br />I'm not sure I'm following anything you wrote, though I'm probably missing something. Baptism should never be repeated but given baptist theology re-baptisms are always in order since any crisis of faith would require another baptism since all baptisms are to follow true faith, so they say. <br /><br />BR,<br /><br />RonReformed Apologisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17398596496540697639noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-24271776.post-14466340614375445482010-03-06T15:17:58.575-05:002010-03-06T15:17:58.575-05:00For the Baptist, as long as one was baptized in th...For the Baptist, as long as one was baptized in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit the baptism is regarded as "efficacious" and there is never a need for another baptism. That is, if one is baptized and then walks away from the faith and demonstrates open rebellion then repents, the baptist grants no necessity for another baptism.<br /><br />If one who was demonstrably a non-Christian is capable of having a fitting baptism why would the baptizing of a covenant child present an offense?dudhduddhdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12386575757949129658noreply@blogger.com