SRR 90 A Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian Debate

I do a podcast.

I'm not interested in your podcast. The anathema of God was for those who denied justification by faith alone. When that is at stake, we need to be on the battlefield, exposing the ear and combating the ear.

We are unabashedly, unashamedly Clarkian. And so, the next few statements that I'm going to make, I'm probably going to step on all of the Vantillian toes at the same time. And this is what we do at Simple Riff around the radio, you know.

We are polemical and polarizing Jesus style.

I would first say that to characterize what we do as bashing is itself bashing. It's not hate. It's history. It's not bashing. It's the Bible. Jesus said, Woe to you when men speak well of you, for their fathers used to treat the false prophets in the same way, as opposed to blessed are you when you have been persecuted for the sake of righteousness.

It is on. We're taking the gloves off. It's time to battle.

Podcast Introduction and Sponsor Plugs

All right. I want to welcome everybody back to the podcast. My name is Tim, and you are listening to Semper Reformanda Radio. So, I've got two very special guests with me right now. And I'm going to introduce you to them in a little bit, and we've got a very good episode.

But before we do that, I want to make two plugs here. The first thing I want to do is promote a new series that Timothy Kaufman is doing. And many of you know Timothy Kaufman. He's a longtime friend and contributor to the podcast and also to the network.

I highly recommend his stuff, and I want to promote this new series he's doing. The series is titled The Diving Board, in which Tim is jumping, figuratively speaking, from the diving board into the deep end of history to show that many Roman Catholic apologists and many Roman Catholic converts are merely swimming in the shallow ends of the kiddie pool when they speak of history.

We often hear Roman Catholic apologists claim that the Roman Catholic Church can trace its roots all the way back to the early church fathers and the beginnings of the church. They claim that to be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.

And while many of these Roman Catholic apologists will claim that the Evangelical Protestant faith is a novelty of the early part of the 16th century, it is actually the Roman Catholic faith that is a novelty of the latter part of the 4th century.

The Protestant church needs to be aware of these false claims and needs to be equipped to deal with them. Well, Timothy Kaufman is just the man to equip you. For example, I was recently told by Roman Catholic apologists that all of the early church fathers believed that Mary, the mother of Jesus, was sinless.

However, Timothy Kaufman has rightly pointed out in the past that Mary's sinlessness was not proposed as an idea until 373 AD. It has no historical basis prior to the latter part of the 4th century. Furthermore, her Domitian and Assumption find no historical basis until the 5th or 6th century.

Her Immaculate Conception was not even defined as formal dogma until, get this, 1854 AD. And her bodily assumption into heaven was not formalized as dogma until 1950. So, obviously, when they claim that all of the early church fathers believed these things, they're not representing history accurately.

Well, Timothy Kaufman has put out two episodes in which he goes over statements and arguments made by Father Ray Ryland. And what you're going to see is that Ray Ryland is a bit of a historical revisionist when he's trying to defend the Roman Catholic faith.

If you listen to these two episodes, you're going to understand very quickly that Timothy Kaufman is a first-rate historian and a first-rate theologian. I can't recommend this series to you enough, and I want all of our listeners to be sure to check it out.

Tim is diving from the diving board into the deep end of history. The other plug that I want to make is I want to... I'm going to have to tell my friend Colleen Sharp that she's going to have to rebrand her podcast because I want to recommend people to one of the episodes that she did, one of the most recent episodes that she did.

The episode is titled Federal Vision with Dewey Roberts Part 1. Part 2, I think, is going to come out next week. I'm not really sure what days they drop, but I do subscribe to them. I got this yesterday.

I listened to it yesterday. It's very, very good. It's episode number 76. Theology Gals is a podcast that's done by women and for women, but this is a great episode. I think that everybody needs to be informed about the Federal Vision heresy.

Dewey Roberts does call it heresy. He's extremely knowledgeable, from what I gather. He just published a book. You can find out more information from Theology Gals. I want to just go ahead and plug that to our listeners.

