I’m glad I revisisted, as I’ve since gone through Kline’s lectured review of Kingdom Prologue, and am currently a pretty- dyed-in-the-wool Klinian. The first time through I hadn’t even heard of Kline!

I’m also floored by the fact that Bob LaRocca led that particular Reformed Baptist discussion, a Brother who happens to be my hero many episodes later when he championed Theology’s sovereign rein over philosophy and every other science (I believe it was a PfT podcast). Brilliant!

Why isn’t he on more? At least to serve as a mulligan for fruitful disputation, of which there hasn’t been much since his last appearance, in my outsider’s opinion. The Political Conservatism podcast in particular, I think, didn’t find a positive reception in this respect. You could do (and have done) so much more!

Here’s to presenting at least two qualified sides to a discussion that at its foundation is thoroughly Reformational!

Israelites built temples, so should we.
Israelites waged war on God’s enemies, so should we.
Israelites offered priestly sacrifices to God, so should we.
Israelites were to expand the boarders of the Kingdom, so should we.

relate to the Old Covenant, i.e. the Mosiac Covenant. Baptist repeatedly fail to make the proper distinction between Abraham and Moses. Circumcision was given to Abraham not Moses. The New Covenant is new in relation to the Mosaic covenant, not Abrahamic. The NT repeatedly never contrast the New covenant with the Abrahamic. It always contrasts the New with the Mosaic and the Mosaic with the Abrahamic (2 Cor. 3; Gal. 3 & 4; Hebrews 8 – 10). It explicitly redefines or does away with the things you mentioned. Yet it never does this with the initiation of our children. It never states that was one of those shadowy things of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant that has been done away with by the New Covenant, because it wasn’t. I know it makes clear what a true child of Abraham is, but that’s another matter altogether – one that existed even in the Old Covenant (John 8:39; Rom. 2:29, 4:16; Ph. 3:3, etc). Just because that is stated doesn’t mean that Abraham’s children stop initiating their children. It just makes explicit what should have been understood from the beginning, i.e. not to trust in outward signs and physical relation but the God to whom the sign and your parents point to.

Regarding:

…such a covenant theology taught within the tradition (most clearly nuanced in the last century by Vos, Ridderbos, and Kline) cannot allow for a type/antitype distinction within an eschatological institution such as the Church.

However, it can allow for an already/not yet distinction within an eschatological institution such as the church. There are still “not yet” realities for which the church must account, which brings me to your comment:

Furthermore, a paedo-baptistic conception betrays a Reformed understanding of the spirituality of the church, that the covenant life (imperatives) of the church is founded upon the indicatives of union with Christ.

This doesn’t undermine the spirituality of the church but instead allows for more than this one use of the imperatives (or law) that you espouse, i.e. it allows for more than just the third use of the law to norm our lives. It also allows for the first use of the law, which is to drive God’s elect to Christ by, to quote Calvin, “show[ing] God’s righteousness, that is, the righteousness alone acceptable to God, it warns, informs, convicts, and lastly condemns, every man of his own unrighteousness.”

According to your spirituality of the church there would be no need of this, because the church only consists of the regenerate. You don’t seem to have room in your theology for the visible church which, “Chris has given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints…” (WCF 25.3). For you the church just seems to be the gathered saints that are being perfected, not the place where the gathering and perfecting take place.

So a true “Reformed understanding of the spirituality of the church” takes into account the “not yet” realities of the church and incorporates both the imperatives (i.e. law) and the gospel not only to perfect the saints but also to gather them.

One last note, which I don’t have time right now to elaborate on much, and that is that election is distinct from covenant. The former is administered via the latter. And in this present age there are those who are not elect who have an external relation to the covenant, i.e. they attend the visible church.

