1689 Federalism: An Introduction
Vložit
- čas přidán 9. 09. 2024
- An overview of the distinctiveness of 17th century particular baptist covenant theology. 1689federalism.com
"O Great God" by Bob Kauflin. Copyright 2006 Sovereign Grace Praise (BMI). Used by permission. For more information visit www.SovereignGraceMusic.org
Arrangement by Dan Forrest www.danforrest....
Sheet Music www.halleonard....
MP3 sample: www.halleonard....
Also as a Reformed person I appreciate this. You're not trying to co-opt Reformed theology. You're drawing the line, saying "We're particular baptist, that's our identity"
Cool finding you here😎
The stumbling upon this video has left me filled with joy and I actually shed tears. The discovery of likeminded Christians and to be taught by such is a great encouragement to me. For sometime I have been engaged in a study of covenant Theology and have taken many divergent paths while doing so. You may see how divergent by the fact that I am currently in the last chapter of a book by Verduin - The Reformers and their Stepchildren. To find still extant such doctrinal statements as in the Baptist confession of the seventeenth century, after the relentless and merciless persecution of the "heretics" who suffered unto death, is very humbling and a sure evidence of the Sovereign and providential grace and mercy of God. I rejoice in my heart before God at discovering a work of recovering the apostolic and biblical doctrines that so many martyrs dearly cherished and died believing. Thank you.
That's wonderful to hear Andrew. Glad the videos have been edifying! Make sure to check out the website for more resources
I just finished reading Pascal Denault's book, and it is great! He is fair to paedobaptists and brings clarity to the covenants. If you're a credobaptists, this book is a must!
I just finished it too! Fantastic, it is!
I can't wait to read it, I had some really great Presbyterian brothers recommend it to me when I was still undecided/learning about Westminster Cov v. 1689
Brandon thank you for these videos. This was God's providence i finding your videos. I was looking for and explanation for effectual calling and found this site.
Hi Charles. Very glad it was helpful! Praise God
Amen. It was a blessing to see and hear two of these men speak in La Mirada last week.
I want to say thank you for this. I've spent 25 years baffled by all of much of this, along with some misconceptions. The other brother mentioned "shedding dispensationalism" and I am about down with that.
You're welcome! Hearing comments like yours make the production of the videos all worth it. Glad to hear it has helped bring clarity. Praise God.
A few months ago I learned that the Particular Baptist of the 1689 confession had a different view of the covenants than Paedobaptist (I knew that they stated their covenant doctrines differently but didn't know why and I didn't seek out the reason why). I always thought the Baptist didn't baptize infants because there is no evidence for it in the NT. I was unaware that the reason was deeply rooted in covenant theology. I studied and learned what the Prebysterians and Dutch Reformed taught about the covenant 20 years ago, but I couldn't find anything written by Baptists. I asked my pastor about it and he recommended the books that these guy recommended, so I have read the Adam to Christ first and am now reading Pascal Denault's book. It's great to see Baptist's producing works on the covenants. Now I have never have liked Dispensationalism, and because of that I don't have to unlearn all that. This video was very helpful.
Jerry, glad to hear the video was helpful!
Those is good stuff! I'm a fairly new comer to covenant theology, though being sovereign grace for about 16 years.
Thank you Brandon. What a blessing!
Been reading the book by Denault, thank you guys so much for your work. This study is blessing me greatly.
Thank you Brandon. I have the privilege of going to IRBS where I am learning from these amazing men.
Enjoyed the teaching as well as the Bob Jones singers in the background ;)
Farley Barnhardt agrees.
This is a very well done video. Thank you for posting it.
James 2:26 KJV
For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.
Revelation 14:12 KJV
Here is the patience of the saints: here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus.
This is helping me distinguish between denominations. Specifically Presbyterian and the difference on covenant of grace.
The other one I’ve been seeing a lot of recently is “progressive covenantalism” or new covenant theology.
Excellent video and distinction of the Bible's message.
Well done and have not been able to get Cox. My earliest exposure to Reformed covenant theology had much to do with my struggle with how G-d is just if he created me a mess before creation? I simply dismissed G-d. It has been a fifty year journey.
Hello Brandon. I hope you are still checking the comments on this video. I recently embraced the Reformed Baptist faith and have been re-reading through the 1689 LBCF. I’ve been trying to find one of the books mentioned in this video, The Fatal Flaw by Jeffrey Johnson, but I can’t find it anywhere (aside from ebook, but I’m looking for hard copy, paperback or otherwise). It seems everywhere i look it’s no longer in print and it’s out of stock. Do you have any suggestions on where I could get a copy? Used or new?
