# The Practical Theology of 1689 Federalism



## KMK (Jul 20, 2017)

How does 1689 Federalism's understanding of Covenant Theology, which they admit is different than that of 'vanilla' Confessional Baptists, work it's way out in practice? How would a 1689 Federalist church operate/worship differently than say, Dr. Waldron's church, for example?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 20, 2017)

As a confessional Reformed Baptist myself, I cannot see why in practice it would be different. All Reformed Baptists would see Covenant Theology as important as such. I believe worship is covenantal. The Reformed Churches of New Zealand use a covenantal litergy which I find helpful. Example 1: http://www.rcnzonline.com/nelson/articles/service-order.pdf
Example 2: http://www.rcnzonline.com/dunedin/worship-services/


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 20, 2017)

No practical difference comes to mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jul 20, 2017)

So, the 1689 Federalist movement does not seek to change the Confession or Practice of the Reformed Baptist churches. What is the website, the publishing house, and the conferences all about? Is it only about making Reformed Baptists aware that maybe Coxe didn't mean exactly what we thought he meant about chapter 7? 

I am not trying to be snarky. I just notice how much work you all are putting into this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 20, 2017)

Just an outsider's perspective here. I think it's a good thing, even if just considered from the standpoint of historic awareness and fidelity. Intrinsically good, In other words,. From my read, 1689F stands between the 20thCentury RBs and the Dispensational-NCTs; and strikes me as possibly a more stable identity than either of them, if one is rooted between Baptist-evangelical and P&R-confessional worlds.

I also see a practical benefit. There are some Presbyterians who are really Baptists at heart; and there are Baptists who are really Presbyterians at heart. Living with tensions isn't always a heart-attack waiting to happen; but perhaps there can be some release of tension, resolved by finding peace in a more consistent expression of one's faith. This is what I see is a benefit of the 1689F effort.

I think it is true, what they say, about a lot of one-way influence by BoT reprints and the like. This has resulted in theological _formation _in many (former) Baptist minds that has resulted in extra tension, and a trickling away of more than a few Baptists into the P&R world, as they seek resolution of some of that tension. Sure, I think they've made a good decision; but sincere Baptist brethren are bound to be frustrated when seeing what appears to be a bad decision. For many of them, it just seems like "Romeward drift."

What I'm getting at is: in my opinion the more 1689F gets heard, the more it appeals to and supplies _Baptist-formation _and a deliberate _Baptist-covenantalism, _the easier it should be for people to figure out if they are more Baptist, or more Presbyterian. Some folk will stay right between them, either oblivious to any tension, or content in it for whatever advantage they have by it.

Presently, one of my big beefs I've expressed on the PB, is that the description "Covenant Theology" is being appropriated wholesale by some, so that left to the trend the words would no longer describe P&R theological method. I've long-past made my peace with the modifier "Reformed" being appropriated as just an adjective (easier, because I was a "Presbyterian"). As I see it, 1689F tries to avoid linguistic confusion precisely by distinguishing its theological method _from _historic Covenant Theology as something "too Presbyterian;" and they're doing this to KEEP Baptists Baptist. I don't have to agree with the conclusion to find it a commendable endeavor.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 20, 2017)

For me (who is living in that tension) it appears at first study like 1689 Federalism reduces the OT to a book primarily about physical things (physical people, land, and promises) instead of being a spiritual book primarily about spiritual things. It makes much of the OT to be about "subservient" purposes and not about the main purpose. Instead of continuity, it stresses discontinuity.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 20, 2017)

It is an obvious, undisguised pull toward a _Baptist-first _identity.

What is it that makes me who and what I am? We answer that question familialy, we answer it nationally; these identities are historically and ideologically _rooted. _We crave *roots* for our identity. If I don't have a solidly satisfying identity explaining who I am in terms of origins, I'm bound to go hunting.

The Baptist faith, if I have the history down, has always had _objections _to the degree of continuity that P&R views make so much of.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK (Jul 20, 2017)

Thanks for the encouragement, Bruce. You are exactly right. I read most of the RBAP books before I even heard the term 1689 Federalism but have always felt more 'in tune' with the Westminsterian expression of the covenants. Maybe 1689 Federalism will show me that I have been a Presbyterian all along. Or maybe Perg and I can start our own denomination!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jul 20, 2017)

My "rooted" comment has also to do with my longstanding aversion (publicized many times here on the PB) against people "pulling themselves up by their baptism." I think of it as a very destabilizing, even dangerous. I would rather see a man remain a committed, well-grounded Baptist, than to have him be a poorly transplanted Baptist in Presbyterian soil. Baptism should be a conclusion from one's theology, not a practice in search of justification.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## brandonadams (Jul 21, 2017)

I think it's rather strange for a theologically minded person to say "What's the point in discussing theology if there's no practical difference?" I did not at all intend to convey the idea that there are no theological consequences for the view. My answer to your question was very simply that changing from the 20th Century RB view to the 1689 Federalism view will not require a restructuring of your church or writing a new constitution or order of liturgy. Pastors of both persuasions can serve together in the same church. 

That said, there are numerous theological consequences of either system. My interest comes from my personal systematic bent. 1689 Federalism addresses my systematic concerns much more consistently than the 20th century view does (in my opinion). It provides a much stronger, more biblical foundation for the law/gospel distinction and therefore has very practical implications. It touches on a number of systematic topics such as union with Christ. It also has implications for worldview thinking on matters like civil government.



KMK said:


> What is the website, the publishing house, and the conferences all about?



Personally, I became interested in teaching others about this view because I came to this view after my study of Scripture and was told again and again that it was contrary to the 2LBCF and reformed baptist covenant theology. It became a little frustrating, so when I found out it was actually the historic view, I wanted to let others know so they didn't have to scavenge the internet seeking direction and help like I did.

1) The website is about providing people with material on baptist covenant theology from a single, consistent perspective. I think that should be a great benefit to anyone studying the topic. Again, I find it very strange for someone on this board to be asking what the point of something like that is.

2) There is no 1689 Federalism publishing house. RBAP publishes material from both perspectives. It has never claimed to be a 1689 Federalism publishing house. It is a 1689 publishing house.

3) I'm not aware of a 1689 Federalism conference. The Southwest Founders conference had it as a topic a few years ago. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're referring to. But once again, I don't understand why someone would be asking what the point of a theological conference on a theological topic is.

Time and time again I have had people tell me how much deeper in Scripture this study has driven them and how much they have been blessed by it. So that alone is a "practical" reason to keep discussing it.



KMK said:


> Is it only about making Reformed Baptists aware that maybe Coxe didn't mean exactly what we thought he meant about chapter 7?



Why is any material by old dead guys republished? Obviously because there is theological benefit. Again, this is just a bizarre line of questioning.



KMK said:


> I am not trying to be snarky. I just notice how much work you all are putting into this.



Why do you put in so much work discussing things on this forum?



Contra_Mundum said:


> As I see it, 1689F tries to avoid linguistic confusion precisely by distinguishing its theological method _from _historic Covenant Theology as something "too Presbyterian;" and they're doing this to KEEP Baptists Baptist.



No, that is not the case at all. Federal is another word for Covenantal. 1689 Federalism just sounds better than 1689 Covenantalism and it also hints at a more historic root. It is definitely not intending to communicate the mistaken notion that Presbyterians have a monopoly on Covenant Theology. 1689 Federalism is a historic Covenant Theology.



Pergamum said:


> For me (who is living in that tension) it appears at first study like 1689 Federalism reduces the OT to a book primarily about physical things



That's why you should start reading the books I recommended, because you're not understanding the position at all.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jul 21, 2017)

Brandon,

Please update your signature per the rules here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/help/signature/


----------



## KMK (Jul 21, 2017)

Thanks, Brandon. It has been difficult for me to keep up with everything. The only reason I am asking about confessional/practical implications is to try to figure out how much of a 'front burner' issue this is. You have asked all of us to do a great deal of reading about your movement and it might take some time for old timers like me to catch up.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 21, 2017)

KMK said:


> Thanks for the encouragement, Bruce. You are exactly right. I read most of the RBAP books before I even heard the term 1689 Federalism but have always felt more 'in tune' with the Westminsterian expression of the covenants. Maybe 1689 Federalism will show me that I have been a Presbyterian all along. Or maybe Perg and I can start our own denomination!


Or maybe you agree with Covenant theology, but do still see baptism and church as baptists do?


----------



## jomawh (Jul 23, 2017)

Not a 1689 Federalist per se but I've been doing a lot of reading in it lately. My pastor and I have been meeting on Thursdays to work through Coxe's treatise on baptist covenantalism and it's been getting me to at least reconsider the one CoG, two dispensations model. If I end up falling on the Westminster's view, I'll probably become a Presbyterian- I don't see how one can consistently maintain that covenantal model and not end up a paedobaptist. I try to be honest. 

With regard to its practical implications I'm not all that sure there would be that much of a difference. However, as stated above, with the departure of not a few Reformed Baptists for the Presbyterian camp there is a very real desire to emphasize Baptist distinctives to appeal to some sense of continuity and identity. The resurgence of the title "Particular Baptist" in opposition to "Reformed Baptist" reflects this.

Take, for example, the Calvinists within the SBC- 1689 Federalism provides them with a very strong historic argument for what constituted *the *Baptist view over and against the so-called traditionalist view (one wonders when they won't just come out as Pelagian), which as far as I can see from outside that group, is chiefly dispensational.

A few thoughts.


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 23, 2017)

I have had two baptists now tell me that if I don't accept their view of the covenants (which is the consistent baptist view, they tell me) that I might fit better as a Presbyterian since my covenant theology leads that way. I think this is a rhetorical tactic by some to get baptists on board...but I think it might come back to bite them when many baptists, indeed, end up seeing 1689 federalism in all its glory and being sadly disappointed and turning to Presbyterianism as a result.


----------



## Herald (Jul 23, 2017)

jomawh said:


> Not a 1689 Federalist per se but I've been doing a lot of reading in it lately. My pastor and I have been meeting on Thursdays to work through Coxe's treatise on baptist covenantalism and it's been getting me to at least reconsider the one CoG, two dispensations model. If I end up falling on the Westminster's view, I'll probably become a Presbyterian- I don't see how one can consistently maintain that covenantal model and not end up a paedobaptist. I try to be honest.
> 
> With regard to its practical implications I'm not all that sure there would be that much of a difference. However, as stated above, with the departure of not a few Reformed Baptists for the Presbyterian camp there is a very real desire to emphasize Baptist distinctives to appeal to some sense of continuity and identity. The resurgence of the title "Particular Baptist" in opposition to "Reformed Baptist" reflects this.
> 
> ...


I am not sure how a one Covenant of Grace view should require a switch to the paedo position (require is my word). It depends on how one views the Covenant of Grace. I will give 1689 Federalism credit for awakening Calvinistic Baptists to find out their true theological identity, and for fighting back against the redheaded step child syndrome. However, if I accept 1689 Federalism I want it to be for sound, biblical, reasons.


----------



## jomawh (Jul 23, 2017)

Herald said:


> I am not sure how a one Covenant of Grace view should require a switch to the paedo position (require is my word). It depends on how one views the Covenant of Grace. I will give 1689 Federalism credit for awakening Calvinistic Baptists to find out their true theological identity, and for fighting back against the redheaded step child syndrome. However, if I accept 1689 Federalism I want it to be for sound, biblical, reasons.



Not require necessarily, but I do wonder whether or not one can consistently maintain or hold such a position. Covenantal paedobaptism is built upon the argument which flows from the unity of the Covenant of Grace throughout the ages- thus done to Abraham and his seed in the Old, the same for the seed of believers in the New. An integral part of this hermeneutic is the principle that a command remains abiding except for a specific abrogation/fulfillment in the New, which covenantal paedobaptists use to argue, in the case of the command to give the sign of the Covenant of Grace to the (male) infants of at least one believing parent, that such a change has not taken place (but rather, an expansion!).

What you open yourself up to in holding to the one CoG, two dispensations model is the argument that states "Any argument against paedobaptism in the New could equally be levied against paedocircumcision in the Old." That gets 1689 Federalists sweaty.

The appeal of 1689 Federalism is that, unlike dispensationalism/NCT, it affirms that the law was given for graceful reasons even though it was not *the *Covenant of Grace, opening the door to being able to reject paedobaptism on the grounds of the Old Testament's typological function in pointing to the New. Where I start scratching my head is when this argument starts to break down; folks like R.S. Clark remind us that "Okay, Jeremiah 31 is talking about the covenant at Sinai- but paedobaptism finds its root in Abraham, not Moses!" and looking at the text itself I'm honest enough to realize that's true. The arguments that I've heard from 1689 Federalists (e.g. "Well, the NT speaks of a very close relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and circumcision, so Jeremiah 31 can still be used to argue the nature of the New Covenant being absolutely unique even over the Abrahamic") just aren't all that satisfying to my ears.

Like I said, still reading and working through the issues.



Pergamum said:


> I have had two baptists now tell me that if I don't accept their view of the covenants (which is the consistent baptist view, they tell me) that I might fit better as a Presbyterian since my covenant theology leads that way. I think this is a rhetorical tactic by some to get baptists on board...but I think it might come back to bite them when many baptists, indeed, end up seeing 1689 federalism in all its glory and being sadly disappointed and turning to Presbyterianism as a result.



Cage-stage 1689 Federalists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Jul 23, 2017)

jomawh said:


> Not require necessarily, but I do wonder whether or not one can consistently maintain or hold such a position. Covenantal paedobaptism is built upon the argument which flows from the unity of the Covenant of Grace throughout the ages- thus done to Abraham and his seed in the Old, the same for the seed of believers in the New.



I think what 1689 Federalism is trying to do is to understand Baptist covenant theology from a time before the Reformed Baptist movement. The Reformed Baptist movement really took hold in the latter half of the 20th Century, and as such it developed its own theological positions. I believe it is a good thing to drill down on what our Particular Baptist brethren believed in regards to covenant theology. I am not sure how much Spurgeon was influenced by Darby's work on eschatology, but that is something I want to look into. Particular Baptists that preceded Spurgeon did not have the heavy weight of Dispensationalism to carry around. So, this is going to be a journey that I think all self-proclaimed Reformed Baptists have a stake in; not out of fear of becoming Presbyterians, but out of desire to better understand the truth.

I go into this study with a firm set of presuppositions. I have no problem with a Covenant of Grace that governs our understanding of the Old and New Covenants. I have no issue with the discontinuity of Abrahamic Covenant, and do not see why I should have a problem with it in light of the Covenant of Grace. I do believe there are types and shadows of the New Covenant sprinkled throughout the subservient covenants that operated under the administration of the Old Covenant. I view the New Covenant as a promise made exclusively to a people of faith as opposed to a promise made through a physical nation. I do not believe that places me in any type of dispensational system, as I also believe the promise of eternal life has always been predicated on faith in Christ; in the Old Covenant the promised Messiah, and in the New Covenant the Messiah revealed. I believe the Church is made up of one people of God, not distinguished by when they were saved. So, with those presuppositions established, I am going to see what Baptists of old believed and compare them to the majority view among Reformed Baptists today.

I predict a lot of posting on this topic in the near future.


----------



## jomawh (Jul 23, 2017)

Herald said:


> I think what 1689 Federalism is trying to do is to understand Baptist covenant theology from a time before the Reformed Baptist movement. The Reformed Baptist movement really took hold in the latter half of the 20th Century, and as such it developed its own theological positions.


I think that's a big part of it, yeah.



Herald said:


> I am not sure how much Spurgeon was influenced by Darby's work on eschatology, but that is something I want to look into. Particular Baptists that preceded Spurgeon did not have the heavy weight of Dispensationalism to carry around. So, this is going to be a journey that I think all self-proclaimed Reformed Baptists have a stake in; not out of fear of becoming Presbyterians, but out of desire to better understand the truth.


Spurgeon is an interesting case study. While he most closely fit to what we might call the historic premillennial position, covenantal hermeneutics included, he did believe in a restoration of ethnic Jews to the land, which most would today consider to be one of *the *dispensationalist positions. He emphatically rejected the Plymouth Brethren movement and the beginnings of what became dispensationalism, once systematized. He even published an article against the attempt to separate God's people into two camps, Jew and Gentile- I'll look to see if I can find it for you.



Herald said:


> I predict a lot of posting on this topic in the near future.


Hopefully! I've found it at the very least edifying.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 25, 2017)

Herald said:


> I think what 1689 Federalism is trying to do is to understand Baptist covenant theology from a time before the Reformed Baptist movement. The Reformed Baptist movement really took hold in the latter half of the 20th Century, and as such it developed its own theological positions. I believe it is a good thing to drill down on what our Particular Baptist brethren believed in regards to covenant theology. I am not sure how much Spurgeon was influenced by Darby's work on eschatology, but that is something I want to look into. Particular Baptists that preceded Spurgeon did not have the heavy weight of Dispensationalism to carry around. So, this is going to be a journey that I think all self-proclaimed Reformed Baptists have a stake in; not out of fear of becoming Presbyterians, but out of desire to better understand the truth.
> 
> I go into this study with a firm set of presuppositions. I have no problem with a Covenant of Grace that governs our understanding of the Old and New Covenants. I have no issue with the discontinuity of Abrahamic Covenant, and do not see why I should have a problem with it in light of the Covenant of Grace. I do believe there are types and shadows of the New Covenant sprinkled throughout the subservient covenants that operated under the administration of the Old Covenant. I view the New Covenant as a promise made exclusively to a people of faith as opposed to a promise made through a physical nation. I do not believe that places me in any type of dispensational system, as I also believe the promise of eternal life has always been predicated on faith in Christ; in the Old Covenant the promised Messiah, and in the New Covenant the Messiah revealed. I believe the Church is made up of one people of God, not distinguished by when they were saved. So, with those presuppositions established, I am going to see what Baptists of old believed and compare them to the majority view among Reformed Baptists today.
> 
> I predict a lot of posting on this topic in the near future.



