If one views the substance of the Covenant of Grace as synonymous with or being in substance the same as say the Abrahamic Covenant however, then paedobaptism is the logical conclusion.
Ryan Davidson Five Reasons For Considering The 1689 Confession of Faith (November, 2017).
Recently a friend pointed me to this article on the Founders Ministries website. It is a good and fair summary of the majority position within contemporary Particular Baptist theology.
This particular statement stood out as an excellent summary of the historic Christian view, and particularly of the Reformed understanding of the continuity of the covenant of grace. I understand that some Particular Baptists may have difficulty hearing critiques of their theology, piety, and practice from Reformed quarters but in this case, this passage comes from a Particular Baptist writer, who is articulating one of the differences between Particular Baptist theology and Reformed theology. Perhaps his way of putting it will make sense because he has articulated the Reformed view very well.
Resources
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- Resources On The Unity Of The Covenant Of Grace
- Engaging With 1689
- Resources On The Role Of Abraham In Redemptive History
- Video: The Abrahamic Paradigm
- The Reformed Churches Confess Infant Baptism
- Resources For Those Beginning To Study Covenant Theology
- Resources on Covenant Theology and Infant Baptism
So are the “1689 Federalists” now the majority in the PB world? I know there was some disagreement between their movement and the more traditional American PB view some years back, with a number of old curmudgeons resisting. 🙂
Well, I take it that Founders represents a significant number of folk, rather more than say ARBCA. It’s just a guess on my part.
One thing that has always bothered me is the Baptist hermenutic of avoidance. I have not seen it as properly articulated before as it is here. By that I mean, “We will not follow that interpretation of scripture because it might lead to baptizing babies. And because we have agreed apriori that baptizing babies can only mean one thing and that one thing is wrong, we will not go there,” – I have concluded that what they are avoiding is Erastianism or what I call “The Credo-Baptist Boogeyman”
It did not occur to me that this is what they are doing until I listened to the debate between RC Sproul and John MacArthur. If you pay close attention to MacArthur’s argument, he does not address any paedobaptist conception of baptism at all. It’s almost as if he’s never heard of one. What he is arguing against though is the power of the state over the church and not the practice of infant baptism as practiced in the Reformed churches. It is what animates the prevalent anti-paedobaptist sentiment within Baptist circles in my opinion. Because they believe that only the regenerate are baptized, they fear that we are baptizing everyone including those who will become false converts. And those false converts will eventually do to them what was done to Bunyan.
But the doctrine of baptism that they impute upon the Reformed tradition is alien to what all the Reformed confessions put forth as ably presented by John Stott and Alec Motyer in their book on infant baptism according to the teaching of the 39 Articles.
The more you think about it, the more you realize that contrary to their opinion, Baptist theology is not straight-forward neither are several of their interpretations the apostolic practice. There are far too many loopholes to count.