RobertPGH1981
Puritan Board Sophomore
Hello All,
I am currently a 1689 Baptist who is considering switching to a local RPCNA church. Long story short I am on the fence 50/50 on each view and I am having a hard time understanding the distinctives between the two covenant theology camps.
I am comparing Baptist Covenant Theology (1689 Federalism) with Presbyterian forms of Covenant Theology. While reading Sam Renihan's book "The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom" was written as one of the first non-polemic's from the Baptist Covenant Theology camp. Most works to my knowledge have always been polemics. While reading this work one of the main distinctives between the two groups is the difference in how Baptists use Typology. This has been made popular with Wellum, Gentry in their book Kingdom through Covenant and by coining the term Progressive Covenantalism, which my church tends to lean towards. I don't want to get into a discussion of the broad views but more around the claims towards Typology. Anybody on the board familiar with these arguements? Here are some clips from the book and I am struggling to understanding the difference between Heightening when comparing Presbyterian to Baptist terminology. Covenant Theology Baptist claim that heighting is one of the main distinctives. Fundamentally speaking the issue seems to be related to disagreements on the basis of typology (see John Owen - A continuation of the exposition on Hebrews). 1689 Federalism uses Owen a lot in supporting their views.
Examples:
Typology is defined by Greg Beale:
"The study of analogical correspondence among revealed truths about persons, events, institutions, and other things within the historical framework of God's special revelation, which, from a retrospective view, are of a prophetic nature and are escalated in their meaning. According to this definition, the essential characteristics of a type are (1) analogical correspondence, (2) historicity (3) a pointing-forwardness, (4) escalation, (5) retrospection.
Fairbairn states in regards to types:
... there must be a resemblance... to it under the gospel; and secondly, that it must not be any character, action, or institution... but such only as had their ordination of God, and were designed by him."
The basic agreement is that the all are 'divinely ordained analogy and escalation'. Escalation defined by Sam is fulfillment pointing to the passing of the Type when the Anti-Type comes on the scene. In his view this points to discontinuity since the Type no longer is relevant. Typology without Christ at its center is concerned with something other than the mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His kingdom. And it is therefore, by definition, not typology.
In other words, "if types are not their antitypes, it naturally follows that when the antitype arrives the type is discarded. The substance being come, the shadow flies away. This is the argument of the author of Hebrews. A return to animal blood is a denial that Jesus' blood has any meaning."
He ends by saying "Small differences in the application of typology often lead to greater distances than one might suspect." In our case its the difference between historical Covenant Theology and 1689 Federalism CT.
Anybody understrand these differences and can articulate why Sam is correct/incorrect or misunderanding? This is one of my hang ups at the moment. Hopefully this all made sense.
God Bless,
Rob
I am currently a 1689 Baptist who is considering switching to a local RPCNA church. Long story short I am on the fence 50/50 on each view and I am having a hard time understanding the distinctives between the two covenant theology camps.
I am comparing Baptist Covenant Theology (1689 Federalism) with Presbyterian forms of Covenant Theology. While reading Sam Renihan's book "The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & His Kingdom" was written as one of the first non-polemic's from the Baptist Covenant Theology camp. Most works to my knowledge have always been polemics. While reading this work one of the main distinctives between the two groups is the difference in how Baptists use Typology. This has been made popular with Wellum, Gentry in their book Kingdom through Covenant and by coining the term Progressive Covenantalism, which my church tends to lean towards. I don't want to get into a discussion of the broad views but more around the claims towards Typology. Anybody on the board familiar with these arguements? Here are some clips from the book and I am struggling to understanding the difference between Heightening when comparing Presbyterian to Baptist terminology. Covenant Theology Baptist claim that heighting is one of the main distinctives. Fundamentally speaking the issue seems to be related to disagreements on the basis of typology (see John Owen - A continuation of the exposition on Hebrews). 1689 Federalism uses Owen a lot in supporting their views.
Examples:
Typology is defined by Greg Beale:
"The study of analogical correspondence among revealed truths about persons, events, institutions, and other things within the historical framework of God's special revelation, which, from a retrospective view, are of a prophetic nature and are escalated in their meaning. According to this definition, the essential characteristics of a type are (1) analogical correspondence, (2) historicity (3) a pointing-forwardness, (4) escalation, (5) retrospection.
Fairbairn states in regards to types:
... there must be a resemblance... to it under the gospel; and secondly, that it must not be any character, action, or institution... but such only as had their ordination of God, and were designed by him."
The basic agreement is that the all are 'divinely ordained analogy and escalation'. Escalation defined by Sam is fulfillment pointing to the passing of the Type when the Anti-Type comes on the scene. In his view this points to discontinuity since the Type no longer is relevant. Typology without Christ at its center is concerned with something other than the mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His kingdom. And it is therefore, by definition, not typology.
In other words, "if types are not their antitypes, it naturally follows that when the antitype arrives the type is discarded. The substance being come, the shadow flies away. This is the argument of the author of Hebrews. A return to animal blood is a denial that Jesus' blood has any meaning."
He ends by saying "Small differences in the application of typology often lead to greater distances than one might suspect." In our case its the difference between historical Covenant Theology and 1689 Federalism CT.
Anybody understrand these differences and can articulate why Sam is correct/incorrect or misunderanding? This is one of my hang ups at the moment. Hopefully this all made sense.
God Bless,
Rob