Progressive Christianity

As many may know, there is quite a dangerous movement called “Progressive Christianity”. They seem to liberal Christianity’s (oxymoron) answer to today’s culture.

They embrace things like Woke and LBGQT+ and actually use Scripture to justify themselves. This movement also attracts people, such a several relatives of mine, who grew up in abusive Churches.
They love to use theologians that support them.

That is actually why I am bringing this question to this forum.

Matthew Vines, who is openly gay, is someone that is used by them. The following is what he says about Leviticus 18:22

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.
There are many passages of Scripture, dealing with the subject such as this particular Old Testament verse.
First of all, I would like to provide what an openly gay theologian says about it and then say a few things."

MATTHEW VINES
“
I do not believe it all that hard to see what is wrong with this; not to mention they start out with a fallacy right away.
However, I thought perhaps others here might think of a better way to show that Matthew Vines is all wet in what he says.

Tom

1. I am going to repeat myself with what I have counseled you on myriad occasions.

2. There are numerous passages in the NT that explicitly (didactically) deal with the issue of homosexuality and which incontrovertibly denounce it as an abomination, immoral, damnable, etc. (Rom 1:26,27; 1Cor 6:9; 1Tim 1:10; Jude 1:7). This last text makes clear that the OT prohibitions against any/all forms of homosexuality and various forms of sexual perversion are NOT abrogated by the "new covenant" but rather are to be understood as examples for all ages.

Sound exegesis of the various passages, both OT and NT which mention homosexuality are perspicuous in their condemnation.

3. You MUST accept that any that you choose to call "friends" and your "relatives" are embracing doctrine(s) and/or practices which are contrary to God's infallible Word. And in doing so, they MUST be considered unregenerate. This MUST demand of you that you a) distance yourself from them as they are darkness and of the Evil One, and b) debating with them concerning such things is futile, for their immediate need is the Gospel through and by which the Spirit works to bring regeneration so that they may, by God's mercy and grace, be brought to repentance and faith in the Lord Christ unto salvation.

Meditate on Paul's inspired words to the Corinthian church:

Dialogues with unbelievers over doctrine can actually be dangerous to ourselves and also sin.

A while back I learned from a man, Dean Gotcher of Authority Research about the dangers of dialogues with unbelievers on scripture/doctrine. Eve dialogued with Satan, bad move. She became deceived. Because she ended up questioning God's Word and also mishandled or twisted what God said.

In Matthew chapter 4 the exchange between Satan and Jesus has Jesus simply, correctly, quoting scripture, to refute Satan. Big difference.

With the ones that are in my life, who are unsaved, I do not ever discuss those 'political' hot topics. Because it's rooted in spiritual deception anyway. They don't get it.

The real problem is that my loved ones are not saved. So there can be no understanding of what I might say to them regarding for instance, the stand that even supposed Christians are now taking regarding abortion, homosexuality, or any other morality issue that is embraced by an unbeliever.

I find that it's important to pray always for those that I love and are deceived. I pray constantly for their regeneration and salvation. God's timing is not mine. It's hard to watch the deceived ones you love promote deception and lies.

But pray always, and look for or wait for those opportunities to share the gospel. You can only plant seeds or water those seeds. If you get to reap a harvest know that every false belief will be taken care of, as the Holy Spirit teaches and leads them into truth.
I see the embracing of false theology or 'political' abhorrent beliefs as symptoms. Its a symptom of spiritual deadness or at least of a weak and ignorant believer.
Pray always.

While I oppose the liberals that are teaching this so-called progressive Christianity, including the "Wokeness", feminism, and the LGBTQ supporters; I can't see how anything in Leviticus applies to a Christian, a New Covenant believer. The book itself declares it is for Israel:

"These are the commandments, which the LORD commanded Moses for the children of Israel in mount Sinai." (Lev 27:34 KJV)

The law of Moses was given specifically to Israel and not to the nations:

"And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?" (Deu 4:8 KJV)

There are commands in the New Covenant for Christians that are quotes from Leviticus as in 1 Peter. 1:16 "Be ye holy; for I am holy", and the well known command from Lev. 19:18 several times in the New Covenant as in Paul's quote: "For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, [b]Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself[b]." (Rom 13:9 KJV) These are for Christians because they are given in the New Covenant, not because they are in the law of Moses.

