As a Presby, I'm a bit confused by the title as I didn't hear the difference laid out explicitly. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with what exactly Baptists mean by New Covenant. This is also a shorter clip, so maybe the context was already established earlier and didn't make it to this clip. I've heard some say that the covenant made with Abraham is the new, and the covenant made with Moses is the old, which sounds anachronistic. But all the promises you list for the new covenant were made to Abraham and/or have other OT examples, so maybe that's what is going on here? For example, in Gen 17 we see the promise was always to the believer (v 11), their children (v 12a) and those who were far off (v 12b). We see glimpses of the Holy Spirit working in believers in OT saints, like in David's plea to not take the Spirit from him in Ps 51. And in the covenant ceremony we see in Gen 15, we have the usual ceremony where two kings would each pass between the carcasses of animals indicating if they violated the terms of the covenant, they would die, but the unusual feature is that Abraham never passes through them, instead God passes through on behalf of man, indicating that if man violates his covenant with God, God would die for man. That promise is really an expansion of what was given in the garden from the moment there was sin, that a child of Eve would crush Satan. With the expanded promise given to Abraham, we now see that this offspring would be both man and God. I think the Presbys are right to point out that the "new" covenant isn't really new at all (after all Deut 13 forbids new teaching that goes against God's Word) but a renewal of God's very old covenant found throughout the Bible, just under a new administration in which Christ holds all the offices of the covenant, thus making it a better covenant. And in light of Deut 13, when people say that the NT and the OT are fundamentally different in their theology, they imply that Jesus and the apostles and all Christians are violating God's law and ought to be put to death. But that's not what either Jesus or the Apostles were claiming to do. Rather they were constantly showing from the Old Testament why Jesus and the Church was the fulfilment of God's promises.
A good book to read on Baptist Covenant Theology is Pascal Denault's "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology." I personally don't hold to it, but it is insightful for understanding Reformed or Particular Baptist views. Additionally, some Reformed Baptists simply say they only differ with Presbyterian's on the new covenant. The discussion can extend to the nature of the Abrahamic covenant though.
As I understand it Presby: New Covenant is a new administration of the one Covenant of Grace. Reformed Bapt: the New Covenant IS the Covenant of Grace which was foreshadowed in the Old Covenant and was retroactively applied to OT saints through faith in the promised Messiah.
@@Hospody-Pomylui Hebrews 8:13 presents a small problem to that idea. Making a new covenant the old passing away. It is always by grace that people are saved, but the bible makes a definite distinction between old and new, therefore we see it as two covenants, not one.
Both the OT & NT promise that faithful believers will see their children converted: _"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you."_ (Gen. 17:7) _"Who is the person who fears the Lord? His descendants will inherit the land."_ (Psalm 25:33-34) _"How blessed is the man who fears the Lord. His descendants will be mighty on earth."_ (Psalm 112:1-2) _"They said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'”_ (Acts 16:31) _"For otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy [Gr. saints]."_ (1 Cor. 7:14) The text you cited from Jeremiah does *not* mean that children are now excluded from the Covenant. _"Because they will all know Me, from the least [i.e. the children] of them to the greatest, declares the LORD."_ (Jeremiah 31:34) This means that everyone will know the Lord, both believers *and* their children.
Baptist here... i benefited from this good word, but did not learn anything about differences beteween baptist/presby view. Maybe you assumed we had more background context.
It’s true he doesn’t lay it out explicitly. Here’s the subtext: in the Presbyterian view, both believers AND their children are part of the covenant community of the church. That means there are people who are part of the covenant community that will ultimately fall away and be lost. That’s to say, there are, by design, members of the visible church in Presbyterianism who are not part of the elect, in the same way that the Old Covenant included Jews who, though circumcised, would ultimately be lost. By contrast, Baptists consider only those who profess faith and are, it is assumed, regenerate to be members of the visible church. Consequently, no one who is part of the covenant community of the church will fall away and be lost. The other part of the equation is that, in his view, Presbyterians consider what’s new about the New Covenant to be the fact that it’s open to Gentiles as well as Jews. By contrast, in his view, Baptists consider the New Covenant to be fundamentally different from the Old Covenant. I’m not sure I agree with his characterization of Presbyterian Covenant theology, but then I’m not a Presbyterian and I could have misunderstood him.
