Archive

Posts Tagged ‘1689 Federalism’

4 Charts showing the difference between 1689 Federalism vs. WCF, New Covenant Theology, 20th Century RB,and Dispensationalism

July 28, 2015 1 comment

1 1689 Federalism-WCF Federalism

2 1689 Federalism-20th Century Baptists

3 1689 Federalism-New Covenant Theology

4 1689 Federalism-Dispensationalism

 

Source [confessingbaptist]

What is a Reformed Baptist Church?

Substance of a Sermon preached
by Pastor Wm. Payne
Burlington, Ontario, Canada

If I were to be asked, “What kind of a church are you?” I would not hesitate to reply, “We are a Baptist church.” We hold to those truths which have sometimes been referred to as “Baptist Distinctives.”

I would also reply that we are a “Reformed Church” inasmuch as we hold to the great doctrines of the Reformation in the areas concerning the salvation of men. In this sense, I am not at all averse to our church being referred to as a “Reformed Baptist Church,” and I want to speak on the subject “What is a Reformed Baptist Church?”

Download and read the entire article here-(PDF).

What Is Covenant Theology – A Continuing Introduction

Creation Then Covenant

In our last installment, we noticed that eschatology drives revelation, and revelation, in turn, drives the illumination of that covenantal structure by which our God has deigned to communicate His will to us in an ever-increasing manner of promise, via the historic covenants, which promises find their final form in that which we call the ratified Covenant of Grace, which is the New Covenant.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Covenant Theology – An Overview From An Introduction

It has come to my attention that, although I would not consider myself the best expositor of the Covenant Theology of the Particular Baptists of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith (what today is called 1689 Federalism), that there is an interest in my posts regarding these doctrines.

At the outset, let me say that covenant theology, of whatever camp among the orthodox Reformed (of which I, and others, count our Particular Baptist brethren of past years, and so ourselves), must, of necessity, deal with various motifs which occur in such theological constructs. As a result, it is unavoidable that eschatology, the “temple motif” of Scriptures, and various other doctrines, which are inextricably intertwined with the doctrine of the covenants should be left out of such discussions (at least, to me, it is unavoidable).

To this end, I posted my first post entitled “What Is Covenant Theology,” which deals quite briefly with these various elements, but brings them to the attention of the reader for further consideration.

Subsequent posts will follow seeking to define, in an introductory manner, some of these elements.

What should not be mistaken is that this is to addressof Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology (i.e., 1689 Federalism) in exhaustive, or even slightly exhaustive detail. This is simply to give the reader some building blocks to consider upon which to build.

May our God see fit to bless you as we meditate upon these series of posts as they are forthcoming. Please be patient – I am working on more than one project, and the synthesis of certain documents to bring about these articles will take some time.

In His name, to His glory alone, in and by the application of our Lord’s merits to those who undeservedly gain such benefit – Bill H

 

 

 

Source [Gracemeans.com]

Paedoism or Credoism?

A Reformed Baptist Argument for Believers’ Baptism Based on Covenant Theology

By Richard C. Barcellos, Pastor

 

INTRODUCTION

Christians within the Reformed tradition are painfully aware of doctrinal division over many issues. There are various positions on the law of God and its applicability to the Christian. The field of eschatology finds Reformed Christians in various camps. Church government is another area where those under the Reformed umbrella often differ with each other. One of the most heated issues of debate among those adhering to Reformed Theology, broadly speaking, concerns the subjects of baptism. Various arguments are marshaled to come to the defense of those on both sides. Some go as far as to say that if you do not believe in baptizing the children of believers you cannot be Reformed. Those who hold this position would say that it is impossible to hold to Covenant Theology and not adhere to infant baptism. In their understanding, the arguments for infant baptism follow necessarily from a biblical view of the covenants which automatically precludes any non-paedobaptist understanding of Covenant Theology. Brethren who hold to this view often categorize all non-paedobaptists as Dispensationalists or at least, incipient Dispensationalists. Is this characterization accurate, and is this view of Covenant Theology the only view on the theological market worth listening to? Sad to say, but many in our day and throughout history would say yes. It is time for this to end.

When I use the phrase Covenant Theology I mean that approach to the understanding of Scripture centering around the various major covenants which traces their unfolding within the History of Redemption. This approach to Scripture takes into consideration the historical covenants individually and seeks to bring them together into a systematic whole. Historically, Covenant Theology has been the parent of infant baptism. This essay assumes that a proper understanding of the progressive nature of the biblical covenants, and the replacement of the Old Covenant by the New Covenant, seriously challenges historic Covenant Theology, and yet does not demand Dispensationalism or Antinomianism.

This essay will seek to differ with the above assertion that it is impossible to hold to Covenant Theology and not adhere to infant baptism. On the contrary, it will be argued that a consistent adherence to Covenant Theology refutes infant baptism and upholds, even demands believers’ baptism within the covenantal structure of the Bible.

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

1689 Federalism compared to Westminster Federalism