The Baptists, especially those of the time of the Reformation, do not hold the common doctrine on this subject. The Anabaptists not only spoke in very disparaging terms of the old economy and of the state of the Jews under that dispensation, but it was necessary to their peculiar system, that they should deny that the covenant made with Abraham included the covenant of grace. Baptists hold that infants cannot be church members, and that the sign of such membership cannot properly be administered to any who have not knowledge and faith. But it cannot be denied that infants were included in the covenant made with Abraham, and that they received circumcision, its appointed seal and sign. It is therefore essential to their theory that the Abrahamic covenant should be regarded as a merely national covenant entirely distinct from the covenant of grace.
The Romanists assuming that saving grace is communicated through the sacraments, and seeing that the mass of the ancient Israelites, on many occasions at least, were rejected of God, notwithstanding their participation of the sacraments then ordained, were driven to assume a radical difference between the sacraments of the Old Testament and those of the New. The former only signified grace, the latter actually conveyed it. From this it follows that those living before the institution of the Christian sacraments were not actually saved. Their sins were not remitted, but pretermitted, passed over. At death they were not admitted into heaven, but passed into a place and state called the limbus patrum, where they remained in a negative condition until the coming of Christ, who after his death descended to hell, sheol, for their deliverance.
In opposition to these different views the common doctrine of the Church has ever been, that the plan of salvation has been the same from the beginning. There is the same promise of deliverance from the evils of the apostasy, the same Redeemer, the same condition required for participation in the blessings of redemption, and the same complete salvation for all who embrace the offers of divine mercy.
Charles Hodge | Systematic Theology (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 1997), 2.367.
RESOURCES
- Resources On The Limbus Patrum
- Subscribe To The Heidelblog!
- Download the HeidelApp on Apple App Store or Google Play
- Browse the Heidelshop!
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- The Heidelberg Catechism: A Historical, Theological, & Pastoral Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2025)
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- What Must A Christian Believe?
- Heidelblog Contributors
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
USA
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization
Heidelblog
The Heidelblog has been in publication since 2007. It is devoted to recovering the Reformed confession and to helping others discover Reformed theology, piety, and practice.
More by Heidelblog ›
A fair amount of the Particular Baptists today see two Covenants administered with Abraham. The first is in Genesis 15 and is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. The second is in Genesis 17 which is a temporal national Covenant with a works element requiring faithfulness.
Fortunately, the apostle Paul never does any such thing. It is arbitrary to treat the institution of circumcision as a sign of the covenant of works.
Hodge confirms a hunch I’ve had recently and which I also saw this week in the 7th chapter of John. Baptists are treating the Abrahamic covenant in a similar way to how the Pharisees and Judaizers in Galatians are doing at the identification stage of their analysis; blurring the Abrahamic and Mosaic. When Jesus confronts the Pharisees in the passage, he says Moses gave them circumcision but it really originated with the Patriarchs.
Is it really a coincidence that most Baptist churches struggle with neonomianism? Maybe not. The best Baptists insist upon monergism and distinguish between the law and gospel. Yet they do so with a welcome tenacity that subconsciously fights against the inevitable consequence of blurring the lines between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants.