# 1689 Federalism Revisited



## Herald

About a year ago (or more) there was a vigorous discussion on Baptist Federalism, which is better known simply as 1689 Federalism. I was intrigued by it but decided not to fully embrace it. Its relative newness concerned me. Whenever something new hits the theological scene the first thing I see are warning flags. I was also concerned with, as I saw it at the time, an attempt to reassemble covenant theology to make it more palatable for Baptists. Does covenant theology inexorably lead back to paedobaptist authorship or did Baptists have their own take on it even as far back as the 17th-century? Among Baptists, covenant theology before 1689 Federalism was basically paedobaptist covenant theology with the main dividing point being the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. 1689 Federalism took that view head-on and made the point that Baptist Federalism had its own distinct view independent of paedobaptist Covenant Theology (Westminster Federalism), even as far back as the 1689 LBCF. If so, why has this view not been widely articulated until recently? That was one of my burning questions when I first heard of 1689 Federalism.

I have now had some time to more closely look into Baptist Federalism and have been satisfied with the answers given to my earlier questions. In the 17th-century, Baptist Federalism was not considered a thing, or least not the main thing. During that time, English Particular Baptists were more concerned with the freedom to practice their faith. John Bunyan's persecution was a contemporary reminder that Baptist theological distinctives were looked at with suspicion in England. The 1689 LBCF was an attempt to legitimize Particular Baptist beliefs and to allay the fears of paedobaptists as to what they believed. While the differences of baptism and church polity were real, there was much that both sides agreed on. Lost in all of that noise were other theological beliefs, including the systematic way of ordering both the redemptive and eschatological aspects of scripture. When the Reformed Baptist label began to gain traction in the United States back in the 1960's, there was not a lot of contemporary scholarly work on covenant theology from a Baptist point-of-view. It was convenient to modify Westminster Federalism in those places where it differed from Baptist theology. This status-quo understanding did not sit well with more than a few Reformed Baptists theologians, so they put in the work to research what early English Particular Baptists believed about covenant theology. Had they wrtten about it? Did they have a clear and convincing voice? More to the point - is the 1689 LBCF a covenantal document that stands on its own two feet apart from Westminster Federalism? My answer to these questions is "yes".

The issue here is not to debate Westminster Federalism vs. 1689 Federalism. The main areas of disagreement between paedobaptists and credobaptists continue to exist. Nothing has changed in that regard. The issue is really a debate between traditional Baptist Covenant Theology (as I call it) and 1689 Federalism. It is an interesting debate because it is causing Reformed Baptists to wrestle with their identity. It seems as though the main clearinghouse for information on 1689 Federalism is found at the 1689 Federalism website: 1689 Federalism. There are more and more books being published on the topic. There is a recommended reading list on the 1689 Federalism website.

While I was malleable on 1689 Federalism a year ago, I am now more comfortable affirming their main points. I no longer believe it is a knee-jerk reaction against Westminster Federalism, in either its paedobaptist or Baptist renditions. I believe early Particular Baptists did have a decided covenantal view that was well articulated in the 1689 LBCF. I am looking forward to discussing this futher in the coming weeks and months.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99

I was reconsidering baptism a year ago and passed by the Federalist view, but I appreciate the work of the scholars. One school of Reformed Baptist seems to think that covenant continuity issues are totally irrelevant to the question of the nature and constitution of the church now (that's not a misrepresentation), and it's like they thought /think the Baptist had no obligation at all to consider the PB's covenantal arguments, and any PB who attempts to argue from covenants is just ducking clear New Testament condemnation for his position. The 1689 Federalists have put in extensive time to understand the covenants and the relationship of the Old Testament to the New Testament; and even if one disagrees with their final conclusion, they have worked to put the New Testament church in context of the whole history of redemption, which is what a PB covenant theologian is doing. I disagree with the conclusions of the Federalists, but the breadth of study forces us to look at all the Scriptures more comprehensively.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## Pergamum

Bill,

Do you believe in the following:

(1). That there is not one covenant with Abraham but two?

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).


(2) Do you believe that the Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel only and not with Spiritual Israel?

One 1689er writes, "The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."

(3) Do you believe that the Mosaic Covenant was given so that its members could use the law as a means of obtaining life? 

One 1689er wrote: "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the Mosiac Covenant were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."

(4). Do you believe that Presbyterians created their whole system of Covenant Theology as a means to defend infant baptism? That is what Denault seems to say in his book. In an effort to justify this particular doctrine, Presbyterians formed their whole system of covenant theology so that they could preserve pedobaptism. 

That is an awful lot of work just to preserve baby-sprinkling!


(5). Do you believe the New Covenant IS the Covenant of Grace and do you deny that the Covenant of Grace is broader than the New Covenant?


Do you affirm these five points? 

I cannot. And I am a baptist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Harley said:


> I disagree with the conclusions of the Federalists, but the breadth of study forces us to look at all the Scriptures more comprehensively.



Which is all any serious student of the Bible can ask for. When I joined the PB in 2005 I was struggling with the baptism issue. I did not realize it at the time but my struggle was misdirected. It really was not about baptism, it was how I ordered biblical theology. I began to see the problems inherent with Dispensationalism long before I embraced covenant theology. For a period of time, I was rudderless. It was not a fun place to be. While I eventually hitched my wagon to covenant theology, it was repackaged Westminster Federalism. I wish I could say that I took the initiative to research how early Particular Baptists viewed the covenants but I took that prevalent view among contemporary Reformed Baptists as the final word on the issue. I am glad I was challenged to rethink my position.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

P.S. Which does not mean that "rethinking" is settled. I am still trying to think things through; both praying and leaning on the works of my betters in order to understand more fully.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> Which is all any serious student of the Bible can ask for. When I joined the PB in 2005 I was struggling with the baptism issue. I did not realize it at the time but my struggle was misdirected. It really was not about baptism, it was how I ordered biblical theology. I began to see the problems inherent with Dispensationalism long before I embraced covenant theology. For a period of time, I was rudderless. It was not a fun place to be. While I eventually hitched my wagon to covenant theology, it was repackaged Westminster Federalism. I wish I could say that I took the initiative to research how early Particular Baptists viewed the covenants but I took that prevalent view among contemporary Reformed Baptists as the final word on the issue. I am glad I was challenged to rethink my position.


I think you are falling into the 1689er trap of believing that you must either choose between 1689 Federalism or become a Presbyterian. They argue this way all the time. They will assert that you might believe you are baptist but your covenant theology SHOULD lead you towards Presbyterianism if you were consistent. Therefore, embrace 1689 Federalism and really be a baptist. 

Don't fall for it.


----------



## deleteduser99

Pergamum said:


> Bill,
> 
> Do you believe in the following:
> 
> (1). That there is not one covenant with Abraham but two?
> 
> 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).
> 
> 
> (2) Do you believe that the Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel only and not with Spiritual Israel?
> 
> One 1689er writes, "The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."
> 
> (3) Do you believe that the Mosaic Covenant was given so that its members could use the law as a means of obtaining life?
> 
> One 1689er wrote: "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the Mosiac Covenant were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."
> 
> (4). Do you believe that Presbyterians created their whole system of Covenant Theology as a means to defend infant baptism? That is what Denault seems to say in his book. In an effort to justify this particular doctrine, Presbyterians formed their whole system of covenant theology so that they could preserve pedobaptism.
> 
> That is an awful lot of work just to preserve baby-sprinkling!
> 
> 
> (5). Do you believe the New Covenant IS the Covenant of Grace and do you deny that the Covenant of Grace is broader than the New Covenant?
> 
> 
> Do you affirm these five points?
> 
> I cannot. And I am a baptist.



Just from simple Bible study I rejected all five parts. #4 is the worst of the bunch, and for any paedo who knows his stuff it's perceived (quite correctly) as breaking the ninth commandment.

And indeed you may stay a Baptist if you believe that the church doesn't continue from Israel, the New Covenant is fully distinct even from the Abrahamic Covenant regardless how similar they are, and there is no way that an infant was baptized in any of the household baptisms. That's very general and simplified, but the New Covenant just needs to be "different enough" to disallow infant sprinkling.

@Herald I started listening to one of the podcasts on the 1689 Federalist website you linked to and the interviewee said even said that chapter 7 of the LBC is intentionally broad to fit a number of different covenant models. What is now called Federalism might have been the majority view, but it doesn't seem that being of that stripe was indispensible. Funnily enough I read the sectlon about "farther steps" to a proficent Presbyterian friend of mine and at first glance he didn't even disagree with the language.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Do you affirm these five points?
> 
> I cannot. And I am a baptist.



First, the one thing that binds all Baptists together is professor-only baptism (credobaptism). Would you say that dispensationalists cannot be Baptists because they eschew covenant theology completely? Let us be careful not to create a purity test for the right to call ourselves a Baptist.

What I am finding out about Baptist Federalism is that it is an attempt by 21st-century Baptist theologians to understand 17th-century Baptist covenantalism. The canopy underneath many of these theologians are working is necessarily broad. Pascal Denault may not be in complete agreement with Sam Renihan on everything and vice versa. I have been very clear to point out that, while I am amenable to Baptist Federalism, I still consider my own covenantal theology to be a work in progress. For that reason, I do not feel the need to choose between two options like you challenged me to do in your post.

One of the most criticized parts of Baptist Federalism is how the Covenant of Grace operates. Rich Barcellos states that the Covenant of Grace was promised in the Old Testament but not formally covenanted until the New Covenant. Another way of saying it is that the Covenant of Grace _is _the New Covenant, so the Covenant of Grace could only have been promised in the Old Testament but not inaugurated. I think this is a basic agreement among Baptist Federalists.



Pergamum said:


> I think you are falling into the 1689er trap of believing that you must either choose between 1689 Federalism or become a Presbyterian. They argue this way all the time. They will assert that you might believe you are baptist but your covenant theology SHOULD lead you towards Presbyterianism if you were consistent. Therefore, embrace 1689 Federalism and really be a baptist.



This was one of the first concerns I had over a year ago. Is this some sort of loyalty pledge in order to be a covenantal Baptist? Is Baptist Federalism a contrived system just so we can have a cudgel in order to fight back against paedobaptists? That is precisely why I have taken a slow-and-steady approach to their claims. I am not saying that is not the thought of some. Each side of any issue is always going to have its more radical elements. I do not fear being defined by them. When I joined the PB I wanted so much to belong to the paedobaptist side. I prayed and studied the issue until I could not pray or research anymore. My screen name at the time (Baptist-in-Crisis) was a not-so-veiled attempt at announcing where I was in my thinking. So, I while I appreciate your concern, by God's grace I remain an independent thinker.


----------



## Shanny01

Pergamum said:


> Bill,
> 
> Do you believe in the following:
> 
> (1). That there is not one covenant with Abraham but two?
> 
> 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).
> 
> 
> (2) Do you believe that the Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel only and not with Spiritual Israel?
> 
> One 1689er writes, "The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."
> 
> (3) Do you believe that the Mosaic Covenant was given so that its members could use the law as a means of obtaining life?
> 
> One 1689er wrote: "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the Mosiac Covenant were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."
> 
> (4). Do you believe that Presbyterians created their whole system of Covenant Theology as a means to defend infant baptism? That is what Denault seems to say in his book. In an effort to justify this particular doctrine, Presbyterians formed their whole system of covenant theology so that they could preserve pedobaptism.
> 
> That is an awful lot of work just to preserve baby-sprinkling!
> 
> 
> (5). Do you believe the New Covenant IS the Covenant of Grace and do you deny that the Covenant of Grace is broader than the New Covenant?
> 
> 
> Do you affirm these five points?
> 
> I cannot. And I am a baptist.



Just a few points that I would adjust in this presentation of 1689 Federalism. 

1. Just to clarify is that there was the Covenant of Circumcision (i.e. Abrahamic Covenant) and the promise of the New Covenant. There was no formal administration of the New Covenant but only a further revealing of the seed of the woman and the means by which we partake of that seed, i.e. faith.

2. The majority of 1689 Federalists would say that the Mosaic Covenant was made with Physical Israel, but also including Spiritual Israel within Physical Israel. Just quibbling with the "only". But this may be tied in with the next point.

3. This claim stems from the fact the Pascalt Denault in his first version of his book espoused that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works properly considered, whereby if a person perfectly performed the commands of Mosaic Law, he would inherit eternal life. He has since revised his book and rejected this view in favor of the majority view that the Mosaic Covenant republished the terms of the Covenant of Works (Do this and live), but that the reward and punishments of that covenant in itself related only to life in the land of Canaan and blessings there. Since his revision, I know of no 1689 Federalists that say the Mosaic Covenant was given for eternal life, but rather that the covenant was earthly and subservient to the Covenant of Grace in the promulgation of the New Covenant.

4. I wouldn't paint all 1689 Federalists as saying this, since Covenant theology in general developed out of the Reformed understanding of Law and Gospel, the overarching Covenant structure of Scripture, and Baptism was defended out of this structure. Just because Denault said something doesn't mean all Baptists would see Presbyterian Covenant theology as the only reason they still baptize infants.

5. This is a fair point but perhaps could just be clarified that all saints throughout all time are saved by the New Covenant and its promise (under promises, types, and shadows in the Old Covenant, thereby retaining the Covenant of Grace understanding of only one way of salvation since the fall).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

So Old Testament believers were added into what covenant? 

Are OT believers added into the New Covenant, which had not yet come? Or the Covenant of Grace? If the New Covenant is the same as the Covenant of Grace, there is no place for OT believers to be added into until after Christ's work. And if they are added into the Covenant of Grace during OT times, then how can we say that the Covenant of Grace is not yet in effect until the New Covenant, because obviously members are being added to it, even in the OT. It seems very much in effect because every believer from all time periods are addded into it.


----------



## Shanny01

The understanding would be that since the New Covenant was the formal administration of the Covenant of Grace. Only with Christ's life, death, and resurrection and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, the spiritual communion of the church (regenerate believers) has been formally given, having ordinances for worship, duties, church governance, and all peculiar things to a covenant people. Before this formal administration, people were still partakers of the grace of the New Covenant but by way of promise of its accomplishment in Christ's coming. The church had not been formally constituted though they were materially part of it. The Spirit applied the various benefits of the New Covenant to Old Testament saints via that which the Old Covenant looked to, which considered in of itself (abstracted from the typological and subservient relation to the New Covenant) was a covenant of works, but because of that subservient role pointed forth to the substance that it was merely a shadow of.


----------



## Pergamum

Shanny01 said:


> The understanding would be that since the New Covenant was the formal administration of the Covenant of Grace. Only with Christ's life, death, and resurrection and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, the spiritual communion of the church (regenerate believers) has been formally given, having ordinances for worship, duties, church governance, and all peculiar things to a covenant people. Before this formal administration, people were still partakers of the grace of the New Covenant but by way of promise of its accomplishment in Christ's coming. The church had not been formally constituted though they were materially part of it. The Spirit applied the various benefits of the New Covenant to Old Testament saints via the Old Covenant, which considered in of itself (abstracted from the typological and subservient relation to the New Covenant) was a covenant of works, but because of that subservient role pointed forth to the substance that it was merely a shadow of.



You write:

"The Spirit applied the various benefits of the New Covenant to Old Testament saints via the Old Covenant, which considered in of itself (abstracted from the typological and subservient relation to the New Covenant) was a covenant of works, but because of that subservient role pointed forth to the substance that it was merely a shadow of."

But many 1689ers speak of the Old Covenant as only bringing death. But here you write that the OT saints are saved "via the Old Covenant"?

It makes more since to admit that the Covenant of Grace was operative from the very first OT believers (Adam and Eve, I believe) and then came to its climax in the New Covenant to which all the previous covenants point. 

That is a lot better than stating that anyone could be saved through the Old Covenant.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> ut here you write that the OT saints are saved "via the Old Covenant"?



We need to represent each other's arguments fairly. Adam did not say OT saints are saved "via the Old Covenant".


----------



## Herald

Shanny01 said:


> Before this formal administration, people were still partakers of the grace of the New Covenant but by way of promise of its accomplishment in Christ's coming.



Adam, this is the way I understand it. OT saints enjoyed the benefits of being part of covenant Israel but their true inheritance was not in Abraham or David, it was in the promised Messiah. The types and shadows of the Old Testament covenants pointed forward to Christ and the New Covenant.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## TheInquirer

Herald,

Thanks for sharing this update. I am going through the same process myself albeit much more slowly than I'd like due to other projects.

Any works that were especially helpful to you?


----------



## Pergamum

Bill,

I still reject 1689 Federalism over these issues:

(1) The fact that OT believers actively participate in the blessings of the Covenant of Grace even while being in the OT. 

Thus they were not merely participating in a promise but the actual presence of the Covenant of Grace. 

The substance of the New Covenant must be active even in the OT or else OT believers have no Mediator. In effect, they are participating in the blessings of the New Covenant while living in the OT, so why not simply say the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT for the Elect?


(2) We ought not to separate Israel and the Church. We cannot say that only physical promises were given to the people, nor can we say that there were two separate promises for two separate people. 

The prophets did not say, "Now to you Physical Israel I promise to keep you in the land, etc, but to you Spiritual Israel I promise to give you eternal life." He merely addressed "Israel" as a whole. The church was a mixed assembly of both the saved and the lost, all who held the covenant sign.

(3) The Bible is (ALL of it) a unified book primarily about spiritual things, not a book of discontinuity largely about mere physical promises in the OT and spiritual promises in the NT.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Which is all any serious student of the Bible can ask for. When I joined the PB in 2005 I was struggling with the baptism issue. I did not realize it at the time but my struggle was misdirected. It really was not about baptism, it was how I ordered biblical theology. I began to see the problems inherent with Dispensationalism long before I embraced covenant theology. For a period of time, I was rudderless. It was not a fun place to be. While I eventually hitched my wagon to covenant theology, it was repackaged Westminster Federalism. I wish I could say that I took the initiative to research how early Particular Baptists viewed the covenants but I took that prevalent view among contemporary Reformed Baptists as the final word on the issue. I am glad I was challenged to rethink my position.


What would you see as being the major differences between contemporary RB theology and those holding to the 1689 version?


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> I think you are falling into the 1689er trap of believing that you must either choose between 1689 Federalism or become a Presbyterian. They argue this way all the time. They will assert that you might believe you are baptist but your covenant theology SHOULD lead you towards Presbyterianism if you were consistent. Therefore, embrace 1689 Federalism and really be a baptist.
> 
> Don't fall for it.


What type of Reformed Baptist theology do you hold with then, as who would be a good author to give a summary of it?


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> First, the one thing that binds all Baptists together is professor-only baptism (credobaptism). Would you say that dispensationalists cannot be Baptists because they eschew covenant theology completely? Let us be careful not to create a purity test for the right to call ourselves a Baptist.
> 
> What I am finding out about Baptist Federalism is that it is an attempt by 21st-century Baptist theologians to understand 17th-century Baptist covenantalism. The canopy underneath many of these theologians are working is necessarily broad. Pascal Denault may not be in complete agreement with Sam Renihan on everything and vice versa. I have been very clear to point out that, while I am amenable to Baptist Federalism, I still consider my own covenantal theology to be a work in progress. For that reason, I do not feel the need to choose between two options like you challenged me to do in your post.
> 
> One of the most criticized parts of Baptist Federalism is how the Covenant of Grace operates. Rich Barcellos states that the Covenant of Grace was promised in the Old Testament but not formally covenanted until the New Covenant. Another way of saying it is that the Covenant of Grace _is _the New Covenant, so the Covenant of Grace could only have been promised in the Old Testament but not inaugurated. I think this is a basic agreement among Baptist Federalists.
> 
> 
> 
> This was one of the first concerns I had over a year ago. Is this some sort of loyalty pledge in order to be a covenantal Baptist? Is Baptist Federalism a contrived system just so we can have a cudgel in order to fight back against paedobaptists? That is precisely why I have taken a slow-and-steady approach to their claims. I am not saying that is not the thought of some. Each side of any issue is always going to have its more radical elements. I do not fear being defined by them. When I joined the PB I wanted so much to belong to the paedobaptist side. I prayed and studied the issue until I could not pray or research anymore. My screen name at the time (Baptist-in-Crisis) was a not-so-veiled attempt at announcing where I was in my thinking. So, I while I appreciate your concern, by God's grace I remain an independent thinker.


Another way to see this would be that the new Covenant was the fullness of the Covenant of Grace, as that final manifestation of it required the Lord Jesus to actually be born, die, and be raised up and ascended before it could go into effect.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> So Old Testament believers were added into what covenant?
> 
> Are OT believers added into the New Covenant, which had not yet come? Or the Covenant of Grace? If the New Covenant is the same as the Covenant of Grace, there is no place for OT believers to be added into until after Christ's work. And if they are added into the Covenant of Grace during OT times, then how can we say that the Covenant of Grace is not yet in effect until the New Covenant, because obviously members are being added to it, even in the OT. It seems very much in effect because every believer from all time periods are addded into it.


Were the OT saints added into it when Jesus rose from the dead and took captivity back with Him unto heaven?


----------



## Dachaser

Shanny01 said:


> The understanding would be that since the New Covenant was the formal administration of the Covenant of Grace. Only with Christ's life, death, and resurrection and the giving of the Spirit at Pentecost, the spiritual communion of the church (regenerate believers) has been formally given, having ordinances for worship, duties, church governance, and all peculiar things to a covenant people. Before this formal administration, people were still partakers of the grace of the New Covenant but by way of promise of its accomplishment in Christ's coming. The church had not been formally constituted though they were materially part of it. The Spirit applied the various benefits of the New Covenant to Old Testament saints via that which the Old Covenant looked to, which considered in of itself (abstracted from the typological and subservient relation to the New Covenant) was a covenant of works, but because of that subservient role pointed forth to the substance that it was merely a shadow of.


So the Church proper did indeed get started up on the day of Pentecost?


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> You write:
> 
> "The Spirit applied the various benefits of the New Covenant to Old Testament saints via the Old Covenant, which considered in of itself (abstracted from the typological and subservient relation to the New Covenant) was a covenant of works, but because of that subservient role pointed forth to the substance that it was merely a shadow of."
> 
> But many 1689ers speak of the Old Covenant as only bringing death. But here you write that the OT saints are saved "via the Old Covenant"?
> 
> It makes more since to admit that the Covenant of Grace was operative from the very first OT believers (Adam and Eve, I believe) and then came to its climax in the New Covenant to which all the previous covenants point.
> 
> That is a lot better than stating that anyone could be saved through the Old Covenant.


The basis by which God could ever save any lost sinner was always due to the Cross of Jesus Christ. Saved by Grace alone, received through faith alone, as the reformers loved to keep pointing out.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> Bill,
> 
> I still reject 1689 Federalism over these issues:
> 
> (1) The fact that OT believers actively participate in the blessings of the Covenant of Grace even while being in the OT.
> 
> Thus they were not merely participating in a promise but the actual presence of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> The substance of the New Covenant must be active even in the OT or else OT believers have no Mediator. In effect, they are participating in the blessings of the New Covenant while living in the OT, so why not simply say the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT for the Elect?
> 
> 
> (2) We ought not to separate Israel and the Church. We cannot say that only physical promises were given to the people, nor can we say that there were two separate promises for two separate people.
> 
> The prophets did not say, "Now to you Physical Israel I promise to keep you in the land, etc, but to you Spiritual Israel I promise to give you eternal life." He merely addressed "Israel" as a whole. The church was a mixed assembly of both the saved and the lost, all who held the covenant sign.
> 
> (3) The Bible is (ALL of it) a unified book primarily about spiritual things, not a book of discontinuity largely about mere physical promises in the OT and spiritual promises in the NT.


There were mixed saved and lost in the old Covenant such as the Mosaic aspect of it, but only the redeemed among the New Covenant, correct?


----------



## Pergamum

Dachaser said:


> Were the OT saints added into it when Jesus rose from the dead and took captivity back with Him unto heaven?


Maybe a new thread should address this. Many of the early Church believed this and called it the "Harrowing of Hell" - Christ's descent into hell to claim victory and take the souls of the saints back with him to heaven. In Luke 16 we see Abraham's Bosom and a tortured soul within sight but separated by a chasm, and some say this condition no longer holds true since Christ. What do you think?


----------



## Pergamum

Dachaser said:


> There were mixed saved and lost in the old Covenant such as the Mosaic aspect of it, but only the redeemed among the New Covenant, correct?


Only the Elect are in the New Covenant, but there are many unbelievers under the outward administration of the New Covenant (preaching, and the ordinances). These non-Elect may be under the covenant administration but not properly "in" the Covenant. Only those in Christ are in the New Covenant, properly speaking.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> Maybe a new thread should address this. Many of the early Church believed this and called it the "Harrowing of Hell" - Christ's descent into hell to claim victory and take the souls of the saints back with him to heaven. In Luke 16 we see Abraham's Bosom and a tortured soul within sight but separated by a chasm, and some say this condition no longer holds true since Christ. What do you think?


I think that there is actually none in real Hell yet, as I see that as the lake of Fire, but that until Jesus actually came, the dead lost and saved went to Hades/Sheol, and that there was indeed a good and bad side, and Jesus emptied the good side out and took them back to heaven with himself.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> Only the Elect are in the New Covenant, but there are many unbelievers under the outward administration of the New Covenant (preaching, and the ordinances). These non-Elect may be under the covenant administration but not properly "in" the Covenant. Only those in Christ are in the New Covenant, properly speaking.


Yes, I can agree with that, as there are still the lost among the saved when any assembly of the church happens, but those actually in the NC are only the saved.


----------



## Herald

TheInquirer said:


> Herald,
> 
> Thanks for sharing this update. I am going through the same process myself albeit much more slowly than I'd like due to other projects.
> 
> Any works that were especially helpful to you?


Jim, Pascal Denault's book, "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" was insightful. "The Covenant of Works: Its Confessional and Scriptural Basis" by Richard Barcellos is another good read. "Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ", a compilation by Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen is helpful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> The substance of the New Covenant must be active even in the OT or else OT believers have no Mediator. In effect, they are participating in the blessings of the New Covenant while living in the OT, so why not simply say the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT for the Elect?



Based on my understanding of Baptist Federalism, the blessings of the New Covenant were _promised-only_ until the New Covenant was inaugurated. So, were Old Testament believers truly "participating in the blessings of the New Covenant"? Was the Holy Spirit given to the church the way that it was at Pentecost? Had the outward requirements of the Law been abrogated? The justification by faith of Old Testament believers was rooted in the Cross, which had not yet taken place. There was never a time when Christ's incarnation, death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection was ever in doubt. God's promise of redemption for His elect was made in Genesis 3:15, so the promise was as good as God's word. In some ways, we are living with a similar expectation. The promise of eternal life is a "now and not yet" situation. We know that we have the promise of eternal life (1 John 5:13) but we will not fully enjoy that blessing until we are in the eternal state.



Pergamum said:


> We ought not to separate Israel and the Church.



I do not believe there is a separation. Old Testament saints were saved by the Promised One who was yet to come. New Testament saints are saved by the Promised One who has already been revealed. The only difference is that the Jewish Old Testament believers were still under the requirements of the Law, whereas there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile. The Law did not impart life, but obeying its precepts was a requirement of life as a Jew under the Old Covenant. This is why I believe the dispensational charge that some have made against Baptist Federalism is erroneous.



Pergamum said:


> The Bible is (ALL of it) a unified book primarily about spiritual things, not a book of discontinuity largely about mere physical promises in the OT and spiritual promises in the NT.


It is also a book of history. The fact that a sound view of biblical theology represents how God reveals His redemptive and eschatological purpose throughout human history does not mean it is not part of a cohesive whole.

How would an Old Testament saint have understood all of this? If they were Jewish, they knew the Law. They were obligated to observe it. Like Abraham, who believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6), the Law was intended to draw people to God. However, the Law could not save - only condemn. It served as a tutor (Galatians 3:24) to point us to the One who would do what the Law could not. Life under the Old Covenant found its blessings within the covenant community. These blessings were not always spiritual. Consider Deuteronomy 28. So, I agree with you that the Bible is a book primarily about spiritual things and not a book largely about physical promises. It is a book with a redemptive message that begins in types and shadows, and is finally revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

I will re-engage with this thread after the Lord's Day.


----------



## Shanny01

I wouldn't be opposed to saying that the covenant of grace was active and operative in the lives of Old Testament saints as they were regenerated, called, justified, idwelt, sealed, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit by efficacy of that which the Old Covenant typified and promised. However, if by active and operative you mean that each covenant was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace as in classic Westminster Covenant Theology, that is the whole point of contention since we would see the Old Testament covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) as being legal covenants pointing out sin and the necessity of righteousness, bearing the line through which the Messiah would come, and bearing a typological relationship to the New Covenant and the Church, even though intrinsically those covenants were related to life in the land of Israel among the physical seed of Abraham.


----------



## deleteduser99

Shanny01 said:


> I wouldn't be opposed to saying that the covenant of grace was active and operative in the lives of Old Testament saints as they were regenerated, called, justified, idwelt, sealed, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit by efficacy of that which the Old Covenant typified and promised. However, if by active and operative you mean that each covenant was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace as in classic Westminster Covenant Theology, that is the whole point of contention since we would see the Old Testament covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) as being legal covenants pointing out sin and the necessity of righteousness, bearing the line through which the Messiah would come, and bearing a typological relationship to the New Covenant and the Church, even though intrinsically those covenants were related to life in the land of Israel among the physical seed of Abraham.



I don't think I have ever interacted with you before, so let me first say good to meet you.

Question for you though: Could those types and shadows have been means of grace to convert the elect, apply Christ's life and death to them, give grace to them, and strengthen their faith in Christ?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> In Denault's book on the "Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology


What edition are you using Pergamum? I understand the new edition makes important clarifications on this. The first edition was translted from the French and Denault was concerned some important nuances were lost hence the new edition. See https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/



Pergamum said:


> The prophets did not say, "Now to you Physical Israel I promise to keep you in the land, etc, but to you Spiritual Israel I promise to give you eternal life." He merely addressed "Israel" as a whole. The church was a mixed assembly of both the saved and the lost, all who held the covenant sign.


You sound like you have 1 3/4 foot in the Baptist camp, and 1/4 foot in the Paedobaptist camp 



Pergamum said:


> These non-Elect may be under the covenant administration but not properly "in" the Covenant. Only those in Christ are in the New Covenant, properly speaking.


Acts 26:28 'Authorised version' Then Stephen said to Pergamum, “You almost persuade me to become a Paedobaptist.” 

If you say the church was a 'mixed' assembly, and that non-elect are under the covenant administraton, it seems to me you are close to making the Paedobaptist distinction between the visable and invisable church.


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> What edition are you using Pergamum? I understand the new edition makes important clarifications on this. The first edition was translted from the French and Denault was concerned some important nuances were lost hence the new edition. See https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/
> 
> 
> You sound like you have 1 3/4 foot in the Baptist camp, and 1/4 foot in the Paedobaptist camp
> 
> 
> Acts 26:28 'Authorised version' Then Stephen said to Pergamum, “You almost persuade me to become a Paedobaptist.”
> 
> If you say the church was a 'mixed' assembly, and that non-elect are under the covenant administraton, it seems to me you are close to making the Paedobaptist distinction between the visable and invisable church.



Stephen,
You don't believe there is a distinction between the visible church and the invisible church?

I am a baptist but we must admit that some grow up under the outward blessings of the church and yet remain unsaved.


----------



## Pergamum

If the Covenant of Grace is effective in the OT and it saves, and if OT believers were living in its reality, and it is thus operative in the OT, why not say simply say the Covenant of Grace was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment or consummation in Christ?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Thanks for this update on your studies Harold. I'm glad you are striving to understand the issue as best you can and make your own informed decision. May God bless your efforts.



Herald said:


> In the 17th-century, Baptist Federalism was not considered a thing, or least not the main thing. During that time, English Particular Baptists were more concerned with the freedom to practice their faith.



I'm curious where this idea stems from. 17th century particular baptists were very conscious of the fact that they had a distinct covenant theology, so in that sense it was "considered a thing." They wrote numerous works on the subject, so persecution was a not a distraction from this topic.

Just a minor note.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> Stephen,
> You don't believe there is a distinction between the visible church and the invisible church? I am a baptist but we must admit that some grow up under the outward blessings of the church and yet remain unsaved.


No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense. I have traditionally argued that the church is the eschological filfullment of the true Israel. Ie, even in the Old Covenant only the reminant were in the church.



Pergamum said:


> If the Covenant of Grace is effective in the OT and it saves, and if OT believers were living in its reality, and it is thus operative in the OT, why not say simply say the Covenant of Grace was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment or consummation in Christ?


I think this is well put.

Pergamum, have you read Samuel Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)"? I understand this is the most mature 1689 Federalism writing out to date.

I need to make a disclaimer: I think you have been alluding to this Pergamum, but it seems to me the 1689 Federalist movement has put Reformed Baptists in a thelogical quandary. It seems to me the 1689 Federalism movement emphasises 'discontinuity' between covenants to a greater degree than what Reformed Baptists were doing 10 - 20 years ago, thus making them liable to the charge they are not Reformed. I am at the stage of rethinking some of my older Reformed Baptist convictions and I can see the merit of some paedobaptist arguments. Maybe I need to write the book "confessions of a heretic"


----------



## Kinghezy

Stephen L Smith said:


> No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense.



How is the following verse understood then?
Matthew 13:29-30
But he said, No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn. 

From John Gill -- The scope of the parable, and the design of our Lord in it, are chiefly to be attended to; which are to show, that a pure and perfect church cannot be expected in the present state of things; and that saints should not be immoderately uneasy, but patiently bear such exercises, until Christ's time is come to relieve them, when the tares and chaff shall be separated from the wheat; when sinners shall not stand in the congregation of the righteous, and there shall be no more a pricking briar, nor a grieving thorn in the house of Israel.


----------



## Kinghezy

@Stephen L Smith your profile says you hold to the LBC. Unless I am misunderstanding the quote below, it has an invisible / visible distinction.


*Chapter 26: Of the Church*
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. ( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )

2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Kinghezy said:


> How is the following verse understood then?
> Matthew 13:29-30


Reformed Baptists would take the words of our Lord in v 38 literally "The field is the world".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Kinghezy said:


> @Stephen L Smith your profile says you hold to the LBC. Unless I am misunderstanding the quote below, it has an invisible / visible distinction.


I cannot see this distinction you mention. It specifically says *"It consists of the full number of the elect who have been, are, or will be gathered into one under Christ her head."*


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Stephen L Smith said:


> I cannot see this distinction you mention. It specifically says *"It consists of the full number of the elect who have been, are, or will be gathered into one under Christ her head."*



Section 1 says that, specifically in reference to the "catholic" or "universal" church which may be called "invisible".

Section 2 speaks of the "visible" church.

The Visible / Invisible church distinction is very fully realized in the 1689 LBCF.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> (3) Do you believe that the Mosaic Covenant was given so that its members could use the law as a means of obtaining life?
> 
> One 1689er wrote: "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the Mosiac Covenant were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."



1689 Federalism does not believe that the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life upon the condition of obedience to Mosaic law. The Mosaic Covenant only offered temporal life and blessing in Canaan upon condition of obedience to the law.



Shanny01 said:


> 3. This claim stems from the fact the Pascalt Denault in his first version of his book espoused that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works properly considered, whereby if a person perfectly performed the commands of Mosaic Law, he would inherit eternal life. He has since revised his book and rejected this view in favor of the majority view that the Mosaic Covenant republished the terms of the Covenant of Works (Do this and live), but that the reward and punishments of that covenant in itself related only to life in the land of Canaan and blessings there. Since his revision, I know of no 1689 Federalists that say the Mosaic Covenant was given for eternal life, but rather that the covenant was earthly and subservient to the Covenant of Grace in the promulgation of the New Covenant.



Denault's first edition did not teach that "members of the Mosaic Covenant were under the law as a means of eternal life." Rather, he taught (following 17th century congregationalist Samuel Petto) that Christ earned eternal life for his people through the Mosaic Covenant. As you said, this has been revised. "I had previously endorsed Samuel Petto’s view that understands the Mosaic Covenant both as an earthly covenant of works for Israel in Canaan and an absolute covenant of works for Christ to obtain eternal life. I still believe the former (Israel), but I now believe that the latter (Christ) is only typologically true." https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/

Jeffery Johnson also teaches that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants offered eternal life upon condition of obedience to the law - though with the intention of convicting sinners and also of allowing Christ a covenant in which to fulfill the law. I believe he is mistaken and not representative of 1689 Federalism on this point. For more, see http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense. I have traditionally argued that the church is the eschological filfullment of the true Israel. Ie, even in the Old Covenant only the reminant were in the church.
> 
> 
> I think this is well put.
> 
> Pergamum, have you read Samuel Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)"? I understand this is the most mature 1689 Federalism writing out to date.
> 
> I need to make a disclaimer: I think you have been alluding to this Pergamum, but it seems to me the 1689 Federalist movement has put Reformed Baptists in a thelogical quandary. It seems to me the 1689 Federalism movement emphasises 'discontinuity' between covenants to a greater degree than what Reformed Baptists were doing 10 - 20 years ago, thus making them liable to the charge they are not Reformed. I am at the stage of rethinking some of my older Reformed Baptist convictions and I can see the merit of some paedobaptist arguments. Maybe I need to write the book "confessions of a heretic"



Stephen,

You wrote: "No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense."

If you keep talking like this, I think I will become a Presbyterian.

The unbeliever is under the external blessings of the covenant many times. They are not "in" but under the covenant administration.

Yes, I agree: I think 1689 Federalism emphasizes discontinuity too much.


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense. I have traditionally argued that the church is the eschological filfullment of the true Israel. Ie, even in the Old Covenant only the reminant were in the church.
> 
> 
> I think this is well put.
> 
> Pergamum, have you read Samuel Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)"? I understand this is the most mature 1689 Federalism writing out to date.
> 
> I need to make a disclaimer: I think you have been alluding to this Pergamum, but it seems to me the 1689 Federalist movement has put Reformed Baptists in a thelogical quandary. It seems to me the 1689 Federalism movement emphasises 'discontinuity' between covenants to a greater degree than what Reformed Baptists were doing 10 - 20 years ago, thus making them liable to the charge they are not Reformed. I am at the stage of rethinking some of my older Reformed Baptist convictions and I can see the merit of some paedobaptist arguments. Maybe I need to write the book "confessions of a heretic"


I don't read Reformed Baptists any more. I am tired of them focusing on minor issues while the world burns.


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> 1689 Federalism does not believe that the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life upon the condition of obedience to Mosaic law. The Mosaic Covenant only offered temporal life and blessing in Canaan upon condition of obedience to the law.
> 
> 
> 
> Denault's first edition did not teach that "members of the Mosaic Covenant were under the law as a means of eternal life." Rather, he taught (following 17th century congregationalist Samuel Petto) that Christ earned eternal life for his people through the Mosaic Covenant. As you said, this has been revised. "I had previously endorsed Samuel Petto’s view that understands the Mosaic Covenant both as an earthly covenant of works for Israel in Canaan and an absolute covenant of works for Christ to obtain eternal life. I still believe the former (Israel), but I now believe that the latter (Christ) is only typologically true." https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/
> 
> Jeffery Johnson also teaches that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants offered eternal life upon condition of obedience to the law - though with the intention of convicting sinners and also of allowing Christ a covenant in which to fulfill the law. I believe he is mistaken and not representative of 1689 Federalism on this point. For more, see http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/



If there is such a wide variation among these positions, why lump them all under the name 1689 Federalism? Why not just refer to all of these positions as "baptist covenant theology." Further, why contrast these positions against "traditional reformed baptist covenant theology" when there is so much diversity within the ranks? 

I think it is because Reformed Baptists want their own identity. And by claiming it is "1689" Federalism they've claimed to be "the" Confessional position even if the authors cannot even agree among themselves.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> I don't read Reformed Baptists any more. I am tired of them focusing on minor issues while the world burns.



This is not a helpful comment. It will be wise for you to not to allow your passion for this topic to cause you to judge motives. Just because there is a movement among Confessional Baptists to better understand the covenant theology held by early Particular Baptists does mean we are blind to the other issues of our time.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Herald

Stephen L Smith said:


> No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense. I have traditionally argued that the church is the eschological filfullment of the true Israel. Ie, even in the Old Covenant only the reminant were in the church.



Stephen, you have a point here. 26.2 of the 1689 LBC states:



26.2 said:


> All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and _*may be called visible saints*_; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.



I understand what is meant by a visible/invisible church distinction when those terms are used. We can never truly know the heart of another person. An unsaved person may even be someone who has been voted into membership in the church, however, they are not part of the body of Christ. One of the tenents of Baptist belief is that of regenerate church membership.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

brandonadams said:


> Thanks for this update on your studies Harold. I'm glad you are striving to understand the issue as best you can and make your own informed decision. May God bless your efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious where this idea stems from. 17th century particular baptists were very conscious of the fact that they had a distinct covenant theology, so in that sense it was "considered a thing." They wrote numerous works on the subject, so persecution was a not a distraction from this topic.
> 
> Just a minor note.


Brandon,

My comment as to the focus of 17th-century Particular Baptists is based on some conversations I had with other RB's in the Baptist Federalism camp. In hindsight it may not be completely accurate. I'm sure our Particular Baptist forefathers we're capable of theological multitasking.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Brandon,

So, the criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology. How do you respond to that? 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Herald said:


> Brandon,
> 
> So, the criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology. How do you respond to that?
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk



Brother, for the edification ofr the spectators here (like me), can you clarify this?

When you say, "he criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology", who do you take the perpetrators to be? The modern Reformed Baptists that are promoting 1689 Federalism or the 17th century Particular Baptists that developed it?


----------



## Herald

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Brother, for the edification ofr the spectators here (like me), can you clarify this?
> 
> When you say, "he criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology", who do you take the perpetrators to be? The modern Reformed Baptists that are promoting 1689 Federalism or the 17th century Particular Baptists that developed it?


Some other Baptists who disagree with Baptist Federalism. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum

I say it for one thing. 

Many Baptists long for their own identity. They are tired of being Presbyterian-lite, and so I think this psychology causes them to try to find a uniquely baptist covenantal theology. And if they can prove it from the 17th Century they can say, "See, it was here all along...we are just recovering it." (even though the 17th Century was also relatively new). Of course, all baptists would say that covenant theology should not lead us into pedobaptism, but whether there was 1 solitary view or whether there was ever a "uniquely baptist perspective on covenant theology" I don't think there was...it was not monolithic and there was great variety in the views (and still is). But to push one view ahead of the others and label it the "Confessional" view makes me a bit uneasy.


----------



## Herald

Sean,

1689 Federalism is an attempt to promote the covenant theology held by 17th-century Particular Baptists; specifically the framers of the 1689 LBC. Their efforts have not been universally received by Reformed Baptists. It is the latter group that has pushed back against 1689 Federalism, accusing those promoting it of wanting to craft a covenantal identify separate from paedobaptists. While the conclusions of 1689 Federalism does just that, it doesn't mean 1689 proponents contrived a system just for that purpose.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> I say it for one thing.
> 
> Many Baptists long for their own identity. They are tired of being Presbyterian-lite, and so I think this psychology causes them to try to find a uniquely baptist covenantal theology. And if they can prove it from the 17th Century they can say, "See, it was here all along...we are just recovering it." (even though the 17th Century was also relatively new). Of course, all baptists would say that covenant theology should not lead us into pedobaptism, but whether there was 1 solitary view or whether there was ever a "uniquely baptist perspective on covenant theology" I don't think there was...it was not monolithic and there was great variety in the views (and still is). But to push one view ahead of the others and label it the "Confessional" view makes me a bit uneasy.


Brother, it is a debate worth having. There are paedobaptists who are not in complete agreement on covenant theology. I am fine with the debate. It forces us to seek out truth. If we arrive at different conclusions, so be it, as long as we arrive at them honestly. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> Brother, it is a debate worth having. There are paedobaptists who are not in complete agreement on covenant theology. I am fine with the debate. It forces us to seek out truth. If we arrive at different conclusions, so be it, as long as we arrive at them honestly.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Thanks. I am still open to all views; though I admit I am biased against the 1689 view. Hopefully I am fair in my assessments.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Herald said:


> Some other Baptists who disagree with Baptist Federalism.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk



Maybe I didn't ask my question correctly, because that answer doesn't correspond to the question I am asking.

I am asking this:

Do the people who claim that 1689 Federalism is contrived to carve out a unique Baptist covenantal identity make the accusation against the formulators of 1689 Federalism (the PBs in the 1600's) or do they make the accusation against the modern proponents of 1689 Federalism?


----------



## Herald

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Maybe I didn't ask my question correctly, because that answer doesn't correspond to the question I am asking.
> 
> I am asking this:
> 
> Do the people who claim that 1689 Federalism is contrived to carve out a unique Baptist covenantal identity make the accusation against the formulators of 1689 Federalism (the PBs in the 1600's) or do they make the accusation against the modern proponents of 1689 Federalism?


They make it against the modern proponents.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Got it. Thank you.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Based on my understanding of Baptist Federalism, the blessings of the New Covenant were _promised-only_ until the New Covenant was inaugurated. So, were Old Testament believers truly "participating in the blessings of the New Covenant"? Was the Holy Spirit given to the church the way that it was at Pentecost? Had the outward requirements of the Law been abrogated? The justification by faith of Old Testament believers was rooted in the Cross, which had not yet taken place. There was never a time when Christ's incarnation, death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection was ever in doubt. God's promise of redemption for His elect was made in Genesis 3:15, so the promise was as good as God's word. In some ways, we are living with a similar expectation. The promise of eternal life is a "now and not yet" situation. We know that we have the promise of eternal life (1 John 5:13) but we will not fully enjoy that blessing until we are in the eternal state.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not believe there is a separation. Old Testament saints were saved by the Promised One who was yet to come. New Testament saints are saved by the Promised One who has already been revealed. The only difference is that the Jewish Old Testament believers were still under the requirements of the Law, whereas there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile. The Law did not impart life, but obeying its precepts was a requirement of life as a Jew under the Old Covenant. This is why I believe the dispensational charge that some have made against Baptist Federalism is erroneous.
> 
> 
> It is also a book of history. The fact that a sound view of biblical theology represents how God reveals His redemptive and eschatological purpose throughout human history does not mean it is not part of a cohesive whole.
> 
> How would an Old Testament saint have understood all of this? If they were Jewish, they knew the Law. They were obligated to observe it. Like Abraham, who believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6), the Law was intended to draw people to God. However, the Law could not save - only condemn. It served as a tutor (Galatians 3:24) to point us to the One who would do what the Law could not. Life under the Old Covenant found its blessings within the covenant community. These blessings were not always spiritual. Consider Deuteronomy 28. So, I agree with you that the Bible is a book primarily about spiritual things and not a book largely about physical promises. It is a book with a redemptive message that begins in types and shadows, and is finally revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.


Did the OT believers in the coming Messiah actually experience the Spirit in the same fashion we do today after Pentecost happened, or did God remit their sins, but did not have them all indwelt as all of us now under NC are?


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Thanks for this update on your studies Harold. I'm glad you are striving to understand the issue as best you can and make your own informed decision. May God bless your efforts.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious where this idea stems from. 17th century particular baptists were very conscious of the fact that they had a distinct covenant theology, so in that sense it was "considered a thing." They wrote numerous works on the subject, so persecution was a not a distraction from this topic.
> 
> Just a minor note.


Would you be able to explain just how the Old and the new Covenants were in discontinuity towards each other then?


----------



## brandonadams

Herald said:


> Brandon,
> 
> So, the criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology. How do you respond to that?



Since the criticism is nothing more than conjecture about other people's motives, there isn't really much to respond to. When I began studying covenant theology, I found that I did not agree with the paedobaptist version of it. I eventually found out that the conclusions I was coming to through my study of Scripture actually lined up with what 17th century particular baptists concluded from their study of Scripture. During that time, 90% of the reformed baptist resources I consulted held a modern Westminster-influenced view. I didn't agree with that view so study and discussion was a bit frustrating. 1689Federalism.com was created to help people in a similar situation to me by providing them with a clear presentation of a particular view with further resources to study.

Pergamum asked why not just call it baptist covenant theology. Because that does not adequately distinguish between the two above views. In order to have fruitful theological conversation, labels representing distinctly defined views are necessary. Of course, no label is ever perfect. "1689 Federalism" has the disadvantage of conveying the mistaken view that only "1689 Federalism" is confessionally permissible. However, with the necessary qualifications, I feel the label is a helpful one and I have not been offered anything better by critics.

So, in sum, I don't understand how providing resources for a historically distinctive covenant theology and providing it with a label to aid in theological discourse amounts to "a contrived attempt to craft" an identity separate from paedobaptists (since historically there was, in fact, a baptist covenant theology distinct from paedobaptist covenant theology). Baptists are not obligated to agree with it. I think that the Westminster-influenced version still has substantial arguments against paedobaptism. I just don't agree with it biblically. Hope that helps.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Herald

brandonadams said:


> Since the criticism is nothing more than conjecture about other people's motives, there isn't really much to respond to.


Unfortunately, judging other people's motives is an effective tactic. It can shut down honest questioning. That is why knowing the origins of 1689 Federalism is helpful. It will not stop skepticism but at least it addresses it head-on with a dose of honesty. People can believe what they want to believe. 



brandonadams said:


> Pergamum asked why not just call it baptist covenant theology. Because that does not adequately distinguish between the two above views. In order to have fruitful theological conversation, labels representing distinctly defined views are necessary.



Agreed.



brandonadams said:


> Baptists are not obligated to agree with it. I think that the Westminster-influenced version still has substantial arguments against paedobaptism. I just don't agree with it biblically. Hope that helps.



It helps quite a bit. Thank you.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> (5). Do you believe the New Covenant IS the Covenant of Grace and do you deny that the Covenant of Grace is broader than the New Covenant?





Herald said:


> One of the most criticized parts of Baptist Federalism is how the Covenant of Grace operates. Rich Barcellos states that the Covenant of Grace was promised in the Old Testament but not formally covenanted until the New Covenant. Another way of saying it is that the Covenant of Grace _is _the New Covenant, so the Covenant of Grace could only have been promised in the Old Testament but not inaugurated. I think this is a basic agreement among Baptist Federalists.





Pergamum said:


> So Old Testament believers were added into what covenant?
> 
> Are OT believers added into the New Covenant, which had not yet come? Or the Covenant of Grace? If the New Covenant is the same as the Covenant of Grace, there is no place for OT believers to be added into until after Christ's work. And if they are added into the Covenant of Grace during OT times, then how can we say that the Covenant of Grace is not yet in effect until the New Covenant, because obviously members are being added to it, even in the OT. It seems very much in effect because every believer from all time periods are addded into it.





Pergamum said:


> I still reject 1689 Federalism over these issues:
> 
> (1) The fact that OT believers actively participate in the blessings of the Covenant of Grace even while being in the OT.
> 
> Thus they were not merely participating in a promise but the actual presence of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> The substance of the New Covenant must be active even in the OT or else OT believers have no Mediator. In effect, they are participating in the blessings of the New Covenant while living in the OT, so why not simply say the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT for the Elect?





Dachaser said:


> Were the OT saints added into it when Jesus rose from the dead and took captivity back with Him unto heaven?





Dachaser said:


> So the Church proper did indeed get started up on the day of Pentecost?





Shanny01 said:


> I wouldn't be opposed to saying that the covenant of grace was active and operative in the lives of Old Testament saints as they were regenerated, called, justified, idwelt, sealed, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit by efficacy of that which the Old Covenant typified and promised. However, if by active and operative you mean that each covenant was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace as in classic Westminster Covenant Theology, that is the whole point of contention since we would see the Old Testament covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) as being legal covenants pointing out sin and the necessity of righteousness, bearing the line through which the Messiah would come, and bearing a typological relationship to the New Covenant and the Church, even though intrinsically those covenants were related to life in the land of Israel among the physical seed of Abraham.





Dachaser said:


> Did the OT believers in the coming Messiah actually experience the Spirit in the same fashion we do today after Pentecost happened, or did God remit their sins, but did not have them all indwelt as all of us now under NC are?



The position of 1689 Federalism is that the New Covenant was operative during the Old Testament, such that OT saints were united to Christ and saved by it (including being indwelt by the Holy Spirit). I will quote from the FAQ section at 1689Federalism.com "Did the Covenant of Grace Exist During the Old Testament?"


> 1689 Federalism teaches that only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, nor Davidic covenants were the Covenant of Grace. Neither was the Covenant of Grace established in Genesis 3:15.
> 
> The question then naturally arises: Did the Covenant of Grace exist during the Old Testament? The 1689 Federalism answer to this question centers around the meaning of “established”/”enacted” (Hebrews 8:6).
> 
> First, the 2LBCF states in *7.3* that _“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…”_ Among its references on this particular statement are *Hebrews 11:6, 13* _“And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him… by faith Noah… by faith Abraham… All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth.” _*Rom 4:1, 2, &c* “_What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? ‘Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'” _and *John 8:56* _“Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” _Thus when we identify the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant alone, we do not exclude those who lived before the establishment of the New Covenant – notably Abraham – from “the grace of this covenant.” Nor do we believe that they waited to receive this grace until the death of Christ. In sum, this New Covenant of Grace was extant and effectual under the Old Testament, so as the church was saved by virtue thereof.
> 
> How can we affirm this while at the same time holding that the New Covenant of Grace was not established until the death of Christ? In the same way that we can affirm that Abraham and other OT saints were covered by the blood of Christ prior to Christ’s actual death on the cross (2LBCF 8.6). Christ promised the Father he would fulfill his work in the Covenant of Redemption, thus securing the redemption of the elect. Thus it was a guaranteed certainty that the OT saints could “take to the bank.” In other words, the New Covenant was effectual prior to the death of Christ as an “advance” on it’s formal establishment in the future (similar to the way a person can receive a cash advance on their paycheck prior to payday).



There is more to the answer. See the rest here: http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/




Pergamum said:


> If the Covenant of Grace is effective in the OT and it saves, and if OT believers were living in its reality, and it is thus operative in the OT, why not say simply say the Covenant of Grace was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment or consummation in Christ?



For the same reason we don't say that Christ died in Genesis 3:15 - because he didn't. It was a future historical event that sinners benefited from before his death. The New Covenant was formally established in the death of Christ. (See the quotes from Berkhof in the link to the full FAQ answer).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> "The Spirit applied the various benefits of the New Covenant to Old Testament saints via the Old Covenant, which considered in of itself (abstracted from the typological and subservient relation to the New Covenant) was a covenant of works, but because of that subservient role pointed forth to the substance that it was merely a shadow of."
> 
> But many 1689ers speak of the Old Covenant as only bringing death. But here you write that the OT saints are saved "via the Old Covenant"?





Harley said:


> Question for you though: Could those types and shadows have been means of grace to convert the elect, apply Christ's life and death to them, give grace to them, and strengthen their faith in Christ?



According to 1689 Federalism, the Old Covenant did not promise eternal life, not even upon the condition of faith in Christ. That was simply not part of the covenantal agreement. That was part of the covenantal agreement of the New Covenant. How then were OT saints saved?

The CoG is union with Christ, from which regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification flow. Was the Covenant of Grace "administered" during the time of the OT - i.e. did OT saints receive those things during their life? Yes, of course. We confess that in LBCF 8.6. How were these blessing "communicated" or "administered"? "y those promises, types, and sacrifices." In what way did these things communicate salvation? By "reveal[ing], and signif[ying]" Christ. It is a matter of revelation. Promises, types, sacrifices revealed information about the Messiah. They revealed the gospel (news). God gave some people hearts to understand this proclamation of the gospel. Thus, through this proclamation of the gospel (general call), OT saints were saved (effectual call).

Does that mean the Old Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace? Well, that depends entirely on what is meant. If it just means that the Old Covenant, through type and shadows, revealed the gospel of the coming Messiah, then yes, the Old Covenant "administered" the CoG. But that's not what is meant by "an administration of the CoG." What is meant is that the Old Covenant WAS the CoG. Paedobaptists distinguish between the substance (essence) and the accidents (non-essentials) of a covenant. They say that all post-fall covenants ARE the CoG. They are the same in essence. Their only difference is how they look (the accidents). They equate "administration" with "accidents" and thus the administration changes, but the essence of all the covenants is the same. This is what is meant by saying the Old Covenant was an administration of the CoG. This is what Particular Baptists rejected. They did not reject that OT saints were saved through the revelation of Christ in types and shadows of the Old Covenant. They rejected the erroneous conclusion that therefore the Old Covenant WAS the CoG. The Old Covenant was not union with Christ. The New Covenant is. The Old and the New do not simply differ in their outward appearance. They differ in their essence because the conditions and rewards differ (temporal life in Canaan upon condition of obedience to Mosaic law vs eschatological life upon condition of faith in Christ).

The OPC Report on Republication acknowledges the difference between the subservient covenant's understanding of types and shadows vs Westminster's understanding. I would recommend reading those pertinent paragraphs and footnotes. In addition, here are two further resources:
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...Darznr1qFIhiiqahlU7-_yvyG8iwV_OV7X5nZCzAXvll0

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/we-all-have-our-types/

I hope that helps clarify things. If not, please let me know.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> If you keep talking like this, I think I will become a Presbyterian


That's ok. I am wondering if I am on that journey myself.


Pergamum said:


> The unbeliever is under the external blessings of the covenant many times.


It depends what covenant you mean. From a Baptist perspective I still think your argument is problematic. It does make sense from a paedobaptist perspective.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

brandonadams said:


> I think that the Westminster-influenced version still has substantial arguments against paedobaptism.


Brandon, if we ignore the actual Baptist vs Paedobaptist debate for a minute, do you think chapter 7 of the 1689 Baptist Confession has some strengths not found in the Westminster Confession ch 7?

Note 1689 Confession 7:3
"This covenant is revealed in the gospel. It was revealed first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation through the seed of the woman. After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament. This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect. Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence."

A beloved paedobaptist, Vos, in his insightful essay "The doctrine of the covenant in Reformed Theology" argues for a covenant theology funded on the pactum salutis, historia salutis and the ordo salutis.

More to the point, do you think the 1689 Confession 7:3 shows the relationship between the pactum salutis, historia salutis and the ordo salutis with more clarity than does the Westminster Confession?


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> Since the criticism is nothing more than conjecture about other people's motives, there isn't really much to respond to. When I began studying covenant theology, I found that I did not agree with the paedobaptist version of it. I eventually found out that the conclusions I was coming to through my study of Scripture actually lined up with what 17th century particular baptists concluded from their study of Scripture. During that time, 90% of the reformed baptist resources I consulted held a modern Westminster-influenced view. I didn't agree with that view so study and discussion was a bit frustrating. 1689Federalism.com was created to help people in a similar situation to me by providing them with a clear presentation of a particular view with further resources to study.
> 
> Pergamum asked why not just call it baptist covenant theology. Because that does not adequately distinguish between the two above views. In order to have fruitful theological conversation, labels representing distinctly defined views are necessary. Of course, no label is ever perfect. "1689 Federalism" has the disadvantage of conveying the mistaken view that only "1689 Federalism" is confessionally permissible. However, with the necessary qualifications, I feel the label is a helpful one and I have not been offered anything better by critics.
> 
> So, in sum, I don't understand how providing resources for a historically distinctive covenant theology and providing it with a label to aid in theological discourse amounts to "a contrived attempt to craft" an identity separate from paedobaptists (since historically there was, in fact, a baptist covenant theology distinct from paedobaptist covenant theology). Baptists are not obligated to agree with it. I think that the Westminster-influenced version still has substantial arguments against paedobaptism. I just don't agree with it biblically. Hope that helps.



You wrote:

"Since the criticism is nothing more than conjecture about other people's motives, there isn't really much to respond to."

It is not mere conjecture, I have heard these very things said several times, (1) That Presbyterians did not get their doctrine from the bible but invented it to defend Pedobaptism, and (2) We need to develop our own covenant theology to distingish us from the Presbyterians. There needs to be a uniquely baptist covenant theology.

Several RBs have stated these things to me directly.

Also, in Denault's book he states that Presbyterians have become servants to their system of covenant theology instead of following the bible due to their doctrine of baptism. For instance, he writes, ""the paedobaptist approach not only did not use the New Testament to interpret the Old, but did the exact opposite" (Loc 1320).

And again, "“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).

Here is another quote:

“Presbyterian federalism was an artificial construction developed to justify an end: paedobaptism. We do not think that this laborious theology was the result of a rigorous and disinterested application of hermeneutical principles. We rather believe that it was the consequence of an age-old practice, which became the ultimate instrument of social uniformity in Christendom and which was inherited by the Reformed Church, namely, paedobaptism. Paedobaptism was the arrival point of Presbyterian federalism because it was its starting point” (Loc 2388).

I am not "conjecturing" anything; I have had multiple Reformed Baptists state to me directly, and, it is clear from Denault's book, that many 1689 Federalists believe that Prebyterians concocted all of their covenant theology as a means to defend pedobaptism. And 1689 Federalism is a way for us to develop our own uniquely baptist version of Covenant Theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

*OT believers participated in the blessings of the work of the Mediator:*
Grace was administered during the Old Covenant. But 1689 Federalists assert that there was no Covenant of Grace during that time.

So how was grace administered in the Old Covenant? Being saved by promises IS an administration of grace. The Covenant of Grace was active because grace was active. OT believers were not promised to be saved; they were actually saved. We see Moses and Elijah on the Mount talking to Jesus. 


*Not a monolithic movement:*
Among 1689 Federalists there is much variation. And Denault even tweaked his book between the first and second editions. So I believe the movement is evolving.

Denault's book was successful in that he set out to show that baptists held to forms of covenant theology, but not in a way Presbyterians did. However, even the current writers defending 1689 Federalism vary widely on several key points. It was not as if a complete doctrine was preserved from the start by all of these baptists. They were grasping at how to view the covenants in a way that did not lead to pedobaptism. And they got different results.

I am a baptist. But I see no reason we cannot focus on the unity of the Bible and state that God's plan of grace started from Genesis 3:15. All believers were united into Christ and the end goal was always union with Christ.

1689 Federalism focuses on the discontinuity. That is what I don't like about it.


*Trying to seize the theological high-ground: Jockeying for position*

I wil also reiterate that I think there is also a fair amount of jockeying for the high ground by the 1689 Federalists, starting with their name. They've already claimed the confession....they are the ones who truly hold to the 1689...and they've labeled those folks who see more continuity as holding to an outdated "20th Century Reformed Baptists Coventalist View" - as if they were a small mere blip on the historical radar screen and they, in contrast, are the true upholders of the Baptist standard. 

It is a clever tactic in branding. They are the real thing, but the baptists we've listened to from the 1950's to the year 2000 or so held to "20th Century Reformed Baptist Covenantalism."

Of course, that is like referring to "Medieval Baptists" as a unified group. Sure, there were groups that asserted baptism by immersion in the Middle Ages, but these often held to Catholic views on the mass and some even retained the doctrine of baptismal regeneration. These groups were not united and were not upholding some traditional Baptist standard, they were stumbling forward trying to figure out the truth. 

In the same manner, those baptists of the 17th Century were not the upholders of our baptist covental identity, but were similarly just trying to ascertain how they could hold to covenant theology and not be pedobaptists.


----------



## Pergamum

The Olive Tree Analogy in Romans 11 favors continuity:

In Romans 11 we see the imagery of 1 tree with different branches. There were not two trees but only 1. Unity and continuity are the main ideas. The discontinuity comes into play when some branches are broken off and others are grafted in to replace them.

This imagery favors the Reformed view of unity. Baptists who stress discontinuity often do not do justice to this 1 tree imagery. The Dispensationalists create two trees, Israel and the Church. And, if I am fair to 1689 Federalists, they would say the OT was like a support or maybe stakes to hold up the tree and are now no longer needed because that tree stands on its own and the stakes and supports are no longer needed.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen:


*Here is the Visible Church/Invisible Church distinction:*

I say this as a baptist: many baptists err and do not admit this distinction.

On earth we have the visible Church. But we do not know for sure who the Elect are. The Elect only comprise the invisible Church.

But in Denault's book he says that God's people are believers only (page 92). However, the Bible speaks of the Church in the wildnerness and God says "Let *MY* people go" in reference to all the Hebrews. The Invisible Church is always within the Visible Church.

Many baptists do not acknowledge this distinction and state that baptism is a mark of salvation.

However, we all know that not 100% of those baptised are saved.

Spirit baptism is what saves. Thus Spirit baptism is the mark of being a member of the Invisible Church and water baptism is a mark of being in the Visible Church. We hope there is a close correlation and that all those within the Visible Church are elect...but they are not.

This was always the case all through the Bible. Paul, when speaking to Gentile believers, speaks of these OT Israelites as "our fathers" even (I Cor. 10, first part). This shows a fundamental unity between the OT and NT. And we all drank from the same spiritual Rock...that is, Christ. They all (even the unbelievers) benefitted from Christ outwardly.

Therefore, it is okay (even as a baptist) to admit that not all in the Church are the Elect. Unbelievers sit under the blessings of the covenant and live better lives because they are under the covenant even if they are not the Elect and are not strictly "in" the Covenant. 


The images given for the Visible People of God are (1) The Tree in Romans 11 containing branches that are cut off and others grafted in, and (2) Vine and Branches. Notice that Christ speaks of some branches of the vine being cut-off and burned. This is only possible if the vine is referring to the visible assembly of the saints. 

Thus, there is great continuity between the OT and NT regarding this topic. 

Baptists assume that the OT allowed for a mixed company of believers and unbelievers in the same body. But there is also a mixed company within the NT church. We try to guard against it, but there are still false professors in the Visible Church. Just like the OT people of God.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## deleteduser99

Pergamum said:


> You wrote:
> 
> "Since the criticism is nothing more than conjecture about other people's motives, there isn't really much to respond to."
> 
> It is not mere conjecture, I have heard these very things said several times, (1) That Presbyterians did not get their doctrine from the bible but invented it to defend Pedobaptism, and (2) We need to develop our own covenant theology to distingish us from the Presbyterians. There needs to be a uniquely baptist covenant theology.
> 
> Several RBs have stated these things to me directly.
> 
> Also, in Denault's book he states that Presbyterians have become servants to their system of covenant theology instead of following the bible due to their doctrine of baptism. For instance, he writes, ""the paedobaptist approach not only did not use the New Testament to interpret the Old, but did the exact opposite" (Loc 1320).
> 
> And again, "“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).
> 
> Here is another quote:
> 
> “Presbyterian federalism was an artificial construction developed to justify an end: paedobaptism. We do not think that this laborious theology was the result of a rigorous and disinterested application of hermeneutical principles. We rather believe that it was the consequence of an age-old practice, which became the ultimate instrument of social uniformity in Christendom and which was inherited by the Reformed Church, namely, paedobaptism. Paedobaptism was the arrival point of Presbyterian federalism because it was its starting point” (Loc 2388).
> 
> I am not "conjecturing" anything; I have had multiple Reformed Baptists state to me directly, and, it is clear from Denault's book, that many 1689 Federalists believe that Prebyterians concocted all of their covenant theology as a means to defend pedobaptism. And 1689 Federalism is a way for us to develop our own uniquely baptist version of Covenant Theology.



I'll add one more and say this was exactly my motive six years ago when I studied Federalism--it was all about having a slam-dunk covenantal argument against paedobaptism. It wasn't just one motive, but it was front-and-center.

I can say about my current view that even if I found that it didn't lead to baptism of infants I'd still never give it up for the love of God and the grace of Christ that shines in it.



brandonadams said:


> According to 1689 Federalism, the Old Covenant did not promise eternal life, not even upon the condition of faith in Christ. That was simply not part of the covenantal agreement. That was part of the covenantal agreement of the New Covenant. How then were OT saints saved?
> 
> The CoG is union with Christ, from which regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification flow. Was the Covenant of Grace "administered" during the time of the OT - i.e. did OT saints receive those things during their life? Yes, of course. We confess that in LBCF 8.6. How were these blessing "communicated" or "administered"? "y those promises, types, and sacrifices." In what way did these things communicate salvation? By "reveal[ing], and signif[ying]" Christ. It is a matter of revelation. Promises, types, sacrifices revealed information about the Messiah. They revealed the gospel (news). God gave some people hearts to understand this proclamation of the gospel. Thus, through this proclamation of the gospel (general call), OT saints were saved (effectual call).
> 
> Does that mean the Old Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace? Well, that depends entirely on what is meant. If it just means that the Old Covenant, through type and shadows, revealed the gospel of the coming Messiah, then yes, the Old Covenant "administered" the CoG. But that's not what is meant by "an administration of the CoG." What is meant is that the Old Covenant WAS the CoG. Paedobaptists distinguish between the substance (essence) and the accidents (non-essentials) of a covenant. They say that all post-fall covenants ARE the CoG. They are the same in essence. Their only difference is how they look (the accidents). They equate "administration" with "accidents" and thus the administration changes, but the essence of all the covenants is the same. This is what is meant by saying the Old Covenant was an administration of the CoG. This is what Particular Baptists rejected. They did not reject that OT saints were saved through the revelation of Christ in types and shadows of the Old Covenant. They rejected the erroneous conclusion that therefore the Old Covenant WAS the CoG. The Old Covenant was not union with Christ. The New Covenant is. The Old and the New do not simply differ in their outward appearance. They differ in their essence because the conditions and rewards differ (temporal life in Canaan upon condition of obedience to Mosaic law vs eschatological life upon condition of faith in Christ).
> 
> The OPC Report on Republication acknowledges the difference between the subservient covenant's understanding of types and shadows vs Westminster's understanding. I would recommend reading those pertinent paragraphs and footnotes. In addition, here are two further resources:
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...Darznr1qFIhiiqahlU7-_yvyG8iwV_OV7X5nZCzAXvll0
> 
> https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/we-all-have-our-types/
> 
> I hope that helps clarify things. If not, please let me know.



