Thanks very much for the link, JM. Here are my highlights from reading / in some places skimming the paper:
Page 34, Makes an excellent argument from the Davidic Covenant that I think should be emphasized more by Reformed Baptists. Just as with Abraham, God established a "perpetual" covenant with David and his natural seed following in a dynastic line. However, when the Seed (singular) came in the flesh to rule on David's throne, we would be foolish to look any further for natural seed of David to fulfill this covenant. Similarly with Abraham's natural seed -- after Christ's coming, we only recognize those who are in Christ as children of Abraham. While mere natural seed served in that capacity as a "typical" placeholder until Christ, there's no longer any need for that.
Page 40, He argues that the Covenant of Circumcision was purely a Covenant of Works. I suspect I largely agree with his point here (which he expands on through the remainder of the paper). However, I am quite sure that I would put it differently. To the elect, the Law was a wonderful gift from God their Father -- a description of how he wanted them to live in his household, and a picture of the access they had to him by the blood God provided as their Redeemer. But as to many of the Israelites whose eyes remained closed, and ears shut, Thomas Patient is right on, and admirably following the Apostle Paul's distinction between Law and Grace.
Page 49: An excellent point. Who "presumes" the regeneration of an adult servant newly purchased with money and circumcised? Nobody, I hope...
But for that reason, most certain it is, this Covenant of Circumcision is no spiritual covenant. This will appear from the words of the Covenant in Gen. 17:12,13. "And he that is eight days old, shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed."
"He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised, and my covenant shall be in your flesh, for an everlasting covenant."
Here observe that all bought with money must be circumcised. If an Israelite should buy ... the most savage Heathen in the World, he was bound to see him circumcised. Being circumcised, he was now in that covenant. The truth is, circumcision was one of those carnal Ordinances that the Author to the Hebrews, in Heb. 9:9, does speak of as being appointed till the time of Reformation.
The section in pp. 56-57 is dynamite, discussing the requirement of regeneration for seeing or entering (aka membership in) the New Covenant Kingdom of God.
Page 62 -- An explanation I hadn't seen in a while of the "sons of God" marrying the "daughters of men" from Genesis. It's funny how many of these are floating around out there.
Page 64 -- Covenantal election of the specific line of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, not including others, until it comes to rest upon the whole nation of Jacob's family. Very important observation -- this external election and covenant succession was not based on who "walked the aisle" in the revival invitation, but rather on God's (outward, not necessarily inward), non-negotiable election. It was not a distinction of profession, nor yet of possession, but of obligation.
Page 66 -- Some dynamite here -- to claim we now still do have a covenant in the flesh is (almost) to deny the Incarnation.
Page 74 -- Interesting, references the Geneva translation.
Page 80 -- More dynamite -- "we know no man after the flesh".
Page 86 -- Salvation by "proxy faith".
Page 99 -- Regulative Principle of Worship.
Page 110 -- Extent and limits of Christian fellowship with unbaptized believers; examples in scripture.
Linear Mode
