R. Scott Clark employs a non-typological interpretation of Old Testament restoration prophecies in order to defend the practice of infant baptism. The error of this interpretation is demonstrated by other paedobaptists explaining the correct typological interpretation.
For more, see:
- A Critique of R. Scott Clark’s Covenant Theology
- Heidelcast “I Will Be a God to You and to Your Children”
- Amillennialism’s Two-Edged Sword
- Kline’s Two-Level Fulfillment 184 Years Before Kingdom Prologue
- Genesis 17:7 (1689 Federalism Commentary)
Sources:
Contrast 
Brilliant!
In whom we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of his grace. {Ephesians 1:7} ________________________________
LikeLiked by 2 people
Scott Clark understands that you simply lack the understanding to get it–“Our Baptist friends, however, do not typically distinguish between the spiritual promises of the Abrahamic covenant and its typological and temporary accidents nor between the Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic and Davidic covenants. Thus, they see them as more or less as one thing and succeeded by the New Covenant, which some Baptist traditions describe as “the covenant of grace” to which the Old Testament covenants were mere witnesses. For them, the New Covenant is the covenant of grace and there is no distinction in the New Covenant between the internal and the external, between the outward and the inward because, by the nature of the New Covenant, it is the eschatological (final) state come into history, in which the promises made to Jeremiah (31:31–33) are literally coming true.
https://heidelblog.net/2018/03/baptists-and-federal-visionists-together/
Doug Wilson: “To see election through a covenant lens does not mean to define decretal election as though it were identical with covenant election. But we do not drag the decrees down into our understanding of history — we let God unfold His unchangeable decrees throughout the process of all history. The content of the ultimate decrees is none of our current business, although we cheerfully acknowledge that the decrees are really there and that they have an unchanging content.”
I suppose it’s charitable (consdescending) for Wilson to “let God” reveal in the Bible that there is a decretal election. When Wilson “understands” that we can’t understand decretal election, he fails to make a distinction between knowing that there is such an election, and knowing who is elect. While the Bible does not tell us who is elect, God does reveal that all the elect and only the elect will believe the gospel.
But Wilson “understands” the gospel as that which does not talk about decretal election. So his gospel does not tell the good news about Christ having only died for the decretally elect, nor does his gospel tell the good news about the decretally elect hearing and believing the true gospel.
Doug Wilson: “Because of the promises of the covenant, we may deal with election on our end, which is covenant election. The decrees are on God’s end. It is important for us to know that God does what He does on His end, but we only know that He is doing it, not what He is doing.”
Doug Wilson can know if “members in the covenant” on “this end” are meeting the conditions of “the covenant” well enough to have their infants baptized in the covenant. But since Doug Wilson teaches future justification, he is saying that nobody— parents or children—can know they will always have lasting life and the forgiveness of sins.
Doug Wilson thinks that threats and warnings are way more useful than assurance, at least for those “in the covenant”.
Though they were not yet born and had done nothing good or bad-in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of His call.”
According to Romans 9:11, we cannot teach grace alone without teaching “decretal election”. Christ did not die for a group to be named later. Nor did Jesus Christ die for a subset which manages to “stay in the covenant”. Romans 9 is not only talking about the “covenantal elect”.
LikeLike
Pingback: Kline’s Abrahamic Covenant of Works 6: 1689 Federalism | Contrast