Is the Covenant Theology of the LBC a system of:
Right. The question really should be where we do and don't find continuity. Even Presbys don't hold that male-only circumcision continues into the NC.
#FalseDichotomy
-
-
We see discontinuity in administration of biblical covenants but not in theological covenants. Thus there is the underlying continuity of one covenant for all the people of God at all times.
-
Where does your theology of covenant signs fit into that? Specifically, female infants or male household employees? Say a believing rancher's unbelieving, live-in ranch hand were to sign a legally-binding seven-year contract, should he receive the covenant sign?
-
Would he be considered part of the covenant community? Because that would be true continuity. Furthermore, females would have no need of a covenant sign in order to be considered members of the covenant community.
-
That’s precisely the difference between substance and administration.
-
Not really. Household slaves continued into the NC era. Were unbelieving household slaves excluded from "household baptisms" in Acts?
-
Given the paedo / oikobaptist view of unbelieving infants and continuity, I don't know why they would be excluded.
-
...or why females would receive the covenant sign at all for that matter.
-
Does continuity matter for covenant membership and, therefore, baptism in the NC, or nah?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.