1:12:24 - 1:14:55 This is an excellent summary from Harrison. It's absolutely the teaching of Scripture. In fact, I think it should be stated stronger: It is incorrect to think that the types had any earthly "substantial" purpose. The Bible tells us they were types and shadows, period. Canaan (or the entire world as per Romans 4:13, as a type of heaven) could only be received by faith, not by obedience to circumcision. Circumcise your heart! Remaining in the land could only be by faith (saving faith . . . the meek in Christ will inherit the earth). The New Testament is the inspired interpretation of the Old and it tells us that all of God's blessings come only through faith in Christ. Outward circumcision and obedience to the law did not keep one in Canaan. It seems to me that Federal Baptists interpret the Old Testament precisely the same way that the Pharisees did (which was wrong). Why the law (the old covenant made at Sinai)? This is the question in Galatians. The law was not given for the purpose that the Judiazers and Federal Baptists believe. It was given to drive people to Christ (the promise of Abraham). It began with the direct voice of God declaring the moral law and it says "DO THIS" and live in order to show people that they cannot (like Christ telling the rich young man you know what commandments you must keep to have eternal life). I think a big block in Federal Baptist thinking is the failure to distinguish the difference between the New Covenant as the unbreakable bond between the elect and Christ, and the administration of the gospel through preaching and the sacrament (this cup IS the new covenant). They also fail to distinguish the difference between being engaged in a covenant as a promise and being united in a covenant as a reality (a real union). Marriage is an example. Mary was engaged (betrothed) to Joseph respecting the covenant of marriage, but until the wedding took place, they were not in the full union and reality of marriage. Joseph was called Mary's husband, and yet Joseph was to take her to be his wife. The Scriptures show us a great deal about being in a covenant relationship through the illustration of marriage. It seems to me that the Baptists view being in the covenant of grace as exclusively a relationship of marriage (the living union between Christ and the elect), and don't seem to have any room for the possibility of there being a relationship between Christ and the visible church as a betrothal (which ultimately will end with the purified bride -the elect- at the great marriage feast of the lamb).
Denault makes an interesting point in his book; that it is legitimate to wonder whether paedobaptism was a result of Presbyterian covenant theology or if it was developed to justify the practice of paedobaptism. The more I dig into the Presbyterian framework, the less it makes sense. I'm leaning more and more towards the 1689 federalist view.
Interesting. The more I look into it, the more I see paedobaptism as biblical. Ancientpathstv has some very good videos on the subject here on TH-cam, explaining where the Baptists went off the rails historically. For instance, I recommend Calvin vs. the Baptists and George Whitefield's Plea to Baptists.
I would love to see a discussion between two brothers who hold 1689 Federalism and 20th Century Baptist Covenant Theology. As a 20th century guy myself, it seems like all of Baptist CT gets framed in the 1689 Federalism context.
Definitely second-ing you with this. Same here, I'm a 20th Century guy, and what I've read and profited from is Greg Nichols' Covenant Theology volume. It'd be great to have a discussion with both sides.
@@charlessamuellasiste2752 if you haven’t given Earl Blackburn’s “Covenant Theology: a Baptist Distinctive” a try, then you should read it. It was very beneficial to me.
Renihan would argue that 1689fed is the majority view amongst particular baptist historically. He does see a minority that express a cov view much closer to WcF schema. Notice that renihan does state that he speaks for himself or 1689fed (generally), not every Baptist. Wouldn’t 20ct and WcF argue similarly for establishing the one cov two admin view?
@@sergioramirez8347 I agree that Renihan does mention only speaking for himself, because even his view of 1689 fed would be different than others who hold that view. Ex. He believes Limbus Patrum As far as it being the most historically held view, I’m not 100% sold on that, but I will concede that most baptist who talk about CT in the 1600-1700’s do have a 1689fed view. To your final point, yes the views are almost identical, Presbyterians just come at it from a view of infant baptism where as baptist don’t. And that presupposition changes how you frame the argument.
Maybe I’m just stupid or slow or something, but I listen to everyone talking here, and I like what all of them are saying. I say big amens all around. Perhaps I’m just unlearned enough to not see big important differences.
You're not stupid, the 1689 Confession is similar to Westminster and the differences here aren't huge ones. They are technical and relate to the hermeneutics and view of Covenants, which result in our key distinctions on orthopraxy(most significantly Baptism).
Here’s a great quote from the Mishnah Yoma, about the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and may help in the discussion of animal blood and the forgiveness of sins: “Furthermore, for transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person.”
Expanding on the differnces of the promises under the Old Covenant and New Covenant might help the broader discussion. Only the New Covenant offers grace unto salvation. It accomplished what the Old Covenant could only point to.
Great to see brothers who disagree hashing it out . I have to admit that as a reformed Baptist myself who is inclined to agree with brother Sam , I’m a bit confused as to what I just watched .
@@brandonadams07 Well , please comment further for your thoughts are more than welcome brother. Unless I am not following the arguments it appears to me that there isn’t a distinct difference between what this Presbyterian brothers said about the substance of the covenants and there external administrations ? The Presbyterian just ads the children somewhere, somehow.
@@michealferrell1677 Got it. Yeah, I think maybe this wound up creating more confusion, rather than clarifying, as someone else asked me the same thing. I recall two instances this was mentioned in this video. 1) Perkins said Renihan's comments about the land promise being corporately guaranteed but individually conditioned sounded just like his substance/administration distinction where one can be externally part of the covenant, but not participate in its internal realities. Perkins must have misunderstood what Renihan was saying, because that's not at all what he meant. Renihan was not referring to the benefits of Christ or to internal participation, but rather to the fact that not all Israelites would be allowed to enter the land of Canaan. Only those who obeyed Mosaic law would. Nonetheless, it guaranteed that at some point, some of Abraham's descendants would enter the land. That's not a substance/administration or inward/outward disticiton. 2) The other comment was from Renihan later in the video. I don't think he provided enough context or elaboration for what he meant he said he affirms a substance/administration distinction. He was not affirming Perkins' Presbyterian concept of two levels of being a member of the New Covenant (unless I missed something or misunderstood him). Rather, he was simply acknowledging that the bare concept of the difference between a covenant and its outward organization or ordinances is not problematic or objectionable. We can say that there is a New Covenant administration (preaching, Lord's Supper, baptism, etc) and distinguish that from the substance of the covenant (union with Christ, forgiveness of sins, regeneration, etc). I don't think he meant to imply that all who participate in the administration (i.e. are baptized) are therefore parties of the New Covenant. I don't think I've ever heard him say that. He probably elaborates here, but I don't recall if he touches on it specifically or not www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11221132111938
@@brandonadams07 In that Sermon audio of Sam , starting at 29:07-30:24 I get what he is saying but I can also see due to the language being used how a Presbyterian brother or even a modern reformed Baptist might accuse us of nut picking. Thanks for your reply , I know that this area of theology is a serious one .
@@michealferrell1677 I agree with Sam's comments there. The problem is the language and invalid deductions that are made from the language. Yes, they might accuse of nit-picking, but it's not. It's make necessary distinctions. We elaborate here th-cam.com/video/89ZL-x3hrT8/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/uUoGd8_uob8/w-d-xo.html (full discussion here th-cam.com/video/wPqZ1CHAako/w-d-xo.html )
Where in scripture do we read Baptism is a means of Grace. Romans 10 says faith comes by hearing the word of God (also 1 Cor. 1:21) not by Baptism. How does baptism feed us spiritually? Baptism is a proclamation of Grace not a means of Grace. The former sounds of baptismal regeneration.
Two books on this by Reformed Baptist 1. The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace: More Than a Memory Book by Barcellos Richard 2. Michael A. G. Haykin Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands: Recovering Sacrament in the Baptist Tradition A small TH-cam comment isn’t the place for that lengthy discussion. If you desire to learn hopefully you can glean from these books.
Thanks Sergio, I disagree with you, as the Mars Hill of today, You Tube should be a place to discuss these things. If the comment section is just to puff people up from their “amen” squad then I have little use for it. Your reply is very helpful, however, in what you do not say. I was expecting at least 1 Peter 3:21 or Acts 2:38 which is what I usually get from my Campbellite friends. If you have to recommend a book and cannot find a scripture for it, then it is probably wrong.
Means of grace “means of grace” are the “delivery systems God has instituted to bring grace - that is, spiritual power, spiritual change, spiritual help, spiritual fortitude, spiritual blessings - to needy souls on earth” Prayer: Acts 2:21 Scripture: 1 Peter 2:2, Romans 10:17 Baptism: 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16 Lords Supper: 1 Corinthians 10:16
@@sergioramirez8347 Thanks again Sergio! Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by Grace, and Titus 3:7 says we are justified by Grace. If Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are instruments that deliver Grace then we are saved by them. But Eph. 2:9 says it is not a result of our works and Titus 3:5 says it is not because of works done by us in righteousness but according to his mercy by the Holy Spirit. Baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper are works done by us in righteousness so they cannot be means of Grace. Are Presbyterians and other paedobaptist groups saved despite not having been baptized?
Tell me how you understand the clear statements by Luke and Peter that Baptism washes sins and saves. Being saved by grace/faith isn’t at odds with the means by which God displays his gospel message. (Baptism and the Lords supper are a visible word) that word being the gospel. How are we justified? Through faith in the gospel. I do take the position that baptism is a normative and ordinary means by which God does justify sinners. Which is why the New Testament closely associates salvation with Baptism. As for the Lords supper, I do believe it is a covenant renewal meal that is meant to bring the grace of assurance of that justification. So you which means of grace do you deny? Word, prayer, or sacraments?
One thing for certain, this Scripture in Leviticus 4 as it pertains to the LORD GOD, HIS HOLY COMMANDMENTS, and HIS DIVINE ORDINANCES, which pertains to sacrifice for sins (for both Aaronic Priest and the people of Israel), is totally lost on the minds of modern christendom. Leviticus 4:1-7 1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, IF A SOUL SHALL SIN THROUGH IGNORANCE AGAINST ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD concerning things which OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE, and shall DO AGAINST ANY OF THEM: 3 IF THE PRIEST that is anointed DO SIN ACCORDING TO THE SIN OF THE PEOPLE; THEN LET HIM BRING FOR HIS SIN, WHICH HE HATH SINNED, a YOUNG BULLOCK WITHOUT BLEMISH unto the LORD for a SIN OFFERING. 4 And HE SHALL BRING the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and SHALL LAY HIS HAND UPON THE BULLOCKS HEAD, and KILL THE BULLOCK before the LORD. 5 And THE PRIEST that is anointed shall TAKE OF THE BULLOCK'S BLOOD, and BRING IT to the tabernacle of the congregation: 6 And THE PRIEST SHALL DIP HIS FINGER IN THE BLOOD, and SPRINKLE OF THE THE BLOOD SEVEN TIMES before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary. 7 And THE PRIEST SHALL PUT SOME OF THE BLOOD upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and SHALL P9OUR ALL THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. It is a consistent modern doctrine that they of modern formerly Bible believing Protestants believe all '613 laws', meaning whether they are the Ten Comandments, statutes, laws, precepts, judgments, or ordinances, are all abolished, nailed to the Cross, and thus passed away. The problem remains that neither our LORD or HIS Holy Apostles are the AUTHOR (or authors) of such a doctrine. If there were nothing to be charged against a soul that they have sinned, then why would there be a need for propitiation? And yet all the Apostles in their various epistles write concerning the ongoing relivance of any and all that pertains to showing forth that a soul sins, when they DO WHAT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE, and DO AGAINST ANY OF THEM. John the Apostle plainly says, 'Sin is the transgresson of the LAW.' What Paul called Holy, Just, and Good (Romans 7:12), he makes certain we all understand (as brethren that know the Law) how that it has dominion over us as long as we shall live (Romans 7:1). Yes the Law itself is a transcript of its very AUTHOR, and the first work of the HOLY SPIRIT is to convince the world of SIN before it can further demonstate the Righteousness of Christ, the Propitiation for our sins, thus securing our Justification and our Righteousness before the Heavenly Father. Another thing Paul makes certain, is that claiming to be justified by the faith of our LORD Jesus Christ, is not a licence to abandon these Holy Commandments, but rather (as our LORD taught concerning HIMSELF and HIS sheep who hear HIS VOICE) that they shall be fulfilled, and the righteousness of the LAW will also be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the SPIRIT.
I don't know a reformed person (baptist or presby) that teaches the Moral Law of God (The Ten Commandments) has passed away. The general Reformed view (with nuances, of course) is that all of Scripture stands unless expressly done away with in the NT. So circumcision, the Aaronic priesthood, etc., are done away with. If you read all of the NT, especially Hebrews, and believe the sacrificial system is not expressly done away with then I'd be very VERY surprised and would like to know why you think that.
