Covenant Theology - Mastering Reformed Theology Chapter 8
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 29 มิ.ย. 2024
- Visit our website: www.kingdompresbyterians.com/
Make a donation: donorbox.org/presbyterians-fo...
Theology Matters: www.theologymatters.com/
Find a church: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edi...
This series is so based, I'm trying to get it into my conformation curriculem
AWESOME! Dew it
Dont
Dew!
Calvinist are unanimously against using Tik Toker slang.
The Church is the true successor of ancient Israel. The modern state of Israel lacks the true Messiah.
"And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." - Galatians 3:29
Came in clutch with that verse 🙏🙏🙏 Amen brother
"Jesus said to them, 'Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.' "
”Brothers and sisters, pray for us. Greet all God’s people with a holy kiss.“
1 Thessalonians 5:25-26 although the church is the continuation of gods promise as presbes say but god has not completely abandoned his people.
@@TheScholarlyBaptist I agree, this and predestination are why I'm not presbyterian.
@@TheScholarlyBaptist God's people? You mean the bloodlines of Israel? Are you not aware that the ten tribes were carried off into bondage by the Assyrians, sent to the lands of the Scythians, and it is from that land that the Germanics, the Huns, the Slavs, the Mongols and the Turks all came? The blood is dispersed among many nations now, as is the blood of Judah and Benjamin, many of whom became Christians. The stubborn Pharisees of the Old Testament, which were they who followed the traditions of men, the oral torah, which is now the Talmud; were often of Edomite descent. They became modern day jews, as the other people of the Hebrew faith required the Temple, and after its destruction at the hands of the Romans they were no longer able to practice their faith, leading many to either become Christians who had Jesus as their Temple, or a Pharisee/jew, which claimed they did not need a temple because the rabbis had said so. The Edomites had settled the region during the Babylonian exile; when the Judahites returned from exile they had a war with the Edomites, with a man called John Hyrcanus, a Sadduccee, leading them, who defeated the Edomites. He forced them to convert to the Hebrew religion, and many of the Edomites would then become Pharisees as an act of petty resistance, as Pharisees were the main theological opponents of the Sadducees. One such Edomite Pharisee family would be the Herodians, with the Bible recording their founder as Antipater the Idumean (which is Edomite).
The point I'm making is that if you think God is going to look after a people because of genetic connections to Abraham, then you will find much of the world related to him, not just Europeans and Turks, but also Arabs and Africans and more. If it is just the people of Israel, well then you still have the Europeans, the Mongols, the Turks and all of the people they conquered and mixed with (which is literally everywhere). Even though some jews might be counted among these people genetically related to Israel, many would not due to them being Edomites or Canaanites, while many people in other nations are; and so the idea that God would uniquely help the 'jews' that live in the state of Israel today is utter nonsense. It's also not Biblical in the first place, as the promises are given to the seed of Abraham, which is one seed, which is Jesus (Galatians 3:16); and if any man believes in Jesus then he is made one with the people of Christ, there is neither jew nor gentile, all are made one in Christ; and through Christ we becomes heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:28-29).
Absolutely amazing video this one.
Covenant Theology really is one of if not the biggest backbone of Reformed Theology.
The Israel of God is the Church and it is faith that makes you a descendent of Abraham.
Yep, as said in Galatians
@@LordMicahBroch exactly as said in Galatians and to believe otherwise is to deny the words of the apostles.
@@billyhart3299and yet for some reason people still say otherwise.
@@LordMicahBroch False. God will save an elect remnant of literal, biological Israel at the end times:
Romans 11:25 KJV
For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
@@Revolver9 read Galatians.
The church IS Israel. The children of Abraham are those of the faith as per Galatians 3:7
And Galatians 3:26-29 "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise."
Some biological Jews WILL be saved, but only if they believe in Christ, NOT because they are biological Jews
My theology basically falls somewhere between Reformed and Roman Catholic. This channel has inspired me, and I’m going to join the ACNA, though in college I’m going to be at one of the Episcopalian churches off the Reconquista map. God bless
Good choice! Just remember that Anglicans have always been much closer to Geneva than Rome. Some Anglicans forget this.
