Editorial

This is our second issue and we have been very pleased with the response thus far. Much hard work went into our first issue (not without mistakes) and the response has been an indication that the work was worth the effort.

In this issue various matters are discussed. In the first article, Robert P. Martin offers a discussion of Heb. 4:9, 10 entitled “A Sabbath Remains.” This is a crucial text in establishing a biblical theology of the Sabbath, and especially instructive concerning the change of the day to the Lord’s Day, the first day of the week. We believe Dr. Martin’s discussion will contribute to the literature on this text and the issue of an abiding Sabbath under the New Covenant.

The second article is my critique of the use of John Owen by John G. Reisinger and Tom Wells in his booklet “Is John G. Reisinger an Antinomian?” Specific focus is brought to their understanding of Owen on the nature of the Old Covenant and the function of the Decalogue as these relate to New Covenant Theology. The claims of Reisinger and Wells are stated and then compared to Owen and others within the stream of historic Reformed orthodoxy in the 16^th through the 18^th centuries. Ample evidence is marshaled from primary sources to display that Owen stands within the pale of orthodoxy on these matters and should not be considered as a forerunner to New Covenant Theology on the matters at hand.

Our third article, written by Michael T. Renihan, uncovers an obscure figure from 17^th century England. Dr. Renihan did his doctoral thesis on Tombes and has uncovered a gold mine of information on the baptismal controversies of 17^th century Puritan England. This is the first of two articles on this crucial figure in church history and historical theology. Part two, to be published in RBTR II:1, January 2005, will uncover some of Tombes’ antipaedobaptist arguments.

James M. Renihan offers a timely study of the Confession and the means of grace. Too many in our day are giving way to “King Pragmatism” and “Lord Expedient” instead of being faithful to the God-ordained means of growth for Christians. Dr. Renihan’s article is aimed at keeping us on tract in this crucial area facing many churches in our day. Pressure is mounting to tempt us to cave in to contemporary models of Christian growth and worship. Our Confession, however, stands upon the Bible and calls us to commit ourselves to the means of grace as ordained by God and revealed in the Scripture. May this study remind us of what we hold dear and keep us from the new methods of postmodernism.

Next, Gregory G. Nichols presents a somewhat detailed study of “The Emotivity of God.” This study is an abridged version of lecture notes on the doctrine of God compiled over 20 years. It is a very timely study in light of the current onslaughts of Open-Theism. Pastor Nichols presents an investigation of some of the least studied attributes of God which are often targets for imbalanced views that wreak havoc upon the Church over time.

James R. White offers the first of two articles dealing with the newness of the New Covenant in contemporary discussion. The first installment is an exegetical treatment of the subject from the book of Hebrews. Before Dr. White interacts with contemporary paedobaptist thought on this issue (which he will do in RBTR II:1, January 2005), he grounds the discussion in the exegesis of Scripture. Exegesis is where all good systematic theology begins. This is a very helpful and timely article for Reformed Baptists who deal with paedobaptism and the “Auburn theology” or “Federal Vision”.

Our Canadian brother and friend, Michael A.G. Haykin, presents a biographical sketch of John Owen and then concentrates on Owen’s teaching on Christian spirituality. It is our privilege to have Dr. Haykin contribute to RBTR, and especially on such a needy subject as sanctification.

Finally, we’ve included some book reviews that we think will help pastors and theological students stay current on contemporary theological literature and issues.

I would like to make note of an error brought to our attention by a reader from the UK. In James M. Renihan’s article on Andrew Fuller in our first issue (RBTR I:1:56) mention was made of a collection of funds for missionary purposes. The amount stated was £1326 (pounds sterling). The actual amount was £13 2s 6d (13 pounds sterling, 2 shillings, and 6 pence). The error occurred in the editorial process. Dr. Renihan’s original copy had the correct reading. We are sorry for the mix-up. There were also other formatting and some editorial glitches we hope to eliminate, as we get better at the process.

RBTR II:1, January 2005, will take up the issue of paedobaptism and interact with P&R’s recently published The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism. Check our website (www.rbtr.org) for updates. We intend to offer a balance of exegetical, biblical, historical, systematic, and contemporary theology on this subject that affects Reformed Baptists constantly.