Question about "Reformed Baptists"

I see the two covenants, law and grace, in the Bible, period!

Dispensationalism is theological nonsense! </font>[/QUOTE]I don't think Dr. Bob is a full-blown dispy any more than I am, but he and I see the Covenants as they are, not in some grand theological scheme.

The Bible is very careful to refer to some things as covenants (Noah, Abraham, Moses,David, New, etc.), and it is just as careful to NOT refer to other things as covenants (His instructions to Adam, the counsel of His own thoughts before the world was made, etc.).

Covenant theology may make sense logically and philosophically, but it is not only NONSENSE Biblically, it is NONEXISTENT Biblically.

Please help me here:

So where are the "Covenant of Law" and the "Covenant of Grace" SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Bible?

Where in the Bible are the Covenants referred SPECIFICALLY as "administrations of the one covenant of Grace?"

A student asked me once where to find that the "Covenant of Grace" and the "Covenant of Works" were promulgated, and when did it happen. I said, "Oh, probably in Witsius' study in the 17th century, because they are not in the Bible for sure."

 

1689 was as I understood it an update on 1644 mainly to deal with the controversy over open and closed communion.

Yours in Christ

Matt

 

Yeah, I've used that one too . Besides its humourous aspect, it's also a very true statement.
I know that I am certainly more an historian than a theologian, but to me, covenantalism as it is found in the WCF or the writings of François Turrentin is a really late development of ONE segment of Reformed theology. I do not find those views in Calvin (just compare the 1559 French confession and the Genevan catechism with the WCF).
Of course, this historical point of view is not the most important: I disagree with covenant theology because of its misinterpretation of Scripture,not because of who believed it or not.

It seems to me that the differences between the two texts are such that one can not speak of a mere "update"...On many levels, you have two conflicting systems of theology. And I do not think that either of the confession really deals with open or closed communion, even if the men that framed the 1689 surely wanted to manifest their union with Presbyterians (but again, largely fot political reasons)

In Him

Thomas

 

Matt,

If you will read the 1644, you will see very little resemblance, while the 1689 is virtually a copy (minus the baptist stuff) of the Westminster.

Try this link.

http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/creeds/bc1644.htm