Would you see then the possibility of there being 2 distinct reformed Baptists theologies, one for the 1689 Confession /Federalists, and those for later on, such as a Spurgeon and a Dr Macarthur , who espoused Dispensational viewpoints.

Were not some prominent theologians holding to some Dispensational eschatology viewpoints in addition to Covenant theology from 18/19 Centuries also muddling the waters?


----------



## jomawh (Jul 25, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Would you see then the possibility of there being 2 distinct reformed Baptists theologies, one for the 1689 Confession /Federalists, and those for later on, such as a Spurgeon and a Dr Macarthur , who espoused Dispensational viewpoints.


Spurgeon emphatically rejected the core theological presupposition of dispensationalism, chiefly that one cannot "confuse" Israel with the Church, so I would not say that he espoused dispensationalists views. His hermeneutic was an odd mix of historicist and futurist premillennialism, and as any reader of Spurgeon will be able to tell you, eschatology was just not something that he focused on (Likely in part because he saw how ridiculous the proto-Dispensational Brethren were in their end-times hysteria). At the forefront of his preaching was personal piety and enthusiasm for the glory of Christ, not the particulars of the End. In holding to a recollection of the Jews in Palestine he did so for very different reasons than dispensationalists.

MacArthur himself, as I understand him, is only truly dispensationalist with regard to ecclesiology (he says that he is a "leaky dispensationalist"). As a Calvinist he must agree that anyone and everyone in either the Old Testament and the New Testament were only ever saved by the blood of the Lamb, which is, again, a major departure from classical dispensationalism, which would affirm that Israel in the Old Testament was "saved by law." For this reason I think he's able to be more cordial and find much common ground with the Reformed. Under most standard definitions he is, in spite of being a thorough-going Calvinist, neither confessional in his subscription nor (purely) covenantal in his hermeneutic, so I would not classify him as being Reformed- as much as I love the man for his decades of faithful service and in bringing many, such as myself, into Calvinism out of the bleak world of Arminianism.

I would not classify dispensationalism as a Baptist hermeneutic, let alone a Reformed Baptist hermeneutic. Even a cursory glance at the first few pages of the original Scofield bible will find many a Presbyterian endorsing it, and few Baptists. Its origins being in Anabaptism, to which the 17th and 18th century Particular Baptists emphatically rejected a relation, further strengthens the case. Dispensationalism is "beyond the pale" of Reformation theology.

The historic Particular Baptists held to Covenant theology, but of a kind that was of their own formulation. If you're interested in some deep but enlightening reading, I highly suggest you buy Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, published by Reformed Baptist Academic Press. https://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Theology-Christ-Nehemiah-Coxe/dp/0976003937



Dachaser said:


> Were not some prominent theologians holding to some Dispensational eschatology viewpoints in addition to Covenant theology from 18/19 Centuries also muddling the waters?


Dispensationalism is primarily an hermeneutic, not an eschatology (though the hermeneutic drives their eschatology). One cannot consistently hold to both covenantalism and dispensationalism as they are opposing hermeneutics.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 25, 2017)

What seems to be happening at the present time is that there seems to be gaining traction though, at least in my opinion, a reaching out from the progressive side of Dispensational towards those who would hold to day Historical premil Covenant theology, as the lines are blurring from what was seen as being hard and fast differences between these 2 camps within the Church of Christ.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 25, 2017)

Herald said:


> I am not sure how much Spurgeon was influenced by Darby's work on eschatology, but that is something I want to look into.



Not much, I don't think. He did not think much of Darby, although some of his problem with him had to do with other issues, such as the sectarianism of the Exclusive Brethren. Phil Johnson has some pages on this.

There are a lot of things in Darbyism and Brethrenism that had been taught before they came on the scene. (This may even include pre-trib, (which Spurgeon definitely denied) but I'll have to look into that more. You can read quotes from older writers that may appear to say something that they are not upon further examination. But things like Early English Books Online help here just as it does with researching early Particular Baptist federalism.) It was Darby's systematization that was unique. To be sure, he popularized views that were very marginal before if they were in circulation at all. His ecclesiology (stark Israel/church separation) is much more unique than his eschatology. All of these areas of theology ultimately intersect at some point, of course. And many Dispensationalists defend pre-trib on the grounds of needing to keep Israel and the church separate. Thus their ecclesiology drives their eschatology. But there have been people who are pre-trib that have actually affirmed the unity of the covenant of grace and have strongly opposed dispensationalism, or at least the worst aspects of it. 

Other Calvinistic covenantal premils (it seems that there were hardly any Arminian ones back then although there were actually some notable Lutheran ones) like Ryle, the Bonars, M'Cheyne and others also believed in a restoration of Israel to the land. I'd actually like to see an example of a "historic premil" from that era that denied it. I think that it may well be accurate to view Ladd and his successors as teaching "20th Century Historic Premil" given the differences between their teaching on "unfulfilled" OT prophecy and the older premils. (And I guess we may as well call preterist theonomic postmil "20th Century postmil" given its differences from the earlier postmilennialism.)



jomawh said:


> he did believe in a restoration of ethnic Jews to the land, which most would today consider to be one of *the *dispensationalist positions.



