It's my honor to be with you this evening here in Hopkinsville and I'm not going to spend too much time with introduction simply because I do have a lot that I hope to be able to get through this evening. Let me say this first of all that I've appreciated getting to know your pastor and the fellowship that we have through some mutual friends of ours and it's been it's been good to know of the work that's going on here in Hopkinsville and I'm excited to hear of what the Lord's doing and let me also say that I would never, of my own volition, choose to give an introduction to Baptistic Covenant Theology my first time going somewhere. But we were talking on the phone about a month ago or so, and I have been telling him that I wanted to visit for a while, and it's true, I have. I just haven't been able to. Our schedule hasn't allowed. And we finally just planned a Sunday, and it was this one, and he said, I know what you could do. Why don't you give an introduction to Covenant Theology? And I pondered that, and Kind of wrangled with it. It's a subject. I love one of my one of my hesitations was that I am a firmly convicted that preaching not theologically lecturing is an element of worship, and so I'm thinking, well, it's not quite an exposition of scripture, but he said that there were some folks here that have had some questions about it, and it was a subject that was of interest, so I am happy to be able to address this subject this evening. So, I do want to ask you, if you have your Bibles, to turn to Hebrews chapter 8. Hebrews chapter 8 will be kind of a base text for us this evening as we consider an introduction to Baptistic Covenant Theology. I'm going to ask your attention and mental acuity as the Lord's Day winds down today, and we'll get through this. And then if we have time at the end, I'll be happy to answer any questions because I know that this is a subject that is often broad and often complex. So let's look at Hebrews 8 and I'm just going to read to you two verses or three verses. Hebrews 8 verses 10 through 12. The Bible says, For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord. I will put my laws into their mind and I will write them in their hearts and I will be to them a God. They shall be to me a people and they shall not teach every man his neighbor and every man his brother saying no of the Lord, for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more." I would never dream of presenting an exhaustive overview of covenant theology in one session. We are embarking on a very deep subject. But it is a subject, though complicated, it is accessible. accessible. This is not a subject that should be stowed away for the seminarians to talk about. This is something that the church needs to have grips of and I think it's really fundamental to our identity as Baptists that we have some understanding of the doctrine of the Covenant. So my goal is to present a basic introduction to Covenant theology in general and then Baptistic Covenant theology specifically. Let me give you the roadmap just so you know where we're going. I want to address covenant theology assessed generally, then I want to look at covenant theology articulated confessionally, then I want to look at covenant theology alternatively explained, and covenant theology applied practically. So that's where we're going tonight. So this session will be for those who are just beginning to consider covenant theology for the first time. You might be sitting here saying, what in the world is covenant theology? Well, we're going to answer that question. Or it might be for someone who has a working knowledge of covenant theology, but you hear all the differences and the different systems, and this guy believes this, and this church believes that. And how do we make sense of this thing called covenant theology? Well, that's what we're going to look at and then we'll conclude with a few practical applications because unfortunately there are some who believe that a study of something like covenant theology is merely an esoteric discussion with no practical value. Why are we talking about covenant theology? We should just preach the gospel and be happy in Jesus. Well, covenant theology is at the heart of a deeper understanding of the gospel of Jesus Christ. A proper understanding of covenant theology has a profound impact on the way you view Christ's work upon the cross, the narrative of scripture, and the whole of redemptive history. So this is an extremely important subject. So beginning, let's look at covenant theology assessed generally. Every Christian who reads their Bible, especially for the first time, has made the same keen observation. The Bible is one book with two distinct parts. These two parts are called the Old Testament and the New Testament. And on the surface, these two parts are very different. You're reading the Old Testament, you've got stories about she bears and mauling children in the forest. And then you've got Paul in the New Testament saying we ought to just all love each other. What gives? Is this the same book? Yes, it is the same book. On the surface, it would seem that God and His worship might be different. After all, there's no altar of sacrifice here tonight. I'm not wearing a jeweled ephod and I see that none of you brought a lamb. This creates a problem for us because we know, as good Christians know, that God does not change, nor does His Word contradict itself. We don't want to be like those who say we should unhitch the Old Testament from our faith. No? So then how could there be such apparent differences between the various periods of redemptive history, especially between the Testaments, and yet the immutability of God stands true? This is precisely the question that covenant theology seeks to answer. So let me give you a working definition of covenant theology. Covenant theology is an interpretive framework for understanding the structure of the Bible and the scheme of redemptive history. It's an interpretive framework for understanding the structure of the Bible and the scheme of redemptive history. Under this heading, under this definition, I want to break down the essential layout and the components of covenant theology. But before I do that, let me first offer an apologetic for having such a framework. I'll give you two apologetic defenses for even having such a framework. Number one, some object to covenant theology by arguing that it is a man-made system that employs terms not found in the Bible. Talk about covenant theology, the covenant