# The Mosaic Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel?



## Pergamum

I received two responses from a baptist who believes in 1689 Federalism and he has stated these two troubling points:

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

And also,

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

How would you respond?


----------



## Pergamum

I responded by replying:

"Please tell me you didn't just write, "he means we are NO LONGER under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life." This comes very close to the Scofield notes where he claims that we are "NOW justified by faith." Can you explain your sentence to me? You are not positing two ways of justification are you, but merely typed too quickly, right?"

How would you have responded?


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> I received two responses from a baptist who believes in 1689 Federalism and he has stated these two troubling points:
> 
> (1) "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the MC were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."
> 
> And also,
> 
> "The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."
> 
> How would you respond?


I am a Baptist, and would see that the Mosaic law was given by God to show to us His holiness. His standards and Moral Code, to regulate the culture of Israel, but not as a means unto salvation by obeying it, as none save Jesus ever could obey the law well enough to merit salvation.


----------



## Pergamum

Dachaser said:


> I am a Baptist, and would see that the Mosaic law was given by God to show to us His holiness. His standards and Moral Code, to regulate the culture of Israel, but not as a means unto salvation by obeying it, as none save Jesus ever could obey the law well enough to merit salvation.


Nobody says it was a means of salvation. But it did point to Christ because He was prefigured in the sacrifices. It was a gracious advance in the plan of redemption.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> Nobody says it was a means of salvation. But it did point to Christ because He was prefigured in the sacrifices. It was a gracious advance in the plan of redemption.


Yes, it was part of the ongoing process that would bring about the coming of the promised Messiah.


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> How would you respond?



It's Plato 101. There is a difference between saying "physical/spiritual" and "external/internal." I'm not entirely satsified with external language, but it is much better than the Platonism. The older divines spoke of the substance of the covenant and its administration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> I received two responses from a baptist who believes in 1689 Federalism and he has stated these two troubling points:
> 
> (1) "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the MC were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."
> 
> And also,
> 
> "The Mosiac Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel. Paul made this clear in Romans 2 and 9. This is why your understanding of covenant theology works better for presbyterians who believe the covenant of grace is a mix between believes and unbelievers."
> 
> How would you respond?



I think you can find passages in Berkhof and/or other Reformed writers that say something similar to (1). It is not necessarily Scofield/Chafer but it depends on the context and the totality of what the teacher believes. (And even Scofield and Chafer were inconsistent and contradictory on this, thankfully.) But I don't know what our mutual friend really believes on some things.

As for the second part, I really don't have a clue, especially if he means that spiritual Israel was somehow not part of physical Israel. I mean, spiritual Israel wasn't supposed to go to the temple, etc?


----------



## BG

I would say your original statement is true because everyone knows that what God really wanted in the Old Testament was a group of stiffnecked rebellious faithless unbelievers he could call his own special people the very apple of his eye.


----------



## Pergamum

BG said:


> I would say your original statement is true because everyone knows that what God really wanted in the Old Testament was a group of stiffnecked rebellious faithless unbelievers he could call his own special people the very apple of his eye.


?
Is this sarcasm or real?


----------



## BG

Sarcasm

The only legitimate members of the old administration of the covenant of grace were believers and their children all others were to be cut off


----------



## Scott Bushey

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

And also,

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

How would you respond?"

Sure looks like this guy has his ducks all running around-he clearly says that the MC had the capacity to save.....not to miss mentioning that his view of the C of G is skewed as well, i.e. the Mosaic Covenant is a gracious covenant.

The 2nd statement is as well blurry. God knew. Moses knew that all Israel wasn't Israel. The Abrahamic covenant validates that. Spiritual Israel would be the converted elect only. If you fail to understand that the covenant had internal and external aspects, you'll end up here where this guy is and u end up credo. Consider Ishmael and Esau-both were in covenant (externally). Judas. Demas. Ananias and Sapphira, Simon Magus.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Those two statements ARE troubling. This 1689 Federalism gets worse each time I hear of it. The MC was made with All the children of Israel--everyone who was at Sinai swore to it, and circumcised their children into it. But the MC was less good than the NC in this sense: not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved. Some were--there were multitudes of saints in the OT times, but while being born a Jew and circumcised guaranteed membership in the covenant, and laid on one the duties of it, remission of sins depended on true repentance and faith--believing that only God can take away sins and trusting in Him to do so. Perhaps not understanding that in the fullness of time God's own Son would shed his blood to take away those sins, but believing that forgiveness of sins was God's work alone. Even the Pharisees of Jesus' day recognized that last bit.


----------



## brandonadams

Regarding the OP, I believe your friend is mistaken. I would point him here:
http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/

To be clear, only one 1689 Fed author has expressed the idea that the MC offered eternal life, and he has been challenged by all the others (see above link). The historic and more biblical view was that the MC was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan (a view expressed by many paedobaptists) and was not a means of earning eternal life.


----------



## brandonadams

However, when your friend said "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life." he is correct. Note the reference to Rom 6:14 in WCF/2LBCF 19.6. Paul is not, however, referring to the Mosaic Covenant at this point.


----------



## BG

Ron said:
not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved.

The same is true in the new covenant whether you want to recognize it or not


----------



## BG

Brandon said:
The historic and more biblical view was that the MC was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan

Soooo... in the MC God is not so much a redeemer as he is a real estate agent

Sweeeet


----------



## Pergamum

Ben Zartman said:


> Those two statements ARE troubling. This 1689 Federalism gets worse each time I hear of it. The MC was made with All the children of Israel--everyone who was at Sinai swore to it, and circumcised their children into it. But the MC was less good than the NC in this sense: not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved. Some were--there were multitudes of saints in the OT times, but while being born a Jew and circumcised guaranteed membership in the covenant, and laid on one the duties of it, remission of sins depended on true repentance and faith--believing that only God can take away sins and trusting in Him to do so. Perhaps not understanding that in the fullness of time God's own Son would shed his blood to take away those sins, but believing that forgiveness of sins was God's work alone. Even the Pharisees of Jesus' day recognized that last bit.



Okay, thanks. These statements were made by a brother who advocates 1689 Federalism in some form (not sure the movement is entirely monolithic, but they do seem to assert most of the main points).

The Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel. Period. And Israel was a mixed company. I am not sure why this MUST entail paedobaptism, but many baptists seem to now say that we cannot admit this or else we may turn paedo. I even admit that the external church is a mixed company, for plenty of the unsaved play the part of a believer for a time when they are never truly IN the covenant (IN Christ). Again, I am not sure why I cannot believe this as a baptist.


----------



## Pergamum

BG said:


> Brandon said:
> The historic and more biblical view was that the MC was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan
> 
> Soooo... in the MC God is not so much a redeemer as he is a real estate agent
> 
> Sweeeet



That is also what I thought as well. Brandon is here on the PB. I am hoping he will clarify his statement so that I can understand better.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Pergamum said:


> Okay, thanks. These statements were made by a brother who advocates 1689 Federalism in some form (not sure the movement is entirely monolithic, but they do seem to assert most of the main points).
> 
> The Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel. Period. And Israel was a mixed company. I am not sure why this MUST entail paedobaptism, but many baptists seem to now say that we cannot admit this or else we may turn paedo. I even admit that the external church is a mixed company, for plenty of the unsaved play the part of a believer for a time when they are never truly IN the covenant (IN Christ). Again, I am not sure why I cannot believe this as a baptist.


I don't think it must needs entail paedo. The New Covenant is also given to Israel--the Israel of God. All who are in covenant with God ARE Abraham's seed--we are Isrealites, brother--but the more real, fuller, better Israel that the old physical Israel was a picture of. Why this does not require paedo will have to be a question for another time--for now I must go to work.


----------



## Scott Bushey

If I remember correctly, the credo holds that the NC is only made up of the elect. The NC does not have internal and external distinctions. If a false confessor is baptized and made a member of the local church and falls away into reprobation, this person was never actually in the NC/COG.

The above is the difference between credo NC and the Paedo NC.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott Bushey said:


> If I remember correctly, the credo holds that the NC is only made up of the elect. The NC does not have internal and external distinctions. If a false confessor is baptized and made a member of the local church and falls away into reprobation, this person was never actually in the NC/COG.
> 
> The above is the difference between credo NC and the Paedo NC.


Yes, that is what I believe. Except that I grant that one might say that unbelievers are part of the external administration of the CogG (that is, they sit under the blessings of the Church). So they are "under" the covenant but not truly "in" the Covenant. Or, as Presbyterians I think put it, they are part of the Covenant of Grace in its external administration but not in its internal reality.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Children are a prime example and how the credo raises their child. They raise them like they ARE in an external aspect, else the enmity they claim the child is at would be heaping up cups of wrath towards them by accessing things like prayer and claiming any of God's blessings as that just goes against scripture.

When the scriptures call for parents to 'rear their children in the way they should go', it is doing so based on a covenantal relationship. Consider 1 Cor 7:14 in the schema of things and how it is only logical from a covenantal aspect.

http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/


----------



## BG

The idea that God in the Old Testament was only offering the people physical blessings such as children land good crops and military victories aligns him much closer to the gods of Greece and Rome then the God of the Bible. 

Not to mention it makes God inconsistent arbitrary and capricious in light of the fact that he is always punishing them for their lack of faith unbelief and immorality. 

In the Old Testament God expected the people to pass on a godly heritage to their children he wanted godly seed he wanted them to be a holy nation and a royal priesthood.


----------



## Pergamum

Scott Bushey said:


> Children are a prime example and how the credo raises their child. They raise them like they ARE in an external aspect, else the enmity they claim the child is at would be heaping up cups of wrath towards them by accessing things like prayer and claiming any of God's blessings as that just goes against scripture.
> 
> When the scriptures call for parents to 'rear their children in the way they should go', it is doing so based on a covenantal relationship. Consider 1 Cor 7:14 in the schema of things and how it is only logical from a covenantal aspect.
> 
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/pre...m-index/various-reformed-quotes-on-1-cor-714/


Yes. I do believe (and take comfort) in the general promises that the children of believers are given in the Bible. I just don't think birth is enough to give the covenant signs (though I do admit a logic to it).


----------



## Pergamum

BG said:


> The idea that God in the Old Testament was only offering the people physical blessings such as children land good crops and military victories aligns him much closer to the gods of Greece and Rome then the God of the Bible.
> 
> Not to mention it makes God inconsistent arbitrary and capricious in light of the fact that he is always punishing them for their lack of faith unbelief and immorality.
> 
> In the Old Testament God expected the people to pass on a godly heritage to their children he wanted godly seed he wanted them to be a holy nation and a royal priesthood.



Yes, this is what I believe and this is also why I am growing more and more dismayed as I read the writings of several baptists.

I am hoping a representative of 1689 Federalism can respond to your reply. I wish there was a tag feature for Brandon, I'd like to hear him respond to this quote above.


----------



## BG

The problem with the presuppositions of Baptist theology is that At there foundation they are dispensational.

It is clear from this thread and others that all Baptist view Israel and the church as two distinctly different groups they have no choice their theology stands or falls on that presupposition.

If Israel and the church are the same thing then it stands to reason that children have always been a part of the church, if children are a part of the church then Baptist theology is false Or Baptist would need to show proof that Jesus came to throw the children out of the church.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Consider Gen 17 and how it says that those that reject the sign are 'cut off'. I know we have discussed this cutting off in the past and acknowledge that the cutting off is more physical than spiritual-cut off from the covenant and the blessings that follow, none the less, the statement is there. 

The Abrahamic covenant is not abrogated:
7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee *in their generations for an everlasting covenant*, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:7.



A sign is a sign....just like the Sabbath day has changed from the last day of the week to the first, in the same way in the OT, circumcision was the sign we placed on our children, in the new, we place water on them.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald

Scott Bushey said:


> If I remember correctly, the credo holds that the NC is only made up of the elect. The NC does not have internal and external distinctions. If a false confessor is baptized and made a member of the local church and falls away into reprobation, this person was never actually in the NC/COG.
> 
> The above is the difference between credo NC and the Paedo NC.



Scott, you're basically correct. What do Paedo's say about those who fall into reprobation? Are they former members of the NC? Former members of the visible church? 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## BG

The new covenant is not the covenant of grace it is an administration of the covenant of grace they are different things


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bill,
The person that is a Covenant member I.e One who is marked by the Covenant sign, and shows signs of reprobation in their life, would be showing that they were most likely in the external side of the covenant of grace and the Internal side of the covenant of works. Nonetheless, in covenant.


----------



## Pilgrim

Herald said:


> Scott, you're basically correct. What do Paedo's say about those who fall into reprobation? Are they former members of the NC? Former members of the visible church?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro



They are referred to as covenant breakers and are considered an example of those in Hebrews who have "tasted the heavenly gift" etc. and fallen away. The warning passages in Heb. have been given by some former Baptists as a reason for their acceptance of paedobaptism: they couldn't account for the warning passages as a Baptist.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

Pilgrim said:


> They are referred to as covenant breakers and are considered an example of those in Hebrews who have "tasted the heavenly gift" etc. and fallen away. The warning passages in Heb. have been given by some former Baptists as a reason for their acceptance of paedobaptism: they couldn't account for the warning passages as a Baptist.


They would also been seen by Baptists as being part of that group the Apostle John said were among them for awhile, but showed their true colors by departing out from among them. Never being really saved.


----------



## Herald

Scott Bushey said:


> Bill,
> The person that is a Covenant member I.e One who is marked by the Covenant sign, and shows signs of reprobation in their life, would be showing that they were most likely in the external side of the covenant of grace and the Internal side of the covenant of works. Nonetheless, in covenant.



Bingo! That's one of most clear and concise statements of the disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians I have read on this board. I understand the Presbyterian position on baptized infants being part of the New Covenant community, and I certainly can see the benefits of a child growing up in a believing household; being exposed to the preaching of the Word, godly household instruction, and the protection of church. That said, as a Baptist, this is where the discontinuity of the Abrahamic covenant comes in, as Baptists do not view unbelievers as part of any manifestation of the New Covenant. This is not said as a point of debate, but as a point of clarification. My exposure to 1689 Federalism on this issue is limited, and it does seem rather complex at first glance. I have some boning up to do. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bill,
I understand that. I was trying to amplify the distinction earlier.


----------



## BG

I'm not disagreeing but that language is a little confusing in the beginning of this debate. You can not separate the sign from the thing signified.


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> I'm not disagreeing but that language is a little confusing in the beginning of this debate. You can not separate the sign from the thing signified.



From the sign? No. Baptism will always be that. But from the Baptist perspective, baptism does not mean a person is actually a member of the New Covenant, even if they appear as such. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> From the sign? No. Baptism will always be that. But from the Baptist perspective, baptism does not mean a person is actually a member of the New Covenant, even if they appear as such.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


True but it is reserved for those who have made a declaration/profession of being such.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Bingo! That's one of most clear and concise statements of the disagreement between Baptists and Presbyterians I have read on this board. I understand the Presbyterian position on baptized infants being part of the New Covenant community, and I certainly can see the benefits of a child growing up in a believing household; being exposed to the preaching of the Word, godly household instruction, and the protection of church. That said, as a Baptist, this is where the discontinuity of the Abrahamic covenant comes in, as Baptists do not view unbelievers as part of any manifestation of the New Covenant. This is not said as a point of debate, but as a point of clarification. My exposure to 1689 Federalism on this issue is limited, and it does seem rather complex at first glance. I have some boning up to do.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


We Baptists though, would have baby dedication, and so would be assenting before God and assembly to make sure the child is raised up by church and family in fear and admonition of the Lord.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Baby dedication is a farce. You do understand that Samuel had the covenant sign on him when his mother left him w/ the priests?

The other thing is to consider that Hannah leaves her son, based on a Nazarite vow. The only persons allowed such privileges are those that are already ‘in covenant’ or covenant keeping peoples.


Your assenting to an idea is frustrated by the rest of scripture in regard to your child.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald

I do not support baby dedication either. In all actuality it's more of a parent dedication, but it has risen to the level of a sacrament in some Baptist churches. You see less of this in confessional Baptist churches. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> I do not support baby dedication either. In all actuality it's more of a parent dedication, but it has risen to the level of a sacrament in some Baptist churches. You see less of this in confessional Baptist churches.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I like your term parent dedication, as really, when we have that ceremony done before the church, its them making/taking a vow to God and before the saints to raise up that child in the ways of God, which would include prayers, scriptures, and the church.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Baby dedication is a farce. You do understand that Samuel had the covenant sign on him when his mother left him w/ the priests?
> 
> The other thing is to consider that Hannah leaves her son, based on a Nazarite vow. The only persons allowed such privileges are those that are already ‘in covenant’ or covenant keeping peoples.
> 
> 
> Your assenting to an idea is frustrated by the rest of scripture in regard to your child.


I am not judging those who have infant baptism here, and I was just suggesting that the same raising up in church and scriptures applies to Baptists also through this ceremony.


----------



## Scott Bushey

David,
Please forgive me if I came across curt. My frustration is rooted in the fact that there is no biblical precedence for the rite of dedicating children outside of placing the sign upon them. I once stood on the ceremony as well, coming out of the credo fold earlier in my walk. We want to do what God commands, right and nothing more-we are told not to add to the word.
in my opinion, it is an innate desire of the credo, when they sit under such things, based on the fact that God's word does show setting apart our children for holy convocation. Consider all the people in scripture who were not actually 'in covenant' and yet, still all had the sign upon their flesh. We see no abrogation of such a thing in that regard. In fact, as I mentioned previously, Genesis tells us that it is for ''generations' and an 'everlasting covenant'.

7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:7.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> David,
> Please forgive me if I came across curt. My frustration is rooted in the fact that there is no biblical precedence for the rite of dedicating children outside of placing the sign upon them. I once stood on the ceremony as well, coming out of the credo fold earlier in my walk. We want to do what God commands, right and nothing more-we are told not to add to the word.
> in my opinion, it is an innate desire of the credo, when they sit under such things, based on the fact that God's word does show setting apart our children for holy convocation. Consider all the people in scripture who were not actually 'in covenant' and yet, still all had the sign upon their flesh. We see no abrogation of such a thing in that regard. In fact, as I mentioned previously, Genesis tells us that it is for 'all generations' and an 'everlasting covenant'.
> 
> 7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ge 17:7.


Both of us are under the control of the scriptures on this issue, and we just have an honest disagreement on what they state concerning this issue, but that is ok, as we are one in Christ regardless.


----------



## Scott Bushey

'Dedication' has it's direct connotation with a Nazarite vow:

*1 *Again the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, *2 *“Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘When a man or woman makes a special vow, the vow of a Nazirite, to dedicate himself to the Lord, *3 *he shall abstain from wine and strong drink; he shall drink no vinegar, whether made from wine or strong drink, nor shall he drink any grape juice nor eat fresh or dried grapes. *4 *‘All the days of his separation he shall not eat anything that is produced by the grape vine, from _the_ seeds even to _the_ skin.

_New American Standard Bible: 1995 Update_ (La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation, 1995), Nu 6:1–4.

Hannah's vow and dedication:


9 So Hannah rose up after they had eaten in Shiloh, and after they had drunk. Now Eli the priest sat upon a seat by a post of the temple of the Lord. 10 And she _was_ †in bitterness of soul, and prayed unto the Lord, and wept sore. 11 And she vowed a vow, and said, O Lord of hosts, if thou wilt indeed look on the affliction of thine handmaid, and remember me, and not forget thine handmaid, but wilt give unto thine handmaid a man child, then I will give him unto the Lord all the days of his life, and there shall no razor come upon his head. 

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 1 Sa 1:9–11.

Part of this 'dedication' was leaving the child in the over-site of the temple priests. This particular dedication was a lifelong Nazarite vow. I have yet to see any parent leave their child with the church....

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Herald

Dachaser said:


> I like your term parent dedication, as really, when we have that ceremony done before the church, its them making/taking a vow to God and before the saints to raise up that child in the ways of God, which would include prayers, scriptures, and the church.



David,

Scott's criticism of baby dedication is expected since he is a Presbyterian. I am criticizing it as a Baptist. The ceremony accomplishes nothing more than what the body of Christ should already be doing for parents of new children; encouraging and helping them when needed. There is no warrant for such a ceremony in the New Testament. It really is a feel-good moment and a photo op, not much else. I would much rather see the child come to faith in Christ, and go under the waters of baptism as a public declaration of their faith.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> The Mosaic Covenant was given to Israel. Period. And Israel was a mixed company. I am not sure why this MUST entail paedobaptism, but many baptists seem to now say that we cannot admit this or else we may turn paedo. I even admit that the external church is a mixed company, for plenty of the unsaved play the part of a believer for a time when they are never truly IN the covenant (IN Christ). Again, I am not sure why I cannot believe this as a baptist.



I'm sorry brother, but you seem very confused. No one denies that Israel was made up of believers and unbelievers ("mixed company"). Furthermore, 1689 Federalism agrees that the external/visible church is made up of true and false professors. So there is no problem believing these things as a baptist. You have clearly not understood the disagreement. I would once again encourage you to slow down and spend more time reading and reflecting first.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> Soooo... in the MC God is not so much a redeemer as he is a real estate agent
> 
> 
> 
> That is also what I thought as well. Brandon is here on the PB. I am hoping he will clarify his statement so that I can understand better.
Click to expand...


I do not appreciate the sacrasm. It's possible to disagree and yet be respectful. All I have articulated is what is known as the subservient covenant view. It is not just held by baptists. See Samuel Bolton, John Owen, and others.

I agree with 18th century Scottish Presbyterian John Erskine (whom William Cunningham called "_probably the greatest divine in the Church of Scotland in the latter part of last century_").


> [T]he blessings of the Sinai covenant are merely temporal and outward. God in that covenant acted as a temporal monarch. And from a temporal monarch, temporal profperity is all that we hope, not spiritual bleffings, such as righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
> 
> …[P]romises of temporal blessings and threatenings of the opposite evils are almost every where to be found in the Scripture accounts of the Sinai covenant, whilst there is a remarkable silence as to spiritual and heavenly blessings...
> 
> The party, with whom God made this covenant, was the Jewish nation, not excluding these unregenerate, and inwardly disaffected to God and goodness. In the original records of the Sinai covenant (Ex 19:8, 24:3, Deut v:1-3), all the people are expressly said to enter into it, and yet the greater part of that people, were strangers to the enlightening and converting influences of the spirit, and to a principle of inward love to God and holiness (Deut 29:3, 5:29).
> 
> …Descent from Israel gave any one a title to the benefits of this covenant, for which reason the children even of unregenerate Israelites, were circumcised the eighth day, and were said to be born unto God (b).
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/john-erskines-the-nature-the-sinai-covenant/



I highly recommend reading his essay on the Sinai Covenant. His purpose was to argue against the concept of the national church by demonstrating the dramatic difference between the Old and the New Covenants. https://archive.org/details/theologicaldisse00ersk

If you want an elaboration from a baptist perspective, I recommend Abraham Booth's An Essay on the Kingdom of Christ (writing shortly after Erskine, and even quoting him) http://www.1689federalism.com/the-kingdom-of-Christ-abraham-booth/

Augustine also helpfully explains this view


> the promises of the Old Testament are earthly...
> 
> As then the law of works, which was written on the tables of stone, and its reward, the land of promise, which the house of the carnal Israel after their liberation from Egypt received, belonged to the old testament [covenant], so the law of faith, written on the heart, and its reward, the beatific vision which the house of the spiritual Israel, when delivered from the present world, shall perceive, belong to the new testament [covenant].*
> *
> http://www.1689federalism.com/augustine-proto-1689-federalist/



And Owen summarizes


> This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But *as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal.* Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.


----------



## brandonadams

BG said:


> The problem with the presuppositions of Baptist theology is that At there foundation they are dispensational.



Bill, your rhetoric has not been edifying. I would appreciate it if you could tone it down a bit. No, 1689 Federalism is not dispensational. Please see a previous topic on this point. You are correct that we disagree with you. That does not make us dispensationalists.


----------



## brandonadams

The subservient covenant view was also articulated in Thomas Scott's popular 18th century whole-bible commentary.



> The national covenant with Israel here meant the charter upon which they were incorporated as a people under the government of Jehovah. It was an engagement of God, to give Israel possession Canaan, and to protect them in it; to render the land fruitful and the nation victorious and prosperous, and to perpetuate his oracles and ordinances among them; so long they did not, as a people, reject his authority apostatize idolatry and tolerate open wickedness. These things constituted a forfeiture of the covenant, as their national rejection of Christ did afterwards. True believers them were _personally_ dealt with according to the covenant of mercy and grace even as true Christians now are; unbelievers were under the covenant of works and liable condemnation by it, as at present: yet the _national covenant_ was not strictly either the one or the other but something in it of the nature of each. It did not refer the final salvation of individuals; nor was it broken by disobedience, or even idolatry, of any number of them, provided this was not sanctioned or tolerated by authority. It indeed, in many respects, prefigured dealings of God with his people, under the Christian dispensation; in which the new covenant of grace and mercy, made with all true believers, is more clearly exhibited under any of the preceding dispensations; yet it “had not the very image,” but only “a shadow of good things come.”...
> 
> The outward covenant was made with the nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience: and the covenant of grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the divine law.
> 
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/04/06/thomas-scott-on-the-mosaic-covenant/



Founding-era American Presbyterian William Findley leaned heavily on Scott and the subservient covenant view to argue against American Covenanter criticism of religious liberty.



> It is presumed that no christian believes that eternal salvation was promised in the Sinai covenant; or, in other words, that it was the covenant of grace… The Sinai covenant, as has been shown before, was symbolical or typical of the kingdom of Christ, through which, as through a glass darkly, true believers saw Christ’s day and rejoiced...
> 
> The learned [Thomas] Scott, on Exodus xxiv. 3, 4. says, ‘the covenant of grace is not made with whole nations, or collective bodies of divers characters, but only representatively with Christ, as the surety of the elect, and personally with true believers. But whilst this covenant was made with the nation of Israel, in respect to their outward blessings, it was a shadow of good things to come’… This covenant was distinct, both from the covenant of works, of which Adam was the surety, and under which, every unbeliever, in every age and nation, is bound; and from the covenant of grace, mediated by Christ, of which every believing Israelite received the blessing… See the same learned author on Heb. viii
> 
> http://reformedlibertarian.com/arti...an-presbyterian-argument-against-covenanters/


----------



## Ben Zartman

BG said:


> The problem with the presuppositions of Baptist theology is that At there foundation they are dispensational.
> 
> It is clear from this thread and others that all Baptist view Israel and the church as two distinctly different groups they have no choice their theology stands or falls on that presupposition.
> 
> If Israel and the church are the same thing then it stands to reason that children have always been a part of the church, if children are a part of the church then Baptist theology is false Or Baptist would need to show proof that Jesus came to throw the children out of the church.


Bill, this is completely wrong. All Baptists do NOT view Israel and the church as two different groups. Our standard position is that God has one people in all ages, all saved in the same way--by despairing of self and looking to God in faith for forgiveness of sins. Children were part of the visible congregation in the old covenant, but you must understand that the new covenant is somewhat different, founded on better promises, sealed not with the blood of bulls and goats but with the blood of the Lamb of God. Children in the OC were not born godly, they were born sinners, needing regeneration just like children of believers today. That that administration put them into the covenant did not assure their salvation, any more than children of believers today are assured salvation by virtue of their birth. The people of God is the same--the administration has changed.


----------



## brandonadams

Just to provide clarity, since this thread began with a discussion of 1689 Federalism - What Ben has just articulated would fit in the 20th Century RB view. 1689 Federalism does not agree with what Ben said. 1689 Federalism affirms that Israel according to the flesh is a different group than the church (Israel according to the Spirit). So there are/were two different peoples of God. One was a temporal and temporary people who served a typological purpose that has now ceased (thus it is very different than Dispensationalism). Though there were two different groups, the elect in the OT were part of both groups.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> They are referred to as covenant breakers and are considered an example of those in Hebrews who have "tasted the heavenly gift" etc. and fallen away. The warning passages in Heb. have been given by some former Baptists as a reason for their acceptance of paedobaptism: they couldn't account for the warning passages as a Baptist.


The Hebrews passages have never bothered me in light of 1 JN 2:19 "they went out from us because they were never of us". The church always has its impostors. When the author of Hebrews wrote "Take care, brethren, that there not be in any one of you an evil, unbelieving heart that falls away from the living God" (Heb 3:12), it serves as a both a warning and indictment; sort of like Paul's words in 2 Cor. 3:15 "examine yourselves".


----------



## Herald

brandonadams said:


> Just to provide clarity, since this thread began with a discussion of 1689 Federalism - What Ben has just articulated would fit in the 20th Century RB view. 1689 Federalism does not agree with what Ben said. 1689 Federalism affirms that Israel according to the flesh is a different group than the church (Israel according to the Spirit). So there are/were two different peoples of God. One was a temporal and temporary people who served a typological purpose that has now ceased (thus it is very different than Dispensationalism). Though there were two different groups, the elect in the OT were part of both groups.


Brandon, why not say that there has always been one people of God, and that group served a typological purpose during the Old Covenant?

I am asking because I am trying to see the distinction you are trying to make.


----------



## Ben Zartman

brandonadams said:


> Just to provide clarity, since this thread began with a discussion of 1689 Federalism - What Ben has just articulated would fit in the 20th Century RB view. 1689 Federalism does not agree with what Ben said. 1689 Federalism affirms that Israel according to the flesh is a different group than the church (Israel according to the Spirit). So there are/were two different peoples of God. One was a temporal and temporary people who served a typological purpose that has now ceased (thus it is very different than Dispensationalism). Though there were two different groups, the elect in the OT were part of both groups.


Hi Brandon,
This is a very helpful explanation as we try to sort out what federalism is. Thanks for posting it--I'd never heard of federalism until this thread, but it is interesting to find out about.


----------



## Herald

Ben Zartman said:


> Those two statements ARE troubling. This 1689 Federalism gets worse each time I hear of it. The MC was made with All the children of Israel--everyone who was at Sinai swore to it, and circumcised their children into it. But the MC was less good than the NC in this sense: not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved. Some were--there were multitudes of saints in the OT times, but while being born a Jew and circumcised guaranteed membership in the covenant, and laid on one the duties of it, remission of sins depended on true repentance and faith--believing that only God can take away sins and trusting in Him to do so. Perhaps not understanding that in the fullness of time God's own Son would shed his blood to take away those sins, but believing that forgiveness of sins was God's work alone. Even the Pharisees of Jesus' day recognized that last bit.


Ben, forgive me if it seems like I am being picky about your word choice. When you wrote "not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved", I would change that to, "not everyone who lived under the Old Covenant was saved". Actually, everyone who is in covenant with God is saved; the key being "in" covenant. Being born a Jew in Israel during the Old Covenant did, indeed, put one under the protection and obligations of the covenant community. As you rightly pointed out, being a member of the Israel of faith (or in covenant with God) was something else (c.f. Jer. 31:31).


----------



## brandonadams

Herald said:


> Brandon, why not say that there has always been one people of God, and that group served a typological purpose during the Old Covenant?



Because they are not the same group of people. One group is made up of Abraham's physical descendants. Faith was not a requirement to be part of this group. The other is made up of Abraham's spiritual descendants. Faith is a requirement to be part of this group. Furthermore, the typology would be self-contradictory if you said that the same group was a type of itself. Israel according to the flesh was a type of Israel according to the Spirit. Please let me know how I can state it more clearly if you aren't getting the distinction.


----------



## brandonadams

Ben Zartman said:


> Hi Brandon,
> This is a very helpful explanation as we try to sort out what federalism is. Thanks for posting it--I'd never heard of federalism until this thread, but it is interesting to find out about.



Ben, take a look at http://www.1689federalism.com
See also this thread https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/


----------



## Ben Zartman

Herald said:


> Ben, forgive me if it seems like I am being picky about your word choice. When you wrote "not everyone who was in covenant with God was saved", I would change that to, "not everyone who lived under the Old Covenant was saved". Actually, everyone who is in covenant with God is saved; the key being "in" covenant. Being born a Jew in Israel during the Old Covenant did, indeed, put one under the protection and obligations of the covenant community. As you rightly pointed out, being a member of the Israel of faith (or in covenant with God) was something else (c.f. Jer. 31:31).


Hi Bill,
As I understand it, according to Jer 31:32, God made a covenant with Israel that they brake--it could be broken. Do not we Baptists believe that one of the glories of the New Covenant is that it is an unbreakable one? That was my understanding of the difference: OC could be broken by unbelief, because there were many unregenerate therein; NC cannot be broken, because every member is regenerate. I'm willing to be instructed if I've gone astray here.


----------



## Herald

Ben Zartman said:


> Hi Bill,
> As I understand it, according to Jer 31:32, God made a covenant with Israel that they brake--it could be broken. Do not we Baptists believe that one of the glories of the New Covenant is that it is an unbreakable one? That was my understanding of the difference: OC could be broken by unbelief, because there were many unregenerate therein; NC cannot be broken, because every member is regenerate. I'm willing to be instructed if I've gone astray here.


Ben,

If we isolate our discussion to the Mosaic Law, then yes, the commandments of the Mosaic Law can be broken. Abiding sin reminds me they are broken all the time. The moral law of God, pre-dating the Mosaic Law, has never been kept perfectly by sinful man. When I think of the term "in covenant" I am referring to a state of being that is different than just the external administration of the covenant. Every Jew in Israel during the time of the Old Covenant was bound by the external administration of the covenant; i.e. they were bound to observe the Sabbath, bound to dietary restrictions, bound to the judicial aspects of the Law et al. However, when Paul wrote, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" (Rom. 9:6), he was making a distinction between an ethnic Jew and a spiritual Jew. The spiritual Jew was in a covenant relationship with God (i.e. Abraham), not just under an external administration. I hope I am making sense. And just so you know, I am always open to being instructed as well.


----------



## Scott Bushey

"Scott's criticism of baby dedication is expected since he is a Presbyterian. I am criticizing it as a Baptist."

I have amply critiqued it along the lines of scripture alone. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism.


----------



## Herald

brandonadams said:


> Because they are not the same group of people. One group is made up of Abraham's physical descendants. Faith was not a requirement to be part of this group. The other is made up of Abraham's spiritual descendants. Faith is a requirement to be part of this group. Furthermore, the typology would be self-contradictory if you said that the same group was a type of itself. Israel according to the flesh was a type of Israel according to the Spirit. Please let me know how I can state it more clearly if you aren't getting the distinction.



Brandon, thank you for replying.

I am trying very hard to understand what you wrote. Extend me a little slack.

Saints during the Old Covenant can be said to serve a typological purpose of contrasting those who are external members of the covenant community, and those who are spiritual members (c.f. Rom. 9:6). Those who are spiritual members are part of the invisible church that spans both covenants. As such they are one people of God, distinguished only by the times in which they lived, and the external administration of the respective covenants. 

I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse here. Please point out where we may be in disagreement or where my understanding is lacking.


----------



## Herald

Scott Bushey said:


> "Scott's criticism of baby dedication is expected since he is a Presbyterian. I am criticizing it as a Baptist."
> 
> I have amply critiqued it along the lines of scripture alone. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism.


Brother, no insult intended. I was just trying to make the point to David that I was critical of baby dedication form an _active _Baptist position. I should have added that caveat in my response to David.


----------



## BG

brandonadams said:


> Just to provide clarity, since this thread began with a discussion of 1689 Federalism - What Ben has just articulated would fit in the 20th Century RB view. 1689 Federalism does not agree with what Ben said. 1689 Federalism affirms that Israel according to the flesh is a different group than the church (Israel according to the Spirit). So there are/were two different peoples of God. One was a temporal and temporary people who served a typological purpose that has now ceased (thus it is very different than Dispensationalism). Though there were two different groups, the elect in the OT were part of both groups.



Wow


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bill,
I wasn't offended by your remark. I just wanted to clarify that my position will always be scripture and not a system. As well, Presbyterianism, technically speaking is polity and not paedobaptism.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> paedobabtism


I have not heard of this type of Presbyterian polity before. Is this a new theology in Presbyterianism?


----------



## brandonadams

Herald said:


> Saints during the Old Covenant can be said to serve a typological purpose of contrasting those who are external members of the covenant community, and those who are spiritual members (c.f. Rom. 9:6).



