After leaving Mormonism and being saved by Christ, I felt that reformed theology accurately described what I read in the Bible. I had attended an OPC church and a Reformed Baptist church and couldn't decide between the two which to attend. This video sums up very succinctly the differences in the scope and application of the new covenant between the reformed paedobaptist and credobaptist positions. Thank you.
Daric - I respect your decision, but in my humble opinion as an “armchair theologian” Mormonism does more to answer the deep questions of life and more closely reflects the Bible (King James Version) than any other religion.
It is clear how sabbatarianism flows from Westminster'a one covenant/two administrations approach. But why is it in the 1689 London Baptist Confession?
I know you’re not asking me but I’ll give my two cents: Because the 6 day work week plus the 7th day of rest was established at the creation of the world modeled by our creator (this is what the 4th commandment is rooted in). Resting 1 in 7 days is good and has always been good from the beginning of time. Christ didn’t abrogate it be clarified it.
The covenant of grace is with the elect as touching its substance and their actual union with their covenant Head. However,the administration of the covenant of grace has always been "blended" and we see nothing in the new covenant administration indicating the blended nature and inclusion of the children of believers has ceased.
That’s not an honest Treatment of the New covenant doctrine of membership is it? Clearly the regenerate are the only NC members. So even the language of apostasy that litters the NT documents aren’t indicating a leftover of the OC. The focus of the apostasy passages are professing believers vs. those “who never were OF us.” Then when we go to the sign of baptism, what do we get? A sign that directly correlates to belief born out of regeneration that points to federal real substantive union with Christ (see romans 6) babies can’t be in Adam and Christ at the sane time!
Perhaps statement I found most beneficial - "The church is actually eschatological Israel of Old Testament prophecy" Pretty well sums up the fundamental distinction with Dispensationalism (from a layman's perspective)
I'm not exactly sure what the Covenant theologians do with the over 50 passages that clearly state that Israel will be brought back to the land from where they were gathered.
@@mosesking29231) Christ is the telos of the OT. All promises terminate in Him. 2) The whole world, and the New Heavens and New Earth, is more, not less, than geographical Israel. The believing Jew is not replaced. They get more.
@@shawngillogly6873 There are 50 promises throughout the OT prophets which state that God will bring the Jews back into their land. There are no distinctions between “believing Jews” and “unbelieving Jews” in those passages.
@@shawngillogly6873 the covenants were made with the Jewish people as a whole. God promises to gather ALL of his people from the nations back to their homeland in Israel. The promises were not restricted to only believing Jews. Do you have scripture to back this up?
I appreciate this video and have great affection for my Reformed Baptist Brethren. Can you clarify a few issues? Where in the Westminster standards does it say that unbelieving children of believers are in the covenant between Christ and the elect (what Rev. Renihan calls the covenant of grace)? (1:30 - 1:45) In addition, the covenant of grace is not between Christ and the elect, see LC 31. Westminster is careful to clarify (although many Presbyterian are not) that not all children of believers are elect (see WCF 10.3). Maybe you are mixing Reformed Baptist language with Presbyterianism. I understand that RB believe covenant of grace = new covenant. Maybe he meant "the Westminster standards teach that unbelieving children of believers are in the new covenant?" The Westminster standards don't say this either, but this is what many Presbyterian believe and practice.
Hi ncsign, thanks for the question. Please see the WLC. Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered? A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. I don't understand your objection with regards to WLC 31 and WCF 10.3. Can you clarify? WCF believes the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace (WCF 7.6). We are not mixing our view with Westminster's. Our difference is that we equate *only* the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace while Westminster equates several post-fall covenants with the Covenant of Grace.
@@brandonadams07 That's great - could you please tell me which texts those could also be found in so I can reference? I'm not so interested admittedly in the term the Bible since that is simply a generic term - and as we probably would all acknowledge a severe misnomer
A. “Who can partake of the kingdom sacraments? The kingdom people” ok . I’m sure that most Presbyterians would point to the parables of Christ which indicate that non-believers are part of the Kingdom: see the wheat and chaff, the dragnet of fish, both good and bad people invited to the wedding feast etc. B. The non-regenerate federal union to Christ is answered by the Federal Vision movement. Passages indicating that the branches in Christ may be dead and fruitless but nonetheless still connected to Christ.