The entire point of my argument is that credo-baptism is more consistent with covenant theology and a redemptive-historical hermeneutic than a paedo-baptist position. My contention is that paedo-baptistic reformed theologians stray from their views (everywhere else proposed except in the context of this issue) of covenant and eschatology by bifrucating salvific benefits accross their divided conception of covenant and election unto glory. The point, to be very clear, is that I am a Baptist because I’m Reformed – because such a covenant theology taught within the tradition (most clearly nuanced in the last century by Vos, Ridderbos, and Kline) cannot allow for a type/antitype distinction within an eschatological institution such as the Church. Furthermore, a paedo-baptistic conception betrays a Reformed understanding of the spirituality of the church, that the covenant life (imperatives) of the church is founded upon the indicatives of union with Christ. Just as the Mosaic covenant was founded upon their election as a people and their redemption from Egypt, so the New covenant community are those who have been elected in Christ, redeemed by his work, and are now called to covenant life on the basis of those realities. In every other context in reformed theology, what I just argued would be affirmed. However, when the baptism issue is raised, election is rendered utterly distinct from covenant, as though the former is eschatological and the latter (THE CHURCH) is typological as it was in the typal-kingdom of Israel.

You see, I asked myself the question, “Okay, why there is a disagreement on baptism?” Unfortunately I was reading too much Calvin, Boston, Vos, Ridderbos, Kline, and Beale while I was asking.

Bob

Whether or not baptists can call themselves reformed may seem like a moot point to some, but it is a very important one, because by doing so they are concealing the important distinctions to many. It is not until someone says, “Okay, I’m going to find out why there is a disagreement on baptism,” that one sees the greater distinctions. Unfortunately many may never do this. And as a result the great treasure that is Reformed theology remains hidden from them, because they operate under the assumption that there isn’t a huge difference, as I did for some time.

Particular Baptist or something other than Reformed (or Calvinistic for that matter) would highlight the differences more and perhaps raise the awareness of more people that there are significant, underlying differences that result in the difference of baptismal practice. And just perhaps, more would consider the differences and make a conscious decision to be reformed or baptist.

It just makes one wonder why one group is determined to hold on to moniker Reformed when it causes more confusion than it provides help. It seems that it can only be for selfish reasons.

I see. To my knowledge Bob subscribes to the London Baptist Confession. Many consider that a “reformed” confession, but I’m begging the question at this point.

I agree that a Van Tilian apologetic is “most consistently reformed,” but my question was due to considering the baptist reformed based on his degree of adherence to Reformed theologians/apologists/etc, instead of the confessions of the Reformed churches. When did this become the determining factor of whether or not one is reformed?

Specifically regarding Van Til, I thought we made it clear we were stating our conviction that a Van Tilian apologetic is most consistently reformed. Certainly there are many non-Van Tilian reformed theologians. That wasn’t the point of the comments. It is our firm position that Van Til most consistently applied the system of doctrine taught in the reformed confessions to the area of apologetics.

Jeff was deciding on his response to his introduction because he had “been at presbytery.”
Jim: “Yes, we have.”
Jeff: “A long and productive day…”
[laughter]
Jim: “… tongue in cheek.”

It is my understanding that the presbytery meetings of the church are very important to the functioning of church government in that the ministers and elders come together as a body of believers to take care of the needs of the church. From my understanding, the Word is preached at these meetings, candidates for the ministry are examined, missionaries may be called, judicial matters are worked on, and the work of the church is performed. Was this particular meeting not productive? It seemed to be made the brunt of a joke at the beginning of the show.

Thanks for reading.

I just got around to listening to the first 30 or so minutes of this installment, but don’t have the time to finish listening just yet. I did, however, want to briefly mention something on Moise Amyraut. You might want to take a look at Muller’s brief treatment of the controversy surrounding the Saumur theologians in PRRD, 1.76-77. His assessment seems to be a bit more congenial towards Amyraut and other hypothetical universalists of the 17th c. than you all are willing to be. Consider particularly the following,

“On none of these issues, however, did the Reformed churches rupture into separate confessional bodies or identify a particular theologically defined group as beyond the bounds of the confessions, as had been the case at the Synod of Dort. Amyraut was, after all, exonerated by several national synods in France, and the debate of his ‘hypothetical universalism’ did not lead to the charge of heterodoxy against others, like Davenant, Martinius, and Alsted, who had, both at Dort and afterward, maintained similar lines of argument concerning the extent of Christ’s satisfaction.” (76)

I’m no fan of hypothetical universalism, but we should at least keep in mind that they were not considered confessionally heterdox in their own day.

