# Must A Confessing Baptist See The Church in the OC then?



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2017)

Is it required to see the church being in the wilderness under the OC, in order to still be viewed as holding to the 1689 Confession, or can one see the church being instituted by God under the NC itself?


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 28, 2017)

The 2LBCF does not require one to believe that the nation of Israel was the church.*

WCF 19
3.* Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to *the people of Israel, as a Church under age*, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.

*Savoy 19*
*3.* Beside this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to *the people of Israel * ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances; partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings and benefits, and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only lawgiver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end, abrogated and taken away.

*2LBCF 19*
*3.* Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to *the people of Israel *ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties, all which ceremonial laws being appointed only to the time of reformation, are, by Jesus Christ the true Messiah and only law-giver, who was furnished with power from the Father for that end abrogated and taken away.

It does require one to believe that OT saints, from Gen 3:15 on, are/were part of the body of Christ.

*8.6.* 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 today and for ever.

*11.6. *The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.
*
13.1. (Compare with 10.2, 11.4) *They who are united to Christ, effectually called, and regenerated, having a new heart and a new spirit created in them through the virtue of Christ's death and resurrection, are also farther sanctified, really and personally, through the same virtue, by His Word and Spirit dwelling in them; the dominion of the whole body of sin is destroyed, and the several lusts thereof are more and more weakened and mortified, and they more and more quickened and strengthened in all saving graces, to the practice of all true holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord.

*26.1. *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.

Here are some words from Nehemiah Coxe:



> §. 12. 1. The term church in the Scriptures is not (that I find) applied to any particular society of men united in one body for the maintaining of the public and solemn worship of God before the children of Israel were completely formed into a church-state by the covenant that God made with them in the wilderness. They are called the church in the wilderness in Acts 7:38. Yet I do no doubt that all good men before that time belonged to that general assembly and church which Christ has redeemed with his blood and made the members of his body. I grant that we may (using the term in a more lax sense) call any family or society of men truly worshipping God, a church of God. Nevertheless, if we consider the circumstances relating to the different state of things in those different times, it will appear that no society before the Jewish church was formed can be called a church in so strict and proper a sense as they might. For no other was so formed into a church-state as they were.
> 
> 2. Before Abraham’s time there was no institution of an outward sign or seal of any covenant to be applied either to infants or adult persons. Therefore there could not be any inauguration of this kind or solemn right of initiation to church privilege in use among them...
> 
> ...



He thus distinguishes between the typical church-state of Israel and the gospel church. The nation of Israel was a type of the church.



> 1. During the time of the law the true church was impaled within the bounds of the commonwealth of Israel which in its entire body was a typical church.
> 
> 2. The children of God after the Spirit (though as underage children they were subject to the pedagogy of the law, yet) as to their spiritual and eternal state, walked before God and found acceptance with him on terms of the covenant of grace.
> 
> ...



The New Covenant of Grace, which saved OT saints, operated invisibly prior to the death of Christ/Pentecost. Only after that point was it made visible with its own ordinances.



> This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and *that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows*, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. *That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church*, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. *When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it.* Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration. (Owen, Exposition of Hebrews 8:6)
> 
> The first solemn promulgation of this new covenant, so made, ratified, and established, was on the day of Pentecost, seven weeks after the resurrection of Christ. And it answered the promulgation of the law on mount Sinai, the same space of time after the delivery of the people out of Egypt. From this day forward the ordinances of worship, and all the institutions of the new covenant, became obligatory unto all believers. Then was the whole church absolved from any duty with respect unto the old covenant, and the worship of it, though it was not manifest as yet in their consciences. (Owen, Exposition Hebrews 8:10)



This lecture series might be helpful: http://confessingbaptist.com/toward...-of-the-church-3-part-video-by-tom-ascol-rbs/

Hope that helps.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> The 2LBCF does not require one to believe that the nation of Israel was the church.
> *
> WCF 19
> 3.* Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to *the people of Israel, as a Church under age*, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.
> ...


Thanks for this information, as it seems to me that some would see those holding to what you listed here as not holding to Covenant theology, but would be holding to Dispensational theology.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 28, 2017)

Correct. They are defining Covenant theology as Westminster Federalism and they are defining dispensationalism as anything other than Westminster Federalism. According to that definition, 1689 Federalism is dispensational. But, of course, that definition has zero basis and has nothing to do with Dispensationalism, which arose in the late 19th century. Arguing about it is not likely to be fruitful. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (Jul 28, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Correct. They are defining Covenant theology as Westminster Federalism and they are defining dispensationalism as anything other than Westminster Federalism. According to that definition, 1689 Federalism is dispensational. But, of course, that definition has zero basis and has nothing to do with Dispensationalism, which arose in the late 19th century. Arguing about it is not likely to be fruitful. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/



Perhaps you should tone down what you are saying a bit. No one would say and mean it is literally "dispensationalism". Read into what they are saying, they would be saying that those who hold to 1689 Federalism have dispensational (or New Covenant Theology) like tendencies and similarities. And on certain points is much closer to being dispensational (and NCT) than Westminster Federalism. Here on the PB, if you want to talk about Covenant Theology it is simply just wise to state specifically what you mean (e.g. Westminster or 1689).

However, someone may come along and give us a more historical look at the phrase "covenant theology" and what those who used it meant in its use.

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Correct. They are defining Covenant theology as Westminster Federalism and they are defining dispensationalism as anything other than Westminster Federalism. According to that definition, 1689 Federalism is dispensational. But, of course, that definition has zero basis and has nothing to do with Dispensationalism, which arose in the late 19th century. Arguing about it is not likely to be fruitful. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/


How one views the church factors into many things, such as water baptism then, for how one views the church will force how we come to view baptism for example.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Jul 29, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How one views the church factors into many things, such as water baptism then, for how one views the church will force how we come to view baptism for example.


Maybe, That isn't always true. Depends on how they view the Mosaic Covenant for the most part in relationship to Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. It also depends upon if they view the Mosaic Covenant to be of the same substance as the New Covenant and an Administration of the Covenant of Grace or not.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 29, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Maybe, That isn't always true. Depends on how they view the Mosaic Covenant for the most part in relationship to Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. It also depends upon if they view the Mosaic Covenant to be of the same substance as the New Covenant and an Administration of the Covenant of Grace or not.


Very true, and those are areas where reformed Baptists and Presbyterians do seem to have differing viewpoints on.


----------



## Herald (Jul 29, 2017)

Romans922 said:


> Perhaps you should tone down what you are saying a bit. No one would say and mean it is literally "dispensationalism". Read into what they are saying, they would be saying that those who hold to 1689 Federalism have dispensational (or New Covenant Theology) like tendencies and similarities. And on certain points is much closer to being dispensational (and NCT) than Westminster Federalism. Here on the PB, if you want to talk about Covenant Theology it is simply just wise to state specifically what you mean (e.g. Westminster or 1689).
> 
> However, someone may come along and give us a more historical look at the phrase "covenant theology" and what those who used it meant in its use.


Andrew, since you mentioned it, how does 1689 Federalism appear closer to NCT?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Jul 29, 2017)

When the charge of dispensationalism is made there is no other way for a Baptist to understand it except in the context of Darbyism. If any Presbyterian is going to make that claim they have a high hurdle to pass, and the onus is them to prove it. I am not getting snarky, I just want to make sure we are connecting the dots carefully. I do not want my Presbyterian brethren mischaracterized anymore than my fellow Baptist brethren.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2017)

Just to clarify something. If, per some who argue that recent RB's have become "too cozy" with P&R ideas and treat Israel as "the Church" there needs to be some basic "fixing" of the notion.

As a headline that "Israel is just the Church" fails to realize the distinction between shadow and fulfillment. Recently, I was reading an author make the argument that Christ was baptized at age 30 because that was the age the Levites were baptized for their priestly service. Such reasoning is backwards.

