# Not one but TWO covenants with Abraham?



## Pergamum (Jul 14, 2017)

I have been reading up on 1689 Federalism which purports to be the Baptist answer to Covenant Theology. I am a baptist and so, of course, I really, really tried to like it. But the more I read it, the more and more problems I see with it. Quite frankly, reading their rebuttal to Covenant Theology almost makes me want to go full Presbyterian.

For instance, in Denault's book on the "Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: he writes that there is not one covenant with Abraham but two. Others writers repeat this as well, that there is a physical covenant and a spiritual covenant. That there is a physical people and then there is a spiritual people. This seems like warmed-over Dispensationalism-lite. 

Denault writes, "The padeobaptist refused to separate the dualities of the Abrahamic covenant in order to preserve their model of the covenant of grace which integrated these dualities… Their system was self sufficient, but it could not harmonize itself naturally with the Biblical data, and, in particular, to the fact that there was not one, but two covenants in Abraham” (loc 1863, 1929).

But all the promises were given to Israel. Period. Some were grafted into Israel. Some were cut off.

Also, Romans 4:11 says that Abraham is the father of all the faithful and seems to deny this two-covenant approach (though I'd love for someone here to more fully expound that).

"11 And he received mthe sign of circumcision, na seal of the righteousness of the faith which _he had yet_ being uncircumcised: that ohe might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also."

There seems to be dual elements perhaps, but not two covenants. 

Why are baptists insisting upon this?


----------



## JTB.SDG (Jul 14, 2017)

Not to be critical or unfair in any way, but I believe the answer is what you alluded to in the first paragraph; I don't think it's possible to NOT adhere to the dual covenant structure with Abraham and also remain Baptist (please do correct me fellas if I'm wrong here).


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 14, 2017)

JTB.SDG said:


> Not to be critical or unfair in any way, but I believe the answer is what you alluded to in the first paragraph; I don't think it's possible to NOT adhere to the dual covenant structure with Abraham and also remain Baptist (please do correct me fellas if I'm wrong here).


Most speak of dual elements in the one covenant. But not two Abrahamic covenants (a physical one and a spiritual one).

I am baptist and I do not believe there were two covenants with Abraham but only one covenant with dual elements in it.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 14, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Most speak of dual elements in the one covenant. But not two Abrahamic covenants (a physical one and a spiritual one).
> 
> I am baptist and I do not believe there were two covenants with Abraham but only one covenant with dual elements in it.


Can you give me 1 quote form a Baptist and reformed who holds to 2 Abr. Cov.? The dichotomy in the Abr. Cov. is there, no doubt. And I would argue that Paul is making that case in the allegory of Gal. 4. But Coxe never said that. I don't recall Denault saying that. Do you have a quotation?

Edit: I just saw the quote you provided by Denault. Is this from his newer edition? His book is not to propose 1689 federalism per se but to compare 17th century particular baptists w/ their paedobaptists counterparts. So he is noting an observance that may or may not be valid (and even up to date).

Also, have you read anyone other RB on the Abr. Cov.?

Here's a place to start: The Abrahamic Covenant in Reformed Baptist Perspective


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 14, 2017)

By the way, there are some reputable scholars who argue exegetically for 2 Abr. Cov's. Peter Williamson in his _Sealed with an Oath_ does piggybacking off of T. D. Alexander. Gentry and Wellum deny this view, although they maintain the dual force in the Abr. Cov. 

As far as the dichotomy is concerned, perhaps it is better not to think in terms of physical and spiritual (a la Dispieism), but typological and fulfillment. And no Dispie would say what RB say, that the church is eschatological Israel and the Israel of God. So no fear of dispieism at all.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 14, 2017)

So I now stand by what I said earlier maintaining that even Denault did not pose 2 different Abr. Cov. Here is the context of what you quoted:



> It is in this way that the Baptists understood that there were two covenants with Abraham, not two formal covenants, but a promise that revealed the Covenant of Grace followed by the covenant of circumcision. In light of Galatians 4.22-31, the theologians of the 1689 considered that the two covenants that came from Abraham (Hagar and Sara) were the Old and New Covenants. The covenant of circumcision, Hagar, corresponded to the Old Covenant; a covenant of works established with the physical posterity of Abraham. The covenant of the promise, Sara, corresponded to the New Covenant; the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham and concluded with Christ and the spiritual posterity of Abraham (Ga. 3.29).
> 
> Denault, Pascal. _The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism_ (Kindle Locations 1922-1927). . Kindle Edition.



The "2 covenants" you mentioned were in regard to the allegory of Gal. 4 not the Abrahamic Cov. itself. This is what I was arguing on the other thread about this. 

So again, 1689 federalism is not about 2 Abr. Covs. They do, however, maintain a dual nature or dichotomy of the Abr. Cov.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 14, 2017)

Which would be different then the Presbyterians Reformed viewpoint regarding this topic, correct?


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 14, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Which would be different then the Presbyterians Reformed viewpoint regarding this topic, correct?


Very simplisticly, 1689 Federalism of that stripe see a covenant of circumcision that is no longer in force. Presbyterians argue it is still in force but the sign has changed to baptism.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 14, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Can you give me 1 quote form a Baptist and reformed who holds to 2 Abr. Cov.? The dichotomy in the Abr. Cov. is there, no doubt. And I would argue that Paul is making that case in the allegory of Gal. 4. But Coxe never said that. I don't recall Denault saying that. Do you have a quotation?
> 
> Edit: I just saw the quote you provided by Denault. Is this from his newer edition? His book is not to propose 1689 federalism per se but to compare 17th century particular baptists w/ their paedobaptists counterparts. So he is noting an observance that may or may not be valid (and even up to date).
> 
> ...



Denault writes, "The padeobaptist refused to separate the dualities of the Abrahamic covenant in order to preserve their model of the covenant of grace which integrated these dualities… Their system was self sufficient, but it could not harmonize itself naturally with the Biblical data, and, in particular, to the fact that there was not one, but two covenants in Abraham” (loc 1863, 1929).


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 14, 2017)

Tim,

You write, "The dichotomy in the Abr. Cov. is there, no doubt. And I would argue that Paul is making that case in the allegory of Gal. 4."


Can you explain how Galatians shows this?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 14, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> Very simplisticly, 1689 Federalism of that stripe see a covenant of circumcision that is no longer in force. Presbyterians argue it is still in force but the sign has changed to baptism.


Do all Reformed Baptists belive that. Are there different camps?

Is it possible to say that baptism replaces circumcision as a Reformed Baptist?


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 14, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Denault writes, "The padeobaptist refused to separate the dualities of the Abrahamic covenant in order to preserve their model of the covenant of grace which integrated these dualities… Their system was self sufficient, but it could not harmonize itself naturally with the Biblical data, and, in particular, to the fact that there was not one, but two covenants in Abraham” (loc 1863, 1929).


Context is important, as I quoted above the very same thing I now quote again:
"It is in this way that the Baptists understood that there were two covenants with Abraham, not two formal covenants, but a promise that revealed the Covenant of Grace followed by the covenant of circumcision. In light of Galatians 4.22-31, the theologians of the 1689 considered that the two covenants that came from Abraham (Hagar and Sara) were the Old and New Covenants. The covenant of circumcision, Hagar, corresponded to the Old Covenant; a covenant of works established with the physical posterity of Abraham. The covenant of the promise, Sara, corresponded to the New Covenant; the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham and concluded with Christ and the spiritual posterity of Abraham (Ga. 3.29)." Kindle Locations 1922-1927

When Denault says "two covenants in Abraham" as you quoted him, I believe the context makes clear he is not talking about the actual Abr. Cov. being 2 covenants but the 2 covenants that arose as a result and play out in the Gal. 4 allegory: the OC and the NC.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 14, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Do all Reformed Baptists belive that. Are there different camps?
> 
> Is it possible to say that baptism replaces circumcision as a Reformed Baptist?


I could have sworn there was a book like that and it was referenced here. I have been looking and cannot find it. I will let you know.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 14, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Do all Reformed Baptists belive that. Are there different camps?
> 
> Is it possible to say that baptism replaces circumcision as a Reformed Baptist?


*Covenant Theology - A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants*
*Greg Nichols*
*I think that is it.*


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 14, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Do all Reformed Baptists belive that. Are there different camps?
> 
> Is it possible to say that baptism replaces circumcision as a Reformed Baptist?



There are different "camps." Sam Waldron taught something more like what Presbyterians hold--one covenant of grace spanning OT and NT.

I don't think a Reformed Baptist would say baptism "replaces" circumcision. Maybe "take the place of" with an emphasis that the target and purpose of the sign is different.

I'd say, in extremely summary fashion, that the covenant of circumcision looked ahead to Christ while baptism looks back at Christ. So, in that sense, they are not functionally identical. Christ is the center of focus as he is the center of history.

One other thing, I've been "keeping these things in my heart" for more than 4 years, pondering and working through them. I'm not satisfied with the 1689 Federalist or even (what I understand) the Particular Baptist take on it. I keep going back and reading Owen on Hebrews, and keep working through types and Scriptures. I'm close to a formulation I can accept, but I would not presume to publish it until I had some sustained time to organize it.

Such is life, some of these things require more reflection than mere thought.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 14, 2017)

A review says he is a Shepherdite somehow....


----------



## VictorBravo (Jul 14, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> A review says he is a Shepherdite somehow....



Is a Shepherdite one who adopts the views of Norman Shepherd? I'm pretty sure Greg Nichols is not one of those....


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 15, 2017)

VictorBravo said:


> Is a Shepherdite one who adopts the views of Norman Shepherd? I'm pretty sure Greg Nichols is not one of those....


Just mentioning. I could not tell you. I do not want to slander the man at all. I have noticed some who tend to drift toward antinomian tend to play the Shepherd card often.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 15, 2017)

Thanks Trent!


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 15, 2017)

VictorBravo said:


> There are different "camps." Sam Waldron taught something more like what Presbyterians hold--one covenant of grace spanning OT and NT.
> 
> I don't think a Reformed Baptist would say baptism "replaces" circumcision. Maybe "take the place of" with an emphasis that the target and purpose of the sign is different.
> 
> ...



I would love to read any tentative notes that you have.

I am also not satisfied with the current batch of books explaining 1689 Federalism. They seem to stress discontinuity too much.

I'd love also to read anything by Dr Waldron as well if you can point me to any links.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 15, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I would love to read any tentative notes that you have.
> 
> I am also not satisfied with the current batch of books explaining 1689 Federalism. They seem to stress discontinuity too much.
> 
> I'd love also to read anything by Dr Waldron as well if you can point me to any links.


The traditional Baptist approach to these discussed items here would indeed tend to see that the New Covenant in some sense was more of a brand new work then a Presbyterian would see it as being, and that is why I posted on a different thread why there seems to be almost 2 differing Covenant theologies at play between Reformed baptists and Presbyterians on many of these issues.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jul 16, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> A review says he is a Shepherdite somehow....



Is the guy credobaptist? I don't recall knowing any Shepherdites who are credo.


----------



## arapahoepark (Jul 16, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Is the guy credobaptist? I don't recall knowing any Shepherdites who are credo.


I apologize. The review was junk as I read on. All he did was exgete lectures from Shepherd and try to connect the dots to Nichols because he not a 1689 Federalist. A very poor reviewer indeed.

Perg, I am thankful for your threads on the subject. I have also read a little bit on 1689 federalism and have rejected it. I think good points are made that we as CoG people need to study more on but the whole Galatians allegory thing to build a foundation on, I find lacking.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 16, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Do all Reformed Baptists belive that. Are there different camps?
> 
> Is it possible to say that baptism replaces circumcision as a Reformed Baptist?



As an RB, I say that baptism in the NC answers to circumcision in the OT. The old and new covenants aren't opposites, or two different tries at the same thing--the new covenant is the reality that the old was prefiguring. The old covenant had a meal--the Passover--to which the Lord's Supper answers, though the NC meal is far more simple and meaningful, and is applied differently. Likewise baptism, a sign of the NC, is far more simple and meaningful than circumcision, and also applied differently.



Dachaser said:


> The traditional Baptist approach to these discussed items here would indeed tend to see that the New Covenant in some sense was more of a brand new work then a Presbyterian would see it as being, and that is why I posted on a different thread why there seems to be almost 2 differing Covenant theologies at play between Reformed baptists and Presbyterians on many of these issues.



David, your assessment is wrong: regardless of what many who call themselves Baptists think (and there's as many different flavors of baptists are there are of presbyterians), the traditional baptist approach (see the LBCF, chapter 7), is that God revealed the Covenant of Grace first to Adam, and developed it--singular--by different means, until Jesus came, who is the subject and reason and cause of all things. So we see the New Covenant as the fruition of the Old--same tree, all grown up and bearing glorious fruit. Or you can think of the old covenant as an arch under construction, surrounded by scaffolding, its final form only half-discernible through the clutter of the builder's impedimenta. But once the keystone is dropped in, the scaffold is removed, and the arch is revealed in it's full glory--the same arch that was under construction, but fully realized.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Is the guy credobaptist? I don't recall knowing any Shepherdites who are credo.



That is a perfect example of the WTS East vs WTS West dynamic that I referred to elsewhere. Nichols is an admirer of John Murray, from what I understand. Waldron is an admirer or Murray and Robertson, I think. The "1689 Federalist" guys are admirers of Kline, Horton, etc. and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies is headquartered at WSCAL. Jeffrey Johnson's "The Fatal Flaw" is replete with quotations from "The Law is Not of Faith."