I'm sorry, but this statement does not make sense. You are conflating two different readings of Romans 9:6. The paedobaptist reading does not view it as typological. Rather, Romans 9:6 simply describes covenant membership in the Covenant of Grace: inward and outward (or however you want to describe it). There is nothing typological about it. 1689 Federalism, on the other hand, recognizes that in that passage, Paul is making a typological argument. Give this a read and see if it helps https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/


----------



## Scott Bushey

Thanks, Stephen LOL

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Herald said:


> Ben,
> 
> If we isolate our discussion to the Mosaic Law, then yes, the commandments of the Mosaic Law can be broken. Abiding sin reminds me they are broken all the time. The moral law of God, pre-dating the Mosaic Law, has never been kept perfectly by sinful man. When I think of the term "in covenant" I am referring to a state of being that is different than just the external administration of the covenant. Every Jew in Israel during the time of the Old Covenant was bound by the external administration of the covenant; i.e. they were bound to observe the Sabbath, bound to dietary restrictions, bound to the judicial aspects of the Law et al. However, when Paul wrote, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" (Rom. 9:6), he was making a distinction between an ethnic Jew and a spiritual Jew. The spiritual Jew was in a covenant relationship with God (i.e. Abraham), not just under an external administration. I hope I am making sense. And just so you know, I am always open to being instructed as well.


Thanks for the gracious response. I must process this mentally, since though I have always known that there were some jews who were circumcised in their hearts and some who were not, I never thought about whether the uncircumcised of heart were not in actual covenant. I will meditate upon this conundrum with delight.


----------



## BG

Brandon said:
Faith was not a requirement to be part of this group.

There was one requirement they were to love God and keep his commandments

And if they did not they were to be cut off or excommunicated from the church


----------



## Pergamum

BG said:


> Wow






> 1689 Federalism affirms that Israel according to the flesh is a different group than the church (Israel according to the Spirit). So there are/were two different peoples of God. One was a temporal and temporary people who served a typological purpose that has now ceased (thus it is very different than Dispensationalism). Though there were two different groups, the elect in the OT were part of both groups.



Two peoples of God? Two different sets of promises? 

And yet a 1689 Federalist seemed to get irked at me last week for saying his view sounded Dispensational. How is this not Dispensational?


----------



## BG

Pergamum said:


> Two peoples of God? Two different sets of promises?
> 
> And yet a 1689 Federalist seemed to get irked at me last week for saying his view sounded Dispensational. How is this not Dispensational?



It is dispensationalism


----------



## KMK

It sounds like 1689 Federalism is still working out some of the kinks in regards to this issue. Denault has revised his book to reflect this:

*"REVISITING THE MOSAIC COVENANT*

Finally, I was sharpened by a lot of discussions among the Reformed Baptist community that forced me to articulate a more precise and consistent covenant theology on some specific points. In the process I have rejected the idea that the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life as an absolute republication of the Covenant of Works. I came to the understanding that the Mosaic Covenant was strictly limited to life in Canaan and was only typologically tied to the heavenly realities brought by the New Covenant. I had previously endorsed Samuel Petto’s view that understands the Mosaic Covenant both as an earthly covenant of works for Israel in Canaan and an absolute covenant of works for Christ to obtain eternal life. I still believe the former (Israel), but I now believe that the latter (Christ) is only typologically true. In other words, Christ didn’t accomplish the Old Covenant but the New Covenant which was set forth as a covenant of works between him and the Father (the Covenant of Redemption), the terms of which were prefigured but not properly stipulated in the Old Covenant.

The main issue, in my opinion, was that I used to blend the type with the antitype or the shadow with the reality in the same covenant by attributing eternal life as a promise proper to the Mosaic Covenant. I believe that this mixed approach to covenant theology is the essence of paedobaptism with its internal/external distinction that blends earthly kingdom with heavenly kingdom, Old Covenant with New Covenant, etc. 1689 Federalism, on the other hand, relies on the fundamental distinctions between Old and New, type and antitype, shadow and reality and, therefore, distinguishes between the Mosaic typological republication and Christ’s established New Covenant: typologically related, but essentially distinct.

This revised edition of _The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology_ now reflects this view and I believe that this was Coxe and Owen’s view. Many brothers were involved in important discussions that led me to this clarification. I especially want to thank brother Brandon Adams who was very instrumental in that regard and I want to commend him for all his laboring for the cause of the Gospel by his defense of 1689 Federalism."

This blurb can be found here: https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> David,
> 
> Scott's criticism of baby dedication is expected since he is a Presbyterian. I am criticizing it as a Baptist. The ceremony accomplishes nothing more than what the body of Christ should already be doing for parents of new children; encouraging and helping them when needed. There is no warrant for such a ceremony in the New Testament. It really is a feel-good moment and a photo op, not much else. I would much rather see the child come to faith in Christ, and go under the waters of baptism as a public declaration of their faith.


We all would desire to see all of the children of saved parents come to faith in Jesus as their Messiah/Lord, and we do take seriously the dedicating both the parents and the church ourselves to assist the child to grow up in the ways of the Lord.
I can see where they can be problems with this, for just as some just hang on that one time "alter call" experience, some could just look back at this ceremony as being when their child was "saved"


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> It is dispensationalism


I do not think that it is full blown version of it though, as I was raised and trained up in that system, and would see Reformed baptists like me seeing the one Covenant of Grace in both Old/New Covenants, but that the Old one was like a type or a shadow of the full version that came in person and work of the Messiah Jesus Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Bill,
> I wasn't offended by your remark. I just wanted to clarify that my position will always be scripture and not a system. As well, Presbyterianism, technically speaking is polity and not paedobaptism.


All of us here would be basing our theology upon the scriptures themselves, hopefully.
I think part of the "problem" here is that while i now look upon myself as being a Reformed baptist, my Baptist church is not one that holds to Confessions. as more akin to a "normal" Baptist church.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> And yet a 1689 Federalist seemed to get irked at me last week for saying his view sounded Dispensational. How is this not Dispensational?


1689 Federalism is fundamentally anti-Dispensational. No Dispensationalist would ever consider it Dispensational. Please re-read this if you are confused. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> 1689 Federalism is fundamentally anti-Dispensational. No Dispensationalist would ever consider it Dispensational. Please re-read this if you are confused. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/


Dispensational would still see a plan for national Israel yet to be fulfilled, and would not hold to Covenant theology, so the two are not saying the same thing.


----------



## GulfCoast Presbyterian

Does 1689 federalism posit one people of God, or "two" peoples of God?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

GulfCoast Presbyterian said:


> Does 1689 federalism posit one people of God, or "two" peoples of God?



In agreement with numerous paedobaptists, 1689 Federalism believes that the nation of Israel was a distinct, temporary, typological "people of God" in a way that the church is not. Israel and the church are/were peoples of God in two different senses (and Israel's status ended with the Old Covenant). There is no "dual-destinationism" as Dispensationalism teaches. Israel was typological of the church and ceased at the coming of Christ. Furthermore, elect members of the nation of Israel were also part of the church of Christ.



> That such appellations as God’s people, God’s Israel, and some other like phrases, are used and applied in Scripture with considerable diversity of intention… And with regard to the people of Israel, it is very manifest, that something diverse is oftentimes intended by that nation being God’s people, from their being visible saints, visibly holy, or having those qualifications which are requisite in order to a due admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That nation, that family of Israel according to the flesh, and with regard to that external and carnal qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar people, and his covenant people… On the whole, it is evident that the very nation of Israel, not as visible saints, but as the progeny of Jacob according to the flesh, were in some respect a chosen people, a people of God, a covenant people, an holy nation; even as Jerusalem was a chosen city, the city of God, a holy city, and a city that God had engaged by covenant to dwell in. Thus a sovereign and all-wise God was pleased to ordain things with respect to the nation of Israel…
> 
> That nation was a typical nation. There was then literally a land, which was a type of heaven, the true dwelling-place of God; and an external city, which was a type of the spiritual city of God; an external temple of God, which was a type of his spiritual temple. So there was an external people and family of God, by carnal generation, which was a type of his spiritual progeny. And the covenant by which they were made a people of God, was a type of the covenant of grace; and so is sometimes represented as a marriage-covenant.
> 
> Jonathan Edwards on the Nation of Israel as a Type of the Church





> Let it then be observed, that men are said to be sanctified or made holy in very different senses. Sanctification, for the distinction, though an old, is not a bad one, is either real or relative.
> 
> …That separation from other nations, in which the holiness of the Jews chiefly consisted (r), was not spiritual, resulting from rectitude of heart and a correspondent behavior; but barely external, resulting from certain sacred rites and ceremonies different from or opposite to those of other nations, and confined to certain places and persons (d). The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, was the ceremonial law (e), which was neither necessary nor fit to make a spiritual separation In fact, it did not separate between good and bad men among the Jews: but between the house of Israel and the fearers of God or devout persons in the heathen nations (f). For which reason, though Cornelius was one that feared God, gave much alms, and prayed to God always, Peter was afraid of being polluted by intercourse with him.
> 
> (a) Lev. xxi. (b) Exod. xix. 6. (c) Exod. xix. 5, 6. Num. xxiii. 9. Deut. xxvi. 18, 19. (d) Lev. xx. 24,—26. Deut. xiv. 21. (e) Eph. ii. 14, 15. (f) Pial. cxviii. 4. A6ls xiii. 16, 26. xvii. 4, 17.
> 
> …as things were termed unclean, which were types or emblems of moral impurity, so the Jews were termed holy, not only because they were separated from other nations, but because they typified real Christians, who are in the fullest and noblest sense a holy nation, and a peculiar people (a). Types are visible things, different in their nature, from the spiritual things which they typify. If then the Jewish dispensation was typical, we may safely conclude, that the holiness of the Jewish nation being intended to typify the holiness of the Christian church, was of a different nature from it. And it is for this reason, that the Jewish dispensation is called the flesh and the letter, because persons and things in that dispensation, typified and represented persons and things under a more spiritual dispensation. (a) 1 Pet. ii. 9.
> 
> John Erskine’s “The Nature of the Sinai Covenant” (17-21)


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> In agreement with numerous paedobaptists, 1689 Federalism believes that the nation of Israel was a distinct, temporary, typological "people of God" in a way that the church is not. Israel and the church are/were peoples of God in two different senses (and Israel's status ended with the Old Covenant). There is no "dual-destinationism" as Dispensationalism teaches. Israel was typological of the church and ceased at the coming of Christ. Furthermore, elect members of the nation of Israel were also part of the church of Christ.


