Posts in Semper Reformanda Radio
SRR 111 Emails, Events, Books, Controversies

Carlos and Tim catch up on emails, recent events, personal updates, and controversies about Apologetics and the Jeff Durbin/Andy Stanley exchange, School dress ups and gender, Christians and entertainment, Roman Catholic Baptism and Presbyterians, Charles Hodge and JH Thornwell, Richard Gaffin and Justification, and Piper and being Counted Righteous in Christ.

Charles Hodge on the Roman Catholic Church:

Indeed it is a matter of devout thankfulness to God that underneath the numerous grievous and destructive errors of the Romish Church, the great truths of the Gospel are preserved. The Trinity, the true divinity of Christ, the true doctrine concerning his person as God and man in two distinct natures and one person forever, salvation through his blood, regeneration and sanctification through the almighty power of the Spirit, the resurrection of the body, and eternal life, are doctrines on which the people of God in that communion live, and have produced such saintly men as St. Bernard, Fenelon, and doubtless thousands of others who are of the number of God’s elect. (John Robbins, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=228)

References

https://thorncrownministries.com/blog/2018/5/6/john-piper-final-salvation-and-the-decline-and-fall-of-sola-fide-part-i

https://thorncrownministries.com/blog/2018/9/16/john-piper-final-salvation-and-the-decline-and-fall-of-sola-fide-part-ii

http://www.trinitylectures.org/sacramental-sorcery-p-161.html

http://www.trinitylectures.org/emperor-has-no-clothes-the-p-182.html

CALVIN ON THE VALIDITY OF 'ROMISH' BAPTISM, http://www.semperreformanda.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Calvin-on-the-Validity-of-Romish-Baptism-Dr.-F.N.-Lee.pdf

https://www.goodreads.com/review/show/2810687752

https://youtu.be/BnS5Z-A_5jA

http://www.ironsharpensironradio.com/podcast/september-1-2017-show-with-david-j-engelsma-on-the-gospel-truth-of-justification-proclaimed-defended-developed/

https://biblethumpingwingnut.com/2019/04/29/endgame/

Dallas Exhibits

https://www.biblicalarts.org

https://dma.org

https://buc-ees.com/index.php

http://easttexaszoo.com

http://creationevidence.org/

http://adamantbeliever.com

https://www.exministries.com

SRR 110 Language, Logic and False Teachers

Join Tim Shaughnessy in this episode of Semper Reformanda Radio as he discusses the tactics of false teaches and the tools we must use to spot them.

Many Christians today do not seem to realize that we are in a spiritual war, but one can hardly read the New Testament without coming to realize that from the time of its inception the Church has been under relentless attack. Throughout church history, much of this has come in the form of physical persecution and when that occurs it is easy to recognize. But there is another form of attack that is more subtle and more dangerous. It is an attack that is not just meant to kill the body but is also meant to kill the soul. This, of course, is a spiritual attack through false teaching. 

The New Testament repeatedly warns us, not only that, false teachers will come, but that when they do come it will be through great deception. Jesus warned, "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves” (Matthew 7:15). It is not difficult to grasp the meaning of this but it is difficult when faced with the challenge of spotting a wolf in sheep's clothing. This is due to the fact that they look just like sheep.

The challenge we face is not just spotting these wolves in sheep's clothing but it is also calling it to the attention of the church. Whenever someone points out a wolf in sheep’s clothing they are sure to be confronted by others who will immediately defend the wolf by pointing out the sheep’s clothing. People get angry when others call their favorite teacher a wolf in sheep's clothing. Rather than being upset by the fact that the gospel is being subverted or obscured, it would seem that many get upset at those who call it to their attention. This is why Paul asked the Galatians “Have I then become your enemy by telling you the truth” (Galatians 4:16)?

The reality is that many people have not stopped to consider the incredibly deceptive nature of false teachers. Yet, Paul also warned of the deceptive nature of false teachers when he wrote, “For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ” (2 Corinthians 11:13). These men were wolves in sheep’s clothing. They disguised themselves as apostles of Christ. John Robbins also saw this in scripture and wrote the following:

Heretics introduce false ideas stealthily: “But this occurred because of false brethren secretly brought in (who came in by stealth to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage” (Galatians 2:4) and “For certain men have crept in unnoticed, who long ago were marked out for this condemnation...” (Jude 4). They appear to be sheep, but are not; and the ideas they teach, at least at first, appear to be true, but are not. By their smooth words, they deceive many into thinking that they are Christian brothers and the ideas they advance are Biblical.

The reason many people today are unable to accept that certain teachers are actually false teachers is that they have not wrestled with this in scripture. They wrongly assume that the wolf in sheep’s clothing is trying to deceive people out of malicious intent. When someone calls a teacher they like a wolf in sheep’s clothing they ask, “so you think he is really trying to deceive people and lead everyone astray.” Then they dismiss the warning out of disbelief because the teacher they like really is sincere in what he teaches. After all, Joel Osteen looks like a genuinely nice person. 