I haven't read him and know him only by reputation, but I doubt Nichols is really a huge fan of Shepherd. (But you never know. I know of at least one who is influential in Calvinistic Baptist circles, but the man I'm thinking of is not a Reformed Baptist and has denounced confessional RBs in the harshest terms.) I'd also be surprised if the one lodging the Shepherdite complaint isn't the proprietor of the 1689 website. I think he is basically a Clarkian and a Klinean, more or less. My guess is that it is latching onto what he thinks is the implication of what Nichols teaches on some point.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> As an RB, I say that baptism in the NC answers to circumcision in the OT. The old and new covenants aren't opposites, or two different tries at the same thing--the new covenant is the reality that the old was prefiguring. The old covenant had a meal--the Passover--to which the Lord's Supper answers, though the NC meal is far more simple and meaningful, and is applied differently. Likewise baptism, a sign of the NC, is far more simple and meaningful than circumcision, and also applied differently.
> 
> 
> 
> David, your assessment is wrong: regardless of what many who call themselves Baptists think (and there's as many different flavors of baptists are there are of presbyterians), the traditional baptist approach (see the LBCF, chapter 7), is that God revealed the Covenant of Grace first to Adam, and developed it--singular--by different means, until Jesus came, who is the subject and reason and cause of all things. So we see the New Covenant as the fruition of the Old--same tree, all grown up and bearing glorious fruit. Or you can think of the old covenant as an arch under construction, surrounded by scaffolding, its final form only half-discernible through the clutter of the builder's impedimenta. But once the keystone is dropped in, the scaffold is removed, and the arch is revealed in it's full glory--the same arch that was under construction, but fully realized.



While David's response may be somewhat imprecise, he is quite correct that the nature of the New Covenant is one of the major differences, if not the major difference, between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. See James White's essay on the newness of the New Covenant in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, for example. I think I'm safe in saying that Baptists of all kinds will charge that paedobaptists have a hard time explaining what is new about the new covenant. I've never seen a Baptist hem and haw around when asked that question, even those who believe in one covenant, two administrations.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> See James White's essay on the newness of the New Covenant in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, for example. I think I'm safe in saying that Baptists of all kinds will charge that paedobaptists have a hard time explaining what is new about the new covenant.



The essays that I think you are referring to are included in _Recovering a Covenantal Heritage_, published by RBAP, in chapters 11 and 12. He interacts mainly with _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_, published by P&R.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 16, 2017)

KMK said:


> The essays that I think you are referring to are included in _Recovering a Covenantal Heritage_, published by RBAP, in chapters 11 and 12. He interacts mainly with _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_, published by P&R.



I looked at the ToC of that book the other day. This essay, and perhaps a few others, date to previous years. I think the White essay was originally published 10-12 years ago, prior to the promotion of the "1689 Federalism." I think it may have been available online at some point. 

I've seen it said that White is a "20th Century Reformed Baptist" and that he really hasn't looked into this issue. Since he's now charged with being a "useful idiot" for Islam, among other things, he's got bigger fish to fry at the moment.


----------



## KMK (Jul 16, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> I think the White essay was originally published 10-12 years ago, prior to the promotion of the "1689 Federalism."



I agree about White, however, just to clarify, Recovering a Covenantal Heritage is not a book about 1689 Federalsim, per se. It is an attempt to correct the problem that covenantalism of any stripe has pretty much been swept aside in Baptist theology since the age of Revivalism. This is the more important issue to my mind, and I think the 1689 Federalists agree.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 17, 2017)

KMK said:


> I agree about White, however, just to clarify, Recovering a Covenantal Heritage is not a book about 1689 Federalsim, per se. It is an attempt to correct the problem that covenantalism of any stripe has pretty much been swept aside in Baptist theology since the age of Revivalism. This is the more important issue to my mind, and I think the 1689 Federalists agree.



Right. I would agree as well. I had mentioned it because it is touted as one of the two or three books to read if you want to understand "1689 Federalism." With the exception of White, all of the contributors in that book are either "1689 Federalist" (Renihan, Denault, Johnson, Barcellos) or else their position is unknown to me. (My guess is that anyone writing about Owen is "1689 Federalist.")

Even though RBAP's position (assuming RBAP=Barcellos) is 1689 Federalism, they do publish books by authors like Crampton who either don't address the issue of the Mosaic Covenant or who might be of the "20th Century" mindset. (I saw one of the "1689" men say that Crampton hadn't really delved into that. That's another book on my long list to read.)

All kinds of Baptists can advance arguments against paedobaptism that other Baptists will certainly agree with. Certainly that's not the same as having a covenant theology or some other "positive" theology of your own. Interestingly, about 8-9 years ago when I switched from paedo to credo, in a marathon thread that I admittedly unnecessarily and prematurely instigated because I felt that the PB (since I was a mod at the time) deserved an accounting for my change, I was charged (by some Presbyterians and maybe even some Baptists) with not having a "schema." My "schema" was basically what Waldron and Malone and other "20th Century Reformed Baptists" have taught as I understand it--one covenant, two administrations. (Some, especially those who were never Baptists or who never went through a RB phase, were perhaps unfamiliar with that terminology.) I think the charge came largely because of my half-baked opening post which was long on assertion and short on argument. But I think it was also repeated much later as well. 