Jay, here you go! freegracepress.com/products/the-fatal-flaw?_pos=3&_sid=eaed9ae62&_ss=r
Is there a recommended bible commentary from a 1689 Federalism perspective?
The closest thing would be John Gill's whole bible commentary. www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/
@@brandonadams07 thanks
Hey Brandon thanks for these videos on Federalism. I consider myself a follower of New Covenant Theology. That being said I have doubts about NCT and am interested in looking at theology that is more historical.
Hi Aaron. Here are some other videos to consider:
czcams.com/video/_Uq_S3-HjRo/video.html
czcams.com/video/UmviRWrqmJM/video.html
See also the section titled "NCT/Progressive Covenantalism" here: contrast2.wordpress.com/
Thus is all so confusing to me but I still trust God.
Thank you.
I'm having such a hard time following their thoughts. Round 3 XD
I mean, I agree with the differences every time I catch what they're saying, but the whole thing is quite daunting. Hopefully the playlist you made will help to fill in the gaps I'm not catching.
I intend to create several introductory level animated videos that are easier to understand. Just need to find the time to get them done.
There are also several difference lecture/sermon series available here www.1689federalism.com/category/resources/audio/
Shorter, concise videos would be very helpful.
Thank you for posting these videos. I did have a question. Did I understand correctly that the Westminster divines did not codify the existing understanding of God's covenantal (maybe with slight modification) but established a covenantal view based upon an a priori commitment to infant inclusion in the New Covenant? Again, much thanks for these videos. I really appreciate them, Pastors Barcellos and the Renihan's efforts and the Lord for His amazing grace.
Please don't add the music behind them speaking - for some of us it is VERY distracting
I would like all this material to be available in Spanish. Desearía que todo este material estuviera disponible en español.
Ask and ye shall receive!
www.1689federalism.com/tag/spanish/
confessingbaptist.com/federalismo-1689-comparado-con-federalismo-westminster-video/
Note, all the 1689 Federalism videos currently have Portuguese subtitles (click the "CC" button in CZcams to enable them). I can add Spanish subtitles if someone can provide the translation for me.
There is also a Spanish 1689 Federalism page on Facebook I believe
Thanks for the recommended resources, very good. I hope soon these may also be in Spanish. The grace of the Lord be with you.
Where did you get the font for the title and name cards?
I'd be curious to ascertain whether or not the Particular Baptists held to a Zwinglian view of baptism and the Lord's supper (i.e. at core essence they are just symbolic demonstrations that the Lord has commanded).
Hi Adam, take a look at this book www.rbap.net/our-books/the-lords-supper-as-a-means-of-grace-more-than-a-memory/
Thanks for this. I'm particularly curious in fact about baptism. Would the view on baptism be analogous to this non-Zwinglian view on the Lord's Supper?
See if this answers your question www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=102142010315 (note that not everyone, including paedobaptists, agree that Zwingli and Calvin really had that different of views)
The particular Baptists held to the standard view of Sacraments that the Reformed do, only difference is that for Baptism it is in the Credo Fashion
As a Presbyterian:
1) it's interesting to hear another view of the Covenants
2) the idea that the Covenant of Grace wasn't in the old testament is appalling
I sure wish the people getting interviewed had their name splashed up there.
They do.
Dr. James Renihan wscal.edu/academics/faculty/james-m-renihan and irbsseminary.org/
Dr. Richard Barcellos grbcav.org/leadership/ and www.rbap.net/
Drs. Samuel Renihan reformedbaptist.net/elders.htm and www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Samuel^Renihan
Where? At the end? I'm talking about while they are talking, sort of like a documentary does on TV. It's not that hard and you've got a great sound and video production here.
At the end, I only see a credit for the music.
0:24, 1:04, 1:34. Sorry it wasn't clearer
Dispensationalism has caused much confusion and has diluted other areas of theology in the evangelical church. I consider it the christianized version of Dual-Covenant Theology.
Pastor Renihan stated that believers were indwelled by the Spirit prior to the historical inauguration of the NC...I've never heard a 1689er argue this before, or even a Baptist for that matter. Is this Scripturally justifiable or otherwise how is this inferred?
