Visit our website: www.kingdompresbyterians.com/ Make a donation: donorbox.org/presbyterians-fo... Theology Matters: www.theologymatters.com/ Find a church: www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/edi...
The Church is the true successor of ancient Israel. The modern state of Israel lacks the true Messiah. "And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's offspring, heirs according to promise." - Galatians 3:29
”Brothers and sisters, pray for us. Greet all God’s people with a holy kiss.“ 1 Thessalonians 5:25-26 although the church is the continuation of gods promise as presbes say but god has not completely abandoned his people.
@@TheScholarlyBaptist God's people? You mean the bloodlines of Israel? Are you not aware that the ten tribes were carried off into bondage by the Assyrians, sent to the lands of the Scythians, and it is from that land that the Germanics, the Huns, the Slavs, the Mongols and the Turks all came? The blood is dispersed among many nations now, as is the blood of Judah and Benjamin, many of whom became Christians. The stubborn Pharisees of the Old Testament, which were they who followed the traditions of men, the oral torah, which is now the Talmud; were often of Edomite descent. They became modern day jews, as the other people of the Hebrew faith required the Temple, and after its destruction at the hands of the Romans they were no longer able to practice their faith, leading many to either become Christians who had Jesus as their Temple, or a Pharisee/jew, which claimed they did not need a temple because the rabbis had said so. The Edomites had settled the region during the Babylonian exile; when the Judahites returned from exile they had a war with the Edomites, with a man called John Hyrcanus, a Sadduccee, leading them, who defeated the Edomites. He forced them to convert to the Hebrew religion, and many of the Edomites would then become Pharisees as an act of petty resistance, as Pharisees were the main theological opponents of the Sadducees. One such Edomite Pharisee family would be the Herodians, with the Bible recording their founder as Antipater the Idumean (which is Edomite). The point I'm making is that if you think God is going to look after a people because of genetic connections to Abraham, then you will find much of the world related to him, not just Europeans and Turks, but also Arabs and Africans and more. If it is just the people of Israel, well then you still have the Europeans, the Mongols, the Turks and all of the people they conquered and mixed with (which is literally everywhere). Even though some jews might be counted among these people genetically related to Israel, many would not due to them being Edomites or Canaanites, while many people in other nations are; and so the idea that God would uniquely help the 'jews' that live in the state of Israel today is utter nonsense. It's also not Biblical in the first place, as the promises are given to the seed of Abraham, which is one seed, which is Jesus (Galatians 3:16); and if any man believes in Jesus then he is made one with the people of Christ, there is neither jew nor gentile, all are made one in Christ; and through Christ we becomes heirs according to the promise (Galatians 3:28-29).
@@LordMicahBroch False. God will save an elect remnant of literal, biological Israel at the end times: Romans 11:25 KJV For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.
@@Revolver9 read Galatians. The church IS Israel. The children of Abraham are those of the faith as per Galatians 3:7 And Galatians 3:26-29 "So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." Some biological Jews WILL be saved, but only if they believe in Christ, NOT because they are biological Jews
not a presby myself but I have been looking into the reformed camp, your channel has given me a lot to think about and to compare to the scriptures...Thanks RZ!
Reformed theology has another christ, not Jesus The Messiah. They’re great recruiters into a treacherous system of an iron clad dusty meadow of tulips .
My theology basically falls somewhere between Reformed and Roman Catholic. This channel has inspired me, and I’m going to join the ACNA, though in college I’m going to be at one of the Episcopalian churches off the Reconquista map. God bless
@At this rate, you’ll get people pushing for this in every denomination. The key is to focus on a church holding to the faith handed down from the saints and holding fast to scripture, not being blown with the world. As long as the church he finds is conservative and biblical, then he should be fine.
Our man RZ is literally distilling dozens of hours worth of theology into a tl;dr of 10 minutes, which also somehow includes references to current day events, making it super relatable and easy to understand. I stand in awe.
People think Methodists and Presbys don't have much in common due to Soteriology , but in truth we are basically identical when it comes to the Sacraments and Covenant Theology.
So I was born and raised Christian my whole life up in southern Canada. My parents were both raised German baptist(which is a very strict, law based and hypocritical thing, hard to explain but many younger members of the church slept around and got girls pregnant, lots of shotgun marriages) and so my parents both rejected the fundamentals of that church believing that it was "The Law" that the church taught that made everyone so sinful. They left their denomination to be apart of the "word of life" movement, which then became a completely non-denom church later. Everything was fine until I turned 12, that's when the theology of my denomination started to crumble. We went to this church my whole growing up until the pastor (Peter Youngren big televangelist) cheated on his wife(of course he was forgiven) and then cheated on her a second time, so our church fell apart and disbanded. My parents tried out a sister church nearby but I started to hate being there and that church was covertly getting into new age stuff which my mom saw through. Both of these churches were totally money driven and business people driven. Everyone there was trying to make money off others(it was crazy looking back at it now). Seeing it through my eyes now it seems like we believed some mangled type of Federalism as was explained in the video. My parents decided to pull away from the church and "do church from home" and that started in like 2009, they tried to keep my away from "all the dreaded denominations" and so for a while I'd been secluded from real churches. That was until I started dating a fundamental Baptist girl and went to her church when I was 20. It was a confusing experience, I felt like a fish out of water, the people were so nice to me that I didn't know what to say or do. That only lasted 2 months till we broke up(clearly our beliefs were too different at that time, I was an undeveloped Christian and she was 4 years older than me, she needed spiritual stability) but I began to study all the different denominations, trying to figure out what I actually believed. I'm 25 now, but 2 years ago I decided I was a reformed Christian, as I find their theology one of the only solid grounds to stand on. But today I must say that with your explanation I ACTUALLY understand what I believe now!!! I might still struggle to fight against my parents and go to a physical church near me, but these videos are giving me the confidence I need to one day overcome them, and that day is coming soon!!! Thank you so much!!!!
Catholics don't read solely through tradition. Catholics also read through Covenant theology, but with a much much more rigorous form than most presbyterians, dividing the text into one of 4 different fulfillments. There's a wikipedia article on the matter if anyone cares to check it out
That’s officially true. But there are so many ignorant Presbyterians, Methodists, Catholics, etc that many of them think that the Rapture idea is true because they see it in movies or hear about it on the radio or whatever.
Yeah, hardly anyone could read and there were hardly any books prior to the printing press. Now that hundreds of millions of people can read the Bible for themselves they can form views on scripture that some corrupt medieval priest may not have seen.
It is good to see that there are an actual theology theories that explain the Church is the real continuity of Israel. With this, many people will learn about it through proper educated way I say this because I learn about it not from proper theological theories. I learned it from chain of bad experiences.
I really like what you are doing for the modern day church by explaining things that most people have forgotten over time but i can see alot of chirstians just getting confused by all the big theological words and how people in the church disagree on so many points. I hope we can make this understandable to the average believer.
1:21 Heb.8 seems to go against this especially in vss.7-9 New covenant...not like the one I made. Ending with vs.13 "When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear."
Thank you! This breakdown of Covenant Theology is so helpful! What book would you recommend that elaborates on basic Covenant Theology as you've described it here?
The only basis we have here is the Bible itself, which we can know and understand better today than throughout most of church history. None of these man made traditions (Catholic, Reformed, Orthodox, Protestant, Pentecostal, Dispensationalism) we see today exist in the Bible. Each one has a bit of Biblical truth with a whole lot of extrabiblical fluff thrown in that they reinsert back into the Bible. My stance is that most of these issues are fairly minor and I shouldn't be rejecting people for certain beliefs, but these issues can cause problems that may turn people away for being too overly strict. On the other hand, some people need a stricter firm hand as a guiding light. Personally I believe God is using this for good even though Christ did not desire such divisions and would rather they not exist, but their existence is simply a part of human nature. The founding fathers of the USA didn't desire the formation of political parties but they happened anyway. Its just an unfortunate fact of human nature.
Reformed Christians have no problem with traditions. We have a problem with the idea that church tradition is infallible and can't be scrutinized. Only God's Word is infallible.