@@eg5646WELL WE ARE IN AGREEMENT EG. I HAVE ALWAYS REALIZED THE POSITIONS OF THE GREAT REORMERS, AND THEY OF THE REVIVALS (THE WESLEYS, GEORGE WHITEFIELD, AND JONATHON EDWARDS), THEN LATER EVANGELICALS LIKE CHARLES HADDEN SPURGEON, AND EVEN D.L MOODY (IN SOME RESPECTS), MAINTAINED THE AUTHORITY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, INCLUDING THE SABBATH COMMAND (ALTHOUGH APPLYING IT TO THE FIRST DAY SUNDAY. MY GREATEST CONCERN IS HOW DARBYISM (WHICH C.H SPURGEON DESPISED) HAS CHANGED THE MODERN CHRISTIAN CHURCH INTO A DIVISIVE, CONFUSED CHURCH. I SEE THE LABORS OF FELLOW CHRISTIANS WHO ARE NOT WHOLLY GIVEN OVER TO THE ROMAN CHURCH DOCTRINES AND THOSE OF THE DISPENSATIONAL ESCHATOLOGY, AND I HOPE FOR THE TRUTH THE REFORMERS AND LATER REVIVALISTS TO BE THE HEAD AND NOT THE TAIL AS WE ALL PROCEED TO THAT COMING DAY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.
57:51 Sam's answer to this question is superb! Thank you.
1:12:24 - 1:14:55 This is an excellent summary from Harrison. It's absolutely the teaching of Scripture. In fact, I think it should be stated stronger: It is incorrect to think that the types had any earthly "substantial" purpose. The Bible tells us they were types and shadows, period. Canaan (or the entire world as per Romans 4:13, as a type of heaven) could only be received by faith, not by obedience to circumcision. Circumcise your heart! Remaining in the land could only be by faith (saving faith . . . the meek in Christ will inherit the earth). The New Testament is the inspired interpretation of the Old and it tells us that all of God's blessings come only through faith in Christ. Outward circumcision and obedience to the law did not keep one in Canaan. It seems to me that Federal Baptists interpret the Old Testament precisely the same way that the Pharisees did (which was wrong). Why the law (the old covenant made at Sinai)? This is the question in Galatians. The law was not given for the purpose that the Judiazers and Federal Baptists believe. It was given to drive people to Christ (the promise of Abraham). It began with the direct voice of God declaring the moral law and it says "DO THIS" and live in order to show people that they cannot (like Christ telling the rich young man you know what commandments you must keep to have eternal life).
I think a big block in Federal Baptist thinking is the failure to distinguish the difference between the New Covenant as the unbreakable bond between the elect and Christ, and the administration of the gospel through preaching and the sacrament (this cup IS the new covenant). They also fail to distinguish the difference between being engaged in a covenant as a promise and being united in a covenant as a reality (a real union). Marriage is an example. Mary was engaged (betrothed) to Joseph respecting the covenant of marriage, but until the wedding took place, they were not in the full union and reality of marriage. Joseph was called Mary's husband, and yet Joseph was to take her to be his wife. The Scriptures show us a great deal about being in a covenant relationship through the illustration of marriage. It seems to me that the Baptists view being in the covenant of grace as exclusively a relationship of marriage (the living union between Christ and the elect), and don't seem to have any room for the possibility of there being a relationship between Christ and the visible church as a betrothal (which ultimately will end with the purified bride -the elect- at the great marriage feast of the lamb).
Denault makes an interesting point in his book; that it is legitimate to wonder whether paedobaptism was a result of Presbyterian covenant theology or if it was developed to justify the practice of paedobaptism. The more I dig into the Presbyterian framework, the less it makes sense. I'm leaning more and more towards the 1689 federalist view.
Neither... it's been the historical practice for all ages
Interesting. The more I look into it, the more I see paedobaptism as biblical. Ancientpathstv has some very good videos on the subject here on TH-cam, explaining where the Baptists went off the rails historically. For instance, I recommend Calvin vs. the Baptists and George Whitefield's Plea to Baptists.
@@bigtobacco1098
It was not done for the reasons Presbys do it.
@@28reynoldsburg you disagree with the nicene creed ??
