I've listened to this so many times...I'm still working my way through the issue but the paedobaptist argument is quite strong. I pray that I can have clarity and certainty on this someday soon.
I believe that once you understand the continuity of circumcision into baptism and the mention of several baptisms in Hebrews 6,9,10 (baptismoi), you'll be on the right track. I'm new to this too.
Gee_JO! I put this up earlier, and it may help you: The analogy of faith... or scripture interpreting scripture... has led me this way: Genesis 17 and the institution of a sign of the covenant. Exodus 12 (43-49) and the requirements for a 'stranger' to participate in the Passover (read converted foreigner). This practice of circumcising believers AND their children (including converts from outside Israel) would be the norm to the end of the OC period. Enter Jesus and his cataclysmic declarations at end of Matthew 28. Change: 1. go! into all the world. World missions. 2. Baptizing. No longer circumcising as was the historical norm, and what the apostles would have expected Jesus to say. No change: Who the recipients should be. That is, the apostles were not told to exclude the children of new believers. Any changes from old to new must be demonstrated in scripture - hence the exclusion of sacrifices in worship etc. The idea that children of believers aren’t (overtly) shown to be baptized is a clear indication of continuity between OC and NC. Might I add... there is no indication whatsoever that a child of believers was baptized as a professing adult either. That should give a Baptist cause to pause as well. Anyway, that understanding helped me view ecclesiology in a more consistent manner, as well as understand the theology behind both circumcision and baptism. And 'household baptisms' are viewed as a normal continuation of Exodus 12. Whether children are actually present or not is a non-issue. That, in brief, is convincing 'weight of scripture'. And, frankly, simple as well.
The explanation of Jeremiah 31:31 -34 was very helpful. Indeed, if all in the NC know him (Christ) , there wouldn't be amy need for the threaths given by the Apostles.
agreed completely ,i saw that ergun cannner cat recently claiming that jacob i have loved was because of what they done ,the verse refuting that notion was only on the same page ,there seems to be no lenghts people wont go to ,and people who will believe anything without checking
I noticed that the conversation did not talk about the Old Covenant as being the Mosaic Covenant. Is there any reason why this is? I am still a neophyte as far as covenant theology is concerned but that seems to be a helpful category for me as I continue to consider this question.
I recognize this is an old video, but I watched it again recently. At 50:00 Dr. Gaffin argues that Jer 31/Heb 8 is making a redemptive historical/historia salutis point "using ordo salutis language." No, rather, the text makes an ordo salutis point with historia salutis implications. The New Covenant saves. Therefore the Old Covenant, which did not save and which merely pointed forward to the New Covenant, is obsolete. Gaffin points to the experience of Abraham, Moses, and David in order to argue that ordo salutis benefits, namely regeneration, were provided by the Old Covenant. However, this is an invalid argument. The conclusion that the Old Covenant includes ordo salutis promises/benefits - including all those listed in Heb 8 - does not follow from the premise that OT saints were regenerate. I believe a correct exegesis of Heb 8 leads to the minor premise that the ordo salutis benefits are unique to the New Covenant ("better promises," "not like the Old Covenant"). P1 OT saints were regenerate P2 The New Covenant alone regenerates C OT saints were regenerated by the New Covenant Before one objects that this is fanciful baptist eisegesis, consider that Gaffin said "The ordo salutis reality... Abraham being a man of faith, a regenerate person of faith which is dependent upon the work of Christ still to come in the future for its efficacy." Bucey likewise said "[T]he grace that is administered to these Old Testament saints - really what they're receiving are the same spiritual benefits the same grace the same substantial grace coming from the same work of Christ - they're just receiving it in anticipation of the work he would come to do." And in a separate episode, Tipton said "Even prior to His advent, His incarnation, His life and death and resurrection, prior to that the virtue, benefits, and efficacy of his atoning sacrifice and resurrection and ascension are retrospectively applied to saints in the Old Testament order by the supernatural agency of the Spirit." What the author of Hebrews argues at great length is that this work of Christ and the benefits it entails are exclusive to the New covenant. According to the author of Hebrews, the New Covenant is different from the Old Covenant in that it regenerates and justifies (8:6-12). The author of Hebrews contrasts the blood of the Old Covenant (bulls and goats) with the blood of the New Covenant (Christ). He argues there is an ordo salutis difference between the two, not merely an historia salutis difference. "[I]t is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (10:4) "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." (9:15) As Owen has correctly remarked "The greatest and utmost mercies that God ever intended to communicate unto the church, and to bless it withal, were enclosed in the new covenant. Nor doth the efficacy of the mediation of Christ extend itself beyond the verge and compass thereof; for he is only the mediator and surety of this covenant." Calvin recognized the truth of this logic in his attempt to exegete Hebrews 8, particularly verse 10. He concluded “[W]hatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them… There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question." This was actually the dominant view (as far as I can tell) prior to the reformation. It was Augustine's view, echoed in Aquinas (who is quoted in Catholic Catechism 1964 on this point). See Joshua Moon's "An ‘Augustinian’ Reading of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Dialogue with the Christian Tradition" Once we have this correct foundation, then we can discuss how types relate to OT saints' understanding of and belief in the gospel, as well as how we are to understand the issue of apostasy and the warning passages.
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Thanks for the comment Charlie, but I encourage you to re-read what I wrote. You can also listen to this recent episode of CTC where they acknowledge that the Old Covenant did not regenerate anyone (thus the ordo salutis of OT saints did not come from the Old Covenant, but from the New). reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc736/
Dlightning, I dont think they were calling it a "debate" which would require both sides. This is a discussion within the walls of paedobaptists. You dont expect WTS to have professors on both sides, do you? It's an intramural discussion, and marketed as such. The question you should address is whether they fairly represent the other side, as opposed to caricatures or settting up straw men, and whether they have responded to the arguments.
This is much needed in the context of the Federal Vision challenge to some weak-minded reformed thinking which confuses historical covenant with eschatological election. The discussion of Hebrews 6 near the end shows that mature reformed theology has had it right all along...no need for FV if we simply recover what is ours.
Is it just me or is it slightly un-understandable to the average Jo Blogs, and rather difficult to follow with all the technical and sophisticated words in the discourse !?
Can anyone be saved without being in union with Christ? I don't think so. Abraham was in Christ in the same way as NT believers. What he lacked was not union, with the Spirit wintesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. It's the difference between one's position and one's awareness of of one's position.
As a Reformed Baptist I enjoyed watching, but thought the arguments were deep in response, but shallow in addressing the issues. Neither these brothers, nor Bavinck (in RD), touches on the NT language of circumcision of the heart. That is a significant point of continuity between OT circumcision done by hands (physical) and NT circumcision of the heart that is done by faith (election). Water baptism is for Christians, as is the Lord’s supper (the other sacrament). I expected more.
Why are christians “quarrelling” over This issue of baptism when it is only an ordinance which does save anyone because we are saved by by Grace through faith alone. The Bible does not say that it is a sin to baptize children of christian parents. So why do baptists criticize other christians who baptize their infants or children In the Church? I a.m a southern baptist, by the way.
reformedfruit The analogy of faith... or scripture interpreting scripture... has led me this way: Genesis 17 and the institution of a sign of the covenant. Exodus 12 (43-49) and the requirements for a 'stranger' to participate in the Passover (read converted foreigner). This practice of circumcising believers AND their children (including converts from outside Israel) would be the norm to the end of the OC period. Enter Jesus and his cataclysmic declarations at end of Matthew 28. Change: 1. go! into all the world. World missions. 2. Baptizing. No longer circumcising as was the historical norm, and what the apostles would have expected Jesus to say. No change: Who the recipients should be. That is, the apostles were not told to exclude the children of new believers. Any changes from old to new must be demonstrated in scripture - hence the exclusion of sacrifices in worship etc. The idea that children of believers aren’t (overtly) shown to be baptized is a clear indication of continuity between OC and NC. Might I add... there is no indication whatsoever that a child of believers was baptized as a professing adult either. That should give a Baptist cause to pause as well. Anyway, that understanding helped me view ecclesiology in a more consistent manner, as well as understand the theology behind both circumcision and baptism. And 'household baptisms' are viewed as a normal continuation of Exodus 12. Whether children are actually present or not is a non-issue. That, in brief, is convincing 'weight of scripture'. And, frankly, simple as well.
If there’s a continuity on the sing of the covenant like was said in the video I just have a question: How were the girls included in the covenant in Old Testament?? Whatever the answer is, is different from circumcision, there since they were no circumcised then why do you guys baptized them in the new covenant?? That just proves a discontinuity. Maybe we reformed Baptist are not so wrong after all.
Grace to you. Biblical truth consists in both truths that are stated explicitly (eg love the Lord, love your neighbour) and truths that are arrived at "by good and necessary consequence". A simple example would be the Trinity (one God, 3 persons, each person fully God, Father unbegotten, Son begotten of the Father, Spirit proceeds from Father and Son) where there is no one verse that sums up all its truths, but they are necessarily arrived at by deduction. Both Athanasius and Augustine argued this way while the Arians argued there was no explicit verse. See also Mark 12 where Jesus rebukes the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures because they did not deduce the truth of the resurrection from the passage about Moses and the burning bush (which is not a passage explicitly about the resurrection). Grace be with you.
Begin at the 11:00 mark and follow along in your bible (Romans 4:11) and see if he is accurately explaining what the text says or completely changes what the text says. Ironically this comes as he accuses baptist of "glossing over" Romans 4:11. Make sure you are reading the text as he "explains" it.
The scripture ain't that difficult to read. And the logic would be our oldest English version the king james. Anyone who can't see that is either a fool or blind
Some "discussion". All 4 are coming from the same side of this issue. Proverbs18:7 says, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
13:35 I'm a Particular Baptist. I would agree that baptism is a "sign from God to His people". We just believe His people are those in the New Covenant, i.e., those who are in Christ through faith. His people is now a spiritual seed, not a physical seed (as in the Old Covenant) or a mixed spiritual/physical seed (as in the paedobaptist view). Those who claim to have faith but do not, or it is not a saving faith, and receive baptism as a false believer, they do so not by right but to fulfill 1 John 2:19 that demonstrates they were false brethren.
Daric The host mentioned that this discussion is important for a few reasons... among them ecclesiology. Or, more specifically... who is a rightful member of the church. I believe this is an area where the credo Baptist claims too much... that the church can determine definitively those who are in Christ through faith. There is ample evidence in the NT, let alone our experience, that that is not possible. The New Covenant brings about huge change and progression... but it does not bring us into the secrets of heaven. That is still to come. Another thing the NC does not do is cheapen the place of children of believers. By the grace of God they are brought into the blessings of the covenant just like (but better) the OC people. The down side... just as in Israel... to whom much is given, much is required. That some children end up apostatizing is just as tragic and subject to judgement as he who has professed faith and apostatized. Again, one can be a covenant member... ie. a member of the church... and not be 'in Christ' in a saving way. Note John 15 and the vine and the branches. To be 'cut off', you first had to be attached in some way.
The promise is for all the seeds. Not just those who are of the law.( Romans 4:16 For this cause [it is] of faith, that [it may be] according to grace; to the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all ) See the comparison of the seeds with the old testament practice. So definitely physical seeds are included.
@@binusamuel8935 Not sure how that disproves what I wrote, or how it even addresses it. Paul is writing there in Romans 4 that the promises of God are to all those who have faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. Doesn't mean that the children of believers are part of the New Covenant.
@@daric_ it disproves because sign of the promises given to believers and their children in abrahamic faith and if you are taking out children then it is not abrahamic faith because the promise was for children too. What your position offers to the gentile believers is Abrahamic faith minus children. How sad is that. ..! So your position is a Shortened version of Abrahamic faith and signs.
That is why in Acts 21.24 Jacob advising Paul to disprove the accusations against him that the children are not in the NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH. If children are not in the new testament church why Paul being advised to disprove the accusations against him !
Respectfully, the video grossly misrepresents the covenantal Baptist position, and doesn't actually address the covenantal arguments, but rather ontologico-sacramental arguments upon which some base their sacramentology, and many of these are not views held by PBs. I'm not approaching this lightly, when I say this video ought to be taken down, as it damages and confuses good conversation which is has elsewhere between covenantal positions, to those wanting to learn the CB position. As evidence of this, I offer the reader of this comment and watcher of the video to examine the level they quote Reformed Baptists, compared to the level they examine arguments that come from the ether.
I don't know why people can't speak plainly; you want to maintain such an arcane high academic level, what a shame you can't take yourselves out of that pigeonhole. What are you going to say to Peter in acts 2:38? Better yet, I would love to hear Peters comment on this video. Next time please try to ad a few more 2cent words doctor, doctor what do you think doctor, well doctor, I believe doctor doctor has framed the argument such and such doctor, would you agree doctor, or you doctor? Well circumcision, doctor, new covenant inward outward hermeneutic doctor doctor, organic unity doctor, univocally typology doctor doctor - good grief...
Wyatt Finn Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9 Not of work lest any man should boast... God makes it pretty simple. Salvation today is the belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Cor 15:1-4. These guys have been sucking at the teet of the tree of knowledge too long. Don't they know death comes by the knowledge of 'good,' as well as evil? They became fools...
ea32da32 wow! What are you even talking about? Maybe you should tell your medical doctor that he should stop sucking the teet of the tree of knowledge... lol. Maybe he's too smart. Or maybe tell the engineer who designed your car that he's deceived by Satan because he puts everything his heart has to offer into the study of his craft. We want the best and the brightest to lead in every field outside the church, so why wouldn't God call some really smart people to become pastors and theologians. Love God with all your heart, soul, MIND, and strength. The fool would be the man who did not apply Gods extraordinary gift of knowledge to His word. Of course God is sufficiently clear for salvation but that's not what they're talking about. Doxology with wrong theology is idolatry. It's dangerous ground you're on.
I've listened to this so many times...I'm still working my way through the issue but the paedobaptist argument is quite strong. I pray that I can have clarity and certainty on this someday soon.
Yes it's a very difficult debate and I've been studying it for a long time now. Still uncertain and unsure
I believe that once you understand the continuity of circumcision into baptism and the mention of several baptisms in Hebrews 6,9,10 (baptismoi), you'll be on the right track. I'm new to this too.
You have to check this out: www.amazon.com/Distinctiveness-Baptist-Covenant-Theology/dp/1599253259
Gee_JO! I put this up earlier, and it may help you: The analogy of faith... or scripture interpreting scripture... has led me this way: Genesis 17 and the institution of a sign of the covenant. Exodus 12 (43-49) and the requirements for a 'stranger' to participate in the Passover (read converted foreigner). This practice of circumcising believers AND their children (including converts from outside Israel) would be the norm to the end of the OC period. Enter Jesus and his cataclysmic declarations at end of Matthew 28. Change: 1. go! into all the world. World missions. 2. Baptizing. No longer circumcising as was the historical norm, and what the apostles would have expected Jesus to say. No change: Who the recipients should be. That is, the apostles were not told to exclude the children of new believers. Any changes from old to new must be demonstrated in scripture - hence the exclusion of sacrifices in worship etc. The idea that children of believers aren’t (overtly) shown to be baptized is a clear indication of continuity between OC and NC. Might I add... there is no indication whatsoever that a child of believers was baptized as a professing adult either. That should give a Baptist cause to pause as well.
Anyway, that understanding helped me view ecclesiology in a more consistent manner, as well as understand the theology behind both circumcision and baptism. And 'household baptisms' are viewed as a normal continuation of Exodus 12. Whether children are actually present or not is a non-issue. That, in brief, is convincing 'weight of scripture'. And, frankly, simple as well.
The explanation of Jeremiah 31:31 -34 was very helpful. Indeed, if all in the NC know him (Christ) , there wouldn't be amy need for the threaths given by the Apostles.
VIDEO ARCHIVE: Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. and Lane G. Tipton speak about baptism, covenant, and election.
agreed completely ,i saw that ergun cannner cat recently claiming that jacob i have loved was because of what they done ,the verse refuting that notion was only on the same page ,there seems to be no lenghts people wont go to ,and people who will believe anything without checking
I noticed that the conversation did not talk about the Old Covenant as being the Mosaic Covenant. Is there any reason why this is? I am still a neophyte as far as covenant theology is concerned but that seems to be a helpful category for me as I continue to consider this question.
Gee_JO! There are several covenants and the main one they are referring to is the covenant of grace as established with Abraham
Gee_JO! Hebrews 8:8f (quoting Jeremiah 31) clearly shows that the new covenant replaces the Mosaic. Esp verse 9. Galatians 3:15-18 is also helpful.
Keith F ummmm... not according to Hebrews 8.
Camden how often are you putting the episodes up on RUclips? Thanks brother. thankful for your ministry.
I recognize this is an old video, but I watched it again recently.
At 50:00 Dr. Gaffin argues that Jer 31/Heb 8 is making a redemptive historical/historia salutis point "using ordo salutis language."
No, rather, the text makes an ordo salutis point with historia salutis implications. The New Covenant saves. Therefore the Old Covenant, which did not save and which merely pointed forward to the New Covenant, is obsolete.
Gaffin points to the experience of Abraham, Moses, and David in order to argue that ordo salutis benefits, namely regeneration, were provided by the Old Covenant. However, this is an invalid argument. The conclusion that the Old Covenant includes ordo salutis promises/benefits - including all those listed in Heb 8 - does not follow from the premise that OT saints were regenerate. I believe a correct exegesis of Heb 8 leads to the minor premise that the ordo salutis benefits are unique to the New Covenant ("better promises," "not like the Old Covenant").
P1 OT saints were regenerate
P2 The New Covenant alone regenerates
C OT saints were regenerated by the New Covenant
Before one objects that this is fanciful baptist eisegesis, consider that Gaffin said "The ordo salutis reality... Abraham being a man of faith, a regenerate person of faith which is dependent upon the work of Christ still to come in the future for its efficacy." Bucey likewise said "[T]he grace that is administered to these Old Testament saints - really what they're receiving are the same spiritual benefits the same grace the same substantial grace coming from the same work of Christ - they're just receiving it in anticipation of the work he would come to do." And in a separate episode, Tipton said "Even prior to His advent, His incarnation, His life and death and resurrection, prior to that the virtue, benefits, and efficacy of his atoning sacrifice and resurrection and ascension are retrospectively applied to saints in the Old Testament order by the supernatural agency of the Spirit."
What the author of Hebrews argues at great length is that this work of Christ and the benefits it entails are exclusive to the New covenant. According to the author of Hebrews, the New Covenant is different from the Old Covenant in that it regenerates and justifies (8:6-12). The author of Hebrews contrasts the blood of the Old Covenant (bulls and goats) with the blood of the New Covenant (Christ). He argues there is an ordo salutis difference between the two, not merely an historia salutis difference. "[I]t is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." (10:4) "Therefore he is the mediator of a new covenant, so that those who are called may receive the promised eternal inheritance, since a death has occurred that redeems them from the transgressions committed under the first covenant." (9:15) As Owen has correctly remarked "The greatest and utmost mercies that God ever intended to communicate unto the church, and to bless it withal, were enclosed in the new covenant. Nor doth the efficacy of the mediation of Christ extend itself beyond the verge and compass thereof; for he is only the mediator and surety of this covenant."
Calvin recognized the truth of this logic in his attempt to exegete Hebrews 8, particularly verse 10. He concluded “[W]hatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them… There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question."
This was actually the dominant view (as far as I can tell) prior to the reformation. It was Augustine's view, echoed in Aquinas (who is quoted in Catholic Catechism 1964 on this point). See Joshua Moon's "An ‘Augustinian’ Reading of Jeremiah 31:31-34 in Dialogue with the Christian Tradition"
Once we have this correct foundation, then we can discuss how types relate to OT saints' understanding of and belief in the gospel, as well as how we are to understand the issue of apostasy and the warning passages.
I should add that many others, such as John Frame, have recognized this truth contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/02/07/john-frames-retroactive-new-covenant/
@@ThomasCranmer1959 Thanks for the comment Charlie, but I encourage you to re-read what I wrote. You can also listen to this recent episode of CTC where they acknowledge that the Old Covenant did not regenerate anyone (thus the ordo salutis of OT saints did not come from the Old Covenant, but from the New). reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc736/
Dlightning, I dont think they were calling it a "debate" which would require both sides. This is a discussion within the walls of paedobaptists. You dont expect WTS to have professors on both sides, do you? It's an intramural discussion, and marketed as such. The question you should address is whether they fairly represent the other side, as opposed to caricatures or settting up straw men, and whether they have responded to the arguments.
This is much needed in the context of the Federal Vision challenge to some weak-minded reformed thinking which confuses historical covenant with eschatological election. The discussion of Hebrews 6 near the end shows that mature reformed theology has had it right all along...no need for FV if we simply recover what is ours.
Is it just me or is it slightly un-understandable to the average Jo Blogs, and rather difficult to follow with all the technical and sophisticated words in the discourse !?
Why not have a Baptist so that he might challenge what is said here?
Can anyone be saved without being in union with Christ? I don't think so. Abraham was in Christ in the same way as NT believers. What he lacked was not union, with the Spirit wintesses with his spirit that he is a child of God. It's the difference between one's position and one's awareness of of one's position.
I thought I clicked on a Chef John recipe video for a second.
As a Reformed Baptist I enjoyed watching, but thought the arguments were deep in response, but shallow in addressing the issues. Neither these brothers, nor Bavinck (in RD), touches on the NT language of circumcision of the heart. That is a significant point of continuity between OT circumcision done by hands (physical) and NT circumcision of the heart that is done by faith (election). Water baptism is for Christians, as is the Lord’s supper (the other sacrament). I expected more.
Nobody in the old was saved ??
Why are christians “quarrelling” over This issue of baptism when it is only an ordinance which does save anyone because we are saved by by Grace through faith alone. The Bible does not say that it is a sin to baptize children of christian parents. So why do baptists criticize other christians who baptize their infants or children In the Church? I a.m a southern baptist, by the way.
This is the one issue I wish I could accept but I just can't from the weight of Scripture.
reformedfruit The analogy of faith... or scripture interpreting scripture... has led me this way: Genesis 17 and the institution of a sign of the covenant. Exodus 12 (43-49) and the requirements for a 'stranger' to participate in the Passover (read converted foreigner). This practice of circumcising believers AND their children (including converts from outside Israel) would be the norm to the end of the OC period. Enter Jesus and his cataclysmic declarations at end of Matthew 28. Change: 1. go! into all the world. World missions. 2. Baptizing. No longer circumcising as was the historical norm, and what the apostles would have expected Jesus to say. No change: Who the recipients should be. That is, the apostles were not told to exclude the children of new believers. Any changes from old to new must be demonstrated in scripture - hence the exclusion of sacrifices in worship etc. The idea that children of believers aren’t (overtly) shown to be baptized is a clear indication of continuity between OC and NC. Might I add... there is no indication whatsoever that a child of believers was baptized as a professing adult either. That should give a Baptist cause to pause as well.
Anyway, that understanding helped me view ecclesiology in a more consistent manner, as well as understand the theology behind both circumcision and baptism. And 'household baptisms' are viewed as a normal continuation of Exodus 12. Whether children are actually present or not is a non-issue. That, in brief, is convincing 'weight of scripture'. And, frankly, simple as well.
If there’s a continuity on the sing of the covenant like was said in the video I just have a question: How were the girls included in the covenant in Old Testament?? Whatever the answer is, is different from circumcision, there since they were no circumcised then why do you guys baptized them in the new covenant?? That just proves a discontinuity. Maybe we reformed Baptist are not so wrong after all.
OIKOS covenant
Man's logic tree wisdom. I agree, there is no clear scripture to justify this Catholic hangover.
Grace to you. Biblical truth consists in both truths that are stated explicitly (eg love the Lord, love your neighbour) and truths that are arrived at "by good and necessary consequence". A simple example would be the Trinity (one God, 3 persons, each person fully God, Father unbegotten, Son begotten of the Father, Spirit proceeds from Father and Son) where there is no one verse that sums up all its truths, but they are necessarily arrived at by deduction. Both Athanasius and Augustine argued this way while the Arians argued there was no explicit verse. See also Mark 12 where Jesus rebukes the Sadducees for not knowing the Scriptures because they did not deduce the truth of the resurrection from the passage about Moses and the burning bush (which is not a passage explicitly about the resurrection). Grace be with you.
There's no hangover. Unless you can show the change in practice???
@42:50 Jer 31
Begin at the 11:00 mark and follow along in your bible (Romans 4:11) and see if he is accurately explaining what the text says or completely changes what the text says. Ironically this comes as he accuses baptist of "glossing over" Romans 4:11. Make sure you are reading the text as he "explains" it.
The scripture ain't that difficult to read. And the logic would be our oldest English version the king james. Anyone who can't see that is either a fool or blind
Some "discussion". All 4 are coming from the same side of this issue. Proverbs18:7 says, "The one who states his case first seems right, until the other comes and examines him."
13:35 I'm a Particular Baptist. I would agree that baptism is a "sign from God to His people". We just believe His people are those in the New Covenant, i.e., those who are in Christ through faith. His people is now a spiritual seed, not a physical seed (as in the Old Covenant) or a mixed spiritual/physical seed (as in the paedobaptist view). Those who claim to have faith but do not, or it is not a saving faith, and receive baptism as a false believer, they do so not by right but to fulfill 1 John 2:19 that demonstrates they were false brethren.