Gay marriage, charismatics, female priests... pass
@At this rate, you’ll get people pushing for this in every denomination. The key is to focus on a church holding to the faith handed down from the saints and holding fast to scripture, not being blown with the world.
As long as the church he finds is conservative and biblical, then he should be fine.
W
Our man RZ is literally distilling dozens of hours worth of theology into a tl;dr of 10 minutes, which also somehow includes references to current day events, making it super relatable and easy to understand. I stand in awe.
not a presby myself but I have been looking into the reformed camp, your channel has given me a lot to think about and to compare to the scriptures...Thanks RZ!
Reformed theology has another christ, not Jesus The Messiah.
They’re great recruiters into a treacherous system of an iron clad dusty meadow of tulips .
Don’t. Be received into the Holy Orthodox Church.
People think Methodists and Presbys don't have much in common due to Soteriology , but in truth we are basically identical when it comes to the Sacraments and Covenant Theology.
YES! THIS IS SO TRUE
Reformed baptists are calvinist in regards to the five points, methodists are calvinist in regards to everything else. (I think, I'm a Lutheran)
The way I explain what Methodism is to my friends is that it's "Presbyterianism without predestination."
They also have the whole lgbtq acceptance and rainbow priest thing in common.
Catholics don't read solely through tradition. Catholics also read through Covenant theology, but with a much much more rigorous form than most presbyterians, dividing the text into one of 4 different fulfillments. There's a wikipedia article on the matter if anyone cares to check it out
Exactly, Catholicism originally developed covenant theology, and understood it with the 4 modes of scripture (the literal, the typological, the tropological, and the anagogical).
The literal sense is even further subdivided into three (the historical, the etiological, and the analogical).
In St. Thomas’ Summa Theologica, he talks about the two senses of scripture (the literal and the spiritual) being divided into four (the first four I mentioned) and further into 6 (the three literal plus the three spiritual).
There are lots of reformed Baptists who believe this too. Even Southern Baptists.
Reformed Baptist here. Many conform to Covnant Theology! 🎉
This series is amazing, and your channel has really made me reconsider reformed theology
It is good to see that there are an actual theology theories that explain the Church is the real continuity of Israel. With this, many people will learn about it through proper educated way
I say this because I learn about it not from proper theological theories. I learned it from chain of bad experiences.
The Church isn't the people of God to the exclusion of Israel, the Church is another word for Israel post-crucifixion. Jews who reject Jesus are cut off from it, but many will eventually come to believe and be regrafted. Gentile Christians, when they join the Church, are grafted onto Israel. This becomes clear when you read Romans 11 and Galatians 3 & 4. Also, James addresses all Christians as "the twelve scattered tribes".
The only "Christians" who believe this are dispensationalists. The church of Christ was started by the believing and faithful remnant of Israel bringing Gentiles into the fold. Its only natural that over time the percentage of Christians who weren't ethnically Jewish would diminish over time.
Those who still cling to Judaism are rejecting Christ, making them by definition Antichrist.
I like how the music gets more intense as I get more confused
As an Orthodox Christian, I love watching this series.
I find something I disagree with but I can't explain it, I research, ask my priest, and then continue.
So easy to follow, even this boomer understands. Well done
Lutherans do not believe that there is no Gospel in the Old Testament. There is Law and Gospel in both testaments
I am a Lutheran the point is that in the Old Testmente we was under the law and in the new Testmente we became free with the Gospel so yes, Law and Gospel.
Love this series bro. It's tought me quite a lot within reformed theology
Even though I'm a Baptists/Dispensationalist.
Most chrstians don't belive in the rapture. Its a fairly new belief and is mostly popular with evangelicals
That’s officially true. But there are so many ignorant Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, etc that many of them think that the Rapture idea is true because they see it in movies or hear about it on the radio or whatever.
But All Christian beliefs in the second coming of Jesus Christ where He raised the dead and be taken ( rapture) up to heaven along with the living.
Irenaeus (130 n.Chr. - 202 n.Chr.)
