The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Looking For a Church

1. The view espoused in the article by the Renihans is based squarely upon a view of the covenant which is now in hot dispute in the OPC and made popular by Meridith Kline and is mainly taught at WTS California. It is popularly known by several names, e.g., "Republication", "Two Kingdom", etc.

2. One of the major issues with this view is that it attributes "merit" to the old covenant/kingdom whereby those within that covenant were given 'rewards' for obedience/works and grace is either greatly diminished or altogether rejected.

3. It is because of this bifurcation (large discontinuity) between the old covenant and new covenant, that the credo-Baptist justifies their position. Put simply, for the credo-baptist the New Covenant means something totally or mostly different from the Old Covenant. Whereas the historic paedobaptist view of the covenant of grace is that the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Old Covenant with its blessings having a new universality and spirituality.

4. Lastly, every truth has throughout history been distorted and used to formulate an error. FV, NPP, etc., take what I believe to be the truth concerning justification, sanctification, Reformed covenant theology and more and distort it and even deny it, yet as is typical of heretics, they confess to be consistent with those doctrines and that they are to be deemed "confessional". They love to quote from Calvin, Murray, and other notables in order to prove they are not teaching something different. But on close examination of those quotes, they are found to be taken out of context and that the quoted author(s) held to positions contrary to that which they are espousing. The point of this is that just because someone or a group of people have gone astray who profess to base their heretical view on orthodox theology is no reason to abandon or disparage the "faith once delivered unto the saints".