Originally Posted by Robin
I've got a lot more reading to do it looks like!
Re: "Republication" [of the covenant of works in the Mosaic covenant]... I can supply you with relevant reading material. grin

Originally Posted by Robin
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
One of the major issues with this view is that it attributes "merit" to the old covenant/kingdom whereby those within that covenant were given 'rewards' for obedience/works and grace is either greatly diminished or altogether rejected.
If one considers progressive revelation I'm not sure that is an accurate description. The "obedience of faith" (Romans 16:26) was surely as applicable in the Old Covenant as it is in the New. The "merit" was never in the person but in the object of that faith and demonstrated by their obedience. It was an "already and not yet" kind of faith which drove those who never saw the fulfillment of the OT promises, except through the eyes of faith.
I was referring to the "Republication/Two Kingdom" theory being taught at WTS Cal. and currently being investigated by the OPC. The Renihans are/were students there when they wrote the paper.

Originally Posted by Robin
Originally Posted by Pilgrim
It is because of this bifurcation (large discontinuity) between the old covenant and new covenant, that the credo-Baptist justifies their position. Put simply, for the credo-baptist the New Covenant means something totally or mostly different from the Old Covenant. Whereas the historic paedobaptist view of the covenant of grace is that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant with its blessings having a new universality and spirituality.
Is that really an accurate representation of Baptist belief? While they certainly do assert that the covenants are different from one another with respect to membership in the covenant community (the family of Abraham vs the family of faith) and application (physical descendants vs spiritual descendants, different signs and seals and covenantal conditions), the paper I linked to most certainly asserts that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old, and applies eternally and spiritually rather than temporally and phyisically. I know better than to charge you with misrepresenting the Baptist position, my friend, but please just elaborate on how you reached that conclusion from the presentation. Or from other sources, perhaps, which I'm not familiar with.
I do believe I have correctly represented the Baptist view. In no way would I consciously nor deliberately misrepresent it. IF I have, my sincerest apologies. I have publicly debated this baptist issue with some 'notables', e.g., John Reisenger (years ago) and written a major paper on the issue while at WTS (Philly) as well as being involved, much to my dismay, in debates here on the board on several occasions. So, I do think I have at least a reasonably good grasp of the subject.

Due to the time and space needed and my honest near total lack of interest any longer in debating this particular subject, I will not offer any further comments evilgrin... other than to say that the bottom line is:
1. Baptists insist that baptism belongs only to believers (an intenable positiion), which signifies the recipients faith and salvation.

2. Paedobaptists (me in particular) insist that baptism belongs to all who make a CREDIBLE confession of faith and their children, which sigifies how salvation is obtained from God, aka: the gospel, and is sealed to those who have been regenerated and believed upon Christ.

Summarizing, most all Baptists see baptism as being primarily a personal thing, e.g., "An outward sign of an inward reality" vs. Paedobaptists see baptism objectively and primarily as an outward declaration of the gospel.

If you are interested in listening to a debate between Dr. Robert B. Strimple vs. Dr. Fred Malone - WSC March 10, 1999, which I think fairly represents both sides, you can access them HERE, under the "Sacraments" heading.

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]