The word federal was actually used very often during the writing of the confession and prior since federal is a Latin word that essentially means covenant
One question: Is the "illegal citizen's" baptism invalid? Or to put it another way: Is baptism upon profession of faith objective, a sure sign and seal of the promises of God which, perhaps, stirs up faith later, or is the baptism of an (intentional or unitentional) false professor really a non-baptism which has to be "repeated" in the case of later conversion?
Thanks for the question. The 2nd London Baptist Confession does not refer to baptism as a seal. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is the seal of the New Covenant. The Confession does refer to baptism as a sign. As a sign (symbolic representation) it is a means of grace to true believers. A false baptism, apart from the gospel that it proclaims in picture form, does nothing to "stir up faith later". Whether or not the baptism would need to be repeated later depends on the nature of the apostasy and church discipline, I suppose. I'll let someone more qualified answer that though Here are some more resources: www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3214184051 confessingbaptist.com/baptism-a-means-of-grace-roundup-2/
I just noticed that Hercules Collins in his Orthodox Catechism adopts the language of the Heidelberg Catechism and defines the sacraments as "sacred signs AND SEALS". In this case baptism would objectively seal the gospel promise even to the "illegal citizen" ...
TimotheosCauvin If we understand baptism as a seal (which most Particular Baptists did not, but some did) and if by that we understand that God is doing something, then does God promise to seal his benefits to those falsely professing faith? No. If the seal-aspect of baptism is all about what God does, then there's no reason to say that God does anything in the case of the "illegal citizen."
I looked at the three Theological Covenants, the issue comes to me are the Covenant of Works and Grace the two administrations of that Covenant of Redemption? If so, issues like Infant Baptism fail since these are two different administrations, substances, and communities. Simply fail to see Dr. Sproul's view at all..
Is it accurate to say that we as believers are not under the Covenant of Works? I'm not sure I agree that we're not... through Christ, we have fulfilled all of the requirements of the CoW. That's why He pleads eternally for us and clothes us in His works.
The Covenant of Works refers to the covenant that God made with Adam. Believers are no longer under Adam's federal headship, therefore believers are no longer under The Covenant of Works. We are under Christ's headship. Yes, Christ fulfilled the terms that Adam failed to keep, but Christ was never under Adam's covenant.
No, it does not. It points to a parallel between Christ and Adam. It points to the fact that Christ earned for us what Adam failed to earn for himself. But it does not teach that Christ was under Adam's Covenant. If he was, then he would have had Adam's guilt imputed to him. That's why he was born of a virgin. Yes, Christ fulfilled the terms that Adam failed to, but it was a different covenant (the Covenant of Redemption).
"It points to a parallel between Christ and Adam." - In what they accomplished. "It points to the fact that Christ earned for us what Adam failed to earn for himself." - Yes... perfect obedience to God's law. "But it does not teach that Christ was under Adam's Covenant. If he was, then he would have had Adam's guilt imputed to him." - Not the case at all. He was the second Adam, not a child of Adam. But any guilt that was imputed to Him was imputed through substitution on the cross. That is all guilt that humans racked by their failure to uphold perfect works of righteousness. "Yes, Christ fulfilled the terms that Adam failed to, but it was a different covenant." - The Covenant of Redemption wasn't between God and Adam though, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, brother.
Yes, a parallel in what they accomplished or failed to accomplish: eternal rest/eternal life through perfect obedience to God's law. We are agreed. "Not the case at all" Brother, it seems you perhaps don't understand the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his offspring. We are not only fallen in our nature, but Adam's sin is imputed to us because he was our federal head. Adam was the federal head of everyone in the Adamic Covenant. If Christ was in the Adamic Covenant, then he was under Adam's federal headship and Adam's guilt was imputed to him. Yes, the only guilt that was imputed to Christ was the guilt of the elect imputed to him at the cross. That simply proves my point that he was not under Adam. "The Covenant of Redemption wasn't between God and Adam though" That is correct. I never said it was. It was between the Father and the Son. Christ fully obeyed the Father according to the terms of the Covenant of Redemption (which included perfect obedience to the law that Adam failed to keep). Christ was never under Adam's federal headship. Christ was never in Adam's covenant.
I dearly love my Presbyterian brothers, but I really don't want to hear any more that Reformed Baptists aren't Reformed, or not Reformed "enough". To me, 1689 Federalism is really a further refining of Reformed theology overall, and is more careful in its faithfulness to the whole Bible's witness. And it impacts almost all other loci, but especially soteriology, ecclesiology, and even eschatology. Not all Baptists are Reformed, but if anything, Reformed Baptists might actually be "more" Reformed than the Presbyterians!
That's right. Infant baptism is the leftover golden calf from the Reformation. I borrowed that statement, by the way, but it's so true. It also influences their odd view on the salvation of infants.
Excellent video. 1689 Federalism makes more sense. However, I really don't think believers who understand Federalism as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith will be considered Illegal Aliens and not be included in the covenant. Otherwise, I agree with the video.
Hi Philip, glad the video is helpful! I'm afraid you misunderstood the statement. He was not saying that those who agree with the WCF are illegal aliens and not in the New Covenant. Rather, he was saying that unregenerate unbelievers who are part of a local church are "illegal aliens" not citizens of the kingdom, and not members of the New Covenant (contrary to the WCF view which says that they actually are members of the New Covenant and citizens of the kingdom).
The purpose of marriage is Godly offspring Malachi 2:15. Baptism should be administered to the children of at least one believing parent as they are clean 1 Cor 7:14
After leaving Mormonism and being saved by Christ, I felt that reformed theology accurately described what I read in the Bible. I had attended an OPC church and a Reformed Baptist church and couldn't decide between the two which to attend. This video sums up very succinctly the differences in the scope and application of the new covenant between the reformed paedobaptist and credobaptist positions. Thank you.
Daric - I respect your decision, but in my humble opinion as an “armchair theologian” Mormonism does more to answer the deep questions of life and more closely reflects the Bible (King James Version) than any other religion.
Congrats on leaving Mormonism!
@@douglasolson675 ruclips.net/video/in-sPf0pLQM/видео.html
@@JosephsCoat
All praise and glory to God alone! :)
@@daric_ ❤
It is clear how sabbatarianism flows from Westminster'a one covenant/two administrations approach. But why is it in the 1689 London Baptist Confession?
I know you’re not asking me but I’ll give my two cents: Because the 6 day work week plus the 7th day of rest was established at the creation of the world modeled by our creator (this is what the 4th commandment is rooted in). Resting 1 in 7 days is good and has always been good from the beginning of time. Christ didn’t abrogate it be clarified it.
The covenant of grace is with the elect as touching its substance and their actual union with their covenant Head. However,the administration of the covenant of grace has always been "blended" and we see nothing in the new covenant administration indicating the blended nature and inclusion of the children of believers has ceased.
That’s not an honest
Treatment of the New covenant doctrine of membership is it? Clearly the regenerate are the only NC members. So even the language of apostasy that litters the NT documents aren’t indicating a leftover of the OC. The focus of the apostasy passages are professing believers vs. those “who never were OF us.” Then when we go to the sign of baptism, what do we get? A sign that directly correlates to belief born out of regeneration that points to federal real substantive union with Christ (see romans 6) babies can’t be in Adam and Christ at the sane time!
This is a much needed upload. Blessings to you my brother. ✊🏾
Perhaps statement I found most beneficial -
"The church is actually eschatological Israel of Old Testament prophecy"
Pretty well sums up the fundamental distinction with Dispensationalism (from a layman's perspective)
I'm not exactly sure what the Covenant theologians do with the over 50 passages that clearly state that Israel will be brought back to the land from where they were gathered.
@@mosesking29231) Christ is the telos of the OT. All promises terminate in Him.
2) The whole world, and the New Heavens and New Earth, is more, not less, than geographical Israel. The believing Jew is not replaced. They get more.
@@shawngillogly6873 There are 50 promises throughout the OT prophets which state that God will bring the Jews back into their land. There are no distinctions between “believing Jews” and “unbelieving Jews” in those passages.
@@shawngillogly6873 the covenants were made with the Jewish people as a whole. God promises to gather ALL of his people from the nations back to their homeland in Israel. The promises were not restricted to only believing Jews. Do you have scripture to back this up?
I heartily suggest The Covenant of Life Opened by Samuel Rutherford
yoo.. you're a Christian!
I appreciate this video and have great affection for my Reformed Baptist Brethren. Can you clarify a few issues?
Where in the Westminster standards does it say that unbelieving children of believers are in the covenant between Christ and the elect (what Rev. Renihan calls the covenant of grace)? (1:30 - 1:45)
In addition, the covenant of grace is not between Christ and the elect, see LC 31. Westminster is careful to clarify (although many Presbyterian are not) that not all children of believers are elect (see WCF 10.3).