Be sure to check them out. I'm recommending this to men as well. This is a great episode. Colleen, you might have to rebrand. I know it's a podcast for women, by women, but this is a really great episode.

Everybody should check it out. Let's go ahead and get started with today's episode. We are going to be talking about baptism. Well, correction here. I'm not going to be talking about baptism. I brought on two very special guests to talk about baptism.

The first person that I want to reintroduce to the podcast is Pastor Patrick Hines. Now, this is just a formality. Pastor Hines really doesn't need an introduction, but maybe you're listening to the podcast for the first time.

Pastor Hines does the Protestant Witness Podcast. He's got some really, really good episodes. If you haven't heard his episode on the Revoice Conference, that is an extremely good episode. I want to encourage everybody to listen to that.

Pastor Hines is part of the network I found out about Pastor Hines through Tom Giuditis from the Trinity Foundation. Pastor Hines has been a tremendous blessing to us here at Thorn Crown Ministries. I can't say enough about him.

Pastor Hines, let me give you an opportunity to introduce yourself. Just in case, as I said before, maybe it's somebody's first time listening to the podcast, I want them to get to know you. Can you just tell us a little bit about yourself?

Yeah, sure. My name is Patrick Hines. I'm originally from Cincinnati, Ohio. That's where I've lived the majority of my 43 years thus far. About six years ago, I moved to northeast Tennessee to take a Presbyterian PCA church down here.

I was a pastor at a Presbyterian church in Cincinnati for four years. I was also an elder there for six other years outside of those four years. Then I've been here for the last six years. Now I'm the pastor of Bridal Heights Presbyterian Church.

Things are going well here. My 10th child is due in December. That's about it. I'm not an overly interesting person, but I appreciate your kind words, Timothy, for sure.

All right. Thank you for the introduction, Pastor Hines. It is a pleasure to have you on the podcast again. My next guest, his name is Brandon Adams. Brandon, I'm not really sure if you're the CEO or general manager.

Well, I guess you're more than the general manager. Brandon is the president or CEO of the website 1689federalism .com. Is that correct?

Yeah, I'm just the guy that puts forward what everybody else says. I just kind of collect it all together on the website there. I guess that's the best description.

Well, I heard about you, Brandon, first when we started to deal with New Covenant Theology. That's how I found your website. I want to recommend all of our listeners to check it out. Brandon is new to the podcast.

He's never been on with us. It's a real pleasure to have him here with us to talk about baptism and covenant theology with Pastor Hines. Brandon, for our listeners who may not know who you are, can you just give us a brief introduction about yourself?

Sure. I grew up in Idaho. I went to school down in California and started attending a Reformed Baptist church plant down there. It turned out to be Reformed Baptist. I didn't know what that was at the time, but I was introduced to expositional preaching and really heard the gospel presented in detail there.

I was saved under that ministry and was baptized there. My wife was as well. We went to school together. We got married and stuck around there in Southern California for a few more years, about ten years in total.

Then eventually made our way back up here to Washington State where we've been for about four years. We have two boys, five and eight. I run a small video production company doing corporate videos. That's me in a nutshell.

Framing the Debate on Baptism and Covenant Theology

Well, Brandon, again, I appreciate you coming on to talk with us today. We're going to just jump right into this. Let me go ahead and let everybody know what the general outline is. This is going to be an informal debate slash discussion.

I do want both of these men to start off with a positive case for their position. We're going to start off with Pastor Hines. He can have up to 20 minutes to just make a positive case for his position.

Then we're going to ask Brandon to follow up with a positive case for his position. Brandon Adams is a Reformed Baptist and Pastor Hines is a Presbyterian. Initially, we wanted to talk about baptism. From what I understand, they're also going to talk a lot about covenant theology.

That really shapes the way in which each side sees baptism. After that, we're just going to go into a discussion. Now, I'm going to sit back. I'm not going to get involved. I really don't like when I see the moderator or the person who's just facilitating the discussion take sides.

Then you have a discussion with two people versus one. I'm not going to get involved. I think both of these guys are well-equipped to discuss the topic at hand. I'm just going to remind them in the background about time issues or just try to direct the conversation if needed.

Again, I want to say thank you to both of you. Pastor Hines, we'll just hand it off to you to get us started.

Okay, sure. Before I push start, I just wanted to thank Brandon for speaking with me on the phone yesterday. I really enjoyed talking to him. I watched your little short on YouTube called Useless. It was just great.

I just loved it. I forwarded it to my whole family. Really great presentation of mercy and the gospel. A really, really remarkable job, Brandon. You're a really unique and very gifted filmmaker. I just wanted to say that to you.

Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace, and the Abrahamic Promise

All right. You guys ready? I'm ready to go. I'm pushing start now. There are two primary covenants in Scripture. The Covenant of Works, wherein life is promised to Adam and end him to his posterity upon a condition of perfect and personal obedience.

And then the Covenant of Grace. Westminster Confession of Faith 7 .3 says that after man fell, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace, wherein he freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe.

The one Covenant of Grace was administered differently before and after the coming of Christ. Westminster Confession Chapter 7 ends with the excellent summary, quote,. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations, end quote.

Those are the grand organizing principles of God's Word. Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace. There is one gospel in Scripture and only one. One church in Scripture and only one. Stephen called Israel in the wilderness the Ekklesia, the church, the congregation, in Acts chapter 7, verse 38.

This one gospel was preached to Abraham as Paul teaches us in Galatians 3 .8, and the Scripture preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, In you all the nations shall be blessed,. Genesis 12, verse 3 is cited there.

The gospel, this one and only gospel, was also preached to Israel, Hebrews 4 .2, for indeed the gospel was preached to us as well as to them. Jesus taught us specifically and clearly what it was that Abraham himself was looking forward to.

John 8 .56, Jesus said, Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it and was glad. And Hebrews chapter 11 tells us that Abraham and the Old Testament saints were looking forward to heaven itself, to the city that has foundation, whose builder and maker is God.

John the Baptist also taught that in the ultimate sense, one could not be born into the Abrahamic covenant, and he sternly warned people against thinking that they could be born into it. He said in Matthew 3 .9,.

And do not think to say to yourselves, we have Abraham as our father, for I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. From the beginning, there has always been one and only one way of being made right with God, justification by grace alone, through faith alone, on account of Christ alone.

What Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and all of the Old Testament church believed was the exact same gospel message that we believe today. The only difference between them and us is this, how much they knew about that gospel.

That's why Jesus said, Abraham was looking forward to my day. He saw it and was glad. We know much more about the gospel than they do, but it is still the same gospel, the same way of justification, the same promises, and the same fulfillment of those promises.

Paul keys in on this central text, Genesis 15 .6, Abraham's justification repeatedly in Romans and Galatians. That text says,. And he believed in the Lord, and he accounted it to him for righteousness.

The call of Abraham brought about an advance in the one covenant of grace that was definitive for all time to come. In the Gospel of Luke, both Zacharias, John the Baptist's father, and Mary herself, both see the conception and birth of Jesus as the direct fulfillment of the gospel promise made to Abraham.

Mary says in her Magnificat in Luke 1 .54,. He has helped us serve in Israel in remembrance of his mercy as he spoke to our fathers, to Abraham and to his seed forever. Zacharias in his Benedictus says in Luke 1 .72,.

God also promised land to Abraham and his descendants, but there's a great error in the thinking of Reformed Baptists on this point. David Kingdon and Fred Malone say,. But not even Pierre Marcel would insist that the infant seed of believers are now promised this, end quote.

But of course, Marcel, Burkoff, Raymond, Dabney, Calvin, Warfield, the Hodges, Miller, and all the rest of us would insist this and should insist this. We are given this land promise because my ten children and, Lord willing, their children are heirs of the land promise, if they believe.

The fulfillment of the land promise is revealed in the New Testament as not limited to the typological land of Canaan as it was prior to the coming of Christ, but to the entire redeemed created cosmos.