I understand. My work schedule won't allow me to interact as I would like (I'm a tax professional), so as Coxe deferred to Owen on the New Covenant I'll defer to @Pergamum. I don't think I'd answer much differently than him.


----------



## Pergamum

Harley said:


> I'll add one more and say this was exactly my motive six years ago when I studied Federalism--it was all about having a slam-dunk covenantal argument against paedobaptism. It wasn't just one motive, but it was front-and-center.
> 
> I can say about my current view that even if I found that it didn't lead to baptism of infants I'd still never give it up for the love of God and the grace of Christ that shines in it.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand. My work schedule won't allow me to interact as I would like (I'm a tax professional), so as Coxe deferred to Owen on the New Covenant I'll defer to @Pergamum. I don't think I'd answer much differently than him.


And we can also note that Owen wrote a tractate supporting infant baptism from his covenant theology, so it still amzes me that Owen is still the go-to guy for 1689 Federalists. He's been hijacked, I think.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Pergamum said:


> I am not "conjecturing" anything; I have had multiple Reformed Baptists state to me directly, and, it is clear from Denault's book, that many 1689 Federalists believe that Prebyterians concocted all of their covenant theology as a means to defend pedobaptism. And 1689 Federalism is a way for us to develop our own uniquely baptist version of Covenant Theology.


Well said! I hear the same. Another interesting thing I hear from the 1689 Federalist are references to John Owen’s CT, yet Owen was a Paedobaptist. That seems to detract from their so called “strictly baptist” version of CT.


----------



## Herald

I am not concerned about why "Bob" studied this or "Jane" studied that. I am only 5'10", so I am not about to slam dunk anything. I also do not consider one author to be the fulcrum on which a whole theology pivots. Somewhere in all this discussion is the pursuit of truth. That is all I care about, to have the best understanding I can of covenant theology. Anecdotal accounts of what certain people are doing is just noise that distracts from the substance of the teaching. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Grant Jones said:


> Well said! I hear the same. Another interesting thing I hear from the 1689 Federalist are references to John Owen’s CT, yet Owen was a Paedobaptist. That seems to detract from their so called “strictly baptist” version of CT.



Has it ever occurred to you to find out _why_ Reformed Baptists admired John Owen's covenant theology, despite knowing full well that he was a committed paedorhantist?


----------



## deleteduser99

Herald said:


> I am not concerned about why "Bob" studied this or "Jane" studied that. I am only 5'10", so I am not about to slam dunk anything. I also do not consider one author to be the fulcrum on which a whole theology pivots. Somewhere in all this discussion is the pursuit of truth. That is all I care about, to have the best understanding I can of covenant theology. Anecdotal accounts of what certain people are doing is just noise that distracts from the substance of the teaching.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk



Slam-dunk reference is from my post, so forgive me if there's even an inkling of suggestion that this is what I think you are doing--far be it from me! We're probably hijacking your inquiry anyway, and I bear some responsibility, so please forgive me. For me though, that was my motive, and in some ways the 1689 Federalism was marketed as the answer to the paedo covenant theology. But then again, that's not reason to think the original proponents of 1689 Fed were doing the same. And as said before, it's an attempt to harmonize New Testament teaching with the whole of Scripture and see Christ throughout. Whether I agree with the conclusions, it's good to have the discussion for that reason.


----------



## Herald

Harley said:


> Slam-dunk reference is from my post, so forgive me if there's even an inkling of suggestion that this is what I think you are doing--far be it from me! We're probably hijacking your inquiry anyway, and I bear some responsibility, so please forgive me. For me though, that was my motive, and in some ways the 1689 Federalism was marketed as the answer to the paedo covenant theology. But then again, that's not reason to think the original proponents of 1689 Fed were doing the same. And as said before, it's an attempt to harmonize New Testament teaching with the whole of Scripture and see Christ throughout. Whether I agree with the conclusions, it's good to have the discussion for that reason.


Brother, all is well. My "5' 10"" comment was an attempt at humor. I just do not buy into the idea that 1689 Federalism was concocted just to oppose paedobaptist CT. Even if some are motivated by that, I am not.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


----------



## Smeagol

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Has it ever occurred to you to find out _why_ Reformed Baptists admired John Owen's covenant theology, despite knowing full well that he was a committed paedorhantist?



1) Well of course...it should be a given, especially for those on PB, that we are always concerned with the question of "Why". I assume you care about the "why" as well brother. My understanding is that *SOME* RBs uphold Owen because they like his version of CT though they differ on his conclusion of Pro-Paedo. My point being that the 1689Federalist advocate their version of CT as being more biblical and a better stance against Pro-Paedo vs. what they label "20th Century Reformed Baptist CT"...which I see as inconsistent, because it would seem one of there "go to" guys (Owen), as @Pergamum stated, was Pro-Paedo.

P.S. To my Baptist brothers who hold to a more Westminster form of CT.....you should reject the label of "20th Century Reformed Baptist" because your CT existed WELL before then. Further there are differences in interpretation of the 1689 regarding Chapter 7. in my opinion, the 1689Federalist over complicate the plain reading of 7.3. If they saw so much separation between Noah, Abraham, David.......*WHY did they make no mention of it in their confession (or foreword) if it was "supposedly" being used to show a CT view differing from Westminster (outside of baptism, which they did clearly distinguish)?*


I think this is an important discussion for Baptist, because it would seem 2 camps are forming within RBs.


----------



## Pergamum

Bill,

How do you interpret Ephesians 2:12 "the covenants of promise."?

It seems all the covenants were described as covenants of promise and not merely law and they were meant to adminster grace. Therefore, we cannot say that the Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant of Works, the law was given by grace and the need for a Mediator was shown. 

These covenants are all multiple re-affirmations of the Covenant of Grace leading up to the New Covenant in Christ.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Grant Jones said:


> *** snipped for brevity ***
> .



I hope these articles inform and amuse.

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/the-marrow-of-modern-john-owen-debates/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2016/04/20/the-marrow-of-modern-john-owen-debates/


So neither group ever gives a explanation in this dialogue. I agree this is very unhelpful. 




SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I hope these articles inform and amuse.
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/



A good read. I do not see how anything I said contradicts this article. In fact this article supports what I stated. Which is that 1689federalist embrace John Owens' CT and reject is Pro-Paedo position. This proves my claim that it is possible to hold to the "1689federalist" form of CT (largely) and still be pro-paedo.

Where is @Ben Zartman when you need him


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

^^^ Did you miss the takeaway that John Owen's CT in his Exposition of Hebrews undermines and contradicts the defense he'd given for the paedo position earlier in his life?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> ^^^ Did you miss the takeaway that John Owen's CT in his Exposition of Hebrews undermines and contradicts the defense he'd given for the paedo position earlier in his life?


No I did not miss that part, but I do not feel right in affirming that Mr. Owen contradicted himself. He is dead and I do not wish to conclude in this manner. Which area was he wrong then........his CT or his position on Paedo? RBs will likley say with Paedo, because that makes it seem that Mr. Owen was clearly a baptist he just somehow did not know it. *I affirm his view of CT differed from Westminster in areas. I further affirm that he was a convinced and conflicted Paedobaptist.* That is as far as I will go. I have no respect for saying a dead man is somehow in the anti-paedo camp, when his own writings prove otherwise. Bottom line Mr. Owen is PROOF that a 1689Federalist view of CT has not ALWAYS historically concluded with an anti-paedo position. In other words I am fine with 1689federalist claiming Owen for their camp, but I do not see it as a benefit to them as much as they do. I digress.


----------



## Shanny01

The rallying around Owen by Baptists probably stems more so from the fact that he gives such a learned defense of a covenant theology that closely approximates 1689 theology, he was a friend and defender of the toleration of Baptists, and he was one of the strongest bastions of orthodoxy in an age of declension from justification by faith alone, true gospel holiness, and all orthodoxy that we enjoy in the confessional world. We can argue over the logical implications of where Owen's views led, but that is secondary to the previous reasons of the promotion of Owen among 1689'ers.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Grant Jones said:


> 1) Well of course...it should be a given, especially for those on PB, that we are always concerned with the question of "Why". I assume you care about the "why" as well brother. My understanding is that *SOME* RBs uphold Owen because they like his version of CT though they differ on his conclusion of Pro-Paedo. My point being that the 1689Federalist advocate their version of CT as being more biblical and a better stance against Pro-Paedo vs. what they label "20th Century Reformed Baptist CT"...which I see as inconsistent, because it would seem one of there "go to" guys (Owen), as @Pergamum stated, was Pro-Paedo.
> 
> P.S. To my Baptist brothers who hold to a more Westminster form of CT.....you should reject the label of "20th Century Reformed Baptist" because your CT existed WELL before then. Further there are differences in interpretation of the 1689 regarding Chapter 7. in my opinion, the 1689Federalist over complicate the plain reading of 7.3. If they saw so much separation between Noah, Abraham, David.......WHY did they make no mention of it in their confession if it was "supposedly" being used to show a CT view differing from Westminster (outside of baptism, which they did clearly distinguish)?
> 
> 
> I think this is an important discussion for Baptist, because it would seem 2 camps are forming within RBs.



Grant,
You wrote:

"To my Baptist brothers who hold to a more Westminster form of CT.....you should reject the label of "20th Century Reformed Baptist" because your CT existed WELL before then. Further there are differences in interpretation of the 1689 regarding Chapter 7."

Yes. As I have said above, I believe this is a jockeying for position. They've essentially labeled themselves as THE confessional and historic position (even though they disagree among themselves and ALSO the 17th Century baptists). 

I don't think they mean to be disengenius, but they nevertheless are self-promoting themselves as THE position to take. What is more, they seem to say that there is one "Confessional" position. 

You also write:

"I think this is an important discussion for Baptist, because it would seem 2 camps are forming within RBs."

I have come to the sad conclusion that it is the nature of the Reformed Baptist movement to split into camps and argue about minutiae until they split. 

I think there is a way to promote discussion that is helpful about how baptists view the covenants, but it won't happen. 

Here is a link that is typical of the manner in which this subject is often addressed: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/james-white-doesnt-know-what-1689-federalism-is/

In the linked blog, first we have the provocative title: "James White doesn't know what 1689 Federalism is"

Then we have the description: "Dr. White’s response was very clearly an articulation of the modern or “20th century Reformed Baptist” view, as opposed to the 1689 Federalism view." Notice the labeling and the divison into camps. 

Viewed positively we could say that the discussion is causing us to look deeper. 

But, in reality, what is happening is this: whereas there were no divisions before, now we are suddenly being placed into camps. "He is obviously a 20th Century Reformed Baptist...whereas I hold to the historic stream of traditional baptist thought as reflected in the 1689 Confession." This all rubs me the wrong way.

And again (and I think this is a valid point) the world around us burns. But as Western civilization sinks into the dust-bin of history at least the Reformed Baptists will have orderly arranged these small details of covenant theology. 

Also, I am naturally suspicious when any Christian group claims to have "rediscovered" some "lost doctrine" of the Bible. Has God left his church without the truth for all these millenia? (For this very reason I have re-examined my own position as a baptist many times. Why weren't there baptists in the early church?) I acknowledge that theology can move forward and develop, but when something springs forth suddenly, it should cause us suspicion. And the 17th Century is still recent in the overall age of the Church. 

Also, while the framers of the 1689 took out key phrases of the WCF's chapter on the Covenants, the 1689 confession does still state, "it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace." 1689 Federalists then state that the Covenant of Grace is equal to the New Covenant. But why does the 1689 even retain the language of the Covenant of Grace and not merely replace the phrase "Covenant of Grace" with "New Covenant" if these two things are one and the same thing? It is essentially a redundant phrase in 1689 Federalism if the Covenant of Grace IS the New Covenant and nothing more. 

I think the 1689 Framers were essentially concerned with merely denying pedobaptism and did not desire to give us a complete alternative covenantal system in the confession. It is therefore a leap to claim that there is a "1689 confessional" position besides denying that covenant theology leads to pedobaptism.

...and why not ditch the whole "Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace" schema anyhow and change it to "Covenant of Works/New Covenant" if the Covenant of Grace IS the New Covenant?


----------



## Smeagol

Pergamum said:


> Grant,
> You wrote:
> 
> "To my Baptist brothers who hold to a more Westminster form of CT.....you should reject the label of "20th Century Reformed Baptist" because your CT existed WELL before then. Further there are differences in interpretation of the 1689 regarding Chapter 7."
> 
> Yes. As I have said above, I believe this is a jockeying for position. They've essentially labeled themselves as THE confessional and historic position (even though they disagree among themselves and ALSO the 17th Century baptists).
> 
> I don't think they mean to be disengenius, but they nevertheless are self-promoting themselves as THE position to take. What is more, they seem to say that there is one "Confessional" position.
> 
> You also write:
> 
> "I think this is an important discussion for Baptist, because it would seem 2 camps are forming within RBs."
> 
> I have come to the sad conclusion that it is the nature of the Reformed Baptist movement to split into camps and argue about minutiae until they split.
> 
> I think there is a way to promote discussion that is helpful about how baptists view the covenants, but it won't happen.
> 
> Here is a link that is typical of the manner in which this subject is often addressed: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/james-white-doesnt-know-what-1689-federalism-is/
> 
> In the linked blog, first we have the provocative title: "James White doesn't know what 1689 Federalism is"
> 
> Then we have the description: "Dr. White’s response was very clearly an articulation of the modern or “20th century Reformed Baptist” view, as opposed to the 1689 Federalism view." Notice the labeling and the divison into camps.
> 
> Viewed positively we could say that the discussion is causing us to look deeper.
> 
> But, in reality, what is happening is this: whereas there were no divisions before, now we are suddenly being placed into camps. "He is obviously a 20th Century Reformed Baptist...whereas I hold to the historic stream of traditional baptist thought as reflected in the 1689 Confession." This all rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> And again (and I think this is a valid point) the world around us burns. But as Western civilization sinks into the dust-bin of history at least the Reformed Baptists will have orderly arranged these small details of covenant theology.
> 
> Also, I am naturally suspicious when any Christian group claims to have "rediscovered" some "lost doctrine" of the Bible. Has God left his church without the truth for all these millenia? (For this very reason I have re-examined my own position as a baptist many times. Why weren't there baptists in the early church?) I acknowledge that theology can move forward and develop, but when something springs forth suddenly, it should cause us suspicion. And the 17th Century is still recent in the overall age of the Church.
> 
> Also, while the framers of the 1689 took out key phrases of the WCF's chapter on the Covenants, the 1689 confession does still state, "it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace." 1689 Federalists then state that the Covenant of Grace is equal to the New Covenant. But why does the 1689 even retain the language of the Covenant of Grace and not merely replace the phrase "Covenant of Grace" with "New Covenant" if these two things are one and the same thing? It is essentially a redundant phrase in 1689 Federalism if the Covenant of Grace IS the New Covenant and nothing more.
> 
> I think the 1689 Framers were essentially concerned with merely denying pedobaptism and did not desire to give us a complete alternative covenantal system in the confession. It is therefore a leap to claim that there is a "1689 confessional" position besides denying that covenant theology leads to pedobaptism.
> 
> ...and why not ditch the whole "Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace" schema anyhow and change it to "Covenant of Works/New Covenant" if the Covenant of Grace IS the New Covenant?


----------



## Pergamum

In this past thread ( https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-between-the-1689-and-modern-rb.93344/page-3 ) Randy states the following:

"Rich Barcellos told me that there were various views and the 20th Century view is one of those that did exist during the 17th Century among Baptists. He did note that he believed the majority position seems to have been the 1689 Federalist position."


My response was as follows:

"This admission that all strands of Covenant Theology have been among baptists for years and that "20th Century Baptist" covenant theology can also be found among 17th Century Baptists confirms my assertion that a lot of this is Baptist Identity Politics for lack of a better phrase. 

Groups are jockeying for position and branding themselves as THE true baptists, "1689 Federalism" trying to gain the high ground by claiming a name that sets them up as the REAL preservers of confessional baptist doctrine. Which of course is ironic because many of them get so mad when folks like R. Scott Clark try to deny them the title of "Reformed"..."


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum, I want to be completely open and candid with you: Your angst in this thread makes it very hard for me to read and respond calmly. Would you be willing, for my sake, to tone down the rhetoric and state your questions or concerns in a different manner? Otherwise, due to my own weakness, I may not be able to continue in this discussion. Here are some verses I'll post for all of us to keep in min:

Proverbs 15:1
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Proverbs 15:18
A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention.

Proverbs 30:33
For pressing milk produces curds, pressing the nose produces blood, and pressing anger produces strife.



Grant Jones said:


> P.S. To my Baptist brothers who hold to a more Westminster form of CT.....you should reject the label of "20th Century Reformed Baptist" because your CT existed WELL before then.



Grant,
I am completely open to using a label other than "20th Century RB." Feel free to offer up another one. So far no one has done so.

Who do you have in mind when you say that view existed well before the 20th century?



Pergamum said:


> Yes. As I have said above, I believe this is a jockeying for position. They've essentially labeled themselves as THE confessional and historic position (even though they disagree among themselves and ALSO the 17th Century baptists).
> 
> I don't think they mean to be disengenius, but they nevertheless are self-promoting themselves as THE position to take. What is more, they seem to say that there is one "Confessional" position.



Brother, you seem to be ignoring what I have already stated above. 1689 Federalism does not claim to be the only confessionally acceptable view. Please stop misrepresenting us. Please see Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism? in the FAQ section of the site.

Regarding the 17th century baptists, what works have you read on the subject? Have you read Samuel Renihan's dissertation? Anyone wishing to comment on 17th century particular baptist covenant theology needs to read it. He notes "The second complementary branch of argumentation was the identity and nature of the covenant of grace. The Abrahamic covenant was made known to Abraham. Andrew Ritor, John Spilsbury, Christopher Blackwood, and William Kiffen, Hanserd Knollys, and Benjamin Coxe established this argument in the early 1640s. For the rest of the seventeenth century it was expanded by the Particular Baptists with considerable continuity and minimal diversity... In light of the diversity of the Reformed covenantal tradition, it is noteworthy that there is a marked lack of diversity in the Baptist tradition. (326-7)"



Pergamum said:


> Here is a link that is typical of the manner in which this subject is often addressed: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/04/03/james-white-doesnt-know-what-1689-federalism-is/
> 
> In the linked blog, first we have the provocative title: "James White doesn't know what 1689 Federalism is"
> 
> Then we have the description: "Dr. White’s response was very clearly an articulation of the modern or “20th century Reformed Baptist” view, as opposed to the 1689 Federalism view." Notice the labeling and the divison into camps.
> 
> Viewed positively we could say that the discussion is causing us to look deeper.
> 
> But, in reality, what is happening is this: whereas there were no divisions before, now we are suddenly being placed into camps. "He is obviously a 20th Century Reformed Baptist...whereas I hold to the historic stream of traditional baptist thought as reflected in the 1689 Confession." This all rubs me the wrong way.



The purpose of the title was simply to let people know that White had not yet studied the position. People thought he held to 1689 Federalism but were confused when he made statements in a debate on baptism contrary to the position. It was confusing people who were trying to understand the position. The intention of the post was to clarify that he did not hold to 1689 Fed. However, it would have been inaccurate to say he rejected the position because he had not studied it. He was not even aware of it. So that's why I chose the title. As I clarified in the post itself, it was not meant in any way as derogatory towards White. Just a statement of fact to clear up confusion.

Again and again, your concern seems to be the fact that different views are being identified as different views. Why is that such a terrible thing? Should we say there is no difference between paedobaptism and credobaptism for the sake of unity? Should we say there is no difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology for the sake of unity? Making distinctions is just part of the wharp and whoof of theology. If it is something you object to, perhaps theological forums aren't the best place for you?

If your concern is only that those who hold to 1689 Federalism are trying to win the discussion by an appeal to historical authority, then I agree with you that is distasteful and wrong. But that is definitely not what I myself or others have done. The issue for me has always been what Scripture teaches. The appeal to history is merely a helpful aid. The intention of that post was not to say that White was wrong because he disagreed with the 17th century view. It was merely to point out there was a difference between his view and that - in order to therefore have a meaningful discussion about which view is correct.



Pergamum said:


> Also, I am naturally suspicious when any Christian group claims to have "rediscovered" some "lost doctrine" of the Bible. Has God left his church without the truth for all these millenia?



I really have no idea what this is about. The claim is that the baptist covenant theology known as 1689 Federalism was held in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th century (Pink) before it was lost in the mid-late 20th century. ~50 years is not "all these millenia." Furthermore, from my studies I have found the early church writings on covenant theology to be much closer to 1689 Federalism than Westminster. So you shouldn't have anything to be suspicious of in this case.



Pergamum said:


> Also, while the framers of the 1689 took out key phrases of the WCF's chapter on the Covenants, the 1689 confession does still state, "it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace." 1689 Federalists then state that the Covenant of Grace is equal to the New Covenant. But why does the 1689 even retain the language of the Covenant of Grace and not merely replace the phrase "Covenant of Grace" with "New Covenant" if these two things are one and the same thing? It is essentially a redundant phrase in 1689 Federalism if the Covenant of Grace IS the New Covenant and nothing more.



Because 1689 Federalism agrees with the concept of "the Covenant of Grace" (salvation through covenant union). Perhaps you would have worded things differently if you were in their shoes.



Pergamum said:


> I think the 1689 Framers were essentially concerned with merely denying pedobaptism and did not desire to give us a complete alternative covenantal system in the confession. It is therefore a leap to claim that there is a "1689 confessional" position besides denying that covenant theology leads to pedobaptism.



The claim has never been that the 2LBC provides a "complete alternative covenantal system in the confession." Again, you have misunderstood (or have been misled by some). 1689 Federalism does not claim to be the only acceptable 2LBC position.



Grant Jones said:


> Further there are differences in interpretation of the 1689 regarding Chapter 7. in my opinion, the 1689Federalist over complicate the plain reading of 7.3. If they saw so much separation between Noah, Abraham, David.......*WHY did they make no mention of it in their confession (or foreword) if it was "supposedly" being used to show a CT view differing from Westminster (outside of baptism, which they did clearly distinguish)?*



Grant, I'm unclear what you are trying to argue here. Is it your claim that 17th century particular baptists did not have a covenant theology distinct from Westminster? Or is it your opinion that that difference was not reflected in any way in the 2LBC? Or are you just saying that it was not articulated in detail? As mentioned above, 1689 Federalism does not claim that the 2LBC lays out 1689 Federalism in precise and complete detail. Its statements are left broad with the detailed outworking found in their other writings. Their other writings simply explain why there is any difference at all between WCF and LBCF on these points.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> *OT believers participated in the blessings of the work of the Mediator:*
> Grace was administered during the Old Covenant. But 1689 Federalists assert that there was no Covenant of Grace during that time.
> 
> So how was grace administered in the Old Covenant? Being saved by promises IS an administration of grace. The Covenant of Grace was active because grace was active. OT believers were not promised to be saved; they were actually saved. We see Moses and Elijah on the Mount talking to Jesus.



Brother, you seem to have skipped over my comment above yours. Please take a look https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1689-federalism-revisited.97308/page-3#post-1189296

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> *Not a monolithic movement:*
> Among 1689 Federalists there is much variation.



Any theological position contains variation within it. But theological positions exist because of unity/agreement on certain points. 1689 Federalism is a system of covenant theology unified around certain key points (i.e. Abrahamic Dichotomy, New Covenant = Covenant of Grace, Mosaic was "of works") while allowing diversity in expression on other points.

But again, you are completely free to be a baptist and reject 1689 Federalism. You are even free to reject 1689 Federalism and still hold to the 2LBC.



Pergamum said:


> I am a baptist. But I see no reason we cannot focus on the unity of the Bible and state that God's plan of grace started from Genesis 3:15. All believers were united into Christ and the end goal was always union with Christ.



1689 Federalism agrees.


----------



## Smeagol

Brandon,

First, thanks for your clarification. I will try to answer the questions you directed towards me. If I miss anything let me know.

1.


brandonadams said:


> Grant,
> I am completely open to using a label other than "20th Century RB." Feel free to offer up another one. So far no one has done so.



Good question. Maybe Orthodox Reformed Baptist (joking). How about simply a confessional baptist or covenantal bapstist, I would rather you guys find more helpful titles than me? Even the article you linked from the FAQ on 1689Federalism admits that even during the 17th century there were baptist who held to a different CT than what today's 1689Federalist are advocating.

That fact alone makes it uncharitable to title themselves 1689Federalist because it ignores the very fact that the confession itself calls for inclusion of differing views. Their title may not have been intended to convey a "nose raising", but it does. Did I read the FAQ right?

2.


brandonadams said:


> Who do you have in mind when you say that view existed well before the 20th century?



No one specifically. I am simply giving an honest admission that the CT the 1689Federalist attribute to the so called "20th century reformed baptist" existed well before the 20th century. 1 example being the CT which existed in the Westminster Standards and further the openness of the 2LBC in chapter 7 itself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

To clarify a point of discussion above:

1689 Federalism affirms a distinction between the visible and invisible church. However, it does not agree with the common view of paedobaptists that they correspond to two different memberships in the Covenant of Grace (internal and external). Rather, it agrees with the paedobaptists who see the distinction as a matter of perspective: God's vs man's. There is one church (body of Christ) with one membership. However, the church is seen infallibly by God (invisible) and fallibly by man (visible). That does not mean that men should attempt to be God and discern by our own means who is regenerate. God has given us instruction how we are relate to one another in the church, given our fallibility. We are to admit people to membership based on a credible profession of saving faith and we are to excommunicate those who negate that profession by their behavior.

For a much longer explanation, please see Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Is it your claim that 17th century particular baptists did not have a covenant theology distinct from Westminster?


No. I think there were various views of CT. There are also differing views within the Pro-Paedo Westminster Camp.



brandonadams said:


> Or is it your opinion that that difference was not reflected in any way in the 2LBC?


 Yes & No...I think my answer above explains this.



brandonadams said:


> Or are you just saying that it was not articulated in detail?


Kinda. I love their detail. However I think one holding to Westminster CT can read that same chapter and give a hardy Amen!


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> Pergamum, I want to be completely open and candid with you: Your angst in this thread makes it very hard for me to read and respond calmly. Would you be willing, for my sake, to tone down the rhetoric and state your questions or concerns in a different manner? Otherwise, due to my own weakness, I may not be able to continue in this discussion. Here are some verses I'll post for all of us to keep in min:
> 
> Proverbs 15:1
> A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.
> 
> Proverbs 15:18
> A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention.
> 
> Proverbs 30:33
> For pressing milk produces curds, pressing the nose produces blood, and pressing anger produces strife.
> 
> 
> 
> Grant,
> I am completely open to using a label other than "20th Century RB." Feel free to offer up another one. So far no one has done so.
> 
> Who do you have in mind when you say that view existed well before the 20th century?
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, you seem to be ignoring what I have already stated above. 1689 Federalism does not claim to be the only confessionally acceptable view. Please stop misrepresenting us. Please see Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism? in the FAQ section of the site.
> 
> Regarding the 17th century baptists, what works have you read on the subject? Have you read Samuel Renihan's dissertation? Anyone wishing to comment on 17th century particular baptist covenant theology needs to read it. He notes "The second complementary branch of argumentation was the identity and nature of the covenant of grace. The Abrahamic covenant was made known to Abraham. Andrew Ritor, John Spilsbury, Christopher Blackwood, and William Kiffen, Hanserd Knollys, and Benjamin Coxe established this argument in the early 1640s. For the rest of the seventeenth century it was expanded by the Particular Baptists with considerable continuity and minimal diversity... In light of the diversity of the Reformed covenantal tradition, it is noteworthy that there is a marked lack of diversity in the Baptist tradition. (326-7)"
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the title was simply to let people know that White had not yet studied the position. People thought he held to 1689 Federalism but were confused when he made statements in a debate on baptism contrary to the position. It was confusing people who were trying to understand the position. The intention of the post was to clarify that he did not hold to 1689 Fed. However, it would have been inaccurate to say he rejected the position because he had not studied it. He was not even aware of it. So that's why I chose the title. As I clarified in the post itself, it was not meant in any way as derogatory towards White. Just a statement of fact to clear up confusion.
> 
> Again and again, your concern seems to be the fact that different views are being identified as different views. Why is that such a terrible thing? Should we say there is no difference between paedobaptism and credobaptism for the sake of unity? Should we say there is no difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology for the sake of unity? Making distinctions is just part of the wharp and whoof of theology. If it is something you object to, perhaps theological forums aren't the best place for you?
> 
> If your concern is only that those who hold to 1689 Federalism are trying to win the discussion by an appeal to historical authority, then I agree with you that is distasteful and wrong. But that is definitely not what I myself or others have done. The issue for me has always been what Scripture teaches. The appeal to history is merely a helpful aid. The intention of that post was not to say that White was wrong because he disagreed with the 17th century view. It was merely to point out there was a difference between his view and that - in order to therefore have a meaningful discussion about which view is correct.
> 
> 
> 
> I really have no idea what this is about. The claim is that the baptist covenant theology known as 1689 Federalism was held in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th century (Pink) before it was lost in the mid-late 20th century. ~50 years is not "all these millenia." Furthermore, from my studies I have found the early church writings on covenant theology to be much closer to 1689 Federalism than Westminster. So you shouldn't have anything to be suspicious of in this case.
> 
> 
> 
> Because 1689 Federalism agrees with the concept of "the Covenant of Grace" (salvation through covenant union). Perhaps you would have worded things differently if you were in their shoes.
> 
> 
> 
> The claim has never been that the 2LBC provides a "complete alternative covenantal system in the confession." Again, you have misunderstood (or have been misled by some). 1689 Federalism does not claim to be the only acceptable 2LBC position.
> 
> 
> 
> Grant, I'm unclear what you are trying to argue here. Is it your claim that 17th century particular baptists did not have a covenant theology distinct from Westminster? Or is it your opinion that that difference was not reflected in any way in the 2LBC? Or are you just saying that it was not articulated in detail? As mentioned above, 1689 Federalism does not claim that the 2LBC lays out 1689 Federalism in precise and complete detail. Its statements are left broad with the detailed outworking found in their other writings. Their other writings simply explain why there is any difference at all between WCF and LBCF on these points.



There is no angst here, brother. I know you've put a lot of work into publicizing your positions. And I believe deepening our understanding on this topic is a good thing. 

I do admit I am unhappy with the labels. I do think it represents a subtle jockeying for the theological high-ground.

You wrote something very interesting and I think this would be an excellent area of study and might win me over to your side. You wrote: 

"Furthermore, from my studies I have found the early church writings on covenant theology to be much closer to 1689 Federalism than Westminster."

That would make a most important area of study because it would remove the objection that 1689 Federalism is a relatively new innovation in Church History. 

Peace, brother, and I appreciate you even if I might disagree. To be truthful I am STILL open to one of the varieties of 1689 Federalism. But right now, I cannot get past the objections that I had previously given.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> To clarify a point of discussion above:
> 
> 1689 Federalism affirms a distinction between the visible and invisible church. However, it does not agree with the common view of paedobaptists that they correspond to two different memberships in the Covenant of Grace (internal and external). Rather, it agrees with the paedobaptists who see the distinction as a matter of perspective: God's vs man's. There is one church (body of Christ) with one membership. However, the church is seen infallibly by God (invisible) and fallibly by man (visible). That does not mean that men should attempt to be God and discern by our own means who is regenerate. God has given us instruction how we are relate to one another in the church, given our fallibility. We are to admit people to membership based on a credible profession of saving faith and we are to excommunicate those who negate that profession by their behavior.
> 
> For a much longer explanation, please see Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto?


Thanks. I can support that distinction. I think I agree.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> How about simply a confessional baptist or covenantal bapstist



As mentioned above, that does not distinguish between the two different views of confessional/covenantal baptist theology. In order to have theological discussion, those two views need to be distinguished. So labels must be found to distinguish them.



Grant Jones said:


> Even the article you linked from the FAQ on 1689Federalism admits that even during the 17th century there were baptist who held to a different CT than what today's 1689Federalist are advocating.



That FAQ actually needs to be updated in light of Samuel Renihan's completed dissertation, which showed much less diversity than originally thought (when that was written). The men in question did not hold to the view articulated by 20th century men.

But regardless, yes, I understand the unintended consequence of the label, but I still feel it is an appropriate label and I haven't been offered a better alternative yet.



Grant Jones said:


> I am simply giving an honest admission that the CT the 1689Federalist attribute to the so called "20th century reformed baptist" existed well before the 20th century.



I appreciate that, but we need some concrete examples if this is going to be a criticism of the label.

Again, I am not stuck on the label and I really have never intended any of this to be a debate about historical authority.


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> Brother, you seem to have skipped over my comment above yours. Please take a look https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1689-federalism-revisited.97308/page-3#post-1189296


Ok, thanks. I will go back and reread that previous posting.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> That would make a most important area of study because it would remove the objection that 1689 Federalism is a relatively new innovation in Church History.



See these posts for starters

Israel as a Parenthesis in God’s Plan
Augustine: Proto-1689 Federalist

Calvin vs 1689 Federalism on Old vs New
Ligon Duncan did his dissertation years ago on covenant theology in the early church. I am working my way through his dissertation and plan on writing a series of posts on the blog analyzing his findings to see if the examples are closer to 1689 Fed or Westminster.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> But regardless, yes, I understand the unintended consequence of the label, but I still feel it is an appropriate label and I haven't been offered a better alternative yet.



Tri-Covenant (to replace 20th centrey RB) Reformed Baptist (just thinking out loud)

Brandon how many completey distinct (as in not being properly considered the CoW of the CoG) covenants do 1689federalist see 7 or 8?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> Brandon how many completey distinct covenants do 1689federalist see 7 or 8?



Covenant of Redemption
Adamic Covenant of Works
Noahic Covenant
Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision
Mosaic Covenant
Davidic Covenant
New Covenant of Grace
Christopher Blackwood added the Levitical covenant.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> See these posts for starters
> 
> Israel as a Parenthesis in God’s Plan
> Augustine: Proto-1689 Federalist
> 
> Calvin vs 1689 Federalism on Old vs New
> Ligon Duncan did his dissertation years ago on covenant theology in the early church. I am working my way through his dissertation and plan on writing a series of posts on the blog analyzing his findings to see if the examples are closer to 1689 Fed or Westminster.



Thanks. I will read these. 

Just a gentle note: I am not your enemy or opponent. Several aspects of 1689 Federalism have rubbed me the wrong way, but perhaps you can help me through my objections. I do know as a movement develops, it might take some time to refine lingo, and work though minor points, and some folks go through a Cage State with any new doctrine. I have given you my blunt objections thus far, but there has been no personal animosity. Just pushing back and testing the doctrines. Who knows, I might thank you later for your dogged perseverance when I join your ranks. I usually don't believe anything easily. So, remember that brother, and work to convince me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Thanks Brother. If you haven't done so, I would recommend working your way through the recommended reading list - particularly Renihan's dissertation. http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/

Or if you are curious how I would articulate the view, here is a 5-part podcast series I did http://www.1689federalism.com/overview-of-1689-federalism-on-the-reformed-northwest-podcast/


----------



## Shanny01

Pergamum, referencing back to your question about how to interpret Eph. 2:12 I think it's getting the truth that all of the post fall covenants pre-New Covenant bear relation to and subserviency to the New Covenant (Historical Administration of the Covenant of Grace) as originally promised in Gen. III. 15. The Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants typified the Savior and his work, pointed out sin and the necessity of the fullfillment of righteousness, and established the genealogical line through which Jesus would descend as well as proleptically offering the grace of the New Covenant to the saints living under their administration through the types and shadows that were instituted under those covenants to point to Christ. As well the Holy Scriptures were confined to the Jews in this time as they bore witness to the coming seed of the woman. They were covenants of promise because they were instituted by the true God to be the vehicles of the promise, namely Christ, the calling of the Gentiles, and formal institution of the Covenant of Grace in the institution of the church with her governance, worship, and constitution, namely whole completed Scripture. 

Brandon could also address his thoughts on the passage as well but that would be my understanding of that passage. They are covenants of promise because they serve the ends of the establishment of the New Covenant and are subservient to those ends.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Bill,
> 
> How do you interpret Ephesians 2:12 "the covenants of promise."?
> 
> It seems all the covenants were described as covenants of promise and not merely law and they were meant to adminster grace. Therefore, we cannot say that the Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant of Works, the law was given by grace and the need for a Mediator was shown.
> 
> These covenants are all multiple re-affirmations of the Covenant of Grace leading up to the New Covenant in Christ.


Pergy,

Adam (Shanny01) answered this before I had the time to respond. I was on the road all day, so I am just getting to this.

*Ephesians 2:12* 12 _remember_ that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

The covenants belonged to Israel, not the Gentiles. Along with the covenants went all the benefits of living in the covenant community. So, Paul reminds the Gentile believers in Ephesus of three things. 1. In their prior spiritual condition, they were separate from Christ. 2. They had no portion in the covenant community ("excluded from the commonwealth of Israel"). 3. They had no knowledge of the promise (Christ). Ergo, they had no hope and were without God in the world.

Adam stole some of my thunder when he wrote, "all of the post fall covenants pre-New Covenant bear relation to and subserviency to the New Covenant". In my own words, in the OT we see the Promise in successive covenants between God and Israel. As Adam said, these covenants were "subservient" to the New Covenant. So, while I would not use your phraseology ("multiple re-affirmations of the Covenant of Grace"), I will say that the OT covenants had a dual purpose. They had direct application to the covenant nation of Israel and they also pointed forward to Christ and the New Covenant.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

@brandonadams 

Honest question:

Is it correct that neither John Gill not Charles Spurgeon were proponents of 1689federalism? Just looking for info.


----------



## brandonadams

No, that is not correct.

John Gill & 1689 Federalism

Did Spurgeon hold to 1689 Federalism?

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Grant Jones said:


> Is it correct that neither John Gill not Charles Spurgeon were proponents of 1689federalism? Just looking for info.


I am not sure if these are the last word on the subject but still a good starting place - Spurgeon https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/
Gill https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/some-comments-on-john-gills-covenant-theology/


----------



## Smeagol

Have there been any direct responses/critiques to the CT being promoted on the 1689federalist website from someone holding a Westminsterian CT?


----------



## Herald

Grant Jones said:


> Have there been any direct responses/critiques to the CT being promoted on the 1689federalist website from someone holding a Westminsterian CT?


Grant,

I haven't read a scholarly refutation, although there's been plenty of responses in the blogesphere. 

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Herald said:


> Grant,
> 
> I haven't read a scholarly refutation, although there's been plenty of responses in the blogesphere.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk


Herald,

Do you find that odd considering how "Old" and "wide" the 1689federalist view purports to be?


----------



## Smeagol

This appears to be the shortest yet most detailed explanation of the 1689federalist view:
https://pilgrimandshire.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/covenant-theology-presbyterian-or-baptist/


----------



## Smeagol

Ahhh....the moment you realize you forgot your own posting. 

https://puritanboard.com/threads/covenant-of-grace.95926/


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Grant Jones said:


> Have there been any direct responses/critiques to the CT being promoted on the 1689federalist website from someone holding a Westminsterian CT?


Grant, I have often chuckled over a pun you made about me.

In this context, are you trying to smash 1689 Federalism to "Smith"ereens

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Smeagol

Stephen L Smith said:


> Grant, I have often chuckled over a pun you made about me.
> 
> In this context, are you trying to smash 1689 Federalism to "Smith"ereens


Me too. But I was actually hoping you would since you've got the name for it.

Some of those I consider PB "heavy hitters"  actually have already weighed in with much detail on 1689federalism. See Post #113


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> According to 1689 Federalism, the Old Covenant did not promise eternal life, not even upon the condition of faith in Christ. That was simply not part of the covenantal agreement. That was part of the covenantal agreement of the New Covenant. How then were OT saints saved?
> 
> The CoG is union with Christ, from which regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification flow. Was the Covenant of Grace "administered" during the time of the OT - i.e. did OT saints receive those things during their life? Yes, of course. We confess that in LBCF 8.6. How were these blessing "communicated" or "administered"? "y those promises, types, and sacrifices." In what way did these things communicate salvation? By "reveal[ing], and signif[ying]" Christ. It is a matter of revelation. Promises, types, sacrifices revealed information about the Messiah. They revealed the gospel (news). God gave some people hearts to understand this proclamation of the gospel. Thus, through this proclamation of the gospel (general call), OT saints were saved (effectual call).
> 
> Does that mean the Old Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace? Well, that depends entirely on what is meant. If it just means that the Old Covenant, through type and shadows, revealed the gospel of the coming Messiah, then yes, the Old Covenant "administered" the CoG. But that's not what is meant by "an administration of the CoG." What is meant is that the Old Covenant WAS the CoG. Paedobaptists distinguish between the substance (essence) and the accidents (non-essentials) of a covenant. They say that all post-fall covenants ARE the CoG. They are the same in essence. Their only difference is how they look (the accidents). They equate "administration" with "accidents" and thus the administration changes, but the essence of all the covenants is the same. This is what is meant by saying the Old Covenant was an administration of the CoG. This is what Particular Baptists rejected. They did not reject that OT saints were saved through the revelation of Christ in types and shadows of the Old Covenant. They rejected the erroneous conclusion that therefore the Old Covenant WAS the CoG. The Old Covenant was not union with Christ. The New Covenant is. The Old and the New do not simply differ in their outward appearance. They differ in their essence because the conditions and rewards differ (temporal life in Canaan upon condition of obedience to Mosaic law vs eschatological life upon condition of faith in Christ).
> 
> The OPC Report on Republication acknowledges the difference between the subservient covenant's understanding of types and shadows vs Westminster's understanding. I would recommend reading those pertinent paragraphs and footnotes. In addition, here are two further resources:
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...Darznr1qFIhiiqahlU7-_yvyG8iwV_OV7X5nZCzAXvll0
> 
> https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/we-all-have-our-types/
> 
> I hope that helps clarify things. If not, please let me know.


So even under the OC, there were saved persons who would fall under the NC, and the lost who were still obeying as best they could the law were under the physical blessings promised to them under the OC?
And did the Church exist back in the OC, or start up at Pentecost under the NC then?


----------



## Smeagol

The below is a quick response my Pastor gave me, when I asked him to read the CT portion of the below the article (https://pilgrimandshire.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/covenant-theology-presbyterian-or-baptist/):

"

*Adam Parker*
10:48 AM (38 minutes ago)









to me





I couldn’t resist. I did read ahead. I was following along just fine until they started saying that the Old Testament covenants (with Moses and David) are covenants of works.

I’m actually having trouble following this fellow. On the one hand he says “The Covenant of Grace (which is the New Covenant) was _*just*_ promised and revealed in Genesis 12,” then he argues that the whole OT is basically still the covenant of works. Even though he just said that God revealed and promised the covenant of grace to Abraham. So he dangles the COG out there in front of Abraham only? God reveals a covenant but then doesn’t expect Abraham to live in it?

I just couldn’t disagree more. Paul says the Gospel was preached to Abraham. Abraham looked forward to Jesus’ day and rejoiced. He lived in Christ with his eyes on Christ, the same way we do today (except he looked forward and we now look back). That is not the response of a man living under a covenant of works. He trusted in Christ. Paul uses Abraham as the example in Romans 4 of a person in the OT who lived his life in the Covenant of Grace and who lived by faith and was justified apart from works. In other words, he was saved the same way we are (by looking - one direction or another - toward Christ). How is that possible if it was only “_*just*_ promised and revealed” in Genesis 12?

This is a very complex discussion. My favorite book on the subject is O. Palmer Robertson’s book ‘Christ of the Covenants’ for the lay-person - which I would recommend if you really want to start reading these New Covenant theology guys. And if you REALLY want to get into the meat of it I would point you to Witsius’ 2 Volume work ’The Economy of the Covenants.’ "



Again, my Pastor is not arguing for Paedo, rather for the classical CT, which even RBs can hold to.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant Jones said:


> Tri-Covenant (to replace 20th centrey RB) Reformed Baptist (just thinking out loud)
> 
> Brandon how many completey distinct (as in not being properly considered the CoW of the CoG) covenants do 1689federalist see 7 or 8?


Many Calvinistic Baptists prefer the label of being Particular Baptists, but many times we are called Peculiar Baptists!


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> No, that is not correct.
> 
> John Gill & 1689 Federalism
> 
> Did Spurgeon hold to 1689 Federalism?


So both of them would have seen the NC as being the COG, and that all of the redeemed partook of it regardless if living under either OC/NC then?


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> Have there been any direct responses/critiques to the CT being promoted on the 1689federalist website from someone holding a Westminsterian CT?





Herald said:


> I haven't read a scholarly refutation, although there's been plenty of responses in the blogesphere.





Grant Jones said:


> Do you find that odd considering how "Old" and "wide" the 1689federalist view purports to be?



No, I don't find it odd at all. Reformed baptists are re-learning this view that was indeed old and wide, prior to the second half of the 20th century. If Reformed Baptists are re-learning it now (which takes time), why would we assume Reformed Paedobaptists are already well acquainted with it enough to critique it? They are largely busy trying to figure out their own covenantal heritage (republication debate).

There was back and forth between paedobaptists and 1689 Federalism in the 17th century if you want to read those works. See Sam Renihan's book From Shadow to Substance and his essay in JIRBS 2015 "“DOLPHINS IN THE WOODS”: A Critique of Mark Jones and Ted Van Raalte’s Presentation of Particular Baptist Covenant Theology"

The most direct response was a several years ago by Chris Villi Chris Villi’s Analysis of 1689 Federalism (note that I would articulate some of the points in that reply slightly differently now - particularly Gal 3:17).

R. Scott Clark recently decided to weigh in, but he completely misunderstood/misrepresented the position and was not willing to be corrected on it, so it's really not a critique (and he doesn't hold to Westminsterian CT, so not sure if you're interested) The Heidelblog’s Monologue of Misrepresentation



Grant Jones said:


> The below is a quick response my Pastor gave me, when I asked him to read the CT portion of the below the article



I used to interact with Adam when he blogged at Bring the Books (if that's the same Adam). Great guy. However, I hardly think asking someone for a quick response to a summary of the position is going to be helpful. He needs to read the full treatments if he's interested in offering a critique. Do you think offering a quick unstudied response to Westminster CT based on a blog summary of it would really address the nuanced position?



Grant Jones said:


> I’m actually having trouble following this fellow. On the one hand he says “The Covenant of Grace (which is the New Covenant) was _*just*_ promised and revealed in Genesis 12,” then he argues that the whole OT is basically still the covenant of works. Even though he just said that God revealed and promised the covenant of grace to Abraham. So he dangles the COG out there in front of Abraham only? God reveals a covenant but then doesn’t expect Abraham to live in it?



Note that this insufficient understanding of the position is to be expected from someone introduced to it for the first time from a blog summary and not having studied the position.



Grant Jones said:


> I just couldn’t disagree more. Paul says the Gospel was preached to Abraham. Abraham looked forward to Jesus’ day and rejoiced. He lived in Christ with his eyes on Christ, the same way we do today (except he looked forward and we now look back). That is not the response of a man living under a covenant of works. He trusted in Christ. Paul uses Abraham as the example in Romans 4 of a person in the OT who lived his life in the Covenant of Grace and who lived by faith and was justified apart from works. In other words, he was saved the same way we are (by looking - one direction or another - toward Christ).



1689 Federalism completely agrees.



Grant Jones said:


> How is that possible if it was only “_*just*_ promised and revealed” in Genesis 12?



He'll have to study the position to find out. (See my response above explaining this point).



Grant Jones said:


> This is a very complex discussion. My favorite book on the subject is O. Palmer Robertson’s book ‘Christ of the Covenants’ for the lay-person - which I would recommend if you really want to start reading these New Covenant theology guys. And if you REALLY want to get into the meat of it I would point you to Witsius’ 2 Volume work ’The Economy of the Covenants.’ "



1689 Federalism is not New Covenant Theology. Those are two different views.



Grant Jones said:


> Again, my Pastor is not arguing for Paedo, rather for the classical CT, which even RBs can hold to.



No, your pastor is recommending that you read paedobaptist explanations of covenant theology. No, RBs don't hold to those, not even 20th century. 20th century may lean more towards Robertson, but it still departs from him.


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> why would we assume Reformed Paedobaptists are already well acquainted with it enough to critique it? They are largely busy trying to figure out their own covenantal heritage (republication debate).


Because if a supposed prominent 1689federalist CT view pre-dated and contradicted Westminster, then one would expect to see an abundance of direct scholarly refutation from a Westminster POV. At least that is where my brain goes in trying to research.



brandonadams said:


> I used to interact with Adam when he blogged at Bring the Books (if that's the same Adam). Great guy. However, I hardly think asking someone for a quick response to a summary of the position is going to be helpful. He needs to read the full treatments if he's interested in offering a critique. Do you think offering a quick unstudied response to Westminster CT based on a blog summary of it would really address the nuanced position?
> 
> Note that this insufficient understanding of the position is to be expected from someone introduced to it for the first time from a blog summary and not having studied the position.
> 
> 1689 Federalism completely agrees.
> 
> He'll have to study the position to find out. (See my response above explaining this point).
> 
> 1689 Federalism is not New Covenant Theology. Those are two different views.
> 
> No, your pastor is recommending that you read paedobaptist explanations of covenant theology. No, RBs don't hold to those, not even 20th century. 20th century may lean more towards Robertson, but it still departs from him.



Brandon,

I assure you Adam is much more equipped to critique your position than you give him credit. A common theme I have seen from many 1689federalist (including yourself) is that when anyone makes valid points in refutation, a response of "well you just need to read more on the position, or you don't really understand 1689federalism, or well we don't really say it that way anymore" is commonly given.

I just do not think that is anymore courteous than for me to assume that you have failed to read up on Westminster CT. Adam is a full time pastor and college professor, so I do not expect, nor should you, some doctoral dissertation type of response when a laymen sends him a quick email asking for general thoughts on a online article.

Further many more scholarly than I have refuted in more detail here:
https://puritanboard.com/threads/covenant-of-grace.95926/


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> Do you find that odd considering how "Old" and "wide" the 1689federalist view purports to be?



Just as one example, you can read New England Congregationalist Samuel Austin's 1807 critique. Note, however, that it was not simply a critique of 1689 Federalism, but was a critique of the numerous paedobaptists who had adopted the subservient covenant position (Owen, etc). He was urging them back to Westminster's view. This obviously has many parallels to today.



> INTRODUCTION.
> 
> SEVERAL works have been published within a few. years, both in Europe, and in this Country, concerning tie Church of God; particularly, the qualifications which are requisite for membership in it, its institutions, the persons to to whom they ought to be extended, and the discipline which its officers, and ordinary members are to maintain in it- The Baptist controversy, in which all these subjects are more or less involved, has been lately revived- Books are multiplied, without bringing this controversy to a close. Difficulties still remain, to perplex the humble enquirer, and keep up the vehemence of debate. Much truth is exhibited. But a clear, consistent scheme, disembarrassed of real difficulties, seems to be wanting. Such a scheme the Bible undoubtedly contains. To elicit this scheme is the only way, to bring honest minds to an agreement. Whoever will candidly review the most ingenious Treatises which have been published in the Baptist controversy, will perceive that the Pcedobaptists have a great pre ponderance of evidence on their side of the question. It will, at the same time, be perceived, that they are not as united as could be wished in the principles of their theory. Some rest the evidence that the infant seed oj believers are proper subjects of baptism, almost wholly upon the covenant which God established with Abraham. Others have not so much re spect to this kind of argument ; but prefer to rest the defence of their opinion, and practice, upon what they apprehend to be the clearer intimations of the Gospel, and upon the re cords oj history. Different views are entertained of the nature of the Abrahamic covenant: It is debated whether this covenant was strictly, and properly the covenant of Grace ; what was the real import, and who were the objects of its promises. Different opinions are entertained, and contrary hypotheses advocated also, respecting the Sinai covenant, the dispensation by Moses generally, and the constitution and character of the community of Israel. Some very respected and learned divines among the Pcedobaptists have adopt ed the idea, that this community was of a mixed character, and have called it a Theocracy. Among the many advocates of this opinion are Lozvman, Doddridge, Warburton, Guise, and the late John Erfkine. These Divines supposed, that the legation of Moses could be best defended against the ca vils of unbelievers, by placing God at the head of the community of Israel, as a civil governor , surrounding himself with the regalia, and managing his subjects with the penalties and largesses, of a temporal sovereign.
> 
> The antipaedobaptists have found this hypothesis so convenient a refuge from the attacks of their opposers, as to incorporate it, with great affection, and as a radical principle, in to their system oj reasoning. They have gone farther, and entirely accommodated the hypothesis to their peculiar notions. They insist, that this corqmunitv was not, either in fact, or in the original plan of the institution, spiritual, and religious ; but civil and carnal; and that, of course, the christian church is specifically different, and an entirely nezo society. It is the opinion of the Author oj the following Treatise, that this hypothesis has been adopted unwarily ; and not on ly without,- but against evidence. In view of this diversity of sentiment, and the obscurity which seems yet to lie over these subjects, it was his opinion, that a distinct and accurate view, if one could be given, of the Hebrew economy, as established by J-ehovah,jr§m its rise in the call of Abraham, and the covenant entered into with him, to its consummation in the Christian Church ; deduced, not from the fallible theories of men, but jrorn the Bible it self, was a great desideratum in the science of theology. Such a view he has attempted to furnish. Of his success the public must judge. Though he cannot but entertain the hope that he has succeeded, as to the main principles, could be adventurous indeed to avow a confidence, that his work is without error. Circumstantial errors however, whether they re- sped the matter or the manner, the reader is requested to re member, will not invalidate the truth of the leading princi ples. If these principles can be shewn to be wrong, the writer will be constrained to confess he has altogether failed of his object*

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Just as one example, you can read New England Congregationalist Samuel Austin's 1807 critique. Note, however, that it was not simply a critique of 1689 Federalism, but was a critique of the numerous paedobaptists who had adopted the subservient covenant position (Owen, etc). He was urging them back to Westminster's view. This obviously has many parallels to today.


This also is proof that the the "1689federalist view" cannot be said to be strictly baptist...correct?


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> I assure you Adam is much more equipped to critique your position than you give him credit. A common theme I have seen from many 1689federalist (including yourself) is that when anyone makes valid points in refutation, the a response of "well you just need to read more on the position, or you don't really understand 1689federalism, or well we don't really say it that way anymore".



Brother, my criticism was not of Adam's abilities. I know he is very capable of defending his own position and critiquing others. My point was simply that a blog summary of the position is not sufficient acquaintance to offer a meaningful critique, as evidenced by his comments.



> when anyone makes valid points in refutation, the a response of "well you just need to read more on the position, or you don't really understand 1689federalism



Adam's points were not valid because he did not understand what he was trying to refute. So yeah, sorry, he would have to study it more in order to understand it. There's no shortcut. It's a big topic and paedobaptists have to spend a lot time studying our view and baptists need to spend a lot of time studying your view.



Grant Jones said:


> I just do not think that is anymore courteous than for me to assume that you have failed to read up on Westminster CT.



Brother, if I offered a misinformed critique of Westminster based on 1 blog summary, then yes, you should point out that I failed to read up on it. Are you saying that Adam has in fact studied 1689 Federalism books and that the blog summary was not his only exposure?



Grant Jones said:


> Adam is a full time pastor and professor and a college, so I do not expect, nor should you, some doctoral dissertation type of response when a laymen sends him a quick email asking for general thoughts on a online article.



Yes, and my response was that you shouldn't expect such a response to be meaningful or helpful on this "very complex discussion."



Grant Jones said:


> Further many more scholarly than I have responded in more detail here:
> https://puritanboard.com/threads/covenant-of-grace.95926/



I have interacted many times with the folks here on the topic. You can find the interactions in the archives. See also the list of posts here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/

I appreciate your interest in this topic and hope that you continue studying. I'm happy to provide clarification and point you to resources where appropriate.


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Adam's points were not valid because he did not understand what he was trying to refute.


This proves my point. Adam's responses had very similar notes to others critique of your position.


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Adam has in fact studied 1689 Federalism books and that the blog summary was not his only exposure?


I cannot speak for him on this point.


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> So even under the OC, there were saved persons who would fall under the NC, and the lost who were still obeying as best they could the law were under the physical blessings promised to them under the OC?



Regenerate members of the Old Covenant were under both the Old Covenant for physical/temporal blessing/curse, as well as the New Covenant (and the Noahic Covenant of common preservation). See if this diagram helps.









Dachaser said:


> And did the Church exist back in the OC, or start up at Pentecost under the NC then?



From the FAQ section "When Did the Church Begin?"

The church began in Genesis 3:15 and the church began at Pentecost.

_How can both be true?_ Because of the visible/invisible church distinction as it relates to the promised/established New Covenant.

Old Testament saints were saved in the same way that we are today: through saving faith produced by the regenerating power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2LBC 8.6, 8.8, 10.1, 11.6). They were united to Christ and were therefore part of his mystical body, the church (2LBC 26.1).

But it does not therefore follow that Israel was the church (“assembly”) of Christ. Israel was an assembly, but not the assembly of Christ (Heb. 12:23). Though regenerate Old Testament saints were part of the body of Christ, they were a remnant within the broader body of the assembly of Israel (which was governed by the Old Covenant). Likewise, believers outside of Israel were not under the Old Covenant (for example, Lot & Melchizedek were not circumcised – see Coxe p. 117-118).

It was not until Pentecost that the invisible church gathered (“assembled”) together as the assembly of Christ (the church) (2LBC 26.2, 26.5-7). The visible church was instituted at Pentecost and given ordinances of worship and its own government. John Owen explains how this relates to the New Covenant as promised & established.



> 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. (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. (Exposition Hebrews 8:10)



Thus the church began as soon as God began to redeem lost sinners through the promise of the New Covenant (Gen. 3:15), which was efficacious to save, bringing an individual into the invisible church. But it was not until the New Covenant was formally established that the visible church was instituted with its own worship and governance. Consider Samuel Waldron’s Exposition of the 1689 Confession on this point:



> Does the Bible teach that this universal church consists of all the elect? Here a distinction is crucial. The church is the final, organized, earthly expression of the people of God. We must distinguish between the church as an institution and the church as the people of God. Such a distinction enables us to do justice to portions of the New Testament which are frequently misinterpreted. There was a very important sense in which the church began as an institution and organism in the complex of events surrounding Christ’s first advent. There was a sense in which historically the church began in the vents of Christ’s earthly ministry, death, resurrection and pouring out of the Spirit. The apostles of Christ are the historical foundation upon which Christ is now building his church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20; Heb. 12:18-24). The future tense in the statement of Christ, ‘I will build my church’, may, therefore, be given its natural force. Though Israel was a type of the church (Rom. 2:28-29; 1 Cor. 10:18; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3) and though the church is the new Israel of God and the fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:16; 15:14-18; 1 Cor. 10:11; Gal. 6:16; Eph 2:12-19; Heb. 8:7-13), it is true that the church as an institution and organism did not exist in the Old Testament. These truths contradict the tendency of some strains of covenant theology to flatten the difference between the church and Israel in the interests of paedo-baptism.
> 
> On the other hand, the church is the climactic earthly expression of the people of God. Thus language is frequently used which equates the church with all those in union with Christ. The church is the body and bride of Christ (Eph. 1:22; 4:11-116; 5:23-27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18; 2:4). Furthermore, the bride of Christ is composed in the last day of the saved from every age (Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:9-14; note also Matt. 8:11-12; John 10:14-17; Heb. 11:39-40). Thus the church will one day be composed of all the redeemed. As the people of God, the church does consist ‘of the whole number of the elect’. These considerations refute Dispensationalism with its church/Israel distinction and its denial that the Old Testament saints are part of the church.



For more, see Tom Ascol’s Toward a Confessional Doctrine of the Church (3-Part Video).


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> This proves my point. Adam's responses had very similar notes to others critique of your position.



If that is the case then others have also misunderstood the position and failed to offer a valid critique. Just go back up to my comment explaining Abraham's salvation. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1689-federalism-revisited.97308/page-3#post-1189296

See also Form and Matter + Promise and Promulgation = Particular Baptist Federal Theology

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> This also is proof that the the "1689federalist view" cannot be said to be strictly baptist...correct?



Yes and no. I mean, that's why 17th century baptists appealed to Owen so often. But in doing so they did not fail to point out his inconsistency (see Renihan's JIRBS article and his book). If a paedobaptist adopts a 1689 Federalism understanding of the Covenant of Circumcision, can he really remain a paedobaptist?


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> misunderstood the position and failed to offer a valid critique.



Yes, this would be your view. However, in my opinion, many have understood the view and refuted it with solid argumentation. I can understand someones argument and reject it...this is possible.


In your view Abraham and the other mediators were in 2 sperate covenants at once...right?


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> So both of them would have seen the NC as being the COG, and that all of the redeemed partook of it regardless if living under either OC/NC then?



Yes. See the links for elaboration.


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> many have understood the view and refuted it with solid argumentation. I can understand someones argument and reject it...this is possible.



Yes, absolutely. However, I am simply commenting on Adam's critique, which was based on an insufficient understanding of the position. It does not address the distinction between form and matter, nor the 1689 Fed explanation of Abraham's salvation... thus it doesn't offer a critique of 1689 Fed on those essential points.



Grant Jones said:


> In your view Abraham and the other mediators were in 2 sperate covenants at once...right?



I don't think I would call Abraham a mediator. Perhaps you mean federal head? If so, yes, see response above to Dachaser with the diagram.


----------



## brandonadams

For whatever it is worth, here is an updated answer to the FAQ "Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism?" reflecting Renihan's completed research.

No. 1689 Federalism is a view of covenant theology (distinguished by its belief that the old and new covenants are different, distinct covenants and that only the new covenant is the covenant of grace) that was held by every published particular baptist work in the 17th century. It accounts for the change in language found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession with regards to covenant theology (in comparison to the WCF). However, this new language was written broadly enough to allow a variety of views to equally confess it. The label "1689 Federalism" is not intended to suggest that no other view is permissible amongst confessional baptists.

In his book From Shadow to Substance, Samuel Renihan elaborates.



> Throughout this time [1640s and 1650s], a core model of Particular Baptist covenant theology developed. The covenant of grace was a covenant of sure salvation for all of God's elect. The covenant of circumcision was a covenant of works for Abraham's physical descendants intended to set them apart as the people from whom the promised seed of the woman would be born. The old covenant made salvation known through typology, though the types are distinct from the antitype. When Christ was born, the national covenant of works was aborgated and the new covenant remained alone, the antitype eclipsing the type. From Ritor to Cheare and Steed, the Particular Baptists presented a united but diversely presented covenant theology... For the rest of the seventeenth century it was expanded by the Particular Baptists with considerable continuity and minimal diversity.
> 
> The key difference between these confessions [WCF and 2LBC] is the Particular Baptists' complete avoidance of distinguishing the covenant of grace into two historical administrations. In their "quill-skirmishes," the Particular Baptists had repeatedly rejected the idea that the old covenant was the covenant of grace in a different form. Their typology distinguished the covenant of grace from the earthly national covenants made with Abraham and Moses. The hermeneutics they employed were not those of the continental Anabaptists, but of the Reformed tradition as exemplified by theologians from Ursinus to Cameron. The old covenant was distinct from the covenant of grace, but subservient to the covenant of grace.
> 
> In their Confession, the Particular Baptists directly tied the covenant of grace to the gospel. Where the gospel is found, there is the covenant of grace. As the gospel was progressively made known throughout history, the covenant of grace was progressively made known throughout history. The covenant of grace should not be flattened into two administrations, oversimplifying its progressive revelation and complex relationship to the old covenant. Rather, the covenant of grace should be seen through "farther steps." Through the gospel, it permeated the entire Old Testament form the promise of the seed of the woman to "the full discovery thereof" in the New Testament. And all the elect were saved by this covenant.
> 
> The language is carefully broad and specific at the same time. Any of the Particular Baptists' opponents could have subscribed to these statements. Many paedobaptist treatises dedicated great detail to the progressive historical development of the covenant of grace, often subdividing the two administrations of the covenant of grace into narrower periods. The difference between the confessions, then, has less to do with what the Particular Baptists said, and more to do with what they did not say. The model they confessed was not so exclusively or distinctively Baptist that others would disagree with it. But they clearly refused to commit themselves to the more common, and at times unclear, vernacular of substance and administration...
> 
> Though the Particular Baptists' choice of words clearly reflects their model of the covenant of grace, it is possible that this chapter of the Confession was written broadly, not just to avoid unnecessarily distancing themselves from Presbyterian and Congregational allies, but also to fit varying thought on this subject within the Baptists themselves. This is something they were willing to do. For example, they "purposely omitted the mention of things" relating to open and closed membership.
> 
> The historical context of the confession lies in the London Baptist' cooperation with the Broadmead Bristol Baptist church, an open-membership church. One of the pastors of the Bristol church, Thomas Hardcastle, whom Kiffen and Coxe had been asked to ordain but could not due to their dealing with Collier, taught a model that differed from most of the Particular Baptists. He contended that the old covenant was the covenant of grace.... but his views were taught privately and not published... Even Cheare, Steed, Hutchinson, and Delaune, despite their confusing language, rejected this idea. The language of 2LCF 7.3 is broad enough that while it confesses a covenantal model that intentionally departs from standard paedobaptist federalism, it seems to do so in a way that allows for some diversity of thought and expression.
> 
> (147, 326, 187-191, 327)

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> I don't think I would call Abraham a mediator. Perhaps you mean federal head? If so, yes, see response above to Dachaser with the diagram.


Upon thinking more....I think I am fine, biblically, seeing Abraham as a *type* of mediator. We do not have to debate the titles here...considering the topic of the OP.

P.S. I actually do not think that diagram is helpful. However, I am not sure I could create a diagram of your position (that is not a slight, just an honest admission).


----------



## Herald

Grant Jones said:


> Herald,
> 
> Do you find that odd considering how "Old" and "wide" the 1689federalist view purports to be?


Brandon beat me to the punch. See his response. I agree with it.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Grant Jones said:


> Me too. But I was actually hoping you would since you've got the name for it.


Ok. I will take it for "grant"ed you were behaving re this topic  My puns are bad today. I am part Irish 



Grant Jones said:


> Some of those I consider PB "heavy hitters"  actually have already weighed in with much detail on 1689federalism. See Post #113


Not sure. I think the solid dialogue is indeed healthy but I do see some "talking past each other". I think part of the problem is that 1689 Federalism is seen as more "different" to Westminster Federalism, than what other Reformed Baptist Covenant theologies are to Westminster Federalism. I have not read the Sam Renihan book widely promoted on this thread, but I understand this work goes a long way to make important clarifications re Westminster Federalism.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

brandonadams said:


> I appreciate your interest in this topic and hope that you continue studying. I'm happy to provide clarification and point you to resources where appropriate.


Brandon, still interested in your response to my question in post 67 https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1689-federalism-revisited.97308/page-3#post-1189323

I did wonder if this was partly historical - ie, had covenant theologians (Baptist and Paedobaptist) reflected more on the relatioship between the pactum salutis, historia salutis and the ordo salutis after the WCF ws completed?


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> I actually do not think that diagram is helpful. However, I am not sure I could create a diagram of your position (that is not a slight, just an honest admission).



It is not intended to convey the whole system, merely to demonstrate overlapping covenant memberships.


----------



## brandonadams

Stephen L Smith said:


> More to the point, do you think the 1689 Confession 7:3 shows the relationship between the pactum salutis, historia salutis and the ordo salutis with more clarity than does the Westminster Confession?



Yes. My understanding is that
1) Westminster was written to accommodate both those who affirmed a CoR and those who did not
2) The doctrine of the CoR was further developed between WCF (1646) and 2LBC (1677), particularly by Owen.

Renihan notes


> One of the ways in which the Particular Baptists' confession stepped ahead of its parent documents was an explicit appeal to the covenant of redemption. In 7.3 the Baptists confessed that the covenant of grace "is founded in that Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect." Following Savoy, in 8.1 they stated, "It pleased God in his eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus his only begotten Son, according to the Covenant made between them both, to be the Mediator between God and Man." Their first confession, though somewhat edited in the later editions, had also spoken of a covenant between the Father and the Son. Here again they confessed this doctrine.
> 
> The advantage of appealing to the covenant of redemption was that it closely connected the historical application of salvation, the covenant of grace, to the decree of salvation, the covenant of redemption. These truths were already confessed by all three confessions in 3.5-6, but the relationship of the covenant of redemption to the covenant of grace tightened the connections. In particular, it focused the covenants into union with Christ. As Christ was appointed Mediator of salvation to the elect in the covenant of redemption, so Christ is Mediator of salvation to the elect in the covenant of grace. Apart from union with Christ by faith, confessed in 7.2 as being a gift of the Holy Spirit, no claim could be made to the covenant of grace. (191-192)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

*When did the Church began - was it absolutely NEW or not?*

Acts 7:38: "This is he, that was in the *church* in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and _with_ our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"

The Book of Hebrews cites Psalm 22:22 in Hebrews 2:12 to have Jesus say, “in the ἐκκλησία I will sing your praise”. And in that same Book of Hebrews we read of a great cloud of witnesses (the names written were Old Testament names).

