God had respect unto Abel and unto his sacrifice but God had no respect unto Cain and unto his sacrifice. A sacrifice without heart affection is never acceptable with God. Alan, Northern Ireland (great conversation, many thanks)
Thank you so much for this discussion. It really stretched my mind in terms of understanding the covenant grace in the OT and helped me gain clarity on some of the significant problems 1689 Federalism. Really thankful for your ministries and the opportunity to listen to this.
Someone else mentioned this, but I agree that 1689 Federalists wouldn't say that people in the Old Covenant could obey the law, that's what made it insufficient. But they do believe there was a federal head of each covenant (Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David). While most did fail, they would say that Abraham did not fail. He succeeded in obeying the covenant. This is one of my huge problems with their theology, it destroys what all of scripture teaches regarding the state of man after the fall.
Enjoyed the discussion. I think the recurring question you raised about the OC requiring only outward obedience by an unregenerate heart is missing what the 1689 guys are saying. The law requires heart obedience. The deficiency of the OC is that is doesn't provide the new heart required. Only the NC provides the new heart (as Ezekiel 36 promises it will). So the OC requires heart obedience for blessing in the land. Christ is the only one who actually met the requirements of that law.
It appears that only Renihan speaks of outward obedience that an unbeliever could render--at least he was the only one quoted saying such. Coxe, Jewett, and Kingdom appear not to hold to such a view--according to the quotations from their published writings.
@@vanttil101 I think the confusion is that Renihan is talking about what sort of obedience is required to experience the promised fleshly benefits. He's not saying God does not ultimately require heart obedience by His people.
Thank you brothers for this excellent and very helpful discussion. Perhaps one thing that might be considered is the importance of understanding that the “Old Covenant” (the Law of Moses) is something that Galatians 3:19-25 says was “added.” It seems to me that circumcision is not formerly a sign of the old covenant if we understand the old covenant as being and added covenant 430 years after circumcision (John 7:22). The Jews of Jeremiah’s day and those to whom Hebrews was written both looked at the old covenant (Sinai covenant) as a means of obtaining the promises rather than what that covenant really was (a teacher to bring them to Christ and his blessings promised to Abraham). Anyway, it seems to me that our Baptist friends seem to identify the Old Covenant with Abraham, but Jeremiah, Galatians, and the book of Hebrews seem to identify it as a temporary pedagogical administration after Abraham and building on Abraham. I think would also be interesting to hear a discussion on the curses of the New Covenant. If one can eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner and incur a judgment (1 Cor. 11), and if the Lord’s Supper is defined by Jesus as the New Covenant, then it seems that there must be an outward/legal administration of the covenant of grace. It seems to me that the confusion here is not understanding the difference between being in a covenant legally and being in a covenant vitally. The Biblical illustration of this distinction is betrothal and marriage. Betrothal (engagement) is a legal marriage. Mary was Joseph’s betrothed (bride), and called wife, but she was not yet fully married and so they were not one flesh. When a groom and bride come together for the marriage ceremony and when the union is consummated, then the two are considered one flesh (head and body joined together). The professing church (the visible church) is related to Christ by means of his engagement to her. The visible church is the bride (betrothed) of Christ. But only believers (the invisible church) are the wife of Christ. Only believers are one flesh with him (being in union with him by faith). It seems to me that our Baptist friends see the NT church in this world as the wife (elect) of Christ and not his bride (engaged professors). It will not be until the last day that the marriage feast will occur and the bride will be presented as consisting of 100% elect believers. Baptism is like an engagement ring. It promises marriage, but it does not bring about the marriage union. Only consummation can do that; only faith can do it. All in the visible church can be considered the bride, but not all of the bride are the wife. The wife is in the bride, but she won’t be infallibly seen until the Last Day. Again, thank you for this excellent discussion!
