Resources
Of God’s Covenant (Keach Conference 2013)
On 02, Apr 2014 | In Audio, Resources, Richard Barcellos | By Brandon Adams
|
|
Form and Matter + Promise and Promulgation = Particular Baptist Federal Theology
On 01, Nov 2013 | In Resources, Samuel Renihan | By Brandon Adams
See this helpful post from the Particular Voices blog:
Form and Matter + Promise and Promulgation = Particular Baptist Federal Theology
Covenant Theology Lectures – Sam Renihan
On 12, Aug 2013 | In Audio, Resources, Samuel Renihan | By Brandon Adams
Here are three sermons from Sam Renihan dug up by Jason @ the Confessing Baptist Blog
- Covenant Theology Foundations
- Kingship and the Davidic Covenant
- Redemptive History and the Covenants
- Why Did God Exile Israel?
- Why Did God Destroy Israel?
A Brief Survey of Covenant Theology (Barcellos)
On 17, Jul 2013 | In Audio, Resources, Richard Barcellos, Video | By Brandon Adams
|
|||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
|
Sermon: The Primacy of the Abrahamic Covenant
On 24, Jun 2013 | In Audio, Jeffery Johnson, Resources | By Brandon Adams
The Primacy of the Abrahamic Covenant
Pastor Jeff Johnson, author of The Fatal Flaw Behind The Theology of Infant Baptism, shows us how the Abrahamic Covenant unifies the Old Testament and the New Testament; the Old Covenant and the New Covenant, the demands of the law and the glory of grace.
Particular Voices
On 09, Jun 2013 | In Resources, Samuel Renihan | By Brandon Adams
P A R T I C U L A R V O I C E S
“Interesting bits and pieces from 17th century literature”
A blog dedicated to reviving the voices of 17th (and 16th) century theologians, especially the Particular Baptists. To be clear, just because a portion of someone’s work is posted does not mean that their assertion in particular or their theology as a whole is being endorsed. In each post, click the image for a larger version of the text.
Pascal Denault Interviewed on the Confessing Baptist
On 07, Jun 2013 | In Audio, Pascal Denault, Resources | By Brandon Adams
On episode two of our podcast, we interview Pascal Denault on his new book The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism.
On episode three of our podcast, we finish up our two part interview with Pascal Denault on his new book The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism.
Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology & Biblical Theology
On 07, Jun 2013 | In Resources, Samuel Renihan | By Brandon Adams
Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology & Biblical Theology by Samuel Renihan and Micah Renihan
This material was presented by the authors to students of Westminster Seminary California during a lunch hour on campus in response to their inquiries about how Reformed Baptists view covenant theology. Given the time constraints of a one-hour presentation, the focus of the material was on areas of positive argument for the credobaptist position where it differs from paedobaptism…
There is one uniting and driving force in redemptive history, and that is the Covenant of Redemption. Although it is not accomplished in history until Christ comes, we see the gathering in of the elect who believe in Christ from the fall onward. Where we see that in-gathering of the elect who believe in the gospel as it is revealed progressively in types and shadows, there we see the retro-active New Covenant, and that is the Covenant of Grace… The Covenant of Grace is the retro-active New Covenant…
As Vos goes on to say, the New Covenant is necessarily connected to the new age, the consummation. With the inauguration of the New Covenant, the New Age breaks forth into this current age. Vos says, “The New Covenant, then, coincides with the age to come; it brings the good things to come; it is incorporated into the eschatological theme of thought.” If the New Covenant truly coincides with the New Age, we should not look back at the Old Covenant to understand this New Covenant. Instead we should look forward to the consummation. True, we live in the “not yet.” But it is just as true that we live in the “already”. For this reason we must conclude that theologies that rely too heavily on the Old Covenants for their description and articulation of the New Covenant demonstrate an under-realized eschatology. They do not give enough weight to the “already”.
What’s the Difference? Michael Horton v Jeffrey Johnson
On 07, Jun 2013 | In Jeffery Johnson, Resources | By Brandon Adams
The following is a “debate” between Michael Horton and Jeffrey Johnson on covenant theology:
Interactive Outline of John Owen’s Exposition of Hebrews 8:6-13
On 07, Jun 2013 | In Resources | By Brandon Adams
In talking with a number of well read people, I have been surprised how many of them are completely unaware of John Owen’s contribution to covenant theology. I had one person ridicule baptists for rejecting “Reformed orthodoxy” in the Westminster Standards because of our view of covenant theology. He then informed me he would “stick with Witsius, Owen, Petto, and Colquhoun.” This man was completely unaware that John Owen rejected the “Reformed orthodoxy” of the Westminster Standards.
Owen rejected the formulation of the Westminster Confession (one covenant, two administrations) and held that the new and the old were two distinct covenants with two different mediators and everything else that follows. I believe he provides a valuable contribution to current debate over covenant theology and everyone who is interested should read him. However, I also know not everyone has time to read through his 150 pages on Hebrews 8:6-13, so I have created a summary outline of Owen’s argumentation. I created it in a collapsible format to make it easier to follow the progress of his arguments. Hopefully this will interest people in reading Owen, which will hopefully lead to a better understanding of covenant theology for us all.
Here is the link:
Owen on Hebrews 8:6-13 (Collapsible Outline)
Here are a couple of quotes to give you a taste:
The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new… The Lutherans, on the other side, insist on two arguments to prove that there is not a twofold administration of the same covenant, but that there are substantially distinct covenants and that this is intended in this discourse of the apostle…
…Having noted these things, we may consider that the Scripture does plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way as can hardly be accommodated by a twofold administration of the same covenant…Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than merely a twofold administration of the same covenant, to be intended. We must do so, provided always that the way of reconciliation and salvation was the same under both. But it will be said, and with great pretence of reason, for it is the sole foundation of all who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, ’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under the old covenant.
Having shown in what sense the covenant of grace is called “the new covenant,” in this distinction and opposition to the old covenant, so I shall propose several things which relate to the nature of the first covenant, which manifest it to have been a distinct covenant, and not a mere administration of the covenant of grace.
–
This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.
–
No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect.