Thanks for that Camden. I understand the constraints, just wanted to make sure I wasn’t missing something

Gordon, you are correct. The show notes are the text and links on each episode’s webpage. Some are more detailed than others, but I strive to include the pertinent items.

Hi Don,

Thanks for the link. I found Malone’s piece to be a little unclear, but if he is arguing that good and necessary consequence denies the regulative principle, then I don’t think he has confessional support for that position (see above).

*For another argument that paedobaptism denies the regulative principle see Gary Crampton’s “From Paedobaptism to Credobaptism”. Crampton is an outspoken champion of “good and necessary consequence”.

Hi Rich,

Just to second what you said, in my notes I have Dr. Renihan quoting Coxe as saying “just & necessary consequence is truth itself” when writing against Thomas Collier.

There is also this earlier quote coming from a publisher of the 1st LBC, that, if I understand it correctly, says the same thing:

Secondly, the writings of the men who published the First London Confession demonstrate that they were committed to the same kind of Covenant Theology that is more explicitly articulated in the Second London Confession. John Spilsbury, sometimes suggested as the author of the First Confession, writing in his 1643 book A Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subject of Baptisme, said on the very first page of the text, “As the Scriptures being a perfect rule of all things, both for faith and order; this I confesse is a truth. And for the just and true consequence of Scripture, I doe not deny; and the covenant of life lying between God and Christ for all his elect, I doe not oppose: and that the outward profession of the said Covenant, hath differed under severall Periods, I shall not deny.”
Confessing the Faith in 1644 and 1689

Thanks Rich. I believe this is an important topic, and I’m glad we were able to record it.