I'm pretty sure I asserted that the substance of the covenant was the same but that the administration was different. That's why I thought "The Fatal Flaw" came across like modified NCT when I read it a few years later. Had it not been for the appendix affirming the perpetuity of the Moral Law, I'm not so sure that I wouldn't have just put it in the "NCT, other" category since, not having read Barcellos, Renihan, Coxe, etc. I was under the impression that all RBs affirmed "one covenant, two administrations." 

Over the years I've considered reading through that thread again to see if I still agree with myself. I know Randy certainly disagrees with what he posted there (this was back in his Baptist days) and perhaps some others have made some modifications to their theology as well. It is sobering to realize now that some who posted there who seemed to be running well are not even evangelical anymore. Maybe some do not even claim to be Christian anymore.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 17, 2017)

arapahoepark said:


> *Covenant Theology - A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God's Covenants*
> *Greg Nichols*
> *I think that is it.*


Probably is. Brandon Adams (credited w/ coining the term "1689 federalism") points out that Nichols is not representative of 1689 federalism per se but more Baptist CT that has used the Westminster Standards as its understanding. That is what prompted this video:


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 17, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I would love to read any tentative notes that you have.
> 
> I am also not satisfied with the current batch of books explaining 1689 Federalism. They seem to stress discontinuity too much.
> 
> I'd love also to read anything by Dr Waldron as well if you can point me to any links.


Again I ask, which ones? Denault of course. But who else are you reading?


----------



## KMK (Jul 17, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Probably is. Brandon Adoms (credited w/ coining the term "1689 federalism")



I think you mean Brandon Adams. If so, is he the same as our own brandonadams? https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1689-fed-and-republication.86832/#post-1079377


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 17, 2017)

KMK said:


> I think you mean Brandon Adams. If so, is he the same as our own brandonadams? https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1689-fed-and-republication.86832/#post-1079377


Thanks for the correction. And maybe.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 17, 2017)

KMK said:


> I think you mean Brandon Adams. If so, is he the same as our own brandonadams? https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1689-fed-and-republication.86832/#post-1079377



There's a good chance.

Thank you for your nuanced replies Tim.

Pergamum, I would encourage you to slow down a little. You seem to be making judgments very quickly about what you are reading (based on all your recent threads).

1) 1689 Federalism does not believe there were 2 Abrahamic Covenants, but rather that 2 covenants came from Abraham (the Old and the New). Admittedly, Coxe is a bit confusing on this point. I don't actually agree with some of the things he says on this point (particularly his interpretation of Gal 3:17 - see here if you're interested). This dichotomy in Abraham between promises to his natural seed in the land of Canaan and a promise concerning Christ is found in many paedobaptists (see Owen, Turretin, Hodge, Kline, Jonathan Edwards as just a few examples off the top of my head). Note R. Scott Clark's quotation of Hodge on this point here. See also Kline’s Two-Level Fulfillment 184 Years Before Kingdom Prologue.

2) Nichols is neither 1689 Fed nor 20th cent. He denies a covenant of works, which both 1689 Fed and 20th cent affirm.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> There's a good chance.
> 
> Thank you for your nuanced replies Tim.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the helpful reply. Since "2 covenants in Abraham" and "2 Abrahamic Covenants" sounds so much alike, do you think some baptists are stating it both ways? I have heard both in the last 2 weeks, especially the statement that "God made two covenants with Abraham" - a physical and a spiritual one (producing a physical seed and producing a spiritual seed).

One brother stated that God gave some physical promises to the one group of people and gave spiritual promises to believers. That makes it sound like God has two people. Wouldn't it be better to simply say that God gave these promises to Israel?

It seems most writers speak of dual elements in the one covenant. If you believe that, then how is 1689 Federalism "distinct" on this point?


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

There is certainly a possibility that baptists are not clearly communicating (or maybe understanding) the concept. There is also certainly a possibility they are being misunderstood. Reading this may provide some clarity as to why this point is not clearly articulated: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/some-disagreement-with-coxe-on-galatians-317/



Pergamum said:


> That makes it sound like God has two people.



God did have two different covenant people: Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the Spirit. Here is Jonathan Edwards defending that point https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...the-nation-of-israel-as-a-type-of-the-church/



Pergamum said:


> If you believe that, then how is 1689 Federalism "distinct" on this point?