of grace, the covenant of works, the covenant of redemption. Well, that's not in the old King James Bible, so we shouldn't talk about it. It's not a Bible word. Give me Bible words. This is an argument from rigid biblicism that says if we can't find it explicitly in scripture, then we ought not speak of it. However, this is an immature and simplistic argument that fails to account for the Bible's own statements about its proper use. In 2 Timothy 3.16, Paul tells us that all Scripture is profitable for doctrine. He does not say all Scripture is doctrine, but it's profitable for doctrine. And what true theology does is it examines and synthesizes and studies Scripture to identify those doctrines taught therein. That's what theology is. Even our Biblicist friend would acknowledge that there are a plethora of doctrines, there's a plethora of doctrines taught in the Word of God, but to argue in the same breath that it's wrong for us to give those doctrines labels simply because the labels themselves are not found in the Word of God is silly. Our Biblicist friend, if he's a true Christian, would acknowledge that there's a doctrine taught in the Bible that the one true living God subsists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Because if he's a true Christian, he believes that. And he's not just going to show you that from one passage, he's going to show you that from a bunch of passages. But then to say that we shouldn't call that the doctrine of the Trinity, because the word Trinity is not in the Bible, how absurd would that be? So, we must abstain from squabbling over mere terminology. If the term covenant theology irks you, then just pretend I'm not saying it and just look at the concepts. That's the important thing. The concepts. Are the concepts there? We want to make sure we're addressing the substance of the doctrine itself, not just the terminology. My second apologetic defense for having such a framework is very simple. Such a framework is inevitable. Every Christian has one because every Christian realizes the aforementioned differences. None of you brought a lamb here tonight. Why not? Well, the answer that you give me to tell me why you didn't bring a lamb here will stem from your framework of understanding these differences. You will say, I didn't bring a lamb because, and then whatever the, after the because, that's your interpretive framework. Some Christians have a covenantal framework. Some have a dispensational framework. Others have a framework that's somewhere in between. But every Christian who seeks to read and obey the Bible has such a framework. We are to determine which framework is right by examining and synthesizing Scripture and identifying the framework that Scripture gives itself. I don't think we're supposed to invent the framework and then see which framework works best. No, I think if we're careful with the Bible, the Bible gives us such a framework. So we just need to identify it. And when we do that, I will argue that we will find a framework that has been termed Covenant Theology. So now that we've defended the legitimacy of having such a doctrine, let's consider the key features and components of it. Every area of theology has its own terms and subsets of doctrines, and the same is true here. The following general overview is not specific to Baptistic Covenant Theology, so for a little while I'm just going to say things that Virtually all covenantal Christians would agree with, broadly so speaking. Covenant theology stems from the truth that the God of the Bible is a covenantal God. He deals with mankind by way of covenant, and he accomplishes and applies redemption by way of covenant as well. Hebrews 13, verses 20 and 21. Now may the God of peace who brought up our Lord Jesus from the dead, that great shepherd of the sheep through the blood of the everlasting covenant, He's ordained Jesus Christ as our Savior. He sent him into the world. He's died upon the cross. He's saved the sheep. He's risen from the dead by the blood of the everlasting covenant. Make you complete in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight through Jesus Christ, in whom be glory forever and ever. Amen. The whole of your justification and your sanctification revolves around the idea of covenant. God has also arranged and organized his word covenantally. The word testament is a synonym to the word covenant. You can say very accurately that the Bible is made up of the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. God has organized the Bible through the use of covenants. We see then that the very concept of covenant is extremely important. Covenant theology recognizes two categories of covenants. There are biblical covenants and theological covenants. Biblical covenants are the covenants that we see explicitly in Scripture. The Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, the Mosaic covenant, the Davidic covenant. We see them. We see them in Scripture. The theological covenants are not explicitly mentioned by name, but the Bible teaches them in concept. There are three of them, the covenant of redemption, the covenant of works, and the covenant of grace. You will not find them explicitly mentioned in the text of scripture, but you will see the concepts of those three covenants in scripture. Many of the intricacies to covenant theology pertain to how the biblical covenants relate to the theological covenants. And we'll look at that when we see covenant theology articulated confessionally. In other words, how does the covenant of grace relate to the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic covenant? How does the covenant of work relate to the Mosaic covenant, the New Covenant? But before we can do that, we need to first have a basic understanding of these three theological covenants. That understanding begins with the very definition of a covenant. What is a covenant? Many define a covenant as a mutual agreement between two contracting parties in which one party stipulates his condition and the other party restipulates his condition. That may be true in the business world, but it's not true with God. The covenants through which God deals with mankind are unilateral covenants. That is, their validity is not dependent on man re-stipulating anything back to God. God sovereignly imposes His covenants, and He is the one that decrees all of the stipulations. All of them. We must define a covenant in the biblical sense not as a pact or a mutual agreement between two parties, but as an oath-bound promise, a