Two-Tier Typology & OT Salvation [1689 Federalism]
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 08. 2024
- Dr. Samuel Renihan, Dr. Richard Barcellos, and Brandon Adams respond to a recent episode of Reformed Forum's Christ the Center #736 regarding typology and salvation in the Old Testament, with attention to WCF/2LBCF 8.6. • John Owen, Jeremiah 31...
0:00:00 Introduction
0:06:24 Overview of 1689F view of Old Covenant
0:07:24 Perfect Obedience vs Outward Obedience
0:14:14 Subservient Covenant
0:17:22 Objection to Outward Obedience
0:26:47 Exile
0:32:01 God's Longsuffering Towards Israel
0:33:31 First-tier Function of the Sacrificial System
0:44:27 Are All Types Symbols?
0:48:16 Salvation of NT Saints
0:53:18 Salvation of OT Saints
0:58:01 Salvation by the Word in the OT
1:04:22 Relationships of Types to the Promise
1:07:48 Prophets Looking for Christ; Did all elect fully understand?
1:14:36 WCF/2LBCF 8.6
1:25:06 Substance of a Covenant: Old v New
1:28:39 Did the Old Covenant Promise Regeneration?
1:30:09 Were OT Types Bare Forms? First-Tier Function
1:31:27 Jer 31: Historia or Ordo?
1:34:18 Retroactive New Covenant
1:39:05 Historical Theology: Subservient Covenant Quotes
1:48:42 Affirm or Deny: Did Sacrifices Remit Outward Sins?
1:50:01 Philip Cary
1:50:46 Subservient Cov view is Key to Resolving the Debate
1:52:54 Vos' Triangle
Barcellos won the staring contest, I'll tell you what. Couldn't even tell he was talking by how little he moved!
Ventriloquism is his true passion 🤣
Hilarious!
Please do more of these!
I am thankful for this discussion and for you three men. May the Lord continue to bless the work that you each do in communicating so clearly our Baptist convictions.
Thank you for your growing sobriety, for it is refreshing to see brethren who are seeking to humbly discuss these deeper & higher realms pertaining to Covenant Theology, in a careful, serious, yet lowly way, whereby it is clear that you are seeking to be cleansed from the proud heady leaven of this generation with all of the usual proud chuckling remarks, boastful outbursts of laughter, along with the uncharitable mocking & scoffing that can be often heard bubbling out of the mouths of the many who are partaking in such theological discussions on the internet.
May The Lord continue to bless you all... for all of your ongoing labor of love
I am also seeking to track down any online podcasts/lectures/teachings &/or books that do seek to expound all the more specifically on this subject (Two-Tier Typology & OT Salvation)...If you could please point me in the right direction I would be most grateful...
Other than those you have made reference to in the video.. thanks
Barcellos is such a chill guy, how does he hold so still?
master ventriloquist
Glad to see this discussion! It is very important and encouraging. I'm very blessed to see this brothers and please keep it up! God bless!
We need MORE
Thanks Brandon, good work. I'm looking forward to more!
Incredibly helpful brothers. Thank you Brandon
Happy to see you post this!
My perspective is the traditional WCF one, but I would commend you brothers for the spirit in which you've handled this.
As others have said, a very helpful and encouraging discussion. Thank you for posting this. I hope it leads to more discussion in the future, especially direct interaction with Reformed Forum. It would have been excellent to hear more on Vos's Triangle, but that probably warrants an entire episode itself. I greatly appreciate Sam Renihan's pinpointing the major areas of disagreement, and I hope you see answers to his question about whether the OT sacrifices cleansed outward sin according to the Old Covenant.
In listening to some of the Reformed Forum clips you played, it was interesting to hear how when they hear us discussing outward obedience in the OT their minds go immediately to the obedience that we can only render in Christ. It seems to be a very strange concept to them as a result (as Sam Renihan points out) of not sufficiently considering the distinct nature of what the the sacrifices and outward obedience accomplished in the OT apart from their work in pointing to Christ. I hope Dr. Renihan's points lead to fruitful interaction.
This is fantastic. The explanation starting around 1:20 to me is concise explanation of the whole topic. I’m new to this, but that was wonderfully done and a great discussion all around. This will have me digging deeper and I’ve already ordered two books to help me understand it better. Great video.
Glad it was helpful! FYI, here's a recommended reading list www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/
Thank you.
I haven't finished the video yet, but I appreciate what I've watched thus far. With that said, how would the view of Mosaic obedience providing for ceremonial/fleshly purity understand passages such as Leviticus 17:11 where "atonement for your souls" is mentioned?
"For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life."
For an excellent response from Reformed Forum go to czcams.com/video/Y3alBjQyBoA/video.html
Amen, and amen!
Appreciate the content. Genuine question. I am trying to fit some pieces together here.