I would say the distinction is in carrying the daulity of the Abrahamic Covenant to its logical conclusion. Note: we do not mean "dual elements" in the sense of an external administration and an internal substance. We mean "dual elements" as referring to a typical element regarding Abraham's physical descendants that has passed away and an anti-typical element regarding Abraham's spiritual descendants that has not passed away.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> There is certainly a possibility that baptists are not clearly communicating (or maybe understanding) the concept. There is also certainly a possibility they are being misunderstood. Reading this may provide some clarity as to why this point is not clearly articulated: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/some-disagreement-with-coxe-on-galatians-317/
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wouldn't it be better to say that the promises were made to Israel. Period. And that Israel was a mixed company. There is one tree Israel and some Gentile branches are grafted in and some unbelieving branches were cut off. But there were not two separate peoples.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

No, it would not be better to say that because it would not be true. It would ignore typology. The NT distinguishes between Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the Spirit. The first is a type of the latter. Promises were made to the first that were not made to the second. Promises were made to the second that were not made to the first. Yes, they are two different groups of people who have/had two different relationships with God (though there is some overlap insofar as some of Israel according to the flesh was also Israel according to the Spirit).

Rom 9:6 https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/

Rom 11:16-24 https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/the-olive-tree/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> As an RB, I say that baptism in the NC answers to circumcision in the OT. The old and new covenants aren't opposites, or two different tries at the same thing--the new covenant is the reality that the old was prefiguring. The old covenant had a meal--the Passover--to which the Lord's Supper answers, though the NC meal is far more simple and meaningful, and is applied differently. Likewise baptism, a sign of the NC, is far more simple and meaningful than circumcision, and also applied differently.
> 
> 
> 
> David, your assessment is wrong: regardless of what many who call themselves Baptists think (and there's as many different flavors of baptists are there are of presbyterians), the traditional baptist approach (see the LBCF, chapter 7), is that God revealed the Covenant of Grace first to Adam, and developed it--singular--by different means, until Jesus came, who is the subject and reason and cause of all things. So we see the New Covenant as the fruition of the Old--same tree, all grown up and bearing glorious fruit. Or you can think of the old covenant as an arch under construction, surrounded by scaffolding, its final form only half-discernible through the clutter of the builder's impedimenta. But once the keystone is dropped in, the scaffold is removed, and the arch is revealed in it's full glory--the same arch that was under construction, but fully realized.



Your views expressed here would seem to be far closer to what Presbyterians brethren hold in regards to how to view the NC than a Baptist viewpoint would be on this topic though.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> While David's response may be somewhat imprecise, he is quite correct that the nature of the New Covenant is one of the major differences, if not the major difference, between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. See James White's essay on the newness of the New Covenant in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, for example. I think I'm safe in saying that Baptists of all kinds will charge that paedobaptists have a hard time explaining what is new about the new covenant. I've never seen a Baptist hem and haw around when asked that question, even those who believe in one covenant, two administrations.


We Baptists get the node of baptism and the coming of the Church due to how we view the tension between the Old and the New Covenants. We are indeed one in Christ, but we also do have some real discernible differences among us.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Probably is. Brandon Adams (credited w/ coining the term "1689 federalism") points out that Nichols is not representative of 1689 federalism per se but more Baptist CT that has used the Westminster Standards as its understanding. That is what prompted this video:


How would the 1689 view be different from Covenant Theology of a Baptist apart from 1689?


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 18, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> How would the 1689 view be different from Covenant Theology of a Baptist apart from 1689?


Did you watch that video I posted?


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Did you watch that video I posted?


Some reason my computer not able to pay it back!


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 18, 2017)

This is for Pergamum. Since you will not answer which books you are reading on 1689 federalism, I'll provide a quote from J. Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant," in _Recovering a Covenantal Heritage_, p. 228, 



> "It is important to remember that the Abrahamic Covenant is not two covenants, but a single covenant. Like a coin, it is a single entity with two sides. These two sides, for the most part, coincide with the different emphases within the Old and New Testaments."


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 18, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Some reason my computer not able to pay it back!


Try this.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 18, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> This is for Pergamum. Since you will not answer which books you are reading on 1689 federalism, I'll provide a quote from J. Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant," in _Recovering a Covenantal Heritage_, p. 228,


Two different aspects of the one Covenant of Grace then, between physical promises/blessings for physical descendants of Abraham, and the spiritual blessings for his spiritual ones.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 18, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Your views expressed here would seem to be far closer to what Presbyterians brethren hold in regards to how to view the NC than a Baptist viewpoint would be on this topic though.


