Also, like paedobaptist covenant theology (Westminster & Republication), Baptist Covenant Theology had two distinct streams of Covenant Theology. What is known as “1689 Federalism” is the more historic position (held by majority of original authors of the 1689) that is defined in the books I mentioned above. Men like James White subscribe to the more modern view of Baptist Cov’t Theology that was developed later. 1689 Federalism respects the unity between the Old and the New, while not dealing with the clear diversity between the Old and the New described clearly in the Scriptures. Look forward to further discussion here. We don’t struggle with anything that Paul, Peter, or Christ says. Thank you for your grace and humility in seeking further help in this area...
For 1689 Confessional Baptist’s, like myself. Only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. Old Testament saints were not saved by any old covenant in itself. They were saved by the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Read Sam Renihans “Mystery of Christ, and From Shadow to Substance, as well as Pascal Denaults “The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology” for more clarity. Thanks for having this discussion.
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 because for 1689Fed, and the Bible 😉, the New Covenant and the Old Covenant are not the same covenant. They are different. That’s why the 1689 framers left out 7.5. 8.6 is clear though...
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 I would recommend this 4 part blog post by Richard Barcellos where he thoroughly addresses Dr. R. Scott Clark's claim that 17th century Particular Baptists did not believe Christ was "communicated" to OT saints. pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2020/04/06/guest-post-no-communion-and-no-christ-part-1/ You could also just read the conclusion (Part 4): pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2020/04/09/guest-post-no-communion-and-no-christ-part-4/ I would also recommend this blog post by S. Renihan and why "administration" may not be the best language to help us distinguish the two views. pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/soft-rain-on-tender-grass/
32:00 Why 8.6 and not 7.5? Sam Renihan has pointed out that "administration" is not really helpful when distinguishing the two views. 1689 Federalism would agree that the substance (Grace) of the New Covenant was administered or communicated through the OC, but not by the OC in and of itself. I would highly recommend this full blog post by S. Renihan: pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/soft-rain-on-tender-grass/ where he explains "The difference, and difficulty, arises when we discuss administration in the sense of ordinances. Were the ordinances of the Abrahamic covenant and Mosaic covenant the ordinances of the covenant of grace in older forms, or were they ordinances of covenants distinct from, yet subservient to and revelatory of, the covenant of grace? Because the Particular Baptists denied that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were the covenant of grace, they denied that they were administrations, i.e., an older form of ordinances, of the covenant of grace. But they did not deny that those covenants administered the grace of the new covenant. The grand difference was so wonderfully summarized by John Owen in his discussion of the Mosaic covenant. Saints were saved under, not by, the old covenant." Recently read The Christ of the Covenants and even O. Palmer Robertson says (after quoting Calvin) "nothing under the old covenant had the effectiveness necessary actually to reconcile the sinner to God. Only in anticipation of the finished work of Christ could an act of heart-renewal be performed under the provisions of the old covenant...the shadowy form of the old covenant administration participated in the powerful realities of the new covenant substance." p. 292 & 293
1:05:28 and 1:11:58, The 1689 Federalism view would, of course, agree to a visible/invisible church distinction contrary to your understanding of the view. Surely there are those in the church community who are unregenerate (goats among sheep, tares and wheat, etc.), but 1689 would say only the invisible church is actually in the New Covenant (Jer 31:34) as to be in the NC is to be in Christ and regenerate. Christ is the only mediator of the NC and it would not make sense to say your federal head could be Adam if you are in the NC. How this differs prior to the cross is that Israelites could be in the Old Covenant, but not in the New (Romans 9:6, again regenerate and in Christ being synonymous with being in the New Covenant). OT saints would have been in both the OC and the NC (children of promise), but unregenerate Israel (children of flesh, only) would only be in the OC. On this side of the cross the OC has been swept away (Heb 8:13, 70 AD). That is why we would not affirm that you can be in the New Covenant but unregenerate. We would affirm you can be a part of the church (covenant) community but not in the New Covenant itself in a legal sense and in accordance with federal headship. Luke 22:20, Jesus states that the New Covenant is made in His blood. Well, who did He die for? The Elect, the regenerate, whom the New Covenant is made with. I hope that helps clarify the view. Long story short, Particular Baptists holding to 1689 Federalism do not believe they have regeneration goggles. We are not as overrealized as you understand and state. We do believe that we should try to reflect the eschaton, even if it will, of course, be imperfect.
