Archive

Archive for the ‘1689 federalism’ Category

Baptism to a Thousand Generations?

October 8, 2017 1 comment

SummaryUpon the basis of how circumcision was administered, historically, the reformed practiced that the distant offspring of a believer were entitled to baptism, even if their immediate parents were unbelievers, apostates or excommunicates. Modern paedobaptists have rejected this practice, resulting in an inconsistency in their appeal to circumcision.


Joe Anady of the Confessing the Faith podcast interviewed former URC member and WSC graduate Mark Hogan about his change in beliefs from paedobaptism to credobaptism. In Part 3, Hogan mentions one of the inconsistencies that contributed to his change of mind. During seminary he read William Perkins arguing (from the basis of Israel) that the baptism of the believer’s offspring was not limited to the first generation, but extended down the line to include even offspring whose immediate parents were wicked. Hogan found no consistent answer for modern Presbyterianism’s rejection of this logic and practice. Gavin Ortlund explained this point was part of his change of mind regarding the baptism of infants as well.

Circumcision is given in Genesis 17:9 to “you and your seed [offspring, descendants; Hebrew zerah] after you, for the generations to come.” The individuals in view here are the intergenerational descendants of Abraham. The faith of an Israelite child’s parents was not what determined the child’s right to circumcision; it was the child’s association with the nation of Israel. In other words, the lines of covenant throughout the Old Testament weren’t drawn around individual believing families, but around the national family of Abraham. It wasn’t the “children of believers” who had the right to the sacrament of initiation, but the “children of Abraham.” So, given paedobaptist presuppositions, why not baptize the grandchildren of believers, too? If we’re really building off continuity with the Old Testament precedent, why stop at one generation?

Why I Changed My Mind About Baptism

Nehemiah Coxe made the same point in 1681.

The promises previously given to Abraham for his natural offspring involve those in remote generations as much as those immediately descended from him. And in some respects they were made good more fully to them than to the others… It was not Abraham’s immediate seed, but his mediate, that became as numerous as the dust of the earth and took possession of the land flowing with milk and honey…

The right of the remotest generation was as much derived from Abraham and the covenant made with him, as was that of his immediate seed, and did not at all depend on the faithfulness of their immediate parents. Thus, the immediate seed of those Israelites that fell in the wilderness under the displeasure of God were made to inherit the land of Canaan by virtue of this covenant with Abraham. They never could have enjoyed it by virtue of their immediate parent’s steadfastness in the covenant…

[I]f I may conclude my concern in this covenant is such that by one of its promises I am assured that God has taken my immediate seed into covenant with himself, I must on the same ground conclude also that my seed in remote generations will be no less in covenant with him, since the promise extends to the seed in their generations.

Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ, p. 90, 97, 106

Perkins

The reformed generally were in agreement with this point and put it into practice as part of their national understanding of the church. The quote that initially gave Hogan pause is from Perkins’ 1604 commentary on Galatians 3:26-28.

Thirdly, it may be demanded, whether the children of wicked Christians, that is, of such as hold in judgment true religion and deny it in their lives, may be baptized? Answer. They may. For all without exception that were born of circumcised Jews (whereof many were wicked) were circumcised. And we must not only regard the next parents, but also the ancestors of whom it is said, “If the root be holy, the branches are holy” (Rom. 11). Upon this ground children born in fornication may be baptized, so be it, there be some to answer for them besides the parents. And there is no reason that the wickedness of the parent should prejudice the child in things pertaining to life eternal.

Lastly, it may be demanded, whether the children of parents excommunicate, may be baptized? Answ. Yea, if there be any beside the parents to answer for the child. For the parents after excommunication remain still (for right) members of the Church, having still a right to the kingdome of heavens out of which they are not cast absolutely, but with condition, unless they repent: and in part, that is in respect of communion, or use of their liberty, but not in respect of right or title: even as a freeman of a corporation imprisoned, remaines a freeman, though for the time he hath no use of his liberty.

The Works of William Perkins, v. ii, 232

(Note the erroneous reading of Romans 11 that is necessarily required. Perkins must interpret the root not as Abraham, but as every believer. Every believer thus has their own tree of which they are the root down to a thousand generations.)

Calvin

Perkins was just repeating what previous reformers concluded. In 1559, Scottish Presbyterian John Knox wrote to Calvin asking “whether it be lawful to admit to the sacrament of baptism the children of idolaters and excommunicated persons before their parents have testified their repentance.” Calvin replied

Respecting the questions of which you ask for a solution, after I had laid them before my colleagues, here is the answer which we unanimously resolved to send

[I]n the proper use of baptism the authority of God is to be considered, and his institution ought to derive its authority from certain conditions, one of the first things to be considered is who are the persons that God by his own voice invites to be baptized.

Now God’s promise comprehends not only the offspring of every believer in the first line of descent, but extends to thousands of generations. Whence it has happened that the interruption of piety which has prevailed in Popery has not taken away from baptism its force and efficacy. For we must look to its origin, and the very reason and nature of baptism is to be esteemed as arising from the promise of God. To us then it is by no means doubtful that an offspring descended from holy and pious ancestors, belong to the body of the church, though their fathers and grandfathers may have been apostates. For just as in Popery it was a pernicious and insane superstition, to steal or forcibly abduct their children from Jews or Turks, and forthwith to have them baptized; so likewise, wherever the profession of Christianity has not been altogether interrupted or destroyed, children are defrauded of their privileges if they are excluded from the common symbol; because it is unjust when God, three hundred years ago or more, has thought them worthy of his adoption, that the subsequent impiety of some of their progenitors should interrupt the course of heavenly grace. In fine, as each person is not admitted to baptism from respect or regard to one of his parents alone, but on account of the perpetual covenant of God; so in like manner, no just reason suffers children to be debarred from their initiation into the church in consequence of the bad conduct of only one parent.

