An HB reader writes to ask “in what senses are we under the covenant of works?” I reply Christians are in no sense under the covenant of works for our standing with God or for our salvation. Our justification and our sanctification . . . Continue reading →
One frequently reads that the only real differences between Particular Baptists and the Reformed is over baptism. That claim, however, misses some fundamental differences. Baptists withhold the rite of covenant initiation from the children of believers on the ground that the New . . . Continue reading →
In his second disputation with Balthasar Hubmair, in 1523, Huldrych Zwingli well articulated the formal principle of the Reformation: “For in all controversies concerning faith and religion, the divine Scripture alone ought to be our measure and rule rather than oral tradition.” . . . Continue reading →
A correspondent to the HB writes to ask, “According to Paul, who are Abraham’s children?” In one way or another, I get this question frequently. Most American evangelicals have been taught some version of Dispensational theology or are otherwise influenced by it . . . Continue reading →
Coleen and Ashley host a Reformed theology podcast aimed primarily at other women. In this episode they wanted to talk about covenant theology and related issues (e.g., Dispensationalism, baptism). Here’s the episode (with resources and show notes). Here’s the HB archival version. . . . Continue reading →
One of the distinctive errors of the self-described Federal Vision theology is the doctrine that, in baptism, all the benefits of the covenant of grace are conferred temporarily and conditionally.1 Thus, they claim, there is such a thing as a “covenantal” (temporary, . . . Continue reading →
IV. This double covenant is proposed to us in Scripture: of nature and of grace; of works and of faith; legal and evangelical. The foundation of this distinction rests both on the different relation (σχέσει) of God contracting (who can be considered . . . Continue reading →
For most of his long career, Johannes Cocceius (1603–69) taught Old Testament, biblical theology, theology, and philology in the Netherlands. He was arguably one of the most important and influential Reformed theologians of the 17th century and his influence continues to be . . . Continue reading →
IX. Although faith in Christ is not prescribed specifically and expressly in the law (which does not know Christ), still it is contained in it generically and implicitly (inasmuch as the law commands us to believe every word of God and all . . . Continue reading →
IV. (2) Before the fall, he had the power to love God and obey him in all things; for love supposes faith, a part of obedience. For he who is commanded by law to love God and obey him is also commanded . . . Continue reading →
IX. Although natural liberty agrees in essentials with the liberty of man constituted in other states, still it differs greatly in accidentals. For the liberty of glory in blessedness is not to be able to sin (non posse peccare). The liberty of . . . Continue reading →
IV. (2) Before the fall, he had the power to love God and obey him in all things; for love supposes faith, a part of obedience. For he who is commanded by law to love God and obey him is also commanded . . . Continue reading →
Second Question Did Adam have the power to believe in Christ? I. This question lies between us and the Arminians who, to defend their hypothesis concerning the necessity of a certain universal sufficient grace, have introduced this opinion—that Adam never had the . . . Continue reading →
IX. Although natural liberty agrees in essentials with the liberty of man constituted in other states, still it differs greatly in accidentals. For the liberty of glory in blessedness is not to be able to sin (non posse peccare). The liberty of . . . Continue reading →
VII. However, although he was free from the slavery of sin (because created just and upright) still he was not free from mutability (because whatever his holiness and righteousness, he was mutable, from which in consequence he could fall). Adam was placed . . . Continue reading →
VI. The liberty of Adam was not the liberty of independence (as if he was irresponsible [anypeuthynos] and absolutely his own master) because he ought always to be in subjection (as a creature to his Creator, as a second cause to the . . . Continue reading →
IV. Liberty is fourfold: (1) the liberty of independence which belongs to God as the first being; this is opposed to the necessity of dependence which belongs to all creatures. (2) Liberty from coaction by which man acts spontaneously and with freedom; . . . Continue reading →
II. By the state of innocence, we mean the first condition of man created after the image of God internal goodness and external happiness. As it abounded in all goods (of the body as well as of the soul) necessary for obtaining . . . Continue reading →
First Question What was the liberty of Adam in his state of innocence? I. Since man can be viewed in a fourfold state—the instituted (instituto) of nature, the destitute (destituto) of sin, the restored (restituto) of grace and the appointed (praestituto) of . . . Continue reading →
XXVI. What is said by some (“Infants are baptized in the faith of their parents”) does not mean that what is in adults is imputed to infants or answers for infants; both because each one lives by his own faith and because . . . Continue reading →