ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 พ.ย. 2024
- Have you ever wondered what the differences are between a confessional Baptist position on covenant theology and a confessional Presbyterian position? (We know you have--because you’ve asked us.) Jon and Justin talk about the differences today. It really all comes down to how one understands the covenant of grace to be revealed and then established. We hope this conversation brings some clarity for you!
Sam Renihan’s book, The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant & His Kingdom:
www.amazon.com...
1689 Federalism Website:
1689federalism....
JOIN THE THEOCAST COMMUNITY:
www.theocastco...
FREE EBOOK:
theocast.org/p...
PARTNER with Theocast:
theocast.org/p...
OUR WEBSITE:
theocast.org/
INSTAGRAM:
/ theocast_org
X (TWITTER):
Theocast: / theocast_org
Jon Moffitt: / jonmoffitt
Justin Perdue: / justin_perdue
FACEBOOK:
/ theocast.org
#reformedtheology #presbyterian #baptism
Presbyterian stopping by to show some love 🙏. #SolusChristus #Solideogloria
Love in Presbyterianism, that’s pretty funny!
@@truthseeker5698 Get outta here! Shoo!
Anyway, love to Presbyterians from a Baptist! 😁
We have been so disappointed by the shallowness of the GARBC churches in our area. Found a PCA church plant half an hour away and are all in. We are absolutely confessional. At this point the WCF and associated catechisms are precious to our faith. Appreciate your ministry.;
elect infants , how precious.
I’m fairly new to reformed theology and I’m a member of a PCA church. I always enjoy your content. Thank you for what you do!
As a confessional Lutheran I appreciate this channel very much, new subscriber! May Christ be magnified!
This was realy good and a great refresher for me as I am a 1689 baptist. I struggle with mental health issues and my memory has really been struggling so I haven't been able to do the deeper study that I used to. Covenant theology and eschatology are very close to my heart as it was such an amazing journey for me coming to understand these things more in line with the scriptures. Im a member of a calvinist baptist church that is dispensational. I love them dearly and the preaching is very faithful but I don't get to talk about these things with people in person so it's always a blessing to find others that do agree in those areas though I strive to not be contentious or divisive in these things as they are secondary issues.
This was an eye-opener for me. Thank you for taking the time to explain the distinctives! I had some misgivings and misunderstandings that very much needed this clarification.
Thank you, brothers, for that informative discussion. God bless your ministry!
URC guy here! Though we have our differences, I’m grateful that we can still be united in our faith. Love you guys and the content the Theocast team puts out every week.
Resident Presby here.
First, I would like to say that I can tell y'all genuinely tried to represent WCF CT accurately and with charity, and I sincerely appreciate that.
With that said, y'all made a list of very serious (and very common from Baptists) errors about what we believe.
The Covenant of Grace was established in thr Garden, not with Abraham. There are not just 2 administrations but "various" or multiple" administrations-- i.e. the Noahic covenant administered the CoG. The Abrahamic administered the CoG. The Mosaic (old covenant) administered the CoG. And so forth. Administration is the outward expression, not the substance, meaning that we do NOT say people were brought into the CoG by circumcision under Abraham. Abraham was in the CoG by faith. Circumcision brought people into the outward, visible covenant community. The fact that y'all said circumcision brought people into the covenant of Grace shows exactly how severely you misunderstand our position. The New Covenant is in fact, and entirely New Covenant (in comparison with the old covenant-mosaic) and as a covenant, it still serves to administer the overarching covenant of Grace.
Your position has many issues as well. Bu having the CoG promised but not administered, you have people in the OT being saved by a covenant that isn't in effect. That's not how covenants work. You overly conflate the New Covenant and the CoG, essentially making them the same thing.
It's just tough to watch, cuz y'all get so much right, but get this so wrong.
It's challenging to understand, but once you 'see' the parallel administration's of the same covenant, you can see the cohesiveness of the sacraments: Passover to Lord's supper and Circumcission to baptism.
Can you recommend a good resource or chart to gain clarity on the covenants /administrations?
I've been a squishy Non-Denom Dspy (without even knowing what Dspy meant) for far too long. I've been journeying toward the Reformed faith and have been trending toward Presbyterian. This video will belp sharpen my understanding 👍🏼
I find 1689 Federalism a much more satisfying theological system Biblically. Brandon Adams has a Sunday School class-level introduction to it on his channel. And he is the maintainer of the online archives of 1689Federalism. As it were. It's called "The Story of Redemption."
A lot of non-denominational churches are practically Baptists. I’m a reformed (particular) Baptist, but I wouldn’t describe myself as confessional. Ultimately following scripture is most important, and I take pride in my Baptist heritage which I believe has done that better than the Presbyterians. I recommend reading Baptists, The Only Thorough Religious Reformers by John Quincy Adams.
Orthodoxy is better.
-Former confessional reformed.