The chronology of your logical communication of this subject matter is blessedly in order and beautifully illustrated to portray the Sovereighnty of God in His mysterious will, not revealed unto either the Prophets or Priests until the gift of the effectual grace of God in calling our beloved Brother Paul. Blessed be God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’” We lose sight of this truth and instead of fearing God as the source of all truth, we begin to inject well meaning intentions to help God reveal the meaning or essence of this statement! Where do division’s come from? Have we lost the simple truth of Gods holiness? These things are not a failure on God’s part, that He is unable to convey who He is and what He has said, but on our part to hear and see that God is and does and we would do well to listen. I believe a lot of good intentions to help God out have led to a lot of divisions in the Church. May we continue to seek truth in Gods Word with fear and trembling and let God be true as we humbly submit to His Word! A posture that will unite His Church!
I was Baptistic the vast majority of my life. As I look back on it one of the biggest differences between Baptist and Presbyterian is the degree of continuity or discontinuity between the covenants/testaments. The same root seems to be behind the modern Dispensational eschatology.
I have a really hard time understanding this. My reformed baptist brethren seem to want all the benefits of covenantalism without just taking the plunge (haha no pun intended) and actually including their children in the covenant. I know this sounds unjust of me, but it always comes across as some emotional baggage from growing up in US Christian circles and seeing so many credo baptisms. They want that emotional experience for their own life. Same way I see a lot of American Christians who want their kids to have prom, or walk a stage to graduate, or to play high school football.. so that’s why they homeschool till high school, then transition their kids into the government schools. It’s a lot of tradition and reminiscing that seems to motivate the behavior. Anyway we have a lot of baptists that go to my Presbyterian church and it always seems they want the fruit of covenantalism without the root, without actually being covenantal. 😬 We were really hashing it out during some of our midweek discussions and we came to the idea that we just must view the visible and invisible church differently. They think credo = visible church, we include children in the visible church. But us including children is the whole point, we don’t think we’re living with little heathens, we train them differently, we educate them differently, because they are “Christian children”. And the baptists will do what we do in practice in every area except including their children in the sacraments, so it’s a lot of borrowing of our view imo.
This was one of the arguments that tilted me over to Presbyterian. And the continuity argument as well. Our God includes children in His covenant and that’s clear from Genesis to Revelation. I don’t see any reason to withhold the sign and seal of the being a member of the visible church from infants.
It's because we recognize this is a spiritual covenant where membership is exclusively through faith which grafts us into the true Vine. Presbyterian Covenant Theology necessarily lingers in the realm of membership through physical bloodline. It's what I would expect of a Dispensationalist who wanted to dabble in Covenant Theology. Because membership is through grafting into the true Vine through faith, and all who are in the covenant are also held in the Father's hand, it means only those who are saved are members. We're still to raise our children to fear the Lord, but we should be continually praying for their salvation and that God would grant them entrance into the covenant through faith.
I fail to see how excluding children from the covenant makes the New Covenant "better". Why didn't God just exclude the children to begin with, if that was his plan? Excluding them only makes the New Covenant smaller and it does away with the wonderful promises concerning children found in the Bible.
For the record, I fully believe that the children of believers ARE included in the New Covenant. My position is not IF God’s covenantal promises will be fulfilled, but merely WHEN. I baptize the children of believers without exception. I just wait a couple years for a visible expression of faith.
@@RightResponseMinistries I wasn't aware. Thanks for clearing that up. So what you are saying is that children are in the covenant. However Baptism and Lord's Supper are only applied to covenant members showing signs of faith. Correct?
@@RightResponseMinistries I'm confused here. Saying that you, as a reformed baptist, baptize the children of believers without exception sounds rather presbyterian. This brought me up short... can you please elaborate?
@@Umbralagus For the record, I fully believe that the children of believers ARE included in the New Covenant. My position is not IF God’s covenantal promises will be fulfilled, but merely WHEN. In other words, I am not a Dispensational Baptist. I am a confessionally Reformed Baptist. I only differ from Presbyterians in two primary ways: 1) Congregational Polity, and 2) Credo Baptism. Yes, I have a slightly different view of the covenants (I do not believe the Covenant of Grace includes two administrations, but rather that the Covenant of Grace is synonymous with the New Covenant), but I am covenantal through and through. In short, I believe God saves the children of believers on two grounds: 1) God’s predestinated ends (salvation) not being severed from his predestinated means (Christian parenting), and 2) God’s steadfast covenantal love to the thousandth generation of those who love him and keep his commandments. The primary difference is simply this: When should the signs and seals of the New Covenant be administered? As a Baptist, I believe faith must precede baptism.
@@RightResponseMinistries Would you say then, to use a well known example, that John Piper’s son who currently mocks Christians one day will come to faith no doubt about it?