The truth is that these wolves in sheep's clothing believe they are sheep. These false teachers believe they are teaching the truth because they are self-deceived. Let’s not overlook the fact that Bruce Jenner has gone to great lengths to disguise himself to look like a woman because he somehow believes he is a woman. Such is the nature of self-deception. People do not seem to recognize that these deceivers do what they do and teach what they teach because they are themselves deceived. They believe they are serving and following God. This is why Jesus warned, “They will put you out of the synagogues. Indeed, the hour is coming when whoever kills you will think he is offering service to God” (John 16:2). 

The Bible warns us that false teachers will come and that they will be extremely deceptive when they arrive. Therefore, it is necessary to take a moment to discuss three key insights which will allow us to navigate the murky waters of controversy and spot these false teachers.

False Teachers Use Scripture

First, we must recognize that false teachers use scripture to teach their false doctrine. This should not surprise us and we should not be duped into thinking that their teaching is therefore Biblical. It is a strange thing to realize that false teachers will use the Bible to teach their anti-biblical views. This is called twisting the scriptures and it is exactly what Satan, who is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44), did when he tempted Jesus in the wilderness. In Matthew's account we read: 


5 Then the devil took him to the holy city and set him on the pinnacle of the temple

6 and said to him, "If you are the Son of God, throw yourself down, for it is written, "'He will command his angels concerning you,' and "'On their hands they will bear you up, lest you strike your foot against a stone'" (Matthew 4:5,6).  

When Satan tempted Jesus to prove that he was the Son of God by throwing himself down from the pinnacle of the temple he quoted Psalms 91:11,12 and twisted its meaning. Clearly, the passage is a promise from God but it did not mean that Jesus could use it to test God. This is why Jesus responded by saying, "Again it is written, 'You shall not put the Lord your God to the test'" (Matthew 4:7).

Today, we have countless examples of false teachers twisting scripture to teach false doctrine. Mormons will use the Bible in an effort to substantiate Mormon doctrine. Word of Faith preachers constantly use passages like John 10:10 and 2 Corinthians 8:9 to teach their false prosperity gospel. Every Christian needs to be aware of this deceptive tactic and needs to embrace the all-important principle of the Reformation that scripture interprets scripture. 

They Speak Our Language


The second insight we must learn is that false teachers use Biblical terms and orthodox language but changes their meaning. John Robbins pointed this out when he wrote, “The most effective attack on truth, the most subversive attack on the doctrine of the completeness and efficacy of the work of Christ for the salvation of his people, is always couched in pious language and Biblical phraseology.” This is why it is necessary to define our terms. However, this practice of deception is not limited to single words. When it is a single word that is given two meanings we call that equivocation but when it is a phrase we call it amphibology. 

Christians, Mormon, and Jehovah’s Witness all say that “Jesus is the son of God.” Here we have an example of both equivocation and amphibology because we all mean something entirely different by the word “Jesus” and we all mean something entirely different by the phrase, “son of God.” When Mormons speak of Jesus they mean the spirit brother of Satan and when they say he is “son of God” they mean that he was first a spirit born being who had a beginning and that heavenly father had sex with Mary in order that he should be born here on earth. When Jehovah’s Witnesses speak of Jesus they mean that he is Michael the Archangel and he is the “son of God” because he was the first thing created by Jehovah. When Christians speak of Jesus we mean that he is the second person of the Trinity and the title “son of God” means he is the unique one who is God made manifest in the flesh.   

It is essential for Christians to realize that these tactics of deception are not limited to these obvious examples. Every heretic in history has taught their heresy while using scripture and orthodox language. But there is yet a third insight we must learn and that has to do with language and logic. 

Sufficiency of Language and Necessity of Logic 

Christians must recognize that language and logic are sufficient for communication. God has given us the gift of language for communication and because we are made in his image we necessarily think in terms of logic. Therefore, we are expected to make logical deductions and inferences. The Bible speaks to us in such a way that it assumes our ability to do this and we are given numerous examples of logic scripture. 

In Matthew 22:23-28 the Sadducees attacked the resurrection by presenting Jesus a question about marriage in the afterlife. Jesus first responded by correcting their understanding of the scriptures and pointed out that marriage ends at death. Then he said:

“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob'? He is not God of the dead, but of the living" (Matthew 22:31-32). 

The passage Jesus quoted says “I am the God of Abraham,” not “I was the God of Abraham.” The verb is in the present tense, not the past tense. In other words, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are living and Jesus refuted the Sadducees by pointing them back to scripture and then by deducing the resurrection from the tense of a verb. The Sadducees were expected to believe the resurrection and so are we, which means we are expected to believe not only that which is expressly stated but also that which may be deduced from scripture. 

