Category Archives: Church/Ecclesiology

Reflecting on the Predicted Evangelical Collapse 8 Years Later

 

Something interesting happened in 2009 that recently caught my attention.  As noted in the post Nominal Christianity and the Christian Bookstore, on March 10, 2009 I commented on a religious survey that highlighted the decreasing religiosity of Americans.  In that post, Survey shows a Falling Away, I stated:

The fact of the matter is we are crossing over the threshold of the Final Apostasy.  Soon we’ll see the denominational wall fall completely as these churches begin to combine through their own false interpretations of the Bible.  I believe we’ll begin to see the atheist/agnostic movement pick up speed as they continue their assault on Christianity and the Word of God.  Look at what’s already going on in Great Britain.  We’ll continue to embrace other world religions as the world seeks an Ecumenical balance.  False movements and leaders will seemingly pop-up over night, much like the Emerging Church movement with people preaching with the Bible in one hand, but not speaking the Truth.  II Thessalonians 2:11-12 “For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.”

That same day, Michael Spencer, The Internet Monk, published his widely read series, The Coming Evangelical Collapse, which sent shock-waves through the blogosphere and online evangelical media outlets.  As recently as a few months ago, I was listening to a sermon by Brian Borgman in which he referenced and commented on this post by the late Spencer and it reminded me of the “prophetic” voice that his post had.

Spencer introduced his thesis with the following shocking prediction:

“We are on the verge – within 10 years – of a major collapse of evangelical Christianity. This breakdown will follow the deterioration of the mainline Protestant world and it will fundamentally alter the religious and cultural environment in the West.

Within two generations, evangelicalism will be a house deserted of half its occupants. (Between 25 and 35 percent of Americans today are Evangelicals.) In the “Protestant” 20th century, Evangelicals flourished. But they will soon be living in a very secular and religiously antagonistic 21st century.

This collapse will herald the arrival of an anti-Christian chapter of the post-Christian West. Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Millions of Evangelicals will quit. Thousands of ministries will end. Christian media will be reduced, if not eliminated. Many Christian schools will go into rapid decline. I’m convinced the grace and mission of God will reach to the ends of the earth. But the end of evangelicalism as we know it is close.”

Here we stand, eight years after this prognostication that looked 10 years into the evangelical future and we must take inventory by asking whether there was merit in the words of Spencer and what the current condition of the Evangelical landscape is.  Let’s pause here to provide a general definition of evangelicalism:

Our modern evangelicalism was essentially birthed out of the fundamentalist vs. liberalism movement of the late 1800s – 1920s.  It was a correction to the staunch fundmentalism of the day over and against the liberalism that was infiltrating schools of higher education and mainline protestant denominations.  Evangelicalism was a middle ground so to speak, albeit mushy and ecumenical.  George Marsden defines the movement as, “any Christians traditional enough to affirm the basic beliefs of the old nineteenth-century evangelical consensus” which includes, “1. The Reformation doctrine of the final authority of the Bible 2. The real historic character of God’s saving work recorded in Scripture 3. Salvation to eternal life based on the redemptive work of Christ 4. The importance of evangelism and missions 5. The importance of a spiritually transformed life.”

So then, evangelicalism, if it can be defined clearly, is a broad movement and its foray into the political realm, particularly within the last 50 years, has been well documented.  I maintain that Evangelicalism is nothing more that conservative Christendom.  If you have time, listen to this 10-minute description by Phil Johnson, I posted from 2009: What is an evangelical?

Returning to Spencer, without question we can affirm that the 21st century is rapidly becoming, “very secular and religiously antagonistic”.

Likewise we are seeing unfold right before our eyes “Intolerance of Christianity will rise to levels many of us have not believed possible in our lifetimes, and public policy will become hostile toward evangelical Christianity, seeing it as the opponent of the common good.

Spencer went on to outline the reasons Why this collapse was imminent, the first of which, I believe, will largely usher in the forthcoming collapse.

“Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.

The evangelical investment in moral, social, and political issues has depleted our resources and exposed our weaknesses. Being against gay marriage and being rhetorically pro-life will not make up for the fact that massive majorities of Evangelicals can’t articulate the Gospel with any coherence. We fell for the trap of believing in a cause more than a faith.