When did the Church of God then get instituted by 1689 view point?


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> When did the Church of God then get instituted by 1689 view point?



http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/when-did-the-church-begin/


> The church began in Genesis 3:15 and the church began at Pentecost.
> 
> _How can both be true?_ Because of how the institutional church relates to the promised/established New Covenant.
> 
> Old Testament saints were saved in the same way that we are today: through saving faith produced by the regenerating power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2LBC 8.6, 8.8, 10.1, 11.6). They were united to Christ and were therefore part of his mystical body, the church (2LBC 26.1).
> 
> But it does not therefore follow that Israel was the church ("assembly") of Christ. Israel was an assembly, but not the assembly of Christ (Heb. 12:23). Though regenerate Old Testament saints were part of the body of Christ, they were a remnant within the broader body of the assembly of Israel (which was governed by the Old Covenant). Likewise, believers outside of Israel were not under the Old Covenant (for example, Lot & Melchizedek were not circumcised - see Coxe p. 117-118).
> 
> It was not until Pentecost that the invisible church gathered ("assembled") together as the assembly of Christ (the church) (2LBC 26.2, 26.5-7). The visible church was instituted at Pentecost and given ordinances of worship and its own government. John Owen explains how this relates to the New Covenant as promised & established.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and *that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows*, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. *That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church*, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. *When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it.* Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration. (Exposition of Hebrews 8:6)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The first solemn promulgation of this new covenant, so made, ratified, and established, was on the day of Pentecost, seven weeks after the resurrection of Christ. And it answered the promulgation of the law on mount Sinai, the same space of time after the delivery of the people out of Egypt. From this day forward the ordinances of worship, and all the institutions of the new covenant, became obligatory unto all believers. Then was the whole church absolved from any duty with respect unto the old covenant, and the worship of it, though it was not manifest as yet in their consciences. (Exposition Hebrews 8:10)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thus the church began as soon as God began to redeem lost sinners through the promise of the New Covenant (Gen. 3:15), which was efficacious to save, bringing an individual into the invisible church. But it was not until the New Covenant was formally established that the visible church was instituted with its own worship and governance.
> 
> For more, see Tom Ascol's Toward a Confessional Doctrine of the Church (3-Part Video)
Click to expand...


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/when-did-the-church-begin/


Interesting. So the Church proper was really instituted at Pentecost, but the saved in Israel were also part of that Body of Christ?


----------



## brandonadams

Correct.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> and we do take seriously the dedicating both the parents and the church ourselves to assist the child to grow up in the ways of the Lord.



Where do you see that practice in Scripture?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Interesting. So the Church proper was really instituted at Pentecost, but the saved in Israel were also part of that Body of Christ?



No....
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and _with_ our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ac 7:36–38.

Do a simple Hebrew word study on the word 'congregation' or 'assembly' and u will see....To think that the church is a new testament phenomenon is dispensationalism.

More here:
http://www.semperreformanda.com/ecc...dex/is-the-church-a-new-testament-phenomenon/

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## brandonadams

I second Scott's encouragement to do a word study. Make sure to compare not just the similarities in use, but also the differences. The congregation of Israel was not the congregation of the first born who are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23). One was a type of the other.


----------



## Scott Bushey

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

Ch 20
I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love, and a willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the *Jewish Church was subjected*; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.


Ch 25

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.



II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

Add to your word study: Synagogue

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Thank you for providing references for your opinion.

I will just note that this discussion needs to be carefully nuanced. Simply pointing to a word does not suffice. For example, 1689 Federalism distinguishes between different uses of the term Israel.



Scott Bushey said:


> If the church is a New Testament phenomenon only, then the Groom only has a NT bride!



Please re-read what was actually said. You've rather massively misunderstood/misrepresented what was said.


----------



## brandonadams

To try to state it more clearly:

The church, the body and bride of Christ, has existed since the first sinner believed the promise of Christ in Genesis 3:15. However, the church, the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, did not gather together as the church until Pentecost. The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, was not a gathering of "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," although at least some saints were in their midst.


----------



## Scott Bushey

brandonadams said:


> To try to state it more clearly:
> 
> The church, the body and bride of Christ, has existed since the first sinner believed the promise of Christ in Genesis 3:15. However, the church, the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, did not gather together as the church until Pentecost. The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, were not "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," although at least some saints were in their midst.



Brandon,
Are you reading what you are writing? The Israel of God has always been. The OT saints who were, by faith, in Christ Jesus, were as sanctified as you or I.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Scott, I'm pretty certain that you are not reading what I'm writing.



Scott Bushey said:


> The OT saints who were, by faith, in Christ Jesus, were as sanctified as you or I.



I have affirmed this point numerous time, including in my last statement.


----------



## brandonadams

All OT saints were saved the same way we were: through union with Christ. They were sanctified in Christ Jesus.

But the nation of Israel was not a gathering of all those who had been called out of the world and sanctified in Christ Jesus. The nation of Israel was a gathering of Abraham's physical descendants who had been redeemed out of Egypt. 

You rather drastically missing the nuance in what I am saying.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, were not "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," although at least some saints were in their midst.



It looks like u are saying that the OT saints 'were not "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,....'
You quantify it a bit here by saying: 'although at least some saints were in their midst'.

In other words, the NT saint has a hand up on the OT saints-the number of believers in the OT were by far, innumerably less...This is what I am seeing. Am I mistaken?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

brandonadams said:


> You rather drastically missing the nuance in what I am saying.




Ok...that helps a bit. But I don't agree. In the midst of all this turmoil, the converted of God resided and gathered together to worship God in all ages.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

I am sure you agree that all the saints over the ages are considered the 'universal/invisible' church, no?


----------



## brandonadams

I revised my statement to say "The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, was not a gathering of 'those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,' although at least some saints were in their midst."

Of course you will disagree. I am merely trying to communicate what I believe.



Scott Bushey said:


> I am sure you agree that all the saints over the ages are considered the 'universal/invisible' church, no?



Yes, as I have stated several times.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> All of us here would be basing our theology upon the scriptures themselves, hopefully.
> I think part of the "problem" here is that while i now look upon myself as being a Reformed baptist, my Baptist church is not one that holds to Confessions. as more akin to a "normal" Baptist church.


But the Scriptures do not warrant a "dedication ceremony" I must add my voice to the others here who abominate the foolishness of baby dedications.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

But that distinction 'church' did not count for them until the NT initiated it? Like, up until Christ's passion, they were not an invisible church until Christ died and rose again?


----------



## Scott Bushey

More in the am, Brandon. Nice talking with you.


----------



## brandonadams

Scott, I'm sorry, but you're just not reading what I'm writing. I think I have stated my view sufficiently. Have a good night.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Brandon,
Ok....I believe we are talking past each other now. I'm not trying to be difficult-I just want to understand how u have come to this conclusion. I will quote u again:



> "The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, was not a gathering of 'those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,' although at least some saints were in their midst."



Are u making a distinction between those of the 'congregation in Israel' and the NT church-what defines them as not the church in the OT? I know u make mention that word studies are deficient (to which I disagree).



> was not a gathering of 'those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints,



Are u using this in that u believe everyone in the NT 'gatherings' were ALL believers, because we know that there is only one gospel and the OT saint had that same gospel and were as sanctified as any of us. Help me out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

1 Corinthians 10 says *all* were baptized into the Red Sea.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Scott Bushey

"...you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth". (Deuteronomy 7:6)

"Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ". (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> I second Scott's encouragement to do a word study. Make sure to compare not just the similarities in use, but also the differences. The congregation of Israel was not the congregation of the first born who are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23). One was a type of the other.


The group in Israel were the assembles/called out group for God, but were not the same as the Church instituted at Pentecost. They were part of the saved of God, and were included in the Body of Christ, but were not at that time the Church yet to come, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> "...you are a people holy to the LORD your God. The LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for his treasured possession, out of all the peoples who are on the face of the earth". (Deuteronomy 7:6)
> 
> "Moreover, brethren, I do not want you to be unaware that all our fathers were under the cloud, all passed through the sea, 2 all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, 3 all ate the same spiritual food, 4 and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them, and that Rock was Christ". (1 Corinthians 10:1-4).