unilateral divine imposition wherein God swears by his own name that which he will perform. I absolutely love John Gill. I've named a son after John Gill. John Gill's very helpful on the covenants, but I think he makes a very fatal error on the definition of the covenant because he defines a covenant as a pact between two equals. Therefore, he argues, because God and man are not equal, God has never actually made a proper covenant with man. Right? So he has a unique view of the covenantal nature of the relationship between God and man. I think, more accurately, we should understand a covenant as a divine oath-bound promise, an oath-bound promise, whereby God makes a promise and he swears by his own name that which he will perform. Let's explore these three theological oath-bound promises. Number one, there's the covenant of redemption. The covenant of redemption refers to that inter-Trinitarian covenant wherein the three persons of the Godhead agreed on the scheme of redemption before the foundation of the world. You'll sometimes see this called the pactum salutis, it's Latin for the covenant of peace. The covenant of redemption is not mentioned in any one portion of scripture, but this inter-Trinitarian resolution is found all throughout the Bible. Passages such as Isaiah 42, verses five through seven, John 6.37, Ephesians 1.4, Ephesians 311 and notably 1st Peter 1 and verse 2 which says that we are elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father in sanctification of the Spirit for obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ. If you were to ask me why do I believe the doctrines of grace, I would tell you because I am a Trinitarian. Because we understand that God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are working together to accomplish the same thing. They're not working against each other. Well, if they're all working together to accomplish the same thing, there must have been a time Really, it wasn't a time because it was eternity, but there must have been an agreement in which they agreed to do the same thing that they are now doing, and that's what we call the covenant of redemption. The father covenanted to choose a people for salvation, the son covenanted to redeem them through his sinless life and substitutionary death, and the spirit agreed to apply redemption to the elect through the effectual call of the gospel. This was something that God agreed upon within himself before the foundation of the world, and this covenant is foundational to the outworking of the historical covenants. Before we can understand the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace, we must begin with the Covenant of Redemption. And I think we need to make a proper distinction between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Redemption. Some will conflate the two and kind of make them two parts to the same covenant, but we need to maintain that distinction. so that we properly understand the intricacy and the uniqueness of Covenant of Redemption, Covenant of Works, Covenant of Grace. So now, secondly, the Covenant of Works. The Covenant of Works, sometimes called the Adamic Administration, sometimes called the Covenant of Life or the Edenic Covenant, the Garden of Eden. The covenant of works is a covenant that God established with mankind in the Garden of Eden through Adam, the covenant head. Notice I said the covenant was made with mankind through or in Adam. Some of you have probably heard Adam referred to as the federal head. Well, or you've heard covenant theology referred to as federalism. How did we get there? Well, because there's a Latin word for covenant, foidus, which is why you will sometimes hear Covenant theology referred to as Federal Theology, from the Latin word foidus, where we get the word federal, which means covenant. In the covenant of works, mankind was placed under a probationary covenant in which God promised perfect obedience would be rewarded with blessing and eternal life, so Adam was going somewhere. It's important for us to understand. He wasn't just going to stay in the garden forever. He was going somewhere. It was a probationary period. And disobedience would be punished with curse and eternal death. And we find this covenant in Genesis 2 verses 7 through 17, and let me just give you verses 16 and 17, God institutes the stipulations of this covenant, and he says, of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it, you shall surely die. Adam broke this covenant, and he plunged his posterity under the curse of that covenant, and all who come from Adam stand before God as covenant breakers. All of them. The covenant of works undergirds the doctrines of original sin and total depravity. We talk about mankind being born condemned, being born under the wrath of God. Why is that so? Because mankind is a covenant breaker. He has failed to obey God's stipulations. And the final theological covenant is what we term the covenant of grace. When Adam transgressed the covenant of works, he forfeited any ability to regain an acceptable righteousness before God on the basis of his own works. Because the covenant of works requires personal, perfect, perpetual obedience. There's no mercy in the covenant of works. violate the Covenant of Works, you're done. You're done. There's no forgiveness. See, we have this mentality in our day and age, you know, you break the rule, and then you don't break the rule, and if you go a long enough time without breaking the rule, it makes that time when you did break the rule, just forget about it. Well, not in the Covenant of Works. You're a violator. Covenant of Covenant of works has no mercy, but remember, in the covenant of redemption, God covenanted to redeem a people for himself. That covenant of redemption had already been made before the fall. Before the fall ever took place, the provision had already been made for man's salvation. The provision manifests itself in something called the covenant of grace. In the covenant of works, God promised to bless Adam on the basis of his obedience In the covenant of grace, God promises to save sinners through the work of Jesus Christ. The Covenant of Grace, then, is an overarching covenant that encompasses all of redemptive history. All of redemptive history. Like the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Works, it is not one specific covenant mentioned in Scripture, but it's a theological concept found throughout all of the Bible. So that's the three theological covenants, the Covenant of Redemption, the