I am a Lutheran the point is that in the Old Testmente we was under the law and in the new Testmente we became free with the Gospel so yes, Law and Gospel.
Jews disobeyed God and rejected his prophets all the way back to the days of Moses. And they were still the chosen people throughout all of that. They have not changed in 4000 years. Because them being chosen has nothing to do with them being good or better.
@@jrconway3no. Revelation, Ezekiel, Daniel, Jeremiah, and Zechariah clearly all talk about Jesus coming back to defend Israel from the antichrist in the end times. Jesus is still going to fulfill his promise that Israel will be saved. “And I will pour out on the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem a spirit of grace and supplication. They will look on me, the one they have pierced, and they will mourn for him as one mourns for an only child, and grieve bitterly for him as one grieves for a firstborn son.”
Hi. So I have a question that maybe you can answer. You mention Hypervalvanism at the end as being taught by smaller denominations, but I've been learning more about th ongoing debate between Calvanists and Armenians (and others) and the Calvanists seem to describe themselves as Redormed -- which it looks like you do as well. Am I missing some further distinction between the term reformed and calvanism? Is there such a distinction at all? Or does reformed simply mean anyone who is not Catholic?
Lutherans would say that Law and Gospel both run throughout Scripture. Also, I think our primary hermeneutic is reading Scripture as pointing to Christ. Law and Gospel are important, but Christ is primary. Also, I'm pretty comfortable with Israel and the Church being God’s people, with the church being folded in or grafted on. That seems to be the best way to make sense of Romans 9-11.
I believe Israel was a nation of God’s chosen meant to be a type and shadow for his coming kingdom. Romans 11 helps us understand Israel wasn’t replaced but rather gentiles were saved to bring them into jealousy and prove God came to save ALL. Romans 11:1-36 “11 I ask, then, has God rejected his people? By no means! For I myself am an Israelite, a descendant of Abraham,[a] a member of the tribe of Benjamin. 2 God has not rejected his people whom he foreknew. Do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he appeals to God against Israel? 3 “Lord, they have killed your prophets, they have demolished your altars, and I alone am left, and they seek my life.” 4 But what is God's reply to him? “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5 So too at the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. 6 But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace. 7 What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened, 8 as it is written, “God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear, down to this very day.” 9 And David says, “Let their table become a snare and a trap, a stumbling block and a retribution for them; 10 let their eyes be darkened so that they cannot see, and bend their backs forever.” Gentiles Grafted In 11 So I ask, did they stumble in order that they might fall? By no means! Rather, through their trespass salvation has come to the Gentiles, so as to make Israel jealous. 12 Now if their trespass means riches for the world, and if their failure means riches for the Gentiles, how much more will their full inclusion[b] mean! 13 Now I am speaking to you Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle to the Gentiles, I magnify my ministry 14 in order somehow to make my fellow Jews jealous, and thus save some of them. 15 For if their rejection means the reconciliation of the world, what will their acceptance mean but life from the dead? 16 If the dough offered as firstfruits is holy, so is the whole lump, and if the root is holy, so are the branches. 17 But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root[c] of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, “Branches were broken off so that I might be grafted in.” 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. The Mystery of Israel's Salvation 25 Lest you be wise in your own sight, I do not want you to be unaware of this mystery, brothers:[d] a partial hardening has come upon Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles has come in. 26 And in this way all Israel will be saved, as it is written, “The Deliverer will come from Zion, he will banish ungodliness from Jacob”; 27 “and this will be my covenant with them when I take away their sins.” 28 As regards the gospel, they are enemies for your sake. But as regards election, they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. 29 For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable. 30 For just as you were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their disobedience, 31 so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now[e] receive mercy. 32 For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all. 33 Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! 34 “For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?” 35 “Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?” 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen.”
True, these folk just think Israel’s third resurrection was a coincidence. Apparently, messing with Israel resulting in terrible luck for you is true. We’re watching it unfold. And if anyone is gonna call me a “puppet of the synagogue of Satan” it was also said that Satan would trick people into being anti Israel regardless of where they stand.