This principle of making logical deductions was so vital to the Protestant Reformation that it was given confessional status in the Westminster Confession of Faith. In chapter 1, paragraph six, the Westminster divines stated that “The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture...” This is critical to understanding God's word because doctrines such as the Trinity, the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Redemption are not explicitly stated in scripture but are by good and necessary consequence deduced from scripture. 

It is imperative that we be willing to make logical deductions. Unfortunately, we live in an age of anti-intellectualism and irrationalism and many people do not recognize the significant threat this poses to the church. The inability or unwillingness to make logical deductions will prevent us from understanding God's word and keep us from recognizing those who detract from it. 

Imagine two men are talking and the first man says to the second man, “all Mexicans are lazy.” 

Then the second man looks at him and asks, “why would you call Carlos lazy? He is Mexican and one of the hardest working guys I know.”

Then the first man gets upset and fires back, “I didn’t say anything about Carlos being lazy. You’re putting words in my mouth, you’re taking me out of context and you’re misrepresenting me.” 

The logic here is simple. If all Mexicans are lazy and Carlos is a Mexican, then Carlos is lazy. The second man was not misrepresenting the first man or putting words in his mouth or taking him out of context. He accepted the statement and made a valid deduction thereby ensuring that the first man was represented accurately. The first man was guilty of saying that Carlos was lazy but he chose to be irrational because of the stubbornness of his heart. He didn’t want to face the fact that he had insulted Carlos directly even though it wasn’t expressly stated. 

This type of irrational behavior is quite typical of people today. They falsely accuse others of misrepresenting them and accuse them of committing a straw man fallacy because they don’t want to accept the consequences of their position. The straw man fallacy is quite possibly the most abused and misapplied informal logical fallacy because people tend to be prideful, irrational and refuse to accept that they are wrong. But this is where the Christian needs to stand firm and insist on rational discourse. Simply because someone has reduced your position to absurdity, and you’re not willing to accept the logical conclusion, does not mean they have misrepresented you. It means you should change your views. 

We do not need to back down when people falsely accuse us of misrepresentation but we do need to be very concerned about representing others accurately and fairly. The question is how do we do this. Well, the answer really is quite simple. We accept their statements at face value, allow them to define their terms, and we make valid inferences or deductions. 

It is important, however, to point out that when we say that the deduction or inference is valid we don’t mean it is true. We simply mean that the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. We can make a valid deduction from a false premise which would make the conclusion false. In the example above we see that the conclusion that Carlos was lazy necessarily followed from the premises but the conclusion was false. This is because the premise that all Mexicans are lazy is false. In order to have an argument that is sound, we must have true premises and a valid deduction. When we make valid deductions or inferences from scripture the arguments are always sound and the conclusions are necessarily true. This is because God’s word is truth; “Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth” (John 17:17).



SRR 109 The Danielic Imperative, Episode 22 — How we got here, and where we're going.

In this episode, we give thirteen (there are many more) examples of invalid assumptions that inform many ancient and modern eschatologies, and the Scriptural answer to them. The episode serves as a summary of the first 21 episodes of the Danielic Imperative, and a prelude to the next 21 and beyond.

Notes: The Bounds of Their Habitation

SRR 108 Hiram Diaz on Critical Race Theory, Part 2

Carlos interviews Hiram Diaz about his article, “Is Critical Race Theory Anti-Christian? Yes.”

+http://www.biblicaltrinitarian.com/2018/11/social-justice-vs-biblical-justice-how.html

+ Best, Steven, and Douglas Kellner. Postmodern Theory: Critical Interrogations. London: Macmillan, 1998. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/380330

+ Veith, Gene Edward. Postmodern Times: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture. Lexington, Ky: Lexington Volunteer Recording Unit, 1998. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/380326

+ Thomas Sowell and a Conflict of Visions https://youtu.be/OGvYqaxSPp4

+ Thomas Sowell on Facts and Free Speech (Pt. 1) https://youtu.be/lO5K1-X6w9E

+ Thomas Sowell: Debunking Systemic Racism and Having Common Decency (Pt. 2) https://youtu.be/5daNMXer2UQ

+ John Robbins, “Christ and Civilization,” http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=110; http://www.trinitylectures.org/christ-and-civilization-p-166.html; http://www.trinitylectures.org/civilization-and-the-protestant-reformation-english-p-47.html

+ Swanson, Kevin. Apostate: The Men Who Destroyed the Christian West. 2013. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/17937716

 +https://thorncrownministries.com/blog/2018/12/13/is-critical-race-theory-anti-christian-yes

+http://www.biblicaltrinitarian.com

 +https://involutedgenealogies.wordpress.com/2019/04/08/a-compendium-of-resources-dealing-with-social-justiceism/

