# New Baptist Covenant Theology Webpage



## Tyrese (Jun 10, 2013)

1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Jun 10, 2013)

Fantastic! Thanks for sharing that.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 10, 2013)

Thank you!


----------



## KMK (Jun 10, 2013)

It looks like it was put together by our very own Brandon Adams!


----------



## O'GodHowGreatThouArt (Jun 11, 2013)

Looks great so far. Stowed it in my bookmarks for future perusing.


----------



## jandrusk (Jun 11, 2013)

Content is too dangerous for me to view. Must be the Presbyterian filters


----------



## Claudiu (Jun 11, 2013)

jandrusk said:


> Content is too dangerous for me to view. Must be the Presbyterian filters
> 
> View attachment 3496



Ouch!


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jun 12, 2013)

jandrusk said:


> Content is too dangerous for me to view. Must be the Presbyterian filters



No, the filters are not reporting that it is dangerous - they report that this content is actually taught to Presbyterians when they arrive in heaven so a preliminary viewing of this material is to ones real advantage


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 12, 2013)

Stephen L Smith said:


> jandrusk said:
> 
> 
> > Content is too dangerous for me to view. Must be the Presbyterian filters
> ...



Ha ha! Your exchange made me laugh out loud sitting alone here in my Study! 

This site looks like a wonderful resource. So thankful that significant CT discussion is taking place in baptist life.


----------



## Gage Browning (Jun 12, 2013)




----------



## JM (Jun 12, 2013)

Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## Scott1 (Jun 12, 2013)

Very helpful, and adds to understanding of covenants.
Particularly helpful to distinguish the more modern dispensational theology framework that is often assumed.


It takes a lot of biblical study, but the doctrines of grace are related to covenant theology, which is the historic position of the church in the early centuries and the reformation. It is only obscured in medieval times and in modernism.


----------



## JM (Jun 12, 2013)

Scott1 said:


> Particularly helpful to distinguish the more modern dispensational theology framework that is often assumed.



I'm glad you mentioned that.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 12, 2013)

Thanks so much for sharing!


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 13, 2013)

I very much appreciate this resource. It brings a _ lot_ of clarity! The charts are especially helpful.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jun 13, 2013)

I cant view the videos from my location but I was looking at the chart comparing 1689 Federalism and Westminster Federalism and I noticed one of the difference is that the 1689 ers believe the CoG is solely the New Testament versus Westminister who believe the CoG it displayed in various administration (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Testament). Does this mean the 1689 ers believe there were no CoG in the OT dispensation? If so how was salvation attained if the CoG wasn't available to them? Through the CoW? By just looking at the charts the 20th Century Reformed Baptists seem more orthodox than the 1689 ers.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Jun 13, 2013)

I actually was able to listen to the videos via Firefox:

I have some issues with their heurmeneutics, first they say that the Abrahmic/Mosaic covenants were covenants of works which pertains only to the physical blessing of land of Israel but then they say that the sacraments of these covenants (circumcision and the passover) had 2 typological purposes, one was pointing to the blessing of the Land of Israel and the other was pointing to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (the eternal blessing of salvation). So if I get this correctly the sacrements were pointing to realities of this so called Abrahamic/Mosaic CoW and of the CoG (which was not established yet)?

Then when they criticise the Westminister interpretation of the CoG they actually use their definition of CoG (which seem like a confusion between the CoG and CoR) and point out what they see as inconsistencies.


----------



## JP Wallace (Jun 13, 2013)

Etienne

Your interpretation seems correct. However these videos and the Coxe believed the New Covenant was contained in seed promise form from the fall and therefore the OC saints were saved in the same way as NC saints. Whether you/I get that or not, or understand how all that works, I feel we need to note that this is the case. 

It should also be noted that John Gill would be classed as a 20th century RB in terms of his covenant theology!


----------



## eqdj (Jun 20, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I actually was able to listen to the videos via Firefox:
> 
> I have some issues with their heurmeneutics, first they say that the Abrahmic/Mosaic covenants were covenants of works which pertains only to the physical blessing of land of Israel but then they say that the sacraments of these covenants (circumcision and the passover) had 2 typological purposes, one was pointing to the blessing of the Land of Israel and the other was pointing to the sacrifice of Christ on the cross (the eternal blessing of salvation). So if I get this correctly the sacrements were pointing to realities of this so called Abrahamic/Mosaic CoW and of the CoG (which was not established yet)?
> 
> Then when they criticise the Westminister interpretation of the CoG they actually use their definition of CoG (which seem like a confusion between the CoG and CoR) and point out what they see as inconsistencies.



All good points!


----------



## eqdj (Jun 20, 2013)

JP Wallace said:


> It should also be noted that John Gill would be classed as a 20th century RB in terms of his covenant theology!