Many seem to not understand the core difference between both these belief systems comes back what the nature of the New Covenant is and isn’t, so this title is accurate.
Two things I get from this sermon: Better covenant, more expensive, more inclusive, and not just for the immediate generation but also for those who are far off. Acts 2:39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.” Sounds like an endorsement for paedobaptism. Ezekiel 36:27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them. Sounds like an endorsement of irresistible grace and regeneration precedent to faith. Faith is a consequence of the regeneration wrought by God, as He says He will cause you to follow His decrees and carful to obey His statutes. What is the greatest statute but to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength.
Love the attention given to the promises of the New Covenant in the OT especially those of God-caused obedience. Joshua and Caleb, however, did not claim to be able to defeat the Nephalim the other 10 spies inaccurately reported to be in the land (Num 13:33). Rather, they claimed to be able to "devour" the people of the land (14:9), some of whom were descended from the Nephalim as the gloss in 13:33 explains.
Lol I was just about to leave a comment exactly like your oracleoftroy, glad I looked down before typing. I love this pastor a lot but yes sir I don’t hear any distinctions between the 1647 covenant theo and the 1689 covenant theo. God bless
Credobaptism isn't covenant theology. It is rather sophistry to justify disobedience to the command to Baptize in faith that the promise isn't just unto them; but also to their children and children's children. Their disobedience has lead to the highly individualistic wokism judgement unfolding before us.
New Covenant Whole Gospel: Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him. He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14. Awaken Church to this truth. Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by husband unto them, saith the LORD: Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis? Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart. Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36) Watch the TH-cam video “The New Covenant” by Bob George.
His people are hungry for good content which you mostly provide. However many are coming to the knowledge that none of his commands are to be done away with which includes that of eating pork. You might obtain more followers or people wanting to continue to listen if you get rid of the bacon at the intro. Just a thought.
In Matthew 15:15-20 Jesus says that it's NOT what goes into a person that defiles them but what comes out of the person's heart. I've done outreach with friends who give out beef hot dogs because there are oftentimes Muslims among those whom we witness to. But eating beef rather than pork does not keep them from lusting after young women, using perverted and foul speech, carrying illegal weapons or selling drugs on the corner. The mentality of harping upon what goes into one's mouth, as the Pharisees did with Jesus's disciples, is of no advantage in conquering sin. Paul says so in Colossians 2:20-23.
yep, all of these differences and not one Baptist or Presbyterian, or Catholic or JW or Mormon, or evangelical etc etc can show that their version is the right one. Since the bible says how we can tell who the TrueChristians(tm) are, it seems you are all frauds.
As a Presby, I'm a bit confused by the title as I didn't hear the difference laid out explicitly. Maybe I'm just not familiar enough with what exactly Baptists mean by New Covenant. This is also a shorter clip, so maybe the context was already established earlier and didn't make it to this clip. I've heard some say that the covenant made with Abraham is the new, and the covenant made with Moses is the old, which sounds anachronistic.
But all the promises you list for the new covenant were made to Abraham and/or have other OT examples, so maybe that's what is going on here? For example, in Gen 17 we see the promise was always to the believer (v 11), their children (v 12a) and those who were far off (v 12b). We see glimpses of the Holy Spirit working in believers in OT saints, like in David's plea to not take the Spirit from him in Ps 51. And in the covenant ceremony we see in Gen 15, we have the usual ceremony where two kings would each pass between the carcasses of animals indicating if they violated the terms of the covenant, they would die, but the unusual feature is that Abraham never passes through them, instead God passes through on behalf of man, indicating that if man violates his covenant with God, God would die for man. That promise is really an expansion of what was given in the garden from the moment there was sin, that a child of Eve would crush Satan. With the expanded promise given to Abraham, we now see that this offspring would be both man and God.
I think the Presbys are right to point out that the "new" covenant isn't really new at all (after all Deut 13 forbids new teaching that goes against God's Word) but a renewal of God's very old covenant found throughout the Bible, just under a new administration in which Christ holds all the offices of the covenant, thus making it a better covenant. And in light of Deut 13, when people say that the NT and the OT are fundamentally different in their theology, they imply that Jesus and the apostles and all Christians are violating God's law and ought to be put to death. But that's not what either Jesus or the Apostles were claiming to do. Rather they were constantly showing from the Old Testament why Jesus and the Church was the fulfilment of God's promises.
A good book to read on Baptist Covenant Theology is Pascal Denault's "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology." I personally don't hold to it, but it is insightful for understanding Reformed or Particular Baptist views. Additionally, some Reformed Baptists simply say they only differ with Presbyterian's on the new covenant. The discussion can extend to the nature of the Abrahamic covenant though.
As I understand it
Presby: New Covenant is a new administration of the one Covenant of Grace.
Reformed Bapt: the New Covenant IS the Covenant of Grace which was foreshadowed in the Old Covenant and was retroactively applied to OT saints through faith in the promised Messiah.
@@Hospody-Pomylui Hebrews 8:13 presents a small problem to that idea. Making a new covenant the old passing away. It is always by grace that people are saved, but the bible makes a definite distinction between old and new, therefore we see it as two covenants, not one.
It's as simple as not knowing how grafting works
Amen amen amen! Wonderfully put! He upholds his end of the covenant and ours!
Absolutely right. Understanding the nature of the New Covenant guards from lots of errors.
Both the OT & NT promise that faithful believers will see their children converted:
_"I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you."_ (Gen. 17:7)
_"Who is the person who fears the Lord? His descendants will inherit the land."_ (Psalm 25:33-34)
_"How blessed is the man who fears the Lord. His descendants will be mighty on earth."_ (Psalm 112:1-2)
_"They said, 'Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.'”_ (Acts 16:31)
_"For otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy [Gr. saints]."_ (1 Cor. 7:14)
The text you cited from Jeremiah does *not* mean that children are now excluded from the Covenant.
_"Because they will all know Me, from the least [i.e. the children] of them to the greatest, declares the LORD."_ (Jeremiah 31:34)
This means that everyone will know the Lord, both believers *and* their children.
Was David an unfaithful servant then? Because some of his kids were unbelievers.
@@gabrielornellas8313 I have always wondered about this! I wish someone would explain it here.
Baptist here... i benefited from this good word, but did not learn anything about differences beteween baptist/presby view. Maybe you assumed we had more background context.
It’s true he doesn’t lay it out explicitly. Here’s the subtext: in the Presbyterian view, both believers AND their children are part of the covenant community of the church. That means there are people who are part of the covenant community that will ultimately fall away and be lost. That’s to say, there are, by design, members of the visible church in Presbyterianism who are not part of the elect, in the same way that the Old Covenant included Jews who, though circumcised, would ultimately be lost. By contrast, Baptists consider only those who profess faith and are, it is assumed, regenerate to be members of the visible church. Consequently, no one who is part of the covenant community of the church will fall away and be lost. The other part of the equation is that, in his view, Presbyterians consider what’s new about the New Covenant to be the fact that it’s open to Gentiles as well as Jews. By contrast, in his view, Baptists consider the New Covenant to be fundamentally different from the Old Covenant. I’m not sure I agree with his characterization of Presbyterian Covenant theology, but then I’m not a Presbyterian and I could have misunderstood him.
@@pastornickmcrae Thank you for the comments... it's helpful.
Just read Phillip d r griffiths on this, now I believe I understand the new covenant.
I liked the content but the title is click bait
Joshua and Caleb were Postmil
God has been slow to anger since the first American Baptist was allowed to live in exile on Rhode Island. America, judgement is upon you.
The chronology of your logical communication of this subject matter is blessedly in order and beautifully illustrated to portray the Sovereighnty of God in His mysterious will, not revealed unto either the Prophets or Priests until the gift of the effectual grace of God in calling our beloved Brother Paul. Blessed be God, through Jesus Christ our Lord.
Exodus 3:14 God said to Moses, “I am who I am.” And he said, “Say this to the people of Israel, ‘I am has sent me to you.’”
We lose sight of this truth and instead of fearing God as the source of all truth, we begin to inject well meaning intentions to help God reveal the meaning or essence of this statement! Where do division’s come from? Have we lost the simple truth of Gods holiness? These things are not a failure on God’s part, that He is unable to convey who He is and what He has said, but on our part to hear and see that God is and does and we would do well to listen. I believe a lot of good intentions to help God out have led to a lot of divisions in the Church. May we continue to seek truth in Gods Word with fear and trembling and let God be true as we humbly submit to His Word! A posture that will unite His Church!
I was Baptistic the vast majority of my life. As I look back on it one of the biggest differences between Baptist and Presbyterian is the degree of continuity or discontinuity between the covenants/testaments. The same root seems to be behind the modern Dispensational eschatology.
Well said.