Moses prophesied that there was to be a coming prophet, who is Jesus, Acts 3:22,23, and it was then to him they were to listen:

"The LORD thy God will raise up unto thee a Prophet from the midst of thee, of thy brethren, like unto me; unto him ye shall hearken; According to all that thou desiredst of the LORD thy God in Horeb in the day of the assembly, saying, Let me not hear again the voice of the LORD my God, neither let me see this great fire any more, that I die not. And the LORD said unto me, They have well spoken that which they have spoken. I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren, like unto thee, and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him." (Deu 18:15-19 KJV)

Jesus did fulfill[complete] the law, Matt. 5:17 and abolished it per Eph. 2:15. The law was never given to the Gentiles, Rom. 2:14, 15. I find the Scriptures teach this, but I also find that there was God's law existing in Genesis for all men before the law of Moses; such as forbidding murder, adultery etc.

"(For until the law sin was in the world: but [b]sin is not imputed when there is no law. Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses[b], even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come." (Rom 5:13-14 KJV)

1. There is only ONE lawgiver (Jam 4:12); He who spoke on Mt. Sinai and wrote the Ten Commandments with His "finger" on the two tablets of stone who is the same Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son of God who embodied the moral law and who taught the same to His disciples (Heb 12:18ff). Therefore there is no dissimulation between the OT moral law, aka: The Ten Commandments and Jesus' teaching and the NT/New Covenant which are obligatory on the true believer.

2. Exegetical gymnastics performed by NCT advocates is revealed and rebutted here: Eschatological Fulfilment and the Confirmation of Mosaic Law.

3. There are over 2 dozen articles that deal with Christians and the law which you can find here: Calvinism and the Reformed Faith > "Praxis - The Christian Life" > The Christian and the Moral Law.

Pilgrim, this sort of dialogue is so profitable for me, because I usually learn something new each time. You referred to: "There is one lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy: who art thou that judgest another?" (Jas 4:12, KJV) I learned that the English "lawgiver" here is the Greek νομοθέτης nomothetes, and this is the only occurrence in the NT, but it occurs once in the LXX in the following, showing a similarity and probably what James had in mind:

"Appoint, O Lord, a lawgiver over them: let the heathen know that they are men. Pause." (Ps 9:20, LXXE)

But to your point, I agree God alone is the lawgiver, but I do not see that to mean that God gives the exact same law to all men in all times, in the details. There was the law about animal sacrifices in the Law, and from the account of Cain and Abel, it apparently existed there as well; but it is done away with in Christ. I see another continuous pattern starting in Genesis going through the Law and into the New Covenant, I mean working 6 days and the 7th is special, a day of rest and for Christians a day of worship and meditation on God. The early church honored Christ by meeting on the 1st day of the week, the Lord's Day instead of the 7th day of the week, the Sabbath. So the core value or meaning exists from creation, in the Law of Moses and into the New Covenant. But it is not presented to us as it is presented to Israel in Ex. 20:8-11 and Deut. 5:12-15.

In reading the command about coveting in the Law, it is expansive in Ex. 20:17 and Deut. 5:21; but when quoted by Paul in Rom. 7:7, 13:9 it is the basic "Thou shalt not covet". I believe man knew he was not to covet before Moses lived, as in Genesis 13:10,11; and I believe that probably the core teaching of all Ten Commandments existed in Genesis as well as in the New Covenant. I do not need the Ten Commandments from the Old Covenant, because I have the same in the New Covenant. My understanding is as taught in the Appendix of the 1646 First London Confession of Faith:

Appendix by Benjamin Keach to the 1646 London Confession of Faith:
"Though we be not now sent to the law as it was in the hand of Moses, to be commanded thereby, yet Christ in His Gospel teacheth and commandeth us to walk in the same way of righteousness and holiness that God by Moses did command the Israelites to walk in, all the commandments of the Second Table being still delivered unto us by Christ, and all the commandments of the First Table also (as touching the life and spirit of them) in this epitome or brief sum, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, etc.,” Matt.22:37,38,39,40; Rom.13:8,9,10."

My problem is with the traditional tripartite division of the Law of Moses into "moral, ceremonial & civil" and it is similar to the problem I had as a teenager accepting that there are 7 Dispensations taught in the Bible. I could find them in the footnotes of the Scofield, but not in the Scriptures themselves. That tripartite tradition is then built upon to interpret a passage like Eph. 2:15 by saying this did not apply to the "moral law" as seen in Ten Commandments, meaning as it stood in the Law of Moses. So, the first step in man's tradition was to divide the law into 3 pieces and then upon that tradition, say only two of the three were abolished in Eph. 2:15. I do not become antinomian by believing that verse means the entire law of Moses was abolished, because God's enduring law for all men in all times was existing prior to Moses and still exists today.

John Gill is one of my favorite pillars of the faith and on Lev. 26:46 he comments: "These [are] the statutes, and judgments, and laws,.... Which refer not only to those in this chapter, but in all the preceding chapters in this book, and respect them all, whether ceremonial, moral, or judicial, which may be signified by these three words:"

That is common among almost all the men of God out of the past whom I admire and love; but I believe it to be a tradition that can be misleading. Who then determines what is moral in Leviticus or any other part of the Law of Moses. Isn't any law commanded to man in its context, "moral"? I do not feel I have departed so far from orthodoxy in this and I do not separate from the body of Christ over this. I do strive to adhere to Sola Scriptura.

How did this discussion go from "Progressive Christianity" to NCT (New Covenant Theology)?

I hold to the 1689 LBCF and like the WCF although there are differences; both are CT Confessions and completely at odds with NCT.

Tom

Hi Tom, my response was to address your statement "not to mention they start out with a fallacy right away", which I understood you to refer to the quote you gave "Christ fulfilled the Old Testament law, and the New Testament teaches that Christians should live under the new covenant rather than the old one." I'm just not sure about all the details of NCT, yet in the past I had read some of their writings online. But up front, do you find the 1689 Baptist confession to be so drastically opposed to the First London Confession? I'll admit that at age 80 I've gone through various understandings as I worked at studying my way out of Dispensationalism.

The first powerful book I read was The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination by Loraine Boettner and that was a real kick start out of Dispensational fundamentalism. I'll admit, making such a drastic change in understanding from a prior system one had been taught was for me scary, and unsettling. I purchased Gill's Body of Divinity, A. A. Hodge's Outlines of Theology, R. L. Dabney, Boyce and several others and I guess they all are theological works that embrace Covenant Theology, yet I learned my basic understanding of God's word from them.

I embrace believer's immersion, so when I began to notice that when I'd read such straight forward, clear cut beliefs, based solely on Scripture on most doctrine from the Presbyterians theologians; when it came to baptism, they tended to go into what I think of as theological construction instead of basing a belief on clear statements of Scripture. Over the years I came to view a few verses as being quite emphatic in the statements, and binding for me.

"Now these things, brethren, I have in a figure transferred to myself and Apollos for your sakes; that in us ye might learn not to go beyond the things which are written; that no one of you be puffed up for the one against the other." (1Cor 4:6, ERV)

"Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded you: and lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." (Matt 28:19-20, ERV)

"and I fear, lest, as the serpent did beguile Eve in his subtilty, so your minds may be corrupted from the simplicity that is in the Christ;" (2Cor 11:3, YLT)

I read Gal. 6:15, 16 as teaching the New Covenant believers are a continuation of the Old Covenant believers, both are the people of God. I think of it as David as being king over the Old Covenant believers, in type, and Jesus Christ as the king over us New Covenant believers as well as the Old covenant believers.

I hope I'm not at such a variance from the brethren on here that it puts me out of Christian fellowship. As I mentioned before, having been raised on Scofield footnotes that taught things often totally contradicted by Scripture; I came to shy from man's theological constructions. I know the Trinity is a theological construction in order to explain and defend the clearly stated doctrine of One God who is Three Persons: Father, Son & Holy Spirit, so logic forces me to accept the Trinity. Just as logic forces me to be a believer in double predestination.

BUT, I definitely reject the liberalism and so-called progressivism in the apostate religious groups that your post addressed.

You mentioned a few issues, but I don't have time to deal with all of them.


Actually, if I understanding what you are getting at especially after the issue of NCT is the main topic. I am well aware that many people who hold to NCT say that the First London Confession is a NCT Confession, whereas the 1689 LBCF is a CT Confession.

I am not expert, but in recent years I have felt a need to study the Reformed Confessions. I think I can safely say that both the First and Second London Confessions are both based on CT.

NCT is a relatively new theology that attempts to bridge the gap between CT (both Baptist and Presbyterian) and Dispensationalism.

Perhaps I have only ran into a few fringe people who hold to NCT; however the ones I have run into have left me with a bad taste in my mouth. They said in language that was not open for discussion, that CT is basically heresy and although they did not want it on me; but that is the bottom line with them.


Please do not misunderstand me, I am not saying there is there are not differences between the CT that comes from the WCF and the First and Second London Baptist Confession, but that is a different matter.

By the way, although I hold to the 1689 LBCF, I have tremendous respect for Paedo-Baptist Confessions such as the WCF. In fact, RC Sproul was my favorite theologian.

By the way. "Progressive Christianity" should not be misunderstood to be NCT. Progressive Christianity is actually a very liberal movement that uses the Bible, but divorces itself from traditional Christianity on issues such as abortion, LBGQT+ and other issues. They use Liberal commentators to show that passages like Romans chapter one, has nothing to do with "homosexuality".

I am providing you a link in case you are interested concerning the 8 points of Progressive Christianity.
https://progressivechristianity.org/the-8-points/

Tom

FYI, one of the active 'agents' in the Progressive Christianity movement was Bishop John Shelby Spong. That should tell you much about what this apostate group is. (cf. Wikipedia John Shelby Spong)

When the Progressive Christianity page at the bottom states they are an "evolving faith", that is enough to alarm me:

"Beloved, while I was giving all diligence to write unto you of our common salvation, I was constrained to write unto you exhorting you to contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered unto the saints." (Jude 1:3, ERV)

I grew up in Dispensationalism on the Scofield, many years ago. After leaving that unbiblical system I came to view it as heresy for two main reasons: their teaching that there are to be Old Covenant style sacrifices in their idea of a 1000 year reign of Christ on earth, and their insistence that there are two separate peoples of God. I see in the MacArthur Study Bible that blasphemous idea of sacrifices in their millennium is continued and called a memorial. I do not see why you have the memorial with the Christ there with you.

So, I'm not sure how closely my view of the Scriptures lines up with official NCT. I was attracted to the 1646 Confession mainly on two points, their brevity and closeness to the doctrines stated so closely to the statements of Scripture, and the following statement on law:

"XXV.

The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Savior for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him.

John 3:14,15, 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; 1 Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5, 5:8; Acts 5:30,31, 2:36, 1 Cor. 1:22,24."

I try to check the YLT and Interlinear NTs to see if the definite article is actually in front of "law". I have never been a Jew so the Law of Moses was never given to me. Yet, I believe every man in every time has the basics of the Ten Commandments within him from creation. So, I've always been under law, just not the Mosaic Law.

When I read Paul making references to the law when speaking to Gentiles, I keep in mind that Paul quotes the OT often so it would be natural for him to express himself even to Gentiles from the OT perspective. He taught that the OT was an example for us so I think it natural to speak from that viewpoint.

The older theologians I read from I suppose would all be followers of CT, but I never felt a separation from them or a problem. John Gill was a historical pre-mil, but he also taught the "the Spiritual Reign of Christ, in his Body of Divinity. I tend to be probably classed as post-mil, but his Spiritual Reign of Christ is how I view the millennium.

Pilgrim
I did not know about John Shelby Spong involved in that apostate group; however can't say I am surprised.

Tom

Eddie

Just so you know; although I am what one might call a 1689 Federalist. I have tremendous respect for Paedo-Baptists such as Pilgrim.
In fact it is on the Highway years ago, that I cut my Calvinist teeth.

It might be because of that, that I have sought hard to understand the covenant positions of Paedo-Baptists (especially the WCF kind) and the CT held in the 1689 LBCF.

It was during that study, that I began to realize that my position before was more in line with Calvinist Baptists who held to Dispensationalism, than it was to the 1689 LBCF.

I then realized how little I really knew and therefore started studying the subject in greater detail. Some of that study came from the Highway's rich resources; on which I thank Pilgrim for all the information he has complied over the years. Of course, some of that information came directly from Pilgrim himself. Can't say that I have always been his best student over the years, right Pilgrim?

I am sure I have given him a few headaches over the years; but I am still here and would be all the poorer if I left.

There are some good book recommendations on Paedo-Baptists CT on this site on which I recommend.
However, I hope Pilgrim does not mind, I would like to recommend a great book coming from a 1689 Federalist perspective.

It is called 'The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology' by Pascal Denault http://www.rbap.net/our-books/the-distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/

One thing studying both sides has done for me, is made me realize how both sides of the baptism debate often speak right past each other.

Ever seen a Baptist defend a Paedo-Baptist before? I have been known to do this from time to time, when I see a position being misrepresented. When I did, I have made a few Paedo-Baptist friends and made a few of my fellow Baptists mad. Lol

Something else that people might not realize, is that in 1689 Federalism, baptism and the Lords Supper are "means of grace". Believe me, that is something that shocks Dispensational Baptists, lol.

Tom

Tom, you know that my paedobaptist position is not typical of the majority of paedobaptists. I stand with Jonathan Edwardian's view which the late John Gerstner also agreed vs eg, his protégé R.C. Sproul, Sr. who held to the majority view. For me, there are serious errors held by individuals on both sides of the never-ending debate. On the New Earth, it won't be a topic even remembered.

Pilgrim

Right you are about it being a never ending debate. That is mainly the reason I rarely let myself get involved in the debate.

I do not mind telling people my beliefs on the issue and as I indicated I hate it when others are being misrepresented.
I have also run into quite few Paedo-Baptists that hold to "presumptive regeneration". I found out the hard way, not to get into a discussion about that issue, mainly because it is like jumping in a hornets net.

Come to think about it; if memory serves me correct, one of the most lively debates on the Highway, was when a certain Paedo-Baptist who believes in presumptive regeneration came on the Highway years ago.

Perhaps you remember it?

Tom

Tom, I don't worry myself over the pedobaptists or stress my differences of that topic when among those holding to the WCF and similar historic confessions, for I am in so much agreement with them on weightier matters. In my desire to go no further than explicit statements of the Scriptures my view on baptism is rather simple. It was a command of Christ, so I consider it an "ordinance" just as I do the Lord's Supper that Jesus commanded.

If I were to label it further, I'd go only so far as to say they both are symbols of the inner reality. I find no Scripture labeling it "covenant of baptism" or calling it a "sign of baptism" and I personally do not refer to it as a "means of grace" or a "sacrament". It appears to me that Acts 2:38; 22:16, indicate that the symbol of baptism can be seen or spoken of as the reality, the terms used interchangeably. I believe this because of how the Lord worded the ordinance of the Communion, where he said the bread was his body and the wine was his blood that was shed for many. He was sitting there before them so it has to be seen as a symbol as I read it.

In recently weeks I've had an occurrence within our family that puzzles me. My younger sister who is already in her 70s had renewed attendance in her SBC church. She had professed her faith and was baptized as a teenager. She and her late husband both attended this same SBC church for years, but due to various factors they had lapsed in regular attendance. She has recently renewed her commitment and I suppose repented of her backsliding; but, she then had herself re-baptized.

I questioned her why she had herself baptized again and she seemed to base her decision mainly on feelings rather than some biblical reason for it. I do not find it biblical and maybe this is not a question that would even come up with a pedobaptist, but as an ordinance and symbol, should it be repeated? I know some men in the pulpit preach in unsound way to cause many to doubt their salvation so that they can get more people running repeatedly down the aisle, seemingly to increase their 'numbers', but I'm not aware of people being baptized again.