While understandable, the idea that such a restoration automatically puts you in the Dispensational camp is palpable error. At best it is the result reading the current state of the eschatology debates back into the 19th Century and perhaps even the 18th Century. A good many "classic" postmils also believed in a restoration of ethnic Jews to the land. (If memory serves, that number includes Edwards, a' Brakel and David Brown of the famous Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary.) I believe Iain Murray delves into this in his "Puritan Hope." If I recall correctly there is a Scottish postmil brother on the board who believes this. So it isn't necessarily even a premil distinctive at all, much less a dispensational one. Admittedly, there are relatively few outside of dispensational circles today that affirm it, which is the reason for the idea that it is necessarily a Dispensational distinctive.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 25, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Would you see then the possibility of there being 2 distinct reformed Baptists theologies, one for the 1689 Confession /Federalists, and those for later on, such as a Spurgeon and a Dr Macarthur , who espoused Dispensational viewpoints.
> 
> Were not some prominent theologians holding to some Dispensational eschatology viewpoints in addition to Covenant theology from 18/19 Centuries also muddling the waters?



MacArthur (along with dispensationalism generally) divvies up the redeemed into three groups: The OT Saints, the Church (existing only from Pentecost to the Rapture) and the Tribulation Saints. Spurgeon emphatically denied this. The idea that Abraham wasn't a member of the universal church (or even the visible church for some of them) was repugnant to Spurgeon and others who held similar eschatalogical views (i.e. classic covenantal/historic premil.)

As I noted a little earlier, it is wrong to say that Spurgeon held to some "Dispensational eschatology viewpoints." This is an anachronism--projecting the current eschatological landscape back into an earlier age.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## jomawh (Jul 25, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> While understandable, the idea that such a restoration automatically puts you in the Dispensational camp is palpable error...Admittedly, there are relatively few outside of dispensational circles today that affirm it, which is the reason for the idea that it is necessarily a Dispensational distinctive.


I agree absolutely.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2017)

Thank you for that clarification, as I once strongly held to the sane viewpoints in this area as Dr MacArthur does, but I now see the OT saints also part of the Church of Christ, as all of the elect are, but still do not see the church until the NT age as a distinct Body, as there was the church group within the OC Israel, but not all under that OC were saved, but all in it in NC/NT times are now.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Not much, I don't think. He did not think much of Darby, although some of his problem with him had to do with other issues, such as the sectarianism of the Exclusive Brethren. Phil Johnson has some pages on this.
> 
> There are a lot of things in Darbyism and Brethrenism that had been taught before they came on the scene. (This may even include pre-trib, (which Spurgeon definitely denied) but I'll have to look into that more. You can read quotes from older writers that may appear to say something that they are not upon further examination. But things like Early English Books Online help here just as it does with researching early Particular Baptist federalism.) It was Darby's systematization that was unique. To be sure, he popularized views that were very marginal before if they were in circulation at all. His ecclesiology (stark Israel/church separation) is much more unique than his eschatology. All of these areas of theology ultimately intersect at some point, of course. And many Dispensationalists defend pre-trib on the grounds of needing to keep Israel and the church separate. Thus their ecclesiology drives their eschatology. But there have been people who are pre-trib that have actually affirmed the unity of the covenant of grace and have strongly opposed dispensationalism, or at least the worst aspects of it.
> 
> ...


The Historical premil viewpoint would include the restoration of national Israel unto the Lord at the Second Coming event then, correct?


----------



## jomawh (Jul 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Historical premil viewpoint would include the restoration of national Israel unto the Lord at the Second Coming event then, correct?


Not to speak for Pilgrim, but historic premillennialism allows for, but does not necessarily require, a restoration of national Israel- but only ever on equal footing with any other nation, by submission to Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 26, 2017)

jomawh said:


> Not to speak for Pilgrim, but historic premillennialism allows for, but does not necessarily require, a restoration of national Israel- but only ever on equal footing with any other nation, by submission to Christ.


This is what I have been seeking, as though no longer holding to Israel as Dispensational Christians do, still see God doing something unique with national Israel at the time of the Second Advent.


----------



## jomawh (Jul 26, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> This is what I have been seeking, as though no longer holding to Israel as Dispensational Christians do, still see God doing something unique with national Israel at the time of the Second Event.



I would highly suggest, Brother, that you listen to Sam Waldron's lecture defending the Amillennial position. 

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=118141626271


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 26, 2017)

One question I have:

A few years ago Reformed Baptists began to focus on the doctrine of divine impassibility. They adopted one view and demanded adherence to this view in order to stay within ARBCA. As a result, many churches left (including the majority of their missions committee). 

It all seemed needlessly divisive; a splitting of good brothers over a secondary point of theology proper. And I think it also hurt outreach and missions.

I am afraid if RBs begin to adopt 1689 Federalism wholesale, they will again try to force adherence or divide up into little camps once again such that it is not enough merely to be a calvinistic baptist or RB, but one must also fully agree on all of these hard-to-understand secondary points as well. And of course, just like the impassibility issue, some brothers will say, "covenant theology is NOT a secondary point...it is central, and therefore we must be agreed on it or else we cannot fellowship together." That is my worry. Another wedge issue dividing up brethren.

Do you think this will happen?


----------



## jomawh (Jul 26, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> It all seemed needlessly divisive; a splitting of good brothers over a secondary point of theology proper. And I think it also hurt outreach and missions.



Fundamentally the point of associationalism is that independent, yet like-minded churches would cooperate together for mutual benefit, to accomplish ends that individual assemblies would find difficult alone (financial giving to poorer churches to support ministers, missions, the training of ministers, etc), and all without an horizontal delegation of each assemblys' rights or powers. The common thread in this case is adherence to the confessional standard of the 1689, fundamentally setting Reformed Particular Baptists apart from the merely Calvinistic or Sovereign Grace Baptist associations or conventions, and which articulates the position, in common with other historic Reformed confessions of faith, of God as being "without passions."

Associationalism is unlike denominationalism in this regard. Each church remains free to associate or even be apart of another association, convention, or denomination if desired. "Splitting the brethren" assumes a stronger tie in associationalism than is truly present or which is intended to be.

When congregations are no longer like-minded in agreeing upon a common confession it makes little sense to remain in association, for why would churches agree to contribute to a common missions pool knowing that the ministers they would be supporting, no hard feelings, do not share in their confessional adherence? Why not just dissolve ARBCA and join the SBC? Are Reformed Baptists merely Baptists who've stumbled into Calvinism and Covenantalism or are we thorough-going Puritan and Reformed credobaptists? There is a huge divide between the two.

And make no mistake, the doctrine of impassability is no secondary point of doctrine, but is part and parcel to the transcendent nature of Jehovah Himself. An analogous situation would be to also deny association with those who hold to New Covenant Theology, the Eternal Subordination of the Son, or those who don't hold to literal, six-day creation. Again, no hard feelings- we can't associate.

If the ARBCA general assembly votes and concludes that 1689 Federalism is *the *view of the 1689 that is entirely its prerogative, as member churches are made aware when joining in association. As highly sympathetic as I am to 1689 Federalism, I would find this to be a mistake, but that's, again, their prerogative- we can still grab a beer together at my house in-between services.


----------



## Steve Curtis (Jul 26, 2017)

Herald said:


> sprinkled


Aha!


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 26, 2017)

jomawh said:


> Fundamentally the point of associationalism is that independent, yet like-minded churches would cooperate together for mutual benefit, to accomplish ends that individual assemblies would find difficult alone (financial giving to poorer churches to support ministers, missions, the training of ministers, etc), and all without an horizontal delegation of each assemblys' rights or powers. The common thread in this case is adherence to the confessional standard of the 1689, fundamentally setting Reformed Particular Baptists apart from the merely Calvinistic or Sovereign Grace Baptist associations or conventions, and which articulates the position, in common with other historic Reformed confessions of faith, of God as being "without passions."
> 
> Associationalism is unlike denominationalism in this regard. Each church remains free to associate or even be apart of another association, convention, or denomination if desired. "Splitting the brethren" assumes a stronger tie in associationalism than is truly present or which is intended to be.
> 
> ...



The way you put it, almost ANY doctrine could be seen as vital enough to split over. 1689 Federalism is about God's plan of salvation, after all,..and therefore it is no secondary point of doctrine, but a doctrine to divide over. Therefore, you have confirmed my fear that, yes, some Reformed Baptists may, indeed, divide over 1689 Federalism. This is no secondary issue, after all.

Regarding the impassibility issue, in the end, the 1689 Confession was not enough. Churches were additionally required to adhere to a confession-level document drafted by a few men interpreting what the 1689 actually meant.

ARBCA's two main achievements in recent years has been to embrace a divisive revisionist history book by a man who is probably going to be convicted as a pedophile (and a man who ARBCA investigated but did not turn over the findings to the police)....and ARBCA then saw many churches leave over a fine theological point when that split did not have to happen. Not a good legacy.


----------



## jomawh (Jul 26, 2017)

kainos01 said:


> Aha!


Remember, it was the *Egyptians *who were immersed!


----------



## jomawh (Jul 26, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> The way you put it, almost ANY doctrine could be seen as vital enough to split over. 1689 Federalism is about God's plan of salvation..and therefore it is no secondary point of doctrine, but a doctrine to divide over.


Again, if the ARBCA general assembly decides that the 1689 LBCF requires 1689 Federalism that is that body's prerogative. I could not be farther from saying any doctrine is worth splitting over- that's what confessions of faith are for, to serve not as an exhaustive, but rather as a comprehensive, list of doctrinal standards. Millennial positions, specific translations of scripture, etc are not included within the purview of the 1689 because they are not doctrines to split over. Covenantalism, ecclesiological polity, and Theology proper very much are.

Analogue: Most, if not all, of the conservative Reformed and Presbyterian general assemblies have agreed that Federal Vision is incompatible with, and even hostile to, the standards of the Westminster and the Three Forms of Unity. Hence, no association with or allowing the teaching of FV within these bodies. The confessions did their job, the general assemblies did theirs.



Pergamum said:


> ARBCA's two main achievements in recent years has been to embrace a divisive revisionist history book by a man who is probably going to be convicted as a pedophile (and a man who ARBCA investigated but did not turn over the findings to the police)....Not a good legacy.


 Not in the mood for Red Herring, Brother. Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## Herald (Jul 27, 2017)

Is the nature of God a minor issue? No. Is the error of passibility such a threat to ARBCA members that a position paper needed to be written? I cannot speak to that. Will 1689 Federalism rise to the same level of concern with ARBCA members? Possibly. Should it? I do not believe so. No cardinal doctrine is threatened by 1689 Federalism. The only thing being rejected is a form of Presbyterianism that has been modified to fit a Baptist distinctive.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2017)

Herald said:


> Is the nature of God a minor issue? No. Is the error of passibility such a threat to ARBCA members that a position paper needed to be written? I cannot speak to that. Will 1689 Federalism rise to the same level of concern with ARBCA members? Possibly. Should it? I do not believe so. No cardinal doctrine is threatened by 1689 Federalism. The only thing being rejected is a form of Presbyterianism that has been modified to fit a Baptist distinctive.


Nobody on either side denied impassibility and they all affirmed the confession on that point. Nobody affirmed passibility. Every single issue a person feels strongly enough about can be said to be a cardinal issue. I'd hate for 1689 Federalism to become a (another) wedge issue.


----------



## Herald (Jul 27, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Every single issue a person feels strongly enough about can be said to be a cardinal issue.



That's the rub, isn't it?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 27, 2017)

Herald said:


> That's the rub, isn't it?


Precisely!


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The Historical premil viewpoint would include the restoration of national Israel unto the Lord at the Second Coming event then, correct?



It seems that that's what the older covenant premils believed. (Maybe roughly up until about 1950, give or take, although the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony continues, and I know of some Sovereign Grace Baptists in the USA who appear to hold similar views.) 

When people use the term "historic premil" today, it generally precludes such a restoration, especially if you're talking about a restoration of national ethnic Israel to the promised land, which is what I assume you're talking about. George Ladd and those that have followed (Grudem, etc.) have generally denied the latter and interpret OT prophecy (i.e. what Dispensationalists and the older type or premil would term unfulfilled prophecy) in much the same way that amils do, and largely differ from amils in their interpretation of Rev. 20 and often little else. 