The pattern is fairly clear, since the Reformation. The Ref begins, but some don’t like the direction or the speed–the anabaptist mvt results. “You guys don’t go far enough, but we like your theological method.”

In England, the Ref proceeds (did it ever arrive?), and there are those who want certain fruits of the reformation, but who refuse other aspects. Keep a Ref soteriology (of one kind or other), repudiate anabaptist excesses–result: English Baptist mvt.

The baptist mvt in general has ever been a separatist mvt, in search of theological justification. This is a consistent criticism they posit against covenant-baptism such as practiced in the Ref churches. “You guys start with ‘theology’ and come up with infant baptism. WE start with the NT, and that’s good enough.”

Actually, that’s the problem, since it is most correct to argue from a theology of baptism, and support the theology by appealing historical instance. The very criticism that has been stock-in-trade of the Baptist (only what appears to them to be ‘clear’ convert-baptism instances in the NT), is part of our argument against them. Their past reliance upon exemplars of baptism leading to a theology of baptism has put the cart before the horse.

In my view, this is about to change, among those who are called the refBapts.

Once again, the covenant-theologians have carried the water for the Baptists, and they are back to raiding the store. Now, they are beginning to “discover” their own side’s missing theology-of-baptism, by which they will “undergird” their practice. Thanks to certain aspects of MGK’s theology (not trying to say that he was ever willing to go this direction), the sort of argument that you guys heard all-new on this episode will be quite common in future discussions with the refBapt.

I recommend listening to those parts of the program once again, and diligently crafting well-articulated responses to this, either from within a Klinean perspective (not my perspective), or else by critiquing both Kline and the refBapt at this point. I think they both need a strong critique at the point which seems to supply the missing ingredient for the theological apriori the Baptist desires.

Those of us who are not deeply into Kline are frankly not equipped for this new wrinkle in the contest. But, we are VERY interested in ensuring that the decline in believing covenant-baptism within “evangelicalism” is not paralleled within the Ref world by a new siphoning-off of adherents.

As I wrote at the beginning, I have seen this movement building now for several years. I am among those unequipped to handle this new wrinkle, other than to say to the person getting into it, “Don’t read Kline; he will just confuse you.”

But I admit, that sounds a lot like the Baptist of days past saying to someone flirting with covenant-theology, “Don’t read those Presbyterians; they will just confuse you. Stick with the New Testament.” Mark my words, if men like you fellows do not figure out the best way to respond to this challenge, the days when 75% or more Baptists who decide to attend schools like WTS switch to covenant theology by the time they graduate are over. They will arrive as Klineans, and leave as Klineans, and as Baptists to a man.

Jim, it’s “The Case for Calvinistic Hermeneutics” in Revelation and Reason, article four.

HT: Jared Oliphint

Can you remember the article by Moises Silva that was mentioned?

Really enjoyed the show, I think having it raw is a good thing, I enjoyed the banter.
Quick one for Ben P, not sure where in Australia you are, but QTC (The Queensland Presbyterian College) is brilliant if your looking to go somewhere and you live in QLD.

And yes Nick was missed.

Keep up the great work guys enjoying listening.
SDG
Your Brother Andrew

Merry Christmas to you too.

Israelites built temples, so should we.
Israelites waged war on God’s enemies, so should we.
Israelites offered priestly sacrifices to God, so should we.
Israelites were to expand the boarders of the Kingdom, so should we.

I agree, actually, with every one of those statements. BUT, in each case, there is a redefinition which preserves the continuity of God’s redemptive work accros, but also at each point demonstrates the Old Covenant order and its activity to be typological in the sense that it looks forward to eschatological realities. Thus,

Israelites administered the covenant sign their children, so should we.

This is also correct, but, if the redemptive-historical trajectory is to be preserved, we must take into account New Birth, New Family, New Covenant. Should the Church (New Israel) administer the covenant sign to “children” in the New Covenant? Of course, but they are children who have received the “Spirit of adoption” (Rom. 8:15) and have been “Born again” (John 3:3) who have been “called children of God.” (1st John 3:1) Are we children newly born of the Spirit? Of course, and we should receive the appropriate sign for children of the covenant.

