Friday 10 July 2020

Brandon Adams' “Problems with PRCA Covenant Theology” Under the Spotlight






[The] fundamental error of [this piece is that it] denies that the covenant of Sinai was a dispensation of the covenant of grace and, therefore, necessarily that the Old Testament covenant with Israel was a dispensation of the covenant of grace.

As Paul establishes in Galatians 3, the law of Sinai was not given to Israel as a revival of the covenant with Adam in Paradise before the fall.  Neither was it a covenant of works proposing righteousness by the law.  But it was a dispensation of the covenant of grace, with its own testimony to salvation by grace, as the heading of the Ten Commandments witnessed, “I am the Lord thy God, which have [graciously] brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage [by the blood of the Lamb]” (Exod. 20:2).  The main function of the Sinai covenant was to serve as a schoolmaster to lead the people to Christ so that they might be justified by Christ through faith alone.  This is Galatians 3.  To propose the Sinai covenant as a conditional covenant of works is to contradict the Bible’s message of gracious salvation in an important dispensation of this salvation—the entire Old Testament.   

There never was a re-installation of the covenant of works, as the covenant with Adam is conceived in this essay.

Every dispensation of the covenant after Genesis 3:15 was grace, not works.  And grace is unconditional.

Erring with regard to the Old Testament covenant with Israel, as though this were a covenant of works, the Baptist necessarily also errs with regard to other important aspects of the gospel—for example, salvation for Israel consisted merely of earthly blessings, and infants of believers are not included in the New Testament covenant, even though they were included in the Old Testament covenant.  Also, circumcision and baptism are essentially different despite Colossians 2:11, 12.

The Baptist error involves fundamental aspects of the gospel.

There is no such thing, in reality, as a “Reformed Baptist.”  To be Reformed is not to be a Baptist.  And to be a Baptist is not to be Reformed. 



(Source: David J. Engelsma, 10/07/2020)

No comments:

Post a Comment