SRR 107 The Danielic Imperative, Episode 21 — The Days, Weeks, Months and Years of Prophecy, part 2

In this episode, we continue where we left off in Episode 20 on understanding the time periods of prophecy in Daniel and Revelation. We provide a recap of the lunisolar calendar—its Scriptural origins, and the need to understand that calendar in order to interpret properly the time periods of prophecy. Those time periods have been given to us with the lunisolar calendar in mind, and the Christian must be familiar with it. We then turn to the “ten day” tribulation of Revelation 2:10 and the “five month” torment of unbelievers in Revelation 9:5,10, to show not only how they are related to each other, but also how they relate to Revelation 12 and 13. We conclude with a discussion on the “hour, and a day, and a month, and a year” of the Sixth Trumpet of Revelation 9:15 to show why we cannot interpret that period as a 391 year and 15 day period (as has been done occasionally in eschatology), and show how the “hour, and a day, and a month, and a year” are to be understood. In this episode we begin to touch on the seals, trumpets and vials of Revelation as a prelude to coming episodes in which we will examine each one individually.

SRR 106 John Piper and the Decline of Sola Fide at Final Judgment (4)
SRR 105 Hiram Diaz on Critical Race Theory
SRR 104 Ryan Denton’s Primer on Open Air Preaching

Carlos interviews brother Ryan Denton of Christ in the Wild Ministries (https://www.christinthewild.com/) on his new book, A Certain Sound: A Primer on Open Air Preaching, that he co-authored with Scott Smith of School Master Ministries (http://schoolmasterministries.com/).

Check out the the book promo:

 https://youtu.be/Mj2D0D9dEBU

Get the book at a discounted price from Reformation Heritage Books:

 https://www.heritagebooks.org/products/a-certain-sound-a-primer-on-open-air-preaching-denton-smith.html

SRR 103 Steve Matthews, Knox Seminary, and Imagining a Vain Thing

Carlos interviews Steve Matthews on his excellent book, Imagining a Vain Thing: The Decline and Fall of Knox Seminary: 

 http://www.trinitylectures.org/imagining-vain-thing-p-170.html

This exposé by a former Knox student demonstrates how neglecting the historical grammatical hermeneutic of the Reformation leads to all sorts of fanciful eisegesis and ultimately heresy. A case in point is Warren Gage, the John-Revelation Project, and the controversy surrounding the medieval hermeneutics he taught at Knox Theological Seminary. It's a shame when such fiascos in reformed institutions are not resolved biblically.

This is a very informative and insightful book, and I learned new things about Reformed hermeneutics, including an enlightening discussion about typology and Marsh's dictum. A must read!

 

References

+http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=305

 +http://trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=316

https://imaginingavainthing.wordpress.com/

SRR 102 The Danielic Imperative, Episode 20 — The Days, Weeks, Months and Years of Prophecy, part 1
CoverImage.JPG

When it comes to prophetic time periods in Scripture—at least in the historicist school—days, months and years are typically interpreted as “days of years” based on Numbers 14:34 and Ezekiel 4:6. Thus, the 2,300 days of Daniel 8, the 1,290 days and 1,335 days of Daniel 12, and the 42 months and 1,260 days of Revelation 11, 12 and 13 are all taken as “days of years,” just as the Seventy Weeks of Daniel 9 are understood as Seventy “Weeks” of seven years each. But such analysis is generally performed without knowledge of the lunisolar calendar in Scriptures or the principle of intercalation that logically follows from it. Without that knowledge, we are left guessing which periods are supposed to literal days, and which periods are supposed to be understood as prophetic “days of years.” By leveraging the Scriptural concept of intercalation as a necessary implication of the lunisolar calendar revealed to Moses, we understand from context which periods are literal solar days, and which are prophetic “days” of solar years.

SRR 101 John Piper and the Decline of Sola Fide at Final Judgment (3)
SRR 100 The Danielic Imperative, Episode 19 — The Feet and the Toes of Daniel 2
CoverImage.JPG

In this episode we focus on the historical gap in typical eschatologies that are able to identify the transitions in Daniel’s vision of chapter 2—from Gold to Silver, from Silver to Bronze, and from Bronze to Iron—but are less sure on the transitions from Iron to Iron & Clay, and from Feet to Toes. We examine the Scriptural evidence to show that the period of the Feet must have begun in 69 AD, shortly before the destruction of Jerusalem, and the period of the Toes must have begun in 293 AD. We also discuss Daniel’s focus not only imperial succession, but also on imperial transition throughout his visions, and in a sidebar discussion, we evaluate the traditional dating of the Book of Revelation. By identifying the transitions from Legs to Feet, and from Feet to Toes, we can clearly identify in the period of the Feet the Heavenly Kingdom that was not of earth, and distinguish it from the earthly kingdom set up during the period of the Toes, that was not of heaven .

SRR 99 John Piper and the Decline of Sola Fide at Final Judgment (2)
SRR 98 John Piper and the Decline of Sola Fide at Final Judgment (1)
SRR 96 The Danielic Imperative Part 18 — Between Two Strikes

In this episode we highlight the Roman Catholic argument that Daniel foresaw Roman Catholicism as the earthly manifestation of the heavenly kingdom to be established by Christ during the Feet of the statue of Daniel 2, and during the period of the Fourth Beast in Daniel 7. According to that interpretation, Daniel saw Christ’s Church as the earthly successor to the Roman Empire, and thus, prodigal Protestants must come home to Rome to be reconciled to the Heavenly Kingdom Christ established. Many otherwise intelligent Protestants fall for that argument, but it is built upon an impossible paradox. The Roman Catholic argument assumes the Stone of Daniel 2 only strikes the statue once. Upon inspection, however, the Stone actually strikes the statue twice, and what Daniel revealed to us was not that Christ’s Earthly Kingdom was to succeed the Roman Empire, but rather that the immediate successor to the fourth earthly empire was a diabolical fifth earthly empire that citizens of Christ’s Heavenly Kingdom must avoid at all costs. Christ’s earthly reign does not occur until after the second strike of the Stone, and we are currently living between the two strikes. To long for Christ’s earthly kingdom to appear prior to the second strike is to long for Antichrist, which is precisely what Protestant converts to Roman Catholicism have done.

SRR 95 Emails, Shout Outs and Republication
SRR 94 The Danielic Imperative Part 17 — The Seventy Years

We have covered the Seventy Week Prophecy of Daniel 9, and we have covered the Leviticus 26 protocol which required the Jews to be punished for their disobedience, and further required that they be punished seven-fold for failing to repent. That is how we know that the Seventy Weeks Prophecy of Daniel 9 is related to the Seventy Year Prophecy in Jeremiah 25 and 29. But when did the 70 years take place? Jeremiah's 70-year prophecy is one of the most baffling in all of scriptures because the Jews were not in captivity for 70 years, the city of Jerusalem did not lay in desolation for 70 years and Nebuchadnezzar and his sons did not even reign for 70 years before Darius the Mede and Cyrus of Persia became kings after them. And yet Jeremiah said the 70 years would happen, and Zechariah said the 70 years had happened. With a little analysis, we can find the exact, literal 70 year period of Jeremiah’s prophecy from the Scriptures.

Basline_Compressed_Timeline.jpg
Realistic_Hypothetical_Timeline.jpg
SRR 93 Brandon Adams on Covenant Theology & Republication, Part II

Carlos and Tim interview Brandon Adams from 1689federalism.com on Covenant Theology; differences between Presbyterian, Reformed Baptist, and New Covenant Theology; Republication and Westminster West vs Westminster East; Law and Gospel; and more!

ThornCrownMinistries.com

 

References

  1. http://www.1689federalism.com/from-shadow-to-substance/

  2. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/murray-on-lev-185-why-did-john-murray-reject-the-covenant-of-works/

  3. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/notes-on-a-podcast-discussion-with-patrick-hines-on-covenant-theology-baptism/

  4. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/acceptable-understanding-of-mosaic-law-according-to-the-opc-report-on-republication/

  5. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/opc-report-on-republication-background/

  6. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/guy-waters-on-leviticus-185/

  7. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/piper-vs-owen-on-romans-26-7-13/

  8. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/is-john-piper-confessional/

  9. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/nehemiah-coxe-on-merit-in-lbcf-7-1/

  10. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/1689-federalism-americas-founding/

  11. http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/

  12. http://www.1689federalism.com/1689-federalism-theonomy/

  13. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/calvin-vs-1689-federalism-on-old-vs-new/

  14. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/can-r-scott-clark-be-truly-reformed/

  15. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/neonomian-presbyterians-vs-antinomian-congregationalists/

  16. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/summary-of-venemas-review-of-tlnf/

  17. “In Defense of Moses” and Venema’s review https://sites.google.com/site/mosaiccovenant/reading

  18. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/opc-republication-report-summary/

SRR 92 Brandon Adams on Covenant Theology & Republication, Part I

Carlos and Tim interview Brandon Adams from 1689federalism.com on Covenant Theology; differences between Presbyterian, Reformed Baptist, and New Covenant Theology; Republication and Westminster West vs Westminster East; Law and Gospel; and more!

