Heidelcast Special: Chad Vegas On Covenant and Baptism (6)

This is a special episode of the Heidelcast and a special series featuring my dear friend and colleague in ministry, Chad Vegas, pastor of Sovereign Grace Bakersfield. He’s been walking his congregation from a Baptist to a Reformed understanding of covenant theology and baptism. He’s focusing on shepherding his congregation but he’s allowed us to share these six messages on baptism and covenant theology with you. He will he writing on this on the Heidelblog in the coming months but for now, here’s Chad working though the issues. As you can tell, these are timely since I’m losing my voice.

Call the Heidelphone anytime at (760) 618–1563. Leave a message or email us us a voice memo from your phone and we may use it in a future podcast. Record it and email it to Heidelcast at heidelcast dot net.

If you benefit from the Heidelcast please leave a five-star review on Apple Podcasts so that others can find it.

Please do not forget to make the coffer clink (see the donate button below).


Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway #391
Escondido CA 92027
The HRA is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization.

Subscribe to the Heidelblog today!


  1. I can’t seem to listen to Chad Vegas’ last sermon. It says it’s unavailable. Enjoy listening and reading all you post and am a cup clinker as well.

  2. I’ve commented a while ago. I left dispensationalism about a year ago and have really dug in to try and understand both the WCF position and the 1689. This is the best, understandable argument that I’ve heard for the WCF position. I’m still stuck on the hebrews a bit, especially how can the physicalness of the mosiac covenant be contrasted with the internalness of the new, if the substance is the same. I feel like if they’re both covenants that deal with the heart, heart worship should be compared. However, thank you pastor Chad, you have given me much to prayerfully consider and much Scipture to cover. I’m gonna have to listen again!

  3. Dr. Clark, how does one respond to the objection: “the P&R got paedobaptism from the Roman Catholics, they didn’t finish reforming”? Interested in any quotations or links relevant to the question. Thank you in advance!

    • Eliezar,

      I’ve answered that allegation repeatedly. Check out the Baptism resource page»

      Here is a direct answer.

      Short version: it’s not true. There was no Roman Catholic church in AD 206 but there was infant baptism. Tertullian (who had doubts) and Origen both acknowledge it. There was no Pope. There were only 2 sacraments but there was infant baptism. Augustine said that infant baptism was the ancient Christian practice.

  4. Also, I had a RB respond to the charge of Dispensationalism by waving it off saying “RB theology came before dispensationalism, so that’s irrelevant.” How would you respond to that?

    Thanks in advance!

    • One can end up in a similar place (e.g., Dispensationalism) without being historically connected. Further, the very category “Reformed Baptist“ is a modern invention. The earliest usage I have found is from 1823. That usage is ambiguous. No one in the 17th century was calling himself a Reformed Baptist. They were Particular Baptists.

      It is certainly not Reformed to speak of Abraham, as a covenant of works.

Comments are closed.