# Federal Headship



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 21, 2018)

Hey guys. Pretty important question. Whose Headship do Presbyterians say non elect covenant members are under? How could they be under Christ and Adam at the same time? We are still engaging with our Baptist friend and this came up. He sent this video and honestly the concerns are pretty fair. It's only 12 minutes if you can watch it. Thanks!

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 21, 2018)

The non-elect among the children of believers are not, properly speaking, _in_ the covenant of grace, but belong _to_ the external administration of the covenant (along with all unregenerate adults who belong to the visible church). Remember that according to the Westminster Standards, the covenant of grace is made with Christ and all the elect as his seed (Larger Catechism 31; Shorter Catechism 20).

So, to answer your question more directly, they are under Adam's federal headship.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 21, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The non-elect among the children of believers are not, properly speaking, _in_ the covenant of grace, but belong _to_ the external administration of the covenant (along with all unregenerate adults who belong to the visible church). Remember that according to the Westminster Standards, the covenant of grace is made with Christ and all the elect as his seed (Larger Catechism 31; Shorter Catechism 20).
> 
> So, to answer your question more directly, they are under Adam's federal headship.


Agreed. I guess the question is though, aren't the non elect still in covenant with Christ through administration though?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 21, 2018)

This is the kind of question that is interesting but irrelevant to how a Church can actually operate. We can never ask a question: "Is Bob elect? If I don't know, and he is baptized, how am I supposed to treat him?"

A person who is in Adam is in Adam. He is under the CoW. Baptism doesn't change that reality. The Spirit confers the grace of the thing signified to whom the graces of baptism belong - the elect.

That said, Christ as Mediator fulfills 3 offices: Prophet, Priest, and King.

The role of the Church is the visible ministry (not as mediator but as minister) of Christ's Mediatorial role. He has gifted the Church with offices that minister His mediatorial work in the Church, which is the visible Kingdom of God on earth.

When ministers proclaim the Word of God, they are ministering under the authority of Christ's role as Prophet. Consequently, whenever a person hears the Word of God preached, he is hearing from Christ's minister. He is in the presence of Christ's mediatorial work in the Church.

Christ's role as King is fulfilled, in part, by the binding and loosing of the elders of a Church. If a man is admitted to Church membership and admonished or disciplined then it is Christ's mediatorial work as King being ministered to the man by the elders.

I often see people miss this important distinction. Some mistakenly believe that the only way that Christ's mediatorial work is operative is whether His atonement is applied to the elect individual. This is certainly an aspect of Christ's mediatorial work but is not the whole. The elect enjoy the full benefits of Christ's good work toward them. Grace upon grace is meted out to them with Christ's work as Prophet, Priest, and King.

But the unregenerate Church member is also *under* the Mediatorial work of Christ as Prophet and King as described above. That they kick against the goads does not remove the reality that they have been visibly and locally been under the mediatorial work of Christ in the preaching of the Word, the administration of the sacraments, and the exercise of Church discipline.

It is this visible ministry that the Church is charged with. It is not up to us to speculate about who is elect but simply to be faithful to the ministry that were called unto.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 2 | Edifying 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 21, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Agreed. I guess the question is though, aren't the non elect still in covenant with Christ through administration though?



Properly speaking, no; only the elect are _in_ the covenant. In an external sense, they belong to the outward administration of the covenant. So, improperly speaking, we may describe them as covenant-breakers, though they never really were in covenant with God in the first place.

It is important to recognise here the distinction between something in a proper and an improper sense. Owing to the restrictions of human language, it is necessary to use terms in an improper sense. For instance, while properly speaking the covenant of grace is unconditional, it is common for Reformed divines to speak of saving faith as the condition of the covenant. Is that a contradiction? No, because they are using "condition" in an improper sense as a means, not in a proper sense as a moving or meritorious cause.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG (Oct 21, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Agreed. I guess the question is though, aren't the non elect still in covenant with Christ through administration though?



Did Esau belong to the church? It's not as easy as a yes or no answer, right? Yeah, he was part of the church, at least for a while, but he never truly belonged to Christ.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 22, 2018)

Who was the head of Judas the Betrayer? The question, in my opinion, can also be asked to a Baptist. So do not let him off the hook that easy. It is likely that Baptist and Presbyterian Churches have non-elect Baptized and even Communing members, because at the end of the day only the Lord knows who the elect are. So ask him for an answer to his own question as well. Further, how can a believers Child be called holy (as opposed to unclean) if there head is strictly and ONLY Adam as they seem to impose?

Guess who is also the Head of that Child.... his believing father..... guess who is the head of that believing father......Christ. We should be careful how we speak of the infants of believers.... because there is a headship connection if we follow the logical and biblical implications of headship.

Also keep in mind the 1689federalist (look at the charts on their website), do not see any of the Post-Fall OT covenants as being adaministrations of the CoG proper. Further their own charts show they have the most in common with New Covenant Theology. To be fair, their view is not the only Baptist confessional view of CT.

Now for a specific answer to your question, I think it has already been given above by others. Just keep in mind that Post-Fall Covenants need to be understood externally and internally. Both sides know and agree that those truly (internally in the CoG) are only the Elect. However the entire bible (cover to cover) is full of examples of those only Externally in the covenant who still reap partial benefits of those internally in the CoG (the Elect).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 22, 2018)

Much as I oppose anti-paedobaptism, I think we have to admit that our Particular Baptist brethren have done us some service in reminding us that, properly speaking, only the elect are _in_ the covenant of grace. Well-meaning, but misguided attempts to argue that all the children of believers are in the covenant in order to safeguard infant baptism are highly problematic.

For one thing, how does one maintain limited atonement if the covenant of grace includes more than the elect? If the covenant of grace includes more than the elect, then, logically speaking, the blood of the everlasting covenant must also have been shed for more than the elect. 

Also, if both the elect and non-elect seed of believers are really in the covenant of grace, then why is one saved and the other lost? For some, the obvious answer to that question is because the covenant is conditional. I would argue that it cannot be conditional in any proper sense, because, as the Westminster catechisms teach us, the covenant is made with Christ and all the elect as his seed. If election is unconditional, then so too must the covenant of grace be unconditional. A conditional covenant, however, chimes better with a conditional election.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 22, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is important to recognise here the distinction between something in a proper and an improper sense. Owing to the restrictions of human language, it is necessary to use terms in an improper sense. For instance, while properly speaking the covenant of grace is unconditional, it is common for Reformed divines to speak of saving faith as the condition of the covenant. Is that a contradiction? No, because they are using "condition" in an improper sense as a means, not in a proper sense as a moving or meritorious cause.


Thanks for the reply, brother. To be honest, though, I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Can you please rephrase in the common man's thinking? Thanks!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 22, 2018)

The covenants external aspect is as important, in the scheme of things, as the internal aspect, when we consider predestination; one as a damning fire and the other as blessing. Both groups are held fast to their covenant responsibilities.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 22, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> I understand what you are trying to express. However, the CoG does have a condition, which is repent, place your faith in Christ, and be baptized (spiritual rebirth) all of which are works wrought by God yes, but man is still held responsible. So there is still in a sense we can say that the CoG does has conditions.



I agree that the covenant of grace is conditional in an _improper_ sense, as faith is the means by which we receive the Christ of the covenant. Many divines also spoke of repentance as a condition in this sense as well, though it is worth noting that the Larger Catechism only mentions saving faith as the condition. 

To argue, however, that the covenant is properly speaking conditional, would mean that the conditions were moving or meritorious causes. Conditions in that sense are incongruous with the whole notion of a covenant of grace and effectively turn the covenant of grace into a covenant of works wherein salvation is contingent upon what we do.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 22, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Thanks for the reply, brother. To be honest, though, I'm not understanding what you are saying here. Can you please rephrase in the common man's thinking? Thanks!



Basically, it means that although we use the term "condition", faith is not really a condition. Hence, we are using the term condition improperly. To use an example, scripture speaks of the eyes and the arms of the Lord. But we know that God does not have eyes and arms. Consequently, the scripture is using these terms in an improper sense, not in the proper sense of physical characteristics.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 22, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Properly speaking, no; only the elect are _in_ the covenant. In an external sense, they belong to the outward administration of the covenant. So, improperly speaking, we may describe them as covenant-breakers, though they never really were in covenant with God in the first place.


I agree that they are not in the covenant of grace, however, I would say that they are in covenant with God and do break it. They profess to be members of the covenant of grace (and are baptized) and thereby vow themselves to take up its responsibilities. It is a personal covenant: a covenant of commitment to the covenant of grace. However, since their profession is false, they have "sworn deceitfully," they are inwardly hypocrites, or they are still in the gall of bitterness and sin though they deceive themselves and sincerely take up their profession. So when they leave off the responsibilities and requirements the covenant of grace lays on them, they have broken covenant: they have broken their covenant (not the covenant of grace).

Likewise, I would say that those who really are in the covenant of grace also swear a commitment to the covenant of grace in their profession of faith/Baptism. Hence the Larger Catechism's language of renewing their covenant with God in the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Oct 22, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> I agree that they are not in the covenant of grace, however, I would say that they are in covenant with God and do break it. They profess to be members of the covenant of grace (and are baptized) and thereby vow themselves to take up its responsibilities. It is a personal covenant: a covenant of commitment to the covenant of grace. However, since their profession is false, they have "sworn deceitfully," they are inwardly hypocrites, or they are still in the gall of bitterness and sin though they deceive themselves and sincerely take up their profession. So when they leave off the responsibilities and requirements the covenant of grace lays on them, they have broken covenant: they have broken their covenant (not the covenant of grace).
> 
> Likewise, I would say that those who really are in the covenant of grace also swear a commitment to the covenant of grace in their profession of faith/Baptism. Hence the Larger Catechism's language of renewing their covenant with God in the Lord's Supper.


An infant can make no profession of faith or covenant of commitment when baptized; so if a baptized infant grows up and never makes a profession of faith, wouldn’t we use different language of their unfaithfulness to the covenant than we would of an adult professor? They never “swore deceitfully,” correct?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 22, 2018)

Afterthought said:


> I agree that they are not in the covenant of grace, however, I would say that they are in covenant with God and do break it.



Are you making the distinction here between the covenant of grace and covenants of duty that you may find in the writings of men such as Alexander Moncrieff? I recently read his work on _The Duty of National Covenanting Explained_, which was useful on this point.


----------



## De Jager (Oct 22, 2018)

Please correct me if I am wrong:

I understand it to be like this: as believers, we are united to Christ, and Christ is in covenant with the father. Therefore by being in Christ, we are in effect, in covenant with the father, but not directly. He is our intermediary - our representative - our leader. This covenant is the one covenant of grace, which depends wholly on the merits of Christ. No one who is truly united to Christ can ever fall away because it depends not on our obedience, but Christ's merits.

In this sense, it is impossible to "break" the covenant of grace - and it never has been possible.

In Jeremiah 31 for example, the new covenant is contrasted to the old covenant with the people broke - however, it is not contrasted to the Abrahamic covenant (COG), but rather with the Mosaic covenant. 

What someone can do, is leave the covenant community - the visible congregation of God's people, and thus prove that they were never truly united to Christ to begin with (see 1 John).

While baptism signifies the washing of sins and union with Christ, we must remember that is is a sign, and not the thing signified. The validity and efficacy of the sign does not depend on the faithfulness of the subject to whom the sign is given.

For example, if I see a sign that says "Toronto, 50 km ahead", if I disbelieve, turn around and head in the other direction, that has absolutely no bearing on whether Toronto is 50 km ahead. Furthermore, if I'm in Toronto, the sign actually in a sense becomes less powerful because I'm already at the destination.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 22, 2018)

This quotation from Matthew Henry may be of some use on this issue.

Reactions: Like 4 | Edifying 1


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 22, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Are you making the distinction here between the covenant of grace and covenants of duty that you may find in the writings of men such as Alexander Moncrieff? I recently read his work on _The Duty of National Covenanting Explained_, which was useful on this point.


Yes, that's the idea I have in mind: the covenant of duty they take is to the obligations of the covenant of grace. The non-elect in the external administration are breaking the obligations that the covenant of grace requires of them. The external administration of the covenant of grace requires a profession of faith and a taking upon oneself the obligations of the covenant of grace. Since the profession and taking on oneself the obligations are themselves done by way of covenant (since it is a solemn vow made by means of the sacraments of the covenant of grace being placed on them; and the vow is made to uphold the obligations of a covenant: the covenant of grace), I see them as really being covenant breakers.



Jeri Tanner said:


> An infant can make no profession of faith or covenant of commitment when baptized; so if a baptized infant grows up and never makes a profession of faith, wouldn’t we use different language of their unfaithfulness to the covenant than we would of an adult professor? They never “swore deceitfully,” correct?


Hmm. I suppose they have not (properly speaking) sworn deceitfully. However, baptism is a solemn engagement for them to be the Lord's, and it requires the answer of a good conscience. When they were not able to speak for themselves, the obligations of the covenant of grace are laid on them, and their parents have committed them to the covenant of grace. When they are able to speak for themselves, they are to embrace their privileges by committing themselves (by themselves) to the covenant of grace.

So I would seem them also as really covenant breakers if they do not embrace their privileges, since the obligations were laid on them by way of covenant and they refuse to take them up for themselves. I suppose the language to use here would be "heart full of bitterness and sin." They might also have deceived themselves and others: perhaps as a child/pre-teen they really believed they were devoted to the obligations laid on them but fall away during their teen or college-age years. Along those lines, it is also possible that they have committed themselves to make a profession of faith by means of taking the Lord's Supper (years before they are ready to do so) but fall away: those could be said to have sworn deceitfully.

Improperly speaking, I think they could be said to have sworn deceitfully since the parents spoke on the child's behalf when bringing forth the child to be baptized. The child not being of an age to speak for itself, the parents speak for it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 22, 2018)

So in what way does the non elect covenant member belong to Christ?


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 22, 2018)

Semper Fidelis said:


> This is the kind of question that is interesting but irrelevant to how a Church can actually operate. We can never ask a question: "Is Bob elect? If I don't know, and he is baptized, how am I supposed to treat him?"
> 
> A person who is in Adam is in Adam. He is under the CoW. Baptism doesn't change that reality. The Spirit confers the grace of the thing signified to whom the graces of baptism belong - the elect.
> 
> ...


I thought this was good, but when I brought it up to Him, he said Christ then would be failing as a mediator, so therefore He isn't mediating in those other capacities. How would you respond?


----------



## Taylor (Oct 22, 2018)

I think there is some confusion, or at least a lack of clarification, in this thread regarding the difference between the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. They are not the same thing, no? As @Reformed Covenanter rightly pointed out above, infants of believers are not necessarily in the Covenant of Grace, but they are, if baptized, indeed in the New Covenant, yes? Is the latter not an administration of the former?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 22, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I think there is some confusion, or at least a lack of clarification, in this thread regarding the difference between the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. They are not the same thing, no? As @Reformed Covenanter rightly pointed out above, infants of believers are not necessarily in the Covenant of Grace, but they are, if baptized, indeed in the New Covenant, yes? Is the latter not an administration of the former?


Right. So the question is, are they covenanted to Christ, and if so, how? If not in the CoG, are they still enemies of Christ? Thanks!


----------



## Afterthought (Oct 22, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> So in what way does the non elect covenant member belong to Christ?


By profession (they claim to be his), by obligation (they are obliged to be his by their baptism/Lord's supper participation), and by external recognition as Christ's people (Christ lumps them in with his people, and they have external benefits by such recognition, "common operations of the Spirit"), e.g., "denying the Lord that bought them" (they are considered to be "bought"), or all the times the Lord calls the OT church his people despite their false dealings with him, or how the churches are addressed as "saints" or the "elect" as a judgment of charity.



Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Right. So the question is, are they covenanted to Christ, and if so, how? In not in the CoG, are they still enemies of Christ? Thanks!


They are covenanted to Christ by their own personal covenant, i.e., they vow to belong to him, to take him to be theirs, and to take up the obligations of the covenant of grace. Maybe look into the book Daniel mentioned in his post. Or look into the meaning of "renewing their covenant" in the Larger Catechism on the Lord's supper. Or if you care to look through my pastor's recent Wednesday sermons on Nehemiah, he talks about personal and social covenanting in one of them.

They are enemies to Christ in the same way Judas was: externally they profess allegiance but inwardly their heart is at war Psalm 55:21. They are still in Adam, and they are not in Christ. Hypocrisy is a common complaint and sincerity (or truth within the inward parts) is a common desire throughout the Psalms (my pastor also had a recent sermon on hypocrisy versus sincerity, but in the context of worship.). While they are externally recognized by Christ to be his so long as they live and continue to profess to be his, they are in fact none of his. They will say "Lord, Lord" but he will say he never knew them and to depart from him.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM (Oct 22, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Hey guys. Pretty important question. Whose Headship do Presbyterians say non elect covenant members are under? How could they be under Christ and Adam at the same time? We are still engaging with our Baptist friend and this came up. He sent this video and honestly the concerns are pretty fair. It's only 12 minutes if you can watch it. Thanks!


It's a good question, an honest question, that anti-credobaptists must address. I find there is no really good answer theologically, it ends up being a practical answer, one based on "good and necessary consequence...." 

I can live with that. 

Yours in the Lord, 

jm

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 23, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> Whose Headship do Presbyterians say non elect covenant members are under?



This is no more a conundrum, Ryan, for the Presbyterian than it is for the Baptist. A Presbyterian should say that someone baptized yet non-elect remains under Adam's headship. A Baptist should say that someone baptized yet non-elect remains in Adam as well. This should be the clear focus. In neither case do we think that baptism removes a non-elect person from being in Adam. And in no case, none, is anyone qualified to say, nor dare they say, that any particular baptized person is not elect, whether baptized as an infant or upon a profession of faith. 

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 23, 2018)

JM said:


> that anti-credobaptists must address.


 Well then I guess it’s good that neither Presbyterians nor Baptist are anti-credo.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Oct 23, 2018)

@Ryan&Amber2013

Ryan:

Is it clear why this is a non-issue? Neither of us profess to know who is elect in any case, but we all are bound to exercise the judgment of charity. Presbyterians just extend that judgment a bit further than do our Baptist brethren (and withdraw it if one baptized never professes faith and is removed from the rolls of the church as a baptized, non-professing, member, even as the Baptist would one who is an excommunicant).

Do I presume that all within the visible church are elect? No. Do I presume that any particular persons that I could name are reprobate (even ex-communicants)? No. There is no warrant for such in Scripture (except where names are given: Esau and Judas certainly) and to do so is not historic Calvinism.

I repeat, whether we baptize upon a profession of faith or because one's parent(s) profess(es), those who receive such and are reprobate, remain in Adam, though, for the Presbyterian, as Daniel said, they are outwardly in the covenant, even as they are only outwardly in the church for the Baptist.

Peace,
Alan

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 23, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I think there is some confusion, or at least a lack of clarification, in this thread regarding the difference between the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant. They are not the same thing, no? As @Reformed Covenanter rightly pointed out above, infants of believers are not necessarily in the Covenant of Grace, but they are, if baptized, indeed in the New Covenant, yes? Is the latter not an administration of the former?



The new covenant is the administration of the covenant of grace under the gospel; the old covenant is the legal administration of the covenant of grace under the law. In both the old and new covenants, the non-elect seed of believers only belong to the covenant in an external sense.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor (Oct 23, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> The new covenant is the administration of the covenant of grace under the gospel; the old covenant is the legal administration of the covenant of grace under the law. In both the old and new covenants, the non-elect seed of believers only belong to the covenant in an external sense.



Yes. I just wanted to make sure we weren’t identifying the NC with the CoG, which is essentially the 1689 Baptist position.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 23, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yes. I just wanted to make sure we weren’t identifying the NC with the CoG, which is essentially the 1689 Baptist position.


Just to clarify, this is the 1689 Federalism position, but not all Reformed Baptists agree with 1689 Federalism


----------



## Taylor (Oct 23, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Just to clarify, this is the 1689 Federalism position, but not all Reformed Baptists agree with 1689 Federalism.



Yep! I used to be a 1689 federalist, so I was careful to say that this is_ its_ position, and not_ the_ Reformed Baptist position.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 23, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Yep! I used to be a 1689 federalist, so I was careful to say that this is_ its_ position, and not_ the_ Reformed Baptist position.


Taylor, if you look back at your previous post, you said:


Taylor Sexton said:


> this is essentially the 1689 Baptist position.


This implies *all* Reformed Baptists equate the C of G with the N.C., but I understand this is only true of 1689 Federalists.

I would be interested to hear (even if it is a new post) how you went from a 1689 Federalist position to a Reformed Paedobaptist position. I suspect I am making a similar journey.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 23, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> This implies *all *Reformed Baptists equate the C of G with the N.C., but I understand this is only true of 1689 Federalists.