This serves to once again highlights the real difference between how Baptists and Presbyterians view the concept of Covenant theology from the perspective of how much continuity/discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants of God.


----------



## Dachaser

The Church of the NT would be the body of Christ, all of those who were Baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, and would have just saved members within it, unlike Israel which had a mixture of saved/lost.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> But that distinction 'church' did not count for them until the NT initiated it? Like, up until Christ's passion, they were not an invisible church until Christ died and rose again?


The saved within Israel were part of the redeemed of the Lord, but only saved are part of the Church, as the Church proper was instituted on day of Pentecost.


----------



## brandonadams

Scott, when you gather together with other families to watch your son's tee-ball game and there are other people from your church there, does that make it a gathering of the church? No. It's a gathering of tee-ball parents, some of whom happen to also be members of the church.

Same thing with the nation of Israel. It was not a gathering of the church, even though some of them happened to be members of the church.

Deut 7:6 - typology. See my previous quotes, particularly from Edwards and Erskine.

1 Cor 10 - see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-an-exposition/ and https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-paedobaptist-false-inferences/


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> The saved within Israel were part of the redeemed of the Lord, but only saved are part of the Church, as the Church proper was instituted on day of Pentecost.



When Paul wrote to the "saints" in Corinth, was it to everyone present or only to the "saved" among those present?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

brandonadams said:


> Scott, when you gather together with other families to watch your son's tee-ball game and there are other people from your church there, does that make it a gathering of the church? No. It's a gathering of tee-ball parents, some of whom happen to also be members of the church.
> 
> Same thing with the nation of Israel. It was not a gathering of the church, even though some of them happened to be members of the church.
> 
> Deut 7:6 - typology. See my previous quotes, particularly from Edwards and Erskine.
> 
> 1 Cor 10 - see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-an-exposition/ and https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/23/1-cor-101-5-paedobaptist-false-inferences/




This is a horrible analogy. Israel was both _ecclesia militans improprie et per synecdochen_ and _politeuma_ (in the common sense of the word). In other words, "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children;and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ" (WCF 25.2). Also, the nation of Israel was a "body politic" (WCF 19.4). 

Comparing church members to a secular game gathering doesn't adequately address the issues. Israel was both/and, not one or the other.

Another point is that one who professes to believe is a Christian. We can't judge intrinsically.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> The Church of the NT would be the body of Christ, all of those who were Baptized by the Holy Spirit into the Body of Christ, and would have just saved members within it, unlike Israel which had a mixture of saved/lost.



U mean like Demas, Annanias and his wife, Sapphira? Or how about Simon Magus?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> The saved within Israel were part of the redeemed of the Lord, but only saved are part of the Church, as the Church proper was instituted on day of Pentecost.



You need to reread what u have written as it makes no sense.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> U mean like Demas, Annanias and his wife, Sapphira? Or how about Simon Magus?


I am referring to the truth that only saved persons, who have are indwelt by the Spirit, are actually part of the true bride/body of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> You need to reread what u have written as it makes no sense.


Sorry about that. The point was that the saved among the people of Israel will be part of the First Resurrection, will be glorified, but the Church proper on earth started on day of Pentecost.


----------



## brandonadams

ReformedReidian said:


> When Paul wrote to the "saints" in Corinth, was it to everyone present or only to the "saved" among those present?



I recommend reading John Murray's comments on this issue.
http://faculty.wts.edu/posts/free-ebook-infant-baptism/



> The second danger that must be avoided is the tendency to define the church in such a way as would seem to eliminate or at least tone down the discrepancy or anomaly with which we are dealing. This again is a mistake. Our definition of the church must not be framed in terms of an accommodation by which we make provision, within our definition, for the inclusion of hypocrites, that is to say, of those who profess to be Christ’s but are not really his. Our definition of the church must be framed in terms of the constitutive principle, to wit, that the church consists of those who are united to Christ and are members of his body. It is the communion of saints. And it is precisely that body of believers in fellowship with Christ and with one another, associated together in the world in accordance with Christ’s institution, which is called in the New Testament “the church” and is what we often call the visible church. We may not abandon this constitutive principle, we may not accommodate our definition in order to make allowance for the fact that some make the profession who do not have the faith and who enter into the fellowship without the bond that constitutes it.*26
> 
> *26 It is very easy to fall into this kind of accommodation when we begin to apply the distinction between the church as invisible and the church as visible. And, indeed, it may appear to be necessary in order to avoid other pitfalls of the Romish doctrine of the church. In the esteem of the present writer this appears rather conspicuously in James Bannerman’s excellent work, The Church of Christ. His definition of the visible church is framed in terms that do not appear to be supported by New Testament usage (cf. op. cit. Vol. I, pp. 29ff). The terms in which Bannerman develops the distinction between visible and invisible and frames his definition of the visible church seem to provide us with a very simple and effective polemic against Rome. The controversy with Rome must, of course, be unabated, but it does not appear to be sound to conduct this controversy on the basis of a definition which does not find its counterpart in the Biblical usage with reference to the church.
> 
> I Cor. 1:1, 2… provides us with Paul’s concept of the church at Corinth, namely, those sanctified in Christ Jesus and called to be saints, and he does not conceive of the church in broader terms so as to distinguish between the church and those sanctified and called…
> 
> Paul recognised that there was old leaven in the church at Corinth, leaven which needed to be purged out. But when he addresses the church he does not address it as a community to be defined in terms of old leaven and new unleavened bread. He does not define the church in terms which would make allowance for both elements. No, he addresses the church as those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints, and who call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ…
> 
> It is true that hypocrites may secure admission to the church. As we have seen, the very administration which Christ has instituted for the admission of members allows for that. There are disciples who are not truly disciples, and there are branches in the vine which are not vitally and abidingly in the vine. But while we fully recognise this fact we must at the same time distinguish between the constitutive principle in terms of which the church is defined, on the one hand, and the de facto situation arising from the way in which Christ has chosen to administer the affairs of his church in the world, on the other. The inclusion and exclusion are in the hands of fallible men. This administration is of divine institution. Hence those who are not Christ’s gain admission.*27 Here is the anomaly. We have to recognise and contain it. It persists in its sharpness because we refuse to define the church in lower terms than the body of Christ and the communion of the saints. It is that definition that creates the anomaly and we may not revise the definition in order to relieve the tension…
> 
> *27 Cf. Calvin: Inst. IV, i, 7 and 8.
> In refraining from the attempt to define the church in terms of an accommodation that will make allowance for the inclusion of hypocrites we are following the same lines as would have to be followed in defining the kingdom of God. We are not forgetful of the parables of the tares and the wheat and of the drag net. There is a mixture in the kingdom, and Christ will at the end gather out of his kingdom all things that offend and them which do iniquity. But we may not define the kingdom of God in terms of accommodation to this de facto situation. We must define it in terms of the rule and realm of righteousness, life, and peace.



For a more detailed answer, see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/church-membership-de-jure-or-de-facto/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Andrew P.C. said:


> This is a horrible analogy. Israel was both _ecclesia militans improprie et per synecdochen_ and _politeuma_ (in the common sense of the word). In other words, "The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the gospel (not confined to one nation as before under the law) consists of all those, throughout the world, that profess the true religion, and of their children;and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ" (WCF 25.2)



Lol brother. This is precisely what is being debated: Whether or not the nation of Israel was a gathering of the church.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Another point is that one who professes to believe is a Christian. We can't judge intrinsically.



This is 100% irrelevant to anything I've said.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

brandonadams said:


> Whether or not the nation of Israel was a gathering of the church.



Your contention seems to indicate you view the church as purely believers with no visible expression. If a person becomes a member of a church by profession of faith, yet falls away, are you claiming that they were "never of us"? If so, my second portion is 100% relevant, and it would seem you don't understand the argument.


----------



## brandonadams

Andrew P.C. said:


> Your contention seems to indicate you view the church as purely believers with no visible expression. If a person becomes a member of a church by profession of faith, yet falls away, are you claiming that they were "never of us"? If so, my second portion is 100% relevant, and it would seem you don't understand the argument.



Please see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/church-membership-de-jure-or-de-facto/

But as for this present discussion, as Rutherford said above, most Israelites were *known* unbelievers. The judgment of charity does not extend to known unbelievers. They were not gathering as professing believers in the Messiah. They were gathering as the physical offspring of Abraham redeemed out of Egypt and given the land of Canaan.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

brandonadams said:


> Please see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/01/28/church-membership-de-jure-or-de-facto/
> 
> But as for this present discussion, as Rutherford said above, most Israelites were *known* unbelievers. The judgment of charity does not extend to known unbelievers. They were not gathering as professing believers in the Messiah. They were gathering as the physical offspring of Abraham redeemed out of Egypt and given the land of Canaan.




Instead pointing me to a website (which I personally do not like because of the many misquotations), I'd prefer you engage me here. If you cannot, then I will leave the conversation.

So, I'll ask again:

If a person makes a profession of faith, yet later falls away, are you claiming they were "never of us"? If so my second portion is relevant. 

Also, I searched the thread (and I might have missed it) but where does Rutherford say that most Israelites were known unbelievers? (Cite the source too please)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Andrew P.C. said:


> Your contention seems to indicate you view the church as purely believers with no visible expression. If a person becomes a member of a church by profession of faith, yet falls away, are you claiming that they were "never of us"? If so, my second portion is 100% relevant, and it would seem you don't understand the argument.