Maybe you are mixing Reformed Baptist language with Presbyterianism. I understand that RB believe covenant of grace = new covenant. Maybe he meant "the Westminster standards teach that unbelieving children of believers are in the new covenant?" The Westminster standards don't say this either, but this is what many Presbyterian believe and practice.
Hi ncsign, thanks for the question. Please see the WLC.
Q. 166. Unto whom is baptism to be administered?
A. Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.
I don't understand your objection with regards to WLC 31 and WCF 10.3. Can you clarify?
WCF believes the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace (WCF 7.6). We are not mixing our view with Westminster's. Our difference is that we equate *only* the New Covenant with the Covenant of Grace while Westminster equates several post-fall covenants with the Covenant of Grace.
Brandon Adams Thanks for your response.
+Michael Anastasiou Thanks for the suggestion. I will add it to the list of new videos we'd like to produce when the opportunity arises.
I'm trying to find the phrase "Federal Union" in the New Testament...
Anybody??
@@brandonadams07
That's great - could you please tell me which texts those could also be found in so I can reference?
I'm not so interested admittedly in the term the Bible since that is simply a generic term - and as we probably would all acknowledge a severe misnomer
This is like a seminary class. Thank you
A. “Who can partake of the kingdom sacraments? The kingdom people” ok . I’m sure that most Presbyterians would point to the parables of Christ which indicate that non-believers are part of the Kingdom: see the wheat and chaff, the dragnet of fish, both good and bad people invited to the wedding feast etc.
B. The non-regenerate federal union to Christ is answered by the Federal Vision movement. Passages indicating that the branches in Christ may be dead and fruitless but nonetheless still connected to Christ.
so what do you do with a 6 month old baby?
???
What happened to the comparison to 20th Century Baptist Covenant Theology?
Good question I was looking for the video.
Never heard of the term federalism before instead of reformed or covenantal. I wonder if it is new lingo amongst the seminaries.
The word federal was actually used very often during the writing of the confession and prior since federal is a Latin word that essentially means covenant
One question: Is the "illegal citizen's" baptism invalid? Or to put it another way: Is baptism upon profession of faith objective, a sure sign and seal of the promises of God which, perhaps, stirs up faith later, or is the baptism of an (intentional or unitentional) false professor really a non-baptism which has to be "repeated" in the case of later conversion?
Thanks for the question. The 2nd London Baptist Confession does not refer to baptism as a seal. We recognize that the Holy Spirit is the seal of the New Covenant. The Confession does refer to baptism as a sign. As a sign (symbolic representation) it is a means of grace to true believers. A false baptism, apart from the gospel that it proclaims in picture form, does nothing to "stir up faith later". Whether or not the baptism would need to be repeated later depends on the nature of the apostasy and church discipline, I suppose. I'll let someone more qualified answer that though
Here are some more resources:
www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=3214184051
confessingbaptist.com/baptism-a-means-of-grace-roundup-2/
Thank you very much!
I just noticed that Hercules Collins in his Orthodox Catechism adopts the language of the Heidelberg Catechism and defines the sacraments as "sacred signs AND SEALS". In this case baptism would objectively seal the gospel promise even to the "illegal citizen" ...
TimotheosCauvin If we understand baptism as a seal (which most Particular Baptists did not, but some did) and if by that we understand that God is doing something, then does God promise to seal his benefits to those falsely professing faith? No. If the seal-aspect of baptism is all about what God does, then there's no reason to say that God does anything in the case of the "illegal citizen."
I would call baptism a sign OF the seal. Because the seal is the Holy Spirit
What is the "Cox Owen" work mentioned at the end? Is this a work that expounds Owen's works?
www.1689federalism.com/covenant-theology-from-adam-to-christ/
Very articulate and helpful. Thanks!
I looked at the three Theological Covenants, the issue comes to me are the Covenant of Works and Grace the two administrations of that Covenant of Redemption? If so, issues like Infant Baptism fail since these are two different administrations, substances, and communities. Simply fail to see Dr. Sproul's view at all..
Agree. Infant baptism can't be justified biblically. It's just not there.
Amen. This one really made me think of my previously held view on CT. To God be the glory!
Michial, did you even watch the video?
Thanks for the recommendation. Rutherford has good stuff.
Is it accurate to say that we as believers are not under the Covenant of Works? I'm not sure I agree that we're not... through Christ, we have fulfilled all of the requirements of the CoW. That's why He pleads eternally for us and clothes us in His works.