Excellent discussion. Many thanks from UK. 1689 Confession has no chapter dealing with the sacraments unlike the WC of Faith chapt. 27. Do Reformed Baptists believe circumcision is an OT sacrament as defined in WC of F section 1 or a Rite? Am I correct in thinking that if Nicodemus believed circumcision to be exclusively a natural rite and not a sacrament representing Christ and His benefits then this was part of his ignorance incurring Christ's admonition? Nicodemus had been circumcised but interpreted his circumcision exclusively natural whereas he should have interpreted it fundamentally as a sign and a seal of the Covenant of Grace embracing the overtures of God's covenantal mercy ("to be a God unto thee". Gen. 17:7) signified in the sacrament of circumcision administered to him in infancy.
Towards the end you highlighted that the author of Hebrews talks about not returning to the ways of the mosiac law because it's like rejecting the Christ that was given? Couldn't someone in the 1689 camp argue that those who hold to the WCF went back to the old testament by replicating the meaning of circumcision onto baptism? It's seems like there's an issue either way. Thoughts?
Interesting point. Can share some thoughts. Hebrews is helpful here too; the New Covenant now (in which Christ the substance and great Surety/Guarantor has come, which is what makes it “new”) is still yet to reach the consummation of Jeremiah 31. Confer Hebrews 10:15-16, quoting that full consummate reality of Jeremiah 31, with Hebrews 10:23-31, exhorting then to hold fast, to resist sinning deliberately and trampling under foot the Son of God, as we press forward to that reality in pilgrimage, on the basis of Christ’s perfect work. Hebrews in its very warnings shows that even the church now is in a kind of wilderness age (cf. chs. 3-4; basically Christ is absent and hasn’t returned yet, and the pilgrimage to the consummate heavenly Jerusalem is still in progress). The first episode of this series from RF (“Covenant Theology in Hebrews” w/ Boothby) discusses this wilderness covenant setting. Even as Christ the substance has arrived, we must even more now refrain from “hardening our hearts as in the rebellion” (Psalm 95 quoted in Chs. 3-4). Baptism then is the New Covenant sign (the promise still to “you and to your children” from Acts 2, but now expanded to all who are far off and are called according to God’s purpose throughout the world), primarily signifying the washing and renewal of life in the Spirit, Who has been sent upon the church by the ascended Christ. And even now in this interim age, in continuity with the same CoG administered in the Old Covenant, it’s a sign given to signify a reality that ought to be diligently sought after in believers, and in discipleship of covenant children.
Need to watch this a few times but on first watch I’m not sure you brothers are accurately understanding the idea you are critiquing and the flattening lens of Paedobaptist hermeneutic hinders. Good discussion though and I’ll listen again and go to sources critiqued again to consider this.
"The flattening lens of paedobaptist hermeneutics." Hi Robert, Seeing these men are WCof Faith men they are being true and sincere to their beliefs as do 1689 men. The question is... Whose hermeneutic is correct? 1689 or WC of Faith?
The term "New Covenant" is not found in the Westminster Confession or in the 1689 LBCF, even though the term is found in the Bible. Based on Hebrews 9:10, Christ's death at Calvary was the time of Reformation. New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? 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. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24. 1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight. 1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment. 1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay. ================================= Nobody gets into the New Covenant through Old Covenant water baptism. Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit) Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. (Acts 10:38) The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church? The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again) Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ. Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise, (A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.) Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. (See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment) ============ Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says? What did Peter say below? Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning. Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost. Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water/ every time they read the word "baptize" in the text. Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage? Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called, Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love; Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13) “baptize” KJV Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire: Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost. Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.) Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire: Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not; Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. 1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect. 1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5) Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant) How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist? Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ? Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant (ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation. (Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation. (GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things. (KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357 (NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation. (NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established. (YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .
So OT believers get the Covenant of Grace from somewhere else, not through the Old Testament. Talk about adding and removing from the Word, here the whole OT is removed and the NT is added on a wrong foundation. What other kinds of implications are there? Is this idea is the result of reading the Bible backwards? No.
Sorry, but this doesn't seem a fair characterization of 1689 at all. I get the feeling I always get when Arminians and "Provisionists" quote half what s Calvinist says as the whole.
Claiming NAPARC is ecumenical is silly. In NAPARC you can hold to Revoice and sing Hillsong in corporate worship, but a conservative reformed church that allows children at the table is somehow a step too far…
The term "sacrament" makes my skin itch. To the best of my understanding neither the term nor the category nor the connotation are present in Scripture. Even the concept "means of grace" as a collective for those behaviors in Scripture that are calls of obedience and practices for drawing nearer to God: corporate worship, reading God's Word, prayer, church discipline, the Lords Supper, baptism, confession (not to a priest but to the Father), and, perhaps fasting, seem to be improperly confused with the salvific. Or, far worse, the various "means of grace," impart some volume of a mystical energy known collectively as grace. This seems like a concept in direct oposition to the clear Biblical concept that grace, as a concept, is a free action of God, for the glory of God, unearned by any man, and conferring real and substantial blessing upon those persons God so chooses, such as regeneration, forgiveness, edification, and sanctification and all that through Christ and His works.
God had respect unto Abel and unto his sacrifice but God had no respect unto Cain and unto his sacrifice. A sacrifice without heart affection is never acceptable with God.
Alan, Northern Ireland (great conversation, many thanks)
Would love to see a live discussion between Reformed Forum and these 1689 Federalists
I’d like to hear both sides in a through back and forth discussion! You guys are a great example in how to approach such a topic .
Sounds like there needs to be a genuine discussion between both camps.
It appears to be underway!
Thank you so much for this discussion. It really stretched my mind in terms of understanding the covenant grace in the OT and helped me gain clarity on some of the significant problems 1689 Federalism. Really thankful for your ministries and the opportunity to listen to this.
Jeremy Booth and Will Wood are two of my favourite guests!
Aye, me too!
Thankful for the Cross X on this topic!!
I’m a 1689 federalist and when listening to you guys I don’t get the impression that we are outside of the camp
Outside of what camp?
And this is the first episode of Baptist Forum
Someone else mentioned this, but I agree that 1689 Federalists wouldn't say that people in the Old Covenant could obey the law, that's what made it insufficient. But they do believe there was a federal head of each covenant (Adam, Abraham, Moses, and David). While most did fail, they would say that Abraham did not fail. He succeeded in obeying the covenant. This is one of my huge problems with their theology, it destroys what all of scripture teaches regarding the state of man after the fall.
Reformed discussion a d Jazz. I supply my own coffee. Enjoyable and edifying experience!
thank you
Enjoyed the discussion. I think the recurring question you raised about the OC requiring only outward obedience by an unregenerate heart is missing what the 1689 guys are saying. The law requires heart obedience. The deficiency of the OC is that is doesn't provide the new heart required. Only the NC provides the new heart (as Ezekiel 36 promises it will). So the OC requires heart obedience for blessing in the land. Christ is the only one who actually met the requirements of that law.
It appears that only Renihan speaks of outward obedience that an unbeliever could render--at least he was the only one quoted saying such. Coxe, Jewett, and Kingdom appear not to hold to such a view--according to the quotations from their published writings.
@@vanttil101 I think the confusion is that Renihan is talking about what sort of obedience is required to experience the promised fleshly benefits. He's not saying God does not ultimately require heart obedience by His people.
@@joshualoyd4284 Yes. That is his view. That is precisely the formulation critiqued in this episode.
ua-cam.com/video/7JbSYmDp6Yk/v-deo.html
Thank you brothers for this excellent and very helpful discussion. Perhaps one thing that might be considered is the importance of understanding that the “Old Covenant” (the Law of Moses) is something that Galatians 3:19-25 says was “added.” It seems to me that circumcision is not formerly a sign of the old covenant if we understand the old covenant as being and added covenant 430 years after circumcision (John 7:22). The Jews of Jeremiah’s day and those to whom Hebrews was written both looked at the old covenant (Sinai covenant) as a means of obtaining the promises rather than what that covenant really was (a teacher to bring them to Christ and his blessings promised to Abraham). Anyway, it seems to me that our Baptist friends seem to identify the Old Covenant with Abraham, but Jeremiah, Galatians, and the book of Hebrews seem to identify it as a temporary pedagogical administration after Abraham and building on Abraham.