Romans 8 .21 and following and Romans 4 .13, Paul says,. David Kingdon and Fred Malone both argue, along with Paul Jewett, that every Israelite was entitled to the land of Canaan by birth regardless of their spiritual relation to God.

This is false. The entire generation of Israel that came out of Egypt in the Exodus died in the wilderness, with two exceptions, Joshua and Caleb. And why? Why did they not inherit the land of Canaan if, as Kingdon, Malone, and Jewett argue, they were entitled to it by birth?

They didn't enter because they did not believe. They did not have faith. Hebrews 3 .18,. So we see that they could not enter in because of unbelief. You didn't get justification or the land without faith.

Not a single promise God made Abraham, not one, was guaranteed by birth. One received neither justification nor the land without faith. The Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant are, as Louis Burkhoff says in his Systematic Theology, essentially identical in the following way.

The unity and continuity of the covenant in both dispensations follows from the fact that the mediator is the same, the condition is the same, namely faith, and the blessings are the same, namely justification, regeneration, spiritual gifts, and eternal life.

Peter gave those who were under conviction on the Day of Pentecost the assurance that the promise was unto them and to their children, Acts 2 .39. Paul argues in Romans 4 .13 -18 and Galatians 3 .13 -18 that the giving of the law did not make the promise of none effect so that it still holds in the new dispensation.

And the writer of Hebrews points out that the promise to Abraham was confirmed with an oath so that New Testament believers may derive comfort from its immutability, Hebrews 6 .13 -18. This is why we cannot and we must not look at the New Covenant as a difference in kind.

Rather, it is a difference in degree of knowledge. We know more about the one true gospel that, as Paul says, was preached to Abraham, as Hebrews says, was preached to Israel. We know more about it than the people did prior to the coming of Christ, but it was still the coming of Christ that their faith was in.

Paul hammers this point as hard as possible in Romans 4. Abraham was justified by faith alone in the gospel prior to the giving of the law, Romans 4 .1 -5. David was justified by faith alone in the gospel after the giving of the law but prior to the coming of Christ, Romans 4 .6 -11.

Just as we ourselves are justified by faith alone after the coming of Christ. Every believer, before and after the coming of Christ, had their faith in Christ, as Jesus said in John 8 .56. And all believers fulfill directly the Abrahamic covenant.

Count the stars if indeed you can, God told Abraham in Genesis chapter 15. So shall your descendants be. Paul quotes that passage in Romans 4 saying this refers to every single true believer for all time.

One gospel, one people, one way of salvation, one covenant of grace. And the visible church has always included professing believers and their children, their households. This holds true before and after the coming of Christ.

Now Hebrews chapter 8 is critically important in terms of our understanding of the new covenant and its contrast with what that passage in Jeremiah 31 calls the old covenant. Brandon in his video made the very serious error of arguing that the Abrahamic covenant is actually part of the old covenant.

Hebrews 6 .13 -18 is quite clear, however, that not only is the Abrahamic covenant based upon an oath sworn by God, but it is also immutable. It is not subject to change in any way. It can't expire or be modified.

Paul agrees with this in Galatians 3 .15 -18 when he said that the giving of the law in no way altered the promise made previous to Abraham and is, in point of fact, fulfilled in Jesus Christ entering the very presence of God behind the veil as our high priest in the order of Melchizedek.

But the most serious error in conflating the Abrahamic covenant with the Mosaic slash Sinaitic covenant, what Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 calls the old covenant, the most serious error in conflating the Abrahamic covenant and the old covenant is the very last verse of Hebrews chapter 8.

Verse 13 says, quote,. In that he says a new covenant, he has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away. Folks, Paul said that the Abrahamic covenant is the gospel, Galatians 3 .8.

If the Abrahamic covenant is part of the old covenant, as Brandon says, then we are left with the intolerable error that the gospel is growing old, obsolete, and is ready to vanish away. Jeremiah 31 verses 31 -34, which is cited in Hebrews 8, is that grand prophecy of the new covenant.

It is not like the covenant, singular, which God made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt. This is the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant, the old covenant.

