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.
One of the key differences between the Covenant Theology of the framers of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith and that of the Westminster Confession has to do with the nature of the Covenant of Grace, that is, the covenant through which sinners are saved. The Westminster Confession presents the view of one over-arching Covenant manifested in several historical covenants (e.g. Abrahamic, Mosaic, New). The 1689 Confession, on the other hand, maintains that prior to the formal establishment of the New Covenant at the time of Christ, the “covenant of grace” consisted only in the form of gospel promises revealed “by farther steps” throughout biblical history. If an individual living before Christ believed these promises, he was redeemed by the future spilled blood of Christ just as surely as believers living today.
Nehemiah Coxe answers the question, Was there an old covenant administration of the covenant of grace?.
Abraham Booth reminds us that Tenure in Canaan is not the same as tenure in Christ.
Benjamin Keach describes how Paul connects circumcision, not with the covenant of grace, but with The weakness and purpose of the old covenant.
In this post from Particular Voices, Benjamin Keach comments on the nature of the Sinaitic covenant as a republication, in greater detail and with specific application to national Israel, of the covenant of works made with Adam, albeit for a different purpose.
 | 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 