+Brian Phoenix Hi Brian. That is standard reformed theology. Consider this sermon series: www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22410110150
Does that mean a believer is indwelled with the Spirit before they are saved?
It is part of the conversion process. See 2LBCF Chapters 10, 13, 15-17
They were not indwelt in the same way and it is not the standard reformed position that I've read. They were REGENERATED and the Spirit was with them but not INDWELT in the same way NC believers are. Under the OC you see the Spirit coming upon people for certain tasks but not indwelling. I think Jesus describes this when He says He is WITH you and will be IN you when speaking to the apostles before Pentecost. There is a book about it called "God's Indwelling Presence".
www.amazon.com/Gods-Indwelling-Presence-Testaments-Commentary/dp/0805443835
Dylan, you are mistaken. The reformed position, per the confessional references above, is that OT saints were indwelt. The book you linked to is not reformed.
The view that I seem to recall hearing presented as traditional Baptistic covenant theology (at a Met-Tab theology conference), said this, if I understood correctly:
The Old Testament Israelites, under Moses, were presented with both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. The covenant at Sinai/Horeb was an expression of the Covenant of Works, and the covenant at Moab in Deuteronomy 29-30 was an expression of the Covenant of Grace. Yet Moses had even been presenting the Covenant of Grace to Israel prior to that time at Moab recorded in Deut. 29-30. Regarding the declaration in the Covenant of Works, "if a person does them, he shall live by them" (Lev. 18:5), this was what was presented to Israel as the rule that they would end up being under if they do not come under the Covenant of Grace.
That however, would seem to be in discrepancy with what's presented in this video. I don't know if it might be possible to have any clarification over this.
I have read Peter Masters make that argument www.1689federalism.com/peter-masters-on-1689-federalism/ However, I have not come across that view in my historical readings. It sounds closer to the dispensational view that Israel wrongly accepted the terms of the Sinai covenant. (I am happy to be corrected though). 1689 Federalism teaches that the Covenant of Grace was not made in Deut 29-30, but rather the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant, established in the blood of Christ and first promulgated as an inaugurated covenant at Pentecost. In Deut 30, Moses is prophesying about this future covenant. The power of the New Covenant, however, was operative for all saints prior to the cross, since Christ's work was a certainty. I would recommend reading Pascal Denault "The Distinctiveness of 17th Century Baptist Covenant Theology" as well as the Coxe/Owen volume called "Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ" in order to understand the 17th century view.
Regarding historicity of the belief that the Sinai Covenant was an expression of the Covenant of Works and the Moab Covenant was an expression of the Covenant of Grace - I think I have found that the 18th Century Scottish minister Thomas Bell expressed this view, and he also references the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who also seems to have followed this view. I guess though it might still be a different historic stream from 1689 Federalism.
Thank you. Take a look at John Cotton as well contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/john-cotton-proponent-of-the-mixed-covenant-view/
Thanks for this.
Regarding my own view on this topic, I would have the understanding that the Law of the Old Covenant, in its core inherent substance, consisted of a set of commandments with attached legal jurisdiction for justification (Lev. 18:5, Rom. 10:5, Gal. 3:12) or condemnation (Deut. 27:26, Gal. 3:10). The ground for justification would be perfect obedience. Since all men are sinful by nature, each individual who is legally subject to the pure and undiluted Law would be condemned.
The full solution to this “problem of the Law” would eventually come with the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. However, it is obvious that God did not just leave all the Israelites, from Moses’ time up until the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, in a state of condemnation.
I would hold that prior to the New Covenant, God did, under the ministry of Moses, subject the entire people of Israel to Law. Yet God also administered His grace, unto forgiveness of sins, justification and sanctification, in accordance with His foreknowledge of the sacrifice for sin that was going to be carried out when His Son would come to earth. This grace justified not via the legal jurisdiction of the Law. However, this grace was not of such full manifestation as to release the Israelite saints from being under the Law. The result of this grace, prior to the ushering in of the New Covenant, was only to “soften” the jurisdiction of the Law, so as to be compatible with the Israelite saints’ justification - even softening the weight of meaning of Lev. 18:5 and Deut. 27:26.
Picture this by analogy - black and white are opposite colours, but that doesn’t stop it from being possible to mix them and produce grey. Likewise the operation of the Law fundamentally contrasts with the operation of grace, yet this does not forbid that grace may come in and soften the Law.
I’d certainly like to think that this isn’t my own original idea. :)
I'm not sure I understand your view.
The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works operating upon the condition of "Do this and live" - a principle opposite to that of faith. However, it was limited to life and blessing in Canaan. Israelites were still born under the broken Adamic Covenant of Works like the rest of mankind. However, those who saw through the types and shadows and looked in faith to the coming Messiah were justified through faith alone apart from the law. They received their faith, justification, and sanctification by means of the New Covenant. They received the benefits of the New Covenant prior to its formal establishment in the death of Christ. Upon their conversion, they were transferred out of the Adamic Covenant of Works and into the New Covenant under Christ's federal headship. But they remained under the Old Covenant, which, again, was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan.
Here are some resources to consider:
www.1689federalism.com/interactive-outline-of-john-owens-exposition-of-hebrews-86-13/
www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/
www.1689federalism.com/augustine-proto-1689-federalist/
Amen!
They may have mentioned this in the video...does anyone know when 1689 Federalism was rediscovered? It seems relatively unknown.
It depends on your perspective. In the UK, for example, Peter Masters says it was never lost, but Americans always looked at him weird whenever he talked to them about it. In America, A.W. Pink held to 1689 Fed in the early 20th century and his writings were the seed that launched the modern reformed baptist movement in the '50s. As the video mentions, however, those men came to be influenced by Westminster Seminary and John Murray, largely dismissing Pink and thus missing this baptist view. In America 1689 Fed was slowly rediscovered over the last 15 years or so.
How can you possibly read the book of revelation as a covenent theologian?
Why could a CT not read Revelation?
@@OldSlabsides45 I didn't say they shouldn't read it, but the problem is they don't take it literally.
Derek Birmingham how so? Are you premil?
@@OldSlabsides45 Well if you take the book of revelation literally, you have to acknowledge a future plan for Israel and the Jews. CT denies that God has any sort of plan for Israel. They believe that it's all been done away with. That's why historically the book of revelation has always been seen as a joke.
@@derekbirmingham2244 Id reccomend reading Sam Waldrons book "The end times made simple" to fully understand a CT's understanding of Revelation.
Well done. Learned much.
Great video but the background choir noise has got to go. Its unprofessional and distracting.
What song and what choir??
See links in the video description above
too many "sound bites"....
Hi Phillip - buy the book
Brandon Adams aint interested....
10:06
No one prior to Jesus was "saved". Jesus descended into hell and preached the gospel of Salvation to them there, that then they were saved, them who received it.
Abraham believed God and it was counted to Him as righteousness
@@cjfoster4179 But it does NOT say that Abraham was "saved". Saved is a New Testament term, not an O.T. term / phrase. The people of God (Moses / Aaron and the Israelites that left Egypt) were told from early on (See Exodus chapter 20!) of what to DO and NOT DO. The rest of the Torah has further instructions for the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Abraham did animal sacrifices / blood offerings. In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ is the offering for sin(s). Two different things. There is no more Temple in Jerusalem, so since the 1st Century A.D. we put our trust, faith, obedience in the shed blood of Christ. Both, people born with a Jewish surname, and those not born in a Jewish family.
BUT - There are still Jews on earth. Neither the rants of Martin Luther nor the R.C.C. torturers of the Spanish Inquisition nor the pogroms of Jew-hating Europeans nor the Nazis of the mid 1930's to mid 1940's, nor the radical followers of the m e c c a religion has killed off all the Jews.
stop playing with the camera...focus, on the subject...
After watching this, I completely understand the meaning of babbling and it’s correlation to Babel...This is ridiculous.
Davy Marcelo Wow, did you come up that hashtag on your own or did you have google it? Serious question...
too much drama.....
They are trying to sound super-dooper intelligent. They are always trying to impress the Presbyterians with their intellect, so that the Presbys will someday invite them over for lunch. Never going to happen, because the Presbys want to continue the myth of infant baptism.
I have heard all three of the guys in the video before (live) and on cassette. Dad and son Renihan and Barcellos. Son Renihan is akin to listening to a college philosophy teacher come up with something new each week yet expects the class to understand his circles and twists and rabbit trails.
I'm so glad I left the "Calvin Camp". Sold off my Calvinistic books on E-bay, about 6 years ago.
What a CROCK!
It's easy for WHITE MEN to profess how great God is and how their privilege is by his design.
Whit men, white men, white men!!