ThornCrownMinistries.com

 

References

  1. http://www.1689federalism.com/from-shadow-to-substance/
  2. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/17/murray-on-lev-185-why-did-john-murray-reject-the-covenant-of-works/
  3. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2018/08/24/notes-on-a-podcast-discussion-with-patrick-hines-on-covenant-theology-baptism/
  4. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2018/08/30/acceptable-understanding-of-mosaic-law-according-to-the-opc-report-on-republication/
  5. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/24/opc-report-on-republication-background/
  6. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/25/guy-waters-on-leviticus-185/
  7. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/11/13/piper-vs-owen-on-romans-26-7-13/
  8. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/11/14/is-john-piper-confessional/
  9. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/04/22/nehemiah-coxe-on-merit-in-lbcf-7-1/
  10. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/02/22/1689-federalism-americas-founding/
  11. http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/
  12. http://www.1689federalism.com/1689-federalism-theonomy/
  13. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/05/17/calvin-vs-1689-federalism-on-old-vs-new/
  14. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/02/01/can-r-scott-clark-be-truly-reformed/
  15. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/neonomian-presbyterians-vs-antinomian-congregationalists/
  16. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/11/22/summary-of-venemas-review-of-tlnf/
  17. “In Defense of Moses” and Venema’s review https://sites.google.com/site/mosaiccovenant/reading
  18. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/09/30/opc-republication-report-summary/
SRR 90 A Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian Debate

This week Tim Shaughnessy welcomes Pastor Patrick Hines and Brandon Adams to the show to discuss Baptism and Covenant Theology. In addition to the show, both participants in the discussion would like to offer additional resources to our listeners. 

Brandon Adams has provided the following resources to us. 

Patrick Hines has provided the following resources to us. 

** Here is my response to the two programs that were done with Brandon on SRR concerning the so-called “republication” issue: https://thorncrownministries.com/srr/2019/1/4/tpw-53-household-baptism-republication-the-fatal-flaw-of-presbyterian-covenant-theology-and-concluding-thoughts?rq=final

Sermon: "Biblical Infant Baptism and Covenant Theology": https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22161018333

Sermon Manuscript: https://playpdf.sermonaudio.com/media/22161018333/22161018333.pdf

Sermon: "Infant Baptism Defended" (Interacting with Reformed Baptist authors and theologians): https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=2216102990

Sermon Manuscript: https://media-proxy-3.sermonaudio.com/text/2216102990.pdf

New Members Class: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=1015151438197

Answering Good Questions about Infant Baptism: https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=6141894812

I checked YouTube and Brandon Adams's gross and repeated misrepresentations of my work are still there. There is no reason for him to have misunderstood what I worked hard and labored long to make clear in both sermons and the video linked above. I am convinced entirely that Brandon Adams has never read nor has he ever understood what Presbyterians believe about covenant theology and that he knows essentially nothing about it. Quoting men is far different from reading and understanding them. If he had done either he would have understood exactly what I was saying in my sermons and videos on this topic. He wrote, “He was articulating the Presbyterian position in what seemed like an odd way.” Anyone conversant with the relevant scholarship and literature on this subject would never write such a thing about my sermons and videos on these issues. There was nothing odd or unusual about my articulation of our position. The fact is, Brandon Adams neither knows nor understands what Presbyterians believe about covenant theology and baptism. At any rate, this video he put out is an example of how not to listen to sermons:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HxcPyS1jzU

Here is what I would recommend reading to see concise defenses of our views on covenant theology and baptism. While each of these works is lengthy, their respective sections on infant baptism are relatively short and to the point. I would recommend looking up every passage of Scripture cited in them. You will see if you read them that one’s particular take on the role of the Mosaic covenant is not part of the argument. If you own these works or purchase them, use the table of contents to take you to the sections on sacraments, baptism, and then the proper subjects of baptism. Fesko’s book is a historical and biblical survey of baptism. Toward the end, chapter 14 is an excellent summary (one of the best I have ever read). Chapter 14 it titled: “Baptism and Its Recipients”:

  1. Robert L Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2nd Ed.

  2. A. A. Hodge, A Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith

  3. Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology

  4. Robert L. Dabney, Systematic Theology

  5. J. V. Fesko, Word, Water, and Spirit: A Reformed Perspective on Baptism

This list could be far longer, but if one reads their short sections on the proper subjects of baptism, that person will have a very good handle on why we believe what we do about these things. With all deference, affection, and respect to my brethren on the other side of this issue, I do not believe they could answer the arguments and exegetical analysis of these works. I believe they can’t answer my opening statement either. I also suspect that this is the reason they are fixated upon an issue that is irrelevant to this subject instead of dealing with force of the biblical text and the historic Reformed tradition on this very important topic. I also believe this is why my opening statement was and continues to be ignored outside of Brandon’s article responding to it which I have not and do not intend to read. That’s what the debate was for and this has already consumed far more of my time than it ever should have. Had he made an opening statement with substance and biblical argumentation, I would gladly have rebutted it. Had he attempted to respond to my opening statement during the debate, I would gladly have rebutted that response. He did neither. That was his choice. It saddens me that my friends, Tim and Carlos, have very clearly been led off the track of understanding covenant theology and baptism by Brandon Adams.