Why do I see this this as the most significant “Why” of Spencer’s article?

Because it’s happening with rapidity since the latest presidential election.  Evangelicalism began to align itself with conservative politics in the late 1970’s early 1980’s with the goal of reclaiming the culture.  In a sense, they became cultural warriors to such a degree that the distinction between political conservatism and evangelicalism disappeared altogether.  To be Republican was to be Evangelical and vice versa.  To be Democrat was to be theologically liberal and vice versa.  Politics then became good vs. evil, sinners vs. saints, etc.  When a Republican won the presidency it was God’s divine intervention and blessing; when a Democrat won it was time to “hunker-down” for the spread of evil throughout the land.  The most recent election was hailed as a victory for Evangelicalism, but I think in the long run it will prove to have been a death-blow.  The backlash of this poorly reasoned political alignment will be harsh.

Where Evangelicalism has failed was in assuming their role was primarily cultural instead of primarily religious.  You simply cannot “preach” morality to a cultural that is blinded by sin and under the rule of the god of this age.  This is true in the most basic arguments used against abortion and for traditional marriage.  This is why these arguments are often made into political talking points and partisan politics.  Why should we be surprised when hearts darkened to the majesty of God uphold Roe vs. Wade or decide the fate of marriage via the Obergefell Decision?  To what is Evangelicalism appealing to?  Politics?  Morality? The unbelieving conscience that has been darkened by sin?  To justice?  Apart from the Word of God, how are we to determine what is just?  The primary clarion call should have been and should be repentance and faith in Jesus Christ.

George Eldon Ladd offers wisdom on this matter in the following quote:

Here is the root evil: blindness, darkness, unbelief.  The Biblical philosophy of sin makes ethical and moral evil secondary to religious evil.

All forms of wickedness ultimately grow out of the root of ungodliness. Sin is primarily religious and secondarily ethical.  Man is God’s creature and his primary responsibility is towards God.  The root of sin is found in his refusal to acknowledge in grateful dependence the gifts and the goodness of God (Rom. 1:21), which are now imparted in Christ.  Darkness is the assertion of independence rather than God-dependence.

The primary manifestation of satanic influence and of the evil of This Age is religious; it is blindness with reference to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  How often we fail to understand satanic devices!  A man may be a cultured, ethical and even religious person and yet be in demonic darkness.  Satan’s basic desire is to keep men from Christ.  His primary concern is not to corrupt morals nor to make atheists nor to produce enemies of religion.  Indeed religion which rests upon the assumption of human adequacy and sufficiency is an enemy of the light.  This is the character of the Age of this world: darkness.

Contrary to Ladd, modern Evangelicalism has made ethical and moral evil primary to religion, in essence desiring to treat the symptom rather than the disease.  As I look back on this article 8 years later, the single biggest factor, in my humble opinion, that will contribute to the collapse of evangelicalism will be the failure to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ in favor of the gospel cultural Christianity.

Let me conclude with an additional quote from my own post I wrote on March 10, 2009

“If the Body of Christ is to survive all of these paradigm shifts, we must unite with one voice with the Bible as our foundation.  We must preach “Christ crucified” and rebuke those who deem it “offensive”.  II Timothy 4:2, I Corinthians 9:18 As the Apostle Paul says, “…We preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles.” I Corinthians 1:23

Our message of Salvation must be clear: repentance of sins, belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus, and faithful acceptance of Him as Savior.  We cannot sugar coat the alternative, “The wages of sin is death” but through our repentance, belief, and acceptance, “The gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord.” Romans 6:23

If we as a “church” can do this and I believe we can, we’ll have one final great revival.”

Ecclesiola in Ecclesia

 

I’ve been told before that it’s easy to see what is going on in my life by simply reading the titles or topics of posts on this blog.  I suppose that’s understandable, given the nature of a blog.  Additionally, this  blog has provided somewhat of a theological outlet for me to work through my own thoughts or to layout particular issues that I’m struggling with or passages that I’ve meditated on.

One recent issue that has churned over again in my mind for the past couple of years is the concept of Ecclesiola in Ecclesia, or “little churches within the church.”  I’m unsure who may have coined this precise phrase, though maybe its origin can be traced to sometime in the 18th century.  It shows up in Phillip Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, Vol.#1 (though that ecclesiola sought to live morally perfect), however Martyn Lloyd-Jones brought it to modern significance through his address at the Westminster Conference in 1965[1].  The conference title was “Approaches to the Reformation of the Church.”

In his address, Lloyd-Jones walks through the history of the Reformers, beginning notably with Luther, and details their oft-desired, yet ill-fated attempts to establish an “ecclesiola in ecclesia”.  Here is how he defines the movement, “the idea of those who formed these little churches was not to form a new church. That is basic. They were not concerned at all about separation; indeed they were bitterly and violently opposed to it. They were not out to change the doctrine of the church.”

He goes on, “What were they concerned about? Well, their position was that they were not so much dissatisfied with the nature as with the functioning of the church. They were not concerned about the church’s doctrine, but were very concerned about its spiritual life and condition. 

This is quite basic to our whole outlook upon this subject. The people who believed in the idea of the ‘ecclesiola’ were not out to change the whole church, but to form a church within a church which would form a nucleus of true believers inside the general church. Their object in the formation of this nucleus was that it might act as a leaven and influence the life of the whole church for the better. That is the definition. It was thought of in terms of the local church and local churches. It was not a movement, but something that was to happen in individual local churches.”

In essence, what they attempted to develop was a smaller group, made up of believers only, within the larger church or corporate gathering which was open to any and all and could have a large number of unbelievers present, not dissimilar from our worship services today.  Conversely, within these smaller groups they sought to have a pure meeting of believers.  How were these little churches structured and what did they do?  Lloyd-Jones continues

“But we must give some general indication as to how this idea was put into operation. There are certain things which were common to practically all of them. For instance, they were all animated by that same fundamental idea. They all likewise stressed the voluntary membership of these nuclei. People could either join this inner church, this little nucleus, or not; it was left entirely to their own volition. But the moment you did join you had to submit to a very strict discipline. They kept a list of members and observed their attendances very closely, and if a man or a woman failed to turn up with regularity he or she would be excluded, excommunicated. Sometimes indeed, a fine was imposed.

What did they do in these societies? Actually there was a good deal of variation about this, but the central idea in all of them was that the meetings should be an occasion for instruction which could not be given in the open preaching. Most of them held this kind of meeting of this select company, the true believers in the church, once a week. They met in a more informal manner, and there they could go over the sermons preached on the previous Sunday, and people would have opportunities for asking questions and discussion. Some gave opportunity for people to relate their experiences, others frowned upon that and did not believe in it at all. In the case of those that appeared in Germany there was a good deal of discussion of doctrine, and indeed at times of philosophy, and they almost became debating societies; whereas in others doctrinal discussions were completely banned and prohibited. So you see there was this considerable variation in the way in which meetings were conducted, but this does not affect the principle.

Another thing that is common to most of these meetings is that they gave opportunities to the laymen. This is where we touch on that question of the universal priesthood of all believers, referred to in an earlier paper. These people felt that the laymen had not been given sufficient opportunity, so in these gatherings the laymen were allowed to speak and put questions. That is an important principle for us to bear in mind. There was a good deal of difference with regard to the place of women. In most of them women were allowed. In the case of Spener, the German to whom I shall be referring, women were allowed to attend these meetings but they had to be behind a screen out of sight, and they were not allowed to speak! Others were very careful to divide even between married men and single men, and married women and single women, and particularly where the question of the giving of experiences was involved.”

At this point, I must comment on the similarities of these “little churches within the church” and our modern-day establishment of small groups.  The small groups or cell groups that exist in our churches today seek to do much of what these early reformers seem to have sought to accomplish.  A weekly meeting of believers only, voluntary attendance, opportunity given to the lay persons that had a variety of discussion topics such as going over previous sermons, question and answer, sharing or relating experiences, some had doctrinal discussions others did not, and some separated on the basis of gender or marital status.  Sounds quite familiar right?  Before we go patting ourselves on the back for carrying on the legacy of the Reformers, let us allow Lloyd-Jones to conclude.

At this point, Lloyd-Jones begins his historical survey in the 16th century with Luther and turns to Franz Lambert, Martin Bucer, the 17th century advocates of ecclesiola in Philip Jacob Spener, August Hermann Francke, Count Zinzendorf, Dr. Anthony Horneck (Savoy Chapel), Josiah Woodward, and George Whitefield.  As he entered into the 18th century overview, he highlights two proponents of these little churches, William Grimshaw, and Samuel Walker.  While some of these names may not be familiar to us, Lloyd-Jones’ survey is significant because he shows that these ideas were not localized geographically, nor were they limited in time or denomination, but instead can be found throughout church history.

Next he answers perhaps the question that’s lingering in our minds, “What happened to these little church experiments?”  They all failed.  “All this is a sheer matter of history; one of two things happened to them all. They either failed in the way I have been describing, or, secondly, they ended definitely in separation and the formation of a new church. That happened, as I have shown, in the case of Methodism in England. It happened in exactly the same way with Calvinistic Methodism in Wales, which became a separate denomination in Wales in 1811.”

Before we get to Lloyd-Jones’ general observation of these little churches, let me first bring us to the modern day experiment of small groups, a relatively new phenomenon within the church.  These small groups as we have come to know them today originated in the church growth movement of the 1960’s and 70’s, but they have at their heart a desire not unlike that given in the address above.  They sometimes find their biblical basis in the “small groups” of Jesus’ disciples, i.e. that He had a larger group of disciples, then the 12, and then an inner group of Peter, James, and John.  Seeing this as a model for ministry, many have developed the small group concept.  Largely, they have as their motivation and goal the relational aspect of the church, something which is nearly impossible during the hustle and bustle of the larger, corporate Sunday gathering.  Here within these smaller groups, more attention to doctrinal detail or experiences can be given within a more intimate setting and fellowship.  Many churches have come to find that the small group is an essential ingredient to church membership.  As to Lloyd-Jones’ point, many churches have likely been birthed out of geographical small groups.

But we must ask, why is it that our Lord’s Day gathering has become insufficient such that an appendix to it needs to be made.  What, if anything, does the New Testament have to offer on this subject?  We’ve seen that oftentimes Jesus’ own ministry has been the foundation for these small groups, but can that argument really be sustained biblically?  And is it observable in the life and ministry of the Apostle’s in establishing the early church?

After raising many critical questions as to the validity of these ecclesiola’s in ecclesia’s Lloyd-Jones summarizes with the following statement

“So I come to the last question which seems to me to be raised, and I think it is the most acute question of all. God forbid that this last question should ever cause a division amongst us who are evangelical, but it does seem to me that this story of the ‘ecclesiola in ecclesia’ raises this great question. It was there at the beginning with Luther; it is still here. Should we start with the situation and the position as it is and try to reform it, or should we start with the New Testament and apply it? It comes to that! The Reformers began with the situation as they found it, and as we have been reminded several times in the conference, their policy was to reform it. If their premise was right I think their procedure can be justified. You must then be patient and diplomatic and so on.

But the great question I am raising is this — were they right in that original question? Where do you start? Do you start with the existing situation and try by adjustment and accommodation and meetings and fellowship and readiness to give and take for the sake of the body that is already there, to get the best modifications you can? Is it that? History seems to show that, if you do start with that, you will soon be having to think of starting an ‘ecclesiola in ecclesia’ because of the dead wood in the church. That seems to me to be the argument of history. Do you start with that then?

Or do you rather start by asking ‘What is the New Testament teaching?’ Let us start with that. Our one object and endeavor should be to put that into practice, cost what it may, believing that as we are trying to conform to the New Testament pattern we shall be blessed of God. It is a difficult, it is a perplexing, it is a vexing question. As I have tried to remind you, in all fairness, the Reformers were concerned to bring back the New Testament idea; but they failed. There was this kind of polarity in their thinking and they kept on swinging between two basic ideas. That is why I am raising this as the ultimate and fundamental question.”

Here is the summary of the point I’m attempting to make by quoting Lloyd-Jones so extensively.  From the time of Luther onward (though we could certainly go back well before him to the Donatists, Waldensians, and so on) there has been a recognition and dissatisfaction with what we modernly call the corporate church, also known as the state church previous eras.  This dissatisfaction has arisen for various reasons and perhaps we see it most clearly today as an insufficiency, such that addendums and additions need to be made.  As a remedy, there has been the experiment, if you will, of these churches within the church, or our modern-day equivalent small groups, that have attempted to remedy any of these unsaid deficiencies.  Yet herein lies the problem and Lloyd-Jones has really put his finger on it, as I’ve highlighted from the last two paragraphs in bold above.  Every example in church history of the failed ecclesiola in ecclesia has begun out of an attempt to influence the larger group with the smaller, or we might say strengthen and mature the larger group by strengthening and maturing the smaller group first.  However, as Lloyd-Jones highlights, perhaps this smaller group IS the New Testament teaching.  Perhaps instead of attempting to reform the larger, more visible group by introducing a smaller group, we begin with the smaller group, or the ecclesiola and stay there.

The great temptation of every church plant, even and perhaps especially those, that have begun out of a small group or Bible study, is to grow larger and expand.  This is often seen as a sign of God’s hand of blessing and a reward of diligent effort and hard work to “build the church”.  But what if it’s not.  What if numerical growth is not the equivalent of blessing?  What if outward numerical growth is actually a hindrance to spiritual growth of the local body of believers?  Within every single church I’ve ever been in the necessity of the small group has arisen.  Why?  Because the of the lack of relationships in the corporate gathering, the lack of dialogue over the Scriptures, the lack of in-depth teaching and learning, the lack of accountability and the ease with which one can hide and mentally drift off in many of our large corporate gatherings.

So here is the proposition: Maybe we should begin with an ecclesiola and stay there.  As the little church begins to grow, split it and multiply.  Perhaps a return to this model would be an appropriate first step to genuine reformation, or better, restoration.  Perhaps this more intimate gathering lends itself more to relationships with built in accountability and intensity in the Word.  Perhaps this is what it means to have “all things in common”.

In closing, Luther identified three worship services, the first was the Latin Mass, which he abhorred, the second was the German Mass open to all, and the third was a smaller more intimate gathering of true believers.  A gathering that he admittedly would have pursued wholeheartedly had he found enough interested parties.  May that not be the case with us.  Search the Scriptures.  Examine them to see if these things are true.

[1] http://www.the-highway.com/ecclesia_Lloyd-Jones.html

Introducing Covenant Theology

 

There can perhaps be no greater theological deficiency in modern evangelical churches and seminaries than a proper and robust understanding of the biblical covenants. Having been a believer for going on 33 years, I cannot recall a time when the covenants were explained or exposited in sufficient detail from any pulpit I’ve sat under. Generally when the subject of covenant arises in a particular passage, that particular covenant is given a passing mention, but larger unity and diversity of the divine covenants is ignored.

Speaking to the issues of his own day, 19th Century Reformed Baptist R.B.C. Howell writes,

“A perfect knowledge of the Gospel therefore, involves necessarily, a correct comprehension of the covenants. But by whom among us, are these covenants clearly understood? To most men, you need only to speak on this subject, and you at once perceive that “Even unto this day, the vail is upon their heart.” They fail to perceive what the covenants are in themselves, in their relations to each other, and consequently in their bearings upon the designs of God in the Redeemer! This darkness is lamentable in all its aspects, since falling short of the knowledge of these, “the rudiments of the doctrine of Christ,” obscurity must necessarily rest upon the whole Gospel system. How can he who does not perceive “the first principles” of any specified science, ever become a master of that science?”[1]

Additionally, unless required seminary courses have changed within the last year or so, one would be hard pressed to find one, let alone multiple courses which plumb the depths of the study of covenants, also known as covenant theology (Reformed Theological Seminary and some of the smaller schools such as Covenant Baptist Theological Seminary, Reformed Baptist Seminary, et.al. would be some notable exceptions). This is in stark contrast to the following statement by Charles Spurgeon, “The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of divinity”[2], yet we see student after student conferred with the degree of Master of Divinity with little knowledge of biblical covenants. Personally, I was unaware of the significance of the covenants until 5-6 years ago when confronted head on by their presence in the book of Romans, specifically the relationship of Israel and the Church.   These personal witnesses before us, one is left to wonder why this neglect of the covenants is so prominent.

Perhaps the great neglect of Covenant Theology that may be observed in our day should be laid at the feet of its chief opponent, dispensationalism. One need only observe the harsh sentiments of Lewis Sperry Chafer, founder of Dallas Theological Seminary – for a century or more the heartbeat of dispensational theology – to gain a glimpse of why this is the case. Note the following from Chafer:

“Judaism has its field of theology with its soteriology and its eschatology. That these factors of a system which occupies three-fourths of the Sacred Text are unrecognized and ignored by theologians does not demonstrate their nonexistence, nor does it prove their unimportance. A Covenant Theology engenders the notion that there is but one soteriology and one eschatology, and that ecclesiology, such as it is conceived to be, extends from the Garden of Eden to the great white throne. The insuperable problems in exegesis which such fanciful suppositions engender are easily disposed of by ignoring them. On the other hand, Scripture is harmonized and its message clarified when two divinely appointed systems–Judaism and Christianity–are recognized and their complete and distinctive characters are observed. No matter how orthodox they may be in matters of inspiration, the Deity of Christ, His virgin birth, and the efficacy of His death, Covenant theologians have not been forward in Bible exposition. This great field of service has been and is now occupied by those who distinguish things which differ, who, though giving close attention to all that has been written, are bound by no theological traditions whatever. – Lewis Sperry Chafer Systematic Theology, Vol.4, p.248″[3]

Though a dense statement to be sure, notice the heart of what Chafer is suggesting is that there is not 1 soteriology, that is salvation, but 2; that there is not 1 eschatology, that is God’s redemptive plan unfolding in history culminating in the reign of Christ in the New Heavens and New Earth, but 2; that there is not 1 ecclesiology, that is people of God, but 2; and finally that all this is not unfolded and extended from Genesis to Revelation. With all due respect to Dr. Chafer, whose writings and influence on the Church have been profound, he is wrong and not simply wrong, but dangerously wrong.

When these notions are combined with the widespread influence of the dispensationalism that Chafer helped advance throughout America in the 19th and 20th century, there really should be no surprise that covenant theology lay mostly dormant for decades among Baptists, many of whom saw dispensationalism as a correction on the one hand to liberalism and most certainly on the other hand to infant-baptizing forms of covenant theology. Seemingly, many baptists felt left with only those two extreme options and chose the more moderate line of dispensationalism. However, the middle point between two errors does not place one on the path of truth, as can be witnessed in the quote above from Chafer. Without the torch being carried by our paedobaptist brothers and several 20th Century Reformed Baptists, the covenant theology expressed for so long through the ages of church history, would have been left miring in the “Dark Ages”.

Thankfully, in recent years there has been a resurgence of solid, confessional baptist covenant theology. Likely due to multiple factors, including a resurgence in the Doctrines of Grace and a rejection of the errors of dispensationalism, modern Baptists began exploring their own historical identity and found in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith a robust and developed covenant theology that ran contra to the idea of infant baptism found in her mother confession, the Westminster Confession of Faith, championed by Presbyterians in the 17th century.

Nehemiah Coxe, likely the chief editor of the 1689 Second London Baptist Confession writes, “…further observe that the holy and wise God has always dealt with the children of men in a way of covenant. The display of infinite goodness has always accompanied the discovery of his infinite glory in his dealing with men. Thus he has not acted toward them to the utmost right of his sovereignty and dominion over them. Had he done so, there never would have been any reward of future blessedness assigned and made due to their obedience, as there has been by covenant.”[4]

Such a strong statement by the Baptist statesman, Coxe highlights the importance placed on covenants by the reformed baptists of his day and ensures that Baptists have a covenantal heritage just as rich as those who have adhered to the Westminster Confession.

The study of covenants can be a particularly difficult subject to approach, not because Scripture is unclear, but because throughout history there has been a multitude of views and beliefs such that it is difficult to find a monolithic, orthodox explanation to help guide one’s efforts. In the coming weeks, I hope to devote some attention to untangling this web of confusion and presenting in clear terms a discussion of covenant theology from the historic baptist perspective.

[1] http://founders.org/library/covenants/

[2] http://www.ccel.org/ccel/spurgeon/sermons58.xliv.html

[3] http://www.dispensationalfriends.org/articles/chafer1.html

[4] Coxe – Owen pg. 38