Baptist Covenant Theology - Lesson 1 | An Overview of Covenant Theology and the New Covenant
Вставка
- Опубліковано 8 бер 2022
- This is lesson 1 in a theological course on Baptist Covenant Theology with Dr. Jim Renihan, Fred Malone and others.
Join the FAM at press.founders.org/fam to support and enable Founders Ministries to continue producing free content.
Follow Founders Ministries:
Website: founders.org
Facebook: / foundersmin
Twitter: / foundersmin
Instagram: / foundersministries
All Founders Ministries resources are copyrighted and any use and distribution must be approved by Founders Ministries.
Thank you for this course. Christ is supreme and preeminent!
Wow!! Founders is really revvin up the engines lately, listening from Kenya
Wonderful teaching. Thank you for teaching these great truths
Looking forward to this !
I have just read "Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Perspective" by Phillip D R Griffiths. In this he he destroys Reformed paedobaptism and leaves on in no doubt that salvation only comes via the new covenant.
Contra 98% of reformed believers but okay
Same here, should be good!
Just audio? For some reason I was expecting video too? Oh well. Keep up the good work, Dr. Renihan.
Amen.
Please pray for my cat, her liver is in trouble 😭
Update she died two weeks ago 😭
So sorry to hear that 😢
Would be helpful to explain how Baptist covenant theology is directly contradicted by Joseph Boot, who's book Founders publicly promoted.
Joe Boot's book contradicts R2K theology, which is not Baptist CT.
@@jwtrain That's my point. Founders/TS&TT interviewed and promoted Boot and his book and yet haven't not done so for Sam Renihan whose book they PUBLISHED!
@@PWhite-dt2ck What? ua-cam.com/video/T5hqazvQRs4/v-deo.html
Thanks! Are they available as MP3s?
Hey Founders. Any chance these lectures might be turned into a book?
The Mystery of Christ his Covenant and Kingdom by his son Sam Renihan is essentially a more thorough presentation of his father here^
What is the Nehemiah Coxe book he quotes from? Who is publishing a reprint?
Where can we get outlines for these lectures? thks
I was waiting for him to start talking about the apostasy passages
They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us. - 1 John 2:19
@@GeluTimoficiuc this verse does not explain every apostasy passage.
@@josuepizarro5721
it's a didactic passage explaining a general principle about those that seem to leave the faith, namely that "if they had been of us, they would *no doubt* have continued with us" . The descriptive or narrative passages with examples of apostasy must be interpreted by this, as a rule of interpretation.
But if you don't, what guides you in explaining those? If you want to say this doesn't apply to this or that apostasy then you would have to show why doesn't it.
@@GeluTimoficiuc not necessarily, especially since there are many passages that speak of the apostates in ways you could never say of someone who was never saved.
@@josuepizarro5721 yes, descriptive passages. Which are supposed to be interpreted by those that teach direct doctrine directly, if there are such passages. And it happens that we do know that "if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us".
It's true that one passage in particular seems more difficult, namely the one in Hebrews where some have trampled the blood of the covenant which sanctified them. But whatever the meaning of "trampling" and "sanctifying" one takes, it must also be true that if they had been of us, they wouldn't have trampled the blood of the covenant that sanctified them. If this doesn't stand then you must shoulder the burden of defending calvinism from this passage.
There are difficulties and difficulties, but it's not clear to me how apostasy passages are a problem which baptists only must deal with. Let me put it like this, I hope we agree that believers only must deal with these passages.
Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, covenant was land. David's covenant is with Christ's finished work on the cross God's word. The heavens and earth will pass away but God's word is everlasting. 1st Corinthians 4:13 don't go beyond what's written.
"Denouement" does not have a hard T at the end.
I agree, but if your only criticism of this presentation is the mispronunciation of 1 foreign word, they must be doing something right!
Who is the lecturer?
James Renihan
I think you are misunderstanding Romans 2:15. The Law is not what is written on Gentiles hearts. Rather, it is the "work" that is written. Hence, the New Covenant promise God makes to write His Law on the hearts of covenant members is non-redundant.
Very interesting, but his continual mispronunciation of denouement is very irritating.
The term "New Covenant" is not found in the 1689 LBCF. However, section 19 invents a term not found in scripture known as "the moral law". It also claims this law was given to Adam before the Fall. How could Adam have committed adultery, and how could he have honored his mother?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
The New Covenant has made the Sinai Covenant "obsolete" in Hebrews 8:13, in the same way my chainsaw has made my axe "obsolete".
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in Hebrews 12:22-24.
He has built us a new house out of two pieces of wood and a handful of nails.
Paul revealed the temporary nature of the Sinai Covenant in Galatians 3:16-29. Paul said the law was "added" 430 years "after" the promise made to Abraham "until" the seed (Christ) could come to whom the promise was made.
In Galatians 4:24-31 Paul told the Galatian believers to "cast out" the Sinai Covenant of "bondage".
How many Judaisers have ignored Paul's words in the Book of Galatians, and have also ignored the words of the Book of Hebrews?