Although it is not relevant to the proper subjects of Baptism, I’d like to post here Dr. Robert L. Reymond’s treatment of the Mosaic covenant and the Exodus event because it is outstanding:

The exodus from Egypt—the Old Testament type par excellence of biblical redemption—by divine arrangement exhibited the same great salvific principles which governed Christ’s work of atonement, both in its accomplished and applied aspects, in the New Testament, thereby teaching the elect in Israel about salvation by grace through faith in the atoning work of Messiah’s mediation.

As a major feature of the Old Testament ground for the truth that “everything that was written in the past was written to teach us” (Rom. 15:4; see 1 Cor. 10:1–11, where Paul employs the exodus and certain subsequent wilderness events for this pastoral purpose), the great exodus redemption of the people of God from Egypt (and Moses’ inspired record of it) communicated God’s redemptive ways to his Old Testament people as it would do later to us, his New Testament people. That it is not reading too much into the event of the exodus to characterize it as a redemptive event is borne out by the fact that the biblical text represents it precisely that way: Exodus 6:6: “I will free you from being slaves to them, and I will redeem you with an outstretched arm and with mighty acts of judgment.” Exodus 15:13: “In your unfailing love you will lead the people you have redeemed.” Deuteronomy 7:8: “But it was because the Lord loved you … that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery.” Deuteronomy 9:26: “O Sovereign Lord, do not destroy your people, your own inheritance, that you redeemed by your great power and brought out of Egypt with a mighty hand.” The exodus is also described as “Yahweh’s salvation” (Exod. 14:13), Moses also writing: “That day the Lord saved Israel from the hands of the Egyptians.” (Exod. 14:30). Later Stephen applied the title “redeemer” to Moses, a type of Christ (Acts 7:35). Far from their becoming after Sinai a nation living under divinely imposed constraints of legalism, the people of the Mosaic theocracy, having been delivered from their slavery as the result of the great redemptive activity of God in the exodus event, became God’s “treasured possession,” “a kingdom of priests and a holy nation” (Exod. 19:5–6; Deut. 7:6) in order to “declare the praises of him who brought them out of darkness into his marvelous light” (see 1 Pet. 2:9). In the exodus God revealed the following four great salvific principles that regulate all true salvation, taught Israel about faith in Christ, and bind the “soteriologies” of the Old and New Testaments indissolubly together into one “great salvation.”

1. The exodus redemption, in both purpose and execution, originated in the sovereign, loving, electing grace of God. This principle is expressly affirmed in Deuteronomy 7:6–8: You are a people holy to the Lord your God. The Lord your God has chosen you out of all the peoples on the face of the earth to be his people, his treasured possession. The Lord did not set his affection on you and choose you because you were more numerous than other peoples, for you were the fewest of all peoples. But it was because the Lord loved you and kept the oath he swore to your fore-fathers [which oath itself was grounded in sovereign electing grace—Heb. 6:13–18] that he brought you out with a mighty hand and redeemed you from the land of slavery, from the power of Pharaoh king of Egypt. (emphases supplied) And it is implied in God’s description of the nation as his “firstborn son” in Exodus 4:22–23 (see Deut. 14:1; Isa. 1:2–3; 43:6; 63:16; 64:8; Jer. 3:4; 31:9; Hos. 11:1; Mal. 1:6; 2:10), sonship from the very nature of the case being nonmeritorious and all the more so since Israel’s sonship was not sonship by nature (only God the Son is a Son of God by nature) but by adoption (Rom. 9:4). In actual execution of the exodus it is highly significant that there was little religious or moral difference between the nation of Egypt and Jacob’s descendants in Egypt: both peoples being idolatrous (Exod. 12:12; Josh. 24:14; Ezek. 23:8, 19, 21; but see Deut. 26:7 for evidence that a “remnant” still worshiped Yahweh) and sinful (Deut. 9:6–7). Accordingly, it was God himself who had to “make a distinction” between the Egyptians and the Israelites (Exod. 8:22–23; 9:4, 25–26; 10:22–23; 11:7).

2. The exodus redemption was accomplished by God’s almighty power and not by the strength of man (Exod. 3:19–20). Every detail of the exodus event was divinely arranged to highlight the great salvific truth that it is God who must save his people because they are incapable of saving themselves. God permitted Moses to attempt Israel’s deliverance at first by his own strategy and in his own strength, and allowed him to fail (Exod. 2:11–15; Acts 7:23–29). Then he sent Moses back to Egypt with the staff of God in his hand to “perform miraculous signs with it” (Exod. 4:17). God himself promised, precisely in order to “multiply” his signs that he might place his power in the boldest possible relief and this in order that both Egypt and Israel would learn that he is God, that he would harden Pharaoh’s heart throughout the course of the plagues, and he did so (Exod. 7:3; 10:1–2; 11:9; see Rom. 9:17). And the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 has as its single theme the extolling of God for his mighty power to save. There should have been no doubt in anyone’s mind after the event whose power had effected Israel’s redemption.