Daric The host mentioned that this discussion is important for a few reasons... among them ecclesiology. Or, more specifically... who is a rightful member of the church. I believe this is an area where the credo Baptist claims too much... that the church can determine definitively those who are in Christ through faith. There is ample evidence in the NT, let alone our experience, that that is not possible. The New Covenant brings about huge change and progression... but it does not bring us into the secrets of heaven. That is still to come. Another thing the NC does not do is cheapen the place of children of believers. By the grace of God they are brought into the blessings of the covenant just like (but better) the OC people. The down side... just as in Israel... to whom much is given, much is required. That some children end up apostatizing is just as tragic and subject to judgement as he who has professed faith and apostatized. Again, one can be a covenant member... ie. a member of the church... and not be 'in Christ' in a saving way. Note John 15 and the vine and the branches. To be 'cut off', you first had to be attached in some way.
The promise is for all the seeds. Not just those who are of the law.( Romans 4:16 For this cause [it is] of faith, that [it may be] according to grace; to the end that the promise may be sure to all the seed; not to that only which is of the law, but to that also which is of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all
) See the comparison of the seeds with the old testament practice. So definitely physical seeds are included.
@@binusamuel8935
Not sure how that disproves what I wrote, or how it even addresses it. Paul is writing there in Romans 4 that the promises of God are to all those who have faith in Christ, whether Jew or Gentile. Doesn't mean that the children of believers are part of the New Covenant.
@@daric_ it disproves because sign of the promises given to believers and their children in abrahamic faith and if you are taking out children then it is not abrahamic faith because the promise was for children too. What your position offers to the gentile believers is Abrahamic faith minus children. How sad is that. ..! So your position is a Shortened version of Abrahamic faith and signs.
That is why in Acts 21.24 Jacob advising Paul to disprove the accusations against him that the children are not in the NEW TESTAMENT CHURCH. If children are not in the new testament church why Paul being advised to disprove the accusations against him !
Respectfully, the video grossly misrepresents the covenantal Baptist position, and doesn't actually address the covenantal arguments, but rather ontologico-sacramental arguments upon which some base their sacramentology, and many of these are not views held by PBs.
I'm not approaching this lightly, when I say this video ought to be taken down, as it damages and confuses good conversation which is has elsewhere between covenantal positions, to those wanting to learn the CB position. As evidence of this, I offer the reader of this comment and watcher of the video to examine the level they quote Reformed Baptists, compared to the level they examine arguments that come from the ether.
I don't know why people can't speak plainly; you want to maintain such an arcane high academic level, what a shame you can't take yourselves out of that pigeonhole. What are you going to say to Peter in acts 2:38? Better yet, I would love to hear Peters comment on this video. Next time please try to ad a few more 2cent words doctor, doctor what do you think doctor, well doctor, I believe doctor doctor has framed the argument such and such doctor, would you agree doctor, or you doctor? Well circumcision, doctor, new covenant inward outward hermeneutic doctor doctor, organic unity doctor, univocally typology doctor doctor - good grief...
ea32da32 this is a conversation between doctors... do you expect a conversation between Medical doctors to be easily understandable by all people?
Well... doctors and Th.M's I guess.
Wyatt Finn Ephesians 2:8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of work lest any man should boast...
God makes it pretty simple. Salvation today is the belief in the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ 1 Cor 15:1-4.
These guys have been sucking at the teet of the tree of knowledge too long. Don't they know death comes by the knowledge of 'good,' as well as evil?
They became fools...
ea32da32 wow! What are you even talking about?
Maybe you should tell your medical doctor that he should stop sucking the teet of the tree of knowledge... lol. Maybe he's too smart. Or maybe tell the engineer who designed your car that he's deceived by Satan because he puts everything his heart has to offer into the study of his craft. We want the best and the brightest to lead in every field outside the church, so why wouldn't God call some really smart people to become pastors and theologians. Love God with all your heart, soul, MIND, and strength.
The fool would be the man who did not apply Gods extraordinary gift of knowledge to His word. Of course God is sufficiently clear for salvation but that's not what they're talking about.
Doxology with wrong theology is idolatry. It's dangerous ground you're on.
Sufficiently clear in scripture*
All these people that add whatever they deem fit under the guise of their "theology ". Moulding God in their own image.
This is def apostate!!
What the frutos do you mean, madam?