Banner of Truth 2009 Pixs

My friend Mark took some great pictures at the Banner of Truth conference in PA! They said over 300 men attended the conference this year and the singing was phenomenal. Here's a clip of the singing here:




Sermons can be found here!







Alistair Begg up close!









I believe this was Mark's roommate at the conference. :o) The bow tie really stands out! :o)

Among my favorite speakers, Sinclair Ferguson! :o)

The Gospel, as it should be preached!

I really like this short video of Paul Washer's sermon. It pretty much summarizes a sermon he gave at a youth meeting.

This Paul Washer is almost like a modern day George Whitefield. :o) This is the way the Gospel should be preached!

The Scriptures states in Matthew 9:35-38

Jesus was going through all the cities and villages, teaching in their synagogues and proclaiming the gospel of the kingdom, and healing every kind of disease and every kind of sickness.

Seeing the people, He felt compassion for them, because they were distressed and dispirited like sheep without a shepherd.

Then He said to His disciples, "The harvest is plentiful, but the workers are few.

"Therefore beseech the Lord of the harvest to send out workers into His harvest.

I pray that the Lord would raise up more men like Paul Washer, who has the heart for the Gospel and for the lost. May we have the compassion that Christ felt for the lost.

PCRT 2009

Well it's that time of year again when the Alliance of Confessing Evangelicals have their yearly conference at the 10th Presbyterian in the city of brotherly love, Philadelphia, PA. This year's topic was on RIGHT WITH GOD: The Doctrine of Justification. I had known most of the speakers except Dr. Steve Lawson, which I thought was the best among them (the "new ones" always are!) but unfortunately did not find an opportunity to snap his picture! :o( Will need to look out for this Dr. Steve Lawson the next time he comes to the NorthEast.




Here's a quote from one of his sermons that stuck with me:

"Justification begins in the will and desire of God".
--- Steve Lawson.











Didn't take too many pictures of Philly because I honestly didn't have time, but here's the exterior of the historic 10th Presbyterian, which has been a beacon for the Gospel for many years in Philadelphia under the guidance of Dr. James Motgomery Boice (not to be mistaken with James P. Boyce who founded the Southern BAPTIST Theological Seminary, as Dr. Mohler reminded everyone there at the conference. :ob ), until the Lord called him home in 2000. The current pastor and also phenomenal preacher is Dr. Philip Ryken.










Here is Dr. Mohler with Dr. Philip Ryken at the platform of the church.


In the following pictures are the 3 great preachers, Dr. Mohler, Dr. Philip Ryken and Dr. Ligon Duncan. I had a great discussion with Dr. Ligon on church history in light of Justification. Cool man of God and was really blessed by his preaching. I hope to cross paths with him again!


Here are some pictures of the sanctuary at 10th Presbyterian. The worship service and sacred concert performed by the Tenth Church Choir and the Westminster Brass was phenomenal. I know some Reformed baptists seem to look down on choirs and instrument playing (which I really have not found to be unbiblical despite how many have tried to speak badly of it), but Dr. Mohler and Dr. Steve Lawson didn't seem to mind it and were rather blessed by it (as they thank those who performed) --- as were the rest of us! And it even got better when the whole church sang together along with their playing... it was like we were already in heaven singing before God! :o) Anyone who passed by the church during the singing had probably wondered what the joyous singing was all about! I've always been blessed by the music at this conference (and this is my only 2nd visit!). They are truly gifted and they do very much minster their gifts to us in reminding us God's truth through music.

Early Beach Day

The weather beckoned me to hit the coast today. So I headed out to Eastham, MA. I hope to do a better job at investigating the best beaches in MA for my friends this summer. Did not do a great job of it last year ... so I hope I'd do better this year. Fortunately beautiful weather has come to this place before summer officially arrives and the traffic jams to Cape Cod begins. Here are some of the pictures.




















