The differences between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians

[davdavis]

Thanks for the input. In south Alabama where I was raised the closest thing we had to Reformed Baptist were dispensationalist who liked Spurgeon. Later there were a couple of couples who attended our Church (back then, a conservative PCUS cong.) They were enamored with John Zens from the More Anabaptist strain. These plus listening to AOMIN have made it somewhat difficult to know what the RB position is on the Covenant.
Thanks again

David D
PCA
Montgomery, Al

 

[Herald]

I'm asking out of Curiosity and not trying to pick a fight. Do Reformed Baptist have a concept of the "visible Church"? In my interaction with RBs (sorry)I don't see any discussion of the concept.
To me infant Baptism, like Circumcision in the OT, is the sign of Visible Membership in the covenant community. In both visible members were not necessarily elect. It seems to me the alternative would be like the show they did about the Amish some years ago where the Amish encouraged their children to "experiment" with the world before deciding to enter the community. As to Church Gov. the problem with the Baptist is the larger Church has no way to discipline straying congregations. The big problem in Presbyterianism is it has the courts but often lacks the courage to use them.
David Davis

David,

The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of Faith states:

26.2 All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

If there are visible saints there is a visible church. Reformed Baptists would disagree with infant baptism being a sign of visible church membership, but we do see a visible church made up of visible saints.

 

[Herald]

Thanks for the input. In south Alabama where I was raised the closest thing we had to Reformed Baptist were dispensationalist who liked Spurgeon. Later there were a couple of couples who attended our Church (back then, a conservative PCUS cong.) They were enamored with John Zens from the More Anabaptist strain. These plus listening to AOMIN have made it somewhat difficult to know what the RB position is on the Covenant.
Thanks again D Davis

There is a difference between Calvinistic Baptists and confessional, Reformed Baptists.

 

[timmopussycat]

I would like to concur with Bruce in Post #18 & would like to say that Hermeneutic & Interpretation
really is the crux of the matter as a former Baptist I look back & see that i really didn't understand
the scriptures correctly or how to interpret them the Credo understanding rests on the analogy of
Faith this is exactly what the confession means when it says " by good and necessary consequence may
be deduced from Scripture" Baptists I find can't grasp this concept even from personal experience
my own History as I've mentioned, & also had an Old Scottish friend who had Baptistic views but
attended a Presbyterian Church would question this quote,deny it & ridicule it.but never understand it!

the Baptist mindset is more literalistic in its make up which can be seen & shown by the fact that
they tend to embrace Pre-Millennialism as a doctrine & non reformed Baptists almost always tend
to be adherents to heretical Dispensationalism, whether its the Acts 2, Acts 9, Acts 13, Acts 28 or
Progessive Dispensational guise, due to their heavy use of Literalism, particularly in Prophetic
Interpretation which is a real disaster as it leads to modified Jesuit Futurism schemes & Pre-Millennialism.

remember those dallas T.S. boys were always extolling the Literal Hermeneutic.

The problem with using the "good and necessary clause" in the debate over IB is that while one can derive the conclusion that God intended infants of believing parents to be baptized from various Scriptural premises, there are several indications in the Scriptures that block us from concluding that such a conclusion is good and necessary.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

From my point of view things depended upon the substantial differences between the Old and New Covenants. As a Reformed Baptist I understood them to be different substantially. It took me years to understand what my Reformed brothers were meaning when they were telling me that the Old and New Covenants were the same in substance concerning the Administration of the Covenant of Grace. I always viewed the Old Covenant as some covenant that was a mixture of both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. I saw the Old Covenant as something that was totally different than the New Covenant even by its very nature. That skewed my understanding concerning who was considered a Covenant Member in the Church. When I started to understand that the Mosaic Covenant was not a Covenant of Works in any way shape or form, but that it was purely an administration of the Covenant of Grace, things became much clearer. Covenant membership in the Church had not changed and the Old Covenant was just as much an administration of the Covenant of Grace as much as the New Covenant was. That isn't necessarily based upon good and necessary consequences. It is based upon good hermeneutics. Thus the sign and seal of the Old and New Covenants are also basically the same in substance and signify the same thing even though they differ in what was performed. Both point to being regenerate and Born Again.

 

[JM]

Plenty of Baptists understand the paedobaptist view of the Sinaitic Covenant...we just reject that understanding.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Your not the only ones JM. LOL. A lot of people do mischaracterize it also though. I am kind of slow sometimes. So I know I did.

 

[KMK]

Thanks for the input. In south Alabama where I was raised the closest thing we had to Reformed Baptist were dispensationalist who liked Spurgeon. Later there were a couple of couples who attended our Church (back then, a conservative PCUS cong.) They were enamored with John Zens from the More Anabaptist strain. These plus listening to AOMIN have made it somewhat difficult to know what the RB position is on the Covenant.
Thanks again D Davis

Welcome to PB! Please fix your signature according to Board Rules. You can find out how by clicking on 'Signature Requirements' under my own signature.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Plenty of Baptists understand the paedobaptist view of the Sinaitic Covenant...we just reject that understanding.

I want to ask and mention a few things JM. Which view of the paedo baptists concerning the Old Covenant are you referring to? Part of my problem lay in misreading some of them as I was looking through the eyes of John Owen who held to a minority view during the time of the Divines at Westminster and that of Meredith Kline. I also read all I could and saw through the eyes of Fred Malone and other well known authors who departed from the Presbyterian and Majority Reformed understanding. Just to be clear, I am not so sure they truly understood it. I have been quite surprised by the number of gentlemen, even Seminary trained Presbyterian and Reformed men, who didn't understand this position. I can even name some of our most noted Professors who either don't or just reject it also. I have even been quite surprised about the whole Union with Christ discussion in the past few years.


In a recent discussion on the PB we discussed a blog that stated this.

In debates concerning the republication of the covenant of works within the Mosaic covenant, anyone who holds to the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession confesses that the same law that was given to Adam was delivered to Moses. At the very least, then, the confessions teach a republication of the covenant of works.

The last sentence is part of the problem. And the blogger is no slouch. The blog is actually pretty good. It just simply is not true concerning the last sentence bolded above. As Ruben noted concerning the quote, "The rest of the post and the nature of the case, show that it should have read "the confessions teach a republication of the law." It might have been a misstatement on Sam's part. I make them all the time. But the sympathy to what he noted stands true for many guys. And therein lays the problem. A lot of guys don't realize what is being said and taught with the distinctions needed. I for one am working on it.

 

[JM]

Hi brother, for years now I have said I held to "a modified form of covenant theology" without realizing the position was found in the works of Coxe and Owen. I have read the section from Dr. Beeke's work titled The Minority Report. I think I understand the majority position held by those who attended the Westminster. I would say the Sinaitic covenant was a mixed covenant.

Honest question, was the "minority" view the minority for English non-conformists, Puritans, etc. or the minority view of the Divines who penned the WCF?

Please forgive me if this response seems a little short. I'm trying to type on my iPhone.

j

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Jason,


I like you (as you know) held to the Particular Baptist position for 30 years. I really appreciated Rich Barcellos work on Coxe and John Owen. I read Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ intently and repeatedly. Rich is a dear friend of mine. I still highly recommend the book. I have also delved a few times into Mike Renihan's book on Antipaedobaptism in the Thought of John Tombes which also reflected the same theology of Nehemiah Coxe the best I can tell. Samuel Petto is another theologian you might enjoy as he had influence upon Owen. I discuss his thought in a blog post. John Owen is another story. He seems to go back and forth on the topic of the Administration of the Covenant of Grace in the Mosaic Covenant depending on what you are reading in his works. Vic Bottomly has shown that to me.

It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5.
Vindiciae Evangelicae Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38.




The first are of three sorts:— First, Of life temporal, as it was an instrument of their government; and eternal with God, as the promise or covenant of grace was exemplified or represented therein, Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12. Secondly, Of a spiritual Redeemer, Savior, Deliverer, really to effect what the ordinances of institution did represent, so to save them eternally, to be exhibited in the fullness of time, as we have at large already proved. Thirdly, There are given out with the law various promises of intervenient and mixed mercies, to be enjoyed in earthly things in this world, that had their immediate respect unto the mercy of the land of Canaan, representing spiritual grace,annexed to the then present administration of the covenant of grace. Some of these concerned the collation of good things, others the preventing of or delivery from evil; both expressed in great variety.


p. 657 (Volume 17)

Owen also didn't believe that the Covenant of Works was republished as a Covenant in the Mosaic as is pointed out in 'A Puritan Theology'.

