The Federal Vision Debate: The Covenant of Grace

Do all New Covenant Members Persevere onto Final Salvation?

Part 1
Part 2

Part 3

I. The Nature of the Triune God (Isa 6:3)
Holy and Just
Personal and Relational, which includes love and goodness
Therefore His Relationship to His creation most be holy and just

II. Bicovenantalism
Covenant of Works
Covenant of Grace
Mono-covenantalism denies Law – Gospel distinction

III. Overview of Covenants
Edenic Covenant (Works)
Adamic Covenant (Promise)
Noahic Covenant (Dominion)
Abrahamic Covenant (Royal Grant)
Mosaic Covenant (Typological Kingdom)
Davidic Covenant (Messianic)
New Covenant (Salvation)

IV. Ordo Salutis and Historia Salutis (Gal 3:29)
Man is always saved the same way (ordo salutis)
But the Covenant of Grace matures in redemptive History (Historia Salutis)
Old Testament Covenants fulfilled in Christ

V. Constitution of the New Covenant (Heb 8:10-12)
In Christ’s blood
Entirely salvific
All in the covenant are saved
No covenant breakers

VI. Therefore all New Covenant Members will persevere onto to final salvation

John the Calvinist: Part 3

As we work through examples in the Gospel of John that show that John the Apostle was a "Calvinist," we now turn to John 3. In this chapter Jesus is teaching a man who is schooled in the Old Testament, Nicodemus. Jesus tells him, "Do not marvel that I said to you, 'You must be born again. The wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit'" (3:7-8).

The first thing of note from John 3 is that Jesus teaches that a person must be born again if they want to see the kingdom of God. That is, they must be born a second time. They must have a physical birth and spiritual birth (3:5-6) if they want to enter the kingdom of God. Secondly, Jesus explains that, just as the wind blows where it wants, the Spirit, who brings life, goes where he wants. This is Jesus' way of saying that the life giving Spirit gives life to who he wants to. In other words, salvation is something that is in the hands of the Spirit of God. The new birth is not something that we are involved in; we are passive. Just like we are passive in our first birth, we are passive in our second birth. The Spirit moves where and when and how he wants. It is not up to us.

It is true that believers respond after the Spirit moves, but not before. In other words, once the Spirit causes the new birth in a person, that person responds with faith and repentance. The Calvinist view is the same as John's in John 3. First a person is born again (3:3), then they believe and repent (3:16). To change this order is to go against the biblical order and it is to rob God of his glory in salvation. God is glorified in the fact that salvation is in his hands and not ours.

The Federal Vision Debate: The Covenant of Works

Covenant Of Works Defended

Listen to Part 1

Listen to Part 2


I. Adam under a Covenant of Works Hosea 6:7
A. Like Adam Israel broke the Covenant
B. Job 31:33 as Adam
C. Rom 5:14 Solidarity between Adam and Christ

II. Works of the Law (Gal 3:5,12)
A. Works is obedience to the commandments (Gal 3:12)
B. Not based upon faith
C. Faith is antithetical to works
D. Faith is an empty hand

III. Strict Justice (Gal 3:10-12)
A. Cursed is He who breaks the Law (Jam 2:10-11)
B. Eternal Punishment is strict justice (Rev 20:11-15)
C. Wages for work rendered is not grace but justice (Rom 4:4)

IV. Meritorious (Rom 5:18, 7:10)
A. The Law is ordained to life (Rom 7:10)
B. Can earn eternal life by keeping all the law (Mark 10:17-21)
C. Full obedience would have resulted in Adams justification (Rom 5:18)

V. The Covenant Grace
A. Only exists in the context of satisfied justice (Rom 3:25)
B. Covenant of Grace is demerited favor (Eph 2:1-8)
C. Justification is not maintained through faithful obedience (Phillip 3:7-10)
D. Justification is not eschatological (Rom 5:1)

New Edition

The staff of Bring the Books is proud to announce that a new member has joined the ranks of our staff, Jonathan Goundry. Jonathan was born and raised in England, County Durham to Christian parents. His father has been a pastor and missionary since Jonathan was a young child. Consequently Jonathan grew up around the church and the ministry. His parents proved to be a great Christian influence in his life and when Jonathan was fifteen, having recognized his desperate need for salvation in Christ, he was converted.

Jonathan arrived in the US when he was eighteen with his family; his father at that time began pastoring in Boca Raton, Florida. At that time Jonathan enrolled at an Assemblies God bible school and graduated after two years. This became a catalyst to a vigorous study in the Scriptures and Church History, which eventually brought Jonathan to a Calvinistic understanding of God's Word. With this being the case, Jonathan relinquished his credentials with Assemblies of God and transferred to the Southern Baptist Convention, allowing him to minister without an immediate conflict of conscience and doctrine. Following this Jonathan relocated to Temecula, Southern California to be Elder at Great Oak Church. Currently, Jonathan is the co-host on the webcast the Narrow Mind.

I would like to the first to welcome Jonathan to the staff and I for one look forward to his posts.

"Man, I Just Believe The Bible"

"About this we have much to say, and it is hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. For though by this time you ought to be teachers, you need someone to teach you again the basic principles of the oracles of God. You need milk, not solid food, for everyone who lives on milk is unskilled in the word of righteousness, since he is a child. But solid food is for the mature, for those who have their powers of discernment trained by constant practice to distinguish good from evil." (Heb 5:11-14)

"Man, I don't know. I just believe the Bible."
"This deep stuff you're talking about is just way more than I think God wants us to know."
"I just preach Christ and him crucified."
"I just feel like God wants us to minister to the hurting."

I heard some of these things from someone last week. I have heard this from people before. I have heard this for so long, that I'm thinking of creating a categorization for this "uber-simplistic" school of theology. If anyone has any ideas, I'm open to them.

I was going to approach this subject (which has been brewing in my head for some time) in a traditionally Reformed way, but at the last minute decided not to. In other words, I hope to hold your attention and make you laugh a time or two. (Unless you disagree with me, then you'll just think I'm ranting.)

It seems like I have been at war with this school of thought which favors simplicity and milk over theology and meat for as long as I have believed that God is a very important person. It is a point of pride for these people that they have started on the "ABCs" of the Gospel and stopped at "G". Heaven forbid someone else moves on from the milk and has to reach, instead, for a bottle of A-1 and a knife!

Here we go: when you deride someone for delving into the "deep things" of the Gospel, or when you criticize someone's interest in high theology, soteriology, pneumatology, ecclesiology, etc, you are literally taking on the Apostles and authors of Scripture themselves!

The very same Apostle who wrote in 1 Corinthians 2:2 that "I decided to know nothing among you except Jesus Christ and him crucified" also wrote an entire book of high theology about what exactly that meant (aka "Paul's Letter to the Romans"). Incidentally, Paul explains in the verse before what he meant by knowing "nothing," and what he meant was that "I, when I came to you, brothers, did not come proclaiming to you the testimony of God with lofty speech or wisdom." Here, Paul is referring to his method of communication to the church in Corinth. He was not saying that believers shouldn't know anything except the raw materials of the Gospel. If this were the case and Paul only desired his readers to pursue simplicity of faith and raw, milk-like belief, then let me suggest that Paul would have been enabling sinful attitudes by setting pen to parchment for his letters to the churches in Rome, Galatia, Ephesus, etc. These letters are rife - I repeat, rife - with soteriology, Christology, and other fancy high-falootin' theological concepts that many today consider disdainful.

Or let me approach this from another way: if you love someone, don't you want to know them as well as you possibly can? How would my wife feel if I came home from work each day and said, "well you're my wife, I think we can agree on that, but don't tell me any more about yourself. Oh wait, what's that? You have these photo albums showing me all the things you did in High School and College? Not interested. What's that? Family history? Keep it to yourself." I hope you can all see that there is a patent absurdity - perhaps even a contradiction - in saying that you love someone and desire to know nothing more than the most superficial facts about them.

If we love God, then we ought to desire to know Him as much as possible, and you don't get to know God to the exclusion of His acts in history. This goes for the particulars of God and his character, too. If God tells us that He is just and saves some and not others - by His free choice and good pleasure, then to say so out loud is not shameful - it is liberatingly true!

Now this way of thinking is clearly nothing new. Almost every week, when I discuss this frustration of mine with my elders at church, every one of them let me know that they are having the same sort of frustrating encounters with people week in and week out.

Let me suggest that this anti-intellectual plague which is sweeping the churches of our land (and has probably always been there in some measure) is not only un-biblical, but is exactly the opposite attitude which will bring the church through the cultural storms which lie ahead. How can we say, "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and you shall be saved" if we aren't willing to ask ourselves how it is that this can happen, or how it even works. I'm not saying that an exhaustive understanding of every aspect of God and his salvation is necessary (we can only know as much as has been revealed in Scripture), but I am saying that you are in direct disobedience of Hebrews 5:11-14 and you are ignoring the example of the Apostles if you stubbornly - even pridefully - refuse to go any further than "Jesus loves me, this I know." Especially if there is more, and the Bible tells you so.

John the Calvinist: Part 2

Since we had an overwhelming response to the first post in this series and I do not know how to get to all the passages that our readers brought up (read that statement as sarcasm), the best approach to see John the Apostles "Calvinism" seems to be by working our way through John's Gospel chapter by chapter hitting all the high lights.

With this approach, the first passage to consider is John 1:11-13.

11 He came to his own, and his own people did not receive him. 12 But to all who did receive him, who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God, 13 who were born, not of blood nor of the will of the flesh nor of the will of man, but of God.

The first thing to note about this passage is that some people do not receive Christ (that is the "him" in the passage) while others do receive Christ. Calvinism holds this to be true. People have to receive Christ to be saved and all who are not saved do, in fact, reject (i.e. do not receive) Christ. Because of mankind's fall into sin all people, by nature, will not receive Christ. This is something they do freely and willingly. It is not forced. While at the same time, all who receive Christ do it freely and willingly. But why is it that some receive Christ and others do not? Is it something within the person? It is their will? Their free will?

John answers these questions for us. All who receive Christ are made children of God. As it states in John 3, they are born again. But who is the agent in this "being born process"? John first tells us how this did not happen. Those who receive Christ were not born again of blood or by the will of the flesh or by the will of man. In other words, it is not because of anything the person who receives Christ did. The individual who is born as a child of God did nothing to be born of God. If the person does nothing to be born of God, how are they born of God?

John is clear on this point, all who are born again are brought to new life by God and God alone. In other word, the act of regeneration (being born again) is an act done solely by God. Just as a baby who is born into this world does nothing to cause this birth. So to, a Christian is born again without doing anything to cause their birth. Just as a new born baby freely breathes and eats once it is born. So to, a new born Christian freely receives Christ and feeds on him once they are born again by the act of God.

Meaning in Life?

I just watched the video below and I am wondering how an Atheist would respond. Any takers?

John Murray's Exceptions

It's been said,
many times,
many ways...


I have heard, mainly from those in the so-called "Federal Vision," many times that John Murray took a number of exceptions with the Westminster Standards. The story goes that Murray took, some say 5 and others 95, exceptions with Standards. I have looked for these exceptions, but to no avail. Does anyone know where, if at all, this story can be shown true or false?

John the Calvinist: Part 1

I am currently taking a class on the Gospel of John. As I read through this wonderful Gospel I am struck afresh at how "Calvinistic" this book really is. So, I thought I would start a series of posts looking at different passages in the Gospel of John that teach the doctrines known as "Calvinism," or the term I prefer, "the doctrines of grace."

In this first post I need your help. In the comments let me know what passages you would like me to discuss. It can be passages that are overtly Calvinistic or passages that you, the reader, thinks show Calvinism to be wrong. I am an equal opportunity blogger.

Why Aren't You Dedicating Your Son?

The following is an excerpt from a letter I recently wrote to a family member regarding our decision not to have a "dedication" ceremony for our newborn son, Amos.

Traditionally, my family - as well as your side of the family - has dedicated their children to the Lord when they are born, and while I do believe that dedicating one's children to God and promising to raise them up in His ways is a good thing - in principle, anyway - I do not believe it is Biblical. Our son is not circumcised, and part of the reason we have chosen not to circumcise him is because God has given us as His people a covenant symbol in place of circumcision. He desires for his people to have hearts which are circumcised, but he has given us baptism as the new sign of the covenant. In the same way that the Old covenant was symbolized by circumcision, the new covenant is symbolized by baptism. Because we believe this, we believe that our son is a part of the Christian covenant community, and should be baptized to symbolize his inclusion in it. This does not mean that he is automatically saved, of course (none of us believes that baptism saves anyone), but it does mean that he is set apart from the rest of the world with the benefits of being included as a part of the Church until the day when he can either have his baptism confirmed or decide to turn away from the covenant symbol he was given. What this means is that we probably see baptism as two different things: whereas most of our family sees baptism as an outward sign that we have decided to follow Jesus, we see baptism as being an outward sign of the covenant of God. Because this covenant applies to us, as believers, as well as to our children, Arryn and I baptize our children for very much the same reason that the Israelites circumcised their children.

If a first century Jew had been following Jesus' teachings and then decided to become a Christian, they would have found it strange to exclude their children from the New Covenant, considering that they used to be included under the Old Covenant as part of the "church." Rather, let me suggest, that the idea of baptizing rather than dedicating one's children arose - in part - from the early church's belief that conversion to Christianity does not simply affect someone who is the head of the family alone, but that it affects the entire family - from the parents to the children.

This is certainly more than you asked for, but it basically summarizes our beliefs as far as dedicating our children, rather than baptizing them. If anything, we would very much like to have Amos baptized, but in the meantime we have decided together that the salvation of our children is the highest priority for us to pursue. In this way, we have already dedicated Genesis and Amos to the Lord.

Here is a serious question for everyone: I am a paedobaptist attending a reformed baptist church. Should we pursue a baptism through some other church, or simply give in and dedicate since that is our church's way?

He's Here!

Our son was born earlier today! His name is Amos Augustin Parker (my wife chose to spell his middle name without the "e" on the end so people wouldn't make the mistake of calling him "August-een"), and he was 9lb. 12oz. Labor started around 8am, and ended at 5:40, when he was finally born.

I want to just say that my wife is amazing. She has done the greatest thing I have ever seen before, and she did it without an epidural, without drugs, without any pain killers. She did it au naturale, and I couldn't be prouder. She feels a great sense of accomplishment for having done this, and that sense of accomplishment is well deserved.

Praise God that Amos has no birth defects, that he has no medical problems, that he is in good sound condition, and that the Lord blessed us with a great delivery team. Though we were not able to have him at home (due to the fact that we needed pitocin to get the contractions going), God still brought us a hospital staff that was respectful of Arryn's desire for a natural birth, and we just think the world of our midwife, Michelle, our nurse, Theresa, and our doctors, Dr. Jensen and Dr. Smothers.

Here is a video of Genesis meeting her little brother:

This is the first photo we took after he was born:


Hey; it was warm in there!


A proud father, once again:


Genesis holds her baby brother:


I have more pictures, but I don't want to swamp our page with photos and videos, so perhaps I'll save anything else for later. Praise be to God for His provision of safety and wise counsel.

True Art

What is the Gospel?

I have been having a conversation with a few of my fellow seminary students. We have been discussing what are the necessary elements of the Gospel. In other words, what must be given and said in order for the Gospel to be preached? So, I wanted to let our readers join in on this conversation. I ask you, the reader, what are the necessary pieces of the Gospel? What truths must be given to a person so that at the end we can say that the Gospel has been preached?

Worship in All We do

As a new semester begins, I am reminded that as disciples of Jesus Christ, we are to do everything we do with an eye to the glory of God. All we do needs to be an act of worship to the great God of the universe.

Apologies and Invitations

I'm sorry that I have not written much lately (some may be grateful, rather choosing to eagerly await the Rev. Stellman's or Mr. Walker's next entry). I have been putting more focus into my work on my side-project, which I again want to invite everyone to peruse as you have time. It is The Geneva Gazette, and I hope it's funny enough that you will all subscribe in your RSS feeds, and also comment on. I realize that we Calvinists are not known to be funny people, and I am probably no exception.