An "end times revival" or conversion of the Jews is compatible with postmil, amil or premil, although some do reject it. But affirmation of it certainly doesn't put one in the premil camp. My guess is that the type of "historic premil" that we've seen since the 1950s generally affirms such a conversion even as it denies a restoration to the land.


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 27, 2017)

jomawh said:


> I would highly suggest, Brother, that you listen to Sam Waldron's lecture defending the Amillennial position.
> 
> http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=118141626271



Somewhere around 2008-2009 I watched a series of lectures of Dr. Waldron's on eschatology that were live streamed from MCTS. The result was that I was basically confirmed in my premil stance. I guess there's no hope for me.


----------



## jomawh (Jul 27, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Somewhere around 2008-2009 I watched a series of lectures of Dr. Waldron's on eschatology that were live streamed from MCTS. The result was that I was basically confirmed in my premil stance. I guess there's no hope for me.


It's funny because I watched those lectures and _turned _from Postmillennialism to Amillennialism. Funny how these things happen.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> It seems that that's what the older covenant premils believed. (Maybe roughly up until about 1950, give or take, although the Sovereign Grace Advent Testimony continues, and I know of some Sovereign Grace Baptists in the USA who appear to hold similar views.)
> 
> When people use the term "historic premil" today, it generally precludes such a restoration, especially if you're talking about a restoration of national ethnic Israel to the promised land, which is what I assume you're talking about. George Ladd and those that have followed (Grudem, etc.) have generally denied the latter and interpret OT prophecy (i.e. what Dispensationalists and the older type or premil would term unfulfilled prophecy) in much the same way that amils do, and largely differ from amils in their interpretation of Rev. 20 and often little else.
> 
> An "end times revival" or conversion of the Jews is compatible with postmil, amil or premil, although some do reject it. But affirmation of it certainly doesn't put one in the premil camp. My guess is that the type of "historic premil" that we've seen since the 1950s generally affirms such a conversion even as it denies a restoration to the land.


So even with a historical premil position, there are some who would hold to God dealing with national Israel as in them restored to Land and under God, and others holding to the Jewish race getting saved in the end apart from any promised land restoration?


----------



## Pilgrim (Jul 27, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> So even with a historical premil position, there are some who would hold to God dealing with national Israel as in them restored to Land and under God, and others holding to the Jewish race getting saved in the end apart from any promised land restoration?


Yes, with the latter being much more common today. 

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 27, 2017)

Pilgrim said:


> Yes, with the latter being much more common today.
> 
> Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk


The latter view is my current one at this present time.


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 28, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> One question I have:
> 
> A few years ago Reformed Baptists began to focus on the doctrine of divine impassibility. They adopted one view and demanded adherence to this view in order to stay within ARBCA. As a result, many churches left (including the majority of their missions committee).
> 
> ...


From what I've observed, the issue of divine impassibility (whether you believe it to be a minor or major issue) was one of confessional adherence. Full subscription to the 1689 LBC is required to be members of the ARBCA. And divine impassibility is in the confession (2:1, "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions,"). My speculation is that it wasn't a split just b/c there was disagreement to a doctrine. There was a split b/c there was not confessional adherence. Again, speculation.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> From what I've observed, the issue of divine impassibility (whether you believe it to be a minor or major issue) was one of confessional adherence. Full subscription to the 1689 LBC is required to be members of the ARBCA. And divine impassibility is in the confession (2:1, "The Lord our God is but one only living and true God; whose subsistence is in and of himself, infinite in being and perfection; whose essence cannot be comprehended by any but himself; a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions,"). My speculation is that it wasn't a split just b/c there was disagreement to a doctrine. There was a split b/c there was not confessional adherence. Again, speculation.


What would be the area where there might be a disagreement on this issue?


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 28, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> What would be the area where there might be a disagreement on this issue?


Again, speculation. But I am saying that in order to be a part of the ARBCA, one must fully subscribe to the LBC. If a group of churches disagreed w/ a view that is found in the confession, then that might cause people to part ways. I don't think they split b/c of a theological disagreement per se, but rather they split b/c the disagreement was creedally related. Speculation. I don't feel comfortable speculating more since I have no first hand info.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 28, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Again, speculation. But I am saying that in order to be a part of the ARBCA, one must fully subscribe to the LBC. If a group of churches disagreed w/ a view that is found in the confession, then that might cause people to part ways. I don't think they split b/c of a theological disagreement per se, but rather they split b/c the disagreement was creedally related. Speculation. I don't feel comfortable speculating more since I have no first hand info.


So it would not be like one side teaching heresy, but more that one side was disagreeing with the views expressed in the Confession?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 28, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> Again, speculation. But I am saying that in order to be a part of the ARBCA, one must fully subscribe to the LBC. If a group of churches disagreed w/ a view that is found in the confession, then that might cause people to part ways. I don't think they split b/c of a theological disagreement per se, but rather they split b/c the disagreement was creedally related. Speculation. I don't feel comfortable speculating more since I have no first hand info.


We are getting off-topic. Sorry I introduced this side-issue. But all parties believed in the impassibility of God (just as much as Presbyterians have agreed on this). But a further confessional-level document was written defining it further and churches had to adhere to it to remain. All parties believed that God was without body, parts, or passions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (Jul 29, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> We are getting off-topic. Sorry I introduced this side-issue. But all parties believed in the impassibility of God (just as much as Presbyterians have agreed on this). But a further confessional-level document was written defining it further and churches had to adhere to it to remain. All parties believed that God was without body, parts, or passions.


Sounds like you are more in the know. Thanks for the clarification.


----------



## Dachaser (Jul 29, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> We are getting off-topic. Sorry I introduced this side-issue. But all parties believed in the impassibility of God (just as much as Presbyterians have agreed on this). But a further confessional-level document was written defining it further and churches had to adhere to it to remain. All parties believed that God was without body, parts, or passions.