Cyprianus (200 n.Chr. - 258 n.Chr.)
Ephraim de Siriër
Ephraim (306 n.Chr. - 373 n.Chr.) enz
Belive in the rapture
@@jacobtennyson9213 the 2nd coming is different from the rapture. Inspiring philosophy made a video provoing the rapture isn't real
Yeah, hardly anyone could read and there were hardly any books prior to the printing press. Now that hundreds of millions of people can read the Bible for themselves they can form views on scripture that some corrupt medieval priest may not have seen.
Reformed theology is itself a tradition...
The only basis we have here is the Bible itself, which we can know and understand better today than throughout most of church history. None of these man made traditions (Catholic, Reformed, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, Dispensationalism) we see today exist in the Bible. Each one has a bit of Biblical truth with a whole lot of extrabiblical fluff thrown in that they reinsert back into the Bible.
My stance is that most of these issues are fairly minor and I shouldn't be rejecting people for certain beliefs, but these issues can cause problems that may turn people away for being too overly strict. On the other hand, some people need a stricter firm hand as a guiding light.
Personally I believe God is using this for good even though Christ did not desire such divisions and would rather they not exist, but their existence is simply a part of human nature. The founding fathers of the USA didn't desire the formation of political parties but they happened anyway. Its just an unfortunate fact of human nature.
Reformed Christians have no problem with traditions. We have a problem with the idea that church tradition is infallible and can't be scrutinized. Only God's Word is infallible.
So I was born and raised Christian my whole life up in southern Canada. My parents were both raised German baptist(which is a very strict, law based and hypocritical thing, hard to explain but many younger members of the church slept around and got girls pregnant, lots of shotgun marriages) and so my parents both rejected the fundamentals of that church believing that it was "The Law" that the church taught that made everyone so sinful. They left their denomination to be apart of the "word of life" movement, which then became a completely non-denom church later. Everything was fine until I turned 12, that's when the theology of my denomination started to crumble. We went to this church my whole growing up until the pastor (Peter Youngren big televangelist) cheated on his wife(of course he was forgiven) and then cheated on her a second time, so our church fell apart and disbanded. My parents tried out a sister church nearby but I started to hate being there and that church was covertly getting into new age stuff which my mom saw through. Both of these churches were totally money driven and business people driven. Everyone there was trying to make money off others(it was crazy looking back at it now). Seeing it through my eyes now it seems like we believed some mangled type of Federalism as was explained in the video. My parents decided to pull away from the church and "do church from home" and that started in like 2009, they tried to keep my away from "all the dreaded denominations" and so for a while I'd been secluded from real churches. That was until I started dating a fundamental Baptist girl and went to her church when I was 20. It was a confusing experience, I felt like a fish out of water, the people were so nice to me that I didn't know what to say or do. That only lasted 2 months till we broke up(clearly our beliefs were too different at that time, I was an undeveloped Christian and she was 4 years older than me, she needed spiritual stability) but I began to study all the different denominations, trying to figure out what I actually believed. I'm 25 now, but 2 years ago I decided I was a reformed Christian, as I find their theology one of the only solid grounds to stand on.
But today I must say that with your explanation I ACTUALLY understand what I believe now!!! I might still struggle to fight against my parents and go to a physical church near me, but these videos are giving me the confidence I need to one day overcome them, and that day is coming soon!!!
Thank you so much!!!!
That was awesome! Thanks, brother!
1:21 Heb.8 seems to go against this especially in vss.7-9 New covenant...not like the one I made. Ending with vs.13 "When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."
I really like what you are doing for the modern day church by explaining things that most people have forgotten over time but i can see alot of chirstians just getting confused by all the big theological words and how people in the church disagree on so many points. I hope we can make this understandable to the average believer.
Looking forward to your next video :)
covenant theology
Catholicism also teaches covenant theology. It’s straight from the Catechism.
Some details are obviously different than Reformed covenant theology, but the core idea is the same.
I believe in a law / gospel distinction, I also believe in a continual covenant God makes with us. I don’t understand how law/gospel and continual covenant are mutually exclusive.
I don’t believe Lutherans think the covenant with Moses is one of grace but of law.
I argue almost daily with my Boomer father because he is absolutely obsessed with supporting "Our Greatest Ally" or like, America is gonna get swallowed by a sinkhole or something.
That how you talk about you're pops, a boomer?
Yep neo con boomers are all zionist and accuse people of replacement theology. That being said, we should always honor our parents and bless them
Love your videos
I can’t wait till this guy tackles The inter-Testamento period. In 100% honesty put it at the top of the list I am sincerely looking forward to it.
God bless you RZ, i used to have some prejudice against calvinism but once you understand what it actually is it actually makes sense
This is interesting...as I recently was berated by a few Christian's randomly, because they thought celebrating Christmas and eating pork was blasphemy, and that Jesus would essentially not have died for any who did do either.
Oh and yes, they thought about the Rapture with the USA, utilizing Ezekial 1-2, Isaiah 66, and John 4 (might be wrong with the exact chapter of John, as I forgot that last one).
they never read Acts lol, I can’t believe Judaizers still exist in the 21st century.
As of the last few months many Calvary Chapel pastors have called covenant theology heresy!
It really shows how some churches are so shallow.
It's not just dispensationalism that makes things like covenant theology unpopular among evangelicals, there's also the perception that the idea that the church replaces Israel has borne bad fruit, in that it has historically often been taken as a license to antisemitism, or an excuse to ignore it.
My reading of scripture is that the Old Covenant is a prophecy pointing towards the New, that the elect of the Old Testament were saved by the New Covenant, not the Old, and that the Jews are God's people temporally, while the Church is God's people spiritually, neither one replacing the other.
There's also the sense in which the Jews are God's people in the same sense as Mary is the Mother of God (Jesus is God, Jesus is ethnically a Jew).
Watching more and more of this series and how different churches who believe these weird biblical offshoots, the more I realize it's no wonder so many people are turned off to church, when it can get so insane, like that communion bit
I currently attend a Presbyterian church, and I'm thinking that I'll become Catholic, but Reformed theology is very interesting, particularly covenant theology
You make great videos, bro, i just miss Bible referrences on them
Thx a lot bro!
Really good video on Covenental Theology. I would lean more dispensational just because many of the promises in the OT are to Israel, and would have been unreadable or even a straight up lie to the original audience. Zech 14 comes to mind
I believe Israel was a nation of God’s chosen meant to be a type and shadow for his coming kingdom.
Romans 11 helps us understand Israel wasn’t replaced but rather gentiles were saved to bring them into jealousy and prove God came to save ALL.
Romans 11:1-36
“11 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,[a] a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.
7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written,
“God gave them a spirit of stupor,
eyes that would not see
and ears that would not hear,
down to this very day.”
9 And David says,
“Let their table become a snare and a trap,
a stumbling block and a retribution for them;
10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see,
and bend their backs forever.”
Gentiles Grafted In
11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion[b] mean!
13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches.
17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root[c] of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.
The Mystery of Israel's Salvation
25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written,
“The Deliverer will come from Zion,
he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”;
27 “and this will be my covenant with them
when I take away their sins.”
28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now[e] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.
33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!
34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord,
or who has been his counselor?”
35 “Or who has given a gift to him
that he might be repaid?”
36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
True, these folk just think Israel’s third resurrection was a coincidence. Apparently, messing with Israel resulting in terrible luck for you is true. We’re watching it unfold. And if anyone is gonna call me a “puppet of the synagogue of Satan” it was also said that Satan would trick people into being anti Israel regardless of where they stand.
Lutherans would say that Law and Gospel both run throughout Scripture. Also, I think our primary hermeneutic is reading Scripture as pointing to Christ. Law and Gospel are important, but Christ is primary. Also, I'm pretty comfortable with Israel and the Church being God’s people, with the church being folded in or grafted on. That seems to be the best way to make sense of Romans 9-11.
Small correction on hypercalvinism in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands: only a subset of them hold to this kind of theology. These churches are known as 'bevindelijk' or experiental in English, meaning they should have 'experienced' God to be sure of their election. But other Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, both orthodox and liberal, do not hold to this theology. That being said, you are correct on that many members of the experiental churches don't take communion. Which I find really sad because these churches withhold the Body and Blood of Christ from a large part of their members.
Thank you! This breakdown of Covenant Theology is so helpful! What book would you recommend that elaborates on basic Covenant Theology as you've described it here?
Just so you know, many baptists believe in covenant theology rather than dispensationslism or something else.
not real Covenant Theology tho, just 1698 Federalism
@@redeemedzoomer6053Yes 1689 federalism is a bit different, but there are reformed baptists that are truly reformed and truly embrace covenant theology.
Reformed baptists such as myself, don't say that the old testament is a covenant of works, they believe it's a covenant of grace just as Presbyterians do.
This is what I've learned in a baptist seminary with baptist teachers, and it's what is taught in my baptist church, and is what was taught to me by my baptist parents while growing up.
But it's not the majority view between baptist.
There's a great diversity in baptists. From full classical dispensationslism to covenant theology.
@@TitusRexHow you have the same Covenant Theology that we have and don't baptize babies? Our you will circumcize them or you will believe that it was substituted by Baptism, there is no other option.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 baptism and the understanding of circumcision are the main difference.
If you want a brief explanation you can read the wikipedia article "Baptist covenant theology" you'll see that there are different views within reformed baptist theology, those that are 1689Fed and those that agree with Westminster understanding of the covenant of grace.
@@pedroguimaraes6094do you only baptize male babies? Because circumcision was obviously male only.
Baptism is in a sense the continuation of circumcision because it is the sign of the covenant, but with some differences. My view (and the practice described in the new testament) is that baptism occurs after belief in Christ and includes all peoples, man, women, and jews and gentiles. There's no explicit examples of baptism of babies in the NT, if there were I would agree with baptizing babies.
Theological constructs matter! 👏
I learned my view of covenant theology upon graduating from the Henry T Ford theological seminary.
Would love to hear you do a series of Primitive Baptist vs Calvinism!
Anyone who wants to know more about Marrow theology should read "The Whole Christ" by Sinclair Ferguson, my favorite Christian book written since the death of C.S. Lewis. I think it's such a rich way of understanding God's Grace.
There's also Macleod's "From the Marrow Men to the Moderates: Scottish Theology 1700-1800"
Reformed calvinism is a disgusting reprehensible post biblical writing system. Gnostic roots that malign and bear false witness to the life of Jesus The Messiah.
Your choice.
Some of the Marrow Men were Thomas Boston, Ralph & Ebenezer Erskine & Jas Hog. The good book that so influenced them was written by Edward Fisher, many years before, “The Marrow of Modern Divinity”. They fought against Legalism in the church & especially Legalism in The Gospel !
This fight is needed once again in our day.
Dontcha just love theology by glib explanation and in a cartoon format? So helpful.
W video tbh, keep up the good work Redeemed Zoomer :)
These visuals are supposedly so simple, yet so effective.
I’m a Baptist minister, not southern Baptist, Original Baptist, and I 💯 subscribe to covenant theology. I don’t, however, believe in predestination (Calvinism). There are some Baptists who are Calvinist. My maternal grandmother and grandfather belong to the Primitive Baptist Church who believe in predestination. They’re basically Presbyterian
If you hold to Reformed Covenant Theology, you believe that the Church is a continuation of Israel and that the Old and the New Covenants are just two different administrations of the same Covenant of Grace. If you believe so, or you will circumcize your Babies our you will have the same Reformed understanding that Circuncision was substituted by Baptism and you will baptize infants.
Hardcore covenant theologians would argue Baptists are incompatible with covenant theology. Literally found one in the comments of this video.
Until I study a topic fully I do not wish to subscribe 100% to a specific set of beliefs. I do lean covenant theology but that doesn't mean I agree with every single nuance they might have. That's where the problem lies with taking up such labels.