Calvin’s Lat. Corresp., Opera, ix. P. 201; Calvin, John. Selected Works of John Calvin: Tracts and Letters vol. 7; edited by Henry Beveridge. Edmonton, Canada: pp. 73-76. via BaylyBlog

Rutherford

In the 17th century, this practice was challenged by Congregationalists who argued “we do professedly judge the Calvinian Reformed Churches of the first reformation from out of Popery, to stand in need of a further reformation themselves.” They argued that excommunicants are not members of the church and that only the immediate offspring of communicant members may be baptized. In response to this pressure, and to defend the national church model, Scottish Prebyterian and leading member of the Westminster Assembly Samuel Rutherford again argued from Abraham and Israel.

Therefore there was no more required of the circumcised but that they were Abraham’s seed according to the flesh, and by that same reason, there is no more required of infants that they may be baptized but that they be born in the Christian church… Now if God be the God of Abraham’s seed far off and near down, to many generations, the wickedness of the nearest parents cannot break the covenant, as is clear… These are to receive the seal of the covenant whose forefathers are in external profession within the covenant.  For God commands not Abraham only to circumcise his sons, but all parents descended of Abraham to circumcise their seed: the seed of Abraham carnally descended to all generations… We desire to know whom God forbade to be circumcised that were carnally descended of Abraham?  Or show us example or precept thereof in the Word.

But, say they: drunkards, murderers, sorcerers, swearers, and ignorant atheists, both fathers and mothers, whose children you baptize, do not profess the faith, for in works they deny and bely their profession.

Answer: 1. Then you will have the children of none to be baptized but those whose parents are sound and sincere professors in the judgment of charity. But so Joshua failed who circumcised the children of all professing themselves to be Abraham’s sons carnally, though Joshua knew and was an eye witness that their fathers did deny and bely their profession.

On The Baptism of the Children of Adherents

New England Congregationalists

In 1662, the New England Synod stated

Partic. 5. It is requisite unto the membership of children, that the next parents, one or both, being in a covenant. For altho’ after-generations have no small benefit by their pious ancestors, who derive federal holiness to their succeeding generations in case they keep their standing in the covenant, and be not apostates from it; yet the piety of ancestors sufficeth not, unless the next parent continue in covenant, Rom. 11.22…

If we stop not at the next parent, but grant that ancestors may, notwithstanding the apostacy of the next parents convey membership unto children, then we should want a ground where to stop, and then all the children on earth should have right to membership and baptism.

Modern Presbyterians

Modern presbyterian denomoinations that have rejected the unbiblical national ecclessiology of their forefathers have also rejected this unbiblical practice of the baptism of infants down to the thousandth generation.

For a child to be presented for baptism, at least one parent must be a communicant member of the Church… Only parents who are communicant members of the Church may be permitted to take parental vows.

OPC DPW 3.1.a

 

One of the few modern defenders of this practice, Gordon Clark, explains the logical implications of this modern abandonment of reformed tradition.

Does the Bible require or prohibit baptisms to the thousandth generation? If it does, and if a generation is roughly thirty years, a thousand generation from the time of Christ would include just about everybody in the western world. Then the church should have baptized the child of an intensely Talmudic Jew whose ancestor in 50 B.C. was piously looking for the Messiah. Or, George Whitefield should have baptized Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and Tom Paine, as children, because one of their ancestors played a small role in the Reformation. Strange as this may seem to many, it ought to have been done if the Bible so teaches.

Some very eminent theologians have so held. The strictest view has not been universal; it is more American than European. The view that only the children of professing parents should be baptized seems to have been the result of colonial revivalism [and/or the rejection of a national church model]… as it… tended to view the ideal church as consisting entirely of regenerate persons… The logical result is the Baptist position; but in Presbyterianism it stopped short at requiring faith of the parents who wanted their children baptized. But if it did not result in Baptist practices, it involved a change in the theology of baptism.

-Gordon H. Clark. What Is The Christian Life? (Kindle Locations 1192-1194). The Trinity Foundation. Kindle Edition.

The problem with the modern pratice (as Perkins, Calvin, Rutherford, and the reformed argued in the past) is that circumcision was not administered in this way. This great inconsistency led Hogan and Ortlund to change their minds regarding the proper recipients of baptism.

I encourage you to prayerfully consider this matter.

See also:

Advertisements

Does 1689 Federalism require “Regeneration Goggles”?

August 17, 2017 Leave a comment

Critics of 1689 Federalism often caricature baptists as claiming to know who the elect are. This does not follow from any 1689 Federalism belief. We agree with the reformed “judgment of charity.” Based upon a credible profession of faith, we judge (with charity) a person to be saved. The only difference is that we do not believe that being born to a professing parent is sufficient warrant to charitably judge a person to be saved.

The following is a rather revealing Twitter conversation demonstrating 1) that there is nothing radical about baptists on this point, and 2) that some (many?) paedobaptists haven’t really thought through this issue.


AKA: Why I am not a baptist.

Notice in the final row where Denault explains the need to discern who is in the invis church to identify the visible. This isn’t a strawman

Aug 10

 Discern = judgment of charity based on a credible profession of faith. No different from paedo for those “of age.”

The chart says that the visible church is identified by a credible profession of faith, that’s not how reformed identify the visible church.

Aug 10

 I’m sorry, you’re really confusing me. Can you please clarify?

Maybe you can tell me what you aren’t getting.

Everything you’ve said in the above replies. How do you think the reformed identify the visible church?

Aug 10

via baptism, WCF 28.1 “Baptism is …not only for the solemn admission of the party baptized into the visible church”

Aug 10

How do you understand WCF 25.2?

I’d have to look at what they intended by it, but I assume “professing christian” would include baptised.

Aug 10

However, what a thing is, and how you identify a thing are not the same thing.

What role does a credible profession of faith play, in your understanding?

Aug 10

It’s a means to determine if someone outside the covenant is serious about entering into it.

It wouldn’t make sense to baptize someone into the church who has no real interest in joining.

So credible profession just means “Wants to join the church”?

Aug 10

 with all that entails, yes.

“just means” sounds like it’s trying to make church membership into a small thing.

Aug 10

What is required for someone to be a communicant member?

For someone to be made a communicant member they have to publicly profess their faith and be baptized.

OPC DPW IV.B.1 says they must “give evidence of conscious saving faith in Christ.” Do you agree?

Ah, you’re talking about someone who is already a member. Yes, but this wouldn’t make them any less a church member.

It’s a protection against judgement for misusing the supper.

How does it protect? What would be misuse?

Eating or drinking without discerning the body, because of sin.

Sin in this instance would be lack of saving faith?

that could be an example, though I don’t think it’s the only one.

Does the public reception into full communion entail a judgment of charity that the person has “conscious saving faith in Christ”?

I think that’s fair, otherwise, what’s the point of fencing the table

Does making said judgment of charity require “regeneration goggles”?

non communicant members are still church members, the assumption is still that they are church members…

…but that they have some sin that requires repentance. The Q isn’t about regeneration. The only time it /might/ be is excommunication.

Does judging a person to have saving faith mean judging that they are regenerate?

It seems to me this is exactly the problem I was pointing out, you really want this to be about something invisible, and behind the scenes.

I’m saying that it isn’t, and a judgment of charity is exactly the kind of thing you use when you *don’t* know.

Ben, I honestly think you’re unnecessarily pushing yourself into a weird corner in this thread, becoming a polar opposite without good cause

Maybe so, my original point was, and remains that trying to ‘see’ the invisible church to identify the visible isn’t helpful.

I guess I’d just say I find that argument (baps try to see invis church) a straw man, realizing you wouldn’t agree.

Reconstructing the vis kirk w/ infant inclusion as primary deconstructs the system & is source of unnecessary polarizing to ur own hurt.

Aug 10

Aug 10

He says visible = ppl we have “reason to believe” are in invis. It’s not speculation or stating absolutes to connect prof of faith to regen

Would you say that Ref/Pres do the same thing, but just with different standards for ‘reason to believe’?

What do you think the different standards are?
For instance, a person might say that being born in a christian home *is* reason to believe they are in the invisible church.
In that case, you’d say baptists and ref’d are baptizing for the same reason.
This gets hairy because of disagreement about presumptive regeneration. But in that case, yes (see Utrecht 1905 Synod for example)
Yeah, personally, I’m not a fan of answering the regeneration question at all, as you could probably tell from my answers.
WCF 28.1 says baptism is a sign and seal of regeneration. OPC DPW IV.B.1 says public profession = “you have accepted God’s covenant…
promise that was signified and sealed unto you in your infancy by holy baptism.” To receive prof of saving faith = to judge regenerate.
Ben, can you acknowledge 1689 Fed view does not require “regeneration goggles”?
I don’t think I used those words in this convo, I think there is an over-emphasis on the invisible, but only use that phrase in jest.
Nor do I think baptists think they know who the elect are.
To clarify your view: how can you judge someone to have saving faith without judging them to be regenerate?

I received no reply to the last question, so I asked it again 2 days later.

To clarify your view: how can you judge someone to have saving faith without judging them to be regenerate?

I received no reply, so I asked again 2 days later. And again 2 days after that. I asked 4 times over the course of a week and was never given a reply.

Note this statement from an 1857 issue of the Princeton Review

And this statement from Hodge in an 1858 Princeton Review.

In sum, there is nothing radical about 1689 Federalism’s view of church membership.

For more on this, see

 

 

Jesus on “All Shall Know Me”

August 8, 2017 1 comment

John 6:35 And Jesus said to them, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to Me shall never hunger, and he who believes in Me shall never thirst. 36 But I said to you that you have seen Me and yet do not believe. 37 All that the Father gives Me will come to Me, and the one who comes to Me I will by no means cast out. 38 For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me. 39 This is the will of the Father who sent Me, that of all He has given Me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up at the last day. 40 And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.”

41 The Jews then complained about Him, because He said, “I am the bread which came down from heaven.” 42 And they said, “Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? How is it then that He says, ‘I have come down from heaven’?”

43 Jesus therefore answered and said to them, “Do not murmur among yourselves. 44 No one can come to Me unless the Father who sent Me draws him; and I will raise him up at the last day. 45 It is written in the prophets, ‘And they shall all be taught by God.’ Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.

Note Jesus’ emphasis on “all.” All that are elected will come to Christ and all of them shall be raised on the last day. To prove this he quotes Isaiah 54:13 “And they shall all be taught by God.” He says this prophecy refers to election, the effectual call, and regeneration – and thus also perseverance. Calvin notes “As to the word all, it must be limited to the elect… he fastens on the general phrase, all; because he argues from it, that all who are taught by God are effectually drawn, so as to come… Hence it follows, that there is not one of all the elect of God who shall not be a partaker of faith in Christ.”

Isaiah 53 describes the suffering messiah. 54 describes the covenant of peace he brings.

9 “For this is like the waters of Noah to Me;
For as I have sworn
That the waters of Noah would no longer cover the earth,
So have I sworn
That I would not be angry with you, nor rebuke you.
10 For the mountains shall depart
And the hills be removed,
But My kindness shall not depart from you,
Nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,”
Says the Lord, who has mercy on you.
11 “O you afflicted one,
Tossed with tempest, and not comforted,
Behold, I will lay your stones with colorful gems,
And lay your foundations with sapphires.
12 I will make your pinnacles of rubies,
Your gates of crystal,
And all your walls of precious stones.
13 All your children shall be taught by the Lord,
And great shall be the peace of your children.

What is the cross reference for v13? Jeremiah’s teaching on the New Covenant (31:33-34; cf Hebrews 8:10-11). “No longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, ‘Know the Lord,‘” for they shall all know me,” from the least of them to the greatest, declares the Lord. Jeremiah and Isaiah were prophesying about the same thing. On 6:45 Calvin says “this teaching of God is the inward illumination of the heart.”

Therefore, according to Jesus, the New Covenant of Peace is made with the elect, chosen and called by the Father and given to Christ as mediator of the New Covenant to intercede, preserve, and raise on the last day. “They shall all know me” refers to the elect and it is fulfilled in the present.

