Well, as Reformed Baptists, that means we hold to or confess covenant theology as a means by which we understand the teaching of Scripture. And Jim Renahan makes this observation concerning covenant theology. He says, we believe that the structure of Scripture is properly defined by what has been designated as covenant theology. To grasp this fact is to grasp the central architecture of the entire Bible. So it's a means by which we come to the Bible. And there are various hermeneutical approaches. And again, this is a hermeneutical approach. It's the way that we approach a method by which we employ to understand texts of scripture. So you have covenant theology, something that this particular chapter articulates. And it has been well articulated in the Reformed faith. If you look at not only the Second London Confession, but the Westminster Confession, and the Three Forms of Unity, along with the Savoy Declaration, you will notice that all of the Reformed confess covenant theology. Now, there's some intramural debates, to be sure, among the Baptists, say, for instance, in the Paedo-Baptists. But the way of approach to the Bible is covenantal. As well, there's something called dispensationalism, and essentially dispensationalism is a system of biblical interpretation and of theology which divides God's working into different periods or dispensations which he administers in different ways. Now typically this is associated with premillennial eschatology, but that's not necessarily helpful. Premillennial eschatology has been around since the early church. Some of the church fathers, I think it's over-exaggerated at times, the amount of fathers that were committed to a premillennial scheme, but nevertheless there were fathers that were premillennial. Such that some have suggested that the predominating eschatology in the early church was premillennialism. Again, I think that's debatable. But nevertheless, there's always been what's called historic premillennialism. But in the 1800s, there was something called dispensational premillennialism. And while the premillennialism is the same between historic and dispensational, they approach it from widely different angles such that historic premill can be seen as fully confessional. Our chapters on eschatology do not exclude premillennialists. does not exclude the likes of John Gill, does not exclude, some suggest, C.H. Spurgeon was premillennial. Again, I think that's debatable. Those men aren't excluded by a Reformed confession of faith because historic premillennialism is pretty legit through and through. Dispensationalism, however, has so tampered with the Bible, so affected the Bible in such a way that they could not find comfort or find the ability to confess what we have in the Reformed confessions. The biggest issue for the dispensationalists is the big distinction between Jews and Gentiles. That is something to me that is insurmountable in terms of a defense for it, they cannot, but as well to propagate it continually and maintain that this is what the Bible teaches really is. is a pretty ludicrous opinion in my estimation. But dispensationalism, as I said, is a way of approaching the Bible and looking at it in different dispensations. It leads to the unrighteous sort of implication that people in the Old Testament were actually saved by law. That is untenable. It was not the case that Abraham obeyed God and God accounted it to him for righteousness. Genesis 15-6 emphasizes justification by grace through faith in the coming Messiah. And so a dispensational reading of much of the Bible is faulty in terms of these sorts of things. And then over the last few years, there's been something called New Covenant theology. And so New Covenant theology comes in between covenant and dispensationalism and tries to have a mediating position. And essentially, what you have are basically covenantal guys that reject the Sabbath, reject regular principle of worship, and a few other particulars. But that's the three sort of popular views among evangelicals and Reform on how to interpret the Bible. Now, in terms of the relation of these schemes to exegesis, some of the major things affected by the way we approach the Bible are things like, in the first place, continuity and discontinuity between the Testaments. How do we know we're not supposed to eat shellfish as New Covenant believers? Well, our hermeneutic ought to be able to yield answers. How do we know that bestiality is still condemned in the New Covenant even though there's no text that prohibits bestiality? Well, our methodology and our hermeneutic will be able to deal with, or it should be able to deal with those particular issues. So things that continue and things that are discontinuous between the two covenants. Very important. If we have a dispensational mindset or a covenant theology mindset, we're going to come to widely different positions on some of these issues. Secondly, the role of ethnic Israel. What's ethnic Israel's role in the world today? Are they still God's special people? Is there a geopolitical future for the nation-state of Israel? Those are things that are affected by our understanding of biblical prophecy, the application of prophecy, and so on and so forth. As well, the place of the church in relation to Israel. If, for the dispensationalists, there is a great distinction between Jews and Gentiles, well, that will certainly affect our view of the church and her relationship to the nation-state of Israel. as well the sacraments of the church. When it comes to particular Baptists, and when it comes to Paedo-Baptists, or Crato-Baptists and Paedo-Baptists, the thing affecting the subjects of baptism is covenant. How do we understand the people of God? And covenant speaks to that issue of the people of God. So our view of covenant theology will yield whether or not we baptize and include infants, or whether we exclude infants, not from the covenant of grace, as if we could do that, but from those sacraments that are attached to the covenant of grace, predicated upon faith and repentance. So the idea of the sacraments of the Church is affected by our view of God's covenant. And then the law of God in the new covenant. The law of God. Chapter 19, for instance, is in a covenantal sort of a scheme or format. Chapter 19 of the Law of God is most excellent in our confession of faith, because Chapter 7 is most excellent in our confession of faith. Now whether you've made all these connections or not, I just put them out there to underscore how important covenant theology is. It's not simply for academics, it's not simply for seminarians, it's not simply for, you know, the doctors of the church, but it's for all of us. And it's not just how do we deal with texts of Scripture, and how do we have a methodology or a hermeneutical sort of set of principles to interpret isolated texts, but does the Bible yield comfort and encouragement to the people of God? I would suggest that it most certainly does, and one of those foundational places of comfort and encouragement for the people of God is in covenant theology, the understanding that God is in Christ, reconciling the world to himself to encourage the blood-bought children of God in terms of their Christian life, and of their status before a thrice holy God. So it is a most important subject. Again, there's a lot of disagreements at the intramural level. We will differ with the Paedo-Baptists. We will differ with the Savoy Declaration. There's some differences between this chapter 7 here and what you have in chapter 7 in the Westminster Confession. Most noticeably is the exclusion of Westminster's paragraph 2 from our chapter 7. They don't indicate or they don't give what chapter 7, paragraph 2 in the Westminster Confession contains. And I'll just read that. It says, the first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam and in him to his posterity upon condition of perfect and personal obedience. So that reference to the covenant of works, having been excluded by the particular Baptist in the 17th century, has led itself or led to the interpretation or conclusion that Reformed Baptists reject the covenant of works. That is not what's going on in this particular chapter. And we'll see that as we move through the chapter, that the Reformed Baptists, or particular Baptists, did confess and affirm the covenant of works. The Bible teaches it, so they certainly would have held to it. And there are places, many places, in the confession that underscores that covenant. But then as well, with reference to the Westminster, the Westminster sees the Old Covenant as a covenant of grace. They see it as an administration of the covenant of grace. Our Confession does not do that. It was the position of many of the particular Baptists, along with some Pato Baptists, most noteworthy, John Owen and Samuel Pato, who saw that the Old Covenant was not a covenant of grace, but it was a republication of the covenant of works. It's the position that I hold to. I think that's what the Bible teaches, and I think there are various reasons why one should understand it that way. But just pointing out two obvious differences between the Second London and the Westminster, the exclusion of the Covenant of Works statement in Chapter 7 of the Baptist Confession, and then this idea that the Old Covenant was a covenant of grace under a different administration, not duplicated by our Baptist brethren. So that's just sort of a flyover introduction.