# LBCF vs. WCF view of Israel



## Matthew1344 (Apr 19, 2017)

What does the 1689 guy mean?

LBCF- National Israel was a type of church, the true israel? 
LBCF- The church is the eschatological Church of Old Testament Prophecy
*SIDE NOTE* - is this saying...
1-That the visible church is the new israel? 
2-The invisible church is the true Israel, if so then why give the visible the sign? 
3-OR does "true" mean NT church, and true does not mean spiritual

How does the WCF guy differ from those two statements?

And Do 1689 baptist guys believe that the church and Israel are two different peoples of God with two different promises and destinations?


----------



## Herald (Apr 19, 2017)

Matt, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. 8.6 of the 1689 states:

"Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated *to the elect in all ages*, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever."

In 26.1 we read:

"The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of *the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ*, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."

Both quotes point to the framers of the 1689 LBC being of the opinion that God has always had one called-out people, spanning both covenants. Not to be too simplistic, but I think this tidies things up rather nicely.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Apr 19, 2017)

I was referring to this graph labeled "Comparisonispensationalism". http://www.1689federalism.com


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 20, 2017)

Matthew1344 said:


> What does the 1689 guy mean?
> 
> LBCF- National Israel was a type of church, the true israel?
> LBCF- The church is the eschatological Church of Old Testament Prophecy
> ...


I seriously doubt it. Generally the Baptist position has been that the *invisible *church is the new or spiritual Israel. 



> 2-The invisible church is the true Israel, if so then why give the visible the sign?


Because the Bible teaches that professing believers are to be baptized. 



> 3-OR does "true" mean NT church, and true does not mean spiritual


See above. 



> How does the WCF guy differ from those two statements?



See their chart on the WCF, as well as the other charts, in order to get an idea about what their position is. They have some helpful videos as well, although how helpful they are will be in the eye of the beholder, I'm sure. Brandon Adams and the Renihans have also churned out a ton of blog posts in the past several years. See also the books they list, especially the ones toward the top like Denault's and "Recovering a Covenantal Heritage." 

The most helpful of the charts is probably the one differentiating themselves from "20th Century Reformed Baptist" theology, which they think owes too much to Presbyterian CT. That's the reason why they call themselves 1689 federalists. (I do think they have a point in that older Baptist writers generally don't seem to have endorsed the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace, for example, although there were probably some exceptions. I noticed this years ago and wasn't quite sure what to make of it since all of the RBs I knew taught "one covenant, two administrations.") This reference to a recent series of articles by Dr. Peter Masters is very interesting. 




> And Do 1689 baptist guys believe that the church and Israel are two different peoples of God with two different promises and destinations?



No. That's dispensationalism, (as the chart indicates) and basically "classic" dispensationalism of the Scofield/Chafer type at that. (The chart is clear that that is a Dispensational teaching, not a 1689 teaching.) For what it's worth, as time goes on, fewer and fewer Dispensationalists use that language, and Progressive Dispensationalism totally rejects it. Some who aren't particularly "progressive" don't use that language either.

BTW, the chart is also wrong about Dispensationalists necessarily rejecting the covenant of redemption, although it is true that most probably do today. Actually, it was not uncommon for older ones to agree with it in some form, although probably not without some modification compared to the WCF, etc.

Dispensationalists have hardly been unified on the New Covenant either. Some have taught that it was only made with Israel. Some have taught that there are two New Covenants, one for Israel and one with the church. I think some would say that in some sense the NC was made with the church as well as Israel, or at least that the church partakes in some of the benefits. But all dispensationalists (as well as some non-dispensationalists) will say that there is to be a future restoration of Israel to the land, etc. When it comes to the NC, they are going to harp on Jer. 31:33-40 and insist that covenant promises remain for national Israel and that they aren't to be "spiritualized" and applied solely to the church and that there is more to it than soteriology.


----------



## Romans922 (Apr 20, 2017)

Matthew1344 said:


> I was referring to this graph labeled "Comparisonispensationalism". http://www.1689federalism.com



Just as an aside, the charts at 1689federalism, when describing the Westminster view is often misrepresenting the view. Or they try to make it so simple worded (given the diagram they are doing) that it doesn't communicate fully the meaning, etc. I have challenged some of them before and they just say, "No, you're wrong."


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Apr 20, 2017)

As if someone actually holding Westminster would know better.


Romans922 said:


> I have challenged some of them before and they just say, "No, you're wrong."


----------



## Herald (Apr 20, 2017)

NaphtaliPress said:


> As if someone actually holding Westminster would know better.



Sadly, I think many RB's and Presbyterians are willfully imprecise when stating the positions of the other camp. I've been taken to task about that before, now labor hard not to repeat that offense. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Pilgrim (Apr 20, 2017)

Herald said:


> Sadly, I think many RB's and Presbyterians are willfully imprecise when stating the positions of the other camp. I've been taken to task about that before, now labor hard not to repeat that offense.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



I think a lot of that is attacking what one sees as the implications of the opposing view rather than what is actually being said. But that is also probably unavoidable to an extent, although we should seek to generate more light than heat.


----------



## MW (Apr 20, 2017)

It would be a sorry looking confessionalism that espoused the necessity of initiation into a society in order to be able to understand its teachings. Some might even call that cultish. The strength of a biblical confession is its open manifestation of the truth to the world.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