The Covenant of Works refers to the covenant that God made with Adam. Believers are no longer under Adam's federal headship, therefore believers are no longer under The Covenant of Works. We are under Christ's headship. Yes, Christ fulfilled the terms that Adam failed to keep, but Christ was never under Adam's covenant.
But in Adam all died, and Christ is the second Adam. Does that not point to His fulfillment of the initial Covenant of Works that Adam failed to keep?
No, it does not. It points to a parallel between Christ and Adam. It points to the fact that Christ earned for us what Adam failed to earn for himself. But it does not teach that Christ was under Adam's Covenant. If he was, then he would have had Adam's guilt imputed to him. That's why he was born of a virgin. Yes, Christ fulfilled the terms that Adam failed to, but it was a different covenant (the Covenant of Redemption).
"It points to a parallel between Christ and Adam." - In what they accomplished.
"It points to the fact that Christ earned for us what Adam failed to earn for himself." - Yes... perfect obedience to God's law.
"But it does not teach that Christ was under Adam's Covenant. If he was, then he would have had Adam's guilt imputed to him." - Not the case at all. He was the second Adam, not a child of Adam. But any guilt that was imputed to Him was imputed through substitution on the cross. That is all guilt that humans racked by their failure to uphold perfect works of righteousness.
"Yes, Christ fulfilled the terms that Adam failed to, but it was a different covenant." - The Covenant of Redemption wasn't between God and Adam though, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense, brother.
Yes, a parallel in what they accomplished or failed to accomplish: eternal rest/eternal life through perfect obedience to God's law. We are agreed.
"Not the case at all" Brother, it seems you perhaps don't understand the doctrine of the imputation of Adam's sin to his offspring. We are not only fallen in our nature, but Adam's sin is imputed to us because he was our federal head. Adam was the federal head of everyone in the Adamic Covenant. If Christ was in the Adamic Covenant, then he was under Adam's federal headship and Adam's guilt was imputed to him. Yes, the only guilt that was imputed to Christ was the guilt of the elect imputed to him at the cross. That simply proves my point that he was not under Adam.
"The Covenant of Redemption wasn't between God and Adam though" That is correct. I never said it was. It was between the Father and the Son. Christ fully obeyed the Father according to the terms of the Covenant of Redemption (which included perfect obedience to the law that Adam failed to keep). Christ was never under Adam's federal headship. Christ was never in Adam's covenant.
I dearly love my Presbyterian brothers, but I really don't want to hear any more that Reformed Baptists aren't Reformed, or not Reformed "enough". To me, 1689 Federalism is really a further refining of Reformed theology overall, and is more careful in its faithfulness to the whole Bible's witness. And it impacts almost all other loci, but especially soteriology, ecclesiology, and even eschatology. Not all Baptists are Reformed, but if anything, Reformed Baptists might actually be "more" Reformed than the Presbyterians!
You better not let R Scott Clark from westminster seminary EVER see this comment chief 😂💀
@@cjfoster4179 OK........
@@cjfoster4179 lol i remember he called out james white a couple years ago
That's right. Infant baptism is the leftover golden calf from the Reformation. I borrowed that statement, by the way, but it's so true. It also influences their odd view on the salvation of infants.
Excellent video. 1689 Federalism makes more sense. However, I really don't think believers who understand Federalism as described in the Westminster Confession of Faith will be considered Illegal Aliens and not be included in the covenant. Otherwise, I agree with the video.
Hi Philip, glad the video is helpful! I'm afraid you misunderstood the statement. He was not saying that those who agree with the WCF are illegal aliens and not in the New Covenant. Rather, he was saying that unregenerate unbelievers who are part of a local church are "illegal aliens" not citizens of the kingdom, and not members of the New Covenant (contrary to the WCF view which says that they actually are members of the New Covenant and citizens of the kingdom).
I apologize and point taken. I gave your video a thumbs up!
Savoy Declaration, anyone?
The purpose of marriage is Godly offspring Malachi 2:15. Baptism should be administered to the children of at least one believing parent as they are clean 1 Cor 7:14
Note quite contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/1-cor-714-the-legitimacy-interpretation/
contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/04/05/1-cor-714-no-proof-of-infant-baptism/
Yes Brandon
I have those moments where I mix up the verse and the chapter too. :-P
One is historically reformed and the other one isn’t.... 🤷♂️
+Jebron Lames - Can you explain?
@@abecarranza7585 I can answer that one for him: "No."