The Church was present in the Old Testament. And the LXX, often uses _ekklesia_ to refer to Israel.

The use of these terms indicate that our lens out to be one of* continuity*. There is 1 people of God throughout all ages.

What is more, God does not qualify his use of the term ekklesia (congregation/church) in any further way, but merely refers to Isreal as a whole as the Church. He doesn't clarify that "some from my people are the Apple of my eye (Zechariah), but He simply talks of Israel in that way. When He speaks lovingly of Israel He doesn't say, "Some from among Israel" but He simply says Israel. He refers to the people as a whole...Israel.

Perhaps I sound like a Prebyterian, but I believe the main focus is continuity. 

Even the Reformed know from Romans and Galatians that the children of the flesh are not necessarily the children of God and not all are true Israelites in Israel. But in the OT Israel (as a whole) was called God's beloved and the apple of His Eye.

I essentialy agree with Brandon's answer that the Church began both with the very first believers (Adam and Eve in my opinion) and it also began at Pentecost, or was renewed in a greater fashion. But I do think his admission goes far in proving the basic continuity of the Scriptures. 

After all, wouldn't Moses be so very disapointed to learn that the Covenant in his day had no grace in it and was only a Covenant of Works? Some almost seem to make Christ and Moses into enemies, and yet Moses appeared at the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus. 

The New Covenant was not necessarily absolutely New, just as the Church was not an absolutely new thing. The Greek word _kainos_ is used in Heb. 8:8 of the New Covenant and not Neos, and this word Kainos is more properly translated "renewed" instead of "brand -spanking-new." 

We see that the "Newness" of the New Covenant is like the "newness" of the Church....the fulfillment of many prior steps - the last stage of a progression. The final capstone of the Covenant of Grace which was not only revealed, but inaugerated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment in Christ.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> I essentialy agree with Brandon's answer that the Church began both with the very first believers (Adam and Eve in my opinion)


Genesis 3:15


----------



## Smeagol

Pergamum said:


> *When did the Church began - was it absolutely NEW or not?*
> 
> Acts 7:38: "This is he, that was in the *church* in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and _with_ our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"
> 
> The Book of Hebrews cites Psalm 22:22 in Hebrews 2:12 to have Jesus say, “in the ἐκκλησία I will sing your praise”. And in that same Book of Hebrews we read of a great cloud of witnesses (the names written were Old Testament names).
> 
> The Church was present in the Old Testament. And the LXX, often uses _ekklesia_ to refer to Israel.
> 
> The use of these terms indicate that our lens out to be one of* continuity*. There is 1 people of God throughout all ages.
> 
> What is more, God does not qualify his use of the term ekklesia (congregation/church) in any further way, but merely refers to Isreal as a whole as the Church. He doesn't clarify that "some from my people are the Apple of my eye (Zechariah), but He simply talks of Israel in that way. When He speaks lovingly of Israel He doesn't say, "Some from among Israel" but He simply says Israel. He refers to the people as a whole...Israel.
> 
> Perhaps I sound like a Prebyterian, but I believe the main focus is continuity.
> 
> Even the Reformed know from Romans and Galatians that the children of the flesh are not necessarily the children of God and not all are true Israelites in Israel. But in the OT Israel (as a whole) was called God's beloved and the apple of His Eye.
> 
> I essentialy agree with Brandon's answer that the Church began both with the very first believers (Adam and Eve in my opinion) and it also began at Pentecost, or was renewed in a greater fashion. But I do think his admission goes far in proving the basic continuity of the Scriptures.
> 
> After all, wouldn't Moses be so very disapointed to learn that the Covenant in his day had no grace in it and was only a Covenant of Works? Some almost seem to make Christ and Moses into enemies, and yet Moses appeared at the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus.
> 
> The New Covenant was not necessarily absolutely New, just as the Church was not an absolutely new thing. The Greek word _kainos_ is used in Heb. 8:8 of the New Covenant and not Neos, and this word Kainos is more properly translated "renewed" instead of "brand -spanking-new."
> 
> We see that the "Newness" of the New Covenant is like the "newness" of the Church....the fulfillment of many prior steps - the last stage of a progression. The final capstone of the Covenant of Grace which was not only revealed, but inaugerated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment in Christ.



Perg,

I agree. For me as I am reading on the 1689 federalist more, my biggest hang up is their position that the CoG was only "promised" and not "inaugurated" (in time of course) in Gen. 3:15. In Gen 3, we have terms, promises, man, God, and blood ( God made them skin-garments). To say that this was not a covenant inauguration because "it was only the promise of it" seems inconsistent with the way we approach every other covenant. For example, could Abraham's Covenant not rightly be called an inaugurated covenant in Gen 17 because the things God promised him were not yet a reality? of course not! Similar to Gen 3, with Abraham we have terms, promises, man, God, and blood. The same can be said of Adam, Noah, Moses, and David.

The diagram in Post # 127 can be used (with minor modifications), to show for those who hold to Westminster CT or the Vanilla RB, that within God's Covenant people in the various dispensations of the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the NC. There is scriptural proof that those communities were mixed between some who where still under the CoW and those who were in the CoG. In EVERY era since the fall it can be shown that their were those who were in covenant with God externally, yet there souls were still in bondage to the CoW. This continuity (along with the common them of faith in Christ), add further proof to your explanation of the most biblical way to interpret "new". We know from scripture that Moses preached Christ. We know from Scripture that the Church existed in the OT. Christ being preached to the Church in types and shadows sounds a lot like the NC community too. Sure we have greater clarity, but we still have types and shadows in the NC too. We still are looking forward to even more clear realities (the already-not-yet).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> *When did the Church began - was it absolutely NEW or not?*
> 
> Acts 7:38: "This is he, that was in the *church* in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and _with_ our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"
> 
> The Book of Hebrews cites Psalm 22:22 in Hebrews 2:12 to have Jesus say, “in the ἐκκλησία I will sing your praise”. And in that same Book of Hebrews we read of a great cloud of witnesses (the names written were Old Testament names).
> 
> The Church was present in the Old Testament. And the LXX, often uses _ekklesia_ to refer to Israel.
> 
> The use of these terms indicate that our lens out to be one of* continuity*. There is 1 people of God throughout all ages.
> 
> What is more, God does not qualify his use of the term ekklesia (congregation/church) in any further way, but merely refers to Isreal as a whole as the Church. He doesn't clarify that "some from my people are the Apple of my eye (Zechariah), but He simply talks of Israel in that way. When He speaks lovingly of Israel He doesn't say, "Some from among Israel" but He simply says Israel. He refers to the people as a whole...Israel.
> 
> Perhaps I sound like a Prebyterian, but I believe the main focus is continuity.
> 
> Even the Reformed know from Romans and Galatians that the children of the flesh are not necessarily the children of God and not all are true Israelites in Israel. But in the OT Israel (as a whole) was called God's beloved and the apple of His Eye.
> 
> I essentialy agree with Brandon's answer that the Church began both with the very first believers (Adam and Eve in my opinion) and it also began at Pentecost, or was renewed in a greater fashion. But I do think his admission goes far in proving the basic continuity of the Scriptures.
> 
> After all, wouldn't Moses be so very disapointed to learn that the Covenant in his day had no grace in it and was only a Covenant of Works? Some almost seem to make Christ and Moses into enemies, and yet Moses appeared at the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus.
> 
> The New Covenant was not necessarily absolutely New, just as the Church was not an absolutely new thing. The Greek word _kainos_ is used in Heb. 8:8 of the New Covenant and not Neos, and this word Kainos is more properly translated "renewed" instead of "brand -spanking-new."
> 
> We see that the "Newness" of the New Covenant is like the "newness" of the Church....the fulfillment of many prior steps - the last stage of a progression. The final capstone of the Covenant of Grace which was not only revealed, but inaugerated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment in Christ.


What was brand new though was the full instituting here of the new Covenant in the Body of Christ, the Church, as the Holy Spirit had to wait until the Promised messiah came, dies, resurrected, and ascended before He could be sent back here to come in His Baptizing all saved now into that same Body now.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Grant Jones said:


> Perg,
> 
> I agree. For me as I am reading on the 1689 federalist more, my biggest hang up is their position that the CoG was only "promised" and not "inaugurated" (in time of course) in Gen. 3:15. In Gen 3, we have terms, promises, man, God, and blood ( God made them skin-garments). To say that this was not a covenant inauguration because "it was only the promise of it" seems inconsistent with the way we approach every other covenant. For example, could Abraham's Covenant not rightly be called an inaugurated covenant in Gen 17 because the things God promised him were not yet a reality? of course not! Similar to Gen 3, with Abraham we have terms, promises, man, God, and blood. The same can be said of Adam, Noah, Moses, and David.
> 
> The diagram in Post # 127 can be used (with minor modifications), to show for those who hold to Westminster CT or the Vanilla RB, that within God's Covenant people in the various dispensations of the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, and the NC. There is scriptural proof that those communities were mixed between some who where still under the CoW and those who were in the CoG. In EVERY era since the fall it can be shown that their were those who were in covenant with God externally, yet there souls were still in bondage to the CoW. This continuity (along with the common them of faith in Christ), add further proof to your explanation of the most biblical way to interpret "new". We know from scripture that Moses preached Christ. We know from Scripture that the Church existed in the OT. Christ being preached to the Church in types and shadows sounds a lot like the NC community too. Sure we have greater clarity, but we still have types and shadows in the NC too. We still are looking forward to even more clear realities (the already-not-yet).


The Holy Spirit could not come in His fullness as now under the New Covenant until the messiah had actually came and did His finished work, as none had direct access to God until that happened...

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> You wrote:
> 
> "Since the criticism is nothing more than conjecture about other people's motives, there isn't really much to respond to."
> 
> It is not mere conjecture, I have heard these very things said several times, (1) That Presbyterians did not get their doctrine from the bible but invented it to defend Pedobaptism, and (2) We need to develop our own covenant theology to distingish us from the Presbyterians. There needs to be a uniquely baptist covenant theology.
> 
> Several RBs have stated these things to me directly.
> 
> Also, in Denault's book he states that Presbyterians have become servants to their system of covenant theology instead of following the bible due to their doctrine of baptism. For instance, he writes, ""the paedobaptist approach not only did not use the New Testament to interpret the Old, but did the exact opposite" (Loc 1320).
> 
> And again, "“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).
> 
> Here is another quote:
> 
> “Presbyterian federalism was an artificial construction developed to justify an end: paedobaptism. We do not think that this laborious theology was the result of a rigorous and disinterested application of hermeneutical principles. We rather believe that it was the consequence of an age-old practice, which became the ultimate instrument of social uniformity in Christendom and which was inherited by the Reformed Church, namely, paedobaptism. Paedobaptism was the arrival point of Presbyterian federalism because it was its starting point” (Loc 2388).
> 
> I am not "conjecturing" anything; I have had multiple Reformed Baptists state to me directly, and, it is clear from Denault's book, that many 1689 Federalists believe that Prebyterians concocted all of their covenant theology as a means to defend pedobaptism. And 1689 Federalism is a way for us to develop our own uniquely baptist version of Covenant Theology.



This is fairly standard Baptist polemics, and mildly stated at that. I think that at least some people who have held to "20th Century Reformed Baptist" federalism have said much the same thing when it comes to how Presbyterians justify infant baptism. EDIT: An example is this quote from Dr. Waldron that Brandon posted earlier: "These truths contradict the tendency of some strains of covenant theology to flatten the difference between the church and Israel in the interests of paedo-baptism."

As you must have seen through the years, Presbyterians and other paedobaptists have heaped all manner of rhetorical abuse on Baptists through the years. (Thankfully it's no longer physical abuse.) They charge everything from people wanting to be democratic to being "Arminian" to charging Baptists with being "dispensationalists," even if they are amil or postmil!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> This is fairly standard Baptist polemics, and mildly stated at that. I think that at least some people who have held to "20th Century Reformed Baptist" federalism have said much the same thing when it comes to how Presbyterians justify infant baptism.
> 
> As you must have seen through the years, Presbyterians and other paedobaptists have heaped all manner of rhetorical abuse on Baptists through the years. (Thankfully it's no longer physical abuse.) They charge everything from people wanting to be democratic to being "Arminian" to charging Baptists with being "dispensationalists," even if they are amil or postmil!


Since coming over to the Calvinist/reformed theology positions, have come to see that there is certain differences between our 2 camps that almost warrants having Baptist Covenant theology become labeled as something else, maybe?


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> Acts 7:38: "This is he, that was in the *church* in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and _with_ our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us"



The English word "church" carries a meaning that the Greek word does not. In English, "church" refers primarily to "the body of Christ." That is not the case in Greek. It is a secular word adapted by Paul to refer to the body of Christ. Strong’s defines it as “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.” On Acts 7:38, the NET Bible notes “This term, ἐκκλησία (ekklhsia), is a secular use of the term that came to mean “church” in the epistles. Here a reference to an assembly is all that is intended.”

The assembly of Israel was not the assembly of Christ, just as the kingdom of Israel was not the kingdom of Christ/heaven. However, the assembly of Israel was a type of the assembly of Christ.



Pergamum said:


> The Book of Hebrews cites Psalm 22:22 in Hebrews 2:12 to have Jesus say, “in the ἐκκλησία I will sing your praise”. And in that same Book of Hebrews we read of a great cloud of witnesses (the names written were Old Testament names).



Typology.



Pergamum said:


> The Church was present in the Old Testament.



Yes, as I already said.



Pergamum said:


> And the LXX, often uses _ekklesia_ to refer to Israel.
> 
> The use of these terms indicate that our lens out to be one of* continuity*. There is 1 people of God throughout all ages.



You're putting way more freight on that word than it will carry. No, the use of the word "assembly" does not therefore mean that the assembly of Israel was the assembly of Christ.



Pergamum said:


> What is more, God does not qualify his use of the term ekklesia (congregation/church) in any further way, but merely refers to Isreal as a whole as the Church.



Yes, Israel as a whole was an assembly - the assembly of Israel.



Pergamum said:


> He doesn't clarify that "some from my people are the Apple of my eye (Zechariah), but He simply talks of Israel in that way. When He speaks lovingly of Israel He doesn't say, "Some from among Israel" but He simply says Israel. He refers to the people as a whole...Israel.



Again, typology. Israel, as a whole, was adopted by God in a typological covenant. See if this explanation from Edwards is helpful to you Jonathan Edwards on the Nation of Israel as a Type of the Church

I would encourage you to study our books. I think all that you have read is Denault. Is that correct? Try reading Abraham Booth's _An Essay on the Kingdom of Christ_ (free online) as well as Coxe
http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/

Kline's Two-Level Fulfillment may also be helpful in understanding the typological distinction. http://www.upper-register.com/papers/two_level_fulfillment.pdf



Pergamum said:


> Even the Reformed know from Romans and Galatians that the children of the flesh are not necessarily the children of God and not all are true Israelites in Israel.



Typology. What paedobaptists see as a distinction between inward/outward, we see as a distinction between covenants (Old vs New).



Pergamum said:


> But I do think his admission goes far in proving the basic continuity of the Scriptures.



1689 Federalism has never denied the basic continuity of the Scriptures.



Pergamum said:


> After all, wouldn't Moses be so very disapointed to learn that the Covenant in his day had no grace in it and was only a Covenant of Works?



No. That's why he prophesied the New Covenant (Deut 30:6).



Pergamum said:


> Some almost seem to make Christ and Moses into enemies, and yet Moses appeared at the Mount of Transfiguration with Jesus.



The Mosaic Covenant was distinct from but subservient to the New Covenant (not an enemy of it) and Moses was saved.



Pergamum said:


> The New Covenant was not necessarily absolutely New, just as the Church was not an absolutely new thing. The Greek word _kainos_ is used in Heb. 8:8 of the New Covenant and not Neos, and this word Kainos is more properly translated "renewed" instead of "brand -spanking-new."



Yes, that is a common paedobaptist argument. The context denies that interpretation. The New Covenant promises listed were not old covenant promises. Horton "There are clear passages indicating that ‘the forgiveness of sins’ is unique to the New Covenant (“remember their sins no more”; Jer 31:34)." That's why the New is better. Furthermore, does Jesus say that new wine is put into renewed wineskins or new wineskins (Matt 9:17; Lk 5:38)?



Grant Jones said:


> For me as I am reading on the 1689 federalist more, my biggest hang up is their position that the CoG was only "promised" and not "inaugurated" (in time of course) in Gen. 3:15. In Gen 3, we have terms, promises, man, God, and blood ( God made them skin-garments). To say that this was not a covenant inauguration because "it was only the promise of it" seems inconsistent with the way we approach every other covenant. For example, could Abraham's Covenant not rightly be called an inaugurated covenant in Gen 17 because the things God promised him were not yet a reality? of course not! Similar to Gen 3, with Abraham we have terms, promises, man, God, and blood. The same can be said of Adam, Noah, Moses, and David.



Grant, please see Berkhof: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/the-promise-was-sufficient-efficacious/



Grant Jones said:


> We know from scripture that Moses preached Christ.



Which 1689 Federalism fully agrees.



Grant Jones said:


> We know from Scripture that the Church existed in the OT.



Which, properly qualified, 1689 Federalism fully agrees.



Grant Jones said:


> Christ being preached to the Church in types and shadows sounds a lot like the NC community too. Sure we have greater clarity, but we still have types and shadows in the NC too. We still are looking forward to even more clear realities (the already-not-yet).



What? No, that's a misunderstanding of typology. The New Covenant does not reveal Christ through types and shadows. Again, I appreciate your interest in this topic, but I would encourage you to read some of the book length material. Have you had an opportunity to do so yet? http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> The English word "church" carries a meaning that the Greek word does not. In English, "church" refers primarily to "the body of Christ." That is not the case in Greek. It is a secular word adapted by Paul to refer to the body of Christ. Strong’s defines it as “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.” On Acts 7:38, the NET Bible notes “This term, ἐκκλησία (ekklhsia), is a secular use of the term that came to mean “church” in the epistles. Here a reference to an assembly is all that is intended.”
> 
> The assembly of Israel was not the assembly of Christ, just as the kingdom of Israel was not the kingdom of Christ/heaven. However, the assembly of Israel was a type of the assembly of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Typology.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as I already said.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting way more freight on that word than it will carry. No, the use of the word "assembly" does not therefore mean that the assembly of Israel was the assembly of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Israel as a whole was an assembly - the assembly of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, typology. Israel, as a whole, was adopted by God in a typological covenant. See if this explanation from Edwards is helpful to you Jonathan Edwards on the Nation of Israel as a Type of the Church
> 
> I would encourage you to study our books. I think all that you have read is Denault. Is that correct? Try reading Abraham Booth's _An Essay on the Kingdom of Christ_ (free online) as well as Coxe
> http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/
> 
> Kline's Two-Level Fulfillment may also be helpful in understanding the typological distinction. http://www.upper-register.com/papers/two_level_fulfillment.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Typology. What paedobaptists see as a distinction between inward/outward, we see as a distinction between covenants (Old vs New).
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 Federalism has never denied the basic continuity of the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> No. That's why he prophesied the New Covenant (Deut 30:6).
> 
> 
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant was distinct from but subservient to the New Covenant (not an enemy of it) and Moses was saved.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is a common paedobaptist argument. The context denies that interpretation. The New Covenant promises listed were not old covenant promises. Horton "There are clear passages indicating that ‘the forgiveness of sins’ is unique to the New Covenant (“remember their sins no more”; Jer 31:34)." That's why the New is better. Furthermore, does Jesus say that new wine is put into renewed wineskins or new wineskins (Matt 9:17; Lk 5:38)?
> 
> 
> 
> Grant, please see Berkhof: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/the-promise-was-sufficient-efficacious/
> 
> 
> 
> Which 1689 Federalism fully agrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, properly qualified, 1689 Federalism fully agrees.
> 
> 
> 
> What? No, that's a misunderstanding of typology. The New Covenant does not reveal Christ through types and shadows. Again, I appreciate your interest in this topic, but I would encourage you to read some of the book length material. Have you had an opportunity to do so yet? http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/


I have read the books but am not convinced.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Just for the sake of my own curiosity, which books?


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> The English word "church" carries a meaning that the Greek word does not. In English, "church" refers primarily to "the body of Christ." That is not the case in Greek. It is a secular word adapted by Paul to refer to the body of Christ. Strong’s defines it as “a gathering of citizens called out from their homes into some public place, an assembly.” On Acts 7:38, the NET Bible notes “This term, ἐκκλησία (ekklhsia), is a secular use of the term that came to mean “church” in the epistles. Here a reference to an assembly is all that is intended.”
> 
> The assembly of Israel was not the assembly of Christ, just as the kingdom of Israel was not the kingdom of Christ/heaven. However, the assembly of Israel was a type of the assembly of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Typology.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, as I already said.
> 
> 
> 
> You're putting way more freight on that word than it will carry. No, the use of the word "assembly" does not therefore mean that the assembly of Israel was the assembly of Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Israel as a whole was an assembly - the assembly of Israel.
> 
> 
> 
> Again, typology. Israel, as a whole, was adopted by God in a typological covenant. See if this explanation from Edwards is helpful to you Jonathan Edwards on the Nation of Israel as a Type of the Church
> 
> I would encourage you to study our books. I think all that you have read is Denault. Is that correct? Try reading Abraham Booth's _An Essay on the Kingdom of Christ_ (free online) as well as Coxe
> http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/
> 
> Kline's Two-Level Fulfillment may also be helpful in understanding the typological distinction. http://www.upper-register.com/papers/two_level_fulfillment.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> Typology. What paedobaptists see as a distinction between inward/outward, we see as a distinction between covenants (Old vs New).
> 
> 
> 
> 1689 Federalism has never denied the basic continuity of the Scriptures.
> 
> 
> 
> No. That's why he prophesied the New Covenant (Deut 30:6).
> 
> 
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant was distinct from but subservient to the New Covenant (not an enemy of it) and Moses was saved.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is a common paedobaptist argument. The context denies that interpretation. The New Covenant promises listed were not old covenant promises. Horton "There are clear passages indicating that ‘the forgiveness of sins’ is unique to the New Covenant (“remember their sins no more”; Jer 31:34)." That's why the New is better. Furthermore, does Jesus say that new wine is put into renewed wineskins or new wineskins (Matt 9:17; Lk 5:38)?
> 
> 
> 
> Grant, please see Berkhof: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/06/02/the-promise-was-sufficient-efficacious/
> 
> 
> 
> Which 1689 Federalism fully agrees.
> 
> 
> 
> Which, properly qualified, 1689 Federalism fully agrees.
> 
> 
> 
> What? No, that's a misunderstanding of typology. The New Covenant does not reveal Christ through types and shadows. Again, I appreciate your interest in this topic, but I would encourage you to read some of the book length material. Have you had an opportunity to do so yet? http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/


This seems to be where the misunderstanding of some that Calvinistic/Reformed Baptists hold to Dispensational theology seems to at times be originating from, as to some we seem to be holding to a much to severe distinction between the old and New Covenant in regards to things such as Church and the CoG.