Is 54:13. Quoted by the Saviour (Joh 6:45), to prove that in order to come to Him, men must be “drawn” by the Father. So Jer 31:34; Mic 4:2; 1Co 2:10; Heb 8:10; 10:16; 1Jo 2:20. Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary

Verse 13. – All thy children shall be taught of the Lord (comp. Isaiah 44:3; Jeremiah 31:33, 34; Ezekiel 11:19; Joel 2:28; Acts 2:17, 18, etc.). Christians are all of them “taught of God” (John 6:45 1 Thessalonians 4:9). The “anointing,” which they have from the Holy Ghost, “teaches them, and is truth, and is no lie” (1 John 2:27), and causes them to “know all things” (1 John 2:20). Pulpit Commentary

Owen on Hebrews 8:11 explains

The knowledge of the LORD may be here taken, not objectively and doctrinally, but subjectively, for the renovation of the mind in the saving knowledge of God…

The instructive ministry of the old testament, as it was such only, and with respect unto the carnal rites thereof, was a ministry of the letter, and not of the Spirit, which did not really effect in the hearts of men the things which it taught. —The spiritual benefit which was obtained under it proceeded from the promise, and not from the efficacy of the law, or the covenant made at Sinai. For as such, as it was legal and carnal, and had respect only unto outward things, it is here laid aside…

The proposition is universal, as to the modification of the subject, “all;” but in the word aujtw~n, “of them,” it is restrained unto those alone with whom this covenant is made…

Obs. XXIV. Where there is not some degree of saving knowledge, there no interest in the new covenant can be pretended…

Obs. XXVII. Persons destitute of this saving knowledge are utter strangers unto the covenant of grace; for this is a principal promise and effect of it, wherever it doth take place.

Augustine likewise recognizes that it refers to the elect.

What then is the import of the “All, from the least unto the greatest of them,” but all that belong spiritually to the house of Israel and to the house of Judah,—that is, to the children of Isaac, to the seed of Abraham? For such is the promise, wherein it was said to him, “In Isaac shall thy seed be called; for they which are the children of the flesh are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed…” (Rom 9:7-12) This is the house of Israel, or rather the house of Judah, on account of Christ, who came of the tribe of Judah. This is the house of the children of promise,—not by reason of their own merits, but of the kindness of God. For God promises what He Himself performs: He does not Himself promise, and another perform; which would no longer be promising, but prophesying. Hence it is “not of works, but of Him that calleth,” (Rom 9:11) lest the result should be their own, not God’s; lest the reward should be ascribed not to His grace, but to their due; and so grace should be no longer grace which was so earnestly defended and maintained by him who, though the least of the apostles, laboured more abundantly than all the rest,—yet not himself, but the graceof God that was with him. (1 Cor 15:9-10)

“They shall all know me,” (Jer 31:34) He says,—“All,” the house of Israel and house of Judah. “All,” however, “are not Israel which are of Israel,” (Rom 9:6) but they only to whom it is said in “the psalm concerning the morning aid” (Ps 22) (that is, concerning the new refreshing light, meaning that of the new testament [covenant]), “All ye the seed of Jacob, glorify Him; and fear Him, all ye the seed of Israel.” (Ps 22:23) All the seed, without exception, even the entire seed of the promise and of the called, but only of those who are the called according to His purpose. (Rom 8:28) “For whom He did predestinate, them He also called; and whom He called, them He also justified; and whom He justified, them He also glorified.” (Rom 8:30) “Therefore it is of faith, that it might be by grace; to the end the promise might be sure to all the seed: not to that only which is of the law,”—that is, which comes from the Old Testament into the New,—“but to that also which is of faith,” which was indeed prior to the law, even “the faith of Abraham,”—meaning those who imitate the faith of Abraham,—“who is the father of us all; as it is written, I have made thee the father of many nations.” (Rom 4:16-17) Now all these predestinated, called, justified, glorified ones, shall know God by the grace of the new testament [covenant], from the least to the greatest of them.

A Twitter Exchange on Galatians 3:16

Galatians 3:16 is not an easy verse to understand. It has stumped many, many theologians. Paul’s argument, however, is actually very simple. He is making a distinction between the seed in Genesis 13:15 & 17:8 and the seed in Genesis 22:18. And he is, thereby, making a distinction between the promise made to the seed in 13:15 and 17:8 and the promise made to the seed in Genesis 22:18. The promise that in Abraham’s offspring (singular) all nations of the earth shall be blessed (note Gal 3:8) is different from the promise that Abraham’s offspring (plural) will inherit the land of Canaan. To see this argued and explained more fully, please see here.

The following was an exchange with Brad Mason (Heart & Mouth blog). I thought it was useful in showing 1) that the paedobaptist has no coherent, logical explanation for how Paul could possibly be making an argument from the text of Genesis, and 2) that their argument that all Abrahamic promises were only made to Christ contradicts their claim that the Abrahamic promises were made to Abraham’s children, and thus to ours. Note Paul’s logic:

  • P1 The “offspring” in the text under discussion cannot mean both offspring plural and offspring singular (law of contradictionlaw of excluded middle).
  • P2 The text says offspring singular.
  • C Therefore the text does not say offspring plural.

The paedobaptist simply cannot affirm Paul’s syllogism (as we see below).

I did my best to format this to make it readable.


Who was the Abe Cov’t made with? Christ (Gal. 3:19). What was the sign of this Cov’t? Circumcision. Circumcision was the OT sign of Christ.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago

I’m assuming that’s a typo and you meant Gal 3:16?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago

Riffin’ off of 19, “until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made”

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago

So, just to be clear, you would say that the promise of Gen 17:7-8 was made to Christ, not to Abraham’s children?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago

To his children, by means of the Mediator, Christ.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago

Paul’s argument in v16 rests on mutual exclusivity. Was it made to Abraham’s children (plural) or to Abraham’s child (Christ)?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago

To Christ, and through Christ to Abe’s children, or also Paul contradicts himself in Rom 4, or Moses is wrong in Gen. 17.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago

So the promise says both “and to offsprings” referring to many, and “to your offspring” (singular) referring to Christ?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago

Paul’s point is not that the promises were not to Abe’s offspring, or we’d have hundreds of false statements in the Bible, even from Paul…

.. His point is that Christ is the primary recipient of these promises, and that He is the means to all the plural offspring receiving…..