As an Orthodox Christian, I love watching this series. I find something I disagree with but I can't explain it, I research, ask my priest, and then continue.
To avoid confusion on the subject, Law & Gospel and Covenant Theology fit together quite well. I'd say you're looking at Scripture correctly if you see Law & Gospel when you look from one angle and Covenant Theology when you look from another angle. The two are compatible, unlike Dispensationalism and either of the two.
I believe in a law / gospel distinction, I also believe in a continual covenant God makes with us. I don’t understand how law/gospel and continual covenant are mutually exclusive.
Some of the Marrow Men were Thomas Boston, Ralph & Ebenezer Erskine & Jas Hog. The good book that so influenced them was written by Edward Fisher, many years before, “The Marrow of Modern Divinity”. They fought against Legalism in the church & especially Legalism in The Gospel ! This fight is needed once again in our day.
Confused at 6:25 when he says the 10 commandments still apply under covenant theology. Did I hear that right? If so, why not all the rest of the mosaic law?
I agree, Christans are not under the Law, see Galatians 3:19,24-29 and note Paul's use of 'until' and 'no longer'. For a more detailed discussion see Acts 15:5-29 and Acts 21:25. Christ Jesus reiterated 9 of the 10 commandments in the Gospels (not the Sabbath btw) and said, "all the Law," hangs on the 2 greatest commandments (Matthew 22:40).
This is interesting...as I recently was berated by a few Christian's randomly, because they thought celebrating Christmas and eating pork was blasphemy, and that Jesus would essentially not have died for any who did do either. Oh and yes, they thought about the Rapture with the USA, utilizing Ezekial 1-2, Isaiah 66, and John 4 (might be wrong with the exact chapter of John, as I forgot that last one).
Anyone who wants to know more about Marrow theology should read "The Whole Christ" by Sinclair Ferguson, my favorite Christian book written since the death of C.S. Lewis. I think it's such a rich way of understanding God's Grace.
Reformed calvinism is a disgusting reprehensible post biblical writing system. Gnostic roots that malign and bear false witness to the life of Jesus The Messiah. Your choice.
I argue almost daily with my Boomer father because he is absolutely obsessed with supporting "Our Greatest Ally" or like, America is gonna get swallowed by a sinkhole or something.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I have a genuine question - if the law given to Moses is a part of the Covenant of Grace, then does that mean, according to Reformed Covenant theology, that all of the laws still apply today? Like, that we should be honouring feast days and we shouldn't wear mixed fabrics? I'm curious to hear your perspective
In Traditional Reformed Covenant Theology, it's believed that Christ fulfilled the ceremonial and ritual aspects of the Mosaic Law through his death and resurrection. These laws, which included various sacrificial rituals, dietary restrictions, and ceremonial practices, were seen as pointing forward to Christ and his ultimate sacrifice. Therefore, with the coming of Christ, these ceremonial laws were no longer necessary for believers to observe, as they were fulfilled in him. This perspective is often based on passages like Hebrews 9-10, which discuss Christ's role as the ultimate high priest and the perfect sacrifice, superseding the need for the Old Testament sacrificial system.
Generally, you can distinguish three types of laws, the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. The moral law still applies (since the nature of morality, being originated in the essence of God, is immutable) but we are not saved by adherence to it, rather we try to adhere to it for the love of God and our gratitude towards Him. The ceremonial law pointed towards Christ and His redemptive work. Since Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law, we do not need to adhere to it. The civil law was given to ancient Israel so that they may be a nation unto God, and to be a nation in the first place you will need some rule of law. This is not applicable to us as we are not in that earthly nation. Of course these distinctions aren't of such a manner that you can divide up the law verse by verse and say "this is moral, this is civil" etc, but you can see the moral, ceremonial and civil aspects to several laws, e.g. Deuteronomy 21:1-9 (concerning the murder of a stranger) clearly contains both civil and ceremonial aspects of how to deal with the situation, as well as point to the moral law (Thou shalt not murder) and also conveys the mercy of God. I would suggest reading chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as it explains this better than I could. Extracted from www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith CHAPTER 19 Of the Law of God 1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it. 2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man. 3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. 4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation. 5. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace. 7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.