I think my view is that of most confessional Baptists since the Reformation. What all the other multitudes of so-called Baptists wish to believe is up to them, but remember that the writers of the 1689 LBCF purposely copied the WFC word-for-word in many cases, with the express purpose of highlighting how much they agreed with their Presbyterian brethren in most things. Presbyterians, on the whole, are not a bad lot, and we owe them much for their excellent theological work.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> David, your assessment is wrong: regardless of what many who call themselves Baptists think (and there's as many different flavors of baptists are there are of presbyterians), the traditional baptist approach (see the LBCF, chapter 7), is that God revealed the Covenant of Grace first to Adam, and developed it--singular--by different means, until Jesus came, who is the subject and reason and cause of all things. So we see the New Covenant as the fruition of the Old--same tree, all grown up and bearing glorious fruit.



Again, to avoid confusion, 1689 Federalism believes that the Old and the New are two distinct covenants with different rewards, different conditions, and different parties - not different administrations of the same covenant. The Old and the New are not the "same tree" though the Old certainly served the purposes of the New. (Not certain what view you hold Ben - just trying to be as clear as possible).


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> This is for Pergamum. Since you will not answer which books you are reading on 1689 federalism, I'll provide a quote from J. Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant," in _Recovering a Covenantal Heritage_, p. 228,


Timotheos,

Denault says the following:

“The padeobaptist refused to separate the dualities of the Abrahamic covenant in order to preserve their model of the covenant of grace which integrated these dualities… Their system was self sufficient, but it could not harmonize itself naturally with the Biblical data, and, in particular, to the fact that there was not one, but two covenants in Abraham” (loc 1863, 1929).

READ: "two covenants in Abraham..."

Instead of saying the covenant has dual purposes, he clearly says, "two covenants" (plural).

And again, another quote:

“The Baptists saw two posterities in Abraham, two inheritances and consequently two covenants… Not that the posterity of Abraham was of a mixed nature, but that Abraham had two distinct posterities and that it was necessary to determine the inheritance of each of these posterities on the basis of their respective promises… This understanding was vigorously affirmed amongst all Baptist theologians and characterized their federalism form its origin” (119-120).

So it is easy to see how I might believe (rather wrongly or rightly) that many baptists are asserting that there are two Abrahamic Covenants.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> it is easy to see how I might believe (rather wrongly or rightly) that many baptists are asserting that there are two Abrahamic Covenants.



Yes, and even A.W. Pink says "There were not two distinct and diverse covenants made with Abraham (as the older Baptists argued), the one having respect to spiritual blessings and the other relating to temporal benefits." Coxe is a bit confusing on this point. Not as clear or as accurate as he could have been. It's certainly a point that could use some clarification and simpler articulation. James Haldane, the 19th century Scottish Presbyterian turned Baptist articulates the duality idea better, in my opinion.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 18, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Yes, and even A.W. Pink says "There were not two distinct and diverse covenants made with Abraham (as the older Baptists argued), the one having respect to spiritual blessings and the other relating to temporal benefits." Coxe is a bit confusing on this point. Not as clear or as accurate as he could have been. It's certainly a point that could use some clarification and simpler articulation. James Haldane, the 19th century Scottish Presbyterian turned Baptist articulates the duality idea better, in my opinion.


I would love to read Haldane if you have a link or reference.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

Here is Haldane
https://books.google.com/books?id=HOtLAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA52#v=onepage&q&f=false


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 18, 2017)

He also has a commentary on Galatians
http://www.1689federalism.com/commentary-on-galatians-james-haldane/

And Hebrews
http://www.1689federalism.com/commentary-on-hebrews-james-haldane/


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 19, 2017)

Thanks much!


----------



## Ben Zartman (Jul 19, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Again, to avoid confusion, 1689 Federalism believes that the Old and the New are two distinct covenants with different rewards, different conditions, and different parties - not different administrations of the same covenant. The Old and the New are not the "same tree" though the Old certainly served the purposes of the New. (Not certain what view you hold Ben - just trying to be as clear as possible).


I believe I hold what you have called "20th Century" CT. I agree that much of the OC was typological--the fulfilment of those land promises and temporal blessings teach many important things about our God. But those were real things: real promises kept, real blessings given, a real people of God--yet all serving as an earnest and illustration and type of the covenant in it's full fruit. It's difficult to articulate, since I am not a man of great education, but I think I see greater continuity between the old and new covenants than the 1689 federalists would.
Still, I thank you for your replies and the clarity you bring to your position.
My next question is, how much of the OT can the federalist appropriate as his own? Does he pray for the peace of Jerusalem? (not in the sense a Dispensational would, of course: a bit of Palestinian real estate); Does he read Psalm 129 and assent that Israel may now say we have been afflicted from our youth?
One of the horrors of dispensationalism is that they say that very little if any of the OT is relevant to Christians today--that a good bit of the promises are not for us, but for some future imagined physical Israel. It would be a great comfort to know that federalists are not drifting down that dark path of unbelief.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 19, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Timotheos,
> 
> Denault says the following:
> 
> ...