I have a really hard time understanding this. My reformed baptist brethren seem to want all the benefits of covenantalism without just taking the plunge (haha no pun intended) and actually including their children in the covenant. I know this sounds unjust of me, but it always comes across as some emotional baggage from growing up in US Christian circles and seeing so many credo baptisms. They want that emotional experience for their own life. Same way I see a lot of American Christians who want their kids to have prom, or walk a stage to graduate, or to play high school football.. so that’s why they homeschool till high school, then transition their kids into the government schools. It’s a lot of tradition and reminiscing that seems to motivate the behavior.
Anyway we have a lot of baptists that go to my Presbyterian church and it always seems they want the fruit of covenantalism without the root, without actually being covenantal. 😬 We were really hashing it out during some of our midweek discussions and we came to the idea that we just must view the visible and invisible church differently. They think credo = visible church, we include children in the visible church. But us including children is the whole point, we don’t think we’re living with little heathens, we train them differently, we educate them differently, because they are “Christian children”. And the baptists will do what we do in practice in every area except including their children in the sacraments, so it’s a lot of borrowing of our view imo.
This was one of the arguments that tilted me over to Presbyterian. And the continuity argument as well. Our God includes children in His covenant and that’s clear from Genesis to Revelation. I don’t see any reason to withhold the sign and seal of the being a member of the visible church from infants.
can my dog be in the covenant?? He is part of the family?? 🤪
Child dedication is another one of those head scratches.
@respectingthewordpodcast could you be any more stupid
It's because we recognize this is a spiritual covenant where membership is exclusively through faith which grafts us into the true Vine. Presbyterian Covenant Theology necessarily lingers in the realm of membership through physical bloodline. It's what I would expect of a Dispensationalist who wanted to dabble in Covenant Theology. Because membership is through grafting into the true Vine through faith, and all who are in the covenant are also held in the Father's hand, it means only those who are saved are members. We're still to raise our children to fear the Lord, but we should be continually praying for their salvation and that God would grant them entrance into the covenant through faith.
I start my new job at whole foods today...thanks for these devotional.
Pray for Ben. Jacob and Ardelia they are my children..pray they are saved and reconnect with me their mama!
Will pray for you and your children.
Send your children in children Sunday school to learn the words of God at the Presbyterian children Sunday school
I fail to see how excluding children from the covenant makes the New Covenant "better". Why didn't God just exclude the children to begin with, if that was his plan?
Excluding them only makes the New Covenant smaller and it does away with the wonderful promises concerning children found in the Bible.
For the record, I fully believe that the children of believers ARE included in the New Covenant. My position is not IF God’s covenantal promises will be fulfilled, but merely WHEN. I baptize the children of believers without exception. I just wait a couple years for a visible expression of faith.
@@RightResponseMinistries I wasn't aware. Thanks for clearing that up. So what you are saying is that children are in the covenant. However Baptism and Lord's Supper are only applied to covenant members showing signs of faith. Correct?
@@RightResponseMinistries I'm confused here. Saying that you, as a reformed baptist, baptize the children of believers without exception sounds rather presbyterian. This brought me up short... can you please elaborate?
@@Umbralagus
For the record, I fully believe that the children of believers ARE included in the New Covenant. My position is not IF God’s covenantal promises will be fulfilled, but merely WHEN. In other words, I am not a Dispensational Baptist. I am a confessionally Reformed Baptist. I only differ from Presbyterians in two primary ways: 1) Congregational Polity, and 2) Credo Baptism. Yes, I have a slightly different view of the covenants (I do not believe the Covenant of Grace includes two administrations, but rather that the Covenant of Grace is synonymous with the New Covenant), but I am covenantal through and through. In short, I believe God saves the children of believers on two grounds: 1) God’s predestinated ends (salvation) not being severed from his predestinated means (Christian parenting), and 2) God’s steadfast covenantal love to the thousandth generation of those who love him and keep his commandments.
The primary difference is simply this: When should the signs and seals of the New Covenant be administered? As a Baptist, I believe faith must precede baptism.
@@RightResponseMinistries Would you say then, to use a well known example, that John Piper’s son who currently mocks Christians one day will come to faith no doubt about it?
A bit confused by the title of this video. The question lingers: “so, what *is* the difference?”
Many seem to not understand the core difference between both these belief systems comes back what the nature of the New Covenant is and isn’t, so this title is accurate.
Two things I get from this sermon:
Better covenant, more expensive, more inclusive, and not just for the immediate generation but also for those who are far off. Acts 2:39 The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off-for all whom the Lord our God will call.”
Sounds like an endorsement for paedobaptism.
Ezekiel 36:27 I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them.
Sounds like an endorsement of irresistible grace and regeneration precedent to faith. Faith is a consequence of the regeneration wrought by God, as He says He will cause you to follow His decrees and carful to obey His statutes. What is the greatest statute but to love the Lord with all your heart, mind, and strength.
Love the attention given to the promises of the New Covenant in the OT especially those of God-caused obedience. Joshua and Caleb, however, did not claim to be able to defeat the Nephalim the other 10 spies inaccurately reported to be in the land (Num 13:33). Rather, they claimed to be able to "devour" the people of the land (14:9), some of whom were descended from the Nephalim as the gloss in 13:33 explains.
Thanks for these uplifting words ...
Lol I was just about to leave a comment exactly like your oracleoftroy, glad I looked down before typing. I love this pastor a lot but yes sir I don’t hear any distinctions between the 1647 covenant theo and the 1689 covenant theo. God bless
I didnt here a comparison of the two. The title should be updated.
Credobaptism isn't covenant theology. It is rather sophistry to justify disobedience to the command to Baptize in faith that the promise isn't just unto them; but also to their children and children's children. Their disobedience has lead to the highly individualistic wokism judgement unfolding before us.
What a massive leap to a fanatic conclusion.
@@thespurge Nope. God judges covenant breaking nations. That is found all throughout Scripture. Indeed, the fanatics are the Anabaptist Credobaptists.
@@Logos-Nomos are you equating covenant breaking with credobaptism?
@@thespurge A baseless assertion and not an argument.
I agree, i still don’t know the difference.
Fantastic.
I mean, honestly, Western Christians just need to stick to The Script.
I'm very confused because this gives no clear definition of Presbyterian theology or Baptist theology, let alone the differences between them.
Amen. Mark 16:16
Letting the gentiles in, putting the children out.
We can take em...God will deliver them into our hands...
New Covenant Whole Gospel:
Let us now share the Old Testament Gospel found below with the whole world. On the road to Emmaus He said the Old Testament is about Him.
He is the very Word of God in John 1:1, 14.
Awaken Church to this truth.
Jer 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah:
Jer 31:32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by
husband unto them, saith the LORD:
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people.
Jer 31:34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.
Is the most important genealogy in the Bible found in Matthew 1:1 (Gal. 3:16)? Is God's Son the ultimate fulfillment of Israel (John 1:49)? Why has the modern Church done a pitiful job of sharing the Gospel with modern Orthodox Jews? Why would someone tell them they are God's chosen people and then fail to share the Gospel with them? Who is the seed of the woman promised in Genesis 3:15? Who is the "son" in Psalm 2? Who is the "suffering servant" of Isaiah 53? Who would fulfill the New Covenant promised in Jeremiah 31:31-34? Who would fulfill the timeline of Daniel chapter 9 before the second temple was destroyed? Why have we not heard this simple Old Testament Gospel preached on Christian television in the United States on a regular basis?
Once a person comes to understand the New Covenant promised to Israel and Judah in Jeremiah 31:31-34, which is found fulfilled by Christ during the first century in Hebrews 8:6-13, and Hebrews 10:16-18, and specifically applied to the Church in 2 Corinthians 3:6-8, and Hebrews 12:22-24, man-made Bible doctrines fall apart.
Let us now learn to preach the whole Gospel until He comes back. The King of Israel is risen from the dead! (John 1:49, Acts 2:36)
Watch the TH-cam video “The New Covenant” by Bob George.
His people are hungry for good content which you mostly provide. However many are coming to the knowledge that none of his commands are to be done away with which includes that of eating pork. You might obtain more followers or people wanting to continue to listen if you get rid of the bacon at the intro. Just a thought.
In Matthew 15:15-20 Jesus says that it's NOT what goes into a person that defiles them but what comes out of the person's heart. I've done outreach with friends who give out beef hot dogs because there are oftentimes Muslims among those whom we witness to. But eating beef rather than pork does not keep them from lusting after young women, using perverted and foul speech, carrying illegal weapons or selling drugs on the corner. The mentality of harping upon what goes into one's mouth, as the Pharisees did with Jesus's disciples, is of no advantage in conquering sin. Paul says so in Colossians 2:20-23.
The New Covenant was made exclusively with Israel.
That's old covenant, not new
yep, all of these differences and not one Baptist or Presbyterian, or Catholic or JW or Mormon, or evangelical etc etc can show that their version is the right one. Since the bible says how we can tell who the TrueChristians(tm) are, it seems you are all frauds.