@@uilspieel99 Thanks for clarifying this - so I guess what I'm getting from this is that all 3 aspects of the law point ultimately towards Christ, and therefore demonstrate the continuity of the Covenant of Grace discussed in the video - but that we only need try to keep the moral law, out of our love for God. And that all aspects of the law are fulfilled in Christ.
Hey! I would highly suggest the channel Messiah Matters. They have a bunch of videos relating to questions like these because they believe the Torah still stands. They clear up a lot of questions about moral/ceremonial/civil. Give them a chance, they’re great and full of scholarly knowledge. 🙂
Can you make a special episode about the definition of evangelicalism ? What is the difference between evangelical protestants and the other protestants ?
The Church isn't the people of God to the exclusion of Israel, the Church is another word for Israel post-crucifixion. Jews who reject Jesus are cut off from it, but many will eventually come to believe and be regrafted. Gentile Christians, when they join the Church, are grafted onto Israel. This becomes clear when you read Romans 11 and Galatians 3 & 4. Also, James addresses all Christians as "the twelve scattered tribes".
The only "Christians" who believe this are dispensationalists. The church of Christ was started by the believing and faithful remnant of Israel bringing Gentiles into the fold. Its only natural that over time the percentage of Christians who weren't ethnically Jewish would diminish over time. Those who still cling to Judaism are rejecting Christ, making them by definition Antichrist.
@@biffspigler1093 that's a modern understanding of the law, there is no distinction between different types of laws in the bible. If there is please show me the verse
@@mateusarruda4875 13And there came a voice to him: “Rise, Peter; kill and eat.” 14But Peter said, “By no means, Lord; for I have never eaten anything that is common or unclean.” 15And the voice came to him again a second time, “What God has made clean, do not call common.” 16This happened three times, and the thing was taken up at once to heaven.
okay this is a little bit complicated. What is the difference between: - 1689 Federalism - Lutheranism (in case of Covenant Theology i assume its a different standpoint) -Republication They seem to me as the same,.just the wording is different.
So according to covenant theology shouldn't Christians not eat pork? As the previous covenant apply to us as well? I'm new to Christianity and confused ?
I will copy here another an answer that was gave by another guy to this same question. "Generally, you can distinguish three types of laws, the moral law, the ceremonial law, and the civil law. The moral law still applies (since the nature of morality, being originated in the essence of God, is immutable) but we are not saved by adherence to it, rather we try to adhere to it for the love of God and our gratitude towards Him. The ceremonial law pointed towards Christ and His redemptive work. Since Christ has fulfilled the ceremonial law, we do not need to adhere to it. The civil law was given to ancient Israel so that they may be a nation unto God, and to be a nation in the first place you will need some rule of law. This is not applicable to us as we are not in that earthly nation. Of course these distinctions aren't of such a manner that you can divide up the law verse by verse and say "this is moral, this is civil" etc, but you can see the moral, ceremonial and civil aspects to several laws, e.g. Deuteronomy 21:1-9 (concerning the murder of a stranger) clearly contains both civil and ceremonial aspects of how to deal with the situation, as well as point to the moral law (Thou shalt not murder) and also conveys the mercy of God. I would suggest reading chapter 19 of the Westminster Confession of Faith, as it explains this better than I could. Extracted from www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/westminster-confession-faith CHAPTER 19 Of the Law of God 1. God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which He bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it. 2. This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty toward God, and the other six our duty to man. 3. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, His graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament. 4. To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require. The moral law doth forever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof; and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it, but also in respect of the authority of God the Creator who gave it. Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen, this obligation. 5. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of His obedience. It is likewise of use to the regenerate, to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin, and the threatenings of it serve to show what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse thereof threatened in the law. The promises of it, in like manner, show them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof; although not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works: so as a man’s doing good, and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one, and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law, and not under grace. 7. Neither are the forementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the gospel, but do sweetly comply with it: the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully, which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done."