For the most part, theologians who spoke in this way, whether dichotomists or trichotomists, made a number of careful qualifications in order to show that the moral law was republished not as a covenant but as a rule of righteousness for those in covenant with God. In other words, the moral law was not republished at Sinai to serve as a means of justification before God. For example, John Owen made clear in his work on justification by faith that the old covenant was not a revival of the covenant of works strictly (i.e., “formally”). Rather, the moral law was renewed declaratively (i.e.,“materially”) and not covenantally: “God did never formally and absolutely renew or give again this law as a covenant a second time. Nor was there any need that so he should do, unless it were declaratively only, for so it was renewed at Sinai.”76


76. Owen, Justification by Faith, in Works, 5:244.

http://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/02/04/what-is-republication-of-the-covenant-of-works/

Did you read chapters 16 and 17 also from 'A Puritan Theology? I know you are a good researcher so I am assuming you have. If you haven't you must read those chapters to understand chapter 18 on the Minority position. I am assuming that there is a reason why it is called the Minority position. I can't answer your question about the numbers outside of the Assembly. From the Puritan and Reformed writings I have read there truly was diversity. Albeit though from what I understand the Minority Position was still not the most held position. I am assuming that the Minority position is called such in relationship to those who were of the Assembly. As you and I both know there were no Particular Baptists in the Assembly. So what was held outside of it I can't speak for numerically. I can't even truly speak of numbers in the Assembly. I do know that Samuel Bolton did hold to the minority position as did Jeremiah Burroughs possibly. But don't quote me on Burroughs. I have to go back and research Burroughs on that. But there seems to be more writing on the topic from the Majority position authors who were Divines than of those of the Minority position. Remember Owen was not one of the Westminster Divines and I am not sure how far of a reach John Cameron's teaching had upon those who adhered to forms of what he believed. I tried to research the minutes on Chapter 7 but haven't found much. I have found some notable quotes by the Westminster Divines on the topic.


Have you ever peered into my blog to read the conclusions I have come to? The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? | RPCNA Covenanter

Anyways, Keep trudging on Jason. I trudged and I am still learning. This is probably one of the only times I have had a major theological shift in my thinking over the past 33 years. It has been a learning experience for sure. The funny thing about this shift for me was just a few weeks before I finally came to understand and adhere to Westminsterian Covenant Theology I said that I would never change positions on the PB of all places. Famous last words, "I will never." I think St. Peter tried to do the same thing about his denying Christ. I think I will strike, "I will never," from my vocabulary unless it is something like I will never visit the surface of the sun. LOL.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

BTW Jason,

I hate my Iphone. I want to go back to my Galaxy. My son, Samuel Rutherford, confiscated it from me. I can't seem to get him to want my Iphone. I think I am going to get the Galaxy Note 3. I like bigger.

 

[Petty France]

In debates concerning the republication of the covenant of works within the Mosaic covenant, anyone who holds to the Westminster Confession or the London Baptist Confession confesses that the same law that was given to Adam was delivered to Moses. At the very least, then, the confessions teach a republication of the covenant of works.

It just simply is not true concerning the last sentence bolded above. As Ruben noted concerning the quote, "The rest of the post and the nature of the case, show that it should have read "the confessions teach a republication of the law."

From a WCF perspective, is it "simply not true" to say that the covenant of works was materially republished at Mt. Sinai? Not at all. That is what the WCF teaches. A material republication of the covenant of works is a republication of its material basis, i.e. the law, and nothing more. Both confessions confess material republication which means that both confessions teach a republication of the covenant of works.

It's fine to say that they both teach a republication of the law, but that's the same as saying that they both teach material republication. What commonality do I claim above? I begin the post by claiming that both confessions confess "that the same law given to Adam was delivered to Moses." Then I go on to say that they both teach a republication of the covenant of works. So no, it's not a misstatement. And no, it isn't "simply not true." It's what our confessions teach. Now surely a broad claim like "the confessions teach a republication of the covenant of works" needs clarification, but that broad claim had already been prefaced by talking about the law in particular, and the rest of the post goes on to argue and demonstrate that the WCF specifically limits this republication to material republication while the SD and LCF open the door for more.

So, I have no problem with Ruben's rephrasing. But it's not a correction of an error or something "not true." That the law given to Adam was given to Moses is the common agreement in this issue, and you have to start there (as I did). But in this context, the law given to Adam was given "as a covenant of works" and with arguments like Edward Fisher's in mind, the moral law taken strictly and properly signifies the covenant of works. Thus, when that same law goes to Moses, it is a republication of the covenant of works, whether materially or formally.

Blessings.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Samuel,
I recommend Robert Shaw's commentary on the WCF chapter 19. It is posted in the blog post below along with many other comments to help you see why the distinction is made. I recommend you read the whole thing.


Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 19. The Law and the Covenant of Works. | RPCNA Covenanter


Anyways here is Shaw. Notice how Shaw makes a distinction between the law of creation which Adam had inscribed on his heart and brought under it in its natural form in comparison to the distinction of how he was placed under it later in Covenant form. The distinction is important and the lines are being blurred by many now days.

Section I.–God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
Exposition


The law, as thus inscribed on the heart of the first man, is often styled the law of creation, because it was the will of the sovereign Creator, revealed to the reasonable creature, by impressing it upon his mind and heart at his creation. It is also called the moral law, because it was a revelation of the will of God, as his moral governor, and was the standard and rule of man’s moral actions. Adam was originally placed under this law in its natural form, as merely directing and obliging him to perfect obedience. He was brought under it in a covenant form, when an express threatening of death, and a gracious promise of life, was annexed to it; and then a positive precept was added, enjoining him not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, as the test of his obedience to the whole law.–Gen. ii. 16, 17. That this covenant was made with the first man, not as a single person, but as the federal representative of all his natural posterity, has been formerly shown. The law, as invested with a covenant form, is called, by the Apostle Paul, “The law of works” (Rom. iii. 27); that is, the law as a covenant of works. In this form, the law is to be viewed as not only prescribing duty, but as promising life as the reward of obedience, and denouncing death as the punishment of transgression. ….


Section II.–This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man.


Exposition


Upon the fall of man, the law, considered as a covenant of works, was annulled and set aside; but, considered as moral, it continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness. That fair copy of the law which had been inscribed on the heart of the first man in his creation, was, by the fall, greatly defaced, although not totally obliterated. Some faint impressions of it still remain on the minds of all reasonable creatures. Its general principles, such as, that God is to be worshipped, that parents ought to be honoured, that we should do to others what we would reasonably wish that they should do to us–such general principles as these are still, in some degree, engraved on the minds of all men. – Rom. ii. 14,15. But the original edition of the law being greatly obliterated, God was graciously pleased to give a new and complete copy of it. He delivered it to the Israelites from Mount Sinai, with awful solemnity. In this promulgation of the law, he summed it up in ten commandments; and, therefore, it is commonly styled the Law of the Ten Commandments.

Here is a portion of a quote by Reverend Winzer that I sense is very true. You can read the whole quote in the blog I wrote and linked to above.

Further problems arise once this basic departure is discerned. One begins to see a metaphysical reworking of the categories of grace and justice in relation to the “covenant of nature.” Instead of a providential dispensation (see Shorter Catechism question 12), the covenant of works is turned into a creational entity which characterises the natural relationship between God and man. Human morality is, in its very essence, made a covenant of works. Grace is only operative where sin abounds.

I really do believe the distinctions here are misunderstood in your thought Sam. At least others would think so. Here is a quote from an OPC Pastor Patrick Ramsey which I have lifted from my blog so that you understand that we do disagree with you. It is mainly for clarification. I am not trying to come down on you or anything like that. We just disagree with you. But there are others who agree with you at the same time.

Consequently, it is correct to say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

(Brenton Ferry has been a defender of the Mosaic views Meredith G. Kline held later in life)

There were some really good things I saw in your blog. Especially some acknowledgements that the WCF views the the Old and New Covenants purely as an administration of the Covenant of Grace and how others don't believe that to be true.

Blessings upon you too Samuel,
Randy

 

[JM]

Hi brother Randy,

I realize Owen's exegetic work on Hebrews that deals with the covenants differs from his his earlier work on justification (as quoted) but I believe his work in the text itself stands the true test.

Thank you for the encouragement to keep studying, I understand and fully realize how sinfully flawed I am and try not to get all worked up when someone disagrees with me.

I do understand the paedobaptist position on the covenants and simply do not agree. It could be do to poor exegetical work on my part (or just plain stubbornness?) but here I stand. I can do no other. So help me God. (Couldn't resist quoting Luther with Reformation-ween so close and all...)

Yours in the Lord,

j

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thanks Jason,

Same here when it comes to being flawed. I think I know what I know. But I surely don't know as I ought to know. I still promote RB books and the like. I try not to get all worked up either. I really am kind of a mellow person. Sometimes my writing might not show that. Thanks for discussing this Jason and may God allow us both to grow in knowledge and grace.

Randy

 

[Bill The Baptist]

Same here when it comes to being flawed. I think I know what I know. But I surely don't know as I ought to know. I still promote RB books and the like. I try not to get all worked up either. I really am kind of a mellow person. Sometimes my writing might not show that. Thanks for discussing this Jason and may God allow us both to grow in knowledge and grace.

This is the godly attitude that allows for us to disagree on certain issues, but yet still live peaceably as brothers and sisters in Christ. Thanks Randy for modeling this for us.

 

[Petty France]

Notice ... a distinction between the law of creation ... and... how he was placed under it later in Covenant form. The distinction is important and the lines are being blurred by many now days.

Yes, it is important to distinguish between a law, and a law as the material basis for a formal covenant. That's the formal/material distinction.

I really do believe the distinctions here are misunderstood in your thought Sam. At least others would think so. Here is a quote from an OPC Pastor Patrick Ramsey which I have lifted from my blog so that you understand that we do disagree with you. It is mainly for clarification.

I am not trying to come down on you or anything like that. We just disagree with you. But there are others who agree with you at the same time.

I know you're not trying to come down on me. I'm not upset [though I may have raise an eyebrow at one point... uh oh ], just getting at the "simply not true" statement. What we are discussing is really a disagreement over expression from the WCF's perspective more than anything. The only thing I am contending for is that when the formal/material distinction is understood, to say "the covenant of works was materially republished" at Mt. Sinai and to say "the law of the covenant of works was republished" are equivalent phrases. The reason I'm using terms the way that I am comes from the historical usage of the formal/material distinction in 17th century thought, not Brenton Ferry's thesis. But he got it from the 17th century anyway, so it's fine either way.

To see what I mean, consider Durham, Sedgwick, and Fisher in this post: Form and Matter in Covenant Theology | Particular Voices

As well as Bulkley and Bridge in this post: Form and Matter + Promise and Promulgation = Particular Baptist Federal Theology | Particular Voices

I am using the language as Durham, Sedgwick, Fisher, Bulkley, Bridge, the confessions, and others used it. The covenant of works is "revealed" or "made known" (i.e. materially republished) at Mt. Sinai.

Consequently, it is correct to say that part of the content of the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai and for that matter in the new covenant since the moral law is restated there as well. This is what Brent Ferry calls material republication (see TLNF, 91-92). It is important to note, however, that this is republication of the law and not the covenant of works. This is why it is misleading to refer to material republication as a sense of the republication of the covenant of works. There is a difference between law and covenant or at least the Puritans thought there is. In other words, to say that the law (or content of the covenant of works) was republished is different from saying that the covenant of works was republished at Mt. Sinai.

Yes there can be misunderstanding and misleading in such terms, but that does not make them wrong. It would be wrong to say "The Mosaic covenant is a material republication of the covenant of works." That sentence doesn't make sense because a material republication is simply a republishing of the law. Thus the sentence would mean "The Mosaic covenant is a republishing of the law." Again, that doesn't make sense. A right usage of the distinction is to say "The Mosaic covenant contains a material republication of the covenant of works." Or one could say, "The covenant of works is materially republished in the Mosaic covenant." All this means is that the law that was given to Adam was delivered to Moses.

So I agree, of course, on the need for precision in expression here. But when we see how the formal/material distinction was used in 17th century federal theology, you'll see our statements aligning. You're being just slightly too narrow in your use of the terms. To reiterate, your expression that we should talk about a republication of the law are perfectly fine. Just keep in mind that to say that the covenant of works is materially republished at Sinai is the same thing.

Cheers.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Thanks for all your references Sam. I really appreciate them as I consider this topic. Maybe I am being a bit too narrow. I will consider it. I still don't think I am in light of what I have posted above but I will consider it. I really appreciate your participation concerning this topic and you are helping me understand things.


Concerning William Bridge, I believe Calvin does a better job on Galatians 4 and how he speaks about the two Covenants in Galatians 4:24 if I am understanding him correctly.

What are the two Covenants mentioned in Galatians 4:24? I use to view them as two covenants that were in the Mosaic Covenant as a Particular (Reformed) Baptist. But what are they really representative of in this text? Wouldn’t they be representative of the Old and New Covenant? The Old would be the one where men were bound (over 600 commandments and ordinances) to shadows and things that point to Christ and forgiveness of sin? The old was a schoolmaster which is hard and the the New was liberating freeing us from the hard schoolmaster?


I believe Calvin has the same understanding as I read his commentary on Galatians 4:24…

“But all this may, at first sight, appear absurd; for there are none of God’s children who are not born to freedom, and therefore the comparison does not apply. I answer, what Paul says is true in two respects; for the law formerly brought forth its disciples, (among whom were included the holy prophets, and other believers,) to slavery, though not to permanent slavery, but because God placed them for a time under the law as “a schoolmaster.” (Galatians 3:25.) Under the vail of ceremonies, and of the whole economy by which they were governed, their freedom was concealed: to the outward eye nothing but slavery appeared. “Ye have not,” says Paul to the Romans, “received the spirit of bondage again to fear.” (Romans 8:15.) Those holy fathers, though inwardly they were free in the sight of God, yet in outward appearance differed nothing from slaves, and thus resembled their mother’s condition. But the doctrine of the gospel bestows upon its children perfect freedom as soon as they are born, and brings them up in a liberal manner.


…What, then, is the gendering to bondage, which forms the subject of the present dispute? It denotes those who make a wicked abuse of the law, by finding in it nothing but what tends to slavery. Not so the pious fathers, who lived under the Old Testament; for their slavish birth by the law did not hinder them from having Jerusalem for their mother in spirit. But those who adhere to the bare law, and do not acknowledge it to be “a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ,” (Galatians 3:24,) but rather make it a hinderance to prevent their coming to him, are the Ishmaelites born to slavery.


…But why does Paul compare the present Jerusalem with Mount Sinai? Though I was once of a different opinion, yet I agree with Chrysostom and Ambrose, who explain it as referring to the earthly Jerusalem, and who interpret the words, which now is, τη νυν ιερουσαλημ , as marking the slavish doctrine and worship into which it had degenerated. It ought to have been a lively image of the new Jerusalem, and a representation of its character. But such as it now is, it is rather related to Mount Sinai. Though the two places may be widely distant from each other, they are perfectly alike in all their most important features. This is a heavy reproach against the Jews, whose real mother was not Sarah but the spurious Jerusalem, twin sister of Hagar; who were therefore slaves born of a slave, though they haughtily boasted that they were the sons of Abraham.

.

There is much to discuss concerning your blog post such as the following statement. But I have run out of time as I have to prepare for other things for the next few days.

"The new covenant was truly new. No covenant leading up to it had been established on the promise of eternal forgiveness of sins."

I really think you do understand things better than most Particular (Reformed) Baptists. You come from good stock.


Keep persevering brother.
Randy

 

[Petty France]

Thanks for all your references Sam. I really appreciate them as I consider this topic. Maybe I am being a bit too narrow. I will consider it. I still don't think I am in light of what I have posted above but I will consider it. I really appreciate your participation concerning this topic and you are helping me understand things.

Likewise, brother. I'm glad men are doing their best to take the confession seriously and to understand it in its historical context.

I find myself sympathizing with both sides. On the one hand I sympathize with those who would react against the views of Kline and the like given your confessional heritage. On the other hand, I think that Kline's views are not new and in fact he is quite right in many many ways. I also sympathize with supporters of a more "Klinean" paradigm because the WCF was not originally intended to be used as narrowly as it is today, and thus they are ostracized when there were WCF divines who held their views (or a similar form).

But hey, I get to sit back and enjoy my confession without some of these conundrums. So come on over and join me! It's less problematic.

There is much to discuss concerning your blog post such as the following statement. But I have run out of time as I have to prepare for other things for the next few days.

"The new covenant was truly new. No covenant leading up to it had been established on the promise of eternal forgiveness of sins."

You don't agree??

I really think you do understand things better than most Particular (Reformed) Baptists. You come from good stock.


Keep persevering brother.
Randy

I think that merits (congruently) an internet cheers:

 

[MW]

To see what I mean, consider Durham, Sedgwick, and Fisher in this post: Form and Matter in Covenant Theology | Particular Voices

Besides the form/matter distinction, there is also the simply/complexly distinction, so clearly enunciated by Durham. Durham, with the great majority of divines, confines the law to the ten commandments "simply." At this point there is no formal administration with the addition of "preface, promises," etc. It is merely the law as commandment. In this "simple" consideration the law is the matter of the covenant of works. Complexly, however, the covenant of works included more than mere commandments. It included promise and condition. To speak more strictly, the moral law itself was the "foundation" rather than the "matter" of this covenant. The condition was a positive prohibition added to the moral law. Likewise, complexly, "the law" delivered on Sinai was more than the ten commandments. It included preface, promises, etc., which clearly indicate it was a covenant of grace.

If the "simply/complexly" distinction is properly recognised it will avoid much confusion. The covenant of works simply considered, as to the matter of it, the commandments, was republished on Mt Sinai. Complexly, however, taking it as an administration with conditions and promises, it was not republished on Mt. Sinai; rather, as the preface and promises of the ten commandments indicate, this was nothing but a covenant of grace.

Hence divines generally conclude that the covenant of works, simply and formally, was republished on Mt. Sinai in subordination to the covenant of grace. The Standards leave room for this view, but they exclude the idea that the covenant of works was republished and functioned in co-ordination with the covenant of grace.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

But hey, I get to sit back and enjoy my confession without some of these conundrums. So come on over and join me! It's less problematic.

Don't forget Sam, I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. There are plenty of conundrums I have had to face as a Particular (Reformed) Baptist and think you still do. I did then and do even now as I am still learning more and more about both confessions. There seems to be no end of learning and growing. I am sure there is no end.


Reverend Winzer,


Thank you so much for chiming in. Can I ask you a question about what exactly points to the Covenant of Works having been republished in the Mosaic Covenant. It is a question I have had swirling around in my head for awhile. Where does God republish the Covenant of Works as a reminder? Where does God show in the Mosaic Covenant the same stipulations, requirements, and consequences that were presented to Adam? I may be displaying my ineptness here but it is something that I have been wondering about. I admit that we fully see the Mosaic Covenant purely as an Administration of the Covenant of Grace. But where do others see the Covenant of Works being republished as it was given to Adam in the Mosaic? I am not saying it isn't there but I admit that I believed it was there for many years mostly based upon my presuppositions and on what I was taught while a Reformed Baptist. Does my question make sense or do I need to clarify it more?

Rom 7:13    Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Rom 7:13    Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

 

[MW]

Randy, please see the careful distinctions in my previous post. As I understand it, the covenant of works was not republished. One element in the covenant of works, considered simply, was republished, and that was the moral law summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. The covenant of works in its complexity with conditions and promises could not have been republished, as Charles Hodge aptly notes, because this would place man back on probation as if he had never fallen, and to say that each man must undergo his own probation is Pelagianism. The covenant of works was fitted in every way to the innocence and potentiality of created human nature. When man fell, and the covenant of grace was established as the only way of salvation, the old covenant must have been abrogated as a way to life; this is clearly taught by the Epistle to the Hebrews. All men are born under the broken covenant of works and are under the condemnation thereof. The law is set before men as an hypothetical way to life in order to show them that they cannot inherit eternal life by their own works, but this is subordinate to the covenant of grace as it is intended to drive men out of themselves that they may be drawn to Christ by the cords of Gospel-love.