The new sophistry of the paedo-baptists

"For most of my life in the Reformed world since 1980 I shared the assumption that, though I disagreed with my evangelical brothers and sisters over the question of baptism, their congregations were still churches. It’s only been in the last few years that the other shoe has dropped . . . This principle of radical discontinuity, this denial of the fundamental unity of the covenant of grace as symbolized in the administration of the sign and seal of the covenant of grace to covenant children, is serious enough to warrant saying that any congregation that will not practice infant initiation (baptism) into the administration of the covenant of grace is not a church."

The quote above is from a professor of something or other, church history, historical theology, something. His name is R. Scott Clark. He's not a systematic theologian. What he *is* though, in big letters, is he is giddy for Romanist ritual and the exaltation of ritual and man (i.e. clerics and Christian academics) over the Word and the Spirit.

What you see in the above quote is something recent. In their attempt to defend the unScriptural practice of infant baptism they are now saying ALL of covenant theology rests on infant baptism like a tiddly-winks structure resting on the head of a pin.

Covenant Theology (*classical* Covenant Theology of the Witsius, Vos, Berkhof kind) is not the servant of infant baptism, no matter how many times the Romanists who demand soteriology be a paint-by-numbers affair demand it to be.

He writes:

"This principle of radical discontinuity, this denial of the fundamental unity of the covenant of grace..."

This is a Romanist worthy lie. Reformed Baptists who hold to classical Covenant Theology do not deny the unity of the Covenant of Grace. We actually understand that unity in the way the Bible teaches it. Romish rituals not clouding how we read Scripture.

Regeneration, circumcision of the heart, is entrance into the Covenant of Grace. Ritual water baptism is not.

As for children: it is part of God's providence where people are born and who they are born to (Clark's lack of knowledge of systematic theology trips him up here, this is not a cheap shot, this is fact). If a child is born to Christian parents they will get the benefit of that no ritual required. Plus, they will understand that regeneration - the most important thing - is not a matter of a man sprinkling your little infant head with 'holy' water and hence they will at least potentially know to humble themselves to the Word and the Spirit in time (which is what paedo-baptists refuse to do, hence their weakness in the face of the world, the flesh, and the devil, their massive downgrade on the Word of God itself in the 19th century, and their deathly Village of Morality shallowness).

The Bible's teaching of God's plan is simple, clear, and elegant. Federal Theology (which is classical Covenant Theology systematized) is simple, clear, and elegant. And powerful. And it doesn't have a trace of Romanism in it.

The spine of Federal Theology is the two Adams parallel. How one finds oneself under the federal head of Jesus Christ is by regeneration by the Word and the Spirit (see Westminster Confession of Faith chapter 10). Not ritual. Hence ritual water baptism does not control things regarding covenant theology. The new Romanists who self-identify as Reformed don't even like to speak of Federal Theology (or that 10th chapter of the WCF for that matter). Systematic theology exposes them. They prefer to stay in the realm of biblical theology where they can make Scripture say anything they demand, and if they demand Romanist Beast church ritual to keep them and all the world in bondage to the Kingdom of Satan they will by god (satan) have it come hell or high water. When King Jesus Christ returns, though, their demands will be worth about as much as their future.