Joe: The Covenant theologian confuses God's one unchanging "PURPOSE of
grace" with a mythical "COVENANT of grace." He thinks that because we reject
his so-called covenant of grace we are therefore dispensational and believe
in two ways of salvation. We have not yet figured out whether Chad is an
inconsistent Covenant Theology or an inconsistent New Covenant Theologian.
He is such a sweet guy that he has so far escaped being burned at the stake.
He keeps us honest. JGR
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joseph R. Terrell" <pastor@...>
To: <soundofgrace@...>
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 4:16 PM
Subject: Re: [soundofgrace] infant baptism
> It may be my own ignorance, but I have always been puzzled by the one
> convenant/multiple administrations theme of CT. In the United States, we
> have one constitution, but a multiplicity of administrations of it. We
may
> bicker quite a bit about how to administer that constitution, but both
major
> parties do agree to the same constitution. (Please do not allow this to
> become a political debate - I know there are some on both sides who would
> accuse the other side of overthrowing the constitution. Just go with me
a
> bit on this :-) ) However, there are some parties who, if they gained
> control over the gov't could not be counted as a different admin. of the
> same constitution; parites whose basic beliefs run contrary to the very
> essence of the const. For example, if the communist party were to gain
> control and have their way, it could not be an administration of the
present
> constitution, for the tyranny of communism is entirely in opposition to
the
> freedom of a democratic republic.
>
> In the same sense, how can a covenant of bondage be simply a different
> administration of the covenant of freedom; cov. of individual
responsibility
> a differnt admin of cov. of federal headship, a covenant of the reminder
of
> sin a different admin. of the covenant of forgetting sin, works~grace,
> death~life, and on and on.
>
> There is a covenant of life of which there has been only one
> administration: the gospel. It is true that the gospel was not known in
all
> its details until the coming of Christ, and it is true that Grace Covenant
> believers in old times worshipped according to various forms. But GC
> believers have never worshipped by any other reality than Christ and faith
> in Him. The Lord said, "The time is coming and now is when they that
> worship the father will worship him in spirit and truth. Notice that he
did
> not say that it was only a COMING thing, but was already the PRESENT
truth:
> God's people have never worshipped him in any other way. The CG believer
> was a child during the times of the OC, and his life was no different than
> that of a slave. And even though the coming of Christ has made him an
adult
> in the household of God, it has not changed his relationship to God nor
> changed the content of His blessing: he has merely gone from promise to
> possession; from being an heir of the father's wealth to being a possessor
> of it. (See Gal. 4) To insist that a present day believer must once again
> come under the jurisdiction of the law is to say an adult must take the
> place of a child, and worse yet, that a worshipper must become an
idolater!
> (See Gal 4.8,9) Note that Paul, talking to converted GENTILES, who
formerly
> served idols says that accepting the demands of the Judaizers would be to
> return to the weak and beggarly elements to which they were formerly in
> bondage. I do not accuse all CT'ers of this, for not all remain
consistent
> with their theology and I suppose some just do not see the necessary
outcome
> of what they profess.
>
> The OC is a one administration of the covenant of works, not grace. The
CW
> is another eternal covenant, if you will, but one by which no one but the
> Lord Jesus has ever been justified.
>
> Joe T
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Reisinger" <24jreisinger26@...>
> To: <soundofgrace@...>
> Sent: Thursday, December 09, 2004 2:37 PM
> Subject: [soundofgrace] infant baptism
>
>
> Is it possible that the following quote shows the REAL REASON Reformed
> Baptist have never dented the Reformed Paedo-baptist?
>
> A great deal of Baptist apologetics, as it seems to me, has failed to
come
> to terms with the indubitable fact that the Covenant of Grace, although it
> exhibits diversity of administrations in the time of promise and in the
time
> of fulfillment, is none-the-less one covenant. As we shall see in a
> subsequent chapter, Reformed Paedo-baptists argue from this fact to a very
> wrong conclusion, namely, that as children were baptized under theold
> economy, so they ought to be baptized under the new. Neverthe less their
> contention is correctî şthe covenant of grace is one on all ages. In my view
> Baptists will never seriously disturb Reformed Paedo-baptists until they
see
> this. The divisive, atomistic approach of so much contempory Baptist
> apologetics is about effective at this point as a shot-gun against a
Sherman
> tank.
>
>
>
> Children of Abraham, by David Kingdon, Carey Publications, 5 Fairland
> Close, Haywars Heather, Sussex RH16 3EF, 1973
>
>
>
> I have never met a single Pastor, except Fred Malone (he was first a
> baptist then a presbuterian and then a Baptist again), who was converted
> from a Paedo-baptist position without first leaving Covenant Theology. I
> think Kingdon has in backwards. Malone's book is the best "out
theologizing"
> the paedo-baptist that has been written but I doubt it will convert any
> Presbyerian pastors. I hope I am wrong. JGR
>
>
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
> --
> Read the Sound of Grace pages at
> http://www.soundofgrace.com
>
> To unsubscribe, send ANY message to:
soundofgrace-unsubscribe@...
>
> To view our online archive go to our web page at
> http://www.associate.com/groups/soundofgrace
>
>
>
>