Kinism: What is it? What should I think & do about it?

Recently, Kinism has once again become an issue of theological discussion, division and contention. This issue has broken Christian friendships and caused tears. The best thing that we can do for Kinists is pray for them, and edify the body of Christ despite what Kinists believe. Below is a brief definition of Kinism, a quick refutation of Kinism, then lastly a practical Christian response to Kinism.

(1) A Brief Definition of Kinism:

Kinism is the belief that the God-ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than universal. Mankind was designed by its God to live and to thrive in extended family groups, in that people of the same ethnicity are to clan together, to the exclusion of those of other ethnicities. This is dangerously unbiblical.

(2) A Quick Refutation of Kinism:
(a) The verses/concepts commonly appealed to by Kinists:

(1) Genesis 1:25: "according to kind" is not talking about Japanese and English - an example of a violation of that would be man and animal, or dog and reptile. Leviticus 18:23, 1 Corinthians 15:39.

(2) Genesis 9:20-27: The descendants of Canaan were infamous for their idolatry and sexual perversion. Nothing to do with race. Skipping over the fact that NOAH said "‘Cursed be Canaan" right at that time!

(3) Genesis 11:1-9: Their sin involved a failure to spread through the earth, Genesis 11:4b (stemming from pride).

(4) Israel as separated from other nations: The point was faith - there was capital punishment for apostasy and non-Israelites (by natural birth) joined the nation of Israel. Those who were not nationalistically Jews could by faith join the people of Israel, and would then receive the sign of circumcision that identified them with God's covenant people.

(5) Verses that talk about boarders: Yes, there are boarders and nations. There is a difference between nations being defined by citizenship regardless of culture, and nations being limited to races within that culture. Remember how Paul appeals to his Roman citizenship (Acts 22:25, c.f Romans 9:3)

 

(b) Seven reasons why Kinism is dangerously unbiblical:

(1) All men descend from Adam (Acts 17:26), then Noah (Genesis 6-10). So, there is really only one race (Genesis 1:26-27). Nelson Mandela and I both trace back to Noah, and before that Adam.

(2) Joseph (Semitic) married Asenath (Egyptian). Genesis 41:50.

(3) Moses married a Cushite woman (area now Ethiopia-Sudan). God punished Aaron and Miriam for criticising their inter-racial marriage. Numbers 12:1.

(4) What about those who joined the nation of OT Israel? Were their children just not to marry? What about Rahab - a Canaanite? Joshua 2:9-13, 6:17, 25, Matthew 1:5.

(5) How will they hear without a preacher? (Romans 10). The expansion of the people of God, is through the means of bringing the gospel to the nations (Matthew 28). This involves mixing with people of other cultures. Knism completely undermines the spread of the gospel.

(6) Kinism, replaces union with Christ with genetics (Galatians 3:28). Kinism is a practical denial of the Work of Christ, where he tore down the dividing wall between nations, so made people of all nations in covenant with God fellow citizens. Ephesians 2:11-22.

(7) Paul refereed to Himself as teacher of the Gentiles (Acts 26:4, 1 Timothy 2:7), which could not be the case if Paul was a Kinist.

(3) A practical Christian response to Kinism:

A Christian may marry one single Christian of the opposite gender who is not of certain relations or wrongly divorced, all according to the laws of the land. If a man from Canada married a woman from Ethiopia, and lived next to a man from Russia married to a woman from Brazil on one side, and a man from China married to a woman from Germany on the other side, brilliant. If there is a huge cultural divide between a man from Pakistan and a woman from New Zealand, it may be unwise to marry, but it would not be sinful. In a few years, they might be perfectly compatible to in wisdom marry and raise a family together.

I don't take this issue lightly. Within Christianity, I divide over damnable heresy, and beliefs that undermine Christian unity or common society. Sadly, Kinists do both: they would say that it was sinful for a British Christian man to marry a Korean Christian woman, and they would tell me to geographically separate from my Sudanese friends in order to stick to ones own race. If Kinist beliefs were popular, they would tear apart churches, communities, families and missions. It is to preserve Christian unity, care for the body of Christ and take our earthly duties seriously that we divide over Kinism.

I do believe that some Kinists are saved. And, I am thankful that they believe that all people are created in God's image, and can only find salvation in Christ. I really pray and wish each Kinist would abandon Kinism so that they can put such crucial orthodox beliefs into practise, and long for the day when all of God's elect from all nations (all those who trust in Christ alone) will be glorified as the eschatological church in Christ, in everlasting fellowship with Jesus Christ, who was born in Bethlehem.

(C) Jonathan Williams, November - December 2012.

Permission to use any ideas above, but please acknowledge the original author if you choose to directly quote this article.

Supralapsarianism and the Covenant of Redemption

What is Supralapsarianism?

The definition of supralapsarianism changed significantly during the time of Theodore Beza. With Beza, the question of lapsarianism came to regard the logical order of the decrees of God. Both infralapsarians and supralapsarians affirm that God freely ordained whatsoever comes to pass before anything was physically created – such doctrines are not debated.

What then is the lapsarian debate about? To quote Loraine Boettner, “When the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence were men considered as fallen or as unfallen? Were the objects of these decrees contemplated as members of a sinful, corrupt mass, or were they contemplated merely as men whom God would create?”

If you answered that question from Boettner by saying “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence men were considered unfallen”, or “the objects of these decrees were contemplated merely as men whom God would create”, then you are a supralapsarian. In the supralapsarian scheme, God decreed to elect some creatable men logically before He decreed the fall; supralapsarians believe that God’s decree of election logically preceded God’s decree of the fall.

The Covenant of Redemption:

The Covenant of Redemption is the intra-Trinitarian agreement between Father and the Son that occurred before the foundation of the world. The Covenant of Redemption is the agreement where the Father would give the Son as the head and redeemer of the elect, and the Son would voluntarily substitute for those whom the Father had given Him. God the Father gave all His elect to the Son who would willingly take their place. 

This is echoed in Chapter 8:1 of the Westminster Confession of Faith “It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, the Prophet, Priest, and King, the Head and Saviour of His Church, the Heir of all things, and Judge of the world: unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.”

The Covenant of Redemption is likewise affirmed in Head 1, Article 7 of the Canons of Dort “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.”

How this Relates to Lapsarianism:

What does this have to do with lapsarianism? Calvinists on every side are probably thinking “I agree with everything you said above Jonathan. What is your point?”

Election and redemption are thoroughly covenantal, being grounded in the Covenant of Redemption. It is not disputed that in the Covenant of Redemption, the Son volunteered to be the head and redeemer of those the Father chose, to willingly substitute for those whom the Father had given Him.

The Son’s role in the covenant of redemption was to willingly redeem those the Father chose to give Him. It cannot be disputed that when the decree of redemption came into existence men were considered as fallen.

Lapsarianism and the Trinity:

The above biblical data creates a real problem in the supralapsarian scheme. In the covenant of redemption, the Father would be choosing unfallen people, while the Son would be redeeming fallen people. God the Father would be viewing the elect as unfallen, at the same time that God the Son is viewing the elect that He will save as fallen. In supralapsarianism, the Father gives the Son unfallen people to redeem, while the Son substitutes for the fallen people that God gave Him. The supralapsarian conception of the covenant of redemption has the Father electing unfallen people, while the Son is viewing those God gave Him to redeem as fallen.

As I outlined above, the supralapsarian scheme creates an impossible disharmony within the Trinity (God is one in essence), which would be further intensified if I also discussed the Holy Spirit (applies redemption). Supralapsarianism logically necessitates either a rejection of the Trinity, or a rejection of the covenant of redemption (actually, rejecting the Trinitarian nature of redemption completely). The simple solution to this is to reject supralapsarianism, and agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Canons of Dort instead.

The Reformed Confessions:

Chapter 3:7 of the Westminster Confession of Faith states “The rest of mankind God was pleased, according to the unsearchable counsel of His own will, whereby He extends or withholds mercy, as He pleases, for the glory of His sovereign power over His creatures, to pass by; and to ordain them to dishonour and wrath for their sin, to the praised of His glorious justice.”

‘The rest of mankind’ are not ‘the rest of possible men’; they are ‘the rest of those human beings who constituted mankind’. According to the WCF, ‘the rest of mankind’ were ‘ordained to dishonour’ ‘for their sin’, which necessitates that mankind was contemplated as fallen “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence.”

People often say “Dort was explicitly not supralapsarianism, but it does not alter Calvinism”. As I have shown in this article, supralapsarianism does alter Calvinism. Earlier in this article, I quoted Head 1, Article 7 of the Canons of Dort, but omitted the sentences that explicitly countered the supralapsarian view.

The article states, “Election is the unchangeable purpose of God, whereby, before the foundation of the world, He has out of mere grace, according to the sovereign good pleasure of His own will, chosen from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation. This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.”

The Canons of Dort make two similar affirmations: (1) That God chose “from the whole human race, which had fallen through their own fault from their primitive state of rectitude into sin and destruction, a certain number of persons to redemption in Christ, whom He from eternity appointed the Mediator and Head of the elect and the foundation of salvation” (2) “This elect number, though by nature neither better nor more deserving than others, but with them involved in one common misery, God has decreed to give to Christ to be saved by Him.” The twin affirmations that ‘God chose people to redemption in Christ’ and that ‘God decreed to give people to Christ to be saved by Him’ rely on the affirmations that “when the decrees of election and reprobation came into existence, men were considered as fallen.” Such ‘contra-supralapsarianism’ statements are central to the covenantal understanding of election and redemption expressed in Dort.

Conclusion and Application:

In virtue of the Covenant of Redemption, Christians can be assured of God’s promise of salvation. Assurance of Salvation and Perseverance of the Saints are both covenantal and Trinitarian, being grounded (by decree) in the Covenant of Redemption. This is because of the inter-Trinitarian promise; the Father promised the Son that those for whom He substituted for will be given to Him by the Father. The Father promised the Son the elect in the Covenant of Redemption.

If you are a Christian, you can Christocentrically rest assured that God the Son redeemed you as your substitute. You belong to the Son, and because the Father will be faithful to His covenant promise to the Son to give the elect to Him, you will persevere to the end in Christ. We should be joyously awaiting going into everlasting life and receiving that fullness of joy in fellowship with Christ our redeemer, which should spur us to love, enjoy and serve Him. The Covenant of Redemption is the decreetive foundation to Christian hope and joy.

© Jonathan Williams, February 2012.

Infant Baptism (Paedobaptism) and Covenant Theology

Infant Baptism and Covenant Theology:

1. The Old Testament church and the New Testament church are in essence the same church.

2. God includes the children of believers as members of the visible church.

3. In the Old Testament, the children of believers, by virtue of being covenant members, were given the covenant sign of circumcision.

4. In the New Testament, God substituted circumcision for baptism as the sign of entrance into the covenant.

5. Therefore, children of believers, because they are covenant members, are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.

1. The way of salvation (Genesis 15:6, Romans 4:3-13) and the Saviour (Romans 3:20-26, 1 Timothy 2:5-6) are the same for people before and after Christ.  Before Christ, people were saved by looking forward to Christ and what He would do. Today, people are saved by looking back to Christ and what He did (Hebrews 10:1-4). Both are under the same covenant (Galatians 3:27-29), members of the same body (Ephesians 2:11-19) and branches in the same olive tree (Romans 11:17-26) - unbelieving Jews were cut off, Gentile branches were grafted in.

As the Old Testament and New Testament churches are in essence the same church, their titles are interchanged: Old Testament Israel is called ‘the church’: [‘Church’ [Greek: ecclesia] = ‘congregation’ [Hebrew: qahal] (Psalm 22:22, Hebrews 2:12)]. Israel at Sinai is called "the church/congregation in the wilderness" (Acts 7:38). The New Testament church is called Israel (Galatians 6:16), and terms used for Old Testament Israel are used for the New Testament church (1 Peter 2:9). God’s New Testament people are represented as a nation (Hosea 2:23, Romans 9:25-26, 2 Corinthians 6:16).

2. God included the children of believers in His covenant of grace – an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:7). God nowhere overturned the inclusion of the children of believers in the covenant: without such we cannot exclude them from the covenant. As the children of believers were covenant members, those who oppose infant baptism must prove that they were thrown out. Conversely, the New Testament affirms the covenant membership of the children of believers. Acts 2:39 “For the promise is to you and you children”. Peter was talking to Jews (people fluent in Old Testament); if their children were no longer covenant members, Peter certainly used the wrong words. The promise is the promise to Abraham (Galatians 3:8, 14) – the Abrahamic covenant is only referred to in the singular.

Paul when writing "to the saints who are at Ephesus", in Ephesians 6:1 addressed the children of believers, recognising them as church members. Paul said the children of believers are holy (1 Corinthians 7:14); ‘hagios’ is a covenantal word meaning to be ‘set apart’ to God (Romans 11:16, 1 Corinthians 3:17, Ephesians 2:21, 5:27, 1 Thessalonians 5:27, 1 Peter 2:5, 9). Paul proclaims that the law did not nullify the promise given to Abraham (Genesis 17), rather the promise “to you and you children” still holds (Romans 4:13-18, Galatians 3:13-18).

3. Children of believers received circumcision in the Old Testament (Genesis 17:10-12): a rite with spiritual significance (Deuteronomy 30:6, Jeremiah 9:25-26, Romans 2:26-29).

4. Baptism replaced circumcision as the sign of entrance into the covenant. In the Old Testament, a proselyte and their household received circumcision as the sign of initiation into the covenant. In Matthew 28:19, Christ commanded his disciples to make disciples of all nations – but baptise, not circumcise them. The spiritual meaning of baptism (Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21, Acts 2:38) and circumcision are the same. Circumcision symbolised regeneration (Deuteronomy 30:6), conversion, repentance and faith (Jeremiah 4:4). In the Old Testament, a true Jew was not an outward Jew, but a person who had the inward reality (Romans 2:28-19, Philippians 3:3) – a person who was justified by faith (Romans 4:11).

God substituted circumcision for baptism as the sign of entrance into the covenant – the two share the same basic meaning – which explains why they are used interchangeably. In Colossians 2:11-12, we are said to have received the ‘circumcision of Christ’ ‘having been buried with Him in baptism’. Christ’s circumcision, which is the circumcision of the heart, signified by circumcision in the flesh, was accomplished by that which baptism signifies (Galatians 3:27-29).

5. Baptism is to the New Testament, what circumcision was to the Old Testament. Because the children of believers are covenant members they are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.

The main objections to infant baptism are:

1. “There is not an explicit example of or command for infant baptism in the New Testament”. The refutation is that the burden is on them to show that the children of believers were thrown out of the covenant. Also, there is no example of or command for women participating in the Lord’s Supper either: does this mean they cannot?  Conversely, the New Testament speaks of the ‘covenantal’ baptism of whole households (Acts 16:15, 33, 1 Corinthians 1:16), upon the profession of faith of one parent. Lastly, there is not one example of the Baptist practise of a person growing up in a Christian home, then being baptised after years of proving themself to be a Christian.

2. “Faith comes before baptism, infants cannot have faith, therefore infants should not be baptised”. That objection could be rearranged to say “People cannot be saved without faith, ‘infants cannot have faith’, therefore infants cannot be saved”, which is clearly unbiblical (Psalm 22:9, Luke 1:41).  Also, their argument makes faith depend on human ability, rather than God’s grace: both infants and adults cannot believe of themselves (John 1:12-13). They are correct that an unbaptised adult must profess faith before being baptised, but they are incorrect to extend this thinking to children. This Baptist objection would be equally applicable against infant circumcision. If we apply this Baptist objection to 2 Thessalonians 2:10 we would have “Only those who work may eat, infants cannot work, therefore infants cannot eat.”

“Baptism is to the New Testament, what circumcision was to the Old Testament. Because the children of believers are covenant members they are to be given the covenant sign of baptism, just as they were previously given the covenant sign of circumcision.”

(C), J. Williams, December 2011.

Protestantism and Roman Catholicism: Part 2 of 3

1)      An Introduction

This is only a very brief comparison of Protestantism and Roman Catholicism. Importantly, Christianity is NOT a coin with two legitimate sides to one common faith. The disagreements between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism are not peripheral - rather they encompass the crux of the gospel. Stated bluntly, Roman Catholics believe that Protestants are unregenerate, while Protestants believe that Roman Catholics are unregenerate. In light of Galatians 1:8-9, Protestants are right (c.f. Ephesians 2:8-9)

When I refer to Protestantism, I use the creeds of the Reformation as the standard; for example, while many Protestants reject infant baptism, the Reformation creeds affirm it; therefore, it is the stance of Protestantism. For Roman Catholicism, the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent are the standards I used. A denial of a more minor aspect of Protestantism does NOT deem someone unregenerate. I denote which teachings are damnable.

2)      Ecclesiology

It may seem tedious initially, but I must start with ecclesiology. Roman Catholics CLAIM that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church founded by Jesus Christ with the Apostle Paul being given “the keys to the kingdom”. Roman Catholics believe Peter was the first Pope and by Divine Institution a succession of Popes will have authority over the entire church until the return of Christ[i]. Protestants reject the Papacy, which to us has no more validity than the hierarchy of the Taliban.

Catholics and Protestants have DIFFERENT definitions of ‘church’. While Roman Catholics define the church as the visible church of Rome worldwide, Protestants distinguish between the visible church and the invisible church. The visible church is the community of those who profess faith and their children, while the invisible church refers to all of God’s elect (every person chosen by God before the foundation of the world across all time) or the worldwide totality of those who currently believe. However, the visible and invisible church are not two separate churches, but two aspects of the one church of Jesus Christ.

I will evaluate two verses on this topic:

1 John 2:19-20 states “They went out from us, but they were not really of us; for if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us. But you have an anointing from the Holy One, and you all know”.

John is discussing people who seemed to genuinely profess faith, but then ceased fellowship. John remarks that “they were not really of us” – that is they were never genuine members of the invisible church: they never believed and were never In Christ: they were members of the visible church, but never members of the invisible church.

These people were never true Christians, as true Christians cannot apostatize “if they had been of us, they would have remained with us”; their departure from the visible church empirically proved that they were never true Christians “they went out, so that it would be shown that they all are not of us”. The true church is not only visible but internally SPIRITUAL, as the Holy Spirit is what secures true believers against apostasy “But you have an anointing from the Holy One”.

Romans 9:6 states “But it is not as though the word of God has failed. For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel”.

Paul differentiated between the invisible and visible church in the context of explaining why the majority of the Old Covenant Jews rejected Christ. In the broader context, “the ordo salutis” of Romans 8:29-30 “For those whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, so that He would be the firstborn among many brethren; and these whom He predestined, He also called; and these whom He called, He also justified; and these whom He justified, He also glorified” notes that salvation is completely of the Lord: God ALONE predestines, efficaciously calls, justifies and glorifies those exact people He foreknows. The Greek word for foreknew means “to know beforehand" "fore-love" or "fore-appoint"; in Romans 8, Paul is saying the salvation of believers is rooted in God’s eternal, electing love “If God is for us, who can be against us?”

In Romans 9 Paul answers the question “How can the apostasy of Jews be explained if election is rooted in the eternal love of God?” The Old Covenant Jews partook in the sacraments (circumcision and Passover), and even lived in a theocracy, but Paul explains that the nationalistic Israel is not the TRUE SPIRITUAL Israel whom Paul is talking about in Romans 8, and later in Romans 9; it is the TRUE SPIRITUAL ISRAEL to whom God’s electing love is directed. Nationalistic Israel was the visible church, most of whom did not enter the Promised Land because of unbelief (Hebrews 3:19), but within nationalistic Israel, there was the true Israel: the invisible church, just as within our visible congregations, there is a mixture of non-believers (visible church) and the believers (the True Spiritual Israel).

The Invisible Church is ‘Abraham’s seed’ (Gal 3:26-29) and ‘the Israel of God’ (Gal 6:16); both Jews and Gentiles scattered worldwide (remember that the covenant promises to Abraham included children, in an everlasting covenant (Genesis 17:1-14), and under the theocracy of Israel, infants were likewise circumcised). “For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh.  But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit”. Romans 2:28-29, clearly distinguishes between the outward visible church (who partake in the sacrament of circumcision[ii]) and the inward invisible church (who are circumcised inwardly by the Holy Spirit).

Jacob and Esau were twin brothers, born at the same time, to the same parents in the same location: they were “womb mates” (thanks R.C. Sproul). Although both womb mates were circumcised as they belonged to the visible church, Esau was NOT part of the invisible church. In Romans 9:13 God said “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated”: a person does not belong to the true Spiritual Israel because of flesh/nationality (verse 8), a person belongs because of "God's purpose according to His choice... because of Him who calls" (verse 11). 

Scripture distinguishes between the visible church and the invisible church; the true church is not an organisation, but a royal priesthood consisting of God’s chosen people: 1 Peter 2:9 “But you are A CHOSEN RACE, A royal PRIESTHOOD, A HOLY NATION, A PEOPLE FOR God’s OWN POSSESSION”.

In part one (my previous post), I showed how the Roman Catholic ecclesiology is illogical (with a lot of illogical satire). Here in part two, I provided an exegesis of key Biblical passages to prove Protestant ecclesiology is Biblical, which will provide the avenue for me to in part three conclude this series by Biblically detailing "The Five Solas of the Reformation"

(C), J. Williams, June 2011

[i] Roman Catholics, like Historic Protestants (me) believe in amillennialism. This includes the belief that there will be one coming of Christ, NOT two comings separated by a literal millennial kingdom.

[ii] Circumcision was replaced with baptism as the sign and seal of God’s covenant promise (see Acts 2). Circumcision was a bloody sacrament whereas baptism is a no-bloody sacrament.

---

Sinclair Ferguson on Covenant Theology

Scottish Presbyterian Minister, Sinclair Ferguson was asked to introduce covenant theology is just a few words. The following is a transcript of what he said:

“The great thing about reformed theology and covenant theology is that it understands that whenever God engages with the world He does so as the covenant making and covenant keeping God and that throughout the whole of Scripture He has one single plan that He has planned from all eternity and that He works out in time and He does that by entering into covenant arrangements (covenant commitments) with His people. Right from the very beginning our Westminster Confession emphasises that the relationship between God and man right at the beginning was a covenant relationship in which God made promises and called on men and woman to respond to those promises in trust and obedience; right from the beginning trust and obedience because there is no other way to be happy, period. When men fall God enters into a new covenant with them, He preserves the world by a covenant made with Noah. He focuses on the purposes He has to redeem His people, not only a people from one nation, but a people from all nations in the promise He gives to Abraham (Genesis 12): in you all the nations will be blessed and your seed. That seed principle is then pursued through the rest of the Old Testament Scriptures until it is fulfilled in Jesus Christ. Whether you are a believer living in the days of the Old Testament or in the Days of the Mosaic Covenant you are looking forward to the coming of the Saviour. When you live as we do in the light of Christ coming you are looking back to the promise of the coming of the Saviour. That promise has been fulfilled. For example, if you were an Old Testament believer living in Jerusalem, up to the temple, watch the sacrifices, you know that God has made a promise to bring Salvation to you and to your family by faith and eventually to the nations through the fulfilment of His promise. As you watch your priest making the sacrifice and the blood being offered, you understand this cannot be the sacrifice God has promised finally to take away sins because you have got to be back the next day and there is going to be another sacrifice. All the way through the Old Testament, the pictures of the gospel focusing on the once and for all sacrifice of Christ are set before your eyes. God has surrounded you with the promise of salvation but you recognise that hasn't been finally fulfilled until the figure appears who in the second half of Isaiah is promised as the covenant of God to the nations begins to appear, the suffering servant, the Lamb of God, sacrifice for sinners. From the very beginning to the very end there is one God, one basic structure of salvation that God ministers to His people progressively through the series of covenants until Jesus is able to say in the upper room "This is the new covenant in my blood, drink from it all of you”. It is one simple but a multi-faceted story of salvation from beginning to end”

To briefly draw out the key points that Ferguson makes:

1.       God always engages with people as the covenant making and covenant keeping God.

2.       God has one single plan of Salvation that was planned from all eternity through covenants with His people.

3.       God focuses on His purpose to redeem all His people who are scattered throughout all nations, in the promise He gives to Abraham, to be fulfilled in Jesus Christ (Covenant of Grace).

4.       Believers in the New Testament and Old Testament have the same faith in the same Saviour, Jesus Christ.

5.       OC believers looked forward to the coming of Christ alone, while NC believers look back upon His coming alone for Salvation; the sacrifice which has been fulfilled once for all sins in Jesus Christ.

6.       Throughout history, beginning to end, God ministers one structure of salvation to His people: “My Covenant” which is fulfilled in Jesus Christ.

7.       The administrations of the covenant are not identical, (i.e. sacraments).

In a future post I will give a more detailed overview of the specifics of the covenants.

(C) J. Williams, 2011.