@@bad_covfefe I don’t see the appeal. I already read and learn from the church fathers. They are helpful but they aren’t perfect. Y’all have weird unbiblical and unhistorical practices like praying to saints too. Not for me.
@bad_covfefe I have seen nothing in EO that I could not have enjoyed simply by reading the Didache and Patristics while remaining Reformed. And nothing from either encouraged me to change. In fact, the Didache's teaching on baptism *reinforced* my credobaptism.
I go to a Presbyterian church that follows the same position on the covenant of grace as you do.
I’ve read a lot of Reformed Baptists who utilize Jeremiah 31 to argue their covenant theology. I just posted a video recently from an article Neil Jeffers wrote addressing those arguments from a paedobaptist perspective.
Is Chad Bird at the conference (covenant Baptist church) on TH-cam? This my first hearing about it….
Good stuff guys! There is much agreement between us Presbyterians and you. However I would offer these thoughts on some of your conclusions.
Your arguments up front sound to me almost like foisting Federal Vision on poor Abraham. The implication of turning circumcision into a law requirement stapled onto a covenant (my words) where God himself went between the cut pieces is functionally turning that covenant into a mixed-covenant. One with grace with a works component added in.
If we look at the New Covenant, I think we all agree that there is a necessary consequence of works (IE: that works necessarily happen as a consequence of new creation life), and we could also say that faith is a condition from us for this covenant, and Calvin actually does, although we all would agree that God grants the faith, so it too is consequential.
So if we look at Abraham and the circumcision, we can say that faith was also a necessary consequential condition from him, and circumcision, being the external visible sign of belonging to the covenant and the internal justifying faith is so closely tied to it, it’s dealt with from God’s perspective as synonymous with or completing the faith itself, in the form of considering it what Paul calls a seal (Rom 4:11).
We’re not to go all the way like Rome has and saying that the external sign constitutes the spiritual reality, but neither are we to relegate it to a mere memorial or ritual. There is a reason God gives the same name to the sacraments as the spiritual realities they resemble. It is because, for the elect, He does call us to relate to them as visible signs tied to the invisible reality. The external visible seal on the invisible spiritual reality of faith which Paul argues in Romans 4 that for Abraham proceeded the physical act of circumcision, and thereby Justification preceded any of the consequentially necessary works, the first of which is the desire in the heart to want God's sign on you showing you are His according to His promises.
Look at it this way, if God says, “Put faith in me and you’ll be mine forever, and I will give you a sign to wear that you and your children are mine!”, then the faith you would put into that promise would be followed with the vindicating act of your wanting that sign on you and your children. Which, I have never understood some Evangelicals only wanting Baptism out of some duty, or to show how they have obeyed. They should want that sign with all their heart and with great joy because of the promises of God held forth in it.
Also, Paul never argues that Abraham was in a sort of mixed covenant, or gracious covenant with a law component added. Nor does he argue Abraham from some sort of two stage perspective, pointing out as you do that kings came from him and forms of old testament fulfillment or ties, and then a secondary new creation fulfillment. No, Paul goes right into universalizing the promise to Abraham and the land by saying, boom, it was the whole world! (Romans 4:13) , and in Galatians 3, he makes it clear it’s the one offspring (Christ), and then we’re the offsprings in him, and we can hopefully see that it’s all eschatological. It’s the new creation that Christ makes of the whole world that we inherit in him. That’s where all those promises to Abraham get fulfilled, all through Christ, in whom all of the promises of God are yes and amen.
Yes, we do see the dual membership in the New Covenant. Have you read Ephesians? Paul says there that God's purpose is to compose the new Adam, the new mankind, from 2 groups. One who hoped beforehand in Christ and another group who was "without hope." That first group is "a royal priesthood, a holy nation."
Interesting discussion but I did get lost in the shop talk by the end. Thanks for the excellent presentation of Federalism and the basic discussion of the covenants, it helped.
I think that the scriptures show redemptive history as a dynamic and progressive interaction between God and mankind as revealed in unconditional promises and conditional promises. The issue has always been how to systematized this, which is not easy and probably not possible, but can be profitable in trying.
Nice try guys, hats off to you.
Think of Administration as a suit of clothes. The OT had circumcision, sacrifices, the land, etc. They were the clothes of the OT.
The NT has a different set of clothes. Baptism, Lord's Supper, the Church, Gentile inclusion. But it's still just clothes. Underneath, it's the same Covenant of Grace applied to One People of God.
We as Reformed Baptists agree it's One People of God. One Covenant of Grace. But we say the only set of clothes that was ever proper for salvation is Christ. Himself. Abraham was saved the same way we are. The only difference is he looked ahead. We look back. We both see Christ.
@@shawngillogly6873 Thanks, this is clarifying. Do you believe that when Jesus said to the Pharisees that Abraham rejoiced to see my day coming (John 8: 56) that he had been given the same type of revelation of the Son of God as we now have in the completed canon?