It's pretty ... but I haven't quite found the big waves we have in Long Island. So will have to keep looking. Hopefully I'll find the right beach before my friends shows up at the door! :o)

Spring in the Air

Ahhhh Spring is in the air. I know that doesn't really mean much here in New England, but I had come across some pictures I took a couple years ago of my garden when the flowers had bloomed. It amazes me how the Lord's design is seen in even something as simple as a flower. I thought I'd share those pictures here. :o)

Baptist Defense and the word "Reformed"

Long story short, I was led to Dr. Clark's web blog when some Reformed baptists were complaining about some of the stuff he was writing about --- that is Dr. Clark feels that Baptists should be excluded from the Reformed circle based on his definition of what it means to be "Reformed" (Here, here, and here). Mainly Dr. Clark excludes Baptists because they don't embrace paedo-baptism. Against my better judgment, I ended up posting on Dr. Clark's blog, who latter challenged me on some of my statements. But before I could post my reply to Dr. Clark, my friend Steve (a.k.a. Martin Marprelate) pushed Dr. Clark buttons and motivated him to remove the privileges for anyone to post again (well at least anyone that would challenge his statements, so I'm guessing Steve and I are blacklisted!). So I never got a chance to post my reply to Dr. Clark! And don't worry Steve, I'm not blaming you! :o)

At my other friend's advice (Paul), he suggested that I should post it here on my blog, since I had already put in the effort of typing out my reply. Generally I just post pictures here. I normally don't have anything innovative to write about and I certainly don't want folks to get use to idea that you'd find anything interesting here on a daily basis(!). :ob So I'll go ahead and indulge you of my boring response to Dr. Clark:

Hi Dr. Clark,
sorry I had missed some of your earlier post. I had posted something for "Confessional Baptist", and didn't realized you had posted something in the middle of my editing and then I got tied up the rest of Saturday. No, I don't necessarily equate "Reformed" with "whatever Scriptures teaches". Scriptures stands in itself as the only truth by which any confession that claims to be Biblical must be tested against (my personal views included; this is why I don't hold to infant baptism!). But what concerns me is how you are defining "Reformed".

You have stated:
"No, Keach is not Reformed. He may have agreed with the Reformed on some important and necessary doctrines but he also denied an equally necessary and essential Reformed doctrines. On Baptism, anyone or any document or any assembly that denies the Reformed doctrine of baptism is not Reformed."

But how do you know that Keach wasn't considered "Reformed" (even among his paedobaptist brothers)? Are you the final authority on what reformed is? Did the paedobaptists at that time relayed to Keach that he is not considered reformed because he didn't believe in infant baptism? As I stated before that even Baxter in his letters had considered himself Reformed ... and yet I don't recall John Owen telling him specifically that he can't call himself "Reformed" ... though Owen (as well as Keach! Read up on his Marrow of True Justification!) thoroughly addressed Baxter's errors on the doctrine of Justification. I'm not justifying Baxter when bringing this up, but it does make one wonder what these dissenters of the 16th & 17th century thought of what it meant to be "Reformed". But I can guarantee you one thing, there doesn't seem to be much evidence that they made much of a fuss over the copyrights of the word, as you are doing. I guess they had bigger fishes to fry then. But really Dr. Clark, in light of eternity, what could possibly be gained in fighting over the copyrights of the word "Reformed". Is it really worth annihilating your baptist brothers (if you still also think of them as brothers? I sure hope so, because I do expect to see you in heaven in the future, despite our differing views on baptism), when there's much common ground in our beliefs, especially in the core faith? Having said that, I'm not suggesting that the Biblical understanding of baptism is not of importance. I just don't know if it's worth fighting over the copyrights of the word "Reformed".

Now, going on with your infant baptism defense you referred me to, you wrote:

"In the gospels our Lord Jesus left us two great signs to be observed until he returns, the Lord's Supper and Baptism.13 These two new covenant signs broadly correspond to the old covenant signs of circumcision and Passover.14 We call baptism and the Lord's supper covenant signs because that is what God himself calls them. They are signs of his covenant relationship to those he loves, his people."

I don't find any Scriptural justification of your assessment that baptism in the NT corresponds to circumcision in the OT. In fact when Paul had spoken of how there was no value in physical circumcision for the new believer in the letter to the Galatians, I find it rather telling that Paul never once in that letter, suggests that baptism now replaces circumcision. Of all places to make this connection between baptism and circumcision, you'd think he'd at least mention that right in the book of Galations, if such an assumption is true! But as it seems Paul did not and it places real doubt on whether your assumptions is correct. In fact there's nothing in Scripture that makes this connection. And yes, there is that infamous verse of Colossians 2:10-12 that many claims to make the connection between circumcision and baptism, but Paul clearly points out in those verses that this is not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ. In another words, Paul is speaking of the spiritual circumcision that happens in the heart, not the physical circumcision done to the male organ of procreation spoken of in Genesis 17. Paul is talking about regeneration --- the circumcision of the heart, which is not the same as Genesis 17, where it was clearly applied regardless of evidence of faith. And as you well know, without the evidence of faith, regeneration is not to be assumed.

You wrote:
"The Passover feast was restricted to those who are able to understand God's redeeming acts because it was a sign designed to nurture and lead to growth. It was not a sign of entrance into visible covenant assembly of God's people, but served as a means of renewing the covenant of grace."

According to Scriptures, the Lord never stated that the Passover was restricted to those who are able to "understand God's redeeming acts", so your assessment above is wrong. Those who participated in the Passover were both believers and unbelievers as noted in Exodus 12:3, when the Lord addressed the practice of the Passover to be told to "the whole community of Israel". And it is because of the practice of the Passover, that the plague passed the doors of the whole community of the nation Israel made of mixed believers and unbelievers (Exodus 12:12). This is same mixed multitudes of believers and unbelievers of the nation Israel that left Egypt and the same mixed multitude that would later grumble in the desert and create an idol in defiance to God.

So in your defense, it is your assumption that the manner of which circumcision and Passover were practiced in the OT should be modeled in the practices of the NT ordinances (baptism and the Lord's supper respectively)... that is according to Scriptures, those who participated in these OT practices were believers and unbelievers within Israel. And this is why you apply baptism to those in the physical church regardless of profession of faith. At the same time (ironically), you (an opponent of the Federal Vision) just made the defense for the FV'ers to also invite those who are "part" of the church regardless of professed of faith in Christ, to participate in the Lord's supper! As wrong as the FV'ers are on their doctrine, I'd say under your assumptions, the FV'ers are more consistent in their practices of these ordinances than you are (that is, you'd only allow believers to the Lord's supper). You are correct to ban those who have no evidence of spiritual regeneration from the Lord's table, but under your own assumptions of modeling after the practices of the OT into the NT ordinances, I find you inconsistent.

You wrote:
"The proper question therefore, is not where does Scripture explicitly teach infant baptism, but rather where does it reverse God's command to Abraham to administer the covenant sign and seal to children of believing parents."

Read Galatians. The sign of God's covenant to Abraham was circumcision applied to males only. As argued by Paul, the circumcision of the male's organ of procreation is of no value to the believer but so harms the Gospel if to be continued (Galatians 5:2). Did you ever ask yourself why the Lord chose the male organ of procreation as a sign to his covenant with Abraham? I understand that it was to separate Israel as a nation ... but why the male organ of procreation? The answer is --- Lineage. The Lord promised to Abraham that the Messiah would come from his line. This sign would point to Christ. And when the Messiah finally came, the practice was abrogated. This is not to say that the Covenant of Grace has ended, but only that the purpose of circumcision has finished (in that the sign itself would point to a descendant of Abraham who would be the promised Messiah) since the covenant the Lord made with Abraham has been fulfilled in Christ. The purpose of all the OT covenants were to "build up" to the manifestation of the Covenant of Grace, which is the New Covenant. Again, if baptism is the replacement of circumcision, Paul would have clearly mapped that out for the Galatians when he wrote his letter to the Galatians. But Paul did not. Your defense of making that connection between circumcision and baptism cannot hold water in light of the book of Galatians.

So now we're left with your defense by inference, which I've never been bought into it. I find it, inconclusive. The problem with defending purely by inferences (because the rest of the defense wasn't substantial), you can defend anything with it, but adds nothing to what you're actually trying to defend. It's the same argument evolutionists make when they have no evidence of the missing link! But this isn't the only reason why I don't find any Biblical support for infant baptism. What really convinces me of credo-baptism, is what Scriptures states in reference to Baptism. Every reference of baptism in the NT relates closely to soteriological terms that can only be true of believers ---

"having been buried with him [Christ] in baptism and raised with him through your faith",

"Or don't you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?",

"and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also --- not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God.",

etc.

No Dr. Clark, Scriptures clearly states that the ordinances of NT are for believers ONLY. With Scriptures like these, this "good and necessary inferences" that paedobaptists stand by is not really as good, nor necessary in light of Scriptures. Actually, it is bad. It is sacrilegious to suggest that apart from faith, unbelievers can have "some" connection with Christ's death or His resurrection. This is an insult to the Son of God. As we believe in the doctrines of Grace, the Lord only died for the elect. Unbelievers, who have no evidence of faith, does not reap any New Covenant blessings of Christ's work on the cross and hence should not be baptized.

Lastly, the seal of His saving grace in the New Covenant is not Baptism, it is the Holy Spirit (2 Cor 1:22, Eph 1:13, Eph 4:30). This is why the New Covenant is like no other covenant, in that it can never be broken as stated in Jeremiah, since it is the Holy Spirit who is the seal/deposit of our faith, seals the elect to this covenant. This is what makes Perseverance of the Saints possible! It's the seal of the Lord through His Holy Spirit that keeps us in the covenant! It is not by choice, nor any parent's beliefs. It is this regeneration by the Holy Spirit, that grants one membership to the New Covenant and is made evident by the fruits of the Spirit. As John notes, "But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to become children of God, to those who believe in His name: who were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."

Jade

And Dr. Clark, if you're reading this, I want you to know that you're always welcome to post here. I won't lock this thread or any thread just because I might not have an answer to your defense or to anyone that would challenge my Biblical understanding ... the way I see it, the truth will always be made evident in the eyes of believers.

Covenant Theology - Covenant of Grace vs Covenant of Works

When I first ventured into Covenant Theology (CT) and interacted with reformed Baptists on the BDR forum (unfortunately that thread is no longer accessible) which seems like eons ago, I was a bit skeptical of systemizing God's covenants. But in hindsight, if I believe that all the covenants did not come about haphazardly and that the Lord had ordained this since the beginning of time, then there must be a system to be discovered by which these covenants were specifically designed for.

I'm not going to use this specific post to lay out what Covenant Theology is, but rather to use this as the medium to continue my discussions with a group of friends on this topic. What I'm finding among reformed folks are varying understandings of the two of the three (albeit, some folks do not distinguish the difference between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption) main entities that make up the framework of Covenant Theology, which are the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. These covenants are often termed as overarching theological covenants, in a sense that the terms themselves are not found in the Bible but cover over a series of covenants found in the Bible.

It is my understanding that the Covenant of Works was made in the Garden of Eden between God and Adam (Genesis 2:15) and the Covenant of Grace covers all(?) the covenants that God made with man beyond Genesis 2. Now I say all with a question mark because there seems to be an ongoing debate on where the Mosaic Covenant falls. In my initial exposure of CT I have found that the role of the Mosaic Covenant plays in CT is interpreted differently between Reformed paedobaptists and Reformed baptists. It is my understanding that the Reformed paedobaptists views the Mosaic Covenant as part of the Covenant of Grace, whereas Reformed baptists are rather split on this issue. Clearly there are some differences in how Reformed Baptists and Reformed paedobaptists view Covenant Theology by just viewing the differences between the Westminister Confession and the London Baptist Confession, particular in the sections of "Of God's Covenant" ... what exactly that difference is, I'm still trying to figure out. This debate is generally centered on Hebrews 8-10 where Paul discusses the differences between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant. This concept of unifying the covenants under the Covenant of Grace has led the paedobaptists to tie the Old Testament covenants and New Covenant so closely that they have viewed the Old Testament covenants as a model to the New Covenant. This is their justification for applying the sign or symbol of the New Covenant (water baptism) in the same manner that circumcision was applied in the Abrahamic covenant (applied to all under the household ... well in this case males only ... regardless of faith). As it seems the overarching nature of the Covenant of Grace is carried too far to the point of neglecting what the New Testament speaks concerning the nature and application of baptism.

Among the articles that was referred to me on the BDR discussion was Dr. Masters' article, titled Perfect and Faulty Covenants. Needless to say, this article created more questions for me than answers I had sought for. I was a bit confused by this article because it is as if Dr. Masters had portrayed the Mosaic Covenant as falling under the Covenant of Works. I wondered if I had misread Dr. Masters paper because a friend who studied under Masters has drawn this CT diagram of the covenants and it is to my understanding that he agrees with Dr. Masters, and yet he didn't draw the Mosaic Covenant falling under the Covenant of Works. Out of curiosity I referred other Reformed baptists to this article and they too thought that Dr. Masters categorized the Mosaic Covenant as the Covenant of Works. One Reformed baptist (Paul) has given me permission to post his reply to me concerning Dr. Masters' article:

Hmmm, thought-provoking I'll say that.

I've haven't fully digested the article but I'll try and study it more in the next couple of days. At first glance there is much I agree with, but there are one or two things I think I would question.

This phrase struck me,

"The new covenant is that which we call the covenant of grace, which stands in opposition to the original covenant of works made with Adam."

I don't think I would be comfortable saying that the new covenant is the covenant of grace....no doubt about it the New Covenant is the completion of, most clear manifestation of, the climax of God's covenantal dealings with man....i.e it is the Covenant of Grace at it's fullest and most complete revelation, but to say that the NC is (=) CofG seems to suggest that it and it alone is a/the revelation/administration/revelation of the CofG, maybe that's not being fair to Masters, but that was my first thought.

Secondly, while it is true that the WCF Unity of the Covenant paragraph was dropped, I think it would be wrong to say that the idea of some unity of the covenants has been removed...Sam Waldron refers to the relationships between the covenants as organic unity. My criticism of the Presbyterian view is that over-emphasie the continuity and unity of the covenants, but that is not to say that there is no unity. I think Sam's view is slightly different from Fred Malone's which may be slightly more emphatic in expressing discontinuity.

I don't see how we can understand the BCF as teaching anything other than a unity of some kind between the covenants and that that unity is in some way related to what has been called different administrations...i.e. all the covenants are different and further revelations or administrations of the Covenant of Grace...

Thus we read in 7:2

2. Moreover Man having brought himself 119under the curse of the Law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace wherein he freely offereth unto Sinners,120Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved; and 121promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal Life, his holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

Notice Covenant of Grace singular....and then the following paragraph described that singular Covenant.....

3. This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; by the 122seed of the woman, and first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvationafterwards by farther steps, untill the full 123discovery thereof was compleated in the new Testament; and it is founded in that 124Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were 125saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

Again surely the farther steps are the later covenants and if the Mosaic was excluded perhaps the authors would have said so.

A bigger problem I have is that if the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Works, which would kind of follow from the Doc's position, then obedience would have achieved salvation (as it would in the Garden, that however cannot be because in Hebrews 10:1-4 we specifically read that obedience to the law did not remove or deal with sin....

Hebrews 10:1-4 “1 For the law, having a shadow of the good things to come, and not the very image of the things, can never with these same sacrifices, which they offer continually year by year, make those who approach perfect. 2 For then would they not have ceased to be offered? For the worshipers, once purified, would have had no more consciousness of sins. 3 But in those sacrifices there is a reminder of sins every year. 4 For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins.”

Of course Masters, I assume paraphrasing Owen, agrees with that....

"In short, the covenant made on Sinai declared the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation and peace with God any other way but by the promise of grace made previously to Abraham. In representing the commands of the covenant of works, requiring perfect, sinless obedience, and threatening the penalty of the curse, it was designed to convince men that this was no way for them to seek life and salvation. And so it challenged men's consciences, insisting that they would have no rest nor peace apart from what the promise would give them."

But is it not that very symbolism and teaching aspect of the Mosaic covenant that shows that there is a intrinsic association and unity with the Covenant of Grace as it reveals the need of Christ and as it foreshadows and points to Christ?

So I suppose in answer to your question, I would say at this stage I don't think I would agree.....not with this statement at least, which seems novel,

"This was nothing less than a revival of the covenant of works. Furthermore, this covenant of Sinai had no gracious promise of eternal life joined to it."

Does the Abrahamic covenant have an explicit gracious promise of eternal life joined to it? Or the Davidic, or the Noahic?..they of course do but not in comparison to the New Covenant as expressed in Jeremiah 31 anyway. I think the Mosaic was gracious in that it restrained sin and pointed to the need of a Saviour.

The phrase "revival of the covenant of works" suggests to me that that covenant was in force again..obey and live.....but that is definitely not what the Mosaic covenant was about (see Hebrews 10:1-4).

Indeed as I looked through the article again this paragraph to my (admittedly tired) mind appears to be at odds with the last paragraph I quoted:

"In short, the covenant made on Sinai declared the impossibility of obtaining reconciliation and peace with God any other way but by the promise of grace made previously to Abraham. In representing the commands of the covenant of works, requiring perfect, sinless obedience, and threatening the penalty of the curse, it was designed to convince men that this was no way for them to seek life and salvation. And so it challenged men's consciences, insisting that they would have no rest nor peace apart from what the promise would give them."

How can something that is a "revival of the covenant of works" at the same time declare the necessity of grace through the promises made through Abraham?

A little puzzling?

What are your thoughts?

Paul

Plenty of thoughts Paul and hence this post! :o) What I hope to do here is attempt to answer some of your questions. I hope the other folks that I've invited would join in, to help shed light in what Reformed baptists believe concerning God's covenants.

Here's some answers to your question:

1. Though I can't speak personally for Dr. Masters, I'm sure that when Dr. Masters conveyed that the "New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace", what he probably meant is that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace manifested. :o) Just as you stated. And I think he seems to make a similar mistake when he implies that the Mosaic Covenant falls under the Covenant of Works. Recently, I came across this article by Richard Barcellos, titled John Owen and New Covenant Theology, in where he speaks of John Owen's view concerning Hebrews 8-10. Though this article is largely about how NCT advocators (Reisenger and Wells) have misunderstood John Owen's understanding of the Mosaic and the New Covenant, NCT is not really what I want to focus on for this discussion (that's another separate discussion!). I know for certain that Dr. Masters is not an NCT advocator :o) and so it is safe to assume that what Rich wrote concerning his views of what John Owen meant in his understanding of the two covenants is probably what Dr. Masters hoped to convey in his article ... but maybe failed to do so (did that last sentence make sense to you, or was it too long?). :o) For instance Rich wrote (emphasis mine):

Owen did not view the old Covenant as a covenant of works in itself. He viewed it as containing a renewal of the original covenant of works imposed upon Adam in the Garden of Eden ...

Rich further wrote:

Reisinger appears to make the Old Covenant the first covenant of works, something Owen clearly denies. Reisinger also appears to make the Old Covenant contain in itself the promise of eternal life and the thread of eternal condemnation, thus necessitating Christ's obedience to it. Owen denies both of these ideas, saying:

This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was "the ministry of condemnation," 2 Cor. iii. 9; for "by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified." And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.

A little futher down Rich explains a bit more of Owen's view on the two covenants where he wrote:

In Sinclair Ferguson's John Owen on the Christian Life, cited by Wells in the Reisinger pamphlet, Ferguson also calls Owen's position on the Old Covenant a mediating position. But Ferguson's explanation of Owen's mediating position does not have to do with the relationship between the law of the Old Covenant and the Law of Christ (as per Wells above). In fact, Ferguson does not even discuss this matter in this section of his book. Instead, Ferguson's understanding of Owen's mediating position has to do with the nature and function of the Old Covenant and its relation the Adamic covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and the New Covenant. Unlike others, Owen did not believe the the Old Covenant was a covenant of works in itself or simply an administration of the covenant of grace. In Ferguson's words:

Sinai should not then be thought of as the covenant of works; but Sinai does involve a renewal of the principles which partly constituted the covenant of works. On the other hand, the Sinai covenant cannot be thought of as the covenant of grace.

