The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Looking For a Church

Robin
The question of eschatology for Reformed Baptists is a little easier for me to answer because they are all over the map.
I hold to the A-mill position, yet I know others who are Historical Premillenialism, which is something they hold in common with CH Spurgeon at least when he was alive (he now holds to A-mill position .
I know others who hold to Post-Millennialism and a still a few that are Dispensationalists; who have yet to see that it isn't consistent with Reformed Theology. That isn't all that surprising seeing how many came out of denominations that were rampant Dispensationalists.

By the way, I love talking theology; and it has sometimes got me in trouble.
Tom


Tom

HaHa, me too. I get in trouble when I:

spout off a bunch of stuff to appear knowledgeable and wise when I really have no idea what I'm talking about, or

my juvenile need to "win" an argument overcomes the deeper and greater need to seek and obey the truth,

-AND-

when my opponent claims that "doctrine doesn't matter" and "can't you just luuuuuuuv Jeeeeeesus?" It sets me off like a bomb. Or

when my opponent has a hidden agenda and I get distracted from the argument and take aim at that hidden agenda instead, lol. Or

The implications of an argument undermine the sovereignty, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, limitlessness, eternality, or love of my God. Semi-Pelagian arguments, for example, that reduce the Almighty to a frustrated deity that can only hope that someone on Earth will "let him have his way," just tick me off to the point where reason gets buried under offense: "You don't talk about my Father that way!"

It's all good,
Robin

Okay...

I have tried to read and follow this very tedious and overworked paper on republication and I find that while it is arguing for "two covenants," it does so by taking a lot of stuff out of context, by claiming that the Westminster divines didn't properly understand the covenant of works with Adam (and "proving" the point by citing that the WCF's proof-texts are taken from later works than Genesis - that's like saying the Apostle John didn't properly interpret the creation account in the first chapter of his gospel), and by mixing the two Testaments into a particular eschatological scheme that doesn't quite fit, and it contrasts "Law and Gospel" (like Lutheranism) rather than "shadow and substance" or "type and antitype." To be honest I couldn't even finish reading 157 pages of this protracted tedium. So, question:

Does the Renihan presentation represent "republication?" It never uses that word, and I don't think Renihan has suggested anything like it. The fact of two "kingdoms" (one earthly /geographical / racial / political, and the other eternal, universal, spiritual) is obvious even to a casual reader of the bible. As is the fact that there are the two Testaments (covenants), one prefiguring the other.

I think Renihan and Republication are "apples and oranges." Am I correct or is there a connection between them that I'm not aware of?

Thanks,
Robin

Still exploring, reading, praying, considering. I listened intently to the WCF debate you referenced, Pilgrim, and have been struck by several points of difference. Among them is the idea that baptism is the "sign and seal" of the New Covenant replacing Old Testament circumcision. I have up to now always accepted that.

Reexaminining it now, though, if baptism "replaces" circumcision and signifies the same thing, and if the two covenants are one and the same, then:

Why were the Jews in Acts 2:41 baptized? If they already had the "sign of the covenant," why did they need another? If they were already "sharers in the covenant" and members in the "community of faith," why did they need to be brought in again?

In all the difficulties that the early Church had with the Judaisers, why didn't this simple argument ever come up at the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15? For example, why did no one explain that the Gentile Christians had received the "covenantal sign" when they were baptized and that that was the reason they didn’t need "second sign and seal?" Paul could have explained the matter very simply in his Galatian epistle by saying, “These men who are telling you to be circumcised are simply doubling up the covenant signs; you already have the new circumcision in your baptism so you don't need a duplicate 'sign and seal.'”

These are sincere questions, not to be argumentative. I must confess to a certain sense of "urgency" on my part since I am between churches and need to join myself to a local body. I am unwilling, however, to hurry through these things to a hasty decision.

If you would rather not "rehash" this old argument yourself, Pilgrim, I respect that, but perhaps another will step up or you can point me to some more resources.

Always reforming,
Robin

Robin

Looks like we have a lot in common.
One of the things I am really working on is remembering that my strength lies in the Lord, not me. I cannot love, argue, or do anything worthwhile if my motivation isn't grounded in Christ Jesus, to the glory of God.

Forgetting this has caused me a lot of headache. Unfortunately I have had to learn this the hard way on many occasions. For instance not remembering this almost got me fired from work, when someone who has (how can I put this politely) no people skills started on me one day when I was feeling a bit ill.
Instead of taking a moment and putting my mind on the Lord and His Word, I reacted out of the way I was feeling. Let’s just say before I knew it, the results blew up in my face.

Tom

Their paper is on 'baptism' specifically and is not a defense of "Republication/Two Kingdom" theology. I am sure I didn't imply they did. However, what I did at least try to suggest is part of their underlying view of the covenant is at best influenced by what Kline taught and what is being taught openly at WSC. They hold, for example, that circumcision was a 'national' sign and had basically nothing to do with a spiritual sign of the covenant of grace. This is one of the major points of contention between credobaptists and paedobaptists. It smacks of a dispensational hermeneutic.

Again, I never suggested that the Renihan's paper was overtly a defense of "Republicaiton". To iterate, the Klinian view of the covenant is at least in part what undergirds their view of baptism; a clear, and I believe unwarranted, discontinuity between the nation of Israel and the Church and the old covenant and the new covenant. I repeat once again... the major division between credos and paedos is the matter of continuity vs. discontinuity. I hold that there are NOT "two covenants" but only ONE; the Covenant of Grace, which was revealed progressively under different administrations throughout biblical history. There is an unbroken relationship (continuity) of God's eternal decree and covenant with the Son, applied in time through Christ, and revealed to man from Genesis through Revelation.

They give lip-service to some continuity but at the end of the line, they and most Baptists hold that the "Old Covenant" is just that... OLD. And the "New Covenant" is mostly if not all NEW with little if any association with the old.