Hebrews makes plain that Moses patterned the OT tabernacle and sacrifices off of heavenly things. The tabernacle was sort of designed to look like heaven from inside but it wasn't. It was a type of the heavenly worship in which the Great High Priest would one day allow us to enter through the veil of His flesh.

Thus, if Jesus' baptism at age 30 has anything to do with His entering His perfect Priesthood then it is more accurate to state that the Levites were baptized at age 30 because their baptism was a shadow of a heavenly reality that would be fulfilled later by the Great High Priest.

Thus, with Israel, we can say that they are a type of the Church but the reality or fulfillment is the Church where every tribe, tongue, and nation is gathered in by Christ Who is the perfect Prophet, Priest, and King.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 29, 2017)

Thanks, but I don't believe anyone has suggested that you don't see a distinction between the church underage and the church of age.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Thanks, but I don't believe anyone has suggested that you don't see a distinction between the church underage and the church of age.


I actually think that there are _some_ in the wide world of those who encounter this terminology who are confused by this distinction. I've encountered it very often so I thought I'd articulate it even if _some_ here understand it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 29, 2017)

I am rather curious by your claim that the church underage is a type of the church of age. I don't see how that is logically possible. The church underage can have ordinances of worship, etc that are types and shadows. But how can it be a type of itself?


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 29, 2017)

I'm piping in regarding David's original question.



Dachaser said:


> Is it required to see the church being in the wilderness under the OC, in order to still be viewed as holding to the 1689 Confession, or can one see the church being instituted by God under the NC itself?



David, a lot is going on in any of the confessions, whether they be the WCF, the Savoy, or the 1689. Sometimes we have to step back from our current formulations to get a better handle on what is being said.

So when you talk of "the church being instituted by God under the NC", it brings a loaded assumption with it (not saying you mean it this way). To the modern person used to modern dispensationalism, it might sound like saying that there was no gospel or body of believers before Christ. Certainly it can be said that the church's full revelation came with Christ's completed work, but what Brandon said is important:



brandonadams said:


> It does require one to believe that OT saints, from Gen 3:15 on, are/were part of the body of Christ.



Also, in the LBCF, Chapter VII, paragraph 3 on the Covenant, there is this bit of information:

" *3.* This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency."

Notice how the gospel is described in terms of progressive revelation. It is "revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam...." So, there is a covenant promise revealed throughout history. In chapter 19 that Brandon cited, paragraph 3, (other than the "Church under age" language) the WCF, Savoy, and LBCF are substantially similar. The idea is that the ceremonial laws were typical, prefiguring Christ, as well as confirming moral duties that began at Creation.

So, at the very least we see the Israelites of the OT as being recipients of something very important: step-by-step instruction in types and shadows pointing to Lord Christ. Salvation always required (requires) faith in Christ. Those in the OT had little information, but they had enough. In that sense, they are part of the invisible church. (See LBCF chapter 26). A confessing Baptist ought to recognize at least this.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Jul 29, 2017)

Brandon,
It's offices and those who constitute it. I mentioned Christ as fulfilling all its offices. I mentioned the fact that it hasn't expanded to include every tribe, tongue, and nation. The church in the wilderness cannot be seen as a mature expression of what will be its fruition even as Hebrews can point to it and use it as an example to us.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 29, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Is it required to see the church being in the wilderness under the OC, in order to still be viewed as holding to the 1689 Confession, or can one see the church being instituted by God under the NC itself?


What I'm beginning to wonder is why you're asking this so many different ways in so many different threads. The Federalists view of the 2LBCF has been contrasted at length with the "20th Century" RB position, so often and with so much nuance that I can't imagine the difference is not yet crystal-clear to you. Both 20thC RBs and Federalists hold to the confession, and acknowledge the other's holding to it, while choosing to interpret it differently.
Both parties are still Confessional Baptists, and we're not about to anathemize one another over this--it's merely an in-house debate which need not break out of the bounds of charity.
So I ask--why is this matter of the institution of the church proper so pressing to you at this time?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 30, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Very true, and those are areas where reformed Baptists and Presbyterians do seem to have differing viewpoints on.



