Although John Owen wasn’t a Particular Baptist (or a Baptist at all, for that matter), the 17th century Particular Baptists drew heavily from his work in covenant theology in expressing their own views. Here is a portion from Owen’s commentary on Hebrews, recommended by Particular Baptist Nehemiah Coxe (most likely editor of the 1689 Second London Confession of Faith), provided by Reformed Baptist Fellowship.
In the latest post from Sam Renihan at Particular Voices, an anonymous Particular Baptist borrows one of John Owen’s arguments to show how the new covenant is distinct from the old.
The Faulty Covenant and the Better Covenant – Particular Voices | The Confessing Baptist.
Today I stumbled across a couple of blog posts on church polity, one written by Presbyterian pastor Kevin DeYoung, the other being a response by Hunter Powell of 9Marks (a Congregationalist/Baptist ministry). I found it interesting because while I consider myself to be a plural-elder congregationalist who largely agrees with John Owen and Sam Waldron on church polity, I agreed with just about all of Pastor DeYoung’s post. Most people I know, when they hear the word “congregationalist,” immediately think “democracy,” as if elders are ruled by the congregation instead of the other way around. We must, must, must define our terms.
Pastor DeYoung’s post can be read here: “Putting In a Good Word for Presbyterianism”
Hunter Powell’s response can be read here: “Questioning Kevin DeYoung’s Good Word on Presbyterianism”
Both are written very respectfully. I recommend Pastor Deyoung’s post for the points it makes against extreme forms of congregationalism, while I recommend Mr. Powell’s post for shedding some light on the historic differences of opinion (and unity) on church polity in the Reformed tradition.
There is a duty incumbent on every man to instruct others, according to his ability and opportunity, in the knowledge of God; the law of which, being natural and eternal, is always obligatory on all sorts of persons. […] The highest degree in religion which men now aim at is but to attend to and learn by the public teaching of the ministry. And, alas, how few are there who do it conscientiously, to the glory of God and the spiritual benefit of their own souls! The whole business of teaching and learning the knowledge of God is generally turned into a formal spending, if not squander of so much time. But as for the teaching of others according to ability and opportunity, to endeavor for abilities, or to seek for opportunities of it, it is not only for the most part neglected, but despised. How few there are who take any care to instruct their own children and servants! But to carry this duty farther, according to opportunities of instructing others, is a thing that would be looked on almost as madness, in the days in which we live. We have far more that mutually teach one another sin, folly, yea, villainy of all sorts, than the knowledge of God and the duty we owe to him. This is… what God… has given up careless, unbelieving professors of the gospel to, in a way of vengeance (Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, 296).
How did Israel’s response to the Sinai Covenant affect them?
On this occasionally fell out the ruin of that people; “their table became a snare to them, and that which should have been for their welfare became a trap,” according to the prediction of our Savior, Ps. 69:22. It was this covenant that raised and ruined them. It raised them to glory and honor when given of God; it ruined them when abused by themselves to ends contrary to express declarations of his mind and will. For although the generality of them were wicked and rebellious, always breaking the terms of the covenant which God made with them, so far as it was possible they should, while God determined to reign over them to the appointed season, and repining under the burden of it; yet they would have this covenant to be the only rule and means of righteousness, life, and salvation, as the apostle declares, Rom. 9:31-33; 10:3. For, as we have often said, there were two things in it, both which they abused to other ends than what God designed them:
How did the Jews misinterpret the Sinai Covenant’s reference to the Covenant of Works?
There was the renovation of the rule of the covenant of works for righteousness and life. And this they would have to be given to them for those ends, and so sought for righteousness by the works of the law.
In other words, despite God’s reminder that only perfect obedience could merit eternal life, the Israelites tried to make a national covenant promising material & temporal blessings into a new Covenant of Works like the one made with Adam.
How did the Jews misinterpret the ways in which the Sinai Covenant pointed to the Covenant of Grace?
There was ordained in it a typical representation of the way and means in accordance with which the promise was to be made effectual, namely, in the mediation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ; which was the end [purpose] of all their ordinances of worship. And the outward law of it, with the observance of its institution, they looked on as their only relief when they came short of exact and perfect righteousness.
Thus, instead of recognizing that the animal sacrifices pointed toward the reality of Christ’s sacrifice, the Israelites believed that the outward observance of sacrificing the animals (in and of itself) actually obtained forgiveness for their sins.
Why is it important to grasp the true meaning of the Sinai Covenant, instead of misinterpreting it like the Jews did?
Against both these pernicious errors the apostle disputes expressly in his epistles to the Romans and the Galatians, to save them, if it were possible, from that ruin they were casting themselves into. On this “the elect obtained,” but “the rest were hardened.” For by that means they made an absolute renunciation of the promise, in which alone God had enwrapped the way of life and salvation.
This is the nature and substance of that covenant which God made with that people; a particular, temporary covenant it was, and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace (Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, pp. 198-199).
 | Hugh McCann on Protestantism Is Over and the… |
| Hugh McCann on “Abba” is not… |
 | Andrew Felts on “Abba” is not… |
| Hugh McCann on Pentecostal Jazz |
| Hugh McCann on Pentecostal Jazz |
The Sovereign Logos 