@@redeemedzoomer6053Yes 1689 federalism is a bit different, but there are reformed baptists that are truly reformed and truly embrace covenant theology. Reformed baptists such as myself, don't say that the old testament is a covenant of works, they believe it's a covenant of grace just as Presbyterians do. This is what I've learned in a baptist seminary with baptist teachers, and it's what is taught in my baptist church, and is what was taught to me by my baptist parents while growing up. But it's not the majority view between baptist. There's a great diversity in baptists. From full classical dispensationslism to covenant theology.
@@TitusRexHow you have the same Covenant Theology that we have and don't baptize babies? Our you will circumcize them or you will believe that it was substituted by Baptism, there is no other option.
@@pedroguimaraes6094 baptism and the understanding of circumcision are the main difference. If you want a brief explanation you can read the wikipedia article "Baptist covenant theology" you'll see that there are different views within reformed baptist theology, those that are 1689Fed and those that agree with Westminster understanding of the covenant of grace.
What's kinda funny is my church and I fully agree with the mainline Reformed Covenant Theology understanding, except for external and internal participation because of a baptism disagreement, despite being Southern Baptist. Covenants of grace and works, the same covenant between the Old and New Testament, etc. 😅
Small correction on hypercalvinism in the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands: only a subset of them hold to this kind of theology. These churches are known as 'bevindelijk' or experiental in English, meaning they should have 'experienced' God to be sure of their election. But other Reformed Churches in the Netherlands, both orthodox and liberal, do not hold to this theology. That being said, you are correct on that many members of the experiental churches don't take communion. Which I find really sad because these churches withhold the Body and Blood of Christ from a large part of their members.
I currently attend a Presbyterian church, and I'm thinking that I'll become Catholic, but Reformed theology is very interesting, particularly covenant theology
Donald Macleod of the Free Church gave a lecture on this a while back. There's audio of it on my channel. There are also lectures by him on Rutherford and Boston. He doesn't frame the Marrow Controversy the way you do. Lecture Title: "07 The Adamic Covenant & the Noahic Covenant. The Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace."
I think there was a lot to cover in this video, but I missed more biblical references that support Covenant Theology, which we know to be abundant. For beginners on the subject, the end of the video you made about "why you are not a Lutheran" made a better defense, while this one went more into the controversies and nuances. Considering the porpouse of this series, I think it would be better if it was more focused on conveying the concept and later a video could be made for these smaller divergences.
Great video! But still confused. I thought most of the early church fathers didn’t see the Lord’s Day as a literal replacement for the Sabbath, but as its own unique day. Also, didn’t the Paul say that the keeping of the Sabbath as not being required for Christians? Why then would Presbyterians go so far as to say that the 10 Commandments apply to the church in the same way as Israel? Isn’t that a bit of a jump?
Yeah its a misnomer for Christians to say the Ten Commandments still apply but many do unfortunately. The NT reaffirmed God's moral law which basically includes all the Ten Commandments except the Sabbath. Hence we are not actually under the Ten Commandments. Its just that 1-3 and 5-10 are basic moral law. The fourth.commandment was specific to Israel. Keeping the Sabbath holy was their sign of the covenant. However, the Sabbath was not designed by God as a strict ritual for all of humanity bit simply as proof that humans need to take a day of rest from hard labor. The Sabbath was created for man.
My parents are dispensationalists I still don’t really know a-lot about hermeneutics so I have not really developed an opinion on it I would have to read more in to it. So thanks for making this video it at least gives me a place to start.
Definitely ask your parents about it, but as a Dispensationalist myself, I have never heard "current day Israel is still the chosen people of God." With this current dispensation, there is no chosen people. Male, female, young, old, greek, jew, slave or free, we are all one in Christ.
It's not just dispensationalism that makes things like covenant theology unpopular among evangelicals, there's also the perception that the idea that the church replaces Israel has borne bad fruit, in that it has historically often been taken as a license to antisemitism, or an excuse to ignore it. My reading of scripture is that the Old Covenant is a prophecy pointing towards the New, that the elect of the Old Testament were saved by the New Covenant, not the Old, and that the Jews are God's people temporally, while the Church is God's people spiritually, neither one replacing the other. There's also the sense in which the Jews are God's people in the same sense as Mary is the Mother of God (Jesus is God, Jesus is ethnically a Jew).