This is the giving of the law. The old covenant spoken of in Jeremiah 31 is not the Abrahamic promise. These are not one covenant. Rather, as Paul teaches in Galatians 4 .21 -31, they are, as he says specifically, two covenants.

Galatians 4 .21, Tell me, you who desire to be under the law, do you not hear the law? For it is written that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondwoman, the other by a free woman. But he who was of the bondwoman was born according to the flesh, and he of the free woman through promise.

Which things are symbolic? For these are the two covenants. The one from Mount Sinai. Folks, that's what Jeremiah 31 is talking about, Hebrews 8 is talking about. Which gives birth to bondage, which is Hagar.

For this Hagar is Mount Sinai in Arabia and corresponds to Jerusalem, which now is, and is in bondage with her children. But the Jerusalem above is free, which is the mother of us all. Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are children of promise.

Nevertheless, what does the scripture say? Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman. So then, brethren, we are not children of the bondwoman, but of the free.

This argument in Galatians 4, 21 -31 makes absolutely no sense if the Abrahamic covenant and the Old Covenant are the same covenant. If they are one covenant and not two covenants, as Paul specifically says.

To assert that the Old Covenant and the Abrahamic covenant are the same covenant destroys Paul's entire explication of justification by faith alone on the basis of the promise to Abraham and not the law given at Sinai.

The law, Paul says in Romans 4, 15, brings about wrath. And that's why he says in Romans 4, 16,. Therefore justification is of faith that it might be according to grace so that the promise might be sure to all to see.

Not only to those who are of the law, meaning Jews, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all. Now what does this have to do with baptism? Everything. Everything. Genesis 17 is the passage in which God institutes the sign of circumcision as the sign of the gospel that Paul, Jesus, John the Baptist, and all New Testament writers tell us plainly that Abraham believed.

Genesis 17, verse 6,. As an everlasting possession, and I will be their God. God said to Abraham,. And listen closely to verse 12. Paul's own understanding of circumcision is vitally important as all of us are bound to agree with him since he is an author of inspired scripture.

Romans 2, 28,. How can the new covenant be the only covenant in which regeneration is promised when circumcision is a sign of heart circumcision, which means regeneration prior to the institution of the new covenant.

Paul says in Romans 4, 11,. Far from being a mere temporal sign of earthly blessings, circumcision was the sign and seal of the highest spiritual blessing God gives to sinners, regeneration and justification by faith.

As Paul says, it is circumcision of the heart that it's a sign of. And this is not a new covenant spin on circumcision. Circumcision was always a sign of regeneration and personal justification. Deuteronomy 10, 16, Jeremiah 4, 4,.

Circumcise yourselves to the Lord and take away the four skins of your hearts. Circumcision is a sign of regeneration. I have heard many Baptists assert that circumcision is a foreshadowing of regeneration.

But as many times as I have heard this, I have never heard a text cited in support of it. Brandon, in his video response to me, made the assertion that circumcision is not what Paul says it is in Romans 4, 11, but rather is, quote,.

No biblical texts were provided to substantiate this. And I really wondered how circumcision could be an oath to keep the law perfectly when it was instituted 430 years before the law was even given. Surely we're not going to be told that it was an oath to keep the law of God written on the heart or something like that.

If so, based upon what text of scripture. But let's now focus on the last couple of minutes upon one of the key differences between us. We have profound differences in our ecclesiologies, our doctrines of the church.

We do not believe the visible church is defined in the same way. I, as a Presbyterian, believe the visible church is all who profess the true religion together with their children. And that only believers, upon profession of faith, ought to be baptized and then their households as well.

Baptists hold that the visible church is those who profess the true religion, period. And therefore, only professing believers ought to be baptized. This is, of course, a radical termination. Not a mere modification, mind you.

But a termination of the principle that the visible church would include professing believers in their households. And this would have caused an incredible stir among God's people had it been the case.

We believe the 2 ,000-year-old household principle, believers and their children, carries very clearly into the New Covenant era. There is, I would assert, no evidence of any kind that this principle established and commanded by God himself has changed.

And there is, in fact, much positive evidence that it has continued. In Genesis 17, 6 -12, I just read that whole passage. You have the institution of the sign of circumcision. Abraham believes and then is circumcised as a sign of his justification by faith, Romans 4 -11.

Now, had Abraham been thinking like a Baptist, he would no doubt have objected to God's insistence that this sign of justification be given to his infants who lack the mental capacity or physical capacity to make a profession of faith.

So why did Abraham circumcise his infants and give them this sign of personal justification by faith? Because God told him to. The appendix to the 1689 London Baptist Confession asserts the following about circumcision.

Therefore circumcision was of right to cease when the Gentiles were brought in to the faith. This is also clearly, biblically, an error. Recall that when the 10th plague is about to happen, God institutes the Passover.

And a provision is made for Gentiles to join themselves to the church and to partake the Passover. Listen closely. This is Exodus 12 -48. And when a stranger dwells with you and wants to keep the Passover to the Lord, let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it.

And he shall be as a native of the land, for no uncircumcised person shall eat it. If the authors of the London Baptist Confession appendix were correct, this would never have been said, and any Gentile who approached God's people wanting to be part of the church and to take the Passover would have been told, sorry, Israelites only, aloud.

Thus Exodus 12 -48 demonstrates the London Baptist Confession divines are simply wrong. As far as God requiring Gentiles to be circumcised with their households before they could join the church and partake of the Passover, I would ask, does this remind us of anything?

Yes, baptism. Clearly, the assertion that circumcision would cease as soon as Gentiles were brought into the faith is false, since provision was made for Gentiles to receive it way back in Exodus 12 -48.

In Acts chapter 2, where you have the first Christian sermon ever preached, you have the sign pronounced, baptism, just like circumcision is pronounced in Genesis 17. And you have the same three categories that are listed in Genesis 17, 6 -12.

Personally, I agree with Ligon Duncan when he said in his seminary course on covenant theology, that with the individualism of the administration of the new covenant being limited only to professing adult believers, this is quite literally the worst possible way he could have put this.

I can only say amen. Some have argued that circumcision was rightly administered to terrible people like Ahab and Manasseh. This is also false. Church discipline was in place in the church prior to the coming of Christ as well.

The Old Testament contains numerous church discipline passages where the Sabbath breaker and the idolater were to be cut off from the people. In fact, Paul quotes those very church discipline passages from Deuteronomy in the book of 1 Corinthians when describing church discipline after the coming of Christ.

1 Corinthians 5 -13, Paul wrote,. But those who are outside God judges. Therefore, quote, put away from yourselves the evil person. There he's quoting Deuteronomy 13 -5, Deuteronomy 17 -7 and 12, Deuteronomy 21 -21, etc.

Sadly, the church prior to the coming of Christ was about as good a church discipline as we are today. What we see clearly in the New Testament is that the household principle is still in place with regard to the administration of the one covenant embrace and its post-advent sign, baptism.

Those who profess faith are baptized, like Abraham was circumcised after he believed, and like households were circumcised after they professed a belief to partake of the Passover if they were non-Jews and wanted to.

We're all familiar with the household baptism passages, so there's no need for me to read them all, and that household baptisms were the order of the day in the New Testament, plainly. Question, how does that fit with the Baptist's insistence that the household principle has been terminated, not modified, terminated?

What about our children and their place in the church today? Obviously, no Baptist would argue that we should leave our children at home on Sundays, but are they to be instructed that they are participants in the corporate worship of God, or are they mere observers and non-participants?

I have heard of one Baptist, one Reformed Baptist, who very consistently does not allow his children to pray, either at home or at church, since only the regenerate can do so, and also does not allow his children to sing God's praises at Sabbath worship services.

This is tragic and sinful, but very consistent, I'm afraid. For only true Christians can pray and worship God, right? I'm curious about this and just how consistent Baptists are, or not, with their stated beliefs.

The organic household component of the administration of the covenant of grace clearly has continued into the new covenant era. Children are just as much a part of the visible church as they ever have been.