Andrew,
I hope Brandon will indulge my answering your question, but it's the standard RB position to say that people who fall away were never of us. The true church are the redeemed of God who cannot fall away, since none can pluck us from the Father's hand. The visible congregations, call them local churches, have tares among the wheat, but the tares are not Christians. A Christian is one who has been born again. But this is one point where RBs--all the ones I know, be they 1689 federalists or the vanilla variety like myself--would disagree with Presbyterians. Each one's position on this is a sine qua non of their confessional association.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Andrew,
> I hope Brandon will indulge my answering your question, but it's the standard RB position to say that people who fall away were never of us. The true church are the redeemed of God who cannot fall away, since none can pluck us from the Father's hand. The visible congregations, call them local churches, have tares among the wheat, but the tares are not Christians. A Christian is one who has been born again. But this is one point where RBs--all the ones I know, be they 1689 federalists or the vanilla variety like myself--would disagree with Presbyterians. Each one's position on this is a sine qua non of their confessional association.


This would indeed be the Baptist position on this topic, and would also add that is why Baptists tend to see the Church founded at Pentecost, as only the saved are actually part of her under the NC now.


----------



## brandonadams

Andrew P.C. said:


> Instead pointing me to a website (which I personally do not like because of the many misquotations), I'd prefer you engage me here.



Sorry, if you're not willing to read longer answers to your question, there is no point in me wasting my time here. There aren't any shortcuts in this discussion. I'm bowing out of this and the other discussions. I hope the resources are helpful to those who are interested in learning the position.



Andrew P.C. said:


> Also, I searched the thread (and I might have missed it) but where does Rutherford say that most Israelites were known unbelievers? (Cite the source too please)



It is further down in the essay that I linked to. His concluding statement is "We are against Separatists who will have the number of aged persons that are members of the church and the number of those who are to be admitted to the sacrament [of the Lord’s Table] equal. We think multitudes are members of the visible church, and must be hearers as known unbelievers, who are not to be admitted to the sacrament [of the Lord’s Table]." Per my quotations, he defends this point by appeal to Israel, which was vastly made of known unbelievers who had every right to remain part of Israel, members of the Old Covenant, be circumcised, and have their children circumcised because they descended from Abraham.

The vast, vast majority of modern Presbyterians reject Rutherford's ecclessiology on this point. They have adopted the Separatist/Congregationalist view (note, for example, PCA Book of Order 56-4.j, which was not in the original Directory for Public Worship). When Jonathan Edwards, John Erskine, and Charles Hodge encountered the idea that known unbelievers should be allowed to be members of the church, they all specifically argued that there is a difference between Israel and the church.

I already posted this in comment #80, but here is Edwards


> That such appellations as God’s people, God’s Israel, and some other like phrases, are used and applied in Scripture with considerable diversity of intention… And with regard to the people of Israel, it is very manifest, that something diverse is oftentimes intended by that nation being God’s people, from their being visible saints, visibly holy, or having those qualifications which are requisite in order to a due admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That nation, that family of Israel according to the flesh, and with regard to that external and carnal qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar people, and his covenant people… On the whole, it is evident that the very nation of Israel, not as visible saints, but as the progeny of Jacob according to the flesh, were in some respect a chosen people, a people of God, a covenant people, an holy nation; even as Jerusalem was a chosen city, the city of God, a holy city, and a city that God had engaged by covenant to dwell in. Thus a sovereign and all-wise God was pleased to ordain things with respect to the nation of Israel…
> 
> That nation was a typical nation. There was then literally a land, which was a type of heaven, the true dwelling-place of God; and an external city, which was a type of the spiritual city of God; an external temple of God, which was a type of his spiritual temple. So there was an external people and family of God, by carnal generation, which was a type of his spiritual progeny. And the covenant by which they were made a people of God, was a type of the covenant of grace; and so is sometimes represented as a marriage-covenant.
> 
> Jonathan Edwards on the Nation of Israel as a Type of the Church



Here is Erskine (18th century Scottish Presbyterian arguing against the national church concept)


> Let it then be observed, that men are said to be sanctified or made holy in very different senses. Sanctification, for the distinction, though an old, is not a bad one, is either real or relative.
> 
> …That separation from other nations, in which the holiness of the Jews chiefly consisted (r), was not spiritual, resulting from rectitude of heart and a correspondent behavior; but barely external, resulting from certain sacred rites and ceremonies different from or opposite to those of other nations, and confined to certain places and persons (d). The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, was the ceremonial law (e), which was neither necessary nor fit to make a spiritual separation In fact, it did not separate between good and bad men among the Jews: but between the house of Israel and the fearers of God or devout persons in the heathen nations (f). For which reason, though Cornelius was one that feared God, gave much alms, and prayed to God always, Peter was afraid of being polluted by intercourse with him.
> 
> (a) Lev. xxi. (b) Exod. xix. 6. (c) Exod. xix. 5, 6. Num. xxiii. 9. Deut. xxvi. 18, 19. (d) Lev. xx. 24,—26. Deut. xiv. 21. (e) Eph. ii. 14, 15. (f) Pial. cxviii. 4. A6ls xiii. 16, 26. xvii. 4, 17.
> 
> …as things were termed unclean, which were types or emblems of moral impurity, so the Jews were termed holy, not only because they were separated from other nations, but because they typified real Christians, who are in the fullest and noblest sense a holy nation, and a peculiar people (a). Types are visible things, different in their nature, from the spiritual things which they typify. If then the Jewish dispensation was typical, we may safely conclude, that the holiness of the Jewish nation being intended to typify the holiness of the Christian church, was of a different nature from it. And it is for this reason, that the Jewish dispensation is called the flesh and the letter, because persons and things in that dispensation, typified and represented persons and things under a more spiritual dispensation. (a) 1 Pet. ii. 9.
> 
> John Erskine’s “The Nature of the Sinai Covenant” (17-21)



Here is Hodge


> That the Church is a visible society, consisting of the professors of the true religion, as distinguished from the body of true believers, known only to God, is plain, they say, because under the old dispensation it was such a society, embracing all the descendants of Abraham who professed the true religion, and received the sign of circumcision… The Church exists as an external society now as it did then; what once belonged to the commonwealth of Israel, now belongs to the visible Church...
> 
> It is to be remembered that *there were two covenants made with Abraham*. By the one, his natural descendants through Isaac were constituted a commonwealth, an external, visible community. By the other, his spiritual descendants were constituted a Church. The parties to the former covenant were God and the nation; to the other, God and his true people. *The promises of the national covenant were national blessings*; the promises of the spiritual covenant, (i.e. of the covenant of grace) were spiritual blessings, reconciliation, holiness, and eternal life. *The conditions of the one covenant were circumcision and obedience to the law*; the condition of the latter was, is, and ever has been, faith in the Messiah as the seed of the woman, the Son of God, and the Savior of the world. *There cannot be a greater mistake than to confound the national covenant with the covenant of grace*, and the commonwealth founded on the one with the Church founded on the other.
> 
> When Christ came “the commonwealth” was abolished, and there was nothing put in its place. The Church *remained*. There was no external covenant, nor promises of external blessings, on condition of external rites and subjection. There was a spiritual society with spiritual promises, on the condition of faith in Christ. In no part of the New Testament is any other condition of membership in the Church prescribed than that contained in the answer of Philip to the eunuch who desired baptism: “If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.” (Acts viii. 37)
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/01/26/hodge-on-the-visibility-of-the-church/


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Yet Israel had both civic and ecclesiastical discipline. No one was simply admitted to the knife or the altar with zero consideration for the _purposed intent _and _manner _of them.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> This would indeed be the Baptist position on this topic, and would also add that is why Baptists tend to see the Church founded at Pentecost, as only the saved are actually part of her under the NC now.


Wrong again. David, Reformed Baptists assert that there was an OT church, not that the church began absolutely at Pentecost. Things changed with the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant in His blood, but there has always been a church, the elect of God, in all ages.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Wrong again. David, Reformed Baptists assert that there was an OT church, not that the church began absolutely at Pentecost. Things changed with the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant in His blood, but there has always been a church, the elect of God, in all ages.


Thanks for your input, as I am working through right now what reformed Baptists believe, and there still seems to be some who would hold with the Church being in the NC now as only the saved of the Lord, as only those who are redeemed will have the Spirit indwelling them, while not all under the Old Covenant were really part of this body, just those who were saved.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> Thanks for your input, as I am working through right now what reformed Baptists believe, and there still seems to be some who would hold with the Church being in the NC now as only the saved of the Lord, as only those who are redeemed will have the Spirit indwelling them, while not all under the Old Covenant were really part of this body, just those who were saved.


Then perhaps instead of asserting "_This would indeed be the Baptist position_" you should have written "_This would indeed be my current Baptist position_" or "_This would indeed be a non-Reformed Baptist position_".


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Then perhaps instead of asserting "_This would indeed be the Baptist position_" you should have written "_This would indeed be my current Baptist position_" or "_This would indeed be a non-Reformed Baptist position_".


I will be doing that going forward now on my answers.

Reactions: Like 2


----------

