A Paedobaptist Critique…

82467128-11B1-4A42-8020-3071EB90447C

Brandon Adams hits one out of the park again with a respectful critique of paedobaptist Patrick Hines recent blog posts and sermons concerning paedobaptist Covenant Theology, and his own critique of the Baptist position.

If interested in Covenant Theology, baptism, etc., give this video a watch as Brandon critiques paedobaptist inconsistencies, explains more about the diversity of Reformed & Presbyterian Covenant Theology, all while bringing clarity to Baptist position. 

Patrick Hines comments, sermons, and position are dealt with throughout this video, allowing Patrick to speak for himself. 

Update!

Patrick Hines has released a response to Brandon Adams critique of his original video, found here.

Patrick Hines has spoken with me and alleges that Brandon Adams has misrepresented his position.

6 thoughts on “A Paedobaptist Critique…

Add yours

  1. Brandon admitted his video was a misrepresentation of mine. Here are his public comments: “You said in your response that you did that intentionally because other baptists misunderstand you when you do say they are in covenant. Now I and other baptists misunderstand you when you say they’re not. 🙂 I’m sure that’s exasperating. It is my fault. I should have sought clarification with you first before making the response video. I will offer a response video when I can. Thanks for your time.” Because of this, I remain puzzled as to why he still has it up. Contrary to the practically uniform misrepresentation of me in his video, I played *all* of his and responded to *all* it. I will say this much: In my life as a ruling elder and pastor for the past 16 years have I been more badly misrepresented than I was in Brandon’s video. Here is my response: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=clFe-Y2w06Y. I’d appreciate if you’d post my response on this page. I think your appraisal Thank you. Rev. Patrick Hines http://www.bridwellheightspca.org

    Like

    1. Hello Pastor Hines, and thank you for your response.

      So to be clear, you did something intentionally that Brandon ran with but what you did makes Brandon’s response a misrepresentation?

      Just trying to understand you correctly.

      Like

      1. If I’m understanding your question correctly… Brandon accused me repeatedly of teaching something which, in point of fact, I did not teach in the video and the two sermons I preached. I demonstrate this in my response to him. He took isolate quotes out of context and badly misunderstood them and accused me of not believing my own confession.

        Like

      2. Okay.

        I watched the initial video and heard you say repeatedly that unregenerate were not “in” the Abrahamic Covenant [Going to watch again].

        So when Brandon responds to you concerning this, how is he then misrepresenting you?

        Also, did you specially do this (saying they’re weren’t *IN* the Covenant) on purpose?

        I can see now (see my YouTube comment on your response video) that Brandon’s response to you was a waste of time being that you really do feel that they’re were *IN* the Covenant, only externally. The problem for me is that you specifically said they *weren’t* in, and because of your lack of clarity on that initial video I don’t see how you can accuse Brandon of misrepresentation, especially if you say you did that on purpose?

        So again, I am aware and will update my blog concerning your response and Brandon’s. But I don’t think Brandon was purposely misrepresenting you at all. If he was this would be sinful on his part.

        He was simply telling you that what you were saying (lack of clarity on your part) was not in line with the Reformers. We now are aware of what you meant, and I am looking forward to his response now that we do. The reason for this is because it’s your *actual* correct theological position that I find major inconsistencies with. But Brandon’s blog already contains articles critiquing that very thing.

        I am also happy that you are now aware of the more historic 1689 Federalism position. This will help in our conversations moving forward.

        I will update my blog post today, and thank you for your time here.

        Rob

        Like

      3. Here’s my response to you:

        You said: [I watched the initial video and heard you say repeatedly that unregenerate were not “in” the Abrahamic Covenant [Going to watch again].]

        What I’ve said over and over again in my sermons on this topic (Go to 26:40 https://www.sermonaudio.com/saplayer/playpopup.asp?SID=22161018333 and listen) is that you could not be born into the Abrahamic covenant, but you could be born into its visible administration. Even the quotes Brandon played from me – I said this.

        You said: [So when Brandon responds to you concerning this, how is he then misrepresenting you?]

        Because he does not acknowledge that I asserted plainly, repeatedly, and emphatically that there is a visible administration of the Abrahamic covenant one could be born into.

        You said: [Also, did you specially do this (saying they’re weren’t *IN* the Covenant) on purpose?]