I think would also be interesting to hear a discussion on the curses of the New Covenant. If one can eat the bread and drink the cup of the Lord in an unworthy manner and incur a judgment (1 Cor. 11), and if the Lord’s Supper is defined by Jesus as the New Covenant, then it seems that there must be an outward/legal administration of the covenant of grace. It seems to me that the confusion here is not understanding the difference between being in a covenant legally and being in a covenant vitally. The Biblical illustration of this distinction is betrothal and marriage. Betrothal (engagement) is a legal marriage. Mary was Joseph’s betrothed (bride), and called wife, but she was not yet fully married and so they were not one flesh. When a groom and bride come together for the marriage ceremony and when the union is consummated, then the two are considered one flesh (head and body joined together). The professing church (the visible church) is related to Christ by means of his engagement to her. The visible church is the bride (betrothed) of Christ. But only believers (the invisible church) are the wife of Christ. Only believers are one flesh with him (being in union with him by faith). It seems to me that our Baptist friends see the NT church in this world as the wife (elect) of Christ and not his bride (engaged professors). It will not be until the last day that the marriage feast will occur and the bride will be presented as consisting of 100% elect believers. Baptism is like an engagement ring. It promises marriage, but it does not bring about the marriage union. Only consummation can do that; only faith can do it. All in the visible church can be considered the bride, but not all of the bride are the wife. The wife is in the bride, but she won’t be infallibly seen until the Last Day.
Again, thank you for this excellent discussion!
Where are the other three episodes on 1689 federalism?
Excellent
Excellent discussion. Many thanks from UK.
1689 Confession has no chapter dealing with the sacraments unlike the WC of Faith chapt. 27.
Do Reformed Baptists believe circumcision is an OT sacrament as defined in WC of F section 1 or a Rite?
Am I correct in thinking that if Nicodemus believed circumcision to be exclusively a natural rite and not a sacrament representing Christ and His benefits then this was part of his ignorance incurring Christ's admonition? Nicodemus had been circumcised but interpreted his circumcision exclusively natural whereas he should have interpreted it fundamentally as a sign and a seal of the Covenant of Grace embracing the overtures of God's covenantal mercy ("to be a God unto thee". Gen. 17:7) signified in the sacrament of circumcision administered to him in infancy.
Towards the end you highlighted that the author of Hebrews talks about not returning to the ways of the mosiac law because it's like rejecting the Christ that was given? Couldn't someone in the 1689 camp argue that those who hold to the WCF went back to the old testament by replicating the meaning of circumcision onto baptism? It's seems like there's an issue either way. Thoughts?
Interesting point. Can share some thoughts. Hebrews is helpful here too; the New Covenant now (in which Christ the substance and great Surety/Guarantor has come, which is what makes it “new”) is still yet to reach the consummation of Jeremiah 31. Confer Hebrews 10:15-16, quoting that full consummate reality of Jeremiah 31, with Hebrews 10:23-31, exhorting then to hold fast, to resist sinning deliberately and trampling under foot the Son of God, as we press forward to that reality in pilgrimage, on the basis of Christ’s perfect work.
Hebrews in its very warnings shows that even the church now is in a kind of wilderness age (cf. chs. 3-4; basically Christ is absent and hasn’t returned yet, and the pilgrimage to the consummate heavenly Jerusalem is still in progress). The first episode of this series from RF (“Covenant Theology in Hebrews” w/ Boothby) discusses this wilderness covenant setting. Even as Christ the substance has arrived, we must even more now refrain from “hardening our hearts as in the rebellion” (Psalm 95 quoted in Chs. 3-4).
