Daniel Vincent and Sean Cheetham at the Particular Baptist Podcast invited me on to respond to an episode of Reformed Forum from a few months ago. In that episode, titled Typology and Covenant Membership, Jeremy Boothby argued that the author of Hebrews’ particular understanding of typology necessarily entails that the Old Covenant was (an administration of) the Covenant of Grace. He said he could not understand how baptists could reject WCF 7.5-6 but affirm 8.6 and asked for those who hold to 1689 Federalism to explain. So that was our primary goal in this episode. It has become a recurring objection so I’m glad I had the opportunity to address it. The episode went really long (which should not surprise readers of this blog) but Daniel and Sean graciously let me ramble on to make my point. I hope you find it useful. Please let me know your thoughts in the comments below!
Here are my notes/outline for the show, if it helps.
- Anchor.fm Covenant Theology: A Biblical Response to Reformed Forum
- Spotify: Covenant Theology: A Biblical Response to Reformed Forum
- Apple Podcast: Covenant Theology: A Biblical Response to Reformed Forum
- Periscope: Covenant Theology: A Biblical Response to Reformed Forum
- YouTube: Covenant Theology: A Biblical Response to Reformed Forum
Related Posts and Mentioned Posts:
- Jesus on “All Shall Know Me” (John 6:45; Is 54:13)
- 1 Cor. 10:1-5 – An Exposition
- 1 Cor. 10:1-5 – Paedobaptist False Inferences
- Owen on Hebrews 6:3-6
- 1 Cor. 7:14 – The “Legitimacy” Interpretation
- 1 Cor. 7:14 – No Proof of Infant Baptism
- Hebrews 10 & John 15
- The Olive Tree (Rom 11:16-24)
- Promise, Law, Faith – A Review Article (JIRBS 20) (exposition of Galatians, including Galatians 3)
- John Ball on Salvation Prior to Christ’s Death
- Re: Did The Covenant Of Grace Begin In The New Covenant?
- Substance/Accidents = Substance/Shadows?
- Augustine: Proto-1689 Federalist
- Re: Gaffin on Hebrews 8
- Aquinas’ Distinction Between Membership in the New Covenant and the era of the New Covenant
- Aquinas’ Retroactive New Covenant
- Tabletalk’s Retroactive New Covenant
- The New Covenant of Grace was a Present Reality for OT Saints
- John Frame’s Retroactive New Covenant
- Horton’s Retroactive New Covenant
- Calvin vs 1689 Federalism on Old vs New
- Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto?
- The French Reformed Understanding of the Visible/Invisible Church
- 19th Century Scottish Presbyterian Criticism of Bannerman’s Visible/Invisible Church(es)
- Hodge’s (Baptist) Understanding of the Visible/Invisible Church
- Visible/Invisible Church a Matter of Perspective (Reformation Study Bible & J.I. Packer)
- John Murray (the Baptist) vs James Bannerman (the Presbyterian) on The Church
- à Brakel (the baptist) on the Visible/Invisible Church
- Union with Christ is the New Covenant
- New Covenant Union as Mystical Union in Owen
- Guy Waters on Leviticus 18:5
- Murray on Lev. 18:5 – Why Did John Murray Reject the Covenant of Works?
- OPC Report on Republication – Background
- Acceptable Understanding of Mosaic Law (According to the OPC Report on Republication)
- A Post-Fall Covenant of Works?
- Paedobaptism and Forks
Contrast 
Hi Brandon. I enjoyed listening to this episode a while back. Recently, I found something very interesting in Calvin’s Institutes about this topic. Calvin, following Augustine, makes a pretty strong argument from Col. 1:14 against Reformed Forum’s view of WCF/2LBC 8.6. It is right after his bit on the three uses of the law and can be found in Institutes 2.7.17.
In part he says, “The Apostle therefore, justly denominates the ceremonies “a hand-writing against those who observe them;” because by them they publicly attested their condemnation and impurity. Nor does any objection arise from their having been also partakers of the same grace with us. For this they obtained in Christ, not in the ceremonies, which the Apostle there distinguishes from Christ…”
Thanks for the work you do.
LikeLike
Thanks Andrew. Interesting reference there. I took a look and I think they would probably point to Calvin’s next sentence “We perceive how ceremonies, considered in themselves…” to argue that Calvin and the Apostle is there only referring to the ceremonies devoid of Christ. That tends to be how Calvin and much of the reformed argue about the Mosaic Covenant in general. They’ll say (paraphrasing) “in one sense, if you look at it apart from how it provided salvation in Christ, it condemned, etc. But in another sense it was a means of their salvation”. Take a look here for example https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/calvin-vs-1689-federalism-on-old-vs-new/
LikeLike
Pingback: Two-Tier Typology & OT Salvation (Response to Christ the Center) – Contrast