29:59. Wrong. When the old Testament saints looked forward to the Messiah in FAITH, there was no other 'means of grace's necessary or in addition to that. O. T. Sacrifice added nothing; counted as nothing. -
Lots of straw manning going on in this broadcast. (Also, more than a scent of Roman Catholic nature grace towards the end.) This subject is about regeneration pure and simple. You think ritual puts you into the Covenant of Grace. We know regeneration by the word and the Spirit does it. The Federal Theology aspects regarding republication are not difficult to understand. No one is saying the Mosaic covenant is solely a covenant of works. That's dishonest. It's THE Covenant of Works for Jesus, and in that it's the Covenant of Grace for us. Because unlike Adam Jesus fulfills it. Please stop conflating National Israel with individual Israelites. Two different things. National Israel is a type of the Messiah; individual Israelites are fallen human beings in need of the blood of Christ for salvation. The moral law is for all generations because it is rooted in natural law which pre-dates Sinai. Again, this is about regeneration. Monergistic regeneration. Nobody thinks there is no visable/invisible church distinction based on their view of how one is regenerated. You put forward straw men throughout.
@@misericordiaetjustitia333 Zwingli and Bunyan said the same thing, if you think water baptism regenerates you you're stupid. Sacraments are visual parables. We're not Roman Catholics who think grace enters the water or bread or wine by some action of a cleric. Satan wants you to think that because Satan knows regeneration is the main battlefront, and Satan knows that regeneration is effected, when it is effected, by the word and the Spirit. The RC church baptized people all day and all night but kept the word of God from people at penalty of torture and death. Satan knows what regenerates.
@@carolinetrace894 Strawman that’s not what the Reformed believe about the sacraments. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it:g but upon the work of the Spirit,h and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.i
@@carolinetrace894 Zwingli and Bunyan unfortunately have poor sacramentology, and unfortunately you do too. You fall more on the Roman Catholic side by saying the sacraments are just rituals we do. Rome believes they are participating in the sacrament, they’re wrong. We aren’t doing anything in the sacrament Rom 4:11 it is God who comes to us and signifies and seals to us His promises.
@@misericordiaetjustitia333 The people in this video believe you enter into the Covenant of Grace by ritual water baptism. What the first and second generation reformers said about sacraments was all over the board. Baptism does not regenerate, full stop, take it from there.
We will be doing a gracious response to this in an upcoming episode of our podcast.
?
Also, like paedobaptist covenant theology (Westminster & Republication), Baptist Covenant Theology had two distinct streams of Covenant Theology. What is known as “1689 Federalism” is the more historic position (held by majority of original authors of the 1689) that is defined in the books I mentioned above.
Men like James White subscribe to the more modern view of Baptist Cov’t Theology that was developed later.
1689 Federalism respects the unity between the Old and the New, while not dealing with the clear diversity between the Old and the New described clearly in the Scriptures. Look forward to further discussion here. We don’t struggle with anything that Paul, Peter, or Christ says. Thank you for your grace and humility in seeking further help in this area...
For 1689 Confessional Baptist’s, like myself. Only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. Old Testament saints were not saved by any old covenant in itself. They were saved by the New Covenant, which is the Covenant of Grace. Read Sam Renihans “Mystery of Christ, and From Shadow to Substance, as well as Pascal Denaults “The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology” for more clarity. Thanks for having this discussion.
How would you answer his question regarding LBCF 8.6 and "communication"? Thanks, brother!
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 because for 1689Fed, and the Bible 😉, the New Covenant and the Old Covenant are not the same covenant. They are different. That’s why the 1689 framers left out 7.5.
8.6 is clear though...
@@TheFlyingDutchman85 I would recommend this 4 part blog post by Richard Barcellos where he thoroughly addresses Dr. R. Scott Clark's claim that 17th century Particular Baptists did not believe Christ was "communicated" to OT saints. pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2020/04/06/guest-post-no-communion-and-no-christ-part-1/
You could also just read the conclusion (Part 4): pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2020/04/09/guest-post-no-communion-and-no-christ-part-4/
I would also recommend this blog post by S. Renihan and why "administration" may not be the best language to help us distinguish the two views. pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/soft-rain-on-tender-grass/
32:00 Why 8.6 and not 7.5? Sam Renihan has pointed out that "administration" is not really helpful when distinguishing the two views. 1689 Federalism would agree that the substance (Grace) of the New Covenant was administered or communicated through the OC, but not by the OC in and of itself. I would highly recommend this full blog post by S. Renihan: pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/02/06/soft-rain-on-tender-grass/ where he explains "The difference, and difficulty, arises when we discuss administration in the sense of ordinances. Were the ordinances of the Abrahamic covenant and Mosaic covenant the ordinances of the covenant of grace in older forms, or were they ordinances of covenants distinct from, yet subservient to and revelatory of, the covenant of grace? Because the Particular Baptists denied that the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants were the covenant of grace, they denied that they were administrations, i.e., an older form of ordinances, of the covenant of grace. But they did not deny that those covenants administered the grace of the new covenant.
The grand difference was so wonderfully summarized by John Owen in his discussion of the Mosaic covenant. Saints were saved under, not by, the old covenant."