Don’t we have to say that in addition to the outward requirements heart obedience is also required in the Mosaic Covenant? It seems the reason the outward stipulations regarding sacrifices and the temple were not kept is because the inward heart requirement was not present in the majority of OT Israelites. And isn’t this, at least in part, what makes the New Covenant better and necessary?
If not, how do we categorize passages like Deut 6:5-6 and Deut 10:12?
One last question. Are we saying that the Mosaic Covenant wasn’t deficient because it wasn’t concerned with Spirit-wrought obedience only outward obedience?
If so, my question regarding texts from Deut still stands.
Would appreciate some thoughts!
Do you three have plans of starting a podcast that would be available on iTunes and Spotify?
Not in the immediate future. At some point I would like to have a 1689F podcast, but I'm not sure when that might be. In the meantime you can find a temp RSS feed for this interview that you can manually add to your podcast app www.1689federalism.com/two-tier-typology-ot-salvation-response-to-christ-the-center/
Podcast please!
This video has a weekend at Bernies feel to it. Are you sure thats not Bernie in the middle? 😂
Hmmm, Barcellos didn't close his eyes to pray! Odd
Forgive me if I am misunderstanding what is being said... but from what I understand thus far... @1:11:55 - we should not be mingling the 1) Revelatory Knowledge of The Gospel Promise in and of itself, which has been communicated unto and made alive by The Spirit within the heart of every saint since the fall, and the 2) "extra" or "secondary" degrees of Messianic knowledge which was also being communicated unto all the regenerate saints in and through the different Shadows and "Types" themselves.
For every saint since the fall has possessed by The Spirit a "saving degree" of knowledge concerning the 1) The Messiah that was to come....but as I am sure you would all agree that the 2) Secondary degrees of knowledge that were also being communicated unto the saints by The Spirit through the Old Covenant by and through the shadows & types themselves, would be categorized as "extra" and or "deeper" realms of Messianic knowledge which would of varied in degree from saint to saint throughout The Old Covenant, according to the different measures of grace/light that was granted unto them.
Would you agree?
It took 50 years to go from a cult to Reform Federalism. Interesting, not much on typology heard in pulpits. I wrote and am trying to publish in what changed me from a hippy jesus freak to a 1689 Federalism. Non academic!
I don't understand how Sam can say 14:01, 16:02 and then say 27:59
Owen, at least, seems to side with the later Sam:
Those of the Church of Rome do commonly place this difference in three things: 1. In the promises of them: which in the old covenant were temporal only; in the new, spiritual and heavenly. 2. In the precepts of them: which under the old, required only external obedience, designing the righteousness of the outward man; under the new, they are internal, respecting principally the inner man of the heart. 3. In their sacraments: for those under the old testament were only outwardly figurative; but those of the new are operative of grace. But these things do not express much, if any thing at all, of what the Scripture places this difference in. And besides, as by some of them explained, they are not true, especially the two latter of them. For I cannot but somewhat admire how it came into the heart or mind of any man to think or say, that God ever gave a law or laws, precept or precepts, that should “respect the outward man only, and the regulation of external duties.” A thought of it is contrary to all the essential properties of the nature of God, and fit only to ingenerate apprehensions of him unsuited to all his glorious excellencies. The life and foundation of all the laws under the old testament was, “You will love the LORD your God with all your soul;” without which no outward obedience was ever accepted with him.
It is hard for me personally to see how the first set of statements from Sam can possibly be considering that part of the law of Moses is, as Owen points out, "You shall love the Lord your God will all your soul". Or even the 10th commandment, a law against coveting your neighbor's possessions. So clearly the Mosaic Covenant demanded inward obedience. Why then does Sam exclude it in the first two statements?
I see nothing wrong with any of the three points that you have made. So what is your criticism of them?
ἀπολύω =! ἀφαιρέω, right? I'm no Greek scholar, but I'm fairly certain those are different words. So, where does Hebrews say animal blood can not forgive sins?
Hebrews 9:12-14
Purification of the flesh and purification of the conscience...
@ShaRon-zu4lw the passage you cite does not mention forgiveness. Furthermore, it is at its essence a "how much more" (v. 14) comparison between the effect of animal sacrifices and Christ's. Such a comparison, common in rabbinic literature, is not made on the basis of fundamental dissimilarity but rather assumes a fundamental similarity between the things being compared. In the passage, animal blood cleanses the flesh, but because of its greater efficacy (how much more), Christ's blood can cleanse that which is manifestly harder to cleanse, our conscience. I would argue that, taken together with passages like Mark 7, this passage teaches animal blood can alleviate the symptom, fleshly defilement, while Christ's blood can cure the disease from which this symptom flows.
@@ArchDLuxe Hebrews 10:1-4 "Since the law has only a shadow of the good things to come, and not the reality itself of those things, it can never perfect the worshipers by the same sacrifices they continually offer year after year. 2 Otherwise, wouldn’t they have stopped being offered, since the worshipers, purified once and for all, would no longer have any consciousness of sins? 3 But in the sacrifices there is a reminder of sins year after year. 4 For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins." Notice verse 4.