Paul addresses children directly in Ephesians 6 .1 and Colossians 3 .20. In closing, I wanted to address why I generally speak of these things the way I do, the thing that Brandon misunderstood and misrepresented repeatedly in his video.

As a pastor and as a teacher, clarity and understanding are my goals. I want to be understood clearly. Now, there's a couple ways that one could describe this. You tell me which one is clearer. Number one, to put it this way, you could not be born into this covenant, and you could be born into this covenant.

Or to say, you could not be born into this covenant, but you could be born into this covenant's visible administration. Which one of those is clearer? The second, obviously. That's why I use it. What about this idea of 1689 federalism?

In a dialogue that Brandon had with Reformed Baptist theologian Dr. James White, Dr. White asked Brandon, quote, Are you suggesting modern Reformed Baptists have misunderstood their own confession? Brandon's response, yes.

I'm asking because 1689 federalism teaches that Abraham was a member of the new covenant because regeneration is a blessing exclusive to the new covenant. It rejects the multiple administration's view of the covenant of grace and identifies the new covenant alone as the covenant of grace, to which Dr. White replied, quote, I see.

I would think the writer to the Hebrews would have mentioned such a claim, end quote. I wholeheartedly agree with Dr. White. Not only the writer to the Hebrews, but the rest of the apostles in general, and Paul in particular, had every conceivable opportunity to mention this, and simply does not.

Also, we already saw in Deuteronomy 10, 16, Jeremiah 4, 4, Romans 4, 11, that circumcision was a sign of regeneration and justification, and therefore regeneration is not exclusive to the new covenant.

But as far as this idea of Abraham himself being in the new covenant, Hebrews 9, 15 to 18 contradicts this very forcefully. Hebrews 9, 16 says,. For where there is a covenant, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.

For a covenant is in force after men are dead, since it has no power at all while the testator lives. The death of the testator of the new covenant, Jesus Christ, is what historically enacts the new covenant.

It is a covenant that goes into effect at the death of Christ on the cross. An effectual covenant only with the elect is therefore nothing new. Paul's own understanding, Jesus' own understanding, Job the Baptist's own understanding of the Abrahamic covenant, is that while one could be born into its visible administration, one could not be born into what it actually promised.

Paul in Romans 4, 16 to 18, cites Genesis 17, 5, and Genesis 15, 5, and argues that the fulfillment of those promises is in every single believer in Jesus Christ that would ever come to know him. The administration of this one covenant of grace has always included adults who profess it together with their children.

This is very clearly continued in the new covenant era as we see individuals repenting and believing, and then households being baptized. Very simple, very consistent. If this radical termination has happened where children are no longer to be, in any sense, part of the visible church as they have been for the previous 2 ,000 years, where is the evidence?

For 4 ,000 years, God's people have brought their children to receive the sign of God's one gospel. That gospel was preached to Abraham, to Israel, and now to us. The new covenant is not a difference in kind, but in degree of knowledge.

The visible church for the first 2 ,000 years from Abraham to Christ was professing believers and their children. From Christ to today, the visible church is still believers and their children. Household circumcisions and now household baptisms.

Simple, straightforward, and clear. And that's the end of my presentation.

1689 Federalism, the New Covenant, and the Covenant of Redemption

All right, Pastor Hines, thank you very much for starting us off. And Brandon, why don't you go ahead and take it away.

Sure. Thank you, Patrick, for taking the time to prepare that and prepare a summary of your views there and put it forward for us to consider. And thank you for doing this dialogue here. Just before I start there, I just wanted to mention that I had a chance to listen to some of your podcasts, not all of them, but some of them, and I appreciate what you've said about John Piper and some of his problematic views of justification.

They echo the same things I've said for a number of years on my blog, and I especially appreciate that you understand that what happened at the cross was the eschatological judgment brought forward and rendered here in time, and I think that's just huge for people to understand.

My presentation is going to be a bit shorter because I want to spend more time kind of back and forth here. Let's see. Tim mentioned that I hold to a view known as 1689 federalism. That's just a reference to a view held by the vast majority of particular Baptists in the 17th century.