I would love to see a discussion between two brothers who hold 1689 Federalism and 20th Century Baptist Covenant Theology. As a 20th century guy myself, it seems like all of Baptist CT gets framed in the 1689 Federalism context.
Definitely second-ing you with this. Same here, I'm a 20th Century guy, and what I've read and profited from is Greg Nichols' Covenant Theology volume. It'd be great to have a discussion with both sides.
@@charlessamuellasiste2752 if you haven’t given Earl Blackburn’s “Covenant Theology: a Baptist Distinctive” a try, then you should read it. It was very beneficial to me.
I agree make it him!
Renihan would argue that 1689fed is the majority view amongst particular baptist historically. He does see a minority that express a cov view much closer to WcF schema.
Notice that renihan does state that he speaks for himself or 1689fed (generally), not every Baptist.
Wouldn’t 20ct and WcF argue similarly for establishing the one cov two admin view?
@@sergioramirez8347 I agree that Renihan does mention only speaking for himself, because even his view of 1689 fed would be different than others who hold that view. Ex. He believes Limbus Patrum
As far as it being the most historically held view, I’m not 100% sold on that, but I will concede that most baptist who talk about CT in the 1600-1700’s do have a 1689fed view.
To your final point, yes the views are almost identical, Presbyterians just come at it from a view of infant baptism where as baptist don’t. And that presupposition changes how you frame the argument.
Maybe I’m just stupid or slow or something, but I listen to everyone talking here, and I like what all of them are saying.
I say big amens all around. Perhaps I’m just unlearned enough to not see big important differences.
You're not stupid, the 1689 Confession is similar to Westminster and the differences here aren't huge ones. They are technical and relate to the hermeneutics and view of Covenants, which result in our key distinctions on orthopraxy(most significantly Baptism).
Good discussion. Thanks!
46:47 Harrison's face . . . This is the expression we Presbyterians make when we hear our Baptist friends contradict themselves and admit our view.
Hey wait a second.... that kinda sounds like the Church or Romans 11.... hmmmm.
Here’s a great quote from the Mishnah Yoma, about the Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) and may help in the discussion of animal blood and the forgiveness of sins:
“Furthermore, for transgressions between a person and God, Yom Kippur atones; however, for transgressions between a person and another, Yom Kippur does not atone until he appeases the other person.”
Baptist theology is an accretion.
- said in a Gavin Ortland voice.
Garrett looking like Magnus Carlson
🤣🤣🤣
Who are the 1689 seminarians that lack a credible profession of faith? That is a serious charge.
I’d like to know that as well !
Expanding on the differnces of the promises under the Old Covenant and New Covenant might help the broader discussion. Only the New Covenant offers grace unto salvation. It accomplished what the Old Covenant could only point to.
Great to see brothers who disagree hashing it out . I have to admit that as a reformed Baptist myself who is inclined to agree with brother Sam , I’m a bit confused as to what I just watched .
What do you mean?
@@brandonadams07
Well , please comment further for your thoughts are more than welcome brother.
Unless I am not following the arguments it appears to me that there isn’t a distinct difference between what this Presbyterian brothers said about the substance of the covenants and there external administrations ?
The Presbyterian just ads the children somewhere, somehow.
@@michealferrell1677 Got it. Yeah, I think maybe this wound up creating more confusion, rather than clarifying, as someone else asked me the same thing. I recall two instances this was mentioned in this video.
1) Perkins said Renihan's comments about the land promise being corporately guaranteed but individually conditioned sounded just like his substance/administration distinction where one can be externally part of the covenant, but not participate in its internal realities. Perkins must have misunderstood what Renihan was saying, because that's not at all what he meant. Renihan was not referring to the benefits of Christ or to internal participation, but rather to the fact that not all Israelites would be allowed to enter the land of Canaan. Only those who obeyed Mosaic law would. Nonetheless, it guaranteed that at some point, some of Abraham's descendants would enter the land. That's not a substance/administration or inward/outward disticiton.