I’m a Baptist, and both myself and my pastor favor Covenant Theology over Dispensationalism
He said that some Baptist believe in 1689 federalism.
1689 Federalist here 👋🏼
Great video!
To avoid confusion on the subject, Law & Gospel and Covenant Theology fit together quite well. I'd say you're looking at Scripture correctly if you see Law & Gospel when you look from one angle and Covenant Theology when you look from another angle. The two are compatible, unlike Dispensationalism and either of the two.
My parents are dispensationalists I still don’t really know a-lot about hermeneutics so I have not really developed an opinion on it I would have to read more in to it.
So thanks for making this video it at least gives me a place to start.
Definitely ask your parents about it, but as a Dispensationalist myself, I have never heard "current day Israel is still the chosen people of God." With this current dispensation, there is no chosen people. Male, female, young, old, greek, jew, slave or free, we are all one in Christ.
@@The757packerfan agreed that is why I have not been so eager to develop an opinion yet.
So is 1689 Federalism the same as the Lutheran view but with different vocabulary?
regrading Covenant Theology, yes
What's kinda funny is my church and I fully agree with the mainline Reformed Covenant Theology understanding, except for external and internal participation because of a baptism disagreement, despite being Southern Baptist. Covenants of grace and works, the same covenant between the Old and New Testament, etc. 😅
Amen❤❤❤🎉🎉🎉😊😊😊
Maybe you could do a vid about each of jesus's parables in the future?
Covenant theology turns into a mess when you try and look at Abraham or Moses’ covenant and you can’t distinguish between Grace or works.
That’s why Catholic Covenant Theology is the best application of it
8:11 Gal. 3:12 "But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Paul's outlook seems to be that the Law of Moses was an added, temporary thing and The New Covenant in Christ is a return to the Abrahamic Covenant. Compare Rom.4, Gal.3 & 4 then Hebrews which may have been Paul of one of his associates (I'm not picky on that).
I think there was a lot to cover in this video, but I missed more biblical references that support Covenant Theology, which we know to be abundant. For beginners on the subject, the end of the video you made about "why you are not a Lutheran" made a better defense, while this one went more into the controversies and nuances. Considering the porpouse of this series, I think it would be better if it was more focused on conveying the concept and later a video could be made for these smaller divergences.
I like how the thumbnail proves the mosaic law is for us today.
Donald Macleod of the Free Church gave a lecture on this a while back. There's audio of it on my channel. There are also lectures by him on Rutherford and Boston. He doesn't frame the Marrow Controversy the way you do. Lecture Title: "07 The Adamic Covenant & the Noahic Covenant. The Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace."
Good video, but I disagree that the covenant with Moses was a promissory covenant. It is a vassal treaty. There was a requirement of obedience in order to receive blessings, and there are curses for disobedience (Lev 26/Deut 28). The Sinai covenant is unique among all others in that regard.
There are important implications here, particularly to your point about the Sabbath, which is the sign of the Sinai covenant that was made with Israel (Ex 31:16-17). Only the Israelites are party to that covenant.
Because it says that during the end times in Ezekiel 38:19 NIV, "In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel." Also in Luke 21:20-22 NIV, [20] “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. [21] Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. [22] For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written." I am fairly certain that it is talking about the land of Israel. Also, because in John 3:16 NIV, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Then why would only the "elect" recieve eternal life instead of "whoever believes in him, as stated in the previous verse?
It depends on your category of eschatalogical belief. Some believe Luke 21:20-22 was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70AD.
As for Calvinism, I think its concept transcends time, so therefore anyone who believes can be saved, but only those who were predestined to be saved will believe. Quite paradoxical but free will and irresistable grace can occur at the same time, just our little human brains cant understand it.
Can you make a special episode about the definition of evangelicalism ? What is the difference between evangelical protestants and the other protestants ?
6:19 2Cor.3 the whole chapter but especially vs. 6 "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." vs.7 the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face." When did moses' face glow? When he was coming down from the mountain with the 10 commandments. Paul call this the ministry that brings death but the New Covenant brings life. It seems to me that the Lutheran perspective is better. I read and enjoyed Luther's "How Christians Should Regard Moses" (1525)
Most boomers are dispensationalists (of some flavor) regardless of denominations. It would be interesting do know how this view became so dominant in that generation, while it's basically non-existent in younger generations?