David, this may generally be true, but the debate over the Mosaic Covenant isn't defined by simply being Baptist or Presbyterian. There are Presbyterians who take the Mosaic Covenant as a Republication of the Covenant of Works; there are also Presbyterians who take it to be a Subservient Covenant (Brandon's view). But when they do so, they depart from the WCF, which was affirmed by the recent study committee by the OPC on Republication.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2017)

Herald said:


> When the charge of dispensationalism is made there is no other way for a Baptist to understand it except in the context of Darbyism. If any Presbyterian is going to make that claim they have a high hurdle to pass, and the onus is them to prove it. I am not getting snarky, I just want to make sure we are connecting the dots carefully. I do not want my Presbyterian brethren mischaracterized anymore than my fellow Baptist brethren.



Good point, as this does need clarification, as there are some who do see premil viewpoint that would also include in some fashion the Jewish people/nation within the plans of God still, but not holding to Darbyism in full.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2017)

VictorBravo said:


> I'm piping in regarding David's original question.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I fully see the OT saints as being included under the Church, as the redeemed of all history would fit under that, but would also see the actual founding of that Church being at time of Pentecost, as it awaited the arrival of the Messiah to have it instituted in proper and actual now. I do not hold to a Dispensational viewpoint regarding this issue.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> What I'm beginning to wonder is why you're asking this so many different ways in so many different threads. The Federalists view of the 2LBCF has been contrasted at length with the "20th Century" RB position, so often and with so much nuance that I can't imagine the difference is not yet crystal-clear to you. Both 20thC RBs and Federalists hold to the confession, and acknowledge the other's holding to it, while choosing to interpret it differently.
> Both parties are still Confessional Baptists, and we're not about to anathemize one another over this--it's merely an in-house debate which need not break out of the bounds of charity.
> So I ask--why is this matter of the institution of the church proper so pressing to you at this time?



I am still trying to formulate and take in all that Reformed Baptist theology has, as have been reading through the 1689 Confession, as well as a commentary on it, and also in the past have read through various reformed Presbyterian authors. and am trying to get a handle on the differences between these 2 positions, and how a Baptist should view these issues. it has been interesting to me at times, coming from a prior Pentecostal, free will baptist, and then a Dispensational position before migrating to the reformed shores now.
I also have noticed that some do not seem to hold with the view that one can be a Confessing Baptist, and still hold to the Church founding in NT times?


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> David, this may generally be true, but the debate over the Mosaic Covenant isn't defined by simply being Baptist or Presbyterian. There are Presbyterians who take the Mosaic Covenant as a Republication of the Covenant of Works; there are also Presbyterians who take it to be a Subservient Covenant (Brandon's view). But when they do so, they depart from the WCF, which was affirmed by the recent study committee by the OPC on Republication.


There is why the 1689 LBCF at times digressed in some ways from the WCF itself, as it would be reflecting a more Baptist viewpoint on certain items.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> I also have noticed that some do not seem to hold with the view that one can be a Confessing Baptist, and still hold to the Church founding in NT times?


That the church was founded in NT times seems exactly what Brandon, who is a confessing baptist, believes. I, for one, though uneasy with 1689 Federalism, am not about to un-church and dissociate from it's proponents, or claim that they're not confessional. Whatever nuanced understandings of the CoG we might differ on, we probably agree on 99% of everything else. That's pretty special, if you ask me.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 2, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> That the church was founded in NT times seems exactly what Brandon, who is a confessing baptist, believes. I, for one, though uneasy with 1689 Federalism, am not about to un-church and dissociate from it's proponents, or claim that they're not confessional. Whatever nuanced understandings of the CoG we might differ on, we probably agree on 99% of everything else. That's pretty special, if you ask me.


I can fully endorse that reasoning, as we need to really practice the truth of all of us now saved are all part of the same Church, regardless if we confess or nor.


----------