Any thoughts on that situation? Am I correct that among pedobaptists, there would be no re-baptisms such as that?

DiscipleEddie
First, I would like to comment on the last part.

You are definitely correct that Paedo-Baptists would not do re-baptisms in such cases.
I of course am a Credo-Baptist and although I definitely can’t speak for all Credo-Baptists. However, based on what you told me about your sister getting “rebaptized”, although I certainly understand why she wanted to get re-baptized. I never the less, do not believe it is biblical.
Does she somehow believe that she lost her salvation and got saved again; and now needs to be re-baptized?

Although I believe baptism is a “secondary issue”, never the less it is still an important issue and therefore, although I do not believe we should separate from other believers over the issue. Never the less, I don’t want to make light of it either.
RC Sproul was my favorite theologian and he was a Paedo-Baptist. So that should tell you a little about me.
However, there are sure a lot of people on both sides who really take the matter seriously (too seriously).
For example, one Paedo-Baptist I know told me in no uncertain terms that all Credo-Baptists are sinning because they will not get their own children baptized.
I thought I would ask the person, if it would be a sin for someone who believed in Credo-Baptism to get their baby baptized?
She said:
This person of course forgets some very important things from Scripture. “Whatsoever is not of faith is sin.” (Romans 14:23)
Any Credo-Baptist that got their baby baptized while still believing it is wrong, is doing it to appease someone else, rather than doing it because they genuinely believe the Bible teaches it.


Simply stated, what you are saying here; is more in line with the Credo-Baptism I held to as a Dispensationalists, rather than either 1689 Federalism, or the WCF.
Understand here, that in CT (both in the 1689 LBCF and the WCF), they have no problem calling baptism and the Lord Supper “sacraments” or “means of grace”; provided that it is not associated with Roman Catholicism. That can be explained further, but at the moment I don’t want this to get longer.

As for saying: “covenant baptism”, or “sign of baptism”, there is nothing wrong with them as long as one understands what they mean. There are of course differences between WCF CT and 1689 CT, but if one understands the CT of the positions, they are ok. One must remember that the word “Trinity” is not in the Bible, yet the doctrine of the Trinity is very biblical.



Tom

Pilgrim

My memory is failing me. What is the main difference between the view held by John Gerstner and his protégé R.C. Sproul, Sr.

Tom

Gerstner was an Edwardian on this matter as I also am. The infamous statement of Edwards' view of children, paraphrased, was "Little vipers in diapers". In short, unless children, are regenerated, repent and believe on Christ with a saving faith, they shall perish. Sproul, on the other hand, held to a mild form of presumptive regeneration. I have a video discussion between Sproul and Gerstner on this subject and it is clear they were not in 100% agreement. You know my position on this, or you should. ALL children are in dire need of salvation and thus the most important thing anyone, especially parents can and must do is make known the Gospel to them and pray that God would draw them to Christ by the Spirit's work; convicting them of their sin/sinfulness, of their absolute need of Christ's perfect righteousness, and the judgment to come. Baptism is OBJECTIVE and not as many/most view it as SUBJECTIVE, i.e., it is outward sign of one's inward reality, which taken to it's logical conclusion... all who are baptized are saved.

Thanks, although I am a Credo I agree that children are "vipers in diapers".
Yet that surprises me that Sproul would not agree with that. Mainly, because I have been on lot of boards with Paedo Baptists who turned out to believe in Presumptive Regeneration and they seemed to believe that their position was the majority position and said that RC Sproul's position is strange.

Tom

I know you were paraphrasing Edwards.
But did’t he say they were vipers in covenant diapers?

The reason why I ask this, is because many people believe adding the word “covenant” makes a big difference.
Need to admit though, I am sure what the difference is.

Tom

I've not seen "covenant" used in Edwards' description of children, whether 'covenant children' i.e, children of professing believers or not. Gerstner, one of the foremost authorities on Edwards didn't think it made one wit of difference and thus thought of all children as "little vipers in diapers", i.e., unregenerate and in need of the Spirit's supernatural working in them, bringing forth genuine repentance and saving faith. As stated above, I am in 100% agreement with Edwards and Gerstner & co..