And I have quoted 2 times already the full context of what he was saying which clears that up. But here goes for a 3rd time:

"It is in this way that the Baptists understood that there were two covenants with Abraham, not two formal covenants, but a promise that revealed the Covenant of Grace followed by the covenant of circumcision. In light of Galatians 4.22-31, the theologians of the 1689 considered that the two covenants that came from Abraham (Hagar and Sara) were the Old and New Covenants. The covenant of circumcision, Hagar, corresponded to the Old Covenant; a covenant of works established with the physical posterity of Abraham. The covenant of the promise, Sara, corresponded to the New Covenant; the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham and concluded with Christ and the spiritual posterity of Abraham (Ga. 3.29)." (loc 1922-1927).Underline added.

So the "two covenants in Abraham" does not refer to 2 ACs but 2 covenants which derive from Abraham. The context is clear and you are misusing Denault's words.

As for your second quote, that is simply referring to the OC and NC. Just as the 2 inheritances and 2 posterities derive from the AC, so also do the 2 covenants he mentioned. Again, he is not saying there are 2 ACs but 2 covenants which derive as a result of the AC: the OC and the NC.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> I think my view is that of most confessional Baptists since the Reformation. What all the other multitudes of so-called Baptists wish to believe is up to them, but remember that the writers of the 1689 LBCF purposely copied the WFC word-for-word in many cases, with the express purpose of highlighting how much they agreed with their Presbyterian brethren in most things. Presbyterians, on the whole, are not a bad lot, and we owe them much for their excellent theological work.


I agree with you on our brethren, as some of the very best theological works ever done came from those holding to their viewpoint.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> And I have quoted 2 times already the full context of what he was saying which clears that up. But here goes for a 3rd time:
> 
> "It is in this way that the Baptists understood that there were two covenants with Abraham, not two formal covenants, but a promise that revealed the Covenant of Grace followed by the covenant of circumcision. In light of Galatians 4.22-31, the theologians of the 1689 considered that the two covenants that came from Abraham (Hagar and Sara) were the Old and New Covenants. The covenant of circumcision, Hagar, corresponded to the Old Covenant; a covenant of works established with the physical posterity of Abraham. The covenant of the promise, Sara, corresponded to the New Covenant; the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham and concluded with Christ and the spiritual posterity of Abraham (Ga. 3.29)." (loc 1922-1927).Underline added.
> 
> ...


There is One Covenant of Grace, but within that would be the Old and New Covenants, and again, it seems the big question would be just how much of a continuity there is between the old and the New.


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 19, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> It would be a great comfort to know that federalists are not drifting down that dark path of unbelief.



1689 Federalism does not believe there are any future unfulfilled promises to Israel according to the flesh. They only ever served to typologically point to Christ and His bride.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 19, 2017)

There always was called out and reserved by God a faithful remnant among national Israel, as those who be pointing towards those saved under the NC.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 19, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> 1689 Federalism does not believe there are any future unfulfilled promises to Israel according to the flesh. They only ever served to typologically point to Christ and His bride.



Why do you write that "1689 Federalism" believes or not believes. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Brandon does believe or does not believe. Why are you speaking for all of 1689 Federalism? Are you are saying it is a monolithic movement without variety. It appears there is much variety. Or else do you have a copyright on the term?


Also, does this mean no 1689 Federalist can believe that Romans 11 speaks of an ethnic revival of the Jews?


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 19, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Why do you write that "1689 Federalism" believes or not believes.



I try to distinguish between my own views and those views that are held by 1689 Federalism. I'm happy to be corrected at any point. It's no different from someone saying "Amillennialism believes..." Yes, there is variety. I am trying to clarify wherever possible so that people have an easier time learning what it is.

No it's not a monolithic view.



Pergamum said:


> Also, does this mean no 1689 Federalist can believe that Romans 11 speaks of an ethnic revival of the Jews?



Thank you for bringing that up. I have to retract my earlier statement as there were historic proponents that did interpret Romans 11 in that way. I believe Haldane did. Personally, I would tell them they are not being consistent with their typology at that point.


----------



## Herald (Jul 20, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> There's a good chance.
> 
> Thank you for your nuanced replies Tim.
> 
> ...



Brandon, I asked Pascal Denault last evening if he could add some clarity to the discussion regarding two Abrahamic covenants. His reply was, "One formal Abr Cov through which the New Cov was revealed. I believe Gal 4:21-31 shows that the Old and New were intertwined since Abr until Christ." This is basically what you have been saying, no?


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 20, 2017)

Yes


----------



## Herald (Jul 20, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> Yes


65 posts to get to a one word answer. Seriously, thank you. I was getting lost in all the verbosity. You have given me a lot to consider and more books to add to my reading list. Thankfully I have a few of them already.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