It was the Scofield Bible, which had some very perverse annotations that equated anything written about the tribes of Israel or Judah specifically with the religion of judaism, as well as making up stuff about blessings on Abram specifically also being relevant to his descendants despite that not being in Scripture at all. That is the primary reason why they think they have to support that state today, because of something not found in the Bible at all, but found in the annotations of the Scofield Bible (and its also in the MacArthur study Bible which is generally quite good, but he seems to pull that one right out of the aether... or more likely, right out of Scofield's notes). So much confusion has been created because of those very deceitful and outright false annotations.
@@HaggisOfDeath I know about the Scofield Bible. But that translation has been around for awhile - why did the boomer take the bate extra hard?. And if I know my boomers right, they don't really get information through reading, but through the ol' TV. It would be interesting to investigate how that brainwashing happened.
19 year old dispensationalist here... 👋
@@Jackoooloop9456 35 years old here. Never read a Scofield Bible (but I have heard of it).
@@The757packerfan never read or heard of it...
okay this is a little bit complicated.
What is the difference between:
- 1689 Federalism
- Lutheranism (in case of Covenant Theology i assume its a different standpoint)
-Republication
They seem to me as the same,.just the wording is different.
epic!!!!!
this is the way
Could you do a video on Eternal Generation and Eternally Begotten and if it’s the right doctrine?
Covenant theology is also catholic. The catholic bishop Barron has a short video on drinking the blood of Christ where he explains 1 way Catholics understand Scripture.
You forgot to mention another "in-between" option: progressive dispensationalism, interdependent covenants in which the successive covenants adds to, updates, and fulfills the previous covenants.
I’m with Paul as he described the Mosiac covenant as “works of the law”! It’s a republication
Romans 9-11
Covenant theology is a huge fragment of the catholic tradition - interpretation of the bible
If it exist (in Concept) there are people who Can found it in bible, somehow
TBH, Dispensationalism did NOT gain ground until 1948, and this includes Premillennialism, which calls for a literal establishment of a Jewish State.
But everything changed when 1948 happened, where suddenly, Dispensationalist where villified, and cause the instant rise of Premillennialism
Many confessionally reformed Baptists adhere to covenant theology. You will say we are reformed, mark my words RZ!
Nope, and y’all didn’t even claim to be until recently
Can you make a video explaining why every denomination has a different cross
So as a Rabbi I would say this is the only way to properly do Christianity, but the thing is, the Church wants to be Israel, not Christian. They don't believe Jesus was the Messiah, or God, so to them it's just a competition of Jews competing for the tradition. One is easier, and accepts converts, so it won.
I was quite literally just at Christian club a couple hours ago talking about this lol
I kinda see a good point in the Lutheran and Reformed tradition in the same time...
Tradition got glossed over pretty hard.
Testament literally means covenant. The Bible is two parts, Old Covenant & New Covenant
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I have a genuine question - if the law given to Moses is a part of the Covenant of Grace, then does that mean, according to Reformed Covenant theology, that all of the laws still apply today? Like, that we should be honouring feast days and we shouldn't wear mixed fabrics? I'm curious to hear your perspective
In Traditional Reformed Covenant Theology, it's believed that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial and ritual aspects of the Mosaic Law through his death and resurrection. These laws, which included various sacrificial rituals, dietary restrictions, and ceremonial practices, were seen as pointing forward to Christ and his ultimate sacrifice. Therefore, with the coming of Christ, these ceremonial laws were no longer necessary for believers to observe, as they were fulfilled in him. This perspective is often based on passages like Hebrews 9-10, which discuss Christ's role as the ultimate high priest and the perfect sacrifice, superseding the need for the Old Testament sacrificial system.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 thanks for explaining!
Generally, you can distinguish three types of laws, the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law.
The moral law still applies (since the nature of morality, being originated in the essence of God, is immutable) but we are not saved by adherence to it, rather we try to adhere to it for the love of God and our gratitude towards Him.
The ceremonial law pointed towards Christ and His redemptive work. Since Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law, we do not need to adhere to it.
The civil law was given to ancient Israel so that they may be a nation unto God, and to be a nation in the first place you will need some rule of law. This is not applicable to us as we are not in that earthly nation.
Of course these distinctions aren't of such a manner that you can divide up the law verse by verse and say "this is moral, this is civil" etc, but you can see the moral, ceremonial and civil aspects to several laws, e.g. Deuteronomy 21:1-9 (concerning the murder of a stranger) clearly contains both civil and ceremonial aspects of how to deal with the situation, as well as point to the moral law (Thou shalt not murder) and also conveys the mercy of God.
I would suggest reading chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as it explains this better than I could.
Extracted from www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith
CHAPTER 19
Of the Law of God
1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.
3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.
4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.
The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation.
5. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace.
7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
@@uilspieel99 Thanks for clarifying this - so I guess what I'm getting from this is that all 3 aspects of the law point ultimately towards Christ, and therefore demonstrate the continuity of the Covenant of Grace discussed in the video - but that we only need try to keep the moral law, out of our love for God. And that all aspects of the law are fulfilled in Christ.
Hey! I would highly suggest the channel Messiah Matters. They have a bunch of videos relating to questions like these because they believe the Torah still stands. They clear up a lot of questions about moral/ceremonial/civil. Give them a chance, they’re great and full of scholarly knowledge. 🙂
TIL
I was a republicationist reformed protestant for the most of my life.
Hi. So I have a question that maybe you can answer. You mention Hypervalvanism at the end as being taught by smaller denominations, but I've been learning more about th ongoing debate between Calvanists and Armenians (and others) and the Calvanists seem to describe themselves as Redormed -- which it looks like you do as well.
Am I missing some further distinction between the term reformed and calvanism? Is there such a distinction at all? Or does reformed simply mean anyone who is not Catholic?
Reformed theology is called calvinism by a lot of people.
To let you know.
Its not made up by John Calvin😅
"Baptists interpret the Bible literally, just to avoid any confusion." 🤣
Excellent summation, that
We are the continuation of the davidic kingdom through christ,
Which covenant were the people from Adam to Noah saved by?
I agree with covenant theology in principal, because Jesus brought the New Covenant to replace the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Land Covenants (I think the Davidic too but not positive). The New does not replace the Edenic (next one did), Adamic, or Noahic as those are between God and all humans, still.
BTW, Baptists do not take every verse literally. When Jesus says He's the door, Baptists don't believe Jesus is made of wood and has hinges.
I’ve never seen the Law as works. I believe God’s eternal Law is his set of instruction on how his people (natural and grafted in) are to live. He wants his people to be discernible (set apart/holy) from the other nations. Missing that mark is what sin is. Sin is only defined in scripture as lawlessness. Jesus came to fulfill the law. In other words, not to destroy or end it, but to show us how we are to walk that path. It’s a recipe for our best life and how he wants to be represented. It has nothing to do with works. Grace is the only way man can be saved. I think Christianity misses that.
2:32 “God’s Chosen people are those who reject Christ!”
-Dispensationalist logic
chosen people has nothing to do with being right though.
The whole history of "God's Chosen People" has been of them rejecting God... from the very beginning.
@@CCI320God's chosen people were chosen for a specific purpose. That purpose was fulfilled 2000 years ago.
Jews disobeyed God and rejected his prophets all the way back to the days of Moses. And they were still the chosen people throughout all of that. They have not changed in 4000 years. Because them being chosen has nothing to do with them being good or better.
@@jrconway3no. Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah clearly all talk about Jesus coming back to defend Israel from the antichrist in the end times. Jesus is still going to fulfill his promise that Israel will be saved. “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”
I think St Paul absolutely destroys the idea of Republication in Romans 9:31-32. Because the Law was part of the Covenant of Grace, but the Israelites followed it as if it was part of the Covenant of Works.