Based on Colossians 2:16-17, no believer today has ever broken the 4th commandment. The Sabbath day was only a "shadow" of Christ.
For those in the New Covenant, He is our Sabbath Rest every day of the week.
The scripture found above makes it plain the New Covenant is not a "New Administration" of the Old Covenant.
When will Baptists write a new confession which agrees with what the Bible says, instead of defending the 1689 LBCF which is clearly wrong on multiple points?
What law did Christ fulfill the penalty of, in your view? And what law condemns Gentiles today, if not a transcendent moral law that binds all humans continually, or a covent of works that obligated the covenant head to particular consequences to his offspring? The structure of Christ as a second Adam fulfilling a law, won’t make sense unless we account for why Christ was dying, and why Christ’s death satisfies a penalty for Gentiles who were never YHWH’s covenant people at Sinai.
@@georgeluke6382 Christ died for all sin.
Christ reveals below the higher standard of the New Covenant when He quotes from the Old Covenant and then says "But I say..."
Mat 5:27 "You have heard that it was said to those of old, 'YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY.'
Mat 5:28 But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.
How could Adam have committed adultery before the Fall, and how could Adam honor his mother since he had none?
@@SpotterVideo So Christ died for all sin, and if sin is lawlessness, isn't sin defined by law? Then, whose law is it? If love fulfills explicitly the law of God, and the works of the law are written on all hearts, even the not Jewish ones (Romans 2), it seems there's some aspect of moral law-keeping and conscience-violation that's the transcendent standard we fail, even if we've never read the OT. Adam's in the peculiar position of having, in his own choice, the heart of all other choices for men- two trees, one for blessing and one for cursing, and one pathway for enjoying the blessing- faith in God's character fueling obedient choices. That's why the tree of life is multiplied and restored in the vision in Revelation- we have the collapsing of Ezekiel's temple, the reference to a garden-city and the healing of the nations through not just one, but twelve trees with healing in their leaves- a new Israel, redeemed by God, a righteous grove, healing the world.
In Galatians 3:13-14, Paul is speaking to Gentiles when he says that Christ redeemed them from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for them. What law had cursed Gentiles if Gentiles are not under any law whatsoever? In 1 John 3:4, John defines sin as lawlessness. In Romans 3:23, Paul says all have sinned.... If sin is lawlessness and all have sinned, what law had the people drowned at the flood broken if there is no moral law? How could sin exist before the Law was given as Romans 5::13-14 states?
I think it is a rather weak argument to argue that Adam could not have obeyed his parents or committed adultery since the law was to govern all of Adam's posterity who would have parents and other men and women other than their spouses. A case in point is the fact that when God confronts Cain for killing his brother Abel, Cain does not defend himself that he is not under the law or by saying that I did not know that killing is sinful. Rather, he tries to conceal his sin and only complains that his punishment is great. Also, even if Adam could not do those things, exceptions do not disprove the rule. What matters is that if he had a mother, the moral thing would have been to obey her which is the expectation that Adam and Eve would have had for their children.
To be honest, I believe that your understanding of Col. 2:16-17 is faulty. The term "Sabbath" there can also refer to the many Sabbaths given to Israel in the Sinaitic Covenant to govern the nation and not to the 4th Commandment which is moral. The reason I can say this is two-fold. There are no verses that by good and necessary consequence claim that the 4th Commandment has been abrogated. Secondly, it is evident from his saying festivals and "new moon" that he is referring to the ceremonial laws of the Mosaic Covenant. By the way, the morality of the 4th Commandment lies in the fact that by the law of nature it is clear that we are to devote a certain proportion of time to the worship of God. This is followed even in those societies where the Bible has never been known. What is unique about it, though, is that at Sinai, God gives specific instructions for how those who worship Him and are in covenant with Him are to obey this evident moral command. In the New Covenant, we maintain the guidelines given by God on the commandment and recognize that God has changed the day from the seventh to the first day as a sign that we are part of the new creation in Christ.
Additionally, Reformed Baptists do not believe that the New Covenant is a new administration of the New Covenant but rather it is an entirely different covenant which was pre-figured in types and shadows in the Old Covenants. We would disagree with our Presbyterian brothers who do hold that the New Covenant is a "New Administration" of the Old Covenant. That is why the 1689 LBCF differs in certain parts with the Westminster Confession and the Savoy Declaration (Congregationalists).
Finally, we defend the 1689 LBCF only because we believe that it is a clear and fair representation of what the Scriptures teach on the subjects it deals with?
@@PaulGachungi If you cannot find the term "New Covenant" in the 1689 LBCF, then the document is flawed based on the following scripture. We are not come to Mount Sinai in verse 18. We are come instead to the New Covenant of Mount Zion in verses 22-24.
Heb 12:18 For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched, and that burned with fire, nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest,
Heb 12:22 But ye are come unto mount Sion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to an innumerable company of angels,
Heb 12:23 To the general assembly and church of the firstborn, which are written in heaven, and to God the Judge of all, and to the spirits of just men made perfect,
Heb 12:24 And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprinkling, that speaketh better things than that of Abel.