There are 66 books in the Bible, my friend, the best place to start is Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They tell the story of Jesus. After that, you should find a Christian who can disciple you, and show you how these 4 books fulfilled the Entire Old Testament (Genesis through to Malachi), and then set up the New Testament (Acts to Revelation).
At 4:56, does it mean that you could be saved but not born again? Being born again means you enter His Kingdom, right? If you are saved and not born again, can you go to heaven?
The Ten Commandments don't apply either. The only thing that still apply are basic God formed human morality that is reaffirmed in the New Testament, it just so happens that most of the Ten Commandments reflect this basic morality. The Sabbath was one thing that was also abolished as a requirement for Christians to uphold because the Sabbath was the sign of the covenant of the Mosaic Law. In the NT it is clear that although keeping a day of rest is good, we have no need to hold specific days special above any other days. The sign of the covenant of Abraham was circumcision. This sign still applied to the Jews due to being descendants of Abraham. The sign of the Mosaic Covenant was keeping the Sabbath. The sign of Noah's covenant was the rainbow. The sign of the New Covenant (the covenant of Christ) is the shedding of his blood.
Really good video on Covenental Theology. I would lean more dispensational just because many of the promises in the OT are to Israel, and would have been unreadable or even a straight up lie to the original audience. Zech 14 comes to mind
Watching more and more of this series and how different churches who believe these weird biblical offshoots, the more I realize it's no wonder so many people are turned off to church, when it can get so insane, like that communion bit
Also, to be clear from 6:33 ... Why do the 10 commandments given to Israel still apply to the NT Church as a continuation of Israel, but many of the other 600 or so commands given to Israel do not apply to the NT Church?
8:11 Gal. 3:12 "But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Paul's outlook seems to be that the Law of Moses was an added, temporary thing and The New Covenant in Christ is a return to the Abrahamic Covenant. Compare Rom.4, Gal.3 & 4 then Hebrews which may have been Paul of one of his associates (I'm not picky on that).
I am still confused why the Mosaic Law is not a republication of the Covenant of Works. There is a condition from the Israelites to do in order for God to bless them Unlike the other covenants that do not require actions on our side, so they are not questionable if they belong to the Covenant of Grace Hope someone can answer, Thanks!
People often make mistakes with the Mosaic Law because they read certain texts out of context and because they come in with presuppositions. For example, something people often miss is how in Deuteronomy and Leviticus there is an eternal blessing on Israel for keeping the law... BUT ALSO an eternal CURSE for breaking it. People tend to miss the eternal curse part. I've heard this is likely a bad translation issue. These words that are translated "eternal" or "forever" do not necessarily mean literally forever. In the original language it actually meant "far beyond the horizon", which could mean literally forever but not necessarily. This curse actually predicts the exiles during Babylon, and later a permanent exile as well. Although there is an "Israel" that exists today, there's no evidence to suggest God was behind it.
@@jrconway3 Having a curse also depends on a condition that if they break the Law, they will get it. I am still confused because in other covenants, you don't get curses there since it was all God's commitments but here in the Mosaic Law, obedience is required for Israelites for blessing and curses if they disobey..
6:19 2Cor.3 the whole chapter but especially vs. 6 "the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life." vs.7 the ministry of death, in letters engraved on stones, came with glory, so that the sons of Israel could not look intently at the face of Moses because of the glory of his face." When did moses' face glow? When he was coming down from the mountain with the 10 commandments. Paul call this the ministry that brings death but the New Covenant brings life. It seems to me that the Lutheran perspective is better. I read and enjoyed Luther's "How Christians Should Regard Moses" (1525)
I’m a Baptist minister, not southern Baptist, Original Baptist, and I 💯 subscribe to covenant theology. I don’t, however, believe in predestination (Calvinism). There are some Baptists who are Calvinist. My maternal grandmother and grandfather belong to the Primitive Baptist Church who believe in predestination. They’re basically Presbyterian
If you hold to Reformed Covenant Theology, you believe that the Church is a continuation of Israel and that the Old and the New Covenants are just two different administrations of the same Covenant of Grace. If you believe so, or you will circumcize your Babies our you will have the same Reformed understanding that Circuncision was substituted by Baptism and you will baptize infants.