2) The other comment was from Renihan later in the video. I don't think he provided enough context or elaboration for what he meant he said he affirms a substance/administration distinction. He was not affirming Perkins' Presbyterian concept of two levels of being a member of the New Covenant (unless I missed something or misunderstood him). Rather, he was simply acknowledging that the bare concept of the difference between a covenant and its outward organization or ordinances is not problematic or objectionable. We can say that there is a New Covenant administration (preaching, Lord's Supper, baptism, etc) and distinguish that from the substance of the covenant (union with Christ, forgiveness of sins, regeneration, etc). I don't think he meant to imply that all who participate in the administration (i.e. are baptized) are therefore parties of the New Covenant. I don't think I've ever heard him say that. He probably elaborates here, but I don't recall if he touches on it specifically or not www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11221132111938
@@brandonadams07
In that Sermon audio of Sam , starting at 29:07-30:24 I get what he is saying but I can also see due to the language being used how a Presbyterian brother or even a modern reformed Baptist might accuse us of nut picking.
Thanks for your reply , I know that this area of theology is a serious one .
@@michealferrell1677 I agree with Sam's comments there. The problem is the language and invalid deductions that are made from the language. Yes, they might accuse of nit-picking, but it's not. It's make necessary distinctions. We elaborate here th-cam.com/video/89ZL-x3hrT8/w-d-xo.html and th-cam.com/video/uUoGd8_uob8/w-d-xo.html
(full discussion here th-cam.com/video/wPqZ1CHAako/w-d-xo.html )
Where in scripture do we read Baptism is a means of Grace. Romans 10 says faith comes by hearing the word of God (also 1 Cor. 1:21) not by Baptism. How does baptism feed us spiritually? Baptism is a proclamation of Grace not a means of Grace. The former sounds of baptismal regeneration.
Two books on this by Reformed Baptist
1. The Lord's Supper as a Means of Grace: More Than a Memory
Book by Barcellos Richard
2. Michael A. G. Haykin
Amidst Us Our Beloved Stands: Recovering Sacrament in the Baptist Tradition
A small TH-cam comment isn’t the place for that lengthy discussion. If you desire to learn hopefully you can glean from these books.
Thanks Sergio, I disagree with you, as the Mars Hill of today, You Tube should be a place to discuss these things. If the comment section is just to puff people up from their “amen” squad then I have little use for it. Your reply is very helpful, however, in what you do not say. I was expecting at least 1 Peter 3:21 or Acts 2:38 which is what I usually get from my Campbellite friends. If you have to recommend a book and cannot find a scripture for it, then it is probably wrong.
Means of grace
“means of grace” are the “delivery systems God has instituted to bring grace - that is, spiritual power, spiritual change, spiritual help, spiritual fortitude, spiritual blessings - to needy souls on earth”
Prayer: Acts 2:21
Scripture: 1 Peter 2:2, Romans 10:17
Baptism: 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 22:16
Lords Supper: 1 Corinthians 10:16
@@sergioramirez8347 Thanks again Sergio! Ephesians 2:8 says we are saved by Grace, and Titus 3:7 says we are justified by Grace. If Baptism and the Lord’s Supper are instruments that deliver Grace then we are saved by them. But Eph. 2:9 says it is not a result of our works and Titus 3:5 says it is not because of works done by us in righteousness but according to his mercy by the Holy Spirit. Baptism and participation in the Lord’s Supper are works done by us in righteousness so they cannot be means of Grace. Are Presbyterians and other paedobaptist groups saved despite not having been baptized?
Tell me how you understand the clear statements by Luke and Peter that Baptism washes sins and saves.
Being saved by grace/faith isn’t at odds with the means by which God displays his gospel message. (Baptism and the Lords supper are a visible word) that word being the gospel.
How are we justified? Through faith in the gospel. I do take the position that baptism is a normative and ordinary means by which God does justify sinners. Which is why the New Testament closely associates salvation with Baptism.
As for the Lords supper, I do believe it is a covenant renewal meal that is meant to bring the grace of assurance of that justification.
So you which means of grace do you deny?
Word, prayer, or sacraments?
One thing for certain, this Scripture in Leviticus 4 as it pertains to the LORD GOD, HIS HOLY COMMANDMENTS, and HIS DIVINE ORDINANCES, which pertains to sacrifice for sins (for both Aaronic Priest and the people of Israel), is totally lost on the minds of modern christendom.
Leviticus 4:1-7
1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, IF A SOUL SHALL SIN THROUGH IGNORANCE AGAINST ANY OF THE COMMANDMENTS OF THE LORD concerning things which OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE, and shall DO AGAINST ANY OF THEM:
3 IF THE PRIEST that is anointed DO SIN ACCORDING TO THE SIN OF THE PEOPLE; THEN LET HIM BRING FOR HIS SIN, WHICH HE HATH SINNED, a YOUNG BULLOCK WITHOUT BLEMISH unto the LORD for a SIN OFFERING.