Covenant of Works, and the Covenant of Grace. Most adherence to covenant theology would more or less affirm everything I've said up until now. And that's a problem, right? Because we don't want to just be in the broad stream. We want to get to the bottom. We want to get the right understanding of this, right? So most of the variations and nuances within covenant theology have to do with the establishment and administration of the covenant of grace. That's because the covenant of grace is overarching and all-encompassing of redemptive history. There's not a whole lot of debate about the covenant of works because it's encompassed such a limited period of time. It's kind of foundational to why we need the covenant of grace. So for a distinctly Baptistic approach to covenant theology, I want to now consider with you covenant theology articulated confessionally. Covenant theology articulated confessionally. It wouldn't surprise you that the place that we would go to find covenant theology articulated confessionally and baptistically is in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. The 1689 differs considerably on its view of the covenant from its counterparts in the Westminster and Savoy Declaration. By and large, the 1689 was composed because the particular Baptists were trying to shun the accusations that they were some radical sect of heretical Anabaptists, and they were trying to say, no, we actually affirm the same Orthodox core doctrines that many of the other Christians of their day affirmed. But chapter 7 is one of the areas in which the Baptists took a very distinct and radical departure. And it's one of the actually few places in the Confession where there is information that's found nowhere else in the Westminster, in the Savoy, or in the First London. So they took a very distinctly Baptist position. This is because one's view of the covenant of grace has serious implications for your view of the church and her ordinances. A careful and biblical understanding of the covenant of grace lies at the heart of what it means to be a Baptist. That's a big statement. But I believe it's true. A careful and biblical understanding of the covenant of grace lies at the heart of what it means to be a Baptist. So how did our particular Baptist forefathers articulate their covenant theology, and especially their take on the covenant of grace? Well, our brother has already read for us chapter 7 of the Confession. I'm not going to reread it, but I will walk you through it. And it'll be a brisk walk, I promise you. Paragraph one, there's three paragraphs, so number one, from its Westminster counterpart, it's a lot shorter. There's only three paragraphs. The first paragraph covers the necessity of the Covenant of Grace. The necessity of the Covenant of Grace. The particular Baptists rooted the necessity of the Covenant of Grace in the broken Covenant of Works. They begin by saying the distance between God and the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life. The reward of life was what Adam was supposed to obtain had he kept the covenant of works. But now this distance is so great that we could never attain it without a voluntary condescension on God's part. This is undergirded by Chapter 19, Paragraph 1 in the Confession. Chapter 19 on the Law of God, Paragraph 1 says, God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience written in his heart and a particular precept of not eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, 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 the power and ability to keep it." What does that sound like? That sounds like a covenant, doesn't it? God makes a promise, and God gives the stipulations, and he enters into this agreement with Adam. So we see that Adam broke that covenant. Number one, the Baptist clearly believed in a covenant of works. Believe it or not, there are some who are contemporary in our day that want to deny the existence of a covenant of works, and it's very dangerous to do so. Secondly, the Baptist believed that once transgressed, the covenant of works was unable to secure life and righteousness before God. In chapter 20 of the 1689 in paragraph one, chapter 20 in paragraph one, We hear the Baptist explicitly name it. They said, the covenant of works being broken by sin and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect and beginning in them faith and repentance in this promise of the gospel. as to the substance of it was revealed, and therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners. The covenant of works being broken loses its efficacy to ever give man the reward of life. Thirdly, the Baptists believed that because the covenant of works being broken was unprofitable, God promised to give life to the elect through Jesus Christ. Notice the covenant of works being broken. God was pleased. God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ. Fourthly, the Baptists believed that this promise of life through Jesus Christ was revealed in the covenant of grace. Back in chapter 7 on God's covenant, We see that this voluntary condescension on God's part is necessary, and then they say, He hath been pleased to express this by way of covenant. How do we get the promise of Christ? How do we see the promise of Christ? By way of covenant. It pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace. Paragraph 2 of chapter 7, we see the identity of the covenant of grace. And this is when we really get Baptistic, okay? The identity of the covenant of grace can be understood in two dimensions. There's a universal dimension, and there's a particular dimension. The universal dimension is this. Chapter 2 says, God makes a covenant of grace. Notice, wherein he freely, that is God, he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ. That is the universal dimensions of the covenant of grace. It is a free offer of life in Jesus Christ. Some have mistakenly understood this phrase to teach that the covenant of grace was formally established with all of mankind in the same manner of the covenant of works. However, the Bible nowhere suggests that God established a covenant with unbelievers. Rather, we should understand the universal dimensions of the covenant of grace as the means for identifying the specific members of the covenant of grace. How does God identify members of the covenant of grace? Now, if you're confused by that, let me explain that parallelly by considering the doctrine of election. How do we find out who the elect are? They don't have E's stamped on their foreheads. How do we find out who the elect are? We preach the gospel to all creatures, and those who respond in repentance and faith are part of God's elect. How do we know whom God has made this covenant of grace with? We preach the gospel. We preach Christ. And those who respond, we know, are partakers of the covenant of grace. And that brings us to the particular dimensions of the covenant of grace. He freely offers sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe. This undergirds the definite accomplishment of the covenant of grace to save every elect sinner ordained to eternal life. Some will read the previous phrase in paragraph two about requiring of them, you know, the faith to receive. They see the offer from God, they see the requirement placed upon man, and they falsely assume that the covenant of grace is somehow conditioned upon man's ability to procure these requirements. as if it's possible that God made the door to salvation open, having no idea who would go through it, as if he made salvation a possibility contingent on man's response to the offer. But the concluding phrase of paragraph two clears up that confusion, because he promises to give his Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe. What God requires, he provides. He does indeed require faith from us. We should abhor and abominate any gospel that denies that God requires faith from us, but we should also abhor any gospel that says that that faith is of yourself, when the Bible says that faith is not of yourself. It's the gift of God, not of works, lest any man should boast. And then paragraph three, we see the implementation of the covenant of grace. Paragraph three highlights the distinctiveness of Baptist covenant theology. The Baptist confessed that the covenant of grace was initially revealed to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman. Paragraph three, they say that. What did God do when Adam broke the covenant of works? He preached the gospel to them. He preached the gospel to them. He covered their sins and he issued this promise. Notice, the Baptists identify covenant and promise. They don't make a rigid distinction because some will say, well, Genesis 3.15 was not the covenant of grace. It was just the promise of the Messiah. Yes, but what is the promise of the Messiah? The promise of the Messiah is the heart of the covenant of grace. Genesis 3.15, God promises to save Adam's posterity through the seed of the woman. That is the formal establishment of the covenant of grace to Adam after the fall. And then the confession has this little phrase, and this little phrase is so important. It says, and afterwards by farther steps. and afterwards by farther steps. The particular Baptist, in their view of covenant theology, they believe that the covenant of grace was initially revealed to Adam and it was progressively revealed throughout the biblical covenants. So each one of the biblical covenants The Noahic Covenant, the Abrahamic Covenant, the Mosaic Covenant, the Davidic Covenant. We see more information about the Covenant of Grace. We learn more and more about the Covenant of Grace until the full discovery is made in the New Covenant. Let me show you this biblically. Turn to Ephesians 2 and look at verse 12. Ephesians 2 in verse 12, Paul is talking about the conversion of the Gentiles, and he says that at that time, before their conversion, ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and notice this phrase, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. And I want you to see here plural covenants, singular promise. Really, there's a definite article in the Greek, and virtually no English translation translates that definite article there in the Greek. The covenants of the promise. One promise. One promise is progressively revealed in a plurality of covenants. Brothers and sisters, what promise might that be referring to? What promise was given before any other covenant was made? What promise was given way back immediately following the fall of man? What promise is the same promise through which all sinners have sought and believed in for their salvation It is the promises in Genesis 3 in verse 15, and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed. It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel. The Baptist confessed that the covenant of grace was initially revealed in this promise, in this promise, and then it was progressively revealed throughout the covenants. Progressive revelation is the crux of Baptistic covenant theology. If you ask me, sum it up in one little phrase, what's the difference? What makes Baptistic covenant theology so distinct? I would say to you, the progressive revelation of the covenant of grace. progressive revelation of the covenant of grace. There is an organic unity to the covenants. They all grow out of and depend upon one another. In other words, you cannot have the Abrahamic covenant without the Noahic covenant, because the Noahic covenant is God's covenant that he's going to preserve humanity. The Abrahamic covenant is God's covenant that he's going to preserve the specific line of Abraham. Well, you can't have the Mosaic Covenant without the Abrahamic Covenant, because what is the Mosaic Covenant? It's a covenant that stipulates how members of Abraham's family ought to live. Well, if you don't have the Abrahamic Covenant that establishes Abraham's family, a covenant that tells them how to live is kind of pointless. I could go on and on throughout the biblical covenants. They don't need a king if they don't have a society, and if they haven't progressed from a family to a nation, which is the Davidic Covenant, of course, right? There's also a thematic unity to the covenants. They all share a mutual aim or purpose. Dare I say they all share a mutual substance. Now I'm getting controversial, right? They all share a mutual substance. We cannot simply say that the Abrahamic covenant is a covenant of grace and the Mosaic covenant is a covenant of works. We can't do that because there's a unity there that we would have to undermine. We must recognize that these plural covenants are all of the singular promise. Finally, paragraph three confesses that the full discovery of the covenant of grace was completed in the New Testament, or the New Covenant. This is why I can read to you Hebrews 8, verses 10 through 12, which speaks of the New Covenant as the base text for a study of covenant theology in general. Because we do not have a clearer, fuller, more disclosed revelation of God's gracious covenant than that which he revealed in the New Covenant. Two things we should deduce from the 1689's articulation of the covenant of grace. Number one, we must be very careful not to identify the covenant of grace with any one particular biblical covenant. The biblical covenants collectively and progressively reveal the covenant of grace. They all contain indispensable information about the covenant of grace, but not one of them alone is the covenant of grace. We'll see the importance of this distinction when we consider alternative explanations of covenant theology, but suffice it to say right now that we must, we must jealously maintain a distinction between the covenant of grace and the biblical covenants. Secondly, we must remember that the normative revelation for understanding the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant. I'm not contradicting myself. I'm not telling you that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. I'm just saying that the clearest revelation, we have a lot of revelations, and by the way, saying it's the fullest discovery implies that there's other discoveries. But we must understand that the fullest discovery is the covenant or the new covenant. We must not study the covenant of grace first by looking to a subservient promissory covenant in the Old Testament. To put it simply, we don't look to Abraham to draw theological deductions that can't be substantiated by Christ in the new covenant. There are There are two more things that we see stated in paragraph three. Number one, the covenant of grace is grounded in the covenant of redemption. We see that the covenant of grace is founded in that eternal transaction that took place between the Father, Son, and the Holy Spirit. That is, the covenant of grace is the historical application of the eternal covenant between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. Second Timothy 1.9, It says that God is the one who has, quote, saved us and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given to us in Christ before time began. God's purpose and grace was given to us in Christ before time began in the covenant of redemption. And Christ was given to us in time in the covenant of grace. Covenant of redemption, eternal covenant. Covenant of grace, historical covenant. in time. And secondly, everyone that has ever been saved and ever will be saved is so through the covenant of grace. The confession says it is alone by the grace of this covenant, alone by the grace of this covenant that anyone has acceptance with God. Those terms were, of course, the covenant of works, which Adam broke, that are utterly incapable of providing acceptance with God. There remains, today, only one and one only way of redemption for fallen sinners, and that is the covenant of grace. That's the Baptistic view of covenant theology and the covenant of grace. Now, let me give you, thirdly, Covenant theology alternatively explained. Covenant theology alternatively explained. Having looked at the confessional, baptistic articulation of covenant theology, let us now consider two alternative views of it. Time wouldn't permit us to consider alternative frameworks, such as dispensationalism, or new covenant theology. Those are different frameworks altogether that would deny covenant theology, though they do have their own specific issues and problems that need to be studied out. I want to limit this heading to two alternative views of covenant theology. One that is Baptistic as well, that just differs slightly from what I've presented to you, and one that is not Baptistic and is quite unique. Let's look at the Baptistic one first. It's a view, which you might have heard of, called 1689 Federalism. It's a position that has been popularized within the last decade or so. And the main distinctive of 1689 federalism is this, and you'll see where the difference is in their main distinctive. Instead of maintaining that the covenant of grace cannot be identified with any one particular biblical covenant, 1689 federalism teaches that the new covenant, and only the new covenant, is the covenant of grace. They teach that the substance of all other covenants, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic, is the covenant of works. They say that all of those covenants are just republications of the Covenant of Works. Now, yes, they might contain the promise of the Covenant of Grace. We might see the need for the Covenant of Grace. But the Covenant of Grace was never formally established until the New Covenant. And they would actually go so far as to say that Abraham was a member of the New Covenant thousands of years before the New Covenant was ever inaugurated. and they get into all sorts of typology that really kind of affects their doctrine of the church when you look at the way that the New Covenant has historically manifested in its time. This position also has a really unfortunate and misleading name. When you hear the term 1689 federalism, you think, oh, well, this must be the system taught in the 1689. I will even hear people go so far as to say, this is Baptist covenant theology, 1689 federalism. But when you look to the confession, you will find that its framers are unwilling to affirm the very thing that is the linchpin of 1689 federalism. The 1689 confession confesses that the new covenant is the fullest discovery of the covenant of grace, but it does not confess that which 1689 federalism confesses and hangs its hat upon that the new covenant is the covenant of grace. So how did it get this name? The short story is, the men who coined the name and the position, and by the way, the men who are the major proponents of 1689 federalism are wonderful men. I'm not going to name anyone just because positions change and I don't want to give somebody a label that they would really say, no, I'm actually not that, but they're wonderful men. They're men that you should read their stuff and listen to them and learn from them. But these men that coined this position, coined the name for this position about a decade ago, they rediscovered some of the older works from a few particular Baptists, primarily the works of Benjamin Keech and the works of Nehemiah Cox, who was the one who did most of the framework for the Confession itself, Nehemiah Cox. And it is true that those men held to a position that could be identified with 1689 federalism. I think honesty requires me to say that. That Nehemiah Cox in his book, The Discourse of the Covenants, really held to a more