Baptism then is the New Covenant sign (the promise still to “you and to your children” from Acts 2, but now expanded to all who are far off and are called according to God’s purpose throughout the world), primarily signifying the washing and renewal of life in the Spirit, Who has been sent upon the church by the ascended Christ. And even now in this interim age, in continuity with the same CoG administered in the Old Covenant, it’s a sign given to signify a reality that ought to be diligently sought after in believers, and in discipleship of covenant children.
This feels like a scattershot blast that didn’t really address what the 1689 guys were saying, and I think you guys need to have an actual discussion.
I often feel that way about other podcasts. What is the premise or presupposition they got wrong?
Need to watch this a few times but on first watch I’m not sure you brothers are accurately understanding the idea you are critiquing and the flattening lens of Paedobaptist hermeneutic hinders. Good discussion though and I’ll listen again and go to sources critiqued again to consider this.
"The flattening lens of paedobaptist hermeneutics."
Hi Robert,
Seeing these men are WCof Faith men they are being true and sincere to their beliefs as do 1689 men. The question is... Whose hermeneutic is correct? 1689 or WC of Faith?
The term "New Covenant" is not found in the Westminster Confession or in the 1689 LBCF, even though the term is found in the Bible.
Based on Hebrews 9:10, Christ's death at Calvary was the time of Reformation.
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
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.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
We are not come to Mount Sinai in Hebrews 12:18. We are come instead to the New Covenant church of Mount Zion and the blood in Hebrews 12:22-24.
1Jn 3:22 And whatsoever we ask, we receive of him, because we keep his commandments, and do those things that are pleasing in his sight.
1Jn 3:23 And this is his commandment, That we should believe on the name of his Son Jesus Christ, and love one another, as he gave us commandment.
1Jn 3:24 And he that keepeth his commandments dwelleth in him, and he in him. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us.
Watch the UA-cam videos “The New Covenant” by David Wilkerson, or Bob George, and David H.J. Gay.
=================================
Nobody gets into the New Covenant through Old Covenant water baptism.
Old Covenant Baptism vs. New Covenant Baptism (water vs. Spirit)
Water baptism was a part of the Old Covenant system of ritual washing. The Old Covenant priests had to wash before beginning their service in the temple. (Ex. 30:17-30) When Christ was water baptized by His cousin John in the Jordan River, He was under the Old Covenant system. He also only ate certain foods, and wore certain clothes, as prescribed by the 613 Old Covenant laws. Christ was water baptized by John and then the Holy Spirit came from heaven. (Acts 10:38) The order is reversed in the New Covenant. A person receives the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and then believers often declare their conversion to their friends and family through a water baptism ceremony. Which baptism makes you a member of Christ’s Church?
The New Covenant conversion process is described below. (Born-again)
Eph 1:12 That we should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted in Christ.
Eph 1:13 In whom ye also trusted, after that ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation: in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that holy Spirit of promise,
(A person must “hear” the Gospel, and “believe” the Gospel, and will then be “sealed” with the Holy Spirit.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
(See Jer. 31:34 for the New Covenant promise, and 1 John 2:27 for the fulfillment)
============
Which baptism is a part of the salvation process, based on what the Bible says?
What did Peter say below?
Acts 11:15 And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on us at the beginning.
Acts 11:16 Then remembered I the word of the Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost.
Based on Luke 3:16, and John 1:33, and Acts 11:15-16, the most important thing about the word "baptize" in the New Testament has nothing to do with water. The Holy Spirit is the master teacher promised to New Covenant believers in Jeremiah 31:34, and John 14:26, and is found fulfilled in Ephesians 1:13, and 1 John 2:27. Unfortunately, many modern Christians see water/ every time they read the word "baptize" in the text.
Based on the above, what is the one baptism of our faith found in the passage below? How many times is the word "Spirit" found in the passage, and how many times is the word "water" found in the passage?