4 And HE SHALL BRING the bullock unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation before the LORD; and SHALL LAY HIS HAND UPON THE BULLOCKS HEAD, and KILL THE BULLOCK before the LORD.
5 And THE PRIEST that is anointed shall TAKE OF THE BULLOCK'S BLOOD, and BRING IT to the tabernacle of the congregation:
6 And THE PRIEST SHALL DIP HIS FINGER IN THE BLOOD, and SPRINKLE OF THE THE BLOOD SEVEN TIMES before the LORD, before the vail of the sanctuary.
7 And THE PRIEST SHALL PUT SOME OF THE BLOOD upon the horns of the altar of sweet incense before the LORD, which is in the tabernacle of the congregation; and SHALL P9OUR ALL THE BLOOD OF THE BULLOCK at the bottom of the altar of the burnt offering, which is at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
It is a consistent modern doctrine that they of modern formerly Bible believing Protestants believe all '613 laws', meaning whether they are the Ten Comandments, statutes, laws, precepts, judgments, or ordinances, are all abolished, nailed to the Cross, and thus passed away.
The problem remains that neither our LORD or HIS Holy Apostles are the AUTHOR (or authors) of such a doctrine. If there were nothing to be charged against a soul that they have sinned, then why would there be a need for propitiation?
And yet all the Apostles in their various epistles write concerning the ongoing relivance of any and all that pertains to showing forth that a soul sins, when they DO WHAT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE, and DO AGAINST ANY OF THEM. John the Apostle plainly says, 'Sin is the transgresson of the LAW.'
What Paul called Holy, Just, and Good (Romans 7:12), he makes certain we all understand (as brethren that know the Law) how that it has dominion over us as long as we shall live (Romans 7:1). Yes the Law itself is a transcript of its very AUTHOR, and the first work of the HOLY SPIRIT is to convince the world of SIN before it can further demonstate the Righteousness of Christ, the Propitiation for our sins, thus securing our Justification and our Righteousness before the Heavenly Father.
Another thing Paul makes certain, is that claiming to be justified by the faith of our LORD Jesus Christ, is not a licence to abandon these Holy Commandments, but rather (as our LORD taught concerning HIMSELF and HIS sheep who hear HIS VOICE) that they shall be fulfilled, and the righteousness of the LAW will also be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh but after the SPIRIT.
I don't know a reformed person (baptist or presby) that teaches the Moral Law of God (The Ten Commandments) has passed away. The general Reformed view (with nuances, of course) is that all of Scripture stands unless expressly done away with in the NT. So circumcision, the Aaronic priesthood, etc., are done away with. If you read all of the NT, especially Hebrews, and believe the sacrificial system is not expressly done away with then I'd be very VERY surprised and would like to know why you think that.
@@eg5646WELL WE ARE IN AGREEMENT EG. I HAVE ALWAYS REALIZED THE POSITIONS OF THE GREAT REORMERS, AND THEY OF THE REVIVALS (THE WESLEYS, GEORGE WHITEFIELD, AND JONATHON EDWARDS), THEN LATER EVANGELICALS LIKE CHARLES HADDEN SPURGEON, AND EVEN D.L MOODY (IN SOME RESPECTS), MAINTAINED THE AUTHORITY OF THE TEN COMMANDMENTS, INCLUDING THE SABBATH COMMAND (ALTHOUGH APPLYING IT TO THE FIRST DAY SUNDAY.
MY GREATEST CONCERN IS HOW DARBYISM (WHICH C.H SPURGEON DESPISED) HAS CHANGED THE MODERN CHRISTIAN CHURCH INTO A DIVISIVE, CONFUSED CHURCH.
I SEE THE LABORS OF FELLOW CHRISTIANS WHO ARE NOT WHOLLY GIVEN OVER TO THE ROMAN CHURCH DOCTRINES AND THOSE OF THE DISPENSATIONAL ESCHATOLOGY, AND I HOPE FOR THE TRUTH THE REFORMERS AND LATER REVIVALISTS TO BE THE HEAD AND NOT THE TAIL AS WE ALL PROCEED TO THAT COMING DAY OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST.