Originally Posted by Pilgrim
1. The view espoused in the article by the Renihans is based squarely upon a view of the covenant which is now in hot dispute in the OPC and made popular by Meridith Kline and is mainly taught at WTS California. It is popularly known by several names, e.g., "Republication", "Two Kingdom", etc.

I've got a lot more reading to do it looks like!

Quote
One of the major issues with this view is that it attributes "merit" to the old covenant/kingdom whereby those within that covenant were given 'rewards' for obedience/works and grace is either greatly diminished or altogether rejected.

If one considers progressive revelation I'm not sure that is an accurate description. The "obedience of faith" (Romans 16:26) was surely as applicable in the Old Covenant as it is in the New. The "merit" was never in the person but in the object of that faith and demonstrated by their obedience. It was an "already and not yet" kind of faith which drove those who never saw the fulfillment of the OT promises, except through the eyes of faith.

Quote
It is because of this bifurcation (large discontinuity) between the old covenant and new covenant, that the credo-Baptist justifies their position. Put simply, for the credo-baptist the New Covenant means something totally or mostly different from the Old Covenant. Whereas the historic paedobaptist view of the covenant of grace is that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant with its blessings having a new universality and spirituality.

Is that really an accurate representation of Baptist belief? While they certainly do assert that the covenants are different from one another with respect to membership in the covenant community (the family of Abraham vs the family of faith) and application (physical descendants vs spiritual descendants, different signs and seals and covenantal conditions), the paper I linked to most certainly asserts that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old, and applies eternally and spiritually rather than temporally and phyisically. I know better than to charge you with misrepresenting the Baptist position, my friend, but please just elaborate on how you reached that conclusion from the presentation. Or from other sources, perhaps, which I'm not familiar with.

Quote
Lastly, every truth has throughout history been distorted and used to formulate an error. FV, NPP, etc., take what I believe to be the truth concerning justification, sanctification, Reformed covenant theology and more and distort it and even deny it, yet as is typical of heretics, they confess to be consistent with those doctrines and that they are to be deemed "confessional". They love to quote from Calvin, Murray, and other notables in order to prove they are not teaching something different. But on close examination of those quotes, they are found to be taken out of context and that the quoted author(s) held to positions contrary to that which they are espousing. The point of this is that just because someone or a group of people have gone astray who profess to base their heretical view on orthodox theology is no reason to abandon or disparage the "faith once delivered unto the saints". grin

Completely agreed on that point of course. We think we're so smart because we've got our theology so neatly spelled out in great detail in our Confessions, yet we can still be carried off into error - even lethal error - while all the while claiming compatibility and continuity with our Confessions, Creeds, and Catechisms. That is why I love this article on the Highway so much! And it fits right in with our other comments about "ruling elders" deferring to the "experts" that lead whole denominations astray.

-Robin