…the promises, and therefore receiving the “sign” of the promises.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 3h3 hours ago

What is Paul denying in v16? “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 3h3 hours ago

Not himself, God, or Moses, that’s for sure.
19h19 hours ago

What is Paul denying in v16? “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 2h2 hours ago

It seems clear to me that we either have to assume Paul contradicts himself, Moses contradicts himself, or that the point is that Christ …

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 2h2 hours ago

…is and always was the sole means of anyone receiving the promise.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 2h2 hours ago

It seems to me you can’t answer the question. What is Paul denying in v16? “It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 2h2 hours ago

It is obvious he is denying plural; what is not as obvious is what he is intending to mean by this, given that he himself often uses plural.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 2h2 hours ago

Is Paul making an argument from the text of Genesis?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 2h2 hours ago

Gen 13:15 (very next verse identifies the seed as numerous as the stars and sand)

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago

What is Paul denying Genesis 13:15 says?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

I don’t think he is. In vs. 8 he quotes Gen. 22:18. I think is welding them to make the point that the plural is and always was via the….

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

…singular, Ot and NT. Ergo, Gentiles are not excluded, which was his point from ch. 2 on.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago

What text is Paul referring to when he says
“It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”
?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

Closest would be Gen. 22:18, though cannot be abstracted from the others and he does not specify.

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

How about I go Socratic. Do you think his point was to exclude the plural seeds from the promises expressly given to them?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

Is his point still Gentile inclusion as in tge first half of tge chapter, or has he changed his point?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

Does he call the plural seed sons but under a guardian in the same context because he is attempting to exclude them?

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago

What is Paul denying Gen 22:18 says?
“It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

That the promises are not via Israel, such that the Gentiles need to be circumcised to recieve them. The promises, OT and NT, are via Christ

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

The Jews made themselves the door to the Gentiles. That is why Paul wrote the letter.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago

You’re not answering the ?. What is Paul denying Gen 22:18, specifically, says?
“It does not say, ‘And to offsprings,’ referring to many,”

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

Is his point still Gentile inclusion as in the first half of the chapter, or has he changed his point?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

Does he call the plural seed sons but under a guardian in the same context because he is attempting to exclude them?

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago

You keep jumping 15 steps ahead. Slow down. Let me help:
Paul is denying that “offspring” in Gen 22:18 is a plurality. Agree?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 1h1 hour ago

As I have said, yes.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 1h1 hour ago

So the original text of Gen 22:18 refers to a single descendant. But the text of 13:15 and 17:8 refer to a plurality of descendants. Agree?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 59m59 minutes ago

No. I think all of them are speaking of a plurality via a singular. Can’t separate Gen 22 from 12, 13, 15, and 17, & especially not Rom 4:16

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 54m54 minutes ago

So Paul is not making an argument about what the text of Genesis says?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 52m52 minutes ago

He is making an argument from Gen, taking the collective term as singular, w/out thereby excluding the plural and contradicting himself …

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 52m52 minutes ago

…and the texts from Moses.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 51m51 minutes ago

So when he denies that it is plural, he is not denying that it is plural?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 50m50 minutes ago

He is saying that the collective is summed up in the singular, who is Christ. Or he is contradicting himself and Moses.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 45m45 minutes ago

The collective is summed up in the singular, such that the two are not mutually exclusive? Text is both singular and plural?

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 43m43 minutes ago

It is, and treated as such by both Moses and Paul.

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 17m17 minutes ago

And the original point was that Gal 3:19 says the promise was made to Christ, and the children of Abraham recieved the sign of Christ.

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 16m16 minutes ago

The intricacies of how Paul uses the singular/plural is beside the point, especially since I began the argument by saying that the promise..
17h17 hours ago

…was to Christ. That was a premise of my argument. If that’s where you want to land, we are already there. The difficulty of how Paul ….

…uses a singular collective term to get there is just another discussion. We’re already there!

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 15m15 minutes ago

lol. No brother, it’s the entire point.

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 13m13 minutes ago

You’re not hearing me. I’ve granted from the start that the promise was to Christ. So, start there and make your point. I’m not willing….

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 12m12 minutes ago

…to involve Paul or Moses in contradictions in order to interpret his path to the singular, especially since it has been granted from ….

Brad Mason‏ @AlsoACarpenter 12m12 minutes ago

…the start.
17h17 hours ago

I suppose we could have this same discussion from Rom 4 which uses plural seed throughout and to much the same end.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 4m4 minutes ago

1. Paul’s argument from the grammar of singular vs plural is not “beside the point.” It is very much the point.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 4m4 minutes ago

2. “Or he is contradicting himself and Moses” Your assumptions are severely stunting your analysis.

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 4m4 minutes ago

3. In the original text, Gen 22:18 refers to a single offspring, unlike 13:15 and 17:8 https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/tb/seed_alexander.pdf and https://www.academia.edu/5312741/_Galatians_3_16_What_kind_of_exegete_was_Paul_

Brandon Adams‏ @brandon_adams 3m3 minutes ago

4. Thus Paul is making an argument about the promise to bless all nations (Christ) vs the promise of Canaan (Israel).
5. Israel and the land of Canaan are applied typologically to speak of Abe’s spiritual offspring & heaven.
17h17 hours ago

None of that is in Galatians, nor does Paul conclude that from his arguments, nor is that what he is arguing for. You have imported all …

…of that into the text. Paul is making a specific argument in those chapters, and never says any of that. It is about Jew & Gentile and…

…the place and purpose of the Law, explicitly.

At the very least, you cannot say you understand Paul’s argument if you come to completely different conclusions than does Paul.

