Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Richard Barcellos’

Episode 37: Getting the Garden Right

Podcast: Play in new window | Download

Subscribe: iTunes | Android | RSS

Pastor Richard Barcellos joins the Regular Reformed Guys to talk about his upcoming, as yet unnamed book about the Covenant of Works, the Garden of Eden and a number of other questions in relation to the New Covenant Theology.

This is one of those meaty episodes. We hope you enjoy it as much as we did.

 

Source [The Regular Reformed Guys]

Southern California Reformed Baptist Pastors’ Conference ’17

SCRBPC ’17, November 6-7, 2017: 2LCF 4, Of Creation

Of Creation, Richard Barcellos, Ph.D. (four lectures)

Overview of 2LCF 4, Of Creation, James M. Renihan, Ph.D. (one lecture)

“In the space of six days,” James M. Renihan, Ph.D. (one lecture)

“Besides the law written in their hearts, they received a command…,” – Moral and Positive Law, Samuel Renihan, Drs. (one lecture)

 

Source [SCRBPC]

Four principles of older hermeneutics

February 14, 2017 1 comment

Four principles of older hermeneutics:

#1 The Holy Spirit is the Only Infallible Interpreter of Holy Scripture.

#2 The Analogy of the Scriptures (Analogia Scripturae)

#3 The Analogy of Faith (Analogia Fidei)

#4 The Scope of the Scriptures (Scopus Scripturae)

 

Source [RBAP]

The Translation of the Phrase “the Lord’s Day”

Copyright © 2016 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

Note the translation of the particular phrase under consideration—“the Lord’s day.” It is not translated “the day of the Lord,” as in 2 Peter 3:10, because it is a different construction and uses a different word for “Lord.” Second Peter 3:10 reads, ἡμέρα κυρίου (hēmera kyriou [“the day of the Lord”]). The word κυρίου (kyriou [“of the Lord”]) is a genitive masculine singular noun. It comes from κύριος (kyrios), a noun meaning “Lord.” In the context of 2 Peter 3, “the day of the Lord” clearly refers to the eschatological day of the Lord, “the day of God, because of which the heavens will be destroyed by burning” (2 Pet. 3:12). Peter is clearly referring to the last day judgment, the day of the resurrection (see John 5:28-29 and 6:40).

Revelation 1:10, however, reads τῇ κυριακῇ ἡμέρᾳ (tē kyriakē hēmera [“the Lord’s day”]). The word κυριακῇ (kyriakē), translated “Lord’s,” is a dative feminine singular adjective, agreeing in case and gender with the noun it modifies…

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

A Brief Survey of Covenant Theology, Part 1-3 – Richard Barcellos

A Proleptic Rest in Genesis 2?

Copyright © 2016 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

Some have understood the Creator’s rest as establishing a pattern for man to follow, but not revealed as such until much later in man’s history (Exod. 16 and 20). This view is not new. In the early sixteenth century Bownd acknowledges a form of this view and interacts with it.[1] Likewise, Owen interacts with this view in at least two places in his treatise on a day of sacred rest.[2] Owen recognized that some viewed Genesis 2:3 as “a prolepsis.”[3] The Creator’s rest in Genesis 2:3 represents something to be instituted for man in the future. Between the Creator’s initial rest and that future institution, there is no Sabbath day for anyone (and no seven-day week according to some). One form of the proleptic view Owen addresses sees the sanctification of the seventh day occurring at Sinai. Owen seeks to state this view as follows:

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Doctrinal Assumptions and Technical Terms of the Confession on the Sabbath, 22.7

The Doctrinal Assumptions and Technical Terms of 2LCF 22.7

Copyright © 2016 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.

The Second London Confession of Faith 22.7 reads:

As it is the law of nature, that in general a proportion of time, by God’s appointment, be set apart for the worship of God, so by his Word, in a positive-moral, and perpetual commandment, binding all men, in all ages, he hath particularly appointed one day in seven for a sabbath to be kept holy unto him, which from the beginning of the world to the resurrection of Christ was the last day of the week, and from the resurrection of Christ was changed into the first day of the week, which is called the Lord’s day: and is to be continued to the end of the world as the Christian Sabbath, the observation of the last day of the week being abolished. ( Exodus 20:8; 1 Corinthians 16:1, 2; Acts 20:7; Revelation 1:10 )

Entering chapter 22 of the Confession, we do not start over theologically. This chapter, as with others, assumes or utilizes many assertions made prior to it and cannot be understood properly without identifying and understanding those assumptions or assertions and the terms associated with them. Terms and phrases are used which embody concepts already utilized in the Confession. As will be noted, it assumes chapter 19, “Of the Law of God” and chapter 4, “Of Creation” especially. This ties the theology of the Christian Sabbath in the Confession to the law of God and creation. The Christian Sabbath is part and parcel with the system of doctrine contained in the Confession. To understand the confessional formulation properly at this point, we must understand….

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

Some thoughts on Tom Wells on John Owen on the Sabbath

Copyright © 2016 Richard C. Barcellos. All rights reserved.[1]

One issue I did not interact with in the RBTR articles that I think needs mention at this point concerns John Owen on the Sabbath. In subsequent discussion Owen will be consulted on this issue. Wells discusses Owen in one of the later chapters of his book. Attempting to prove that there is controversy on the issue of the Sabbath in the churches due to leaning too heavily on creeds, Wells says of Owen:

I fear that John Owen himself illustrates this. I mentioned that I estimate Owen’s defense of the Sabbath runs to as much as 90,000 words. . . . Surely in doing this Owen discussed the relevant biblical material very thoroughly indeed!

But sadly the evidence shows otherwise. And the evidence is not debatable. . . .

What does Owen say on Galatians 4:10-11? Nothing. According to the index to the seven volumes of the commentary on Hebrews which includes the essay on the Sabbath, Owen makes no significant reference to this major Sabbath passage whatever, in the commentary proper or in the essay.

What does Owen say about Romans 14:5-6, the passage in which Paul shows his conviction that days are a matter of indifference? Surely one cannot offer a New Covenant Sabbath day without referring to each of these two passages—but Owen does it.

And what of Colossians 2:16? Here Owen is not completely silent. In his essay on the Sabbath he cites this verse in passing at least twice.[2] In addition he has a fuller discussion worthy of study and comment.[3]

 

 

 

Read the entire article here.

SCRBPC 2015 Panel Discussion on Divine Impassibility

Typology: Adam and Christ

by Richard Barcellos

1. A few introductory thoughts on typology

First, a type is a historical person, place, institution, or event that was designed by God to point to a future historical person, place, institution, or event. An example would be the sacrificial system revealed to us in the Old Testament. That institution was designed by God to point to Christ’s once-for-all sacrifice.

Second, that to which types point is always greater than the type itself. In other words, there is some sort of escalation in the anti-type (i.e., fulfillment). For example, “the blood of bulls and goats” could point to Christ but they could not and did not do what Christ’s sacrifice did – take away sins.

Third, types are both like and unlike their anti-types. There is both correspondence and escalation. The blood of animals was shed; the blood of Christ was shed. The blood of animals did not take away sins; the blood of Christ takes away sins.

Fourth, anti-types tell us more about how their types function as types. The blood of Christ takes away sins; the blood of animals pointed to that.

 

 

 

Read the entire sermon here.