His [Owen's] conclusion then is that the Sinaitic covenant revived the commands, sanctions and promises of the covenant of works, and that when the apostle Paul disputes about works or law-righteousness it is the renovation of the Edenic covenant in the Sinaitic covenant he has in mind. Sinai therefore is a 'particular, temporary covenant ... and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace.'

So what are your thoughts of these statements and that article? Is Dr. Masters' view really as novel as you say it is? But the real question is, is John Owen's assessment consistent with Scriptures. :o) As a Reformed Baptist, do you align with John Owen's view on this?

2. You have stated:

But is it not that very symbolism and teaching aspect of the Mosaic covenant that shows that there is a intrinsic association and unity with the Covenant of Grace as it reveals the need of Christ and as it foreshadows and points to Christ?

Yes it does. The Mosaic Covenant was to be the handmaid of the Gospel. It would lead men to Christ but only in that the covenant revealed sin and the difficulty of fulfilling its requirements. But this covenant that in itself is not gracious. The Mosaic Covenant was designed to show how far man fell from the requirements of God. No man could fulfill the requirements of this covenant but Christ himself. It was never designed so that man could succeed in fulfilling it, but only Christ. And it certainly laid up the ground work for Christ's life and mission.

You have stated:

Does the Abrahamic covenant have an explicit gracious promise of eternal life joined to it? Or the Davidic, or the Noahic?..they of course do but not in comparison to the New Covenant as expressed in Jeremiah 31 anyway. I think the Mosaic was gracious in that it restrained sin and pointed to the need of a Saviour.

I think what separates the covenants you've mentioned from the Mosaic, is that they spoke of a promise that required faith. I can't say the same for the Mosaic Covenant. What I find common with Genesis 2:15 and the Mosaic Covenant is they follow the same basic command --- "Do this and live".

I don't know that the Mosaic Covenant necessarily restrained sin. It's not gracious in the same way the other Covenants were. Earlier covenants were gracious, because they required nothing by those to whom the covenant was made with, other than to believe. But the Mosaic Covenant required obedience to the law and because it was impossible to comply, it brought death.

It states in Romans 7:8-13,

But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

That doesn't sound gracious to me. It brought death. Granted that the law itself is good, the sin in us seized the opportunity and brought about death. Did that caught God by surprise? No. He designed it exactly as it should, to show the sinfulness of man.

Just as God setup the stage in Genesis 2:15 by which Adam would fall, so God had setup a similar stage when He presented the Mosaic Covenant, by which Christ would succeed --- that is in fulfilling the passive and active obedience of the law. Yes, it was a covenant made with Israel, but also by which Christ was bound by. Because of the covenant made between the God heads (Covenant of Redemption), the elect would inherit the blessings of Christ's passive and active obedience of the law, where faith is only required for the elect (now this is gracious!). But this blessing/inheritance is the New Covenant. As it states in Romans 5:17-21,

For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.

Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous. Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The grace it mentions is not in reference to the Mosaic Covenant but to the New Covenant. What I find in these verses is the contrast between the law (Mosaic Covenant) and the grace found in the New Covenant.


Let me just say more one thing --- the danger I see in systemizing God's covenants, is how we constraint ourselves in this man made framework call Covenant Theology. The sense that I get from some reformed folks is this need to have every covenant beyond Genesis 2, to fall under this "Covenant of Grace". The data (which is the Scriptures) should be governing the framework, not vice versa. It's not to say that I have chucked CT out the window ... but we shouldn't restrained ourselves on this idea that every covenant beyond Genesis 2 MUST fall under the Covenant of Grace. Yes I believe every covenant was design to lay the foundations for the coming Messiah, but let's give ourselves a little wiggle room as far as how each covenant should be interpreted. This is the apprehension I have in labeling these covenants under theological concepts created by man, because there's a great danger of being faulty. There's no reason why we should force every covenant to fit in this Covenant of Grace. Anomalies are even common within His creation, so why not have a covenant that differs from the rest? My idea of formulating such a system, is to have the freedom to reform it closer and closer to the truth, regardless of what CT might have been historically.