@SetApartForChrist32 you don't seem to understand my specific claim. If forgiveness IS to "take away sin" why would it need to be done more than once? See Matthew 18:22. My point is that they are NOT the same thing because Christ's taking away sins only needed to occur once, but forgiveness can happen repeatedly. Put simply "taking away sin" perfects, forgiveness does not.
hmmmm
That fella in the middle is imoveable
►
For the eyes of the LORD range throughout the earth to strengthen those whose hearts are fully committed to him. You have done a foolish thing, and from now on you will be at war.” Your system seems to say this is only external in old order. Psalm 51 says same, truth in the innermost place of heart. It seems your trying to place a squared peg in a round hole. Your trying to fit things I understand but I think this mindset has holes of explaining how the OT to the New actually works.. These two passages push back it’s only external and nothing to do with a converted heart. I don’t think it works no matter how fancy the nomenclature! 😼
John, thanks for the comment.
1) Look at how the Old Covenant sanctions interpret/measure following God with your heart: whether or not one follows the worship of Yahweh according to Mosaic law, or worships an idol (Deut 6:5; 29:18; 1 Sam 7:3-4; 12:20-21; 1 Kngs 2:3-4; 3:6; 8:23; 9:4-5; 11:1-11; 14:7-9; 15:2-4, 13-14; 2 Kings 23:2-4, 24-26; 2 Chr. 25:1-3, 14; 34:30-33; 36:12-14). The same is true in 2 Chronicles 16:9. It refers to God punishing Asa for making a treaty with a foreign king to save him, rather than trusting God to save him. This is contrary to Mosaic law. This verse is not contrary to anything we have said in the video.
2) re Psalm 51, it does not seem that you understand our position, as I don't see anything in that Psalm contrary to anything we said in the video. We explicitly state that God continues to relate to all image bearers at the level of their inward being. The issue is whether or not Mosaic blessing and curse is contingent upon inward thoughts or outward actions. Furthermore, Psalm 51 is a primary passage showing how OT saints looked beyond the Old Covenant for their hope. David could not be forgiven for his sin upon the terms of the Old Covenant (Acts 13:38-39, etc). He appealed beyond it to the New Covenant.
@@brandonadams07 Brandon, if I understand your position the Old Testament saint could receive justification but not full NC regeneration but Hebrews 11 shows justification by faith. Asa was a model because God was looking for another David, a man after Gods own heart, which as outlined in the discussion was impossible since it was only external in nature not internal this was language used so just using your coinage. As for the full dimensions of NC regeneration I would agree in principle but not sure 🤔 the external only grace is going on in Old Testament order. Many acts of King David would put many NT saints to shame as pertaining to internal righteousness. When David’s conscience pricked him for just cutting sauls garment, there is obviously more than just rituals and external righteousness going on. Psalm 15, is who can ascend the hill of the Lord, these are all internal righteousness. Or attributes of authentic holiness. We are dealing with levels of eschatological grace and level but a hard line approach Old/ New does not seem to work or fit. If you have a dissertation on Owen/ Vos could you send. Pneumajohn@aol.com I will listen but these were initially the holes I saw. If I misunderstood can you spell out in a succinct paragraph what is the position?
It seems you are using more a stark contrast between the Old/New like Luther versus a strong continuity like Calvin. How is this view set in light of this?
@@johnholmes8760 John, you have misunderstood our position. We believe they were fully regenerate, just as we are. They received the benefits of the New Covenant in their own day. The point is that the Old Covenant itself did not promise regeneration. It had no power to regenerate anyone. contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/10/25/ot-saints-were-saved-by-the-new-covenant-quotes/
For Owen, read his commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13. For a dissertation, see Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance" www.amazon.com/Shadow-Substance-Theology-Particular-1642-1704/dp/1907600310/ref=sr_1_1?crid=394WQDFTI3U41&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.6jAPiwj6Ne_kIo8sI3LlIN7jkeq1cTCajNAl5Fkekmv5YOnNVC7A1Ja09VpAZJjAqA9I1N_hE3p7T6MchIU0PDIaytu54TscCGu9QZ7QsYXQodxWHnO-qA24aAK1ScluRS-_HvSM8Wx30Ad30UCc9uWmmfAwL4HHMFz97P84Zo3XMvgElJKZMI06lWt0jiaAz_XTqCH7ffrxRPgZY0FKGw45abEJrLrubXy5_h1vkMc.wzpK-fioR7brkl3rLuy0Ou2gilqLMy2pSDfuJoUzfw8&dib_tag=se&keywords=from+shadow+to+substance&qid=1716871849&sprefix=from+shadow+to+substan%2Caps%2C178&sr=8-1
@@johnholmes8760 Re: Calvin, see here contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/calvin-vs-1689-federalism-on-old-vs-new/