32m32 minutes ago

1. Since you have no explanation of Paul’s line of argumentation regarding plural vs singular, you have no leg to stand on brother.

2. This is the only logical and grammatically possible explanation for Paul’s argument that has been offered 

34m34 minutes ago

3. The OT scholars I linked to who make this argument were not importing 1689 Fed. They were just reading the text.

4. All of what I said is in Galatians, and yes Paul does conclude that (see 4:21-31). Thank you for the exchange. It has been useful.

Categories: abrahamic covenant Tags:

Samuel Renihan on New Covenant Union

July 4, 2017 5 comments

In Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology (found in the volume Recovering a Covenantal Heritage), Micah and Samuel Renihan explain New Covenant union with Christ.

Jesus Christ has been and always will be the federal head of the covenant of grace/New Covenant. To be federally united to him you must be 1) promised to him outside of time in the covenant of redemption and 2) brought into union with him in time by the Holy Spirit.

The Son was the one elected by the Father to win the redemption of the elect. All of this is accomplished in the New Covenant, which is the historical climax of the covenant of grace. To be in the covenant of grace/New Covenant, you must be united to Christ, its federal head.17

Since the covenant of grace is the retro-active application of the New Covenant, if we posit that Christ is the mediator of the covenant of grace, we can only understand the terms of his role as mediator, and our relation to him as such, through the way that he is presented in the New Covenant. That Christ is the mediator of the covenant of grace, the New Covenant, no Reformed theologian denies. Thus, in line with New Testament doctrine, the only way to be under Christ’s federal headship is to be united to him by the Holy Spirit. This union finds its roots outside of time as we are chosen in Christ in the covenant of redemption and is applied to the elect in time by the Spirit, begun in effectual calling and consummated in the faith of the believer. Apart from saving faith there can be no union with Christ, because the Spirit does not indwell any except the elect, those who have been justified by faith.18 Christ is the one and only federal head of the covenant of grace, the New Covenant. Federal headship is never mediate, thus none can enter the covenant other than those who are directly or immediately under his federal headship by the Holy Spirit.19

17 Cf. WLC 57-59.

18 Cf. Acts 2:38, Eph. 1:13.

19 Cf. WLC 65-69.

[…]

To bring this to a conclusion, a right understanding of the membership of the covenant of grace is founded on the covenant of redemption and the New Covenant. Those who are in the covenant of grace are those who were promised to the Son by the Father in the covenant of redemption, won by the Son’s life, death, and resurrection, and sealed by the Holy Spirit, uniting them to their federal head, Jesus Christ. Laying claim to Christ and his benefits is a serious matter, and as Scripture shows, only those who have saving faith can truly make that claim. There is no external federal relation to Jesus Christ. In terms of membership or qualification, there are no distinctions in the body of Christ, that is, the church. All are sons of God through faith, under one head, indwelt by one Spirit. “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Rom. 8:9). In spite of the false professions, unbelief, and lies of apostates, God knows his own, Christ knows his sheep, and the Spirit of adoption knows the children of God.26 The covenant people of God are “a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for his own possession” (1 Pet. 2:9). The glorious New Covenant does not look to the Old for its pattern and people but stands on the eternal foundation of the covenant of redemption and comes to the elect as a covenant of grace, purchased, mediated, and eternally kept by “our great God and savior Jesus Christ who gave himself for us to redeem us from all lawlessness and to purify for himself a people” (Titus 2:14).

26 Cf. 2 Tim. 2:19, John 10:27, Matt. 7:15-23, Rom. 8:16.

See also:

The Heidelblog’s Monologue of Misrepresentation

June 22, 2017 2 comments

In a hurry? Skip down to the Summary.

I greatly appreciate R. Scott Clark’s zeal for the gospel and his defense of sola fide. However, he has a reputation for not accurately representing the nuances of various theological disagreements and for silencing those he disagrees with. Reformed paedobaptists who disagree with Clark on a variety of different topics have all complained about this. This leads to a fair amount of problems as Clark has become somewhat of a popularizer of reformed theology. People are led to believe things are much simpler than they actually are.

The latest issue to come under his sights is 1689 Federalism. He significantly misrepresented the view in his main point of criticism. I attempted to add a comment of clarification on his blog, but it was not approved. So I wrote a post explaining how Clark has misrepresented 1689 Federalism. Other people began commenting on his blog asking for him to interact with what I had said.

Screen Shot 2017-06-16 at 12.14.40 PM

Screen Shot 2017-06-17 at 10.25.05 AM

Both comments were deleted without any response. He eventually responded (sort of) on Twitter.

Screen Shot 2017-06-21 at 1.31.00 PM

I say “sort of” because 1) He refused to say where the quote was from or link to the blog, and 2) He isolated the quote from the rest of the correction and clarification as to what the quote meant. Thus once I corrected him, he chose to ignore me and merely perpetuate his misrepresentation.

He posted the same comment on his blog.

DCjFOstUMAA_XTH

Again, he quotes me anonymously without linking to or mentioning the source so that people can read it in context for themselves. Furthermore, he isolates one statement that he can continue to twist to fit his straw man, while ignoring the explanation as to what that statement means, in contrast to what he misrepresents it as meaning in his post. So no, it is not a concise statement of the view he rejected in his post. It is a concise statement of the view that he misrepresented in his post. No doubt, he will still reject the view once it is properly represented, but for some strange reason he refuses to allow it to be.

Why?

As one person noted, this has become quite petty. Why has Clark gone to such lengths to hide my response from his followers/readers?

It may simply be a matter of Clark’s professorial preference for monologue leaking over into his blog. I assume he is no fan of the Socratic method. But this is no way for a professor to model scholarship to his students.

It may also be the case that Clark has decided that 1689 Federalism just doesn’t know what it is talking about, so to protect his followers/readers from confusion, he simply will not allow us to dialogue and will delete comments he doesn’t want people to see.

But there may be a bigger reason. Clark is adamant in his post that 1689 Federalism is in no way Reformed. “My job here is to help Reformed folk understand what we confess. Here I’m doing it by way of contrast.” But there are Reformed critics of Clark who are just as adamant that Clark is in no way Reformed in his covenant theology. That’s a point that I discussed in my reply to Clark.

In a 2007 series on Republication, Clark very clearly articulated the subservient covenant view as his own.

[T]he covenant of grace, the Abrahamic covenant is the administration of God’s saving grace. It was and remains a covenant of grace… [T]he Mosaic Covenant is finished… It was a legal covenant not relative to salvation or justification but relative to Israel’s status as the temporary national people of God. In Exod 24, Israel swore a blood oath that she, as a national people, would keep the law and it was on this legal basis that Israel was ultimately expelled from the promised land and on which basis she lost her status as the national people of God… Israel was under a typological, not soteriological covenant of works. It’s a post-lapsarian, typological covenant of works… [T]he type of covenant under which Israel lived as national entity was formally legal, it was a suzerain-vassal treaty. Those same families also lived under a royal grant covenant that was wholly gracious relative to salvation and justification…

God made a temporary, national covenant. That temporary national covenant expired. The spiritual covenant, the covenant of grace, does not expire. The covenant of grace was temporarily administered through and alongside a national covenant… The Mosaic covenant, insofar as it was a distinct covenant, was a national, external, temporary covenant…

Is it not sufficient to say that the covenant of grace, the Abrahamic covenant, was administered through the Mosaic and yet the Mosaic as such, as a distinct epoch in the history of redemption, is also unique in certain aspects (e.g. as a republication of the covenant of works)?…

The Mosaic covenant, insofar as it was a distinct covenant, was a national, external, temporary covenant. At the same time, however, the spiritual, internal, Abrahamic covenant of grace continued and those in the Mosaic covenant who were elect, were also children of Abraham as well as children of Moses.

Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (1) and Republication of the Covenant of Works (2) and Re-Publication of the Covenant of Works (3)

It’s hard to state the subservient view any clearer than that. The Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants are two different, distinct covenants. The Abrahamic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace through which people are saved (now and during the time of Moses). The Mosaic Covenant is not.

Clark specifically referenced Owen, leading D. Patrick Ramsey to comment “Confessionalists may not want to adopt John Owen on the Mosaic Covenant since he viewed the MC as a distinct covenant and not a mere administration of the covenant of grace.” To which Michael Brown (author of Sacred Bond: Covenant Theology Explored) replied

That may apply to WCF full-subscriptionists, but to the rest of us confessionalists, there is no conflict… What I mean is that I fully subscribe the Three Forms of Unity as a minister in the URCNA and, for the most part, follow Owen’s view of the MC. I don’t see how those two things are in conflict.

I don’t know if particular presbyteries in the OP or PCA would allow a minister to take Owen’s view as an exception. I suspect that many would allow it, if it were qualified and explained. Keep in mind that Owen’s concern is to show that the MC cannot be REDUCED to a mere admin of the CoG. He is concerned to show that, because the MC is a distinct covenant from the Abrahamic, one cannot flatten out the contours of redemptive history in the interest of showing continuity in the Bible.

As I explained in my reply to Clark, presbyterians have been drilling in on this issue, resulting in the recent OPC GA Study Committee on Republication, which states very clearly that Clark’s view is contrary to the WCF.

[P]roponents of the subservient covenant view did not view themselves as advocating a version of View 4 outlined below (i.e., that the Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of grace with a unique administration)… [View 4] is affirmed by the Westminster Confession of Faith. WCF 7.5–6… The most extensive criticism of the position comes from the works of John Owen and Samuel Bolton… It is difficult to harmonize this [subservient covenant] view with the confessional affirmations (outlined above) regarding the Sinai covenant as being in substance and kind a covenant of grace.

In other words, my reply threw a wrench in Clark’s narrative. Reformed covenant theology is not as black and white as he likes to make it. It is considerably more complex. Recognizing that complexity has at least two effects. 1) It reveals that Clark’s view is contrary to the WCF. 2) It reveals that 1689 Federalism is part of that complex reformed dialogue on covenant theology. As Sam Renihan said in the article Clark was responding to “Where Reformed covenant theology was united, the Particular Baptists were united with them. Where Reformed covenant theology was diverse, the Particular Baptists lived within that diversity.” These are substantial issues that Clark would prefer not to have his readers wrestle with. Far better to keep it hidden from them.

Pay_no_attention_to_that_man_behind_the_curtain

Clark the Baptist

Returning to Clark’s 2007 series on Republication, he appealed to Charles Hodge to make a very significant point about the dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic Covenant.

I keep hearing that Meredith Kline invented the doctrine of republication. In a word: nonsense… Richard posted this nice bit from Hodge (who also antedates MGK and WSC):

It is to be remembered that there were two covenants made with Abraham. By the one his natural descendants through Isaac, were constituted a commonwealth, an external community; by the other his spiritual descendants were constituted into a church, [invisible of course, since, at that time, the only formal organization was that of the law.] The parties to the former covenant, were God, and the nation; to the other, God, and his true people. The promises of the national covenant, were national blessings; the promises of the spiritual covenant (i.e. the covenant of grace) were spiritual blessings, as reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. The conditions of the one covenant [the old] were circumcision, and obedience to the law; the conditions of the other were, and ever have been, faith in the Messiah, as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, the Saviour of the world. There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace, [that is, the old covenant with the new] and the commonwealth founded on the one, with the church founded on the other. When Christ came, the commonwealth was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The church [now made visible] remained. There was no external covenant, nor promise of external blessings, on condition of external rites, and subjection. There was a spiritual society, with spiritual promises, on condition of faith in Christ.” “The church is, therefore, in its essential nature, a company of believers, and not an external society, requiring merely external profession as the condition of membership. (Princeton Review, October, 1853)

Even somewhat sympathetic presbyterians immediately saw the implications. One commeter noted

How these views–of Hodge in particular–don’t surrender the fort to the baptists, I don’t see… Now the question is: how will it be addressed by Kline’s devotes?… I think I would be happy to understand exactly how the baptist gains no ground thereby… It’s confusing trying to answer a baptist who looks at you with a straight face and says, “If YOU only understood covenant theology, you’d realize I’m right. What don’t you understand about the eschatological prologue and intrusion ethics? I don’t have time to explain covenant theology to presbyterian beginners.” These days are already upon us.