What was the main contention point here then?


----------



## Pergamum (Jul 30, 2017)

The main reason this was brought up was that it was an example of Reformed Baptists needlessly splitting. I am afraid these different covenantal views will further divide up Reformed Baptists into smaller camps. If 1689 Federalist's make a strong case that "This is THE Baptist view" and "this is the view that the writers of the confession meant, therefore to be 'confessional' one must believe as we do or else be labeled as 'unconfessional' then this might happen.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Jul 30, 2017)

One of the challanges I see in Reformed Baptist circles is the fine line between a weak confessionalism and hair-splitting re different doctrines. Eg, I cannot see how one can hold to New Covenant Theology or John Frames denial of the Regulative Principle and call yourself Reformed. On the other hand I agree one can hold some disagreement over covenant theology and still hold to the concept of covenant theology itself.

My personal view is the the Regulative Principle is a more weighty issue than baptism.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2017)

Stephen L Smith said:


> One of the challanges I see in Reformed Baptist circles is the fine line between a weak confessionalism and hair-splitting re different doctrines. Eg, I cannot see how one can hold to New Covenant Theology or John Frames denial of the Regulative Principle and call yourself Reformed. On the other hand I agree one can hold some disagreement over covenant theology and still hold to the concept of covenant theology itself.
> The NCT viewpoint regarding the Law would indeed place it outside any reformed theology, but isn't the question on regulatory principle more of a debate with reformed circles?
> My personal view is the the Regulative Principle is a more weighty issue than baptism.



The NCT viewpoint regarding the Law would indeed place it outside any reformed theology, but isn't the question on regulatory principle more of a debate within reformed circles?


----------



## jomawh (Aug 1, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> The NCT viewpoint regarding the Law would indeed place it outside any reformed theology, but isn't the question on regulatory principle more of a debate within reformed circles?


Historically what has definitionally set the Reformed apart from say, Lutherans, was the Regulative Principle of Worship. The change we have seen in Reformed circles, which is quite recent in Church history, is either the abandonment of the Regulative Principle or an attempt to redefine what it means to accommodate elements into worship that would have been historically unacceptable. I've heard the excuse of "well, it depends on how Regulative you are," which as I further consider it makes no sense- you're either regulating worship according to scripture or you're not and, ultimately, it's a question of how seriously you take confessional adherence.

There is a slippery slope in the Norminative Principle that eventually leaves one defenseless against arguments for fog machines, laser lights, etc common in so many "worship services." I recall a church I visited in North Platte, Nebraska that actually had synth boards and which sounded more like a Daft Punk concert than a Sunday gathering. It all ends in subjectivity and will-worship.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2017)

jomawh said:


> Historically what has definitionally set the Reformed apart from say, Lutherans, was the Regulative Principle of Worship. The change we have seen in Reformed circles, which is quite recent in Church history, is either the abandonment of the Regulative Principle or an attempt to redefine what it means to accommodate elements into worship that would have been historically unacceptable. I've heard the excuse of "well, it depends on how Regulative you are," which as I further consider it makes no sense- you're either regulating worship according to scripture or you're not and, ultimately, it's a question of how seriously you take confessional adherence.
> 
> There is a slippery slope in the Norminative Principle that eventually leaves one defenseless against arguments for fog machines, laser lights, etc common in so many "worship services." I recall a church I visited in North Platte, Nebraska that actually had synth boards and which sounded more like a Daft Punk concert than a Sunday gathering. It all ends in subjectivity and will-worship.


I am attending a non Confessing Baptist church that would tend to see worship as allowing for what God has not forbidden, so we do have some services where we sing hymns, and others contemporary music, just depends upon the worship leader and their preferences.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2017)

Herald said:


> The only thing being rejected is a form of Presbyterianism that has been modified to fit a Baptist distinctive.



Bill, 
It seems I keep hearing this accusation but am finding it suspect. Can you give me some more input on what has been modified and by whom? I am asking because I can point to men and their writings like John Tombe, Coxe, Owen, Keach Samuel Bolton, Johannes Cocceius, Cameron, Petto, who all held to various forms of doctrine that Particular Baptists understood and agreed with. I am not so sure they had to modify anything when it came to Covenant Theology. There wasn't necessarily a modification as I understand some things. In fact Federalism holds Owen in high esteem when it comes to understanding Covenant Theology. 

I do remember in my studies that the 1644 LBCF was a document set up to point out that these Churches shouldn't be numbered with Anabaptists. It was a charge being leveled at them and it was not a good thing to be labeled an Anabaptist.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 1, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Bill,
> It seems I keep hearing this accusation but am finding it suspect. Can you give me some more input on what has been modified and by whom? I am asking because I can point to men and their writings like John Tombe, Coxe, Owen, Keach Samuel Bolton, Johannes Cocceius, Cameron, Petto, who all held to various forms of doctrine that Particular Baptists understood and agreed with. I am not so sure they had to modify anything when it came to Covenant Theology. There wasn't necessarily a modification as I understand some things. In fact Federalism holds Owen in high esteem when it comes to understanding Covenant Theology.
> 
> I do remember in my studies that the 1644 LBCF was a document set up to point out that these Churches shouldn't be numbered with Anabaptists. It was a charge being leveled at them and it was not a good thing to be labeled an Anabaptist.


John Owen seems to be quoted and sourced by both Presbyterians and RB on this board.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 1, 2017)

Yes, He is quoted a lot or referenced to. Do you know much about John Owen or have you read much from him? He was good, very good, on the doctrine of God, Sin, Temptation, prayer, Communion with God..... His volume of reading and writing is extensive. His confessional statement lands on the Savoy Declaration. He was not a Presbyterian but sided with Oliver Cromwell as His Chaplain. It has been reported he ended up becoming Presbyterian in his latter days but it is suspect to me. He suffered a lot in life. If you have a chance get Peter Toon's biography about him.


----------

