Particular Baptist Covenant Theology

Posted on by
Reply

by Sam Renihan – Original source here)

The Particular Baptists emerged from the English Puritan movement within England’s parishes and universities. Several of the first-generation Particular Baptists attended Cambridge and Oxford and began their ministerial careers as priests in the church of England. Lay ministers among the Particular Baptists studied and preached Reformed theology. To the Particular Baptists, a consistent application of Reformed theology yielded congregational and Baptist conclusions. This was the case in their covenant theology, which developed within the unity and diversity of the larger branches of the Reformed covenantal family tree.

The heart of Reformed covenant theology is the substantial distinction between the law and the gospel. This foundational distinction was the basis for the more developed expressions of the legal and evangelical covenants, or the covenants of works and grace. The covenant theology of the Particular Baptists joined the law-gospel unity concerning condemnation in Adam and salvation in Christ. They taught the doctrines of the covenants of works and grace clearly.[1]

The Second London Confession of Faith (1677) confesses the covenant of works, moving its details from chapter seven to chapter six.

God created Man upright, and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof (2LCF 6.1, italics added).
Later in the same chapter, the confession describes Adam’s federal headship. He stood in “the room, and stead of all mankind” who receive his “imputed” guilt and “corrupted nature.” Chapter seven specifically identifies the “law unto life” of chapter six as a covenant. In fact, it states that the “law unto life” can only be a covenant.

The distance between God and the Creature is so great, that although reasonable Creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of Life, but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express, by way of Covenant (2LCF 7.1, italics added).
The Particular Baptists joined the unity of Reformed covenant theology, not only regarding the covenant of works, but also regarding the covenant of grace. Salvation in Christ came by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone throughout all ages. The elect, given to Christ in the covenant of redemption, receive his benefits in the covenant of grace (cf. 2LCF 7.2-3).

The Particular Baptists’ covenantal distinctives derive from diversity already present in paedobaptist thought. A large branch within the Reformed family tree taught that the Mosaic covenant is the covenant of works in substance. A similar but distinct branch viewed the Mosaic covenant as a covenant of works, though distinct from the original covenant of works. Both branches assigned a subservient function to the Mosaic covenant as promoting the progress and revelation of the covenant of grace. A third branch argued that the covenant of works was materially “made known,” “declared,” or “revealed” to Israel, while not formally “made” with them. The Mosaic covenant was not a covenant of works in substance. The distinctive feature of Particular Baptist covenant theology was to apply these tools to the Abrahamic covenant, concluding that it was a legal, earthly, national, and typological covenant.

Using the substance logic of Reformed theology (law-gospel), the Particular Baptists argued that to enjoy the blessings of the Abrahamic covenant one must obey a positive law, circumcision. Disobedience disinherits. Nehemiah Coxe said, “we first meet with an express Injunction of Obedience to a Command (and that of positive Right) as the Condition of Covenant Interest.”[2] This is the nature of a covenant of works.

Based on this foundation, Particular Baptists immediately connected the Abrahamic covenant to the Mosaic covenant. Coxe said:

In this Mode of transacting [the covenant], the Lord was pleased to draw the first Lines of that Form of Covenant-Relation, which the natural Seed of Abraham, were fully stated in by the Law of Moses, which was a Covenant of Works, and its Condition or Terms, Do this and live.[3]

The Reformed tradition already made the argument regarding Moses. The Baptists pointed out that the same arrangement (obedience for blessing) was already present with the same parties (Abraham and his descendants) and the same commands (positive laws) long before the expanded giving of the law. The span of time and the difference in the quantity of the laws was the result of the covenant given to nomads as opposed to a people about to enter into a complete kingdom.

The Particular Baptists argued that the Bible assigns to Abraham an earthly offspring and a heavenly offspring, and that it sorts them into two different covenants, an earthly covenant according to the flesh, and a heavenly covenant according to the Spirit. This, they argued, was the intracanonical exegesis of the Bible itself, comparing Galatians 3-4 and Genesis 17. To the Particular Baptists, the paedobaptist model conflated two distinct seeds into one covenant and imposed the typical earthborn national model of Israel on the antitypical heavenborn transnational church.

It was important to the Particular Baptists to maintain a close connection between the old covenant(s) and the covenant of grace. Though they were distinct, they were not to be divided. The old covenant(s) were subservient to the covenant of grace and made its benefits available through typology. But, in and of themselves, they did not grant heavenly blessings. “Notwithstanding the respect this Covenant hath to the Covenant of Grace, it yet remains distinct from it; and can give no more then external and typical Blessings unto a Typical Seed.”[4] The covenant of grace was materially made known in the old covenant(s), but not formally made until Christ shed his blood. The heavenborn people of God began in the garden and extend to all ages. The earthborn people of God began with Abraham and ended with the cross.

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.

1. The covenant of works does not feature prominently in Particular Baptist works on covenant theology due to the polemical nature of their covenantal writings. It was not a point of debate. When it arises in their writings, it’s treated as a given. I am not aware of any Particular Baptist who denied the covenant of works in name, or in concept, though I am aware of at least twenty-three unique instances of the covenant of works in seventeenth-century Particular Baptist literature (i.e., individual authors). In addition to these instances, there are many more speaking of Adam as a “public person,” i.e., federal head.
2. Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants That God made with Men before the Law (London: J[ohn] D[arby], 1681), 104.
3. Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants, 104.
4. Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants, 109.

What New Members Need To Know

Posted on by
Reply

Article: Six things new church members need to know by John Divito (original source here)

Not long after I started my ministry at our church, we began having regular visitors who soon were asking about becoming members. While I was grateful to God for bringing them to us and thankful for their interest in joining our church, I knew that we needed to have a church membership class so that they could get to know our church better and we could get to know them better.

But what should I include in a membership class and how should I structure our time together? I decided to focus on answering six questions that would be helpful for those considering membership with us:

WHO SHOULD BE A MEMBER OF OUR CHURCH?

As Baptists, we believe that churches should be made up of regenerate church members. So only those who are believing in Christ for salvation and have followed Him in baptism can become members of our church. However, we live in a day when many will identify as Christians who have never believed in the gospel of Jesus Christ for salvation. Maybe their family background is Christian or they want their children to be raised with good morals but they have never come to faith in Christ.

Others have been in churches who have not preached the gospel clearly and do not know the gospel clearly themselves. In a church membership class, I cannot assume that those who are coming already know and believe the gospel. So I present the gospel to everyone attending, appealing to them to repent of their sins and believe in Christ as their Savior.

WHY SHOULD I BE A MEMBER OF A LOCAL CHURCH?

The biblical truth of church membership itself has fallen on hard times, with many Christians failing to understand why they should join a church at all. In my discussions with visitors and other believers, I have heard this question raised so many times that I wanted to include a defense of church membership in our class.
From the accountability it brings to the practice of spiritual gifts among one another, I want those attending to recognize the importance of church membership and why we take our membership so seriously. I have also asked them to read Jonathan Leeman’s excellent book Church Membership and given time during class to discuss what they have read to help develop our appreciation for membership. There are many good resources available to assist churches with a biblical defense of church membership, and I have found utilizing them in these discussions to be very helpful and rewarding.

WHERE SHOULD I BE A MEMBER OF A LOCAL CHURCH?

Obviously, I want people to become members of our church, but I care most that Christians will find a church where they can best glorify God and grow in Christ’s grace. So I want to lay out the biblical priorities in determining which local church to join, and then I spend some time explaining who we are as a church. Because the relationship between members of a local church is a close one of love and encouragement, I want those who are considering joining us to have a good understanding of who we are before deciding to become members. What is our history? What is our vision? What are our ministries? Answering questions like these and allowing time to answering their questions about our church are critical for them to get to know us. I also want them to have read through our church’s constitution so that they understand how we operate as a church.

WHAT DOES OUR CHURCH BELIEVE?

Because of heresy and theological error, and in light of different denominations in our community and our own doctrinal distinctives, I want everyone who is interested in learning more about our church to know what we believe. This is why I love being a confessional church, because I can hand them a copy of the 1689 Second London Confession of Faith and we can discuss what they will hear preached and taught as well as the beliefs that we corporately confess God’s Word reveals.

I am deeply saddened when I look at most church websites today and see nothing about a statement of faith, or their beliefs are so basic that cults could affirm them! I am not interested in leading a church which is trying to appeal to the lowest common denominator. I would rather share with them what we believe the Bible teaches so that they will know what they will hear when they are members with us.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A MEMBER OF OUR CHURCH?

I also want to make sure that we are up front in showing people our expectations of members. I am thankful that our church has a biblical and faithful church covenant with the commitments that all church members make when they join and practice as long as they are members with us. Therefore, I work through our covenant statement-by-statement, explaining what this looks like practically among us. I would rather Christians decide not to join because of our commitment to the Lord’s Day and corporate worship or because of our desire to give of our time and money than later filling our rolls with people who disagree with us and refuse to live in light of way that we believe Scripture says we should live.

HOW DO I APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP?

Finally, I want those in our membership class to have a clear understanding of our membership process as well as what the next steps are if they decide to apply for membership with us. Since we ask member candidates to write out their testimony, I also provide them with a basic template to help them think through their testimony. I also invite them to schedule a time to meet with the elders for further discussion if they are interested.

I am sure that I will further develop and refine our membership class as the years continue, but I hope that these questions will be helpful to others who are thinking through how to start and structure a membership class. Above all, I pray that Christ will be at the center of our church life together, with unity among our members while we serve our Savior and one another.

Interaction – The Reformation and Rome

Posted on by
Reply

Pastor Rick Phillips recounts his recent interaction about the Protestant Reformation with local Roman Catholic scholars in Greenville, SC (original source here):

Probably the most interesting Reformation celebration that I had the privilege of participating in last month took place in a Roman Catholic Church. The Center for Evangelical Catholicism here in Greenville, SC graciously invited me to join with two other Protestants and three Roman Catholic scholars to discuss the Reformation. I was grateful for the warmth of my reception and for the valuable interaction.

Perhaps the most interesting part of this event was the panel discussion, in which the host priest asked a number of insightful questions. For instance, he asked us to consider how things might have been different if the Roman Catholic establishment had been more patient and accommodating with Martin Luther. The idea was that Leo X (nobody’s favorite pope) handled Luther with such clumsy arrogance that he provoked the great schism that resulted. Might there have been a Lutheran order within the Roman church, he wondered, if the pope was more sophisticated and skillful?

My answer–which provoked a fair amount of unhappiness–was that it was inconceivable that the movement of the Protestant Reformation should have accommodated Rome simply because of the irreconcilable stances towards the Bible. Christians who adhered to sola scriptura – the authority of Scripture alone – could never endure a papacy that demanded that its tradition stood beside (and in practice above) the plain meaning of Scripture. Moreover, by study of the Bible, the Protestants came to the conclusion that the papacy was an utterly illegitimate and usurping office. In fact, wherever the Bible was embraced as supreme, the denunciation of the pope soon followed, a situation quite unlikely to permit a Lutheran movement inside the Roman tent. Furthermore, Roman Catholicism was just as opposed to the authority of Scripture as the Reformers were opposed to the papacy. It was for this reason that Rome so vigorously suppressed the spread of the Bible, going so far as to burn at the stake those who made it available to the common people.

As you can imagine, the warmth of my reception began to chill during this discourse. Especially my claim that Rome had suppressed the spread of Scripture was denounced as a false and tired canard! The host priest protested: “Why, Rome has done more for Bible translation than any other Christian body! Only in England was Bible translation suppressed, and that was done by the secular authority and not the church!”

This claim incited me to go back and study the evidence for Rome’s suppression of Scripture. To say the least, it is extensive! Consider the following:

Pope Gregory VII: forbade access of common people to the Bible in 1079, since it would “be so misunderstood by people of limited intelligence as to lead them into error.”

Pope Innocent III: compared Bible teaching in church to casting “pearls before swine” (1199).

The Council of Toulouse (France, 1229): suppressed the Albigensians and forbade the laity to read vernacular translations of the Bible.

The Second Council of Tarragon (Spain, 1234) declared, “No one may possess the books of the Old and New Testaments, and if anyone possesses them he must turn them over. . . that they may be burned.”

In response to the labors of John Wyclif, the English Parliament (under Roman Catholic influence) banned the translation of Scripture into English, unless approved by the church (1408).

The Council of Constance (Germany/ Bohemia, 1415) condemned John Hus and the writings of Wyclif because of their doctrine of Scripture and subsequent teachings. Hus answerd: “If anyone can instruct me by the sacred Scriptures. . . , I am willing to follow him.” He was burned at the stake.

Archbishop Berthold of Mainz threatened to excommunicate anyone who translated the Bible (1486).

Pope Pius IV expressed the conviction that Bible reading did the common people more harm than good (1564).

It is true that in many cases, the papacy suppressed Scripture because it was being used to teach against the church. But this is exactly the point the Reformers argued: Rome would not allow the Scripture to speak with authority and for that reason suppressed it.

Wyclif wrote: “where the Bible and the Church do not agree, we must obey the Bible, and, where conscience and human authority are in conflict, we must follow conscience.”

For this doctrine and its further implications, his body was exhumed and burned, his ashes scattered in a nearby river, and his Bible translation banned.

So much for the Protestant “canard” regarding the Roman Catholic attitude to Bible translation, teaching, and distribution!

The record shows that if there was a single conviction that motivated and guided the Protestant Reformation, it was the authority of Scripture alone to speak for God in matters of faith and life. On this vital matter, the great John Wyclif and his martyr-disciple John Hus spoke with all the clarity that would burst forth through Martin Luther and others in the 16th century.

Wyclif did not live to see a widespread Reformation, but died under harassment and scorn. Yet by wonderful providences, his writings spread far away to Bohemia where John Hus advocated them with zeal and power. Hus, too, did not live to see a Reformation, but died in solitary disgrace amidst the flames of a scornful church. Yet his influence endured, through the spread of Scripture, so that Martin Luther exclaimed, “We are all Hussites!”

The Protestant Reformation, which we have been celebrating these past weeks, was above all a Reformation of and by the Word of God. What compelling evidence Wyclif, Hus, and Luther gave to Isaiah’s claim that God’s Word will not go forth in vain but shall succeed by God’s power (Isa. 55:11)! It is for this reason that accommodation with Rome would have been unthinkable to Luther and his followers, since sola scriptura compelled them to stand against false teaching with the Word of truth. Their courageous stance, blessed by God’s mighty aid, reminds us that we also will never send forth God’s Word in vain. If we will stand within the secular church of America, and yes, of evangelicalism, and hold forth the Word of God, he will not fail to bless it with the saving and reforming power our generation so greatly needs.