And Stephen, I know you said I don’t have to answer – and I realize your comment is a bit tongue-in-cheek, but no one present sinned by becoming drunk. We enjoy a discussion over a good beer, but we leave it at that. I know that might get some of our listeners upset – and we try not to make a big deal of it, but many of us drink in moderation. We are convinced this is well within our Christian liberty.

Again, I realize you’re joking around, but for the benefit of all our listeners, I hate to think some people would assume our gregariousness was due to beer. When everyone is gathered together having a fun discussion such as this, we are just as gregarious as we were with one or two beers.

And this has been especially valuable to me, because even though I’m Presbyterian, I am a fan of James White, and I have heard him argue for credobaptism, and he’s very persuasive. So it’s great to hear the other side, in this kind of give-and-take atmosphere.

Also, the comment about “Who’s playing the drinking game at home?” would have been better left unsaid.

But I do have to say that I rarely miss an episode of your podcast because I do learn so much.

Thanks John. Believe me, though, Bob LaRocca (the Reformed Baptist) lives for this stuff. He doesn’t mind getting ganged up on. He thrives on it.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Nobody who was actually at the recording thought anything of it. The vibe and visual elements didn’t translate to the audio recording. I’ll be hyper-aware of that next time, but nobody was offended or upset at the recording (and yes, I have asked). Regardless, we are putting out a podcast first and foremost when we record. We need to keep that a priority. Thanks Paul.

It was fine…it was meant to be informal you said so at the beginning, just a few guys engaged in friendly argument and discussion…so you talked over each other now and again…that happens when you have more than two in a conversation..it was natural, it just sometimes sounds worse when recorded.

Paul

Tim,

I think he just meant that he was not a Baptist just because his folks were, i.e. he was not just following a tradition. That was how I understood it anyway i.e. he wasn’t so much making a theological point rather just saying that it was theology that made him baptist not family loyalty.

Paul

I was asleep at the wheel about the discussion concerning the ability of Adam to properly interpret natural revelation. Initially I affirmed the comment that Adam and Christ were the only two individuals who could properly interpret natural revelation without special revelation. And then I noted that Vos argued (contra Warfield) that natural revelation was never intended to be interpreted apart from or without special revelation. I think Vos is correct here. There has been no point at which natural revelation did not require special revelation for its proper interpretation. What changes with the fall, as Camden noted, is that special revelation becomes redemptive. So I was wrong in my affirmation of the first point, but I standby the second.

Yeah, you probably are wrong. 🙂

🙂

OH, and as for me, I missed Nick!

Blessings,

Curious indeed. The next time we do one of these, I’ll be sure to moderate better, cut out the back chatter, and generally make for a better listening experience. This episode was too obnoxious. That being said, I think there were more than a few worthwhile portions.

I did note at the end Bob mentioned he wasn’t a Baptist just because he was keeping the faith of his family. Curious choice of words considering the preceding discussion!

I agree with you Bob. I wasn’t very pleased with the way this came out. We’ll dial it back the next time we have everyone in the same room. I personally was disappointed with how often I interrupted. I took note. We’ll make changes.

I enjoy your usual banter, but this one went over the top when there was active harassment of the person wanting to make a point. Active give-and-take is useful, but please let the other guy finish his point. Also, too many inside jokes for those of us born before Eisenhower was president.

Could you please limit the sound effects to once every 15 minutes?

This isn’t an episode that I’ll recommend to friends. When I say “keep up the good work”, I mean 99% of what you’ve done.

P.S. Where was Nick?

But I’m with you. I suppose a public outcry would be nice. 🙂

Ah Nick, we mentioned at the beginning that you were in Georgia and we couldn’t patch you in and that we missed you being on the show. What more could you want!

Chris,

I agree with your assessment. We could/should have pushed him more on that issue.

I actually took eight hours of distance education before moving to Philadelphia to attend WTS full-time. It’s not for everyone, but it’s one of the main reasons I’ll be done with my MDiv in three and a half years instead of four.