Hardcore covenant theologians would argue Baptists are incompatible with covenant theology. Literally found one in the comments of this video. Until I study a topic fully I do not wish to subscribe 100% to a specific set of beliefs. I do lean covenant theology but that doesn't mean I agree with every single nuance they might have. That's where the problem lies with taking up such labels.
Wait. My entire life, I always thought that only the elect were christians. That those 2 words meant the same thing. Can you explain how are they different?
@@redeemedzoomer6053 Yes, I did grow up baptist and I still consider myself one. Although I've been looking into presby and lutheran traditions in order to learn more about historical protestantism and I have tremendous respect for them. Can you point me to a good source that explains exactly what 'elect' means?
You forgot to mention another "in-between" option: progressive dispensationalism, interdependent covenants in which the successive covenants adds to, updates, and fulfills the previous covenants.
Just to be clear, you’re calling the literal interpretation of scripture “heresy”. You’re calling it heresy despite the fact that the prophesies about Israel, when literally interpreted, have literally come true. That, to you, is heresy.
@kevinkent6351 You have a problem if you take the book of Revelation literally. It LITERALLY says in Rev. 9 that 200 million horsemen will come against Israel. Is that literal? If so then you need to start breeding horses. There are only about 60 million in the world today. Poor Jesus, He can't come back because His followers haven't bred enough horses so that Rev. 9 will be literally true. If you really want to learn about Revelation you would notice that Rev. 1:1-3 says that this revealing from Christ was given to John to deliver directly to seven churches in Asia. Furthermore, it literally states that this message is written in signs or symbols (made more prevalent in the Greek), and these events will start to happen immediately in the first century. The Greek word "tachei" can only mean that this will happen shorty after its delivery, and would be impossible 2K years later. It never means postponement until a later time, and is never used in the Bible this way. As verse 3 says to the audience of Revelation, the seven churches in Asia "The Time is at hand."
@@Flame1500 Almost nobody could read and there were very few books prior to the invention of the printing press. Why do you think the Protestant Reformation happened right after the printing press? Because the masses could finally start reading the Bible for themselves. I agree that it wasn't until the 19th century that a small group of Christians started saying, "Umm, the Bible is pretty clear in its prophesies about the reformation of the nation of Israel." I have a study guide from I think 1913 (it's pre-WW1) that lays out all the prophesies surrounding Israel, with the author concluding that Israel must be reformed. Within half a decade, the Balfour Declaration and 35 years later the nation of Israel was reformed, immediately after Nazi Germany attempted to exterminate the Jews. Yeah, the Germans lost 9 million people and the Jews were elevated.
The difference between historic Protestantism and mordern evangelicalism is that the former actually wanted to reform the already existing Church and its traditions by the Word of God while the later seems to want to reinterpret Christianity from scratch.
Because it says that during the end times in Ezekiel 38:19 NIV, "In my zeal and fiery wrath I declare that at that time there shall be a great earthquake in the land of Israel." Also in Luke 21:20-22 NIV, [20] “When you see Jerusalem being surrounded by armies, you will know that its desolation is near. [21] Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, let those in the city get out, and let those in the country not enter the city. [22] For this is the time of punishment in fulfillment of all that has been written." I am fairly certain that it is talking about the land of Israel. Also, because in John 3:16 NIV, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." Then why would only the "elect" recieve eternal life instead of "whoever believes in him, as stated in the previous verse?
It depends on your category of eschatalogical belief. Some believe Luke 21:20-22 was referring to the destruction of the temple in 70AD. As for Calvinism, I think its concept transcends time, so therefore anyone who believes can be saved, but only those who were predestined to be saved will believe. Quite paradoxical but free will and irresistable grace can occur at the same time, just our little human brains cant understand it.