Um, what...? I literally said it is essentially the *1689* Baptist position, which excludes all other Baptist positions, Calvinistic or otherwise. Any misunderstanding is the fault of the reader, not me.



Stephen L Smith said:


> I would be interested to hear (even if it is a new post) how you went from a 1689 Federalist position to a Reformed Paedobaptist position. I suspect I am making a similar journey.



I’m still learning how to articulate my move best. I’ll try to remember to PM you once I figure it out.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 23, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> Um, what...? I literally said it is essentially the *[you]1689[/you]* Baptist position, which excludes all other Baptist positions, Calvinistic or otherwise. Any misunderstanding is the fault of the reader, not me.


Taylor, I don't think you have realised there have been about *2 Reformed Baptist positions* which complicates the issue, and why I asked for clarification. The view popular about 10-30 years ago was *different* to 1689 Federalism and probably would argue that the New Covenant was the purest form of the Covenant of Grace but would reject the argument that the New Covenant was *the* Covenant of Grace. This view was also willing to talk about the 'administration' of the covenant of grace, but the 1689 Federalist view would be uncomfortable with this language calling it 'too Presbyterian'. It also seems to me that the 1689 Federalists would make a greater distinction between the Old and New Covenants that what Reformed Baptists 10-30 years ago would say. To the best of my knowledge Sam Waldron in his commentary on the 1689 Baptist Confession rejects 1689 Federalism, yet would regard himself as a Reformed Baptist upholding the 1689 Baptist Confession.

For an example of 1689 Federalists disagreeing with 1689 Sam Waldron see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/



Taylor Sexton said:


> I’m still learning how to articulate my move best. I’ll try to remember to PM you once I figure it out.


Look forward to it


----------



## Taylor (Oct 23, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Taylor, I don't think you have realised there have been about [you]*2 Reformed Baptist positions*[/you] which complicates the issue, and why I asked for clarification. The view popular about 10-30 years ago was [you]*different*[/you] to 1689 Federalism and probably would argue that the New Covenant was the purest form of the Covenant of Grace but would reject the argument that the New Covenant was *[you]the[/you]* Covenant of Grace. This view was also willing to talk about the 'administration' of the covenant of grace, but the 1689 Federalist view would be uncomfortable with this language calling it 'too Presbyterian'. It also seems to me that the 1689 Federalists would make a greater distinction between the Old and New Covenants that what Reformed Baptists 10-30 years ago would say. To the best of my knowledge Sam Waldron in his commentary on the 1689 Baptist Confession rejects 1689 Federalism, yet would regard himself as a Reformed Baptist upholding the 1689 Baptist Confession.



I do realize and know all of this; I’ve read the literature for years. I also know there are disagreements between Reformed Baptists about covenant theology, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there is only _one_ 1689 covenant theology position, and that all others are exceptions. So, when I said *1689* federalism, I meant *1689* federalism, not New Covenant Reformed Baptist theology or so-called “20th Century” Reformed Baptist theology. “1689” is not some other nomenclature for “Reformed Baptist” in general.

I’m not trying to be bullheaded about this. I just assumed that when I said “1689,” it would be interpreted as meaning exactly what it can only mean—the federal theology as outlined exclusively and only in the Second London Baptist Confession of *1689*.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 23, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Taylor, I don't think you have realised there have been about [you]*2 Reformed Baptist positions*[/you] which complicates the issue, and why I asked for clarification. The view popular about 10-30 years ago was [you]*different*[/you] to 1689 Federalism and probably would argue that the New Covenant was the purest form of the Covenant of Grace but would reject the argument that the New Covenant was *[you]the[/you]* Covenant of Grace. This view was also willing to talk about the 'administration' of the covenant of grace, but the 1689 Federalist view would be uncomfortable with this language calling it 'too Presbyterian'. It also seems to me that the 1689 Federalists would make a greater distinction between the Old and New Covenants that what Reformed Baptists 10-30 years ago would say. To the best of my knowledge Sam Waldron in his commentary on the 1689 Baptist Confession rejects 1689 Federalism, yet would regard himself as a Reformed Baptist upholding the 1689 Baptist Confession.
> 
> For an example of 1689 Federalists disagreeing with 1689 Sam Waldron see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/
> 
> ...





Taylor Sexton said:


> I do realize and know all of this; I’ve read the literature for years. I also know there are disagreements between Reformed Baptists about covenant theology, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there is only _one_ 1689 covenant theology position, and that all others are exceptions. So, when I said *[you]1689[/you]* federalism, I meant *[you]1689[/you]* federalism, not New Covenant Reformed Baptist theology or so-called “20th Century” Reformed Baptist theology. “1689” is not some other nomenclature for “Reformed Baptist” in general.
> 
> I’m not trying to be bullheaded about this. I just assumed that when I said “1689,” it would be interpreted as meaning exactly what it can only mean—the federal theology as outlined exclusively and only in the Second London Baptist Confession of *[you]1689[/you]*.


Here you both go:

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 23, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> So, when I said *1689* federalism


What you actually said was:


Taylor Sexton said:


> essentially the 1689 Baptist position.


Which is why I was wondering if you meant 1689 Federalism or the 20 century Reformed Baptist position. Both could claim to be "essentially the 1689 Reformed Baptist position". I think you meant 1689 Federalism; that clears the matter up 

The reason why I took an interest was it seems to me that the 1689 Federalism moves further from the classic Reformed Covenant Theology than does the 20 century Reformed Baptist position (the diagram Grant supplied was helpful). It has forced me to rethink my position as I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of moving further from classic Reformed Covenant theology.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 23, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> What you actually said was:
> 
> Which is why I was wondering if you meant 1689 Federalism or the 20 century Reformed Baptist position. Both could claim to be "essentially the 1689 Reformed Baptist position". I think you meant 1689 Federalism; that clears the matter up
> 
> The reason why I took an interest was it seems to me that the 1689 Federalism moves further from the classic Reformed Covenant Theology than does the 20 century Reformed Baptist position (the diagram Grant supplied was helpful). It has forced me to rethink my position as I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of moving further from classic Reformed Covenant theology.



I see.

I used “essentially” in its proper sense: “of the essence of.” “Essentially” is often used today to mean “more or less.” That is not how I used it.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 23, 2018)

Grant Jones said:


> Here you both go:
> View attachment 5785



Thank you. This is exactly the chart I was visualizing when I originally posted. As I said above, when I said “1689,” I meant exactly what this chart says it is: the Covenant of Grace _is_ the New Covenant. All other Reformed Baptist positions are, as I said and as this chart says, different interpretations and positions, and therefore receive different nomenclature (i.e., “1689 federalism” vs. “20th century, etc.”).


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 23, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I used “essentially” in its proper sense: “of the essence of.” “Essentially” is often used today to mean “more or less.” That is not how I used it.


Part of the difficulty is that until recently, Waldron's Commentary on the 1689 Confession, was the only main commentary available on the 1689 Confession, and that has been the "standard" interpretation for a number of decades now. Further as others have noted, John Gill did not fit neatly into a "1689 Federalism" mould, so the 20 Century Reformed Baptists can claim some historical lineage.



Taylor Sexton said:


> Thank you. This is exactly the chart I was visualizing when I originally posted. As I said above, when I said “1689,” I meant exactly what this chart says it is: the Covenant of Grace _is_ the New Covenant. All other Reformed Baptist positions are, as I said and as this chart says, different interpretations and positions, and therefore receive different nomenclature (i.e., “1689 federalism” vs. “20th century, etc.”).


This is not how I interpret the diagram. Where the two circles intersect it says there are two interpretations of chapter 7 of the 1689 confession.

Ch 7:3 of the confession says:
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.5 After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament.6 This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect.7 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.8

5Genesis 3:15. 6Hebrews 1:1. 72 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; 8Hebrews 11:6, 13; Romans 4:1, 2ff.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56.

Some would say this means that the New Covenant is the Covenant of grace. Others would say this means the New Covenant is the purest form of the Covenant of grace. The above diagram would suggest both are valid interpretations of the diagram (the comments where the two circles intersect).

For the record I think the 1689 Federalist claim may be closer to ch 7:3, but I am not sure it is the only valid interpretation.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 23, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> For the record I think the 1689 Federalist claim may be closer to ch 7:3, but I am not sure it is the only valid interpretation.



You’re missing my point entirely. I never disputed that there were differing interpretations of ch. 7. Rather, my point is that, despite the differences, the chart _still_ calls the position that identifies the NC and the CoG the “1689” position, and labels other positions differently, none of which contain the number “1689.” Therefore, when I said the number “1689,” I meant exactly what they mean. Otherwise, I would have said something else _other_ _than_ “1689.”

At any rate, my whole point, aside from all this, is that any sort of identifying the NC with the CoG is not the WCF’s position, and therefore I wanted to guard this thread against that. I did not post what I originally posted to make some authoritative or broad statement about Reformed Baptist covenant theology.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 23, 2018)

I think my point has been made. Please take it or leave it, brother. I can’t sit here on my phone all night and beat this dead horse to bits.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 23, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> You’re missing my point entirely. I never disputed that there were differing interpretations of ch. 7. Rather, my point is that, despite the differences, the chart _still_ calls the position that identifies the NC and the CoG the “1689” position, and labels other positions differently, none of which contain the number “1689.”


Assuming we are reading the same chart, mine says "Confessional Baptist Covenant Theology" then gives 2 options without saying one is the confessional position. It implies both are confessional positions. I double checked the post in post no 36. Further the chart was removed from the actual 1689 Federalism website so I think they wanted to avoid mute points.

Not an issue with me but just quoting what I see in the chart.


----------



## lynnie (Oct 23, 2018)

So.....just wondering.....all the big Baptist names like Dever, Mohler, Grudem ....do they hold to the federal position? Or is it mostly gone now in this century among Calvinist Baptists and everybody affirms the mosaic cov was one of grace?

What was Spurgeons position? Just curious.

Really interesting thread by the way.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 24, 2018)

lynnie said:


> What was Spurgeons position? Just curious.


This is from Brandon Adams blog https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 24, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I think my point has been made. Please take it or leave it, brother. I can’t sit here on my phone all night and beat this dead horse to bits.


Taylor I am a sensitive person and quick to apologise when I am wrong. I checked the diagram again. It heads the diagram "Confessional Baptist Covenant Theology" then lists the 2 options but does not state that one option is the official position. So if my interpretation of the diagram is correct, this is simply the argument I have been making in earlier posts.



Taylor Sexton said:


> At any rate, my whole point, aside from all this, is that any sort of identifying the NC with the CoG is not the WCF’s position


On that we heartily agree.


----------



## Taylor (Oct 24, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> It heads the diagram "Confessional Baptist Covenant Theology" then lists the 2 options but does not state that one option is the official position.



I didn’t say that it said that. I just said it calls one position “1689,” which is the same one I called “1689.” If the reason you won’t leave me alone is merely because I did not add the word “federalism” after “1689,” then this is simply ridiculous. I have already explained what I meant. Please, brother, either take it or leave it. I have explained myself over and over and over.

This is my last post on the matter, brother. I am not trying to be mean, I just find discussions like this—where I feel I am being nitpicked despite what I meant, even after I have explained myself—to be particularly frustrating and obnoxious.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie (Oct 24, 2018)

Stephen L Smith said:


> This is from Brandon Adams blog https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/


Thank you very much! I read it all.

Spurgeon makes my heart soar. I don't think I know any other writer so in love with Jesus Christ. Some of this is semantics, I mean, call it what you want but this paragraph is what it is all about: 

"In 1867, Spurgeon wrote against a new teaching called Dispensationalism in his Sword and Trowel publication.

An earnest study of those Scriptures which disclose “the everlasting covenant” as it was gradually but distinctly revealed, will do more than any arguments of ours to dissipate the mist of those strange doctrines we have referred to. That Covenant was declared to Noah; it was still further opened to Abraham and Isaac, it was confirmed to David; Isaiah rejoiced in its sure mercies, Jeremiah was privileged to relate many of its special provisions; and Paul avers in his epistle to the Hebrews that this is the Covenant under the provisions of which the precious blood of Christ was shed; it is the blood of the new Covenant… According to the terms of the everlasting Covenant, and not according to the law, nor yet according to the tenor of any transient dispensations, the Old Testament saints were justified and accepted of God.

There Be Some Who Trouble You (Sword and Trowel essay against Dispensationalism)"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 24, 2018)

Another useful observation, this time from Edmund Calamy; and another one on a similar theme here.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lynnie (Oct 24, 2018)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Another useful observation, this time from Edmund Calamy; and another one on a similar theme here.



Lovely!


----------



## Jonathan R (Oct 24, 2018)

lynnie said:


> So.....just wondering.....all the big Baptist names like Dever, Mohler, Grudem ....do they hold to the federal position? Or is it mostly gone now in this century among Calvinist Baptists and everybody affirms the mosaic cov was one of grace?
> 
> What was Spurgeons position? Just curious.
> 
> Really interesting thread by the way.



To the names that you mentioned, none of them are "Reformed Baptists" in the technical sense of adhering to the 1689 LBCF. They are merely calvinistic. Dever holds to the New Hampshire confession, which is broader than most of the historic reformed confessions. Mohler is SBC under the Abstract of Principles, which though originally just a shortened version of the 1689 is now viewed usually as a separate document. Grudem is way out in left field. So, none of them hold the view "1689 Federalism" to my knowledge. 

I believe Spurgeon was 20th Century CT in its general structure. I would have to reread to recall specifics.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Oct 24, 2018)

Jonathan R said:


> I believe Spurgeon was 20th Century CT in its general structure. I would have to reread to recall specifics.



As brother. Brandon Adams showed in an article (linked to above), a survey of Rev. Spurgeon's comments on Covenant Theology seem to place him the 1689 Fed. camp with a Mosaic CoW Republication twist.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 24, 2018)

Taylor Sexton said:


> I didn’t say that it said that. I just said it calls one position “1689,” which is the same one I called “1689.” If the reason you won’t leave me alone is merely because I did not add the word “federalism” after “1689,” then this is simply ridiculous. I have already explained what I meant.


Dear Brother, I am sorry this has troubled you. I did not mean confusion or trouble. I have genuinely enjoyed our discussions on the past. I remain unconvinced you have clarified the matter. I will attempt it and sign off. A moderator can clarify if I am wrong.

You made the argument relating to 1689 position that the covenant of grace is the new covenant. I requested clarification. A little later Grant helpfully provided a diagram. This diagram showed that the 1689 Federalists say the new covenant is the covennt of grace but that the 20 century Reformed Baptists say the covenant of grace is one substance multiple administrations. The diagram implies both are valid positions.

In post 39 you reaffirmed your argument that the diagram says the new covenant is the covenant of grace. But the diagram does not say this as I discussed in the above paragraph. As I see it the diagram is perfectly clear and reaffirms what I said in post 34.

Well I sign off. If this has not been clarified sufficiently moderators, feel free to do so. Thanks.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 24, 2018)

lynnie said:


> Spurgeon makes my heart soar. I don't think I know any other writer so in love with Jesus Christ. Some of this is semantics, I mean, call it what you want but this paragraph is what it is all about:


If you would like to read Spurgeon on covenant theology, I asked SGCB to publish his sermons on covenant theology which they did. "Taking hold of God's covenant". If you want to read his sermons but don't want to buy his multi volume sermon sets, the 5 volume set of Spurgeon's sermons is a nice sample. http://www.solid-ground-books.com/books_SpurgeonTitles.asp

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Oct 24, 2018)

“The New Covenant is taken either broadly or strictly.