Eph 4:1 I therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you that ye walk worthy of the vocation wherewith ye are called,
Eph 4:2 With all lowliness and meekness, with longsuffering, forbearing one another in love;
Eph 4:3 Endeavouring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism, (See 1 Cor. 12:13)
“baptize” KJV
Mat_3:11 I indeed baptize you with water unto repentance: but he that cometh after me is mightier than I, whose shoes I am not worthy to bear: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, and with fire:
Mar_1:8 I indeed have baptized you with water: but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost.
Mar 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned. (Water or Holy Spirit?, See Eph. 1-13.)
Luk_3:16 John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
Joh_1:26 John answered them, saying, I baptize with water: but there standeth one among you, whom ye know not;
Joh_1:33 And I knew him not: but he that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending, and remaining on him, the same is he which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost.
1Co_1:17 For Christ sent me not to baptize, but to preach the gospel: not with wisdom of words, lest the cross of Christ should be made of none effect.
1Co 12:13 For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit. (See Eph. 4:1-5)
Heb 9:10 Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation. (Old Covenant ----> New Covenant)
How many people have been saved by the Old Covenant water baptism of John the Baptist?
Who did John the Baptist say is the greatest Baptist that ever lived in Luke 3:16? What kind of New Covenant baptism comes from Christ?
Hebrews 9:10 Old Covenant vs. New Covenant
(ESV) but deal only with food and drink and various washings, regulations for the body imposed until the time of reformation.
(Geneva) Which only stood in meates and drinkes, and diuers washings, and carnal rites, which were inioyned, vntill the time of reformation.
(GW) These gifts and sacrifices were meant to be food, drink, and items used in various purification ceremonies. These ceremonies were required for the body until God would establish a new way of doing things.
(KJV) Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation.
(KJV+) Which stood onlyG3440 inG1909 meatsG1033 andG2532 drinks,G4188 andG2532 diversG1313 washings,G909 andG2532 carnalG4561 ordinances,G1345 imposedG1945 on them untilG3360 the timeG2540 of reformation.G1357
(NKJV) concerned only with foods and drinks, various washings, and fleshly ordinances imposed until the time of reformation.
(NLT) For that old system deals only with food and drink and various cleansing ceremonies-physical regulations that were in effect only until a better system could be established.
(YLT) only in victuals, and drinks, and different baptisms, and fleshly ordinances-till the time of reformation imposed upon them .
So OT believers get the Covenant of Grace from somewhere else, not through the Old Testament. Talk about adding and removing from the Word, here the whole OT is removed and the NT is added on a wrong foundation. What other kinds of implications are there? Is this idea is the result of reading the Bible backwards? No.
Grace "could be effective and beneficial to her" in the future without water baptism as well...
Sorry, but this doesn't seem a fair characterization of 1689 at all. I get the feeling I always get when Arminians and "Provisionists" quote half what s Calvinist says as the whole.
Claiming NAPARC is ecumenical is silly. In NAPARC you can hold to Revoice and sing Hillsong in corporate worship, but a conservative reformed church that allows children at the table is somehow a step too far…
I'm guessing you are CREC?
The term "sacrament" makes my skin itch. To the best of my understanding neither the term nor the category nor the connotation are present in Scripture. Even the concept "means of grace" as a collective for those behaviors in Scripture that are calls of obedience and practices for drawing nearer to God: corporate worship, reading God's Word, prayer, church discipline, the Lords Supper, baptism, confession (not to a priest but to the Father), and, perhaps fasting, seem to be improperly confused with the salvific. Or, far worse, the various "means of grace," impart some volume of a mystical energy known collectively as grace. This seems like a concept in direct oposition to the clear Biblical concept that grace, as a concept, is a free action of God, for the glory of God, unearned by any man, and conferring real and substantial blessing upon those persons God so chooses, such as regeneration, forgiveness, edification, and sanctification and all that through Christ and His works.
Earned by one man, THE man, Jesus Christ.