3. The exodus redemption, notwithstanding the two previous facts that it sprang from God’s gracious elective purpose and was accomplished by the power of God, actually delivered only those who availed themselves of the expiation of sin afforded by the efficacious covering of the blood of the paschal lamb (Exod. 12:12–13, 21–23, 24–27). This truth underscores the fact that biblical redemption is not simply deliverance by power but deliverance by price as well.21 That the paschal lamb was a “sacrifice” is expressly declared in Exodus 12:27, 34:25, and 1 Corinthians 5:7. As a biblical principle, wherever the blood of a sacrifice is shed and applied as God has directed so that he stays his judgment, the expiation or “covering” of sin has been effected. Accordingly, the exodus redemption came to its climax precisely in terms of a divinely required substitutionary atonement in which the people had to place their confidence if they were to be redeemed. As we will suggest later, Moses could have informed them of the christological significance of the paschal lamb.

4. The exodus redemption resulted in the creation of a new community liberated from slavery in order to serve its gracious new Redeemer and Lord. Again and again God ordered Pharaoh:“Let my people go that they may serve me” (see Exod. 3:18; 4:23; 5:1; 7:16; 8:1, 20; 9:1, 13; 10:3). The Bible knows nothing of a people of God springing into existence as the result of his redemptive activity who then continue to remain under the hostile power of their former master (see Rom. 6:6, 17–22; 7:4–6, 23–25; 8:2–4; 2 Cor. 5:15, 17). Though Pharaoh suggested compromises that would have resulted in something less than complete liberation for Israel (Exod. 8:25, 28; 10:11, 24), Moses would have none of it. Accordingly, Israel left Egypt completely (Exod. 12:37; 13:20), becoming a guided people (Exod. 13:21–22) and a singing people (Exod. 15), who had their sacraments (Exod. 14:21–23; 16:4, 13–15; 17:1–6; see 1 Cor. 10:2–4), and whose perseverance in their pilgrim struggles was dependent ultimately on the intercession of “the man on top of the hill” and not on their own strength and stratagems (Exod. 17:8–16). And far from Israel “rashly accepting the law” at Sinai and “falling from grace” when the nation promised its obedience to God’s law, the very preface of the Ten Commandments (Exod. 20:1–2) places these ten obligations within the context of and represents them as the anticipated outcome of the redemption which they had just experienced. So it was to be through Israel’s very obedience to God’s commandments that the nation was to evidence before the surrounding nations that it was God’s “treasured possession,” his “kingdom of priests,” and “a holy nation”—precisely the same way that the church today evidences before the watching world its relationship to God. Peter informs Christians that they, like Israel in Old Testament times, are a “chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, in order that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light” (1 Pet. 2:9). And Christians, just as Israel was to do through its obedience to God’s laws, are to show forth his praises as “aliens and strangers in the world” by “living such good lives among the pagans that … they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us” (1 Pet. 2:11–12).

This final quotation is from Joel Beeke’s very scholarly work “A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life” from chapter 45, “The Puritans and Paedobaptism.” I’d highly encourage the reading of the entire chapter, but the following final quotation is exactly what I asserted from Scripture in my opening statement, in my sermons, and in all that I’ve written and taught on this issue:

Reformed theologians have always made it clear that the warrant for paedobaptism does not come from Moses. Nowhere do we read of anyone contrasting the new covenant with the promises made to Abraham. There was indeed disagreement concerning what is meant by the “old covenant,” and how it relates to the new covenant, but Reformed theologians all affirmed that the new covenant was the fulfillment of the promises made to Abraham. Indeed, there is nothing substantially different between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant, except that the latter is the fulfilment of what was only a promise in the former, which is why Reformed theologians had no difficulty affirming a “covenant of grace” that included God’s gracious dealings with the church from the time of Adam to the time of Christ. One may argue that the new covenant is different in kind than the Sinaitic or old covenant, as did Owen and Goodwin, among others; but Owen and Goodwin could join with those who viewed old and new covenants as one in substance to affirm paedobaptism because all agreed that the command to baptize infants was based on the perpetual promises made to Abraham, the father of many nations, and not derived from any law or ordinance of Moses. Of course, the argument that Abraham, not Moses, provides the rationale for paedobaptism has been acknowledged by the more learned antipaedobaptists.

Based upon this quotation, I leave it to the listeners and readers to decide whether or not my antipaedobaptist interlocutors are among the learned or unlearned on this particular topic.