V The New covenant is also taken in a twofold manner either broadly, inasmuch as it stands for the covenant of grace in general made with sinners , which existed under the Old Testament as well before Christ appeared as under the New after he had been manifested; or strictly, for the covenant of grace promulgated after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, which should continue to the end of the World”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol 2, pg 234

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 25, 2018)

Another historical extract that is relevant to this discussion comes from William Perkins on the covenant, election, and the visible church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Oct 27, 2018)

Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I thought this was good, but when I brought it up to Him, he said Christ then would be failing as a mediator, so therefore He isn't mediating in those other capacities. How would you respond?


The failure is his ability to distinguish between Christ's Mediatorial work and the _ministry_ of those who work in the Church. A person who is under the preaching of the Word is _under_ the ministry of the Word. Christ's Mediatorial office as Prophet is behind the preaching. If the man hears the Word preached and fails to bow the knee then he is under the wrath of God for his failure to heed. Christ's work has not failed. A man who is under the discipline of the Church and fails to heed the elders of the Church is under Christ's Mediatorial office as King. If he refuses discipline and is excommunicated then the Office of Christ stands behind his excommunication. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. His office has not failed.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Oct 28, 2018)

Semper Fidelis said:


> The failure is his ability to distinguish between Christ's Mediatorial work and the _ministry_ of those who work in the Church. A person who is under the preaching of the Word is _under_ the ministry of the Word. Christ's Mediatorial office as Prophet is behind the preaching. If the man hears the Word preached and fails to bow the knee then he is under the wrath of God for his failure to heed. Christ's work has not failed. A man who is under the discipline of the Church and fails to heed the elders of the Church is under Christ's Mediatorial office as King. If he refuses discipline and is excommunicated then the Office of Christ stands behind his excommunication. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. His office has not failed.





Ryan&Amber2013 said:


> I thought this was good, but when I brought it up to Him, he said Christ then would be failing as a mediator, so therefore He isn't mediating in those other capacities. How would you respond?



So in the end, anytime a man receives the preaching of the Word, Christ has mediated it to them whether or not they received it with faith. If they become members of the visible church, Christ has taken them as members. If they vow Him as King, He will treat them as those who swore allegiance and who have professed to believe and repent.

I think Judas is a frightening example of this. Jesus knew who Judas was and called him out as a devil (not by name) before there was any visible hint that he was a wolf, yet kept discipling Judas anyway. It can’t possibly be argued that the Word was not mediated to Judas by Christ—He was receiving it directly from the lips of Christ Himself, and not any other preacher. Not only that, but Judas received such revelation as would have fitted him to be the foundation of the New Covenant Church (Eph 2:20). It was no accident, and it was not out of ignorance, to commission Judas to apostleship in the first place. @Ryan&Amber2013, if your friend is right, then Jesus failed here.

It does no good either to argue that this was still Old Covenant Times—everything Christ is doing is preparing the way for bringing in the New Covenant, setting the house in order for the reception of the Spirit. The example needs to be set at this point. I don’t remember if it was the video in the OP or another one, but Mike Renihan pointed out such people (false converts) are like those entering the country illegally, and will be punished as intruders when found out. Judas was known to Jesus already, but never treated as such until he committted his treachery. Christ took Judas at his word and acted as Prophet and King over Judas according to the man’s own confession.

It leads to another question: by whom did the prophets prophesy? If by the Spirit, we know the Spirit is from Christ, but why all the effort to send the Word to people with uncircumcised hearts, who did not fear the Lord, who were cursed because they did not sigh and weep concerning the abominations in their nation, who were slain almost out of existence for their sin? If our brother is right, then what a mystery is Christ’s dealing with Israel.The NT makes no doubt that all these things came from Jesus. They had the same spiritual food, same spiritual drink, they had Christ the Rock—at the absolute least, the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, so Christ’s hand has always been in the ordinances and Word as much as the Father’s. I suppose one could say it wasn’t written for their sakes but ours upon whom the end of the ages has come, yet still the Israelites understood the prophetic words as addressed to them, concerning their well-being, physical and spiritual. And truly they were. Thus, Christ did address them as Prophet and King. If not as effectual Priest, certainly as offering Himself. No one—not even Israel—ever got any benefit from God except through Christ, as no one comes to the Father or receives anything—internal or external mediation, either before or after the New Covenant times—from the Father except through Jesus.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ryan&Amber2013 (Oct 28, 2018)

Harley said:


> So in the end, anytime a man receives the preaching of the Word, Christ has mediated it to them whether or not they received it with faith. If they become members of the visible church, Christ has taken them as members. If they vow Him as King, He will treat them as those who swore allegiance and who have professed to believe and repent.
> 
> I think Judas is a frightening example of this. Jesus knew who Judas was and called him out as a devil (not by name) before there was any visible hint that he was a wolf, yet kept discipling Judas anyway. It can’t possibly be argued that the Word was not mediated to Judas by Christ—He was receiving it directly from the lips of Christ Himself, and not any other preacher. Not only that, but Judas received such revelation as would have fitted him to be the foundation of the New Covenant Church (Eph 2:20). It was no accident, and it was not out of ignorance, to commission Judas to apostleship in the first place. @Ryan&Amber2013, if your friend is right, then Jesus failed here.
> 
> ...


Thanks so much! Awesome stuff!


----------