----------



## Pilgrim

Regarding Acts 7:38, if I'm not mistaken, Tyndale employed the word "congregation" or "assembly" where the KJV speaks of the "church in the wilderness." "Congregation" is also used in the Geneva Bible.

If I'm not mistaken, one of the mandates from King James I was that "ecclesiastical" words be used, such as church for congregation here, and bishop for overseer.

Besides the ASV of 1901 and the NKJV (which follow the KJV here) the only other translations in Bible Gateway that I see that use "church" are the Phillips paraphrase and the Roman Catholic Douay-Rhiems. (Perhaps not coincidentally, Phillips was an Anglican.) Even the modern Catholic NAB(RE) has "assembly." Other modern translations including the NIV, ESV, NASB, and the CSB have assembly or congregation.

_Ekklesia_ is used to refer to a riot in Ephesus in response to Paul in Acts 19. Surely that wasn't the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> What? No, that's a misunderstanding of typology.



Yes. The Lord's Supper, among other things, also points the saints forward and typifies the marriage feast of the Lamb.

As with baptism...both NT sacraments point to past/present/future realities for God's People.


----------



## brandonadams

A sign is not the same thing as a type. This obviously gets into a difference between paedos and 1689 Fed - our understanding of typology. We follow with the subservient covenant strain that understands a type as something that has meaning in itself, apart from it's meaning as a type. A sign only has meaning as a sign.

Adam was Adam in addition to being a type of Christ. Joseph was Joseph in addition to being a type of Christ, etc.


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> Regarding Acts 7:38, if I'm not mistaken, Tyndale employed the word "congregation" or "assembly" where the KJV speaks of the "church in the wilderness." "Congregation" is also used in the Geneva Bible.
> 
> If I'm not mistaken, one of the mandates from King James I was that "ecclesiastical" words be used, such as church for congregation here, and bishop for overseer.
> 
> Besides the ASV of 1901 and the NKJV (which follow the KJV here) the only other translations in Bible Gateway that I see that use "church" are the Phillips paraphrase and the Roman Catholic Douay-Rhiems. (Perhaps not coincidentally, Phillips was an Anglican.) Even the modern Catholic NAB(RE) has "assembly." Other modern translations including the NIV, ESV, NASB, and the CSB have assembly or congregation.
> 
> _Ekklesia_ is used to refer to a riot in Ephesus in response to Paul in Acts 19. Surely that wasn't the church of the Lord Jesus Christ.


We cannot be reading back into the OT term the full meaning assigned and given to it under the NC seems to be the implication here.


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> A sign is not the same thing as a type.


A sign certainly CAN and does at times also serve as a type. However, I do not want to get into semantics here nor a typology debate. We disagree.

I will conclude with this and digress. Brandon it IS possible for someone to fully understand and grasp the 1689federalist position and REJECT it as erroneous (many have). Just like you claim for Westminster. Just because you say (the majority of the time) that the opponents to it simply misunderstand it or "you just need to read more from the holy book list" falls flat. I believe you understand Westminster CT (for the most part); however I also acknowledge that for you it does not hold water and therefore you reject it. I am happy to leave it at that.

I hope you have a good rest of the day. I appreciate your thought provoking angles on CT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Grant Jones said:


> Brandon it IS possible for someone to fully understand and grasp the 1689federalist position and REJECT it as erroneous...



I have never said otherwise.



Grant Jones said:


> Just because you say (the majority of the time) that the opponents to it simply misunderstand it or "you just need to read more from the holy book list" falls flat.



The majority of the time opponents have not taken the time to understand and instead are merely content to point out what they see as a difference between their own position and 1689 Fed and leave it at that. When I point out a misunderstanding, I have pointed out in what way the position has been misunderstood, as should be evident throughout this thread. So it is not a baseless statement. I provide clarification each time. (If I have not, please show me and I will). The criticism offered by Adam did not adequately understand what he was trying to critique and thus fell flat. I showed precisely where it misunderstood or did not adequately engage.

So yes, it is possible for someone to understand 1689 Fed and still disagree. Likewise, it is possible for someone not to understand 1689 Fed and offer an inadequate critique. My interest in jumping in on this discussion was to provide clarification for points of misunderstanding.

Thanks for the interaction brother.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

Bill, thanks for posting this thread. And Brandon (and others) thanks for contributing.

For quite some time, I've needed to go back and reexamine my whole position. But it has been clear to me for years that what older Baptists believed and taught wasn't the modified Presbyterian or "20th Century RB" "one covenant, two administrations" teaching. (Peter Masters, has referred to it as "modified Presbyterian" and says that he has always held to what is being termed 1689 Federalism.) I have read very little of 17th Century Baptist writings, but I have read some 18th, 19th, and early 20th Century writers and have seen some of them equate the covenant of grace with the New Covenant and refer to the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of works. It was clear to me that they were teaching neither NCT nor what I had understood to be the 1689/Reformed Baptist teaching.

Brandon, in your view, is "From Shadow to Substance" the one book someone should read?

I do have the Kindle edition of Denault, which I have but have yet to read. Kudos to him and/or the publisher for making the update freely available to those who already had the first edition rather than making you buy it all over again.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Chris, yes "From Shadow to Substance" is an excellent book in that it provides great historical context for the development of covenant theology in the 16th and 17th centuries and then also shows the development and progression of particular baptist covenant theology throughout the 17th century. So you a get a great, very carefully nuanced summary of the view.

For an exegetical defense you'd want to then supplement with the Coxe/Owen volume.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Timotheos

brandonadams said:


> Just for the sake of my own curiosity, which books?


Don't expect to get an answer on this one.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

brandonadams said:


> The doctrine of the CoR was further developed between WCF (1646) and 2LBC (1677), particularly by Owen.


Thank you for this Brandon. It is interesting that Owen adopted the doctrine of the COR further, yet I cannot see it in chapter 7 of the Savoy Declaration.

That information by Renihan is very insightful.


----------



## Pergamum

God called all of Israel "my people" as a whole. It was a mixed assembly. Most Christians admit that the Church consists of all believers from all ages.


Timotheos said:


> Don't expect to get an answer on this one.



Here is the list. 

The reason I did not respond is that I tire of being told to jump through somebody else's hoops because I disagree with them. "Here's a list of 2 dozen books....you are not equipped to engage me until you read them all (and p.s. those books all favor my position") is a fundamentally flawed way of argumentation.

-The Denault book (which I have been quoting above)
-The Fatal Flaw by Jeffrey Johnson
-Nehemiah Coxe, Covenant Theology Adam to Christ
-Covenant Theoogy summarized (or something like that), by Doug Van Dorn.
-The Divine Covenants by Pink
-The John Bunyan book, The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded.
-Introducing Covenant Theology, by Horton
-Christ and Covenant Theology, by Venema.
-Introduction to Covenant Theology, J.I. Packer
-Dispensationalism and Covenant Theology, by Richard Belcher
-The Christ of the Covenant by O. Palmer Robertson.
-The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology, Vos.
-Covenant Theology Made Easy, by the PB's Matthew Macmahon
-most of Reisenger's book on Abraham's various seeds, which I think still influences Reformed Baptist thought.
-Covenant Theology, by Earl Blackburn and Walt Chantry


Now you make me a list of all the books you've read on Covenant Theology.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Stephen L Smith said:


> It is interesting that Owen adopted the doctrine of the COR further, yet I cannot see it in chapter 7 of the Savoy Declaration.



I don't know all the specifics, but the Savoy was written in 1658 and much of Owen's writing on the CoR is found in his Hebrews commentary, which was published in volumes from 1668-84.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> God called all of Israel "my people" as a whole. It was a mixed assembly.



All of Israel, including the unbelievers, were God's people according to their election in their natural father Abraham and according to the Old Covenant. See http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/genesis-177/ for a more detailed elaboration if you are interested.

I'm really not sure what point you're trying to make here. 1689 Federalism affirms that God saw all of Israel as "my people." Yet it also affirms there is both a typological and anti-typological import to "my people." That's why I asked what books you have read, because you don't seem to be familiar with how we understand this issue. If you are familiar, then I don't really understand why you think this is an objection or criticism.



Pergamum said:


> Most Christians admit that the Church consists of all believers from all ages.



1689 Federalism affirms this. Again, not sure what your point is.



Pergamum said:


> The reason I did not respond is that I tire of being told to jump through somebody else's hoops because I disagree with them. "Here's a list of 2 dozen books....you are not equipped to engage me until you read them all (and p.s. those books all favor my position") is a fundamentally flawed way of argumentation.



I never said that. I responded directly to your objection, then I suggested two books that you should read because your objection was so far off base that I assumed you had not read what we have to say on that particular issue. I was mistaken.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> Here is the list.


If my memory is correct Pergamum, you made enquiries about the Facebook group "Reformed and Calvinistic Baptist Christians Australia and New Zealand". After looking at the list rules, I refused to join and told the moderators. The group would include Calvinistic Dispensationists and exclude Covenantal Paedobaptists. To me this was ludicrous. If *the* key point for Reformed Theology is covenant theology, this means Reformed Baptists have more in common with Reformed Paedobaptists than they do with Dispensational Calvinists. For a good framework for discussing covenant theology that both Baptists and Paedobaptists can use, see https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vos_covenant.html


Pergamum said:


> Now you make me a list of all the books you've read on Covenant Theology.


Looking at what Brandon has written on the subject, the list would extend from New Zealand to Australia

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> If my memory is correct Pergamum, you made enquiries about the Facebook group "Reformed and Calvinistic Baptist Christians Australia and New Zealand". After looking at the list rules, I refused to join and told the moderators. The group would include Calvinistic Dispensationists and exclude Covenantal Paedobaptists. To me this was ludicrous. If *the* key point for Reformed Theology is covenant theology, this means Reformed Baptists have more in common with Reformed Paedobaptists than they do with Dispensational Calvinists. For a good framework for discussing covenant theology that both Baptists and Paedobaptists can use, see https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vos_covenant.html
> 
> Looking at what Brandon has written on the subject, the list would extend from New Zealand to Australia



Why did you refuse to join again? The rules were too strict?

The first thing that binds us together is the Gospel. Baptism and Covenant Theology are of secondary importance. 

What did you want me to see from the Vos article?


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> If my memory is correct Pergamum, you made enquiries about the Facebook group "Reformed and Calvinistic Baptist Christians Australia and New Zealand". After looking at the list rules, I refused to join and told the moderators. The group would include Calvinistic Dispensationists and exclude Covenantal Paedobaptists. To me this was ludicrous. If *the* key point for Reformed Theology is covenant theology, this means Reformed Baptists have more in common with Reformed Paedobaptists than they do with Dispensational Calvinists. For a good framework for discussing covenant theology that both Baptists and Paedobaptists can use, see https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vos_covenant.html
> 
> Looking at what Brandon has written on the subject, the list would extend from New Zealand to Australia


The one binding issue for all Baptists though would be water baptism itself.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> Why did you refuse to join again? The rules were too strict?


I explained in the post above. I did tell the moderators that the rules they had composed would include our second best friends (Calvinistic Dispensationalists) but exclude our every best friends (Reformed Paedobaptists). That does not make sense.



Pergamum said:


> The first thing that binds us together is the Gospel. Baptism and Covenant Theology are of secondary importance.


In that case those rules come under your own criticism. The rules exclude Paedobaptists exen though you yourself have said the thing that binds us all is the gospel.



Pergamum said:


> What did you want me to see from the Vos article?


Reformed Baptists and Reformeded Paedobaptists have a commen thread to their theology - namely covenant theology (we differ over the details). Reformed Baptists and Calvinist Dispensationists do not have this key theology in common.


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> I explained in the post above. I did tell the moderators that the rules they had composed would include our second best friends (Calvinistic Dispensationalists) but exclude our every best friends (Reformed Paedobaptists). That does not make sense.
> 
> 
> In that case those rules come under your own criticism. The rules exclude Paedobaptists exen though you yourself have said the thing that binds us all is the gospel.
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptists and Reformeded Paedobaptists have a commen thread to their theology - namely covenant theology (we differ over the details). Reformed Baptists and Calvinist Dispensationists do not have this key theology in common.



When it comes to missionary work, I have found that there is not much crossover (at least for me) in gaining support from Presbyterians. Even desspte soteriology being the same, it is the baptismal waters which divide and many reformed will not support a baptist missionary. Charismatics will support me, but not many Presbyterians will. And so it would really benefit my case to jump on board the 1689 Federalism bandwagon. But perhaps I am forever brainwashed by O. Palmer Robertson and his excellent book, The Christ of the Covenants which set my covenantal theology for the last 20 years.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> I explained in the post above. I did tell the moderators that the rules they had composed would include our second best friends (Calvinistic Dispensationalists) but exclude our every best friends (Reformed Paedobaptists). That does not make sense.
> 
> 
> In that case those rules come under your own criticism. The rules exclude Paedobaptists exen though you yourself have said the thing that binds us all is the gospel.
> 
> 
> Reformed Baptists and Reformeded Paedobaptists have a commen thread to their theology - namely covenant theology (we differ over the details). Reformed Baptists and Calvinist Dispensationists do not have this key theology in common.


Both of them do see the Gospel in the same manner though, and also water baptism.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> When it comes to missionary work, I have found that there is not much crossover (at least for me) in gaining support from Presbyterians. Even desspte soteriology being the same, it is the baptismal waters which divide and many reformed will not support a baptist missionary. Charismatics will support me, but not many Presbyterians will. And so it would really benefit my case to jump on board the 1689 Federalism bandwagon. But perhaps I am forever brainwashed by O. Palmer Robertson and his excellent book, The Christ of the Covenants which set my covenantal theology for the last 20 years.


In order to still hold to believers Baptism though, have to be in agreement with some form of Baptist reformed, correct? So what form do you currently agree with on this?


----------



## Kinghezy

Pergamum said:


> When it comes to missionary work, I have found that there is not much crossover (at least for me) in gaining support from Presbyterians. Even desspte soteriology being the same, it is the baptismal waters which divide and many reformed will not support a baptist missionary. Charismatics will support me, but not many Presbyterians will.



Not should they. The Westminster says it is a great sin to not administer baptism and the PCA book of church says it should not be unnecessary delayed (I assume OPC and like have something similar). I would wonder about their convictions if they supported a Baptist ministriy.


----------



## Dachaser

Kinghezy said:


> Not should they. The Westminster says it is a great sin to not administer baptism and the PCA book of church says it should not be unnecessary delayed (I assume OPC and like have something similar). I would wonder about their convictions if they supported a Baptist ministriy.


Paul stated that he rejoiced when Jesus was being preached, even if not from the right motive and reason, and Jesus said that there were others outside the Apostolic band that were also with Jesus teaching Him as Lord.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Kinghezy

Dachaser said:


> Paul stated that he rejoiced when Jesus was being preached, even if not from the right motive and reason, and Jesus said that there were others outside the Apostolic band that were also with Jesus teaching



I do not recall the Paul quote, but your summary sounds like an internal matter (motive/reason), and not a doctrinal question. I am not following how the summary from what Jesus said is connected to doctrine either. I am not sure where that passage is, but I would be curious on what Jesus' point was.


----------



## Dachaser

Kinghezy said:


> I do not recall the Paul quote, but your summary sounds like an internal matter (motive/reason), and not a doctrinal question. I am not following how the summary from what Jesus said is connected to doctrine either. I am not sure where that passage is, but I would be curious on what Jesus' point was.


That both Baptists and Presbyterians would be teaching the same Jesus and same Gospel, so should support one another!


----------



## Kinghezy

@Dachaser I will refrain from commenting on this idea to avoid derailing the thread further. It would, however, be interesting to explore where the line is on supporting a brother in Christ.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> When it comes to missionary work, I have found that there is not much crossover (at least for me) in gaining support from Presbyterians. Even desspte soteriology being the same, it is the baptismal waters which divide and many reformed will not support a baptist missionary. Charismatics will support me, but not many Presbyterians will. And so it would really benefit my case to jump on board the 1689 Federalism bandwagon.


Yes I can sympathise with this problem. What many in the USA often don't realise is that Reformed Christinity is somewhat smaller - especially in small nations like New Zealand and Australia. Therefore it is often not practical to have seperate paedobaptist and baptist churches in the same town. I know USA ministers who struggle here with the limited Reformed influence in New Zealand.



Pergamum said:


> But perhaps I am forever brainwashed by O. Palmer Robertson and his excellent book, The Christ of the Covenants which set my covenantal theology for the last 20 years.


Personally I think Witsius "Economy of the Covenants" is better.


----------



## Dachaser

Kinghezy said:


> @Dachaser I will refrain from commenting on this idea to avoid derailing the thread further. It would, however, be interesting to explore where the line is on supporting a brother in Christ.


How about if I start a thread on this topic?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Dachaser said:


> In order to still hold to believers Baptism though, have to be in agreement with some form of Baptist reformed, correct? So what form do you currently agree with on this?



I am a baptist. Who believes most of O. Palmer Robertson's book Christ of the Covenants. I just believe that the covenant sign ought not to be administered until the person professes individual faith. I do admit a general promise to the households of believers, however, but do not think that is enough to adminster the covenant sign...and so I am still a baptist.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Dachaser said:


> That both Baptists and Presbyterians would be teaching the same Jesus and same Gospel, so should support one another!


Amen.


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes I can sympathise with this problem. What many in the USA often don't realise is that Reformed Christinity is somewhat smaller - especially in small nations like New Zealand and Australia. Therefore it is often not practical to have seperate paedobaptist and baptist churches in the same town. I know USA ministers who struggle here with the limited Reformed influence in New Zealand.
> 
> 
> Personally I think Witsius "Economy of the Covenants" is better.



I have read that, too. But I like newer authors better (they are easier to read.....Owen's Death of Death was almost the death of me)....


----------



## Kinghezy

Dachaser said:


> How about if I start a thread on this topic?


If you are interested, yes. I hadn't considered @Stephen L Smith point of the availablity of people, so with further info I would likely temper what I said. If there wasn't a conservative Presbyterian church in my area, I could see myself attending a conservative Baptist Church, especially a reformed Baptist where there are many things that we would agree on.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> I am a baptist. Who believes most of O. Palmer Robertson's book Christ of the Covenants. I just believe that the covenant sign ought not to be administered until the person professes individual faith. I do admit a general promise to the households of believers, however, but do not think that is enough to adminster the covenant sign...and so I am still a baptist.


So you would agree to there being some form of discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants then?


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> I have read that, too. But I like newer authors better (they are easier to read.....Owen's Death of Death was almost the death of me)....


How did you find John Calvin to read?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Dachaser said:


> How did you find John Calvin to read?


I found him in my bookcase


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> I have read that, too. But I like newer authors better (they are easier to read.....Owen's Death of Death was almost the death of me)....


I have Aspergers Syndrome so I find some large books hard to read. I sympathise. However, did you know Dr McMahon has written a helpful modern english summary on Witsius' work -still a very comprehensive work on covenant theology. http://www.puritanpublications.com/store/products/covenant-theology-made-easy-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/


Pergamum said:


> believes most of O. Palmer Robertson's book Christ of the Covenants.


Have you seen Dr McMahon's review?
http://www.apuritansmind.com/covena...ist-of-the-covenants-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> I have Aspergers Syndrome so I find some large books hard to read. I sympathise. However, did you know Dr McMahon has written a helpful modern english summary on Witsius' work -still a very comprehensive work on covenant theology. http://www.puritanpublications.com/store/products/covenant-theology-made-easy-by-c-matthew-mcmahon/
> 
> Have you seen Dr McMahon's review?
> http://www.apuritansmind.com/covena...ist-of-the-covenants-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/


I have read Macmahon's book on Covenant Theology and also his review of O. Palmer Robertson. Macmahon says the Christ of the Covenants is "too simplistic" but many seminaries assign it as a beginning text on covenant theology and I think it does a pretty good job as an introduction. 

Here is a good summary from Macmahon's book review which coincides with my belief:

"As Scripture demonstrates a series of covenantal relationships through redemptive history, the student comes to understand that the covenants made with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and the New Covenant remain in perfect unity both in structure and theme. There is a structural unity that is perceived in these covenants as previous covenant administrations are built upon by later covenants, rather than replacing them. Covenantal inaugurations demonstrate this, such as with the case of Abraham and his covenant extending to God’s purposes with Israel in their covenantal expressions. The genealogical realities in covenantal succession with Abraham , Moses and David demonstrate not that they are different covenants, but that they are successive of one divine covenant. Even in the fulfillment of the New covenant in Christ, past covenants are referred to in order to demonstrate the continuity, not discontinuity, of those divine employments. One must also consider the thematic unity of the covenants in recognition to the manner in which God relates to his people. God does not have a plan “a” in covenant “one” and a plan “b” in covenant “two.” Rather, the New Covenant is the fulfillment of the one covenant demonstrated in its progressive stages through redemptive history. God will be a God to His people, and this will never change. Saving these people (the elect) through Jesus Christ is the single unifying theme that transcends all the covenant expressions."

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Regarding the visible/invisible church distinction and its relationship to Israel, this recent post is relevant 19th Century Scottish Presbyterian Criticism of Bannerman’s Visible/Invisible Church(es)


----------



## Pergamum

Dachaser said:


> So you would agree to there being some form of discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants then?


Even the Reformed agree to a degree of discontinuity. But continuity is the main theme.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> Even the Reformed agree to a degree of discontinuity. But continuity is the main theme.


How much continuity between the 2 Covenants would you see then?


----------



## Pergamum

Dachaser said:


> How much continuity between the 2 Covenants would you see then?


I see that God has inaugerated a plan of redemption since Genesis 3:15 and that every action and covenant of God is a step forward in that plan since Gen. 3:15 as a further progression of that plan, and that believers are given grace from that point until the promised New Covenant. If believers are saved and participate in the grace of God, and if God always administers saving grace through the means of a covenant, then obviously Old Testament believers participate in some covenant. So what covenant was active during the Old Testament? The answer is the Covenant of Grace?


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> I see that God has inaugerated a plan of redemption since Genesis 3:15 and that every action and covenant of God is a step forward in that plan since Gen. 3:15 as a further progression of that plan, and that believers are given grace from that point until the promised New Covenant. If believers are saved and participate in the grace of God, and if God always administers saving grace through the means of a covenant, then obviously Old Testament believers participate in some covenant. So what covenant was active during the Old Testament? The answer is the Covenant of Grace?


The saving Covenant was always the New Covenant, as that is the CoG, but the OT persons were also under the OT Covenant, and especially under the Mosaic One, where the blessings promised to them was by keeping the Law, and to receive physical blessings while in the promised land.
The fullest of the CoG could not be established on Earth between us and God until coming of the NC, due to the birth, death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus Himself in order to usher in now in full here.


----------