New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace kind of view. But there are also many, many men who signed the 1689 and who are contemporaries of that day who emphatically did not hold to that position. I think at best, if we're going to be really historically honest, 1689 federalism may have been present at the General Assembly in London, but at best, it was a minority position. And I know there's plenty of men that would tear me to shreds over saying such a thing. But based upon the studies that I have done, I think that's what the case was there at the General Assembly in London. To argue that 1689 federalism is somehow the Baptist position and the only position you could hold if you're a confessional Baptist is disingenuous at best. Now if you want to study this issue deeper, about 1689 federalism versus classic Baptist covenant theology, my friend Earl Blackburn, who I have his other book here that he edited a while back, he's coming out with a forthcoming book next spring on this very issue, and he's asked me to write an appendix on this topic, and I've quoted numerous particular Baptists. The bulk of the work was actually just compiling quotes and source material. from particular Baptists who did not articulate a position anywhere close to 1689 federalism. Well, you might be wondering why this matters. After all, if both positions are compatible with the Confession, why squabble over it? What's the big deal about saying that the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant? Well, I agree that it's not something we should be drawing lines of fellowship around, but it does generate a number of difficulties. Let me just give you one. In my estimation, the largest, most glaring issue with it is not so much about what they say about the New Covenant, it's what they don't say about the other covenants. specifically what they say about the Mosaic Covenant, that the Mosaic Covenant is a republication of the covenant of works. Here's the issue with that. If the Mosaic Covenant is merely a republication of the covenant of works, then we have no basis for directing Christians to the moral law of God as an immutable standard of righteousness. And that which Baptists fought so hard for in the 1960s coming out of dispensationalism, which absolutely destroys the moral law of God to maintain a proper gospel law distinction, we lose it when we just say Moses is part of the covenant of works. That God redeemed Israel from Egypt and brought them out of the land of Israel and he said, I will be your God and you will be my people. Now let me put you back under the broken covenant of works. I don't think God did that. I don't think he did that at all. I think he instituted a gracious covenant with his people that, yes, did have temporary work-based elements for obedience and continuity in the land, but he did not give them a system whereby they were to earn their righteousness and justify themselves through the keeping of the law. 1689 federalism is an attempt to devise a Baptistic scheme that thoroughly refutes the Presbyterian model. I think it was born out of good intentions. But it goes a distance that just isn't required and it creates problems that could be easily avoided by simply going as far as scripture and as far as the confession and no further. No further. The second view, of course, is Westminster federalism. or the Presbyterian articulation of covenant theology, let me highlight for you the two fundamental differences between Baptistic covenant theology and Westminster covenant theology. Remember I told you that the crux of Baptistic covenant theology was the idea that the covenant of grace was progressively revealed throughout all of the biblical covenants. Well, whereas the Baptists believe that, the Westminster view is based upon an artificial duality. an artificial duality. The Westminster Confession stresses the unity between the Testaments, whereas the London Baptist Confession stresses the growth and the development between the two Testaments. The Westminster position stresses the unity between the two testaments, the continuity. They see a radical continuity, so much so that they deny that the Old Testament and the New Testament are really two testaments. They're just two administrations of the same covenant. Whereas the Baptist position, the Baptist position sees growth and development as the key to understanding the doctrine of the covenant. Let me read to you this artificial duality in in Westminster the Westminster Confession of Faith chapters 4 or chapters paragraph 4 and 5 of chapter 7 Notice how they word this this covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament this one covenant of grace is set forth by the name of a testament in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the testator and to the everlasting inheritance with all things belonging to it and therein bequeathed. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law and in the time of the gospel under the law, and it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcisions, the paschal lamb, and all other types of ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all for signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious. through the operation of the Spirit to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah by whom they had full remission of sins and eternal salvation. And it's called the Old Testament. You notice the difference there? There's no mention of the new covenant as the fullest revelation and demonstration of the covenant of grace. And it takes the paradigm given in Abraham and it imposes that upon all subsequent administrations of the covenant of grace. Furthermore, Westminster federalism, similar to 1689 federalism, which is improperly so named, really the republicationist view, makes the mistake of identifying the covenant of grace too closely with one of the biblical covenants. That's the crux of the error. Whereas the Baptists see the new covenant as the ultimate revelation of the covenant of grace, those who follow the Westminster Confession will see Abraham as the paradigm for the covenant of grace. It is because they define the covenant of grace in terms of this preparatory covenant from the Old Testament that they arrive at their position of paedo-baptism. That's how they get there. What is the question that our Paedo-Baptist friends always like to ask us? They will say, well, show me in the New Covenant where infants are excluded. I had one Presbyterian, and it was actually, I mean, it preached really well, but the logic just isn't there. He said, if the New Covenant excludes unregenerate infants, then the day of Pentecost was the largest excommunication service that the church ever had. Well, that makes for great preaching, but the logic does not follow. What this question does is base itself on a faulty premise. When defining the covenant of grace, we don't first look to Abraham and impose it on the new covenant. We start with the New Covenant because it's the fullest disclosure of the covenant of grace. And when you start with the New Covenant as the normative revelation of the covenant of grace, then it is impossible to conceive of unregenerate infants being in it. It's impossible to conceive of such a thing. We see from these alternative explanations that we must be careful not to identify the covenant of grace too closely with either the Abrahamic or the New. We must not go so far as to say that there's no grace in Abraham. There is grace in Abraham. There is the covenant of grace in Abraham. We can see it in Abraham. He was justified apart from the law, through faith, There's also typological elements that passed away when that covenant was fulfilled and abolished in Christ. I'm going to shock you. Yes, the children of Abraham are still in the covenant. But the children of Abraham are no longer the children of Abraham by flesh. They're the children of Abraham by faith in the new covenant. So we need to, instead of looking at a narrow view in which the covenant of grace is identified too closely with one of the biblical covenants, we should adopt the view of progressive revelation as found in the 1689 and maintain the distinctives of the covenant of grace. Let me very quickly give you covenant theology applied practically. Because I'm looking at some faces that are saying, When is this over? Well, let me encourage you with a Bible verse, those who endure to the end shall be saved. And it was your pastor who asked me to do this. Covenant theology applied practically. I hope the introduction was helpful, but let me close with six practical applications of Baptistic covenant theology. Number one, Baptistic covenant theology respects the nature of God as immutable and impassable. He does not change. He does not have one system of salvation for one people, whereby they're saved from the keeping of the law, and salvation is primarily with one ethnic race, and then Christ comes, and the prophetic time clock stops ticking, and now the Gentiles are saved by grace, but then there's coming a day in which the Gentiles will be raptured out, and the time clock starts again, and then salvation goes back to by the law, No, no, no, friend. His covenant is sure and steadfast for all peoples in all ages. Secondly, Baptistic covenant theology upholds that there is but one way of salvation for fallen sinners. No one ever has or ever will be saved by their own works. All of the elect are saved through God's covenant and their covenant head, the Lord Jesus Christ. Thirdly, Baptistic covenant theology affirms that there is only one people of God from Adam to the second coming of Christ. All those saved in the covenant of grace are one. There are no first-class Christians and second-class Christians, and when we get to heaven, there will not be some of us flying there in coach. There's one people of God. Yes, those people of God have served Him and existed under different covenant administrations. That's why we don't have a lamb here tonight. But we possess the same faith in the same God. And one day we're going to sit down at a table with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob. Fourthly, Baptistic covenant theology provides us with a coherent framework for interpreting the Bible that does justice to the apparent discontinuities of scripture while maintaining the ultimate unity of God's plan and purposes in the world. Thanks to covenant theology, you don't have to bring a lamb here tonight. And you also don't have to be confused why Abraham did and you don't. Abraham also was never baptized. He never partook of the Lord's Supper. He was never a member of the local New Testament church, because he existed in a different covenant. But throughout those covenants, it's not a different test, a different period, and a different agreement. No, it's the same covenant that guides and progresses and develops. Fifthly, Baptist covenant theology undergirds the biblical truths of the New Testament church and her ordinances. The reason why we must tenaciously defend believers' baptism and a regenerate church membership is because of the clear revelation of the covenant of grace in the new covenant. God says that he's going to give the Holy Spirit to evidence faith in Christ through repentance to everyone in his covenant. We have no right to administer the signs of that covenant to anyone who does not profess the evidence that God promised he would give. No faith, no repentance, no baptism, no church membership. Six, Baptistic covenant theology gives the believer sturdy and unshakable grounds for their own assurance of salvation. Remember, we defined a covenant as an oath-bound promise. Why would a sovereign God need to bind his promise with an oath? I mean, can't he just say he's gonna do it? Why enter into a covenant? Why involve men into this covenant and swear by his own name? Not for his sake, for ours. Because of this beautiful promise manifested in the covenant of grace, we need not worry if God will ever leave us or forsake us. For God to leave you or forsake you, He would have to cease to be God, because He swore by His own name. Even on your worst of worst days, He is faithful and he has made a covenant with you through the Lord Jesus Christ that he will save you to the uttermost. He has made a covenant with you that he will cast your sins behind his back and he will remember them no more. He is sworn by his own name that he will give us life in Jesus Christ through our faith in him. The covenant of grace assures your salvation and it assures the salvation of everyone the father has given to the son. There you have it, an introduction to Baptistic Covenant Theology. Let's pray. Father, we thank you in Jesus' name for your goodness to us. We ask that you would make this study profitable. Pray that you would bless those who came to hear this, that you would give us retention and that you would apply these truths practically to our heart as we seek to love you and love your people and be thankful for what you've done in time and in eternity. In Christ's name, amen.