In response, Clark doubled-down on the Abrahamic dichotomy.

Hodge is perfectly right to say that God made a temporary, national covenant with Moses. That temporary national covenant, which expired with the death of Christ, was the outworking of the land promises and the promise of a national people made to Abraham… [I]s it not the case that we should distinguish the land/inheritance promise from the spiritual promise (“I will be your God and your children’s God?”). If we can make that distinction then we can connect that aspect of the promise to Abraham to the national covenant in Moses. In other words, Hodge’s language, however incautious, is attempting to account for a real distinction.

Note that Clark typically says baptists err by “turning Abraham into Moses.” Yet here he acknowledges that the national, temporary, typological Old Covenant was rooted in God’s promise to Abraham. See my extended comments here.

Summary

Clark is caught between a rock and a hard place. He understands that properly recognizing the Mosaic Covenant as a typological covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan is essential to defending sola fide. But, as I have shown in a full-length critique of Clark’s covenant theology, his adoption of the subservient covenant view leads directly to 1689 Federalism. He has no defense against it. Perhaps that is why he insists on misrepresenting 1689 Federalism and keeping this blog hidden from his readers.

Further Reading:

Keach on Union with Christ

June 19, 2017 10 comments

Modern paedobaptsits have been arguing with eachother for decades about union with Christ. They each have a piece of the puzzle, but they can’t put the whole puzzle together because of their unbiblical covenant theology. The solution to the “union with Christ” conundrum is that union with Christ is the covenant of grace (new covenant). Here are some words from Keach (point 4), where he appeals to and quotes Nehemiah Coxe to explain New Covenant union.

Take heed on what you build your Hopes of Justification and Salvation, what is that which bears up your Spirits: for if you are Trees that grow not out of the true root, Jesus Christ, and the Covenant of Grace; if you have not Union with the Lord Jesus, or are not built on that Foundation, or Corner-stone God hath laid in Sion, down you fall; for now the ax is laid to the Root of the Trees…

Now, from the whole, it seems to me to be a strange Thing, which is lately asserted, viz.

‘That the Infant Seed of Believers, (during their Infancy) have all of them a certain Interest in the Covenant of Grace: By vertue of which, they are compleatly Justified before God, from the Guilt of Original Sin, both Originans, and Originations; and yet, when they come to Years of Discretion, may (yea must) by their actual closing with, or refusing the Terms of the Covenant, either obtain the continuation, and confirmation of their Covenant Interest, or be utterly, and finally cut off from it, and so perish Eternally in their Ignorance of God, and Rebellion against him.

Answer, To which I must say, That they seem to make the Covenant of Grace, such a Conditional Covenant, that renders it in Nature and Quality, like the Sinai Covenant, or Covenant of Works, i.e. If they perform the Righteousness required, they shall live; if they Obey not, or make not Good, this pretended Covenant of Grace, they shall dye, or be cut off: Let our Brethren, who are found in the Doctrine of Free-Grace, consider this.

2. And as the Promises of the New Covenant, will admit of no such partial Interest, (saith a Learned Author) so neither can this Opinion consist with the Analogy of Faith, in other Respects; for either the stain of Original Sin, in these Infants is purged, and the dominion of Concupiscence in them destroyed, when their Guilt is pardoned, or it is not; if it be, then the Case of these Infants, in point of Perseverance, is the same with Adult Persons, that are under Grace, by actual Faith; and then a final Apostacy, from the Grace of the New Covenant, must be allowed to befall the one, as well as the other, notwithstanding all Provisions of that Covenant, and Engagement of God therein, to make the Promise sure to all the Seed, Rom. 4:16.

But this the Author will not admit: If he say, That their Guilt is pardoned, but their Natures are not changed, or renewed, nor the Power of Original Corruption destroyed, so as that Sin, shall not have Dominion over them; it will be replyed, That then, notwithstanding their supposed Pardon, they remain as an unclean Thing, and so uncapable of admission into the Kingdom of God. Thus this worthy Author.

3. To which let me add, Certainly if Divine Habits were in those Infants, they would immediately be manifested; or be sure when they are grown up, would appear in them by gracious Operations flowing from thence: But since those Acts, or Products of such a gracious Habit, appear not in them, ’tis evident, they never had them infused.

4. All that are in the Covenant of Grace, (if they live) the Fruits of Faith and Holiness, will flow naturally from those sacred Habits, God hath by his spirit planted in them, as heat and light doth from the Fire, when ’tis kindled on the Hearth. The Truth is, such who are united to Christ, and have Faith in him, and so are actually in the Covenant of Grace, are also washed and purged from Sin, and Pollution, see Ezek. 16; Rom. 5:14; Act. 15:10. None can have Union with Christ, but by the in-dwelling of the Holy Spirit; and wheresoever the Spirit of Christ is, it applies, The Blood of the Covenant, not only for Pardon, but also for the purging the Conscience from dead Works, to serve the living God: ‘And therefore, (as the same Learned Author observes) as certain as any derive a New Covenant Right from Christ for Pardon, they also receive a vital Influence from him, for the renovation of their Natures, and conforming their Souls to his Image: Therefore, to assert, That the Grace of Christ, is applied to some, for remission of Sins only, or that the guilt of any Sin, can be pardoned to any Person, and yet that Sin retains its Dominion over them, is a Doctrine, I understand, not to be sound, or agreeable to the Doctrine that is according to Godliness.

Keach, B. (1693). Sermon III. In The Ax Laid to the Root, Parts I & II (Vol. 2, pp. 12–13). London: John Harris.

 

Compare the above with Coxe on New Covenant Union with Christ.

See also