Per Sam Renihan there has are at least three others that would be classed the "20th Century Reformed Baptists" view, "See Robert Purnell, A Little Cabinet Richly Stored (London, 1657), 35-ff. See also, Robert Steed, A Plain Discovery of the Unrighteous Judge and False Accuser (London, 1658), 8-ff. See also, Thomas De Laune, Truth Defended or a Three-Fold Answer to the Late Triumverates Opposition in their Three Pamphlets (London, 1677), 7-ff."

When I checked in April 2013 I wasn't able to find any of these in Archive.org or Google Books


----------



## C. M. Sheffield (Jun 21, 2013)

This is wonderful. Many thanks to all who have helped to put this together!


----------



## Tyrese (Jun 22, 2013)

Fogetaboutit said:


> I cant view the videos from my location but I was looking at the chart comparing 1689 Federalism and Westminster Federalism and I noticed one of the difference is that the 1689 ers believe the CoG is solely the New Testament versus Westminister who believe the CoG it displayed in various administration (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic and New Testament). Does this mean the 1689 ers believe there were no CoG in the OT dispensation? If so how was salvation attained if the CoG wasn't available to them? Through the CoW? By just looking at the charts the 20th Century Reformed Baptists seem more orthodox than the 1689 ers.



After reading new material and watching these videos I still agree with 20th century Reformed Baptists (as of right now). To say that the Mosaic covenant shouldn't be included in the COG just doesn't make sense to me. In my opinion anytime God himself comes down to deal with sinful men in kindness is an act of grace. I also feel there's a disconnect between the old and the New Testament if you remove the Mosaic covenant (and other covenants) from the COG.


----------



## Gavin (Jun 22, 2013)

20th century Baptist gets my vote,
There never was a man who was saved except through Christ


----------



## JM (Jun 22, 2013)

Gavin said:


> 20th century Baptist gets my vote,
> There never was a man who was saved except through Christ


----------



## Tyrese (Jun 22, 2013)

Gavin said:


> 20th century Baptist gets my vote,
> There never was a man who was saved except through Christ



You have to remember that the 1689 says, "and it is alone by the grace of this covenant (COG) that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and a blessed immortality...". So it's fair to say that the 1689 teaches that all men in all ages are saved by faith in Jesus alone (Heb 11). It seems the problem is whether or not the mosaic covenant (and other covenants) should be included in the COG. I think the WCF is right when it says in chp 7:5, "under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, the pascal land, and other types and ordinances delivered to the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come." I think this is consistent with Luke 24:44, "Then he said to them, "These are my words that I spoke to you while I was still with you, that everything written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled." The WTC clearly teaches that the Old Testament saints were saved by the promised Messiah alone. Not sure why the 1689 changed this.


----------



## ThyWord IsTruth (Jun 22, 2013)

The giving of the law was an act of grace unto His elect. The fact that His holy law is revealed to us is an act of grace. To know what is His standard is an act of grace. 
To say that the Mosaic Covenant is a COW is where I disagree. It is all of grace because it shows us that there is none righteous, no not one. The law points to the very distinction between God and man, the very perfection that is God and the very depravity that is man. What grace to reveal this unto His people!!
Praise Him for His grace and mercy in giving the law through the further revealing of His COG that we call the Mosaic Covenant.


----------



## Peairtach (Jun 22, 2013)

The Mosaic Covenant was so shadowy that there was no animal sacrifice for e.g. presumptuous Sabbath-breaking or other presumptuous sins, and such sins had to be dealt with by the death penalty, or a ransom payment _in lieu_ of death. See e.g. Numbers 15.

On the other hand Christ said, 


> Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. And whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. (Matt 12:31-32, ESV)



So the sacrificial system as part of the Old Testament administration of the CoG encouraged people to look by faith through the sacrifices to the grace that was to be revealed in Christ, and also beyond the sacrifices, when their sins were so heinous that they had no typological sacrifice to look for.

But in the period from the Protevangelium to Noah, Christ was shadowy, as in the period from Noah to Abraham, and from Abraham to Moses. Also the foreshadowing of Christ in the Davidic Covenant was shadowy.

But all these were shadowy but gracious administrations of the one CoG. It's of God's grace for Him to give shadows of Christ and the Gospel that were suitable to the times.


----------



## A Tulip Not a Daisy (Jun 22, 2013)

Great, Thanks for posting this link.


----------



## Tyrese (Jun 22, 2013)

5-Point Baptist said:


> The giving of the law was an act of grace unto His elect. The fact that His holy law is revealed to us is an act of grace. To know what is His standard is an act of grace.
> To say that the Mosaic Covenant is a COW is where I disagree. It is all of grace because it shows us that there is none righteous, no not one. The law points to the very distinction between God and man, the very perfection that is God and the very depravity that is man. What grace to reveal this unto His people!!
> Praise Him for His grace and mercy in giving the law through the further revealing of His COG that we call the Mosaic Covenant.



I agree. I think we Reformed Baptist need to keep in mind that the entire Bible is about Jesus and the grace of God, not just the New Testament.


----------