@@shawngillogly6873 As reformed presbyterian, I agree with the clothes analogy. However, I would not say it is a different set of clothes, but rather that the clothing of the OT has been tailored to improve. The OT/NT set of clothes has always been Christ.
@jeffwatt4684 Did they know the works of Christ in detail? I cannot say that. They saw through shadows. The shadow is a real shape. It can tell you facts about the person. Approximate height, build, male/female. But it can't show you the full person.
They believed on the shadow, knowing God had substance behind it. But the salvation is not from the shadow. Or through the shadow. It's from the real person of Christ.
Hebrews confirms this. The sacrifices did not save. They only cleansed the flesh. Not the conscience. It was sufficient to remain in the land. Not to be redeemed. The specific blessings of the Mosaic Covenant were not salvific. But they provided heightened common grace, as it were, so that the Israelite could see God's goodness (or presence in judgment!) around them. And then believe on the substance behind the shadows, namely Christ.
As a Lutheran friend and occasional listener, it's interesting to see the parallels and differences. As far as I can tell, we don't subscribe to one iota of covenant theology. Had it been in existence at the time our confessions were written, I'm sure it would have been flatly rejected, along with other tenets of Reformed theology. And yet, with a few Christological distinctions, we're both trinitarian to the core, we both hold to justification by faith, law and gospel distinction, and perhaps a few more things. Interesting that we could have come out of the Protestant meat grinder of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries with those things intact. I pretty much disagreed with almost everything you said today, and yet respect you. Far as I can tell, I reject all five of the hallowed five points, and yet I would encourage you in your fight for the purity of a free, unconditional gospel, confessionalism (I might suggest a different confession), adherence to Jesus in simplicity and faith. I don't know how we can like be theological skew lines that will never intersect, and yet retain so many articles in common. It's a wonder. Blessings.
What confession do you subscribe to?
@@treeleaf7808 The granddaddy of them all, the Unaltered Augsburg Confession (1530), plus the additional confessions in the Book of Concord (1580). It's available online for free.
@@Wolttizmbeen looking for a church closer to home. Been looking at a PCA and LCMS church. Tough for me to settle on some things at the moment. Working out my position on the sacraments still. My problem is I can see the arguments on both sides.
@@Wolttizm Thank you! Much appreciated
@@Gondor149 I wish you well in your endeavor. I'm sure it's not easy. When people ask me about an essential difference between Luther and Calvin, I refer them to Phil Cary's article (readily available online) on "Why Luther Is Not Quite Protestant." Phil is not a Lutheran (Anglican, I believe and a genuine Augustine scholar), but he lays out ways to deal with the kind of angst that would point most people toward a Lutheran or more Protestant perspective. I found it quite helpful, even as a lifelong Lutheran.
How close are you guys to NCT?
Not at all
What’s the difference between NCT and federalism?
Wow tjat ,akes a difference on my faith in Jesus. So why do we argue over dumb stuff when we should be united throgh Jesus? Does anything matter or whatever we add to the truth of Jesus?
I don’t understand any of these words they are saying. I mean I know the words but not understanding the words in the context. I need it to be more simplified 😔. Sorry I’m kind of dumb.
A yoke they could never keep and a yoke that Yahweh promised they would fail at. Israel could never stay in the promised land or be blessed because they are sinners just like me .❤
I believe however that OT Christians were indwellt with the Holy Spirit
I'm confused. There were no Christians in the old testament, as Christ wasn't around yet. Explain please.
Abraham was a Christian. No one has ever had faith without the HS.
@@gdot9046 explain. You're not backing up your statement with Scripture or facts. Christians were ones who followed Christ. Abraham believed in the promise, yes. How do you identify him as a Christian?
@@mahreeohhhhhe is the father of faith. He believed the promises (Christ) and was given the righteousness of Christ. The only difference between him and us is in the amount of the mystery of Christ that has been revealed. Read Galatians3- 4, hebrews 10, Romans 4 and James 2. How the HS operated in the lives of Old Testament saints seems to be a of a differing density but not a differing effect.
@@gdot9046 thank you. Finally somebody backing it up with Scripture.
I’m wondering how I have fallen into pietism just like the Galatians. I’ve been stuck in pietism for a very long time now, just like the Galatians. Christ was wholeheartedly sufficient for me for a long time, but somehow my eyes got taken off of Christ and put on myself. It’s been this way for many years now. Relearning the Gospel and who Christ is- is tough. I do not have peace, joy, or assurance. Please pray for me. Thank you.
"Why We Dunk" 😁
The first time I saw your post I misread it as 'Why we drink' 😂
@@toolegittoquit_001well. If they don't cover their nose, they might!
We are not PCA or Lordship Salvationists, buuut we still believe Jesus was sent to undo the sting of death caused by sin for a special favored few & no one else... you can't make this stuff up...or can you??