Recently read The Christ of the Covenants and even O. Palmer Robertson says (after quoting Calvin) "nothing under the old covenant had the effectiveness necessary actually to reconcile the sinner to God. Only in anticipation of the finished work of Christ could an act of heart-renewal be performed under the provisions of the old covenant...the shadowy form of the old covenant administration participated in the powerful realities of the new covenant substance."
p. 292 & 293
Twins! 😂 cool video all great info.
Blessings
Please link to his paper
1:05:28 and 1:11:58, The 1689 Federalism view would, of course, agree to a visible/invisible church distinction contrary to your understanding of the view. Surely there are those in the church community who are unregenerate (goats among sheep, tares and wheat, etc.), but 1689 would say only the invisible church is actually in the New Covenant (Jer 31:34) as to be in the NC is to be in Christ and regenerate. Christ is the only mediator of the NC and it would not make sense to say your federal head could be Adam if you are in the NC. How this differs prior to the cross is that Israelites could be in the Old Covenant, but not in the New (Romans 9:6, again regenerate and in Christ being synonymous with being in the New Covenant). OT saints would have been in both the OC and the NC (children of promise), but unregenerate Israel (children of flesh, only) would only be in the OC. On this side of the cross the OC has been swept away (Heb 8:13, 70 AD). That is why we would not affirm that you can be in the New Covenant but unregenerate. We would affirm you can be a part of the church (covenant) community but not in the New Covenant itself in a legal sense and in accordance with federal headship. Luke 22:20, Jesus states that the New Covenant is made in His blood. Well, who did He die for? The Elect, the regenerate, whom the New Covenant is made with. I hope that helps clarify the view. Long story short, Particular Baptists holding to 1689 Federalism do not believe they have regeneration goggles. We are not as overrealized as you understand and state. We do believe that we should try to reflect the eschaton, even if it will, of course, be imperfect.
There are no previous admins. of the new covenant.
29:59. Wrong. When the old Testament saints looked forward to the Messiah in FAITH, there was no other 'means of grace's necessary or in addition to that. O. T. Sacrifice added nothing; counted as nothing. -
Except the purification of flesh to stay in the land of Canaan.
Lots of straw manning going on in this broadcast. (Also, more than a scent of Roman Catholic nature grace towards the end.) This subject is about regeneration pure and simple. You think ritual puts you into the Covenant of Grace. We know regeneration by the word and the Spirit does it. The Federal Theology aspects regarding republication are not difficult to understand. No one is saying the Mosaic covenant is solely a covenant of works. That's dishonest. It's THE Covenant of Works for Jesus, and in that it's the Covenant of Grace for us. Because unlike Adam Jesus fulfills it.
Please stop conflating National Israel with individual Israelites. Two different things. National Israel is a type of the Messiah; individual Israelites are fallen human beings in need of the blood of Christ for salvation.
The moral law is for all generations because it is rooted in natural law which pre-dates Sinai.
Again, this is about regeneration. Monergistic regeneration. Nobody thinks there is no visable/invisible church distinction based on their view of how one is regenerated. You put forward straw men throughout.
Are the sacraments just rituals?
@@misericordiaetjustitia333 Zwingli and Bunyan said the same thing, if you think water baptism regenerates you you're stupid. Sacraments are visual parables. We're not Roman Catholics who think grace enters the water or bread or wine by some action of a cleric. Satan wants you to think that because Satan knows regeneration is the main battlefront, and Satan knows that regeneration is effected, when it is effected, by the word and the Spirit. The RC church baptized people all day and all night but kept the word of God from people at penalty of torture and death. Satan knows what regenerates.
@@carolinetrace894 Strawman that’s not what the Reformed believe about the sacraments. The grace which is exhibited in or by the sacraments rightly used, is not conferred by any power in them; neither doth the efficacy of a sacrament depend upon the piety or intention of him that doth administer it:g but upon the work of the Spirit,h and the word of institution, which contains, together with a precept authorizing the use thereof, a promise of benefit to worthy receivers.i
@@carolinetrace894 Zwingli and Bunyan unfortunately have poor sacramentology, and unfortunately you do too. You fall more on the Roman Catholic side by saying the sacraments are just rituals we do. Rome believes they are participating in the sacrament, they’re wrong. We aren’t doing anything in the sacrament Rom 4:11 it is God who comes to us and signifies and seals to us His promises.
@@misericordiaetjustitia333 The people in this video believe you enter into the Covenant of Grace by ritual water baptism. What the first and second generation reformers said about sacraments was all over the board. Baptism does not regenerate, full stop, take it from there.
Vos' triangle is here: opc.org/OS/images/Shadow_v_reality.jpg
Thanks for the illustration. I'm wondering what distinctives are commonly added to it.