        Yes, because that is how the apostles of Christ interpret the Abrahamic covenant. Paul cites Genesis 15:5 (Romans 4:18) and 17:5 (Romans 4:17) here:

        Romans 4:13-18 For the promise that he would be the heir of the world was not to Abraham or to his seed through the law, but through the righteousness of faith. [14] For if those who are of the law are heirs, faith is made void and the promise made of no effect, [15] because the law brings about wrath; for where there is no law there is no transgression. [16] Therefore it is of faith that it might be according to grace, so that the promise might be sure to all the seed, not only to those who are of the law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all [17] (as it is written, “I have made you a father of many nations”) in the presence of Him whom he believed–God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did; [18] who, contrary to hope, in hope believed, so that he became the father of many nations, according to what was spoken, “So shall your descendants be.”

        John the Baptist also taught you could not be born into the Abrahamic covenant in the sense of *actual* *real* covenant membership. Remember this?

        Matthew 3:7-9 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to
        them, “Brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? [8] Therefore bear fruits worthy of
        repentance, [9] and do not think to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father.’ For I say to you that
        God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones.

        That was the context of my comments Brandon played. Therefore, they were badly out of context and he misrepresented me.

        You said: [I can see now (see my YouTube comment on your response video) that Brandon’s response to you was a waste of time being that you really do feel that they’re were *IN* the Covenant, only externally. The problem for me is that you specifically said they *weren’t* in, and because of your lack of clarity on that initial video I don’t see how you can accuse Brandon of misrepresentation, especially if you say you did that on purpose?]

        In the out of context and short clip Brandon played, I said this: “You could not be born into that covenant. But you could be born into its visible administration.” Not sure how to make it clearer…

        You said: [So again, I am aware and will update my blog concerning your response and Brandon’s. But I don’t think Brandon was purposely misrepresenting you at all. If he was this would be sinful on his part.]

        I said in my response that I didn’t think he was purposefully doing it.

        You said: [He was simply telling you that what you were saying (lack of clarity on your part) was not in line with the Reformers. We now are aware of what you meant, and I am looking forward to his response now that we do.]

        There was no lack of clarity, only a lack of context and listening, sir.

        You said: [The reason for this is because it’s your *actual* correct theological position that I find major inconsistencies with. But Brandon’s blog already contains articles critiquing that very thing.]

        As I find major inconsistencies and errors in yours as well – and Brandon’s. But then again, Brandon has informed even Dr. James White that he has not only misunderstood the Bible, but has also misunderstood his own confession:

        https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/james-white-doesnt-know-what-1689-federalism-is/

        Brandon also said in his response to me that his position is not the same as Greg Welty, James White, Fred Malone, Walter Chantry, or Sam Waldron because all of them not only misunderstand the Bible, but have also misunderstood their own confession. I’m sure this would be sad news to Fred Malone who wrote his doctoral dissertation on the New Covenant!

        You said: [I am also happy that you are now aware of the more historic 1689 Federalism position. This will help in our conversations moving forward.]

        Perhaps…

        You said: [I will update my blog post today, and thank you for your time here.]

        You are welcome. I appreciate your graciousness.

        Like

      4. Again, I disagree with you because I feel your initial video lacked clarity may times when you insisted they weren’t in the Covenant. Thats what had me so confused, and why Brandon even responded to you. It indeed sounded so idiosyncratic, Brandon’s entire response was to make that point. You saying they were not in the Covenant is contrary to WCF that say there *were* in, externally. I will update my blog concerning this, but I don’t blame Brandon because I feel it was your lack of clarity in the video. I will watch again.

        As for your presuppositions as a Presbyterian concerning the texts you shared, I don’t share all of them with you. This is why you’re a Presbyterian and I am a Particlar/Reformed Baptist. Our presuppositions are different.

        Also, I love the fact that Brandon disagrees with James White concerning what we would call 20th Century Reformed Baptist. I do as well! That’s because there are nuances between us and them, as we align more with the majority of authors of our Confession (1689), and don’t use your (WCF) Covenant Theology but then just deny infant baptism. See Pascal Denault’s “Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology” and Samuel Renihan’s “From Shadow to Substance” for more on this.

        We love Dr. White, but there are differences between how we view the 1689 Confession, just as there is with people you would claim to be on your side concerning your own confession.

        Thanks for the time sir. Love your continued work for His kingdom, despite our differences when it comes to Covenant theology.

        Rob

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: