# Is 1689 Federalism Novel?



## TheInquirer

I was having a discussion with someone about 1689 Federalism and whether the view was "new" or "novel." I think most of us are rightly suspicious of anything new being put forward.

What I have appreciated about the 1689 Federalists I have learned from (Sam Renihan, James Renihan, Brandon Adams) is the work they have done to show the historical continuity of ideas the position stands upon. I am quite convinced it is not new at all but rather, for a variety of reasons, little known and not well understood.

Joel Beeke and Paul Smalley seem to agree. Here is an excerpt from Reformed Systematic Theology Vol. 2 that I came across today:

"Like the Presbyterian Westminster Confession, the Second London Baptist Confession affirms that God saves all his people throughout history by one covenant of grace rooted in the 'eternal covenant transaction' between God the Father and God the Son. However, the Baptist Confession does not state that the old covenant and the new covenant are two administrations of the one covenant of grace--the doctrine of Westminster. Instead, it speaks of the progressive revelation of the gospel that culminates in the new covenant, leaving the relation of the old and new covenants undefined.

*Many if not all of the early subscribers to the Second London Baptist Confession held a distinctly Particular Baptist view of the covenants, a view that some theologians now call '1689 Federalism.' *Nehemiah Coxe and Benjamin Keach taught that God's dealings with Abraham involved two covenants, just as Abraham had physical offspring (ethnic Israel) and spiritual offspring (believers in Christ, Gal. 3:7). At this point, their views were closer to those of Luther than to Reformed theology. . . .

Early Baptist theologians held a variety of views on the covenant. The Second London Baptist Confession does not specifically teach the doctrine of Coxe and Keach, but leaves open or undefined the relation of the covenant of grace to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. It allows for diversity among those who subscribe to it." (RST, vol. 2, 551-552.)

They go on to say other Calvinistic Baptists of the time held to a view closer to Westminster (Purnell, Bunyan, Gill) but that Coxe and Keach's view continued with later Baptist theologians like R.B.C. Howell (1801-1868).

If you have come across 1689 Federalism here or elsewhere, you have probably seen John Owen (a paedobaptist) mentioned frequently. Why would Baptists cite John Owen for support? Simply to demonstrate that the one covenant/two administrations view of Westminster was not held to by all in 17th Century England. By citing Owen, 1689 Federalists are simply saying that their conception of the relationship between the old and new covenants is not novel and actually aligns with Owen's thinking on the topic.

Additionally, I have further been intrigued by Brandon Adams' study of Augustine and how Augustine believed that OT saints were saved by way of the New Covenant. Brandon cites from many of Augustine's work here - https://www.1689federalism.com/augustine-proto-1689-federalist/

There are other historical theologians quoted in 1689 Federalist works showing continuity with their ideas. Sam Renihan's book "From Shadow to Substance" interacts with many.

You may not agree with 1689 Federalism, but from what I have seen, I do not believe it is fair to charge the view with either being "new" or "novel." The historical roots seem fairly well established.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum

I am a Reformed Baptist and, yes, this is a novel doctrine. It is baptist identity politics. If you notice in the earlier writings of its advocates, they are all about identifying themselves as "not presbyterian" and claim that Covenant Theology was invented to defend infant baptism. This is why I am still suspicious of it.

John Owen was not a baptist. LINK: John Owen was not a baptist

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## TheInquirer

Perg, I think if you re-read what I wrote you might better understand my point and will notice what I said about Owen  I don't think your "identity politics" charge is fair either.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum

TheInquirer said:


> Perg, I think if you re-read what I wrote you might better understand my point and will notice what I said about Owen  I don't think your "identity politics" charge is fair either.


They are trying to make theologians like Owen and Augustine fit into their scheme when they do not, in fact, fit. Baptists want their own covenant theology...so they invented one. 

It's like trying to bury a 6-foot corpse in a 5-foot coffin... you gotta mash things in that don't fit or lop things off that should remain intact.

You are correct when you state, "Early Baptist theologians held a variety of views on the covenant." But by "early" you mean the 1700s, which is not early in the perspective of church history. There were not 2 covenants for 2 different seeds of Abraham...this idea really took hold less than 50 years ago with Reisenger's faulty work, "Abraham's Four Seeds."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer

Pergamum said:


> There were not 2 covenants for 2 different seeds of Abraham...this idea really took hold less than 50 years ago with Reisenger's faulty work, "Abraham's Four Seeds."



Aren't Beeke and Smalley saying Keach and Coxe taught this idea in the 1600s?



Pergamum said:


> But by "early" you mean the 1700s, which is not early in the perspective of church history.



I don't mean 1700s. Covenant theology itself is fairly "late" in development in church history - 1500s at the earliest but 1600s when it gets really defined, though the seeds of the ideas are found earlier. Calvin formulating covenant theology in the 1500s and the Baptists a century later so that really isn't too far apart.



Pergamum said:


> They are trying to make theologians like Owen and Augustine fit into their scheme when they do not, in fact, fit.



I think you are presenting that incorrectly and pejoratively when it doesn't need to be. No one is saying Owen or Augustine were Baptists. They are simply saying there are connections between some of the distinctives of 1689 Federalists and these other theologians. They are simply showing historical continuity and refuting the charge their distinctives are "novel." No 1689 Federalist is calling either Owen or Augustine a Baptist so I think you are misunderstanding what is being taught and presenting the views in an uncharitable light.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## Jason F.

I would not say that Reformed Baptists view the relation of the old and new covenants as "undefined". There are many things revealed in the Old Testament as "shadows" and "types" that are ultimately fulfilled in Jesus. I would use the same terminology to describe the early administrations of the covenant of grace before it is perfectly revealed in the New Covenant.


----------



## brandonadams

Jason F. said:


> I would not say that Reformed Baptists view the relation of the old and new covenants as "undefined".


Note that Beeke is specifically commenting on the 2LBCF there. He says the 2LBCF does not go into the detail that Coxe and others did. The confession leaves the matter undefined, while individual particular baptists did define it in more detail.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RobertPGH1981

TheInquirer said:


> You may not agree with 1689 Federalism, but from what I have seen, I do not believe it is fair to charge the view with either being "new" or "novel." The historical roots seem fairly well established.



I don't believe that 1689 Federalism is new by the works that were created in the 1600s were lost. Reinahan can be credited with rediscovering the perspectives of the Baptists in that era. Much of the framework does not seem to be entirely complete. Based on my assessment between Covenant Theology and 1689 Federalism the core divergence is based on Typology.

I think that stating that Covenant Theology forces an infant baptism is a weak argument. The Reformers were not afraid to push against doctrines that diverged from mainline thinking. They were willing to die for their views. One interesting thing you will find is a comment from a friend of Zwingli named Balthasar Hubmaier (Anabaptist). Zwingli denied this claim and wrote many tracts against him.

Here is an excerpt:

_"On May 1, 1523, the day of the saints Philip and James, two men, Ulrich Zwingli and Balthasar Hubmaier, stood by the moat of Zurich and discussed the topic of baptism. Both were educated men, pastors who had broken with the Roman Catholic church. Both were championing the Bible as the sole source of Christian truth and practice. And both, according to Hubmaier’s account, agreed that day that the practice of infant baptism should be discontinued.2"_

EDIT ****
Quote above specifically pulled from 
Reprinted with minor changes from the American Baptist Quarterly VIII (Dec. 1989): 276–290, with permission of the American Baptist Historical Society, Valley Forge, PA 19482.

which is found in 

Schreiner, T. R., & Wright, S. D. (2006). Believer’s baptism: sign of the new covenant in Christ. B&H Publishing Group.


----------



## Pergamum

TheInquirer said:


> Aren't Beeke and Smalley saying Keach and Coxe taught this idea in the 1600s?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean 1700s. Covenant theology itself is fairly "late" in development in church history - 1500s at the earliest but 1600s when it gets really defined, though the seeds of the ideas are found earlier. Calvin formulating covenant theology in the 1500s and the Baptists a century later so that really isn't too far apart.
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are presenting that incorrectly and pejoratively when it doesn't need to be. No one is saying Owen or Augustine were Baptists. They are simply saying there are connections between some of the distinctives of 1689 Federalists and these other theologians. They are simply showing historical continuity and refuting the charge their distinctives are "novel." No 1689 Federalist is calling either Owen or Augustine a Baptist so I think you are misunderstanding what is being taught and presenting the views in an uncharitable light.


Maybe you are right. Maybe I am too hard on them. But every 5 years or so I return to the US and the Reformed Baptists grill me on their new minor theological hobby-horse, and it turns me off. These 2ndary issues take precedence over missions and I get asked what I think about the latest thing to come down the theological pike...and I find none of it all that important to the unreached masses. Truthfully, I'd like to just turn Presbyterian and be done with a lot of them. But you all got your problems too, I guess. The OPC seems like a safe haven.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Pergamum said:


> Maybe you are right. Maybe I am too hard on them. But every 5 years or so I return to the US and the Reformed Baptists grill me on their new minor theological hobby-horse, and it turns me off. These 2ndary issues take precedence over missions and I get asked what I think about the latest thing to come down the theological pike...and I find none of it all that important to the unreached masses. Truthfully, I'd like to just turn Presbyterian and be done with a lot of them. But you all got your problems too, I guess. The OPC seems like a safe haven.



You seem like the kind of guy that lets your emotions override your brain.

I ought to know, as it takes one to know one. The struggle is real.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> You seem like the kind of guy that lets your emotions override your brain.
> 
> I ought to know, as it takes one to know one. The struggle is real.


The important things in life ought to stir you, no?

Let's just say I do everything in life vigorously. Moderation might not be my strong suit. I should be banished to the jungle.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Phil D.

Pergamum said:


> Truthfully, I'd like to just turn Presbyterian and be done with a lot of them.


I've seen you make similar statements many times here on the PB. What's stopping you? If this is "truthfully" where your convictions lie you should definitely do it.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 2


----------



## Pergamum

Phil D. said:


> I've seen you make similar statements many times here on the PB. What's stopping you? If this is "truthfully" where your convictions lie you should definitely do it.


I just don't think the household baptisms necessitate infant baptism. And yet church history seems to favor the doctrine. But of course, the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration also emerged early as well. We speak of covenant theology being undeveloped until late in church history...well, being a baptist was also not well developed until the 1700s as well (unless you count all those heretical groups). Maybe not only 1689 Federalism but being a baptist is a novel doctrine.

Here of late I am pretty disgusted with the baptists discarding the ancient creeds on the Trinity. Maybe that is my beef. When you reject Nicea and the Athanasian Creed...sumting wong.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## retroGRAD3

Pergamum said:


> The OPC seems like a safe haven.


The OPC is pretty good on most things in my experience. However, they aren't always the best at the RPW. My own church has an orchestra during the singing which my wife and I are concerned about. The churches I have visited that seem to be better in this area are the Free Reformed and the URC. I have never been to an RPCNA church, but I hear they do Psalms only and no instruments. If there was one of those in my state, I would likely attend there.


----------



## Pergamum

retroGRAD3 said:


> The OPC is pretty good on most things in my experience. However, they aren't always the best at the RPW. My own church has an orchestra during the singing which my wife and I are concerned about. The churches I have visited that seem to be better in this area are the Free Reformed and the URC. I have never been to an RPCNA church, but I hear they do Psalms only and no instruments. If there was one of those in my state, I would likely attend there.


I am not always the best at the RPW, so maybe we are a good fit.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## brandonadams

Let's stay on topic...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Phil D.

Pergamum said:


> I just don't think the household baptisms necessitate infant baptism. And yet church history seems to favor the doctrine. But of course, the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration also emerged early as well. We speak of covenant theology being undeveloped until late in church history...well, being a baptist was also not well developed until the 1700s as well (unless you count all those heretical groups). Maybe not only 1689 Federalism but being a baptist is a novel doctrine.


So from your perspective everyone's doctrine is novel in certain respects. All things being relatively equal, then, why not become Presbyterian according to your expressed desire?

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## retroGRAD3

Pergamum said:


> I am not always the best at the RPW, so maybe we are a good fit.


Fair enough. The concerns I have though are not enough to leave the church (not even close). I do love the congregation I am at.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Phil D. said:


> So from your perspective everyone's doctrine is novel in certain respects. All things being relatively equal, then, why not become Presbyterian according to your expressed desire?


Let me sign off and sleep before I come over to the dark side. I'd have to re-raise all my support probably if I did. I am not certain of my baptismal convictions, I admit.

To stay on topic, I will say that the Bible's main theme is one of continuity and unity and not the disunity and discontinuity, or Dispensationalism-lite, as advocated by most baptist perspectives on the covenant. God has one plan and one people.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Phil D.

Pergamum said:


> God has one plan and one people.


Without a doubt. And yet with regard to outward rites and administration... Heb. 8:13


----------



## Taylor

Phil D. said:


> Without a doubt. And yet with regard to outward rites and administration... Heb. 8:13


Of course, in context, the new covenant is new with respect to the old, which is Moses, not Abraham.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheInquirer

Perg, you seem like a really great guy and you have suffered much from the Kingdom and I respect you a lot for it. I haven't had the negative baggage with RBs you have had so I guess I don't have to sort that all out when evaluating the system. 

My only hope is we can discuss the differing views and evaluate them fairly according to their merits. And like the writers of the 1689 LBCF, hopefully we leave room for disagreement and tolerance where needed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman

Looking briefly over their Federalism site just yesterday reminded me of why I am uneasy with their ideas: it is because I get the distinct impression that they are looking only one-dimensionally at the covenants. They seem to allege that Abraham received land and progeny promises that were completely fulfilled. End of story. That the Israelites apostatized after Solomon is on them: at least God gave them the land like He said.
But to me the land and physical descent promises were secondary to what those things signified: they were pictures of a bigger reality, one that is bearing full fruit in the New Covenant. Abraham indeed has many children: a spiritual seed innumerable of the elect, who, like him, believe God. And like him, they seek not a city made with men's hands, but one that is eternal in the heavens. And just as his physical children were circumcised because of their relation to him as a type, his spiritual descent are baptized when they enter the family of the faithful by regeneration and adoption (but only then).
Then further along, Jesus declared that he did not come to abolish the Mosaic law but to fulfil it. We are still liable to the "do this and live" of the Ten Commandments, and will be judged according to them at the Last Day. Believers, in union with Christ, are regarded as perfect law-keepers--keepers of the Mosaic moral law--because he kept the law for us. Sinners are judged by that same law, because it is still in force today. The types and shadows of ceremony were fulfilled by Christ because they were all about Him--they had nothing to do with anything but Christ, and in his work he accomplished all that those things foreshadowed. We do not do the pictures any more, because the substance has come: Christ is the substance of all those types that came before. So there's perfect continuity, a line of Grace stretching from the first fall until now. One people of God, saved by union with Christ in all ages, living under the same ultimate promise of redemption, but simply doing it during different times.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheInquirer

Ben, 

I think you may be misunderstanding. For example, here are some quotes from Sam Renihan's book "The Mystery of Christ:"

First, on one level, some of the Abrahamic promises were fulfilled:

"The Scriptures carefully record God's fulfillment of His promises. God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham's descendants." Joshua 21:43-45, Nehemiah 9:7-8, 1 Kings 4:20, Hebrews 11:12 given as references. (94-95)

Additionally:

"The Abrahamic Covenant anticipates the New Covenant in two ways. First, it promises the New Covenant. Second, it typologically pictures or prefigures the New Covenant." (99)

"Typologically, the Abrahamic Covenant is a picture of something other and greater than itself. Its people, land, and kingship were pictures of a greater, and other, people, land, and kingship. As Meredith Kline said, 'We have found that in the course of biblical revelation two distinct levels of fulfillment, one provisional and one prototypal, the other messianic and eternal, are clearly distinguishable in the king promise given to Abraham. What is true of the promise of the king must inevitably be true of the promise of the kingdom, both kingdom-people and kingdom-land.'" (99)

"The Abrahamic Covenant promises a particular offspring through whom the nations of the world will be blessed. From the beginning, therefore, there is in the Abrahamic Covenant an anticipation of a transnational blessing that includes people beyond the borders of the Abrahamic people (Romans 4:10). The Abrahamic Covenant looks forward to one through whom all the nations can be united and blessed, not just one people in one place. The typology of the Abrahamic Covenant and its special relation to Christ according to the flesh make it a covenant of guardianship. The purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant is to bring the New Covenant into existence by bringing its founder, head, and mediator into existence." (99-100)



Ben Zartman said:


> The types and shadows of ceremony were fulfilled by Christ because they were all about Him--they had nothing to do with anything but Christ, and in his work he accomplished all that those things foreshadowed.



Don't types work on two levels - a historical referent and a future referent that is an escalation? I would say the OT sacrificial system is functioning in a couple of ways - as purification for worship and life in Canaan for the Israelites on one level and ultimately pointing to Christ on another level. There is a type of atonement that is functioning under the Levitical system (Renihan offers the atonement language of Leviticus 5:14-19 for support) but that atonement is only partial. As Hebrews tells us, the blood of bulls and goats could not purify the consciences of the worshiper. Whatever purification it did accomplish, it was partial and incomplete in its historical function and pointed forward to a perfect and complete sacrifice to come in its typological function.



Ben Zartman said:


> We do not do the pictures any more, because the substance has come: Christ is the substance of all those types that came before.



You might like Sam Renihan's book, "From Shadow to Substance."  although I recommend reading "The Mystery of Christ" first to get an overview of 1689 Federalist Covenant Theology.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Challer

retroGRAD3 said:


> The OPC is pretty good on most things in my experience. However, they aren't always the best at the RPW. My own church has an orchestra during the singing which my wife and I are concerned about. The churches I have visited that seem to be better in this area are the Free Reformed and the URC. I have never been to an RPCNA church, but I hear they do Psalms only and no instruments. If there was one of those in my state, I would likely attend there.



I'd be concerned, too!



Pergamum said:


> I am not always the best at the RPW, so maybe we are a good fit.



I'd say there are some things worth striving to be better at.  

With that being said, you're both welcome over here any ol' time. We sing mostly psalms, some with a piano accompaniment so we can hold a tune, others a cappella. I think aside from a few folks who are gifted musically, the rest of us probably don't have enough musical talent combined to fill up our pianist's pinky. However, we do it unto the glory of God. Other than that, we've got a plurality of elders but are otherwise independent. We also don't baptize unbelievers (to include infants). But if you find yourself in North Georgia on some occasion, I do hope you'll stop by!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

TheInquirer said:


> Perg, you seem like a really great guy and you have suffered much from the Kingdom and I respect you a lot for it. I haven't had the negative baggage with RBs you have had so I guess I don't have to sort that all out when evaluating the system.
> 
> My only hope is we can discuss the differing views and evaluate them fairly according to their merits. And like the writers of the 1689 LBCF, hopefully we leave room for disagreement and tolerance where needed.


Deal. You are hard to argue with; you are too nice! I will do so.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman

TheInquirer said:


> Ben,
> 
> I think you may be misunderstanding. For example, here are some quotes from Sam Renihan's book "The Mystery of Christ:"
> 
> First, on one level, some of the Abrahamic promises were fulfilled:
> 
> "The Scriptures carefully record God's fulfillment of His promises. God gave the land of Canaan to Abraham's descendants." Joshua 21:43-45, Nehemiah 9:7-8, 1 Kings 4:20, Hebrews 11:12 given as references. (94-95)
> 
> Additionally:
> 
> "The Abrahamic Covenant anticipates the New Covenant in two ways. First, it promises the New Covenant. Second, it typologically pictures or prefigures the New Covenant." (99)
> 
> "Typologically, the Abrahamic Covenant is a picture of something other and greater than itself. Its people, land, and kingship were pictures of a greater, and other, people, land, and kingship. As Meredith Kline said, 'We have found that in the course of biblical revelation two distinct levels of fulfillment, one provisional and one prototypal, the other messianic and eternal, are clearly distinguishable in the king promise given to Abraham. What is true of the promise of the king must inevitably be true of the promise of the kingdom, both kingdom-people and kingdom-land.'" (99)
> 
> "The Abrahamic Covenant promises a particular offspring through whom the nations of the world will be blessed. From the beginning, therefore, there is in the Abrahamic Covenant an anticipation of a transnational blessing that includes people beyond the borders of the Abrahamic people (Romans 4:10). The Abrahamic Covenant looks forward to one through whom all the nations can be united and blessed, not just one people in one place. The typology of the Abrahamic Covenant and its special relation to Christ according to the flesh make it a covenant of guardianship. The purpose of the Abrahamic Covenant is to bring the New Covenant into existence by bringing its founder, head, and mediator into existence." (99-100)
> 
> 
> 
> Don't types work on two levels - a historical referent and a future referent that is an escalation? I would say the OT sacrificial system is functioning in a couple of ways - as purification for worship and life in Canaan for the Israelites on one level and ultimately pointing to Christ on another level. There is a type of atonement that is functioning under the Levitical system (Renihan offers the atonement language of Leviticus 5:14-19 for support) but that atonement is only partial. As Hebrews tells us, the blood of bulls and goats could not purify the consciences of the worshiper. Whatever purification it did accomplish, it was partial and incomplete in its historical function and pointed forward to a perfect and complete sacrifice to come in its typological function.
> 
> 
> 
> You might like Sam Renihan's book, "From Shadow to Substance."  although I recommend reading "The Mystery of Christ" first to get an overview of 1689 Federalist Covenant Theology.


I agree with much of this, but I have to deny that the Abrahamic covenant was merely "looking forward" as they claim. It is being fulfilled now: what it really meant, what the physical aspects of it pointed to, is coming to pass; Abraham is rejoicing seeing Christ's day accomplished. He believed it in the past, it is coming true even now.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

TheInquirer said:


> If you have come across 1689 Federalism here or elsewhere, you have probably seen John Owen (a paedobaptist) mentioned frequently. Why would Baptists cite John Owen for support? Simply to demonstrate that the one covenant/two administrations view of Westminster was not held to by all in 17th Century England. By citing Owen, 1689 Federalists are simply saying that their conception of the relationship between the old and new covenants is not novel and actually aligns with Owen's thinking on the topic.



They are probably citing John Owen as a result of his adherence to the Cameronian view of the three-fold covenant (referring to John Cameron, not the later Covenanter, Richard Cameron). It may be thought that this view lends support to 1689 Federalism as opposed to Westminster doctrine of the covenants. I am not convinced that this assumption is correct, because I believe that the Westminster Standards accommodate the Cameronian view while not officially endorsing it. You could, however, argue that the Cameronian view fits better with 1689 Federalism than with the Westminster Standards, though I will leave that question to 1689 adherents.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Ben Zartman said:


> I agree with much of this, but I have to deny that the Abrahamic covenant was merely "looking forward" as they claim. It is being fulfilled now: what it really meant, what the physical aspects of it pointed to, is coming to pass; Abraham is rejoicing seeing Christ's day accomplished. He believed it in the past, it is coming true even now.



Bart, I encourage you to more thoroughly study the position, as you don't seem to quite grasp it yet. Nothing you said is contrary to 1689 Federalism. Three resources in particular might help you:


Samuel Renihan's book "The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom"
Renihan's lecture on the Abrahamic Covenant at the recent SCRBPC https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....esc=SCRBPC+2021&seriesOnly=true&sourceid=trbc
A JIRBS essay on Galatians https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/promise-law-faith-a-review-article-jirbs-20/


----------



## Ben Zartman

brandonadams said:


> Bart, I encourage you to more thoroughly study the position, as you don't seem to quite grasp it yet. Nothing you said is contrary to 1689 Federalism. Three resources in particular might help you:
> 
> 
> Samuel Renihan's book "The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom"
> Renihan's lecture on the Abrahamic Covenant at the recent SCRBPC https://www.sermonaudio.com/search....esc=SCRBPC+2021&seriesOnly=true&sourceid=trbc
> A JIRBS essay on Galatians https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/promise-law-faith-a-review-article-jirbs-20/


The question is: is it worth the bother? The Federalists say, "You Vanilla RB's have it all wrong. You need to read pages and pages of dead guy quotes in order to engage."
I say, "Well, from what I can glean through the fog of words, you seem to be saying X."
You: "No, actually we're in total agreement with you there, you just don't understand."
Me: "How about telling me in plain terms, without quotes, without links, without incomprehensible Venn diagrams, exactly HOW does Vanilla RB differ from Federalism?"
Because perhaps it doesn't very much at all, and these endless discussions are all for nothing.
I continually express my views here in relatively brief posts: could you please extend to me the same courtesy?

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 1


----------



## Claudiu

Ben Zartman said:


> The question is: is it worth the bother? The Federalists say, "You Vanilla RB's have it all wrong. You need to read pages and pages of dead guy quotes in order to engage."
> I say, "Well, from what I can glean through the fog of words, you seem to be saying X."
> You: "No, actually we're in total agreement with you there, you just don't understand."
> Me: "How about telling me in plain terms, without quotes, without links, without incomprehensible Venn diagrams, exactly HOW does Vanilla RB differ from Federalism?"
> Because perhaps it doesn't very much at all, and these endless discussions are all for nothing.
> I continually express my views here in relatively brief posts: could you please extend to me the same courtesy?


I find this frustrating with the 1689 Fed position. It seems like every exchange I’ve seen with the Federalist it gets to the Federalist saying: “you don’t get it, here’s a list of books to read.” Is there an exchange where the Federalist admits the other side understands the position but just doesn’t accept it? Or maybe, if truly everyone is misunderstanding the position, there is a fundamental problem with it.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> The question is: is it worth the bother? The Federalists say, "You Vanilla RB's have it all wrong. You need to read pages and pages of dead guy quotes in order to engage."
> I say, "Well, from what I can glean through the fog of words, you seem to be saying X."
> You: "No, actually we're in total agreement with you there, you just don't understand."
> Me: "How about telling me in plain terms, without quotes, without links, without incomprehensible Venn diagrams, exactly HOW does Vanilla RB differ from Federalism?"
> Because perhaps it doesn't very much at all, and these endless discussions are all for nothing.
> I continually express my views here in relatively brief posts: could you please extend to me the same courtesy?


I totally agree. Every time I try to look into this I always see the same the 2 presumptuous replies:

1. Go read xyz.

Or

2. Oh you have read XYZ? Well then you must need to go read it again because you’re not really understanding it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum

1689 Federalism rhetorical tactic:

"Here's a list of 2 dozen books....you are not equipped to engage me until you read them all (and p.s. those books all favor my position)."

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 4


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

How about this?

1689 Federalism: All the Elect of all time have been saved by the New Covenant, even those saints who lived before the advent of Christ. The New Covenant alone is the "Covenant of Grace". Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic Covenants are "THE" Covenant of Grace, but they all point to it and lay the foundations for it in various ways.

This position is not novel (wasn't thought of entirely from scratch in the 17th Century), but was held to in general terms by many historic Church Fathers.

The 17th Century Reformed Baptists just systematized it better than had been done in prior centuries.

Reactions: Like 8


----------



## jw

I ain't seen it on the fiction bookshelves anywhere. What genre of novel we talkin' about?

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## brandonadams

It's really bizarre seeing people on this forum complaining about having to read books to understand a theological position. Covenant theology is a complicated, nuanced topic. It requires a lot of reading and discussion to make sure you are properly understanding a position - that goes for all sides. Just look at all the nuanced argumentation and discussion in Presbyterian circles regarding Kline and republication (including claims that "you don't understand"). That's just life. Sorry it's not easier. I'm happy to discuss and clarify with anyone who has a genuine interest in understanding the position.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheInquirer

jw said:


> I ain't seen it on the fiction bookshelves anywhere. What genre of novel we talkin' about?



As an administrator, is that really the kind of spirit you want to foster here on the Puritan Board Josh? The PB has shown a very gracious tone towards allowing and engaging with Reformed Baptists to date from what I have seen. Your comment seems out of line from what I have experienced here and does absolutely nothing good towards fostering useful discussion.

Regarding recommending resources, the position has been explained several times here but I keep seeing misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the position, even in regards to issues that have been explained over and over again (which is why I started this thread). In order to clear up the misconceptions, resources are offered that deal with topics in a more developed and lengthy format. Brandon has spent a massive amount of his personal time writing at 1689Federalism.com, his Contrast2 website, producing YouTube videos, and trying to engage here. As far as I know, he gets absolutely nothing in return for his efforts to present and clarify the position. Instead of taking a copious amount of time to write another post on what has already been said, sometimes he links to works he has already created. Sometimes you do need to do the work for yourself and simply do a little reading before firing off comments that are inaccurate and uncharitable.

Forums, by nature, are typically "short form" communication. We can do lengthy posts but as Brandon noted, Covenant Theology is complex and has many aspects to it. I mention "The Mystery of Christ" because it is the first full length treatment of the position in one work. Sam explains the position far better than I ever could and does a great job showing the unfolding of God's plan. I would be surprised if you didn't find much to agree with.

If you are trying to explain Westminster Covenant Theology to a Dispensationalist, how easy is it to explain in a few sentences? Think of all the complex issues there are to navigate. I realize its not an apples to apples comparison since there is much in common between Westminster CT and 1689 Federalism, but the differences are important and it does take time to explain what one is saying and not saying.

We try to avoid slander here as best we can at the PB in honor of God's commands. Yet some of the comments I have seen toward 1689 Federalism here come dangerously close to slander. I prefer to view them as comments not intended as slander, but born out of ignorance. We are trying to work on the "ignorance" part, and I realize as a position viewed as "the new kid on the block" (though historically it is not), there is naturally an uphill climb. That uphill climb gets much tougher if the audience is unwilling to provide a fair hearing.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## jw

TheInquirer said:


> As an administrator, is that really the kind of spirit you want to foster here on the Puritan Board Josh? The PB has shown a very gracious tone towards allowing and engaging with Reformed Baptists to date from what I have seen. Your comment seems out of line from what I have experienced here and does absolutely nothing good towards fostering useful discussion.
> 
> Regarding recommending resources, the position has been explained several times here but I keep seeing misunderstandings and misrepresentations of the position, even in regards to issues that have been explained over and over again (which is why I started this thread). In order to clear up the misconceptions, resources are offered that deal with topics in a more developed and lengthy format. Brandon has spent a massive amount of his personal time writing at 1689Federalism.com, his Contrast2 website, producing YouTube videos, and trying to engage here. As far as I know, he gets absolutely nothing in return for his efforts to present and clarify the position. Instead of taking a copious amount of time to write another post on what has already been said, sometimes he links to works he has already created. Sometimes you do need to do the work for yourself and simply do a little reading before firing off comments that are inaccurate and uncharitable.
> 
> Forums, by nature, are typically "short form" communication. We can do lengthy posts but as Brandon noted, Covenant Theology is complex and has many aspects to it. I mention "The Mystery of Christ" because it is the first full length treatment of the position in one work. Sam explains the position far better than I ever could and does a great job showing the unfolding of God's plan. I would be surprised if you didn't find much to agree with.
> 
> If you are trying to explain Westminster Covenant Theology to a Dispensationalist, how easy is it to explain in a few sentences? Think of all the complex issues there are to navigate. I realize its not an apples to apples comparison since there is much in common between Westminster CT and 1689 Federalism, but the differences are important and it does take time to explain what one is saying and not saying.
> 
> We try to avoid slander here as best we can at the PB in honor of God's commands. Yet some of the comments I have seen toward 1689 Federalism here come dangerously close to slander. I prefer to view them as comments not intended as slander, but born out of ignorance. We are trying to work on the "ignorance" part, and I realize as a position viewed as "the new kid on the block" (though historically it is not), there is naturally an uphill climb. That uphill climb gets much tougher if the audience is unwilling to provide a fair hearing.


Well, friend, I am not sure what spirit you thought I was attempting to foster, because I assure you I had no ill intent, nor am even involved in the content. It was merely a play on words from the thread title. Whatever maliciousness you may have perceived, I can assure you I hold none of it. I had no theological response in mind, nor clever gotchas. I was literally executing a dad joke on the word _Novel_. You know, like _1689 Fedarlism: A Novel_. Novels are fiction. I didn't mean it pejoratively, it was just word play. That's it. I have no dog in the theological takes on Baptist Covenant Theology, nor am I inclined to _be_ involved therein. Cheers.

Reactions: Like 9


----------



## Stephen L Smith

jw said:


> Well, friend, I am not sure what spirit you thought I was attempting to foster, because I assure you I had no ill intent, nor am even involved in the content. It was merely a play on words from the thread title. Whatever maliciousness you may have perceived, I can assure you I hold none of it. I had no theological response in mind, nor clever gotchas. I was literally executing a dad joke on the word _Novel_. That's it. Cheers.


Josh, it took me a while to get the joke. And I am someone who loves puns.



TheInquirer said:


> As an administrator, is that really the kind of spirit you want to foster here on the Puritan Board Josh? The PB has shown a very gracious tone towards allowing and engaging with Reformed Baptists to date from what I have seen. Your comment seems out of line from what I have experienced here and does absolutely nothing good towards fostering useful discussion.


Brother, I think it was simply a play on words. Look at the heading of tis post. He was making a pun on the word 'novel'

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## jw

But while I'm here, I'll just own the fact that the very confession of my own faith, and my adherence thereto, compels me to consider any Baptistic covenant theology novel, 1689 Fedarlistic or otherwise, not believing it fully or without error the biblical doctrine of God's covenantal ways in dealing with His people. I do not apologize for that, nor am I intending offense _by_ that. I am thankful for my Reformed Baptist brethren's faithful adherence to the proper doctrine of God (as confessed in the LBCF), and Justification, _etc_. and I wish no ill will upon y'all, other than the faithful afflictions God sends upon all His people for their reformation, repentance, and sanctification. God speed (in all your lawful doctrines and endeavors). I expect for Baptists who believe their take on Covenant Theology to be the most biblical, to do so with the same diligence, fervency, as I do wrt to Westminster expression, btw.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## jw

Stephen L Smith said:


> Josh, it took me a while to get the joke. And I am someone who loves puns.
> 
> 
> Brother, I think it was simply a play on words. Look at the heading of tis post. He was making a pun on the word 'novel'


Thanks, Stephen. It was clearly so terrible a dad joke -and thereby good- that one could not possibly believe it to be an attempt at a joke! I'll wear it like a badge!


----------



## Taylor

Josh’s joshin’ finally got him in trouble.

Reactions: Funny 4


----------



## jw

Taylor said:


> Josh’s joshin’ finally got him in trouble.


False. Josh perpetually is in trouble, and the opposite would be more disconcerting.

Reactions: Wow 1


----------



## jw

You other more astute admins feel free to delete all my distractions from the thread content.


----------



## Claudiu

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> 1689 Federalism: All the Elect of all time have been saved by the New Covenant, even those saints who lived before the advent of Christ. The New Covenant alone is the "Covenant of Grace". Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic Covenants are "THE" Covenant of Grace, but they all point to it and lay the foundations for it in various ways.


If the OT saints were saved _by_ the NC (CoG), were they _in_ the NC (CoG) proper? What language would you prefer to use?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Claudiu said:


> If the OT saints were saved _by_ the NC (CoG), were they _in_ the NC (CoG) proper? What language would you prefer to use?


The New Covenant is union with Christ. OT saints were united to Christ, therefore they were "in" or "members of" the New Covenant prior to its establishment at Pentecost.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## De Jager

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How about this?
> 
> 1689 Federalism: All the Elect of all time have been saved by the New Covenant, even those saints who lived before the advent of Christ. The New Covenant alone is the "Covenant of Grace". Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic Covenants are "THE" Covenant of Grace, but they all point to it and lay the foundations for it in various ways.
> 
> This position is not novel (wasn't thought of entirely from scratch in the 17th Century), but was held to in general terms by many historic Church Fathers.
> 
> The 17th Century Reformed Baptists just systematized it better than had been done in prior centuries.


Thanks for your summary.

How can one call the NC alone the "covenant of grace", when God clearly shows grace in all of his covenants?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

De Jager said:


> Thanks for your summary.
> 
> How can one call the NC alone the "covenant of grace", when God clearly shows grace in all of his covenants?


"The Covenant of Grace" does not just mean "a covenant where God shows grace." Rather, it means (quoting John Ball)


> The Covenant of Grace is that free and gracious Covenant, which God of his meere mercy in Jesus Christ made with man a miserable and wretched sinner, promising unto him pardon of sinne and eternall happinesse, if he will return from his iniquity, embrace mercy reached forth, by faith unfained, and walke before God in sincere, faithfull and willing obedience, as becomes such a creature lifted up unto such injoyment, and partaker of such precious promises.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A treatise of the covenant of grace : wherein the graduall breakings out of Gospel-grace from Adam to Christ are clearly discovered, the differences betwixt the Old and New Testament are laid open, divers errours of Arminians and others are confuted
> 
> 
> Wing
> 
> 
> 
> archive.org


I might quibble or nuance the definition here or there, but you get the idea. WCF 7.3 says


> Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.


2LBCF 7.2 likewise


> Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Andrew35

jw said:


> Thanks, Stephen. It was clearly so terrible a dad joke -and thereby good- that one could not possibly believe it to be an attempt at a joke! I'll wear it like a badge!


Nah, I got it immediately because I thought the same thing when I saw the title! 

So maybe it was really bad....


----------



## De Jager

brandonadams said:


> "The Covenant of Grace" does not just mean "a covenant where God shows grace." Rather, it means (quoting John Ball)
> 
> I might quibble or nuance the definition here or there, but you get the idea. WCF 7.3 says
> 
> 2LBCF 7.2 likewise


Right, but these promises of the covenant of grace have been made since Genesis 3:15. I'm not sure how anyone can say that these other covenants are not part of the covenant of grace. The original post I interacted with said "The NC alone is the covenant of grace". I'm not sure how that's tenable considering that by the definition provided, the covenant of grace has been progressively revealed, from seed to full flower, throughout the Bible.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> How about this?
> 
> 1689 Federalism: All the Elect of all time have been saved by the New Covenant, even those saints who lived before the advent of Christ. The New Covenant alone is the "Covenant of Grace". Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic Covenants are "THE" Covenant of Grace, but they all point to it and lay the foundations for it in various ways.
> 
> This position is not novel (wasn't thought of entirely from scratch in the 17th Century), but was held to in general terms by many historic Church Fathers.
> 
> The 17th Century Reformed Baptists just systematized it better than had been done in prior centuries.


There, now we have a concise and clear statement. So what you're saying is that the elect in all ages have been saved by Christ washing their sins away with His blood. This is what every Reformed person believes, Presbyterian AND Baptist. So then the only difference between saints in either era is the visible administration.
So, in what way do you allege the Vanilla RBs have got it wrong? How is Federalism different?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

De Jager said:


> Right, but these promises of the covenant of grace have been made since Genesis 3:15. I'm not sure how anyone can say that these other covenants are not part of the covenant of grace. The original post I interacted with said "The NC alone is the covenant of grace". I'm not sure how that's tenable considering that by the definition provided, the covenant of grace has been progressively revealed, from seed to full flower, throughout the Bible.


Well now you're asking a different question/objection. The other covenants are not the covenant of grace because they differ in their parties, promises, and conditions. They do not promise the Holy Spirit to regenerate, unite to Christ, and forgive of sins. The other covenants help support and reveal the New Covenant in various ways, yet they are distinct from it. As one simple example, the Old Covenant had a sacrificial system that helped reveal the New Covenant by way of analogy (typology). That doesn't therefore mean that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same covenant.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

brandonadams said:


> Well now you're asking a different question/objection. The other covenants are not the covenant of grace because they differ in their parties, promises, and conditions.* They do not promise the Holy Spirit to regenerate, unite to Christ, and forgive of sins*. The other covenants help support and reveal the New Covenant in various ways, yet they are distinct from it. As one simple example, the Old Covenant had a sacrificial system that helped reveal the New Covenant by way of analogy (typology). That doesn't therefore mean that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same covenant.


Thanks for your response.

However, I don't agree. Just because those other covenant promises do not _explicitly_ mention these things, that does not necessarily mean that these details are not contained in them, albeit in shadow form. The thing casting the shadow existed but had not come into view.

If I told you "I will build you a house", and then later on said "I will lay a foundation", "I will frame the walls", and "I will install a roof", we understand it to be part and parcel of the same thing. The later promises are simply explanations of how the earlier promise will be accomplished.

I also do not agree that these other covenants "differ in their parties, promises, and conditions". If that is the case, then why would the Apostle Paul tell the Gentile Ephesians that they were once "strangers from the covenants of promise"? The clear implication is that they are now partakers in these covenants, just as the children of Israel were prior to the coming of Christ. In fact, even the very fact that Paul uses the phrase "covenants of promise" is an indication that the gospel promises are contained within them.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## brandonadams

Izaak, you seem to be asking basic questions of understanding, but at the same time wanting to offer objection and critique at each step. Are you trying to understand the position, or do you already understand it and want to critique it?


----------



## brandonadams

Ben Zartman said:


> How is Federalism different?


Re-read what Sean said Ben.


> The New Covenant alone is the "Covenant of Grace".


That's a pretty clear difference.

Could you please point me to a book or other resource that explains your view?


----------



## De Jager

brandonadams said:


> Izaak, you seem to be asking basic questions of understanding, but at the same time wanting to offer objection and critique at each step. Are you trying to understand the position, or do you already understand it and want to critique it?


Hi Brandon. I understand the brief overviews given so far, and to me they are problematic in and of themselves. But to be fair, weighing the pros/cons of the position is not the objective of this thread, so I better bow out before I further derail the thread.

Izaak


----------



## brandonadams

If you want to critique the position, you'll need to spend some time studying it in more depth beyond a couple sentence summaries. Lots of resources here, including audio overviews, books, and videos http://www.1689federalism.com


----------



## Stephen L Smith

De Jager said:


> I understand the brief overviews given so far, and to me they are problematic in and of themselves.


I'm a former Reformed Baptist and 1689 Federalism helped me become a paedobaptist. I see we are members of sister churches. As I thought through the issue the course Ruin and Redemption was some of the most helpful material I have read on covenant theology.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> If you want to critique the position, you'll need to spend some time studying it in more depth beyond a couple sentence summaries. Lots of resources here, including audio overviews, books, and videos http://www.1689federalism.com


Again with this rhetorical tactic.

I am not completely sure YOU understand reformed covenant theology. We need to give you a list of 30 books to read on covenant theology and I suggest you don't post again until you read them all to ensure you properly understand the Reformed position.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Charles Johnson

Pergamum said:


> Again with this rhetorical tactic.
> 
> I am not completely sure YOU understand reformed covenant theology. We need to give you a list of 30 books to read on covenant theology and I suggest you don't post again until you read them all to ensure you properly understand the Reformed position.


Here's a list to start out with. Make sure to read in the original language:
Francis Robert's Mysterium & Medulla Biblorum
J.H. Heidegger's Corpus Theologiae
Cloppenburg's Disputationes de Foedere Gratiae
Witsius's Oeconomia Foederum
Rutherford's Covenant of Grace Opened
Bucer's Commentaria super quattuor evangeliorum
Oecolampadius's Commentaria super ezechiele
John Ball's Treatise on the Covenant of Grace
Cocceius's Summa doctrinae de foedere et testamento dei
Burman's Summa theologiae
Anonymous Scottish Presbyterian's A Snake in the Grass
Thomas Blake's Vindiciae Foederis
You shouldn't think yourself able to criticize Westminster covenant theology until you've read all of those, especially the ones in Latin. It's not on the other side to have a productive dialogue if you haven't done your research.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## Andrew35

Charles Johnson said:


> Here's a list to start out with. Make sure to read in the original language:
> Francis Robert's Mysterium & Medulla Biblorum
> J.H. Heidegger's Corpus Theologiae
> Cloppenburg's Disputationes de Foedere Gratiae
> Witsius's Oeconomia Foederum
> Rutherford's Covenant of Grace Opened
> Bucer's Commentaria super quattuor evangeliorum
> Oecolampadius's Commentaria super ezechiele
> John Ball's Treatise on the Covenant of Grace
> Cocceius's Summa doctrinae de foedere et testamento dei
> Burman's Summa theologiae
> Anonymous Scottish Presbyterian's A Snake in the Grass
> Thomas Blake's Vindiciae Foederis
> You shouldn't think yourself able to criticize Westminster covenant theology until you've read all of those, especially the ones in Latin. It's not on the other side to have a productive dialogue if you haven't done your research.


Ha! Your omission of Brakel's 1650 letter to his grandmother reveals to us all that in these matters you yet wear the humble robe of a neophyte.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 5


----------



## Ben Zartman

brandonadams said:


> Re-read what Sean said Ben.
> 
> That's a pretty clear difference.
> 
> Could you please point me to a book or other resource that explains your view?


LBCF 7:3 says that all who were ever saved are saved by the virtue of this New Covenant--that is to say, the covenant in Christ's blood by which He purged away the sins of His elect people. So far I believe we both agree, though I'm not sure whether you quibble at the language of being "revealed by farther steps."
It goes on to say that the whole shebang is founded in that "eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect."
We have so far:
1: God the Father and God the Son covenanting together in eternity past to redeem a people.
2: Various covenants and prophesies and types and shadows and figures pointing to the Messiah, all under the banner of God's covenant with Christ to save a people.
3: The actual price paid for the sins of all people at all times; the work accomplished in time on the cross, and the final, the New, covenant established. This is the defining moment of the eternal covenant made between the Father and the Son.

All of these things, past, present, and our future resurrection and reign with Christ for eternity as His bride are parts of that "eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect (LBCF 7:3)."
With what part of this do you disagree, or if you don't, and this is actually the historic position of all Reformed Baptists, why confuse things by taking on a new name and saying everyone else has had it wrong for fifty years?

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Ben, your #2 is vague. I don't know what "under the banner of God's covenant with Christ" means. We need to be more precise.


Ben Zartman said:


> With what part of this do you disagree, or if you don't, and this is actually the historic position of all Reformed Baptists, why confuse things by taking on a new name and saying everyone else has had it wrong for fifty years?


The more we discuss, I get the feeling the problem is you may have a very underdeveloped covenant theology, so you're not understanding what 1689 Federalism is in contrast to (on the baptist side). Here are some lectures from Waldron in 2013 explaining his view of covenant theology. You can see from his lectures where he disagreed with 1689 Federalism. For example "The theological concept of the covenant of grace cannot be strictly identified with any particular biblical covenant." https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/

See also this video comparing James White's view with 1689 Federalism


----------



## Charles Johnson

brandonadams said:


> The more we discuss, I get the feeling the problem is you may have a very underdeveloped covenant theology, so you're not understanding what 1689 Federalism is in contrast to (on the baptist side).


I get the sense that you really can't help yourself in terms of this rhetoric. There are a dozen or so posts now on this thread criticizing this kind of rhetoric and you still turn to it when you respond to criticism. Ultimately it's condescending. It sets you up as the expert, unwilling to have a discussion as equals with your brothers in the faith, even though many here that are criticizing you are ordained and exceed you in age, maturity, and piety, and many who aren't are still advanced in the Christian faith and deserving of more respect and deference than you show.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> Early Baptist theologians held a variety of views on the covenant. The Second London Baptist Confession does not specifically teach the doctrine of Coxe and Keach, but leaves open or undefined the relation of the covenant of grace to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. It allows for diversity among those who subscribe to it." (RST, vol. 2, 551-552.)


Wouldn’t this (assuming true) be enough to show that the label “20th Century Reformed Baptist” is uncharitable and misleading?

The 1689 Federalist will often cry “our view is historical”, which I am willing to admit, BUT I find it ironic that they use the label “20th Century Reformed Baptist”, towards those whose view of the covenants differs, yet still fits within 1689 LBC. If the likes of John Gill (differing from Coxe) held to a more Westminster view of the covenants, then would not the views of @Ben Zartman & @Pergamum be equally historical in pedigree?

It is this attitude and their use of John Owen that makes me suspicious of the “1689 Federalism” label. Owen’s uniqueness in Covenant Theology did not seem to lead him to a differing view on baptism regarding the question of proper recipients. From what I have read, it would seem that Owen’s view of the Abrahamic Covenant would have been acceptable to Westminster.

@PuritanCovenanter has an entry here highlighting 2 excellent PB posts that help better understand how Owen viewed the Abrahamic Covenant:








John Owen, the Old Testament and the Covenant of Grace


We have been discussing the Particular Baptist theological views on the Puritanboard and it is very apparent that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith is very different than the views…




rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Challer

I'm pretty new here, both to PB and to this thread.  But an elder from my church on this topic referred me to 1689Federalism.com, which has some pretty handy graphics. I've attached them here in case it's helpful. If the conversation's way past that point and this isn't helpful, kindly disregard. I think I spot the disconnect Brandon touched on and just thought I'd try to contribute what I could to bridge the gap.

God bless!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Challer said:


> I'm pretty new here, both to PB and to this thread.  But an elder from my church on this topic referred me to 1689Federalism.com, which has some pretty handy graphics. I've attached them here in case it's helpful. If the conversation's way past that point and this isn't helpful, kindly disregard. I think I spot the disconnect Brandon touched on and just thought I'd try to contribute what I could to bridge the gap.
> 
> God bless!


Don’t forget this one. I think it has sense been removed from their site.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

I think this has already been touched on in this thread, but wasn’t Meredith Kline criticized for teaching something like “1689 Federalism”?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Andrew35

You can tell a lot of 1689ers came out of Dispensationalism: the affection for charts give it away.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Pergamum said:


> Again with this rhetorical tactic.
> 
> I am not completely sure YOU understand reformed covenant theology. We need to give you a list of 30 books to read on covenant theology and I suggest you don't post again until you read them all to ensure you properly understand the Reformed position.



Isn't he right, though? If I were to critique WCF style Presbyterian Covenant Theology and all I knew about it was several sentences / bullet points, wouldn't those who understood the system better tell me that I wasn't well versed on the topic and to read up on it more?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Challer

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Isn't he right, though? If I were to critique WCF style Presbyterian Covenant Theology and all I knew about it was several sentences / bullet points, wouldn't those who understood the system better tell me that I wasn't well versed on the topic and to read up on it more?



Not sure. Personally, I think if someone wasn’t educated on a topic but came with earnest questions and a willingness to learn I would try to take the time to explain the topic to them.


----------



## Ben Zartman

brandonadams said:


> Ben, your #2 is vague. I don't know what "under the banner of God's covenant with Christ" means. We need to be more precise.
> 
> The more we discuss, I get the feeling the problem is you may have a very underdeveloped covenant theology, so you're not understanding what 1689 Federalism is in contrast to (on the baptist side). Here are some lectures from Waldron in 2013 explaining his view of covenant theology. You can see from his lectures where he disagreed with 1689 Federalism. For example "The theological concept of the covenant of grace cannot be strictly identified with any particular biblical covenant." https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/
> 
> See also this video comparing James White's view with 1689 Federalism


By "under the banner of God's covenant with Christ" I mean that the OT covenants are steps on the path of God's plan to redeem a people. Waypoints along the overarching plan of salvation. Different periods of redemptive revelation, progressively getting closer to Christ's incarnation. Covenants that were made in aid of, or because, God had determined in eternity past to save a people and covenanted with the Son for the price of their salvation.
I hope that's clearer: because of the Covenant made between Father and Son in eternity past, God was pleased to develop and reveal the plan to humanity by means of these other covenants.
I've run out of ways to say it. As for having an underdeveloped covenant theology, I fear, alas! that I probably do. But the price of understanding a position so inscrutable that it can only be arrived at by reading reams of paedobaptist writings and watching endless videos and buying the latest books is too steep for me. Since no one can seem to lean down from their ivory tower to tell me exactly what's wrong with my Vanilla flavored Baptist Covenant Theology, I have to assume it's because they don't know the difference either, or at least that it's so small it doesn't add up to a hill of beans. So I'll be content in my ignorance, knowing that God chose me for salvation from eternity past, that Christ died for my sins in history, and that at the Resurrection I'll understand it all perfectly.
In the meantime, I wish you much joy of your hobbyhorse.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## brandonadams

Charles Johnson said:


> I get the sense that you really can't help yourself in terms of this rhetoric. There are a dozen or so posts now on this thread criticizing this kind of rhetoric and you still turn to it when you respond to criticism. Ultimately it's condescending.


Charles, please note Ben's response


Ben Zartman said:


> As for having an underdeveloped covenant theology, I fear, alas! that I probably do.


Please note that this was not a "rhetorical tactic" of mine to "respond to criticism." Rather, this was my attempt to help this brother understand why he is having such a frustrating time understanding the difference between his "vanilla RB covenant theology" and 1689 Federalism. Perhaps there is no difference! Perhaps he does not have a systematically detailed enough position to be in disagreement with 1689 Federalism's systematically detailed distinctives. Thus far everything that he has said has been very high level and general in nature, thus it does not actually get at the points of disagreement. This was not a dismissal of Ben, but rather an attempt to help alleviate his frustration in understanding the differences. To that end, I provided him with two resources from non-1689 Federalism baptists explaining some of their systematic points of disagreement with 1689 Federalism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer

"Here, here's an article to help understand the view" - Response: "Too many words!"

"Here, here's a picture to help understand the view" - Response: "You're just like the Dispensationalists!"

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## Andrew35

TheInquirer said:


> "Here, here's an article to help understand the view" - Response: "Too many words!"
> 
> "Here, here's a picture to help understand the view" - Response: "You're just like the Dispensationalists!"


Hey, mine was a joke!

Even made a winky-face!

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Steve Curtis

*Brandon:
"Charles, please note Ben's response"

Ben Zartman said:
"As for having an underdeveloped covenant theology, I fear, alas! that I probably do."

I'm watching this from the sidelines as a Presbyterian, but I took Ben's words as a humble confession to our inadequacy to fully grasp the glorious depths of covenant theology, not as an admission of ignorance regarding the particulars of the doctrine as it has been understood historically.

* I couldn't figure out how to quote Brandon quoting Ben...

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Pergamum

TheInquirer said:


> "Here, here's an article to help understand the view" - Response: "Too many words!"
> 
> "Here, here's a picture to help understand the view" - Response: "You're just like the Dispensationalists!"


I always like pictures! Especially ones I can color.

Reactions: Funny 3


----------



## Pergamum

Andrew35 said:


> Hey, mine was a joke!
> 
> Even made a winky-face!


A winky-face puts all things right.

Reactions: Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor

TheInquirer said:


> Here, here's an article...


I don't think it was just _an_ article that was being suggested; that's a slight understatement.

Besides, I don't think anyone is complaining about being asked to read books and articles or listen to lectures. We all love reading here. I think the frustration here is that there has been little teaching/explaining _in this thread_. And I agree: it is somewhat frustrating to try to have a conversation when it feels like you're talking to a bibliography and not a person. Nobody is saying, "Hey, reading books is too much for me." Rather, as Ben noted, it's, "Just have a conversation with me."



Pergamum said:


> A winky-face puts all things right.


How about you go pound sand.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Pergamum

Taylor said:


> I don't think it was just _an_ article that was being suggested; that's a slight understatement.
> 
> Besides, I don't think anyone is complaining about being asked to read books and articles or listen to lectures. We all love reading here. I think the frustration here is that there has been little teaching/explaining _in this thread_. And I agree: it is somewhat frustrating to try to have a conversation when it feels like you're talking to a bibliography and not a person. Nobody is saying, "Hey, reading books is too much for me." Rather, as Ben noted, it's, "Just have a conversation with me."
> 
> 
> How about you go pound sand.


A trip to the beach does sound nice.  (note the winky face)

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## brandonadams

Smeagol said:


> If the likes of John Gill (differing from Coxe) held to a more Westminster view of the covenants


The asterisk regarding Gill was premature. A more thorough analysis of his view of the covenants demonstrates that he was largely in agreement with Coxe, though he was a bit idiosyncratic in how he chose to express himself. This elaborates if you are interested https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/some-comments-on-john-gills-covenant-theology/


Smeagol said:


> It is this attitude and their use of John Owen that makes me suspicious of the “1689 Federalism” label. Owen’s uniqueness in Covenant Theology did not seem to lead him to a differing view on baptism regarding the question of proper recipients. From what I have read, it would seem that Owen’s view of the Abrahamic Covenant would have been acceptable to Westminster.


Please consider this lecture from Owen scholar Crawford Gribben on your exact question https://www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-baptism-and-the-baptists-crawford-gribben/

See also this summary of Why Baptists Appeal to Owen to possibly better understand why would would appeal to him, despite the fact that he remained a paedobaptist. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/ In short, Owen departed from Calvin and Westminster (what Owen called the majority view) in a very important and substantial way. The baptists built upon Owen's critique of the majority view, drawing additional conclusions that they felt were justified (including drawing upon Owen's view of the Abrahamic Covenant where he acknowledges a twofold seed of Abraham (carnal and spiritual) that then correlated to a twofold distinction of promises/privileges made to Abraham). Congregationalists in the 17th century objected to baptists appealing to Owen since Owen was a paedobaptist, but the baptists responded (paraphrasing from memory) "If you think the good Doctor has been injured by our use of him, then show us where we have erred."


Smeagol said:


> Wouldn’t this (assuming true) be enough to show that the label “20th Century Reformed Baptist” is uncharitable and misleading?


Maybe, maybe not. There was really only 1, possibly 2 baptists who held a more Westminster/majority view (and one of those was never published publicly if I recall - Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance" gives details), but their view was not necessarily the same as the 20th century men who developed their view in isolation from any historic baptist view, largely being influence by John Murray. Regardless, the chart was removed from the site to avoid creating unnecessary heat. Many men who would have fallen under that label have since embraced 1689 Federalism (see here for instance https://cbtseminary.org/covenant-theology-the-2lbc-cbts/ )



Smeagol said:


> The 1689 Federalist will often cry “our view is historical”


For whatever it's worth, my personal concern has not been over what is historical, but what is biblical. If I end up disagreeing with what baptists historically held, I am ok with that and it is not my intention to criticize others simply for disagreeing with them either. Rather, I find a very helpful ally in those baptists as I believe they (largely) had a biblical understanding of the issue. (That said, I understand that others are very concerned with the historical issue and the label "1689 Federalism" probably added unnecessary heat to that question, though it was not intended to).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Taylor said:


> I think this has already been touched on in this thread, but wasn’t Meredith Kline criticized for teaching something like “1689 Federalism”?


Yes. R. Scott Clark and others have made that criticism. In truth, Kline's view was largely a 20th century re-statement of the subservient covenant view (held by the Congregationalists like Samuel Bolton and John Owen, tracing back further to men like John Cameron) - in fact Lee Irons was defended by T. David Gordon and Fesko (I believe) by arguing Kline's view was equivalent to the subservient covenant view. See https://www.upper-register.com/papers/subservient_cov.pdf

D. Patrick Ramsey's WTJ essay "In Defense of Moses" specifically argued that Kline's view was contra-confessional because it was substantially the same as the subservient covenant view rejected by the WCF. https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...fFhROl-jgJYJ1Mz6pZpFE2CeTHmgc=&attredirects=1

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

I believe this will be my last comment on this thread and then I'll leave it to the rest of you to discuss, as I don't appear to be helping. 
 
Please forgive my rash statement earlier that Izaak must study more before he may offer a critique. I should not have spoken in a universal manner. Of course, he may offer whatever critique he wishes and if someone would like to respond and walk him through what we believe, then that may prove to be a beneficial conversation for them. I should have spoken in particular for myself only and not presumed upon others in this thread. It is not a good stewardship of my time to answer the critiques of someone who only has a 4-sentence understanding of our position, but it may be worthwhile for someone else to. I would be more than happy to discuss objections with someone who has put in the time to study the position in more depth. Izaak might offer the same criticism once he has studied the position more fully, but the ensuing conversation would be different. As of now, the conversation would largely consist of me clarifying and elaborating what we believe (something that can be done by pointing to other resources).

Charles, I appreciate your list of recommended books on your view. I have read several, but not all of them. I will add them to my queue. However, I do perhaps think there is a middle ground between asking someone to study a position beyond a 4 sentence summary and requiring someone to read 12 17th century works in Latin.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> The asterisk regarding Gill was premature. A more thorough analysis of his view of the covenants demonstrates that he was largely in agreement with Coxe, though he was a bit idiosyncratic in how he chose to express himself. This elaborates if you are interested https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/some-comments-on-john-gills-covenant-theology/
> 
> Please consider this lecture from Owen scholar Crawford Gribben on your exact question https://www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-baptism-and-the-baptists-crawford-gribben/
> 
> See also this summary of Why Baptists Appeal to Owen to possibly better understand why would would appeal to him, despite the fact that he remained a paedobaptist. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/ In short, Owen departed from Calvin and Westminster (what Owen called the majority view) in a very important and substantial way. The baptists built upon Owen's critique of the majority view, drawing additional conclusions that they felt were justified (including drawing upon Owen's view of the Abrahamic Covenant where he acknowledges a twofold seed of Abraham (carnal and spiritual) that then correlated to a twofold distinction of promises/privileges made to Abraham). Congregationalists in the 17th century objected to baptists appealing to Owen since Owen was a paedobaptist, but the baptists responded (paraphrasing from memory) "If you think the good Doctor has been injured by our use of him, then show us where we have erred."
> 
> Maybe, maybe not. There was really only 1, possibly 2 baptists who held a more Westminster/majority view (and one of those was never published publicly if I recall - Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance" gives details), but their view was not necessarily the same as the 20th century men who developed their view in isolation from any historic baptist view, largely being influence by John Murray. Regardless, the chart was removed from the site to avoid creating unnecessary heat. Many men who would have fallen under that label have since embraced 1689 Federalism (see here for instance https://cbtseminary.org/covenant-theology-the-2lbc-cbts/ )
> 
> 
> For whatever it's worth, my personal concern has not been over what is historical, but what is biblical. If I end up disagreeing with what baptists historically held, I am ok with that and it is not my intention to criticize others simply for disagreeing with them either. Rather, I find a very helpful ally in those baptists as I believe they (largely) had a biblical understanding of the issue. (That said, I understand that others are very concerned with the historical issue and the label "1689 Federalism" probably added unnecessary heat to that question, though it was not intended to).


This was a good and substantial response. I am reading your links. Thank you.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer

Taylor said:


> I think the frustration here is that there has been little teaching/explaining _in this thread_.



True enough but my only purpose for starting the thread was to address one small issue - the charge that 1689 Federalism is a new idea. I had just come across the Beeke quote which prompted me to start it. I thought many of the issues discussed in this thread had already been discussed here at PB since I had read many of them. Didn't think we need to rehash but perhaps not everyone had read those old threads.



Pergamum said:


> I always like pictures! Especially ones I can color.



A "1689 Federalism Adult Coloring Book!" Just imagine - a pic of Sam Renihan arm wrestling Sam Waldron and a dour James White officiating with a gavel and referee whistle...

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

TheInquirer said:


> "Here, here's an article to help understand the view" - Response: "Too many words!"
> 
> "Here, here's a picture to help understand the view" - Response: "You're just like the Dispensationalists!"


The problem is that neither the pictures nor the articles actually SAY anything. They're a lot of words that don't pin anything down.
Einstein is purported to have said, "If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, it's because you don't understand it yourself."
I suspect that what's going on with the Federalists.
This looks a lot to me like the Divine Impassibility fiasco some other reformed baptists got embroiled in, where they micro-split fine hairs into incomprehensibility, published a yawner of a paper that was more semantics than substance, then made it a test of orthodoxy!
It was a hobbyhorse.
So is this Federalism.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Ben Zartman said:


> The problem is that neither the pictures nor the articles actually SAY anything. They're a lot of words that don't pin anything down.
> Einstein is purported to have said, "If you can't explain something to a six-year-old, it's because you don't understand it yourself."
> I suspect that what's going on with the Federalists.
> This looks a lot to me like the Divine Impassibility fiasco some other reformed baptists got embroiled in, where they micro-split fine hairs into incomprehensibility, published a yawner of a paper that was more semantics than substance, then made it a test of orthodoxy!
> It was a hobbyhorse.
> So is this Federalism.



This is a very uncharitable view, especially since in this very thread I gave a very concise summary of what 1689 Federalists (generally) believe. Could a six year old understand it? Maybe, maybe not, but I think Mr. Einstein's quote is actually rubbish anyway. There are tons of things that NO ONE can explain so that a six year old could understand it, and it doesn't mean that the explainer doesn't know what they are talking about, it just means that some topics are above the understanding of a six year old.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Challer

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This is a very uncharitable view, especially since in this very thread I gave a very concise summary of what 1689 Federalists (generally) believe. Could a six year old understand it? Maybe, maybe not, but I think Mr. Einstein's quote is actually rubbish anyway. There are tons of things that NO ONE can explain so that a six year old could understand it, and it doesn't mean that the explainer doesn't know what they are talking about, it just means that some topics are above the understanding of a six year old.



I agree.

Where's Einstein these days, anyway? /s


----------



## Smeagol

Just seems suspicious that a new baptist label arose in the 20th century and began claiming Owen, Gill, and Augustine as being in line with 1689 Federalism in their covenant theology.

From what I have read of Owen, beyond just focusing on snippets from his Hebrews Commentary, he affirmed the Abrahamic Covenant as being a part of the CoG. Same can be said for Gill. The snipping of these men to bring them under as somehow proponents of the 1689 Federalist label seems to over simply the covenant theology of both men who can be read to see the CoG as having a different administration under Abraham. I think both Owen and Gill are technical enough to deserve a wider reading than soundbites relative to there full works. So who is right? I would lean towards the older interpretation of these men instead of the newer 1689 lenses, that apparently no one seemed to pick up on until now.

And I am sorry, but it is VERY suspicious that everytime someone critiques the 1689 Federlist (even more well known men like @R. Scott Clark), the starting line almost always (even see the blogs linked by Brandon is this thread) have a foundation of “ you just don’t understand what Gill or Owen is saying” or “ you need to read it over & over again until your conclusions match mine”. Check the links yourself.

I already posted a link to Owen’s words outside of his hebrews commentary. Below was another old PB snippet from Gill.






Gill on the Covenant


Do you agree with Dr. John Gill on the covenant? I have considered the covenant of grace in a former part of this work, as it was a compact in eternity, between the three divine persons, Father, Son, and Spirit; in which each person agreed to take his part in the economy of man’s salvation...




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> I believe this will be my last comment on this thread and then I'll leave it to the rest of you to discuss, as I don't appear to be helping.
> 
> Please forgive my rash statement earlier that Izaak must study more before he may offer a critique. I should not have spoken in a universal manner. Of course, he may offer whatever critique he wishes and if someone would like to respond and walk him through what we believe, then that may prove to be a beneficial conversation for them. I should have spoken in particular for myself only and not presumed upon others in this thread. It is not a good stewardship of my time to answer the critiques of someone who only has a 4-sentence understanding of our position, but it may be worthwhile for someone else to. I would be more than happy to discuss objections with someone who has put in the time to study the position in more depth. Izaak might offer the same criticism once he has studied the position more fully, but the ensuing conversation would be different. As of now, the conversation would largely consist of me clarifying and elaborating what we believe (something that can be done by pointing to other resources).
> 
> Charles, I appreciate your list of recommended books on your view. I have read several, but not all of them. I will add them to my queue. However, I do perhaps think there is a middle ground between asking someone to study a position beyond a 4 sentence summary and requiring someone to read 12 17th century works in Latin.


I don't think there is any reason for you to bow out of the conversation. The last post was informative. I just got tired of the "read this book or you are not equipped to respond" replies. I have also never liked the "branding" or "marketing" strategy of calling this view 1689 Federalism as if it is THE one view, when the views vary. Even worse is calling other views the 20th Century View which is almost slanderous. Get past these rhetorical tactics and a fruitful discussion can be had. I appreciated the links given in your last post.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

1689 Federalism Revisited


Not a monolithic movement: Among 1689 Federalists there is much variation. Any theological position contains variation within it. But theological positions exist because of unity/agreement on certain points. 1689 Federalism is a system of covenant theology unified around certain key points...




www.puritanboard.com





See above. I found Brandon’s clarification helpful, because I did get lost in trying to determine how many isolated covenants were identified by the 1689 Federalist. 1689 Federalism has some various views on the mosaic as I understand their position, but so do Presbyterians. But, in my opinion, they also overly isolate every other covenant not inaugurated in the NT.

I cannot get around the Abrahamic Not being an Administration of CoG (Acts 2 ) nor the post-fall covenant with Adam in Gen. 3. Was Abraham not a Gentile?

Is the 1689 Federalist view of the OT covenants, not similar to McArthurs’s Covenantal Structure?

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Challer

Smeagol said:


> 1689 Federalism Revisited
> 
> 
> Not a monolithic movement: Among 1689 Federalists there is much variation. Any theological position contains variation within it. But theological positions exist because of unity/agreement on certain points. 1689 Federalism is a system of covenant theology unified around certain key points...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.puritanboard.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> See above. I found Brandon’s clarification helpful, because I did get lost in trying to determine how many isolated covenants were identified by the 1689 Federalist. 1689 Federalism has some various views on the mosaic as I understand their position, but so do Presbyterians. But, in my opinion, they also overly isolate every other covenant not inaugurated in the NT.
> 
> I cannot get around the Abrahamic Not being an Administration of CoG (Acts 2 ) nor the post-fall covenant with Adam in Gen. 3. *Was Abraham not a Gentile?*
> 
> Is the 1689 Federalist view of the OT covenants, not similar to McArthurs’s Covenantal Structure?



I didn't come here to speak on behalf of anyone's position, so please accept my answer as one of just another person in a sea of people reading God's Word and trying to exegete it properly, appealing to other texts to help with as much prayer and discernment as a wretch can muster.

In one sense, Abraham (the person) was a Gentile. He was from Ur of the Chaldees, there were no chosen people prior to his calling (unless you want to rope in Noah and Adam, maybe?) in the sense that we think about the choosing and calling of those who would later all call themselves Hebrews. We get Hebrew, I believe, from the Sons of Ebre (beginning with Abraham). One text I'm reading in Kingdom of Priests by Eugene H. Merrill talks about an _'abiru_ (or _'apiru_ ) people (not a typo) that may have been frequently confused with the Hebrew people. This problem may have later been remedied by referring to themselves as Israelites.

In fact, I'm pretty sure that the very first time the word 'the Hebrew' is used, it's referring to Abraham (in Genesis 14:13). As he was the first person chosen, he was made a Hebrew (but was formerly a Gentile) by virtue of God's act of choosing. This may be why some take issue with referring to Abraham as a Gentile.

Maybe some people might say that Abram was a Gentile and that Abraham was the first Hebrew, but what's interesting is that in Genesis 14:13, Abram is called a Hebrew. Similar to us, I suppose Abram was first chosen by God (the First Mover) while he was yet a Gentile. Yet, having been chosen, he was made a Hebrew.

P.S. I embolded a part of the post I quoted so it would be obvious what question I was trying to answer. Grace and peace. <3

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> This is a very uncharitable view, especially since in this very thread I gave a very concise summary of what 1689 Federalists (generally) believe. Could a six year old understand it? Maybe, maybe not, but I think Mr. Einstein's quote is actually rubbish anyway. There are tons of things that NO ONE can explain so that a six year old could understand it, and it doesn't mean that the explainer doesn't know what they are talking about, it just means that some topics are above the understanding of a six year old.


Sean, I interacted with that post and asked a direct question to which I received no answer. Why not answer the question, in your own words, which is: in what way that is worth making a distinction and taking on a separate name is Federalism different than Vanilla?
Another question: do you agree that God the Father and God the son covenanted together in eternity past to redeem a people?


----------



## De Jager

1689 federalists: yes or no, believers are members of the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheInquirer

Smeagol said:


> Just seems suspicious that a new baptist label arose in the 20th century and began claiming Owen, Gill, and Augustine as being in line with 1689 Federalism in their covenant theology.



Grant, at first blush I agree but after digging more, I found it is simply the result of RBs like James Renihan actually going back and reading the 17th century Baptists and going from there. Generally speaking, Baptists haven't done a good job valuing historical theology so much had either been lost or never re-printed in the first place. 

As I've noted before, its actually something I appreciate about 1689 Federalism - they seem to actually care about historical theology and tracing the development of doctrine. This sets them apart from other systems such as Progressive Covenantalism and New Covenant Theology and Dispensationalists who either try to hide their origins or deceptively claim early church historic premillienialism as if it were dispensational premillenialism.

What I haven't seen is the same kind of historical theology work from the other Reformed Baptists who are criticizing 1689 Federalism. I would really like to see, beyond a couple references to John Gill here and there, specific citations of where they trace their historical theology. I think that would be a helpful point of comparison for anyone interested. Be specific and get your sources out in the open so the rest of us can examine and make our own judgments.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1


----------



## TheInquirer

Smeagol said:


> McArthurs’s Covenantal Structure



What is MacArthur's Covenantal structure?

John MacArthur would hate 1689 Federalism - I am fairly sure of that. In no way does it conform to the basic tenants of Dispensationalism.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

As a former Reformed Baptist for 30 years Rich Barcellos and the Renihan's have done a lot of good research. I even got to read and own one of Mike Renihan's works on the Anti peadobaptist John Tombe. I read the Nehemiah Coxe Covenant Theology book with Owen's comments from Hebrews Chapter 8 and gave away many of them. Sam Renihan did a lot of good work also. I particularly appreciated their work on the Law of God and how the Decalogue is still fully our duty even when it comes to the Fourth Commandment. These things are all very good. They are common. One of the most modern propagated books before all of this was Fred Malone's book Baptism of Disciples Alone. Up to that point a lot of people depended upon Sam Waldron's book on the 1689. There wasn't much historical work done from a Reformed Baptist position as far as I could tell. 

Just for reference, the link below is where I landed on some of this. 

Why I Was Drawn Into The Nuanced Republication and Mosaic Covenant Study

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Taylor

PuritanCovenanter said:


> ...Fred Malone's book Baptism of Disciples Alone...


That's an interesting book title since I, a Presbyterian, also believe in baptizing only disciples.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## TheInquirer

De Jager said:


> 1689 federalists: yes or no, believers are members of the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17?



If Brandon chooses to jump back in this thread, he would be the guy to give you a properly nuanced answer to that question. If I come across something in the writings that may help answer, I will come back and post it but I just don't have the time to do a search right now. I am fairly new to the position myself so I wouldn't want to give an answer that doesn't properly represent the position.

Regarding the comparison between 1689 Federalism and Dispensationalism, this might help. I am slowly working through Clarence Bass' book "Backgrounds to Dispensationalism" which is a very well researched work that gets to the historical roots of the system.

Bass lists the following 12 distinguishing features of Dispensationalism in his first chapter:

1) Dispensationalism's view of the nature and purpose of a dispensation
2) A rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture
3) A dichotomy between Israel and the church
4) A restricted view of the church
5) A Jewish concpet of the kingdom
6) A distinction between law and grace that creates a multiple basis for God's dealing with man
7) A compartmentalization of Scripture
8) A pre-tribulational rapture
9) Its view and purpose of the great tribulation
10) Its view of the nature of the millenial reign of Christ
11) Its view of the eternal state
12) Its view of the apostate nature of Christendom

These take a bit of explaining so I will copy what I have written elsewhere. Most of this is a summary of Bass' explanations but I have worked in my own comments and observations here and there:

*Nature and Purpose of a Dispensation*

Scofield - "a period of time during which man is tested in respect of obedience to some specific revelation of the will of God" (Scofield Reference Bible)
In each dispensation, God changes his method in dealing with mankind concerning man's sin and responsibility. These are seen as "tests." These changes are what accounts for Dispensationalism's high degree of discontinuity between the Old and New Testaments.
*The Literal Interpretation of Scripture*


In fighting the rise of liberalism in the early 20th century, Dispensationalism insisted on a literal interpretation of Scripture and a resistance to any method that seemed to "spiritualize" or "allegorize" the text. Unfortunately, this methodology was applied very rigidly and forces meaning upon some texts they were never meant to convey. In fact, when NT writers seem to violate this rigidity when quoting the OT, Dispensationalists tend to have a difficult time explaining what is going on.
This rigid literalness leads to a strong dichotomy between Israel and the church. You then tend to hear the refrain "promises made to ethnic Israel must be fulfilled by ethnic Israel" and not the church. Thus, you necessarily need a literal future millennium that focuses on fulfillment of promises made to ethnic Israel.
*The Dichotomy Between Israel and the Church*

"God binds himself to fulfill every promise to Israel exactly, and, since every detail of these covenants has not yet been fulfilled, Christ's future reign on earth will be for the purpose of fulfilling them in a relation to Israel _distinctly different from His present relation to the church_." (24-5)
"The whole of God's redemptive relation to man is centered in HIs covenantal relation to Israel." (25)
The church and Israel relate to God by different principles.
The church is a "parenthesis" in the master plan of God dealing with Israel. Personally, I was shocked the first time I heard this and was one of the major points where I started to turn away from Dispensationalism is it did not cohere whatsoever with my reading of Scripture.
*A Restricted View of the Church*

"The church is an 'interruption' of God's plan with Israel necessitated by the rejection of the kingdom by the Jews when it was offered to them by Jesus." Thus Darby believed the church is NOT a part of God's original redemptive plan. (27)
*A Jewish Concept of the Kingdom*

Jesus offered a literal kingdom to the Jewish on the basis of a literal fulfillment of the promises of Abraham. The future millennium will contain the physical and literal fulfillment of the kingdom that the Jews rejected with Jesus physically reigning over them from Jerusalem on the throne of David.
The church in no way fulfills any of these promises to Israel.
Some Dispensationalists actually preach two "gospels." Dwight Pentecost taught that Jesus preached the gospel of the kingdom and Paul taught the gospel of grace.
Dispensationalists think the "kingdom of God" and the "kingdom of heaven" are two different things instead of different wording referring to the same thing.
*The Distinction Between Law and Grace, Creating a Multiple Basis for God's Dealing with Man*

Bass admits this distinguishing mark is controversial and denied by Dispensationalists. Bass believes that following the system to its logical conclusions results in two different means of salvation - one by following the law and one by following grace. Bass does admit that Dispensationalists deny this. In fairness, I'll let it sit at that.
*The Compartmentalization of Scripture*

"Dispensationalism divides Scripture according to classes of people, insisting that no single passage can have primary application to two dispensations at the same time." Thus, in Lewis Sperry Chafer's words, "iwayt does not follow that the Christian is appointed by God to conform to those governing principles which were the will of God for people of other dispensations." (37)
Personal note - when I started my Christian journey in a Dispensational church, the OT ended up being largely dead to me due to this hermeneutical principles. Not entirely so as we could still see certain (though limited) prophecies about Christ, lessons about the nature of God and so forth, but much is interpreted as entirely to Israel either under the Mosaic dispensation or to be fulfilled in the coming millenial age.
*The Pre-Tribulational Rapture*

A pre-tribulational rapture of the church occurs nowhere in church history before Dispensationalism.
"The church must be raptured out of the world before the tribulation because it is not a part of the kingdom, which will be in its initial stage of restoration through the remnant that survives the tribulation." (40)
*The Purpose of the Great Tribulation*


A belief in a tribulation is not unique to Dispensationalism and finds its roots in the historic premillenialism of the early church. However, the purpose of this tribulation is what makes Dispensationalism unique.
According to Dispensationalism the tribulation involves - a literal 7 year period made up of two 3.5 year periods, a covenant between Israel and the antichrist that the antichrist eventually breaks, preaching of the gospel of the kingdom, an elect remnant of Israel numbering 144,000 who survive the tribulation and enter into the millenial kingdom ruled by Christ, the church is removed during the rapture before the tribulation to make way for dealing with a new dispensation focusing on ethnic Israel
*The Nature of the Millenial Reign of Christ*

The purpose of the future, literal millenial reign of Christ is to fulfill OT promises God had made to ethnic Israel.
Christ will rule from the literal throne of David in Jerusalem and will form a theocratic government. All nations will be subservient to Israel at this time.
The Jewish temple is to be rebuilt and literal animal sacrifices will resume. This sacrifices do not anticipate the coming of the Messiah but commemorate his prior coming.
*The Eternal State*

The New Jerusalem of Revelation 21-22 is an actual city where the church and redeemed Israel will dwell forever.
*The Apostate Nature of Christendom*

"The true church contains only those who have been saved, a limited number out of the mass of professing Christians." As Baptists, we may find ourselves agreeing. However, since Darby viewed most churches as corrupt, he tended to see those disagreeing with him as being in some state of apostasy.
Of course not all Dispensationalists may agree with these distinguishing features but this is a summary based on Bass' work.

Now let's take Bass' features and see what 1689 Federalism has in common:

1) Dispensationalism's view of the nature and purpose of a dispensation - No
2) A rigidly applied literalism in the interpretation of Scripture - No
3) A dichotomy between Israel and the church - No, not in the way Dispensationalists explain the differences but certainly different from Westminster Federalism
4) A restricted view of the church - No
5) A Jewish concpet of the kingdom - No
6) A distinction between law and grace that creates a multiple basis for God's dealing with man - No in the sense that 1689 Fed sees all people at all times saved by the grace of the New Covenant alone
7) A compartmentalization of Scripture - No
8) A pre-tribulational rapture - No
9) Its view and purpose of the great tribulation - No
10) Its view of the nature of the millenial reign of Christ - No
11) Its view of the eternal state - No
12) Its view of the apostate nature of Christendom - No

*According to Bass' criteria, 1689 Federalism fails the Dispensationalism test at every point.*

Brandon has done a similar kind of thing in this post using Ryrie's 3 marks of dispensationalism - https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/

Brandon also makes the following observation in that post that he has experienced and I have noticed here at PB from time to time as well:

"This is just stating the obvious. Of course 1689 Federalism disagrees with Westminster Federalism. That’s the point. But the definition of Dispensationalism is not “anything that disagrees with Westminster Federalism.” When pressed, some try to soften their rhetoric by saying 1689 Federalism is not 1:1 Dispensationalism, but it is “in the same category” as Dispensationalism. What is that category? “Anything that disagrees with Westminster Federalism.”'

If you are stuck in the false dichotomy of everything must be either "one substance/two administrations" or "Dispensationalism" of course your tendency is to throw 1689 Federalism in the Dispensationalism category. But you would be wrong to do so. Why? Its not Dispensational at all. Its another view entirely that hasn't been taught in the battle between the two dominant systems.

Apologies for any weird formatting errors - the forum editor is giving me fits at the moment.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Taylor said:


> That's an interesting book title since I, a Presbyterian, also believe in baptizing only disciples.


It is a very interesting read. I fell hard into it because I really didn't have a good understanding concerning the Mosaic Covenant. It takes a lot of reading and piecing together historical context along with understanding the exegesis done. 

Since this is a thread concerning the Anti Peado Baptist Federalism topic it would be good to stay on the topic. This could easily turn into a Reformed vs RBF debate.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Taylor said:


> That's an interesting book title since I, a Presbyterian, also believe in baptizing only disciples.



Could you expound on that? Do you hold to a paedofaith position or do you mean to say you are credobaptist?


----------



## Taylor

RamistThomist said:


> Could you expound on that? Do you hold to a paedofaith position or do you mean to say you are credobaptist?


I don't want to derail this thread, but since you asked...

I was admittedly being a little tongue-in-cheek, but also somewhat serious. I believe in baptizing the children (even the infants) of believers, so I am not a "credobaptist." I take the present participle βαπτίζοντες in Matt. 28:19 to be a participle of means: "Make disciples of all nations _by_ baptizing them," etc. So, it is not that a disciple must be made and subsequently be baptized, but rather a disciple is made by baptism. And, in that sense, I believe in baptizing only disciples.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Ethan

De Jager said:


> 1689 federalists: yes or no, believers are members of the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17?


I'm not a 1689 federalist any longer but I was a few years ago and I would've said no. Galatians 3 was what convinced me otherwise.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

*Moderation *

This is a thread about Baptist Federal Theology and trying to understand it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## VictorBravo

Ethan said:


> I'm not a 1689 federalist any longer but I was a few years ago and I would've said no.


That surprises me. I'm not as well-read as I ought to be on this, but it seems like Genesis 17:6-8 and Jeremiah's New Covenant in 31:31-33 fit together like bookends.

In both cases God claims his people, and God says, "I will be their God."

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ethan

VictorBravo said:


> That surprises me.


I could certainly have been wrong but that was my view.


----------



## Phil D.

I'm far from an expert on 1689 Federalism, but from what I've gathered they would say the Abrahamic covenant endures, but now only with his spiritual seed - true Israel - which, if that's correctly their position, would be an important factor to consider in this discussion.


----------



## Pergamum

Ethan said:


> I'm not a 1689 federalist any longer but I was a few years ago and I would've said no. Galatians 3 was what convinced me otherwise.


Can you tell us about your journey away from it?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ethan

Pergamum said:


> Can you tell us about your journey away from it?


See my posts in this thread from back in 2020. I think many great points were made on the thread. It truly came down to my interpretation of Galatians 3. One day I was reading it and it finally clicked. It was a lightbulb moment in my walk.





The Mystery of Christ: His Covenant & Kingdom: Typology


Hello All, I am currently a 1689 Baptist who is considering switching to a local RPCNA church. Long story short I am on the fence 50/50 on each view and I am having a hard time understanding the distinctives between the two covenant theology camps. I am comparing Baptist Covenant Theology...




www.puritanboard.com

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 1


----------



## TheInquirer

My current view:

1) Jesus fulfills the Abrahamic Covenant as the true offspring (Galatians 3:16, 19)



> 16 Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. - Galatians 3:16-17 (ESV)
> 
> 19 Why then the law? It was added because of transgressions, until the offspring should come to whom the promise had been made, and it was put in place through angels by an intermediary. - Galatians 3:19 (ESV)




2) All those who are spiritually united to Christ by faith are Abraham's children and receive the blessings through Christ (Galatians 3:29)



> 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. - Galatians 3:29



3) The land promises of Canaan were fulfilled by Israel per the OT. However, the land of Canaan typologically points forward to an even greater land promise in the New Heavens and New Earth



> *Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. *And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 *Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. - *Joshua 21:43-45 (ESV)
> 
> “And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that *not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed*. 15 But just as all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the Lord your God has given you, 16 if you transgress the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. - Joshua 23:14-16



I don't know whether that means we are "under" the Abrahamic Covenant or it is more proper to say as believers we receive the blessings through our union with Christ. I would probably opt for the latter just as Jesus has fulfilled the types and shadows of the Mosaic Covenant and I do not think it is at all proper to say that Christians are "under" the Mosaic Covenant. Neither Abraham nor Moses are our mediators. Our mediator is Christ. Christ is the one who fulfills (not "annuls") the Abrahamic Covenant as the true Israelite and offspring of Abraham. We participate secondarily through our union with Christ.

I think it is important for us to see the promises as "through Christ" and not jump straight from Israel to the church. Thus:

- Promises to Israel -> Jesus -> New Covenant Believers in Union with Christ as His Body

Not

- Promises to Israel -> New Covenant Believers

This is obvious but Christians have no claim to the Abrahamic promises unless they belong to Christ.



> For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And *if you are Christ’s*, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. - Galatians 3:27-29



greenbaggins commented in the thread Ethan linked to that Galatians 3 is a difficult passage for Baptists. I for one don't see the difficulty at all.


----------



## brandonadams

To offer some clarification:


De Jager said:


> 1689 federalists: yes or no, believers are members of the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17?


No. (Well, to be precise, some members of the Covenant of Circumcision were also believers. But not all believers are members of the Covenant of Circumcision). The Covenant of Circumcision promised the advent of the Christ according to the flesh and that He would bless the nations (by establishing the New Covenant in His blood). See this lecture from Sam Renihan, as well as his book The Mystery of Christ https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11221183215644


Ethan said:


> Galatians 3 was what convinced me otherwise.


This is an important text. I wrote a lengthy essay on it, interacting with and building upon T. David Gordon's commentary on Galatians. In short, we need to carefully distinguish historia and ordo salutis in the text as it relates to the three different covenants mentioned. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/promise-law-faith-a-review-article-jirbs-20/


VictorBravo said:


> That surprises me. I'm not as well-read as I ought to be on this, but it seems like Genesis 17:6-8 and Jeremiah's New Covenant in 31:31-33 fit together like bookends.
> 
> In both cases God claims his people, and God says, "I will be their God."


See here http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/gen-177-8/


----------



## Ben Zartman

The above post has it at last: an admission that 1689 Fed believes the Abrahamic Covenant is over and done with. With this I disagree, because we are sons of Abraham (spiritually): we are part of a posterity numberless as the stars that God promised Abraham as the father of the faithful. The Seed of Abraham in whom all the nations of the world are to be blessed is still saving people and still graffing them (KJV language) into the tree of Israel. Israel has not died out nor been done away with: all believers are become the Israel of God. The Israel that began with Abraham and his son and grandson. They are not brought in to join us, rather, we are grafted into the branches of their tree.

Reactions: Like 3 | Love 5


----------



## TheInquirer

Let's look for a minute at each of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant:

1) "I will make of you a great nation" (Gen: 12:2) - Did God make the descendants of Abraham into a great nation? Yes he did.
2) "I will bless you and make your name great so that you will be a blessing" (Gen 12:2) - Did God bless Abraham and make his name great? Yes he did. However, I do believe that the "you will be a blessing" is ultimately fulfilled in and through Christ and those united to him.
3) "I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse" (Gen 12:3) - Did God do that? Yes he did.
4) "in you all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gen 12:3) - Did God do that? He is doing it through Christ and the church and the Great Commission. Ethnic Israel was NOT a blessing to the families of the earth.
5) Showing Abram the land of Canaan he says, "To your offspring I will give this land" (Gen. 12:7) - Did God give the offspring of Abraham the land of Canaan? Yes he did.
6) "Your very own son will be your heir" (Gen. 15:4) - Did God give Abraham an heir that was his own son? Yes he did.
7) Offspring as numerous in the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5) - Did God make the offspring of Abraham as numerous as the stars in the sky? Yes he did.
8) "You shall be the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen 17:4) - Did God do this? He did it both in a physical sense and is doing it in a spiritual sense as well though Christians who are the offspring of Abraham by faith and union with Christ.
9) "I will give to you and your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8) - Now there are two things going on here - Israel did get the land of Canaan but it was not everlasting for them. They lost this. This tells me there is more than one recipient of the promise in view.

As you go through the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and then see how Scripture says these promises are fulfilled, you notice that there are more than one recipients of the promises in view:

1) Ethinic Israel - the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob
2) Jesus - the perfect Israelite and singular "offspring" of Abraham Paul talks about in Genesis 3
3) Christians - who in union with Christ become heirs of the promises to Abraham

As it see it, the error of the Dispensationalists is to say all the promises are for ethnic Israel. Other errors say all the promises are only for Christians/the church. Instead, I see a progressive fulfillment of the promises.

If you say that only Christians fulfill the land promises or the "stars of the heavens" promises, what do you do with all the OT passages that say God has fulfilled those promises that he made to the patriarchs? Again I quote the passages in Joshua I reference above and a few others:



> The LORD your God has multiplied you, and behold, *you are today as numerous as the stars of heaven*. - Deuteronomy 1:10 (ESV)
> 
> Your fathers went down to Egypt seventy persons, and* now the LORD your God has made you as numerous as the stars of heaven*. - Deuteronomy 10:22
> 
> *Thus the Lord gave to Israel all the land that he swore to give to their fathers. *And they took possession of it, and they settled there. 44 And the Lord gave them rest on every side just as he had sworn to their fathers. Not one of all their enemies had withstood them, for the Lord had given all their enemies into their hands. 45 *Not one word of all the good promises that the Lord had made to the house of Israel had failed; all came to pass. - *Joshua 21:43-45 (ESV)
> 
> 
> “And now I am about to go the way of all the earth, and you know in your hearts and souls, all of you, that *not one word has failed of all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you. All have come to pass for you; not one of them has failed*. 15 But just as all the good things that the Lord your God promised concerning you have been fulfilled for you, so the Lord will bring upon you all the evil things, until he has destroyed you from off this good land that the Lord your God has given you, 16 if you transgress the covenant of the Lord your God, which he commanded you, and go and serve other gods and bow down to them. - Joshua 23:14-16
> 
> 
> And you gave them kingdoms and peoples and allotted to them every corner. So they took possession of the land of Sihon king of Heshbon and the land of Og king of Bashan. 23 Y*ou multiplied their children as the stars of heaven, and you brought them into the land that you had told their fathers to enter and possess. *24 So the descendants went in and possessed the land, and you subdued before them the inhabitants of the land, the Canaanites, and gave them into their hand, with their kings and the peoples of the land, that they might do with them as they would. - Nehemiah 9:22-24


----------



## Ben Zartman

TheInquirer said:


> Let's look for a minute at each of the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant:
> 
> 1) "I will make of you a great nation" (Gen: 12:2) - Did God make the descendants of Abraham into a great nation? Yes he did.
> 2) "I will bless you and make your name great so that you will be a blessing" (Gen 12:2) - Did God bless Abraham and make his name great? Yes he did. However, I do believe that the "you will be a blessing" is ultimately fulfilled in and through Christ and those united to him.
> 3) "I will bless those who bless you and him who dishonors you I will curse" (Gen 12:3) - Did God do that? Yes he did.
> 4) "in you all the families of the earth will be blessed" (Gen 12:3) - Did God do that? He is doing it through Christ and the church and the Great Commission. Ethnic Israel was NOT a blessing to the families of the earth.
> 5) Showing Abram the land of Canaan he says, "To your offspring I will give this land" (Gen. 12:7) - Did God give the offspring of Abraham the land of Canaan? Yes he did.
> 6) "Your very own son will be your heir" (Gen. 15:4) - Did God give Abraham an heir that was his own son? Yes he did.
> 7) Offspring as numerous in the stars in the sky (Gen 15:5) - Did God make the offspring of Abraham as numerous as the stars in the sky? Yes he did.
> 8) "You shall be the father of a multitude of nations" (Gen 17:4) - Did God do this? He did it both in a physical sense and is doing it in a spiritual sense as well though Christians who are the offspring of Abraham by faith and union with Christ.
> 9) "I will give to you and your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God" (Gen. 17:8) - Now there are two things going on here - Israel did get the land of Canaan but it was not everlasting for them. They lost this. This tells me there is more than one recipient of the promise in view.
> 
> As you go through the promises of the Abrahamic Covenant and then see how Scripture says these promises are fulfilled, you notice that there are more than one recipients of the promises in view:
> 
> 1) Ethinic Israel - the descendants of Abraham through Isaac and Jacob
> 2) Jesus - the perfect Israelite and singular "offspring" of Abraham Paul talks about in Genesis 3
> 3) Christians - who in union with Christ become heirs of the promises to Abraham
> 
> As it see it, the error of the Dispensationalists is to say all the promises are for ethnic Israel. Other errors say all the promises are only for Christians/the church. Instead, I see a progressive fulfillment of the promises.
> 
> If you say that only Christians fulfill the land promises or the "stars of the heavens" promises, what do you do with all the OT passages that say God has fulfilled those promises that he made to the patriarchs? Again I quote the passages in Joshua I reference above and a few others:


Jim, do you think that the covenant is primarily about the promises to Israel, or about the salvation of the elect? Which one is subservient to the other? Is one perhaps an earnest; a picture; a type: or is the physical aspect what it was all about, and it just sort of vaguely showed some future thing that wasn't really connected to it?

But Romans contradicts your point #4, when Paul instructs us not to despise ethnic Israel, because theirs are the fathers; they were given the law; they preserved it in writing; Messiah came through their line. And while Israel was a physical nation, they did much good: the Queen of Sheba was converted; the Ninevites; Naaman; Ruth, Rahab, and all the strangers that joined themselves to Israel, and then even in captivity they witnessed through Daniel and his companions, and Nebuchadnezzar got instructed. Not much of a blessing, you say? I think the folks I mentioned disagree.


----------



## De Jager

It is the very sign of circumcision itself that points to the spiritual nature of the covenant with Abraham. For we are told that circumcision was a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith. The "righteousness of faith" is the message of the gospel. This covenant always pointed beyond the earthly and to the spiritual and it did that from day one. Furthermore, we cannot argue that what Israel received in the OT was the true fulfillment of these promises because of what we are taught in Hebrews 11 - they desire a heavenly country. The land of Israel was not the end game. A bunch of physical descendants was not the end game. And the fact is, it was _never the end game_. The promises to Abraham _always_ pointed to the ultimate spiritual realities, even when he circumcised his household immediately after receiving the promises. The fact of the matter is that we are partakers of those covenant promises. I know that Baptists will argue that our children are not, but we all should be able to agree that at least believers are partakers of those covenant promises with Abraham in Genesis 17. In fact, we are partakers of a "fuller" version of those promises then our OT brothers and sisters, although the ultimate fulfillment remains to be experienced in the new heavens and the new earth.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> To offer some clarification:
> 
> No. (Well, to be precise, some members of the Covenant of Circumcision were also believers. But not all believers are members of the Covenant of Circumcision). The Covenant of Circumcision promised the advent of the Christ according to the flesh and that He would bless the nations (by establishing the New Covenant in His blood). See this lecture from Sam Renihan, as well as his book The Mystery of Christ https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=11221183215644
> 
> This is an important text. I wrote a lengthy essay on it, interacting with and building upon T. David Gordon's commentary on Galatians. In short, we need to carefully distinguish historia and ordo salutis in the text as it relates to the three different covenants mentioned. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2021/06/04/promise-law-faith-a-review-article-jirbs-20/
> 
> See here http://www.1689federalism.com/scriptureindex/gen-177-8/


What is the Covenant of Circumcision? It's the Abrahamic Covenant last I checked. Are we making up new covenants here? What am I missing.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

*COVENANT RENEWAL

THE MOSAIC COVENANT

by Ray R. Sutton

Genesis 1:26-28 Matthew 28:18-20

January, 1992*​
Covenants do not occur in a vacuum. They can’t because they are always restorative in nature. They connect to previous covenants, building on what goes before and attempting to bring about what a prior covenant arrangement failed to do.

The Mosaic covenant is a resurrection of the Abrahamic covenant, just as the Abrahamic had been to the Noahic, and the Noahic had been to the Adamic. The Mosaic covenant was a new Adamic covenant, pulling through the Abrahamic covenant and not around the covenant with Moses’ forefathers. As such, it was a covenant of grace and not of works because the covenant with Abraham (And I believe all of the covenants) was based on God’s gracious acts. How do we know that the Mosaic covenant was a renewed Abrahamic covenant?

. *The Renewed Abrahamic Covenant*​
Some scholars have viewed the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as two entirely different covenants.(1) If these two can be distanced from one another, a case can be built for how Christ in the New Covenant could restore the Abrahamic and not the Mosaic covenant. Although the Abrahamic covenant was not without law, the presumption of a lawless Abrahamic covenant could be proposed. The New Covenant would effectively be emptied of the Mosaic themes, which consist of the clearest statements of the ethical nature of a Biblical covenant.

On the other hand, if these covenants have a symbiotic relationship, then the modern day antinomians are trapped. The Mosaic is the renewed Abrahamic. The Mosaic arrangement not only flows out of the Abrahamic covenant but is the renewed Abrahamic covenant.

In the conversation between God and Moses we read:

(Exo 6:2) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I _am_ the LORD:



(Exo 6:3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by _the name of_ God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.



(Exo 6:4) And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.



(Exo 6:5) And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.



(Exo 6:6) Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I _am_ the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:



(Exo 6:7) And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I _am_ the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.



(Exo 6:8) And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I _am_ the LORD.



(Exodus 6:2-8).

God nowhere infers that a new covenant separate from the Abrahamic is about to be instituted. In fact, He indicates continuity between Abraham and Moses, when He calls for Moses to fulfill the Abrahamic. He doesn’t want a change. He wants the Abrahamic covenant to extend forward and He raises up Moses to do it.

William Dumbrell, former dean at Regent’s in Vancouver, has made the same point in a significant way. When he describes the covenant that was made at Sinai (Exodus19:3-6), he says the following:

What kind of covenant is in mind? Nothing definitely covenantal has been advanced in the book [Exodus] so far. Indeed, to this point the notion of a covenant has been associated only with the Abrahamic covenant in Exod. 6:1-8. Most suggest the reference to covenant in verse 5 is prospective and looks forward to the Sinaitic covenant, which is about to be concluded. What argues against this, however, is the fact that the phrase “keep my covenant” (relative to a human response to a divine covenant) is used in the Hebrew Bible only where obedience to a prior divine commitment is being restated (compare the fairly exact parallels incorporating the use of *berit *and *samar* in Gen. 17:9-10; 1 Kgs. 11 :11; Ezek. 17:14; Ps. 78:10; 103:18; 132:12). This and other factors that will emerge make it probable that the covenant referred to is something preexisting [emphasis mine]. This can, of course, only be the patriarchal covenant [emphasis mine] with which continuity had been carefully forged by Moses’ call in Exod. 3:13-15. (2)

To summarize Dumbrell’s observation: When God tells anyone to “keep My covenant,” the presumption is that one already exists, or else God would say, “Enter My covenant.” Since God tells Israel to keep covenant in Exodus 19, an antecedent covenant stands in force. It has to be the Abrahamic, or what Dumbrell calls the “patriarchal covenant.”

Notice the similarity between Abraham’s and Moses’ ministries. Both were called to enter the Promised Land from the outside and to take possession of the covenant promises; both led an exodus; Abraham even went down to Egypt and was driven out and back to the Promised Land on different occasions. Both were called upon to circumcise their seed as a sign of the covenant (Exodus 4:24), judging by God’s anger at Moses for not applying the covenant sanctions and thereby further establishing the continuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants.

Finally, both died before possession of the land was secured. Thus, the Mosaic covenant is a resurrection of the Abrahamic.

Dumbrell, however, presses with further proof of a continuity between the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants. He says,

The separation of Israel from her broad cultural environment [The Exodus], her invitation to obey a covenant already existing, her call to be a light to lighten the Gentiles – the model for the world that her role would provide – all of this is confessedly Abrahamic in its tenor. As the continuity of the exodus narratives suggests (compare Exod. 3:13-15; 6:1-8), the Sinai covenant was in fact a particularization of Gen. 12:1-3 in the experience of Israel. Like Abraham, Israel was called outside of the land that would be hers. Like Abram, Israel would be a great nation (goy), occupying a “promised land.” Like Abram, the world would find its source of blessing in this Israel.(3)

These strong parallels are obvious to Dumbrell and the unbiased reader of Exodus. Moses was a new Abraham. Mr. Dumbrell supports this by even speaking of the Mosaic covenant as unconditional in the same sense as the Abrahamic covenant. He says,

At once, then, a further factor emerges that endorses more than just a limited concept of unconditionality. The strand of covenant theology that began with Abram continues with Sinai. It will add kingship to its ambit with 2 Samuel 7. Its direct unconditionality, because it is divinely imposed and sustained, will emerge in Jer. 31:31-34. On two counts, therefore – the remnant on the human side and divine design on the other – a worshipping community among whom God would dwell was bound to emerge. They will be priests and kings.(4)

Dumbrell’s conclusion concerns worship. As God’s covenant with Abraham established a worshipping community, so did His covenant with Moses. We should consider some differences between the two covenants.

*The Difference Between the TWO Covenants*​
The primary difference between the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants, what I call an advancement or improvement, is that Moses was born of the priestly line, the tribe of Levi (Exodus 2:1-2). Moses, being of the priestly line, is called to transform the Abrahamic Covenant into a priestly one. Indeed, he is called to change the nature of the kingdom. He was to make Israel into a nation of priests (Exodus 19:6), creating a priesthood of believers.

Therefore, the Mosaic covenant has an extensive discussion of law. It does not have this emphasis to indicate in any way that the basis of the covenant is works. Moses called Israel to be “circumcised of heart” (Deuteronomy 4:29; 10:12), which are the very statements quoted by Jesus and referred to by the Apostle Paul as the true test of a true Jew (Romans 2:25-29). The law emphasis of Moses presumes salvation by grace. It is simply for the priesthood to know God’s standard of holiness, and how to be a distinct people from the Gentiles, the non-priesthood. The law of the Mosaic Covenant was never intended to be understood as a works system; the apostate leaders of Israel turned it into this just se apostate leaders of the modern Church do the same to the New Covenant, the greatest grace covenant in the history of man.



Yet, it should be understood that when the priesthood changes, as Hebrews says, the law will change (Hebrews 7:12). The law of the Mosaic Covenant changed because the priesthood changed. The Jews are no longer the priests of God. There is law in the New Covenant, called new commandments that are nothing less than renewed and transfigured old commandments (cf. Leviticus 19:18 and I John 2:4-8). Thus, law is not graceless nor is grace lawless and the Mosaic covenant is neither graceless nor lawless. This we will discuss at length when we consider the Mosaic covenant as it is fulfilled in the Church. First, however, we should discuss the Mosaic covenant as a renewed Abrahamic covenant in all of its own uniqueness.

*Transcendence: New Mediator (Exodus 1-5)*​
The Mosaic Covenant fulfills all the covenants that have gone before and anticipates in the fulfillment of each one the coming of Christ.

First, the Mosaic Covenant is a new creation because of the parallel between the first creation of the Adamic Covenant and the birth of Moses. The name Moses means water-son. He is drawn out of the water as a new creation. Yet, he is a son who emerges from the water to lead his nation just as Jesus later walks out of the Jordan waters to lead his people.

Second, Moses is a new Noah. From the description of the vessel in which he floated on the Nile (Exodus 2:3), he is saved by a miniature ark from the waters. Except, he has no family. He is a baby saved by an ark, anticipating the coming of Christ who will rest in his own manger-ark.

Third, Moses is a new Abraham. As Abraham entered conflict with Egypt and saw plagues fall on the Egyptians (Genesis 12:17), so Moses did the same. Abraham was called to ratify his covenant by circumcision. Moses was commanded to do the same (4:25ff.). In so doing, he was, a type of Christ. As Moses opposed Pharaoh, so Christ battled the new Pharaoh, Herod, a man who slaughtered the innocent babies just as Pharaoh had done (Exodus 1 :15-22), and who circumcised His new nation with the circumcision of baptism, the replacement of circumcision (Colossians 2:11-12). Thus, the birth of Moses dramatically shows us that he is the beginning of a new covenant.

*Deliverer Themes*​
The early chapters of Exodus present the mediator or deliverer themes, often characteristic of the beginning of a new covenant. Moses is presented as a priest who will deliver His people.



First, as a priest, he is specifically said to be of the tribe of Levi. He is raised up out of the Nile River, symbolizing his purity and cleanness, particular characteristics that will be demanded of the new nations of priests whom he will help to raise up.

Second, Moses appears as a guardian of the covenant, the primary function of the priests throughout Scripture, beginning with Genesis (Genesis 2:15). Almost immediately after his birth, he is seen attempting to protect (guard) a Hebrew from being killed (Exodus 2:11 -15). He was right to kill the Egyptian because the original text says that the Egyptian was attempting to kill the Hebrew, which is unfortunately translated “beat” by most texts (Exodus 2:11). This act in itself is part of the carrying out of the Abrahamic Covenant which says that God will bless those who bless and curse those who curse Israel. Moses was blessing Israel which is a specific priestly, and later Aaronic, function.

Third, Moses fled from Israel because Israel did not want to be blessed by being protected from the Egyptians. They cared more for the Egyptians’ blood than the salvation of the people of God. So, they lost their deliverer. Moses was led by God to apprentice in the priesthood under the priest of Midian, Jethro, a Melchizzadekel Priest (Exodus 3:1). He received from the land of this other priesthood, new water, a bride, training in shepherding, and the voice of God in the form of a new calling, all necessary requirements for being an effective priest.



*Presence and Promise*​


The emphases of presence and promise occur just as they did with the Abrahamic covenant. With reference to promise, the promise is reiterated to Moses at his call. Like Abraham, he is called outside the land to lead the people back to the land. In the same way Abimelech, King of Egypt, was nearly cursed for cursing Abraham, the Pharaoh is destroyed for cursing Israel. As God’s promise says, “I will curse those who curse you and bless those who bless you” (Genesis 12:3).

The promise is confirmed with God’s special presence, which is specially manifested to Moses on Mount Sinai with glory. Before the great leader can initiate the exodus, the Lord reveals Himself. Moses’ face shines from His glory, a word which begins to appear quite often in the Mosaic period. The dramatic appearance of the glory of the Lord is distinctively Mosaic in emphasis.

*Hierarchy: A New Kingdom (Exodus 6-18)*​
Moses was called to lead Israel out of Egypt, Goshen the old garden, while fighting a battle to establish God’s kingdom. What he did was hierarchical in nature. He fought a battle over worship. All he wanted from Pharaoh was to go into the desert and worship God. For this request, he drew antagonism from Pharaoh, who would allow a pluralistic society that tolerated the worship of any god except the true God, explaining why one man has called pluralism, “equal time for Satan.” Consequently, Moses defeated all the gods of Egypt by means of the plagues. He did not leave, however, until he and his new kingdom received food for the journey, the Passover. He learned one of the fundamental lessons of kingdom building: it can’t be done on an empty stomach; food must be provided for the long walk ahead, one of the fundamental lessons of spiritual food in the Word and the Sacrament of Holy Communion, both of which are necessary for the journey during the week. Finally, Moses was asked to leave the kingdom of darkness and he was financed to build the new kingdom.

Moses continued his establishment of a new kingdom by separating the waters of blood, the Red Sea (Exodus 14, a symbolic birth which involves the breaking of water and the shedding of blood. He separated the waters to walk on dry land just as God had separated the waters on the second day of creation to raise up dry land, a kingdom. Moses was still only just beginning. He faced the countless problems of the people of Israel. He learned that he could not run the new kingdom by the old system. He was given counsel by Jethro, his old master discipler (Exodus 18). Eventually, he arrives at Sinai where he hears the voice of God.

​

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Continued. 

*Ethical Stipulations: The Law (Exodus 19-23)*​
The terms of faithfulness, the Law of God, are given to Moses. They are written at a time of the giving of the Holy Spirit, Pentecost (Exodus 19:1). Exodus 19:1 tells us that Israel arrived “on the third new moon” (literally) from the month they left Egypt. They had departed on the 15th-day of the first month, so that they arrived at Sinai at the beginning of the seventh week, almost 50 days after 15th. On the 4th day after arriving Moses told the people to prepare to receive what God would provide 2 days later, the 6th day (Exodus 19:2-6). Thus, a careful study of the chronology of the Exodus shows us that the Law was given at the time when the Spirit would later be given in fullness. Can the point be any more obvious? Law and Spirit should not be held in conflict. Law is always to be based on grace and redemption, apparent from a simple overview of the laws of the Mosaic Covenant.

The Ten Commandments are a manifesto of freedom. They teach what the Apostle Paul says about freedom through obedience to Christ or slavery to sin through disobedience (Romans 6). Freedom is not the freedom to disobey or do anything that one wants, as the pagans believe. Freedom is the freedom to obey God, as our forefathers came to this land to do. So the first commandment, and all the commandments for that matter, are based on redemption from the land of Egypt (Exodus 20:2-3). Israel was freed from the tyranny of the political polytheism of Egypt. They were enslaved by the pluralistic false gods of Pharaoh. The first commandment is true freedom of religion, the belief in The, One true God.

The second commandment is freedom to worship God without superstition (20:4-6), perhaps the greatest slavery of all. Superstition is belief that God indwells nature and can be manipulated by man.

The third commandment is freedom to speak for God not against Him (20:7). This commandment delivers man from the slavery of profanity and narrow vocabulary.

The fourth commandment guarantees the freedom from too much work as well as the freedom to work (20:8-11).

The fifth commandment calls for obedience to parents and promises freedom of inheritance (20:12). Only free societies that obey God’s authorities are not taxed on inheritance. This society did not even have an Income Tax law until the beginning of the century.

The sixth commandment protects freedom from hate, if covenant man does not murder, the correct translation of the Hebrew (20:13). This commandment is the context of Jesus’ statement about hate being the same as murdering your brother (Matthew 5).

The seventh commandment calls for obedience in marriage (20:14), creating freedom from lust on the basis of what Jesus says when He equates lust and adultery (Matthew 5).

The eighth commandment tells man to work and gives him the freedom to earn money (20:15).

The ninth commandment protects the witness stand by commanding truth to guard man from the tyranny of lies (20:16).

The tenth commandment orders man to be content by not coveting or envying (20:17). This is the freedom from dissatisfaction.

After the giving of the Ten Commandments, these laws are applied to the civil realm through case laws, which is not the same as precedent law. Case law is based on an absolute standard, the Ten commandments.

In Leviticus, God records what He also gave while Israel was gathered at Mt. Sinai. These seventy laws have to do with boundary and blood (sacrifices), peculiarly symbolized through the rite of circumcision, an act of creating a physical boundary between Jew and Gentile by the shedding of blood on the man’s body; this explains why these laws were no longer required when the sign of the covenant was changed to baptism. The ceremonial laws call for clean and unclean laws that were to keep Israel distinct from the Gentiles. These boundary laws ‘relating to food and other practices (mostly relating to shedding of blood) all find their origin the curses of Genesis 3. For example, anything having to do with the dust of the ground, which was cursed by God, is unclean. Anything conveying the image of death, such as the shedding of blood at birth and the menstrual cycle of the woman, was unclean because death came through sin. Thus, all of these ceremonial laws were pedagogical in nature, designed to re-enforce the teachings of holiness.

*Oath: Ratification at Sinai (Exodus 24 and Numbers)*​
The covenant was actually entered by confession of faith, clarifying why the historic Christian Faith has been written down in creeds that are said at worship to renew the initial covenant. The covenant entrance also involved the sprinkling of blood from sacrifices offered, because blood from above symbolized salvation by grace (literally from above) and not from works. This is why the historic method of baptism is by sprinkling since the water symbolizes Christ’s work from above (cf. Acts 1:5 with 2:3). Interestingly, the original Greek for Jesus’ command to Nicodemus to be born again is literally born from above, which of course is the same as a second birth in contrast to the first birth from below.

After the ratification ceremony, a blueprint for the tabernacle is given (25-31). The place of worship is to be primarily a place of covenant renewal. This tabernacle is a replica of the Glory Cloud in heaven where God dwells and is also duplicated on the priests clothing. It is ordered space around the throne of God, reminding the people of God what their worship is supposed to reproduce.

Following the blueprint for worship, Israel apostatizes and ironically enters into idolatry. While God literally drew up the plans for the new building, the people of God broke the covenant. Sanctions occur in a New Covenant way. The people are made to drink (ingest) the covenant (Exodus 32:20), after the waters have been sprinkled with the covenant: eating follows sprinkling. Probably, this ingestion was a form of the ordeal of jealousy required of a woman suspected of adultey (Numbers 5). As a result, however, thousands of Israelites were slain by the Levites, analogous to the death brought by the unworthy eating of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 11).

After this period of covenant judgment, the people are given the law again, including the completion of the blueprints for the tabernacle.

*Wandering and Rejection (Numbers)*​
Israel will not obey the covenant stipulations and enter the land. Judgment must occur in the form of death. The people of the first generation die, because of their rebellion. They are tested with a series of conflicts and disputes, always the preparation for greater victories. But their death is not enough. The mediator of the covenant, Moses, must die before entering the Promised Land. The old must pass away before the new can come.

Moses faces rejection more than any other individual prior to him. This is one of the great tests of one’s oath before God. Moses faced rebellion over eleven times. He did quite well during these insurrections. He even interceded a number of times to prevent God’s wrath. But in the end, he succumbed to the temptation to destroy Israel. He became angry and was not permitted to enter the Promised Land.

*Succession: Deuteronomy*​
Shortly before Moses’ death, he appointed an heir through the laying on of hands, communed with the hair, and gave final discourses just as Jesus did all of the same before His death: the delivery of His Upper Room sermons before He died. Specifically, however, the succession of the Mosaic covenant introduces three major successional ideas that are latent prior to this.

Moses charges Joshua to possess the land, what amounts to a “license to kill.” The successor is the one who will go. Only Caleb and Joshua were ready to take what belonged to God. Only these two of the original twelve were allowed to enter. And, only Joshua is selected to be the actual successor. This commissioning concept is quite dramatic in the Mosaic covenant. The patriarchs had similarly commissioned. In fact, Moses places curses and blessings on the sons of Jacob just as Jacob himself had done. But Moses goes further. No other had been so bold as to say to Joshua exactly what Moses did.

A second successional theme that appears in the Mosaic covenant is rest. ‘Wound up with this notion of the promised land, ideally occupied, is, as we well know from the Book of Deuteronomy, the biblical concept of rest.”sThe idea seems to be that entrance into the Promised Land brings rest. The one who finds rest is the one who inherits and becomes the heir.

Finally, the Book of Deuteronomy repeats the Abrahamic promises. The last chapter of Deuteronomy reports the last comment made by Moses, “This is the land which I sware unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, saying,‘1 will give it unto thy seed: I have caused thee to see it with thine eyes, but thou shalt not go over thither’” (Deuteronomy 34:4). The point being made to Joshua and all future readers is that just before succession, the promise is repeated! This repetition of promises becomes one of the Mosaic features of issuing a statement of succession. The heir is repeatedly told the promises so that he might keep them.

In conclusion, the Mosaic covenant has followed the covenant pattern with its own unique distinctive. In our next study, we shall consider how the Mosaic covenant is fulfilled in Christ and the Church.



(1) 1. Dennis J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant: A Study in Form in Ancient Oriental Documents and the O. T., An Bib 21 (Rome, 1963).

McCarthy believed the commandments to be part of the covenant at Sinai but he is not convinced that law is an element of the treaty formula. Thus, he can speak of the establishment of a covenant without law, which paves the way for a New Covenant without law. This is utter nonsense as any cursory reading of Christ’s statement, “1 did not coma to abolish the law but to fulfill if” (Matthew 519).

(2) 2. William J. Dumbrell, “The Prospect of Unconditionality,” Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of R.K. Harrison, Ed. Avraham GiIeadi (Grand Rapids Baker, 19SS), pp. 144-145.



(3) Ibid., p. 153.

(4) Idem.

(5) 5. Dumbrell “The concept of Unconditionality.” P. 150

https://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/a_pdfs/newslet/sutton/9201.pdf

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

Cautiously wading in, given that I’m a Presbyterian in a largely Baptist debate. 

God’s covenant with Abraham wasn’t with him as a Hebrew or “Terahite” but as a _believer_. The covenant promises were to his _household_, and that not just his physical progeny. He was to be a father of _many_ nations, not one. Yes, circumcision was applied to the flesh, the male organ, with the attendant symbolic functions as the world’s Messiah would be a physical descendant of his, but throughout it was primarily a sign and seal of the righteousness imputed through faith - the circumcision of the heart.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> What is the Covenant of Circumcision? It's the Abrahamic Covenant last I checked. Are we making up new covenants here? What am I missing.


Acts 7:8 "And He gave him the covenant of circumcision"


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The terminology of Everlasting Covenant is not a new invention. It is mentioned in the Scriptures. I have understood it as being the Covenant of Grace. I may be incorrect but what are your thoughts?

Gen_9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen_17:7 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.
Gen_17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen_17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Lev_24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Num_25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
2Sa_23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.
1Ch_16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
Psa_105:10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
Isa_24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa_55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Isa_61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Jer_32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
Eze_16:60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
Eze_37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Heb_13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The terminology of Everlasting Covenant is not a new invention. It is mentioned in the Scriptures. I have understood it as being the Covenant of Grace. I may be incorrect but what are your thoughts?
> 
> Gen_9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
> Gen_17:7 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.
> Gen_17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
> Gen_17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
> Lev_24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
> Num_25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
> 2Sa_23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.
> 1Ch_16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
> Psa_105:10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
> Isa_24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
> Isa_55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
> Isa_61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
> Jer_32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
> Eze_16:60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
> Eze_37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
> Heb_13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,











“Everlasting” and “Forever”


People will sometimes argue that the Abrahamic Covenant must be the Covenant of Grace because Scripture refers to it as “everlasting.” And I will establish my covenant between me and yo…




contrast2.wordpress.com

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## TheInquirer

Ben Zartman said:


> Jim, do you think that the covenant is primarily about the promises to Israel, or about the salvation of the elect? Which one is subservient to the other? Is one perhaps an earnest; a picture; a type: or is the physical aspect what it was all about, and it just sort of vaguely showed some future thing that wasn't really connected to it?
> 
> But Romans contradicts your point #4, when Paul instructs us not to despise ethnic Israel, because theirs are the fathers; they were given the law; they preserved it in writing; Messiah came through their line. And while Israel was a physical nation, they did much good: the Queen of Sheba was converted; the Ninevites; Naaman; Ruth, Rahab, and all the strangers that joined themselves to Israel, and then even in captivity they witnessed through Daniel and his companions, and Nebuchadnezzar got instructed. Not much of a blessing, you say? I think the folks I mentioned disagree.



Ben, I would say the Abrahamic Covenant has both peoples in view. I would say the promises to ethnic Israel are subservient to the salvation of the elect if that is the proper language to use. I think there is a physical reality that serves as a type for a greater antitype to come in the New Covenant and everything that Jesus is and does as the faithful ethnic Israelite and God the Son.

I think if we looked at OT Israel as a whole their experience is not a blessing to the nations as a whole but a relative few Gentiles benefitting here and there due to God's graciousness which also provides foreshadowing for the Great Commission of the New Covenant where the gospel will be preached to all nations and the elect will be gathered from the four corners of the earth. We can't really say OT Israel was very "missions minded."  There is a reason Paul says the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been brought down in Christ.

Queen of Sheba - She witnessed God's hand of blessing on Solomon but did she also witness Solomon's later covenant unfaithfulness that later ripped the nation in half in the time of his son Rehoboam?

Nebuchadnezzar - Context: Many of Israel are dead and most of the rest are in exile due to covenant infidelity. Nebuchadnezzar is blessed through Daniel's faithfulness and God's judgment in humbling him, not Israel as a nation.

Ruth - Context: time of the Judges. Israel is constantly committing covenant unfaithfulness through idol worship and constantly under the oppression of foreign enemies. Ruth seems more faithful and trusting of God than her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi.

Ninevites - Jonah went there because he had to not because he wanted to bless them 

The OT itself looks forward to a time when the nations will be blessed through Israel. That is fulfilled in Jesus (the true and faithful Israelite), His New Covenant, and His Great Commission. Us Gentiles benefit from what God gave Israel (promises, covenants, etc.) now because of Jesus.

I merely want to emphasize that the New Covenant is the pinnacle of God's covenants. It is the covenant that all prior covenants looked forward to and served to bring about in some way.

This is why I am convinced 1689 Federalism is the best system I have come across. Dispensationalism diminishes the glory and uniqueness of the New Covenant by calling it a mere "parenthesis" in God's plan. The one covenant/two administrations view for me does not adequately elevate the New Covenant in its importance over prior covenants since it is merely an "adminsitration" of the Covenant of Grace rather than uniquely "the" Covenant of Grace. I don't see the New Covenant being on equal footing to the prior covenants at all - it is greater in every way. Everything prior is ultimately pointing forward to the majesty and pinnacle of Jesus' work as the New Covenant mediator, sacrifice, and high priest.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

TheInquirer said:


> Ben, I would say the Abrahamic Covenant has both peoples in view. I would say the promises to ethnic Israel are subservient to the salvation of the elect if that is the proper language to use. I think there is a physical reality that serves as a type for a greater antitype to come in the New Covenant and everything that Jesus is and does as the faithful ethnic Israelite and God the Son.
> 
> I think if we looked at OT Israel as a whole their experience is not a blessing to the nations as a whole but a relative few Gentiles benefitting here and there due to God's graciousness which also provides foreshadowing for the Great Commission of the New Covenant where the gospel will be preached to all nations and the elect will be gathered from the four corners of the earth. We can't really say OT Israel was very "missions minded."  There is a reason Paul says the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been brought down in Christ.
> 
> Queen of Sheba - She witnessed God's hand of blessing on Solomon but did she also witness Solomon's later covenant unfaithfulness that later ripped the nation in half in the time of his son Rehoboam?
> 
> Nebuchadnezzar - Context: Many of Israel are dead and most of the rest are in exile due to covenant infidelity. Nebuchadnezzar is blessed through Daniel's faithfulness and God's judgment in humbling him, not Israel as a nation.
> 
> Ruth - Context: time of the Judges. Israel is constantly committing covenant unfaithfulness through idol worship and constantly under the oppression of foreign enemies. Ruth seems more faithful and trusting of God than her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi.
> 
> Ninevites - Jonah went there because he had to not because he wanted to bless them
> 
> The OT itself looks forward to a time when the nations will be blessed through Israel. That is fulfilled in Jesus (the true and faithful Israelite), His New Covenant, and His Great Commission. Us Gentiles benefit from what God gave Israel (promises, covenants, etc.) now because of Jesus.
> 
> I merely want to emphasize that the New Covenant is the pinnacle of God's covenants. It is the covenant that all prior covenants looked forward to and served to bring about in some way.
> 
> This is why I am convinced 1689 Federalism is the best system I have come across. Dispensationalism diminishes the glory and uniqueness of the New Covenant by calling it a mere "parenthesis" in God's plan. The one covenant/two administrations view for me does not adequately elevate the New Covenant in its importance over prior covenants since it is merely an "adminsitration" of the Covenant of Grace rather than uniquely "the" Covenant of Grace. I don't see the New Covenant being on equal footing to the prior covenants at all - it is greater in every way. Everything prior is ultimately pointing forward to the majesty and pinnacle of Jesus' work as the New Covenant mediator, sacrifice, and high priest.


So how does this relate to 1689 Federalism? I am mostly posting to bring out the thinking of Reformed Baptist Federalism. I think I can refute some of what you are posting but the thread is about Reformed Baptist Federalism and the Covenants. Would you say you represent what 1689 Federalism teaches?


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So how does this relate to 1689 Federalism? I am mostly posting to bring out the thinking of Reformed Baptist Federalism. I think I can refute some of what you are posting but the thread is about Reformed Baptist Federalism and the Covenants. Would you say you represent what 1689 Federalism teaches?



Just to clarify, this thread is not about what 1689 Federalism is, or a defense of it. This thread is about whether 1689 Federalism is _novel_ or not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Just to clarify, this thread is not about what 1689 Federalism is, or a defense of it. This thread is about whether 1689 Federalism is _novel_ or not.


My misunderstanding. Thanks for clearing that up. smh I just aint what I use to be.


----------



## jw

This threads turning into a novel-la.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Well, can we start again here?

nov·el | \ ˈnä-vəl \
Essential Meaning of _novel_
*: *new and different from what has been known beforea _novel_ ideaShe has suggested a _novel_ approach to the problem.Handheld computers are _novel_ devices.
Full Definition of _novel_​ (Entry 1 of 2)
1a*: *new and not resembling something formerly known or usedNew technologies are posing novel problems.
b*: *not previously identifiedtransmission of a novel coronavirusa novel genetic mutationnovel bacterial strains
2*: *original or striking especially in conception or stylea novel scheme to collect moneynovel solutions

novel
noun
Definition of _novel_ (Entry 2 of 2)
1*: *an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events
2*: *the literary genre consisting of novels

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> Acts 7:8 "And He gave him the covenant of circumcision"


Interesting. I forgot about that. Thanks. Isn't this just another way to refer to the Abrahamic Covenant, though? Or do you think it is something different?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

Yes, I believe it is novel in my estimation. Feel free to disagree.

My reasoning: Snips of older reformed men have been taken out of fuller works and patched together to make a new (novel) quilt (if you will), using the thread (stitching) of today’s modern label 1689 Federalism. So in that sense 1689 Federalism, as it is branded today, seems to be novel and still changing from time to time.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## brandonadams

Grant, you have claimed multiple times now that we have incorrectly referenced various theologians in support of specific aspects of 1689 Federalism (side note: 169 pages doesn't qualify as a "snip"). However, you have not offered anything to substantiate that claim, thus it is not possible for anyone to evaluate your claim.

To clarify:

What specifically is novel about 1689 Federalism?
What specifically is incorrect in our references to various theologians?
Make sure to specifically note why a theologian is referenced and then demonstrate why that reference is wrong.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Grant, you have claimed multiple times now that we have incorrectly referenced various theologians in support of specific aspects of 1689 Federalism (side note: 169 pages doesn't qualify as a "snip"). However, you have not offered anything to substantiate that claim, thus it is not possible for anyone to evaluate your claim.
> 
> To clarify:
> 
> What specifically is novel about 1689 Federalism?
> What specifically is incorrect in our references to various theologians?
> Make sure to specifically note why a theologian is referenced and then demonstrate why that reference is wrong.


Not true Brandon. I have linked 2 references (Post #65 and Post #89) to material on PB cited for Gill and Owen. I know you differ on from me on Owen and Gill. From what else I have read on PB, others feel Owen is overly isolated by 1689ers. Of course, you will feel differently and that’s fine by me, considering our presuppositions.


----------



## Smeagol

I think R. Scott Clark provides good info in summary of some of the in-house (Baptist) stances on Covenant Theology:



> In light of the manifest discontinuities between each of these three Baptist approaches and Reformed theology since the 1520s, we must reject Michael Haykin’s assertion that the republication of Coxe’s work, “clearly demonstrates that 17th century (sic) Calvinistic Baptists like Coxe—and his modern descendants in this century—are fully a part of that stream of Reformed theology that has come down from the Reformation work of men like Huldreich Zwingli, John Calvin, Heinrich Bulliner, and Théodore de Bèze.” This remarkable assertion is, at best, only partly true.











Engaging With 1689


Recently I had opportunity to engage in a friendly dialogue with some Baptist academics over the merits of the project proposed in Recovering the Reformed Confession. That project is, as they say, …




heidelblog.net

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Grant, I apologize I overlooked those posts. Thanks for referencing them again.

Regarding Gill, can you please clarify how dispute over the position of an 18th century theologian has bearing on a the novelty of a 17th century theology?



Smeagol said:


> I already posted a link to Owen’s words outside of his hebrews commentary. Below was another old PB snippet from Gill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gill on the Covenant
> 
> 
> Do you agree with Dr. John Gill on the covenant? I have considered the covenant of grace in a former part of this work, as it was a compact in eternity, between the three divine persons, Father, Son, and Spirit; in which each person agreed to take his part in the economy of man’s salvation...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.puritanboard.com



Notice that in order to demonstrate that 1689 Federalism has abused Gill by "snipping" quotes from numerous different sources (BDD, book, commentary, etc), you have provided exactly 1 "snip." I don't think that you are judging yourself by the same standard you are judging us. I address this 1 "snip" that you have referenced in my post on Gill, yet you have not provided any comment on the other quotes from Gill explaining why I am wrong to reference them.


Smeagol said:


> From what I have read of Owen, beyond just focusing on snippets from his Hebrews Commentary, he affirmed the Abrahamic Covenant as being a part of the CoG. Same can be said for Gill.


Here is Gill:


> The next covenant is that made with Abraham and his seed, on which great stress is laid (Gen. 17:10-14)… Now that this covenant was not the pure covenant of grace, in distinction from the covenant of works, but rather a covenant of works, will soon be proved… that it is not the covenant of grace is clear http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gill/practical.iv.i.html


and


> The covenant of circumcision, or the covenant which gave Abraham’s infant children a right to circumcision, is not the covenant of grace; for the covenant of circumcision must be more certainly, in the nature of it, a covenant of works, and not of grace. Some Strictures on Mr. Bostwick’s Fair and Rational Vindication… (30-31)


Note that you linked to R. Scott Clark's "Engaging With 1689." He has an entire section in that post arguing against Gill on this matter. See the heading "Was John Gill Right? Was the Abrahamic Covenant A Covenant of Works?"




Smeagol said:


> From what I have read, it would seem that Owen’s view of the Abrahamic Covenant would have been acceptable to Westminster.
> 
> @PuritanCovenanter has an entry here highlighting 2 excellent PB posts that help better understand how Owen viewed the Abrahamic Covenant:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Owen, the Old Testament and the Covenant of Grace
> 
> 
> We have been discussing the Particular Baptist theological views on the Puritanboard and it is very apparent that the 1689 London Baptist Confession of faith is very different than the views…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com


First of all, Coxe pointed his readers to Owen's treatment of the Old and the New Covenants, not Owen's treatment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Coxe wrote his own lengthy treatment on the Abrahamic Covenant. Owen also makes statements about the New Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant in his commentary that are in conflict with statements that he makes elsewhere on the Abrahamic Covenant. I have notated and briefly commented upon these ocurrences in this post if anyone is interested A Summary of Why Baptists Appeal to Owen. Sam Renihan elaborates upon this in his dissertation From Shadow to Substance (pages 213-223 "Tensions in John Owen's Covenant Theology"). Importantly, Owen also makes modifications to the Abrahamic Covenant, acknowledging a twofold seed of Abraham to whom _distinct promises were made_. The baptist build upon this acknowledgment as well.

Martin's post consists of references to other PB threads. The first from Paul Korte. Paul argues, in part, that Owen has been misread because he is being read through modern lenses. Samuel Renihan's dissertation on the subject demonstrates that is not true in the case of 1689 Federalism. In fact, he demonstrates that those who try to make Owen's view compatible with the WCF have failed to sufficiently understand the historical context of Owen's writing, namely its place in the Cameronian tradition as it was being debated in 17th century England (see also D. Patrick Ramsey's "In Defense of Moses" on Owen). Renihan's dissertation is essential reading for anyone who wants to seriously wrestle with questions of historical theology and 1689 Federalism. Any argument that 1689 Federalism is novel has to address the material he has put forward.

Second in Martin's post is a statement from Rich L. who quotes "A Puritan Theology's" treatment of the matter. For a response to that see Renihan's "Dolphins in the Woods" in JIRBS, as well as his dissertation. Keep in mind that Owen very clearly told everyone in his commentary that he disagreed with Calvin and agreed with the Lutherans on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.

Third is McMahon's response to me in response to him. I'll let readers read for themselves and decide. See also A Summary of Why Baptists Appeal to Owen


As for R. Scott Clark's "Engaging With 1689," I cannot commend it as an accurate understanding of our position. Since he initially wrote that post and was corrected by Barcellos and Renihan, he has greatly expanded it in length. I have much to say on it, but will not do so here. In short, Clark conflates numerous distinct issues. I think he is scratching at a legitimate difference (typology), but he is not accurately conveying the difference.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Regarding Gill, can you please clarify how dispute over the position of an 18th century theologian has bearing on a the novelty of a 17th century theology?


Yes. Both the 17th and 18th centuries occurred before the 20th & 21st century, which is when I believe the “1689 Federalist” discovery/label use occurred.

Thanks for providing the additional links.


----------



## brandonadams

Smeagol said:


> Yes. Both the 17th and 18th centuries occurred before the 20th & 21st century, which is when I believe the “1689 Federalist” discovery/label use occurred.
> 
> Thanks for providing the additional links.


I'm having a hard time making sense of your statement. Just to clarify, are you claiming that 21st century baptists have completely misread all of the sources, including all of the 17th century particular baptists, such that no one held to "1689 Federalism" until the 21st century?

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> I'm having a hard time making sense of your statement. Just to clarify, are you claiming that 21st century baptists have completely misread all of the sources, including all of the 17th century particular baptists, such that no one held to "1689 Federalism" until the 21st century?


I am stating that I think the 1689 Federalist label is espousing a newly cleaned up version of Baptist CT that is certainly not out of bounds with the 1689 confession. Yes, it seems it has some historic roots as you have helpfully shown. It also seems that there have been small adjustments and subtle changes within your camp (I think even you have admitted this regarding views on the mosaic and republication of CoW), and for me that still makes it seem novel. The “discovery” as you call it and the label “1689 Federalist” would still be novel, in my opinion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

@brandonadams 

Help me out on your words below (https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/some-comments-on-john-gills-covenant-theology/):


> No one has ever said or suggested that “everyone else since Coxe and Keach lost the confession on CT.” Whipps’ working thesis appears to be that 1689 Federalism was never lost, it was merely rejected nearly as soon as it was put foward. John Gill, the giant of baptist thought, rejected 1689 Federalism in the mid 18th century and it was never heard from again. That is why men in the 20th century held to a similar covenant theology. If Whipps would like to present an argument that the confessional baptist resurgence and their subsequent development of covenant theology was influenced by Gill, I’m all ears. But from my readings, those men were not very big fans of Gill on the whole. Perhaps others like James White or Whipps himself were more influenced by Gill. Regardless of whether modern baptists were influenced by Gill in the development of their covenant theology, they still weren’t exposed to 1689 Federalism because it was lost with the loss of confessionalism and historic baptist texts. And men like James White who saw the value in Owen’s Hebrews commentary didn’t fully grasp all that Owen was arguing as it related to 1689 Federalism.



1. Are you saying John Gill was NOT a 1689 Federalist?

2. Are you staying that James White does not fully grasp Owen’s Hebrews commentary and you do?

I just want to make sure I am reading correctly because I could not be reading you right.


----------



## brandonadams

Thank you for the questions.



Smeagol said:


> 1. Are you saying John Gill was NOT a 1689 Federalist?


The point of the post is to show the substantial agreement between Gill and 1689 Federalism, so no that is not what I intended to convey. The one sentence "Regardless of whether modern baptists were influenced by Gill in the development of their covenant theology, they still weren’t exposed to 1689 Federalism because it was lost with the loss of confessionalism and historic baptist texts." is poorly expressed. It should have said something like "Regardless of whether modern baptists were influenced by Gill in the development of their covenant theology, they still weren’t exposed to *17th century particular baptist writings on covenant theology* because it was lost with the loss of confessionalism and historic baptist texts."



Smeagol said:


> 2. Are you staying that James White does not fully grasp Owen’s Hebrews commentary and you do?


Yes, on Hebrews 8 I am saying that scholars like James Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos have explained that James White missed some important aspects of Owen's commentary (note that S. Renihan and Barcellos both did their dissertations on Owen). White has chosen not to read their work on the matter and has offered no comment upon it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Smeagol said:


> I am stating that I think the 1689 Federalist label is espousing a newly cleaned up version of Baptist CT that is certainly not out of bounds with the 1689 confession. Yes, it seems it has some historic roots as you have helpfully shown. It also seems that there have been small adjustments and subtle changes within your camp (I think even you have admitted this regarding views on the mosaic and republication of CoW), and for me that still makes it seem novel. The “discovery” as you call it and the label “1689 Federalist” would still be novel, in my opinion.


I'm still unclear what you're saying. Does it have historic roots, or is it novel?


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> I'm still unclear what you're saying. Does it have historic roots, or is it novel?


By my estimation it does seem novel. See post #130. If it is still unclear I apologize.


----------



## brandonadams

Smeagol said:


> By my estimation it does seem novel. See post #130. If it is still unclear I apologize.


Can you please specifically state what is novel about 1689 Federalism?


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Can you please specifically state what is novel about 1689 Federalism?


Brandon I feel I did so as concisely as I could in post # 130, I realize you don’t think that passes your test, but I don’t expect you to agree. I am not the only one who has concerns with how Owen and Gill are used by 7 Covenant Baptist. I have read your Gill exerts that say one thing and I have also read Gill to use 1 covenant under various administration language. So which Gill is right? So feel free to lump me in the camp of “read more, read again” group if that helps. I DO plan to keep reading on the newly discovered historical federalist position, but I have stated where I am as of today. I can’t read all of your links in 1 day as they are longer blogs/articles.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Smeagol said:


> Brandon I feel I did so as concisely as I could in post # 130, I realize you don’t think that passes your test, but I don’t expect you to agree. I went back and counted and you have asked me to clarify at least 5 times. I am not the only one who has concerns with how Owen and Gill are used by 7 Covenant Baptist. I have read your Gill exerts that say one thing and I have also read Gill to use 1 covenant under various administration language. So which Gill is right? So feel free to lump me in the camp of “read more, read again” group if that helps. I DO plan to keep reading on the newly discovered historical federalist position, but I have stated where I am as of today. I can’t read all of your links in 1 day as they are longer blogs/articles.


Grant, it's not about passing or not passing my test. At this point I simply don't know what you're trying to say. You have said that 1689 Federalism has historic roots, but that it is novel. Those are mutually exclusive. Are you saying some aspects of it are historic and some aspects are novel? If so, which? I asked you to clarify multiple times because you are not being clear. I have asked you a couple of times to state specifically _what doctrinal point(s) _of 1689 Federalism is novel (the point of the original post), and you have not done so. Can you please do so?


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Grant, it's not about passing or not passing my test. At this point I simply don't know what you're trying to say. You have said that 1689 Federalism has historic roots, but that it is novel. Those are mutually exclusive. Are you saying some aspects of it are historic and some aspects are novel? If so, which? I asked you to clarify multiple times because you are not being clear. I have asked you a couple of times to state specifically _what doctrinal point(s) _of 1689 Federalism is novel (the point of the original post), and you have not done so. Can you please do so?


For me the Novelty:
- The label “1689 Federalist” and the detailed polishing of Chapter 7 of 2LBC to sine a newly discovered light on viewing 7 distinct covenants in scripture as being confessional. The first time I had heard this being taught within confessional circles was when the “1689 Federalist” label was coined. I think even a query on PB threads will show the topic is relatively novel in reformed circles. Growing up a Baptist it was only the dispensational that I had heard of so dividing up and isolating the OT covenants.

- Relatively New Books drawing on Owen and Gill in confirmation of the distinct views on Abraham and Moses as being 1689 Federaist-like in approach. Seems it just depends which Owen & Gill quotes one uses. I don’t deny Owen was different from say, Brakel, but I also think the 1689ers come across as knowing Owen better than Owen

- The label itself has seemed to create 2 new camps within confessional Baptist covenant theology, as should be clear from all the new articles that detail out everyone else’s apparent misunderstandings.

- Have not the 1689 Federalist changed their “official” views on the Mosaic and republication of CoW relatively recently?

- Previously thought of Confessional Baptist are jumping between camps (as evidenced by the OP) as newer explanations come to light.

So there is an undeniable novelty to this in my estimation.

Brandon, for me the above are what stick out the most. You have already given links to material you have written to help explain, which I am thankful for. I stated that I need more time to read your blog entries as they are longer.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Thanks for clarifying. The number of covenants isn't really something that we focus on, but I understand what you're saying. I encourage you to perhaps reframe your investigation a bit, if this is something you're interested in pursuing. Searching for theologians who delineate 7 different covenants may or may not yield anything fruitful. Rather, something more along the following lines might be more fruitful:

Cameronian Subservient Covenant Tradition: The majority reformed view, epitomized by John Calvin and summarized in the WCF is that all post-fall covenants are the Covenant of Grace (in substance), the only other covenant being the Adamic Covenant of Works. A minority view, first articulated in the reformed world by John Cameron, argued that the Mosaic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace (in substance), but neither was it the Adamic Covenant of Works. Rather it was a third, distinct covenant. This view was carried on by the English Congregationalists. It is this view that Owen sides with, over against Calvin and the WCF (see his comments on the "majority" view). Focus your study here and see if 1689 Federalism's view of the Mosaic Covenant is in line with the subservient covenant tradition or not (study the OPC Report on Republication if you're leery of any baptist resource). If it is, then it will make sense why 17th century baptists would appeal to Owen on this point.

Noahic Covenant: This should not be a controversial point, as many (maybe even most) reformed today, following Kuyper, believe the Noahic Covenant is distinct from and subservient to the Covenant of Grace. The 17th century baptists also believed that. I haven't studied the history of this particular point in detail.

Abrahamic Covenant: Are the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant made to the same group of people, or are there distinct promises made to (or concerning) distinct people? Is there a covenantal distinction between Abraham's carnal and spiritual offspring such that some promises are made to (or concerning) the carnal offspring but not the spiritual and some promises are made to (or concerning) the spiritual offspring but not the carnal? Owen argued that this was the case (see Exercitation 6) and the 17th century baptists also appealed to him on this point, drawing conclusions from it that Owen himself did not. Going back centuries earlier, Augustine also distinguished the different promises to the different seed. How then the Abrahamic Covenant relates to the Covenant of Grace can be a very nuanced discussion, but this is a starting point.

Focusing your investigation in this manner may help you better ascertain what is and is not being argued and why certain people are appealed to in the process.



Smeagol said:


> Relatively New Books drawing on Owen and Gill


The appeal to Owen was made explicitly in the 17th century by Nehemiah Coxe in his book on the covenants, so it's not something new.

What book drawing on Gill are you referring to? I'm not aware of any.



Smeagol said:


> I don’t deny Owen was different from say, Brakel


In what way? In the way described above regarding the subservient covenant? Take baby steps and understand specifically why particular theologians are referenced. Perhaps it is specifically because of the difference between Owen and someone like Brakel.



Smeagol said:


> The label itself has seemed to create 2 new camps within confessional Baptist covenant theology, as should be clear from all the new articles that detail out everyone else’s apparent misunderstandings.


That's a matter of perspective. Another way to look at it would be that the confessional men who followed Murray rather than the 17th century particular baptists created a "new camp." The purpose of the label was then to make note of that difference. It doesn't really matter either way, as the confession is written broadly enough to embrace both.



Smeagol said:


> Have not the 1689 Federalist changed their “official” views on the Mosaic and republication of CoW relatively recently?


No.



Smeagol said:


> Previously thought of Confessional Baptist are jumping between camps (as evidenced by the OP) as newer explanations come to light.


I don't see how this entails novelty. If there is an older view that people are embracing when they start reading it, that doesn't mean that view is novel. If someone was an Arminian and then someone handed them Calvin's Institutes and they became a Calvinist, that doesn't mean Calvinism is a novelty.



Smeagol said:


> I stated that I need more time to read your blog entries as they are longer.


Please take all the time you need. I appreciate you reading them. However, at this point I would strongly encourage you to read at least 1 book from this list (preference for #3, 6, 7, or 9) http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> What book drawing on Gill are you referring to? I'm not aware of any.


Simply referring to Gill also being someone that multiple “camps” claim. Gill does seem to have some conflicting quotes.

Brandon, thanks for providing the rest of the information and explanations. They were helpful. My current opinion remains the same. I can’t make any promises right now on additional books, but I have your recommended list noted for when my own list (relatively short) hits 0. I just finished Brakel’s 4 volumes. Currently reading Durham on Job, then I am hitting the institutes. Afterwards I may dabble in one of the Renihan books.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Ethan said:


> I'm not a 1689 federalist any longer but I was a few years ago and I would've said no. Galatians 3 was what convinced me otherwise.


Is this the passage you are referring to or am I missing the mark? 

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Galatians 3:7‭-‬9 

(I've been having a blast reading this thread so I thought I'd participate with something. Blessings from Missouri [emoji106])

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ethan

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Is this the passage you are referring to or am I missing the mark?


That's certainly a portion of it. What I find particularly striking is the final verse (29). Paul easily could've ended with v. 28 and the passage still would've sounded complete, but that wouldn't have completed his thought. What's he getting at? We, through our Spirit wrought union with Christ by faith, are in the covenant that was *ratified* with Abraham. The New Covenant was not ratified with Abraham. My conclusion: One substance, multiple administrations.

Reactions: Like 4 | Love 3 | Amen 1


----------



## brandonadams

Ethan said:


> That's certainly a portion of it. What I find particularly striking is the final verse (29). Paul easily could've ended with v. 28 and the passage still would've sounded complete, but that wouldn't have completed his thought. What's he getting at? We, through our Spirit wrought union with Christ by faith, are in the covenant that was *ratified* with Abraham. The New Covenant was not ratified with Abraham. My conclusion: One substance, multiple administrations.


Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ethan. Note an important point that you just made: The Abrahamic and New Covenants are not the same covenants. The ratification/establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant was not the ratification/establishment of the New Covenant. Importantly, the ratification/establishment of the New Covenant meant the end of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, while the ratification/establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision did not. The author of Hebrews says this is because the New Covenant was established on better promises than the Old (regeneration and justification). The author of Hebrews also says that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant specifically because His priesthood is not derived from Abraham (7:1-21). Abraham ("him who had the promises") was inferior to Melchizedek. The New Covenant is "better" because Jesus' priesthood is superior to Abraham (7:6-7). Jesus is not the guarantor of the Covenant of Circumcision, but of the New "better" Covenant.

Concerning Galatians (and I would say the same applies to Hebrews), T. David Gordon argues 



> Some may wonder why I do not describe Paul’s reasoning in the Galatian letter as covenant-theological. I could do so, and if one did so, the explanation could work reasonably well. But “covenant-historical” is better suited to Galatians, because so many of Paul’s statements are of a temporal nature (which I will discuss later), where he reminds them that the Abrahamic covenant antedated the Sinai covenant by 430 years and thus temporalized/relativized the Sinai administration (Gal. 3:17). In this letter, Paul conceived the Sinai covenant as a temporary, provisional covenant-administration that governed between the other two covenants; it governed after the Abrahamic covenant and before the new covenant. The temporal analogies Paul employed to describe the tutelage of the Sinai covenant (“guardians,” “managers,” “trustees”) all point to this temporary/provisional nature of the Sinai covenant; and to understand Paul, we must adjust our thinking to his thoroughly historical reasoning...
> 
> Paul’s thinking in Galatians is also deeply _historia salutis_, as well as pervasively eschatological.[20] The reader will quickly discover my dependence upon those twentieth-century interpretations of Paul that have (rightly) disclosed the pervasively eschatological nature of his theological conceptions (including, but not limited to, his eschatological understanding of the Spirit, his eschatological conception of justification, and his eschatological understanding of Abraham’s promised blessings to the nations).[21] Thus, in introducing somewhat more overtly the category of _historia testamentorum_, it is not in any way my intention to diminish the importance of _historia salutis_ categories in the deeper substructure of Paul’s thought. Rather, it is designed to facilitate understanding how it is that Paul reasons about the new covenant realities in light of two previous covenants: the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants.
> 
> In a variety of ways, the new covenant is profoundly and pervasively eschatological, and it would require an additional monograph to demonstrate how eschatological the “new covenant” was conceived by Jeremiah even before Paul...
> 
> If we permit Paul to reason covenant-historically, and if we permit ourselves to reason with Paul, using the categories of _historia testamentorum_, we will find his argumentation in Galatians to be more accessible than if we approach Galatians by other categories...
> 
> For Paul, faith, as an existential human capacity, even faith as the instrument of justification, had been here since Abraham. Therefore, when Paul in the same chapter says that “before faith came, we were . . . under the law,” he must be using “faith” as a reference to the new covenant, so that “before faith came” and “before Christ came” have virtually the same meaning. Indeed, many commentators have routinely recognized that “before faith came” in this passage refers to the new covenant realities, and that “faith” here is a synecdoche for the new covenant or realities associated with it.[26] What they less frequently recognize, at least explicitly, is that ὁ νόμος here is a synecdochal reference to the Sinai covenant-administration, a point I will attempt to argue throughout.
> 
> Static systematic-theological categories are incapable of processing the deeply historical/temporal (and covenantal) reasoning in Galatians. Paul understands God to have unfolded his redemptive purposes in a series of covenants over time, and Paul’s reasoning is therefore profoundly temporal...
> 
> Until and unless we think covenant-historically, we cannot think Paul’s thoughts after him . . . His ‘whens’ (4:3, 3, 8), ‘befores’ (3:23), ‘afters/nows’ (3:17, 25; 4:9), and ‘untils’ (3:19) must become ours”
> 
> - Promise, Law, Faith: Covenant-Historical Reasoning in Galatians (7-13, 212)



I believe Paul's argument in Galatians is much more nuanced than saying Christians are part of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision. Rather, I believe Paul is making an intra-Abrahamic argument, distinguishing between the different promises to the different seed (Gal 3:16), demonstrating that the promise to bless all nations in Abraham refers to Christ, not to his numerous offspring (Jews). Receiving the blessing of the nations comes through Christ, not by being a circumcised offspring of Abraham (as the land promise required).

The Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision and the New Covenant relate, not as two phases of the same covenant, but as _historia salutis_ and _ordo salutis_. The Covenant of Circumcision promised that the Christ would come from Abraham (and the Davidic narrowed that down, promising that the Christ would be a Jew from the line of David) and that he would bless the nations. However, the actual blessing (_ordo salutis_) comes through union with Christ (the New Covenant). The Judaizers erred in believing that in order to receive the blessing of the nations one had to become a Jew by being circumcised like the physical offspring of Abraham because 430 years prior to the law (which circumcision obligates one to obey and which conditioned reception of the Abrahamic land promise) God promised that salvation would come through the New Covenant.

The Abrahamic inheritance of the land of Canaan by his physical offspring (what the Covenant of Circumcision promised, in part) was typological of the eschatological inheritance through Christ. Thus Paul argues with the heirs of the sub-eschatological promise to Abraham that the heirs of the eschatological promise are those who are in Christ.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## De Jager

brandonadams said:


> Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ethan. Note an important point that you just made: The Abrahamic and New Covenants are not the same covenants. The ratification/establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant was not the ratification/establishment of the New Covenant. Importantly, the ratification/establishment of the New Covenant meant the end of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, while the ratification/establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision did not. The author of Hebrews says this is because the New Covenant was established on better promises than the Old (regeneration and justification). *The author of Hebrews also says that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant specifically because His priesthood is not derived from Abraham (7:1-21). Abraham ("him who had the promises") was inferior to Melchizedek. The New Covenant is "better" because Jesus' priesthood is superior to Abraham (7:6-7). Jesus is not the guarantor of the Covenant of Circumcision, but of the New "better" Covenant.*
> 
> Concerning Galatians (and I would say the same applies to Hebrews), T. David Gordon argues
> 
> 
> 
> I believe Paul's argument in Galatians is much more nuanced than saying Christians are part of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision. Rather, I believe Paul is making an intra-Abrahamic argument, distinguishing between the different promises to the different seed (Gal 3:16), demonstrating that the promise to bless all nations in Abraham refers to Christ, not to his numerous offspring (Jews). Receiving the blessing of the nations comes through Christ, not by being a circumcised offspring of Abraham (as the land promise required).
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision and the New Covenant relate, not as two phases of the same covenant, but as _historia salutis_ and _ordo salutis_. The Covenant of Circumcision promised that the Christ would come from Abraham (and the Davidic narrowed that down, promising that the Christ would be a Jew from the line of David) and that he would bless the nations. However, the actual blessing (_ordo salutis_) comes through union with Christ (the New Covenant). The Judaizers erred in believing that in order to receive the blessing of the nations one had to become a Jew by being circumcised like the physical offspring of Abraham because 430 years prior to the law (which circumcision obligates one to obey and which conditioned reception of the Abrahamic land promise) God promised that salvation would come through the New Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic inheritance of the land of Canaan by his physical offspring (what the Covenant of Circumcision promised, in part) was typological of the eschatological inheritance through Christ. Thus Paul argues with the heirs of the sub-eschatological promise to Abraham that the heirs of the eschatological promise are those who are in Christ.


The thrust of this passage is that the priesthood of Christ is better than the Levitical priesthood. Yes, the author proves this by showing that Abraham (the father of Levi) was blessed by Melchizedek. However, the comparison is clearly between the New Covenant and that of Sinai. In no way is the author using this reasoning to disparage the covenant of circumcision.

Furthermore, the Covenant of Circumcision promised a lot more than just the fact that the Christ would physically come from Abraham's loins. Again, the very fact that circumcision is called a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith by Paul in Romans 4 emphasizes this. Moreover, the Jews are admonished to "circumcise their hearts" by Moses, which is clearly picked up on by Paul in Romans 2:29 - "a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.". Therefore, the sign of circumcision pointed also to regeneration and justification - which means that the covenant of circumcision also promised these things, for the sign always points to spiritual realities beyond itself. I believe that you are espousing a very reductionistic view to the covenant of circumcision which is not warranted by the biblical data.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Romans678

Gentlemen, this is is an amazing thread. In light of everything I'm learning about 1689 Federalism, does it provide a theology for children? What I mean is this: how does the children of believers fit in the the 1689 Federalism framework? What do I do with my kids? Blessings from Missouri!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> What do I do with my kids?


Join a Presbyterian church and baptize them

Reactions: Like 4 | Amen 2


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> What do I do with my kids?



Take them to church. Catechize them. Teach them that Christ stands ready to forgive their sins if they will believe in Him.

*Ephesians 6:4*
_And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but *bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord*._

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Take them to church. Catechize them. Teach them that Christ stands ready to forgive their sins if they will believe in Him.


BTW, Presbyterians do all these things, especially the last one. And if they don’t, they are wrong _precisely because_ their children are in the covenant.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Gentlemen, this is is an amazing thread. In light of everything I'm learning about 1689 Federalism, does it provide a theology for children? What I mean is this: how does the children of believers fit in the the 1689 Federalism framework? What do I do with my kids? Blessings from Missouri!
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Curious about this as well. I know some RBs who are very strict against baptizing non-adults. Like, 18 is the minimum. And even that's not advised, if they're living under their parents' roof. 

Have 1689ers worked this out yet, or do they allow leeway?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Gentlemen, this is is an amazing thread. In light of everything I'm learning about 1689 Federalism, does it provide a theology for children? What I mean is this: how does the children of believers fit in the the 1689 Federalism framework? What do I do with my kids? Blessings from Missouri!
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


I can't see how Federalism or Vanilla makes any difference to the doctrine of baptism. We are called baptists because we are credobaptists: we baptize believers who have made a credible profession of faith. How that plays out, age-wise and otherwise in Baptist churches is a matter of local administration, but the underlying understanding of WHY we only baptize believers is still the same. Baptists believe that only those who are regenerate are currently in covenant with God, therefore only they receive the sign.
I beg my presbyterian brethren not to derail the thread debating this: it is standard baptist boilerplate and this thread is not about credo- vs-paedo baptism.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Andrew35

Ben Zartman said:


> I can't see how Federalism or Vanilla makes any difference to the doctrine of baptism. We are called baptists because we are credobaptists: we baptize believers who have made a credible profession of faith. How that plays out, age-wise and otherwise in Baptist churches is a matter of local administration, but the underlying understanding of WHY we only baptize believers is still the same. Baptists believe that only those who are regenerate are currently in covenant with God, therefore only they receive the sign.
> I beg my presbyterian brethren not to derail the thread debating this: it is standard baptist boilerplate and this thread is not about credo- vs-paedo baptism.


I think you underestimate the importance of this. And for my part, it's not a debate. I've met RBs that refuse to recognize the baptism of children baptized in other Baptist churches -- or only accept it with great reluctance -- profession or no.

Perhaps Federalism makes no difference, but given as you don't seem to know a great deal about it, I would like to hear it from them. Just a quick answer to satisfy my curiosity. No debate.

I don't see how this derails the thread.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> I can't see how Federalism or Vanilla makes any difference to the doctrine of baptism. We are called baptists because we are credobaptists: we baptize believers who have made a credible profession of faith. How that plays out, age-wise and otherwise in Baptist churches is a matter of local administration, but the underlying understanding of WHY we only baptize believers is still the same. Baptists believe that only those who are regenerate are currently in covenant with God, therefore only they receive the sign.
> I beg my presbyterian brethren not to derail the thread debating this: it is standard baptist boilerplate and this thread is not about credo- vs-paedo baptism.


Thanks for the response brother. What makes a confession "credible"? What exactly does that mean? I'm more convinced that the credibility of a believer based on an outward confession is less credible than God's confession in His Word by comparison. Why put emphasis on the confession of a creature, when we can have a more credible confession through the promises of God? 

And another thing I've been thinking about in relation to this subject. God made promises to you and your children, didn't he? Why fight tooth and nail to make distinctions between parent and child? I just can't wrap my head around that.

In summary, over the past few years I have wondered why we do the things we do. Not in a negative light, but in a spirit of inquiry. God bless!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> What makes a confession "credible"? What exactly does that mean?



If someone says, "I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and I rest in His works, not my own", and you believe it, then it's credible. If you have reason not to believe it, then it's not credible. It's not a complicated issue.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> If someone says, "I believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and I rest in His works, not my own", and you believe it, then it's credible. If you have reason not to believe it, then it's not credible. It's not a complicated issue.


Right. I get that. But credible to whom?

Credibility needs some form of objective standard to weigh it by, right? How do we determine what is or isn't credible? 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Right. I get that. But credible to whom?
> 
> Credibility needs some form of objective standard to weigh it by, right? How do we determine what is or isn't credible?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk



The profession needs to be credible to the Christian elders that are going to consider the candidate for baptism and membership in the local church. They are the ones that have the duty to such things.



> Credibility needs some form of objective standard to weigh it by, right?



I do not necessarily accept that this is so, but I would be willing to hear arguments that make that case.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The profession needs to be credible to the Christian elders that are going to consider the candidate for baptism and membership in the local church. They are the ones that have the duty to such things.
> 
> 
> 
> I do not necessarily accept that this is so, but I would be willing to hear arguments that make that case.


Thank you for the explanation, brother. This is a fascinating subject for me, so forgive me for all of my questions. What are some things elders look for to consider someone for baptism? 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## brandonadams

Anthony, I find your questions really odd to be honest. To the best of my knowledge, our position on this matter is really no different from how Presbyterians deal with adults who confess and want to be baptized. Take a look at the various Presbyterian BCOs quoted here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/do-presbyterians-have-regeneration-goggles/

See also A.A. Hodge 


> 1st. In the case of adults, or persons arrived at the condition of independent responsible agency, the presumptive ground of fitness for admission to the sealing ordinances of the Church is a competent knowledge of the plan of salvation, a credible profession of personal faith, and a walk and conversation consistent therewith. The amount of knowledge requisite must vary with the general intelligence of the subject. But it is evident that no person can be a Christian by profession who is absolutely ignorant of his own guilt and pollution and of Christ’s meritorious work in our behalf. And, on the other hand, it is no less evident that multitudes of Christ’s children are saved who have attained only to the vaguest and most elementary knowledge of the essentials of the gospel. A “credible profession” does not mean a profession of faith which compels credence, or which convinces the observer that it is genuine; but it is simply the opposite of the incredible—it is a confession that can be believed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Sacraments - Baptism by A. A. Hodge
> 
> 
> The nature of the sacrament of baptism in the Christian church.
> 
> 
> 
> www.the-highway.com





Anthony W. Brown II said:


> God made promises to you and your children, didn't he?





Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Why put emphasis on the confession of a creature, when we can have a more credible confession through the promises of God?


Brother, the whole point of this overall discussion is that we do not agree with you on this point. We do not believe God has made any promise concerning the salvation of our children.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

brandonadams said:


> Anthony, I find your questions really odd to be honest. To the best of my knowledge, our position on this matter is really no different from how Presbyterians deal with adults who confess and want to be baptized. Take a look at the various Presbyterian BCOs quoted here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/do-presbyterians-have-regeneration-goggles/
> 
> See also A.A. Hodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, the whole point of this overall discussion is that we do not agree with you on this point. We do not believe God has made any promise concerning the salvation of our children.



According to Anthony's signature line, He's a Reformed Baptist!

Anthony, are you still a Reformed Baptist or have you changed your views?


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> Anthony, I find your questions really odd to be honest. To the best of my knowledge, our position on this matter is really no different from how Presbyterians deal with adults who confess and want to be baptized. Take a look at the various Presbyterian BCOs quoted here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/04/11/do-presbyterians-have-regeneration-goggles/
> 
> See also A.A. Hodge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brother, the whole point of this overall discussion is that we do not agree with you on this point. We do not believe God has made any promise concerning the salvation of our children.


Even as a baptist I believe that God has made general promises to the children of believers. 

I would think that many baptists also believe this without pushing to baptize those same children until their own profession of faith.

To say there are no general promises for a believing household is ludicrous.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Ben Zartman

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Thanks for the response brother. What makes a confession "credible"? What exactly does that mean? I'm more convinced that the credibility of a believer based on an outward confession is less credible than God's confession in His Word by comparison. Why put emphasis on the confession of a creature, when we can have a more credible confession through the promises of God?
> 
> And another thing I've been thinking about in relation to this subject. God made promises to you and your children, didn't he? Why fight tooth and nail to make distinctions between parent and child? I just can't wrap my head around that.
> 
> In summary, over the past few years I have wondered why we do the things we do. Not in a negative light, but in a spirit of inquiry. God bless!
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


God did not make promises to "me and my children" as though I could bring them along by virtue of my conversion. Rather, the promise of salvation in Christ is extended to me if I will believe; to my children if they will believe; to as many as are far off if they will believe. We cannot separate that phrase from its context.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> Even as a baptist I believe that God has made general promises to the children of believers.
> 
> I would think that many baptists also believe this without pushing to baptize those same children until their own profession of faith.
> 
> To say there are no general promises for a believing household is ludicrous.


Pergamum, if I have read Brandon's comments correctly, he was not denying the blessing of a general promise to a Christian family, he was talking about the specific promise of salvation. Just because a child grows up in a Christian family, does not mean they will be infallibly saved.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> Pergamum, if I have read Brandon's comments correctly, he was not denying the blessing of a general promise to a Christian family, he was talking about the specific promise of salvation. Just because a child grows up in a Christian family, does not mean they will be infallibly saved.


Oh ok, that is more sane. But what reformed person actually believes this?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> According to Anthony's signature line, He's a Reformed Baptist!
> 
> Anthony, are you still a Reformed Baptist or have you changed your views?


Well, let me put it this way: I'm learning and growing from conversations like this each day!

God's people have been given many good gifts from the Father. The Word, prayer, fellowship, etc. Most of us with children allow them to participate within the sphere of the visible church. They pray with us, they read with us, and they fellowship in the midst of His people.

I can't for the life of me understand why we would allow them to dwell in the sphere of God's people and benefit from the many gifts He provides, but withhold the primary identifier (baptism) from them. 

The one thing that marks them from the world is being withheld from them.

It appears as though we are making them feel as if they are "other" whilst simultaneously letting them participate in the general assembly (I hope I used that term right). They are our closest neighbors. Am I missing the mark here? Forgive me if I am. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## brandonadams

Anthony, feel free to start a new thread about baptism if you'd like. I feel your questions and comments are getting us off track.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans678

brandonadams said:


> Anthony, feel free to start a new thread about baptism if you'd like. I feel your questions and comments are getting us off track.


Sorry brother. I just wanted to send a reply to the comment above. I agree, I don't want to derail this thread. It's too good.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

De Jager said:


> The thrust of this passage is that the priesthood of Christ is better than the Levitical priesthood. Yes, the author proves this by showing that Abraham (the father of Levi) was blessed by Melchizedek. However, the comparison is clearly between the New Covenant and that of Sinai. In no way is the author using this reasoning to disparage the covenant of circumcision.
> 
> Furthermore, the Covenant of Circumcision promised a lot more than just the fact that the Christ would physically come from Abraham's loins. Again, the very fact that circumcision is called a sign and seal of the righteousness of faith by Paul in Romans 4 emphasizes this. Moreover, the Jews are admonished to "circumcise their hearts" by Moses, which is clearly picked up on by Paul in Romans 2:29 - "a Jew is one inwardly, and circumcision is a matter of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter. His praise is not from man but from God.". Therefore, the sign of circumcision pointed also to regeneration and justification - which means that the covenant of circumcision also promised these things, for the sign always points to spiritual realities beyond itself. I believe that you are espousing a very reductionistic view to the covenant of circumcision which is not warranted by the biblical data.


Izaak, from your perspective I am being reductionistic. From my perspective, you are being simplistic and missing the nuance of what Scripture says on these things.

Regarding Romans 4:11, there are some translation issues involved.



> The addition of circumcision subsequent to this statement of faith and justification was a confirmation to Abraham that what he believed would indeed take place (Romans 4:11a).* God promised Abraham that from his offspring would come one who will bless the nations. God added circumcision to confirm this promise outwardly.
> 
> *The designation of circumcision as a seal has often been misused to make a systematic point when Paul is making a historical one. In the Greek text of Romans 4:11a, the words "circumcision" and "seal" for a double accusative, which can be tralsted in an abstract or concrete way. It could be translated to say that circumcision is "the seal" (concrete) or "a seal" (abstract). Paul's concern is the meaning of the timing of God's dealings with Abraham. The timing of circumcision subsequent to the promise of the birth of the one who blesses and the declaration of Abraham's justification is what serves as a confirmation to Abraham. There are additional translation-related difficulties that need to be addressed. Paul says that circumcision is a seal “of the righteousness of faith which in uncircumcision” (τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ). Some translations fill in the blanks that are ambiguous by referring to “the righteousness of the faith which Abraham had while he was still uncircumcised.” Considering the context of Paul's argument with respect to chronological order, this can be translated another way, as awaiting “the righteousness of the faith which was to be in the uncircumcision [gentiles].” So, what Paul means is that God gave the circumcision to confirm to Abraham that he would indeed have a son who would bless the nations. This interpretation was presented by John Lightfoot and endorsed by the Particular Baptists in the appendix to their Confession of Faith.
> 
> -Sam Renihan, The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom, p. 185



Here is Lightfoot


> [Commenting on 1 Cor. 7:19] Circumcision is nothing, if we respect the time; for now it is vanished, the end of it, for which it had been instituted, being accomplished. That end the apostle shows in those words, Romans 4:11 σφραγῖδα τῆς δικαιοσύνης τῆς πίστεως τῆς ἐν τῇ ἀκροβυστίᾳ, a seal of the righteousness of the faith in uncircumcision. But I fear the words are not sufficiently fitted by most versions to the end of circumcision, and the scope of the apostle; while they insert something of their own. The French translation thus: "Sceau de la justice de foi, laquelle il avoit durant le prepuce:" A seal of righteousness of faith which he had during uncircumcision. The Italian thus; "Segno della giustitia della fede, laquale fu nella incirconcisione:" A seal of the righteousness of the faith which was without circumcision. The Syriac reads, And a seal of the righteousness of his faith. The Arabic, "Of the righteousness of faith, which was in uncircumcision.” Other versions are to the same sense; as though circumcision were given to Abraham for a sign of that righteousness which he had while as yet he was uncircumcised; which we deny not in some sense to be true; but we believe circumcision especially looks far another way.
> 
> Give me leave to render the words thus; "And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith which should hereafter be in uncircumcision:” I say, 'Which should be,' not 'which had been;' not which had been to Abraham as yet uncircumcised, but which should be to his seed uncircumcised, that is, to the Gentiles that should hereafter imitate the faith of Abraham.
> 
> For mark well upon what occasion circumcision was appointed to Abraham, laying before your eyes the history of it, Genesis xvii.
> 
> First, This promise was made to him, "Thou shalt be the father of many nations," [in what sense, the apostle explains, in that chapter;] and then a double seal is subjoined to establish the thing, viz. the changing of the name 'Abram' into 'Abraham ;' and the institution of circumcision, ver. 4, "Behold, my covenant is with thee, and thou shalt be a father of many nations." Why is his name called 'Abraham?' For the sealing of his promise, 'Thou shalt be a father of many nations.' And why was this circumcision appointed him? For sealing the same promise, 'Thou shalt be a father of many nations.' So that this may be the sense of the apostle, very agreeable to the institution of circumcision; "He received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, which hereafter the uncircumcision (or the Gentiles) was to have and obtain."
> 
> Abraham had a double seed; a natural seed, that of the Jews; and a faithful seed, that of the believing Gentiles. The natural seed is signed with the sign of circumcision, first indeed for the distinguishing itself from all other nations, while they were not as yet the seed of Abraham; but especially in memory of the justification of the Gentiles by faith, when at last they were his seed. Therefore upon good reason, circumcision was to cease when the Gentiles should be brought in to the faith, because then it had attained to its last and chief end; and from thenceforth ἡ περιτομὴ οὐδέν, circumcision is nothing.
> 
> -John Lightfoot, Hebrew and Talmudical Exercitations upon 1 Epistle Corinth., 1664 (quoting from 1859 translation) 214-15
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Horæ hebraicæ et talmudicæ; Hebrew and Talmudical exercitations upon the Gospels, the Acts, some chapters of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, and the First epistle to the Corinthians : Lightfoot, John, 1602-1675 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streamin
> 
> 
> Book digitized by Google from the library of University of Wisconsin - Madison and uploaded to the Internet Archive by user tpb.
> 
> 
> 
> archive.org



A. W. Pink:


> Thus as the rainbow was the confirmatory sign and seal of the covenant promises God had made to Noah, as circumcision was the sign and seal of the covenant promises God had made to Abraham, so the tree of life was the sign and seal of the covenant promises He had made to Adam. It was appointed by God as the pledge of His faithfulness...
> 
> As a seal from God, circumcision was a divine pledge or guaranty that from him should issue that seed which would bring blessing to all nations, and that, on the same terms as justifying righteousness had become his—by faith alone. It was not a seal of his faith, but of that righteousness which, in due time, was to be wrought out by the Messiah and Mediator. Circumcision was not a memorial of anything which had already been actualised, but an earnest of that which was yet future—namely, of that justifying righteousness which was to be brought in by Christ.
> 
> -The Divine Covenants



As for Deut 10:16, circumcision devoted an individual to the priestly service of God according to the terms of Mosaic law. John D. Meade notes that the practice of circumcision in Egypt during the time was an initiation rite for those who would serve in the court of Pharaoh as priests. Richard Pratt, Jr. explains that in circumcision “Abraham committed himself to loyal service.” Kline said


> The oath whose curse sanction circumcision symbolized was an oath of allegiance. It was an avowal of Yahweh as covenant Lord, a commitment in loyalty to him. As the symbolized curse which sealed this pledge of allegiance, circumcision partook of the import of the oath. It was, therefore, a sign of consecration. Hence Israel is commanded: “Circumcise yourselves to the Lord” (Jer. 4:4). (BOC 41)


In this way Israel was to be a kingdom of priests and a holy nation (Ex. 19:6). This was a glorious thing, but it also proved to be an unbearable yoke (Acts 15:10; Gal 5:1) because it devoted one to obedience to Mosaic law (Gal 5:3). It was profitable if one kept the law, but if one broke the law their circumcision made them liable to Mosaic curse (Rom 2:25). And there was no getting out of this obligation. If one was not circumcised, they were to be cut off (killed; Gen 17:14; Ex. 4:24-26). There was no voluntary profession of saving faith. All offspring of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were obligated to circumcision, devoting them to obedience to Mosaic law, upon pain of death.

Of course, the rite of circumcision did not guarantee that any particular circumcised Israelite would actually serve Yahweh from the heart (Deut 6:4). It just meant that they were obligated to (Deut 10:12-16). Note that Moses commanded the Israelites to circumcise their hearts, meaning devote themselves to the service of Yahweh from the bottom of their heart – not just outwardly. Circumcision was not a sign that an individual had a circumcised heart. It was a reminder that they needed one. Jeremiah again commanded Israel to be circumcised to the Lord (Jer 4:4). God had been longsuffering towards the circumcised, but this patience was coming to an end. Jeremiah warns of a coming judgment upon the circumcised for their disobedience. ““Behold, the days are coming,” says the Lord, “that I will punish all who are circumcised with the uncircumcised— Egypt, Judah, Edom, the people of Ammon, Moab, and all who are in the farthest corners, who dwell in the wilderness. For all these nations are uncircumcised, and all the house of Israel are uncircumcised in the heart.”

Romans 2:29, understood in the proper context of Romans 2 as a whole, is a rebuke against the Jews of Paul's day who gloried in having the law and being circumcised, but neglected to keep the law. In keeping with the above, Paul explains that circumcision dedicates one to obey the law, thus without that obedience circumcision is nothing. Therefore a true Jew (note that Jew is not a synonym for Israelite, but refers to the tribe of Judah who continued to worship God according to Mosaic law after the kingdom split, thus becoming synonymous with "law keeper" over against Samaritans and Gentiles) is not someone who is circumcised, but someone who does what circumcision required: obeys the law. I find Robert Haldane's comments helpful here



> The Apostle now passes to what is reality, not supposition, and gives here the proof of what he had affirmed, namely, that circumcision effects nothing for transgressors of the law, except to cause their deeper condemnation, and that the want of circumcision would be no loss to those who should have fulfilled the law. The reason of this is, that when the Jew shall appear before the tribunal of God, to be there judged, and when he shall produce his title as a Jew, as possessing it by birth, and his circumcision, as having received it as a sign of the covenant of God, God will not be satisfied with such appearances, but will demand of him what is essential and real. Now the essence and reality of things do not consist in names or in eternal signs; and when nothing more is produced, God will not consider a man who possesses them as a true Jew, nor his circumcision as true circumcision. He is only a Jew in shadow and appearance, and his is only a figurative circumcision void of its truth. But he is a Jew, who is one inwardly; that is to say, that in judging, God will only acknowledge as a true Jew, and a true confessor of His name, him who has the reality, — namely, him who is indeed holy and righteous, and who shall have fulfilled the law; for it is in this fulfillment that confession, and praise, and giving of thanks consist, which are the things signified by the name Jew. It is thus we are to understand the contrast which Paul makes between ‘outwardly’ and ‘inwardly.’ What is outward is the name, what is inward is the thing itself represented by the name. And circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter. — It is essential to keep in view that here, and in all that precedes, from the beginning of the 18th verse of the first chapter, Paul is referring not to the Gospel, but exclusively to the law, and clearing the ground for the establishment of his conclusion in the following chapter, verses 19th and 20th, concerning the universal guilt of mankind, and the consequent impossibility of their being justified by the law. The whole is intended to prepare the way for the demonstration of the grand truth announced, ch. 1:17, and resumed, ch. 3:21, of the revelation of a righteousness adequate to the demands of the law, and provided for all who believe.
> 
> From a misapprehension in this respect, very erroneous explanations have been given by many of this verse and the context, as well as of the 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th of the second chapter, representing these passages as referring to the Gospel, and not exclusively to the law. This introduces confusion into the whole train of the Apostle’s reasoning, and their explanations are entirely at variance with his meaning and object...
> 
> Paul is treating of the judgment of strict justice by the law, which admits of no repentance or amendment of life. The meaning, then, here is, that if the Jew will satisfy himself with bringing before the judgment of the law what is only external and merely a ceremonial observance, without his possessing that perfect righteousness which this observance denotes, and which the Judge will demand, it will serve for no purpose but his condemnation. That of the heart in the spirit. — That is to say, what penetrates to the bottom of the soul; in one word, that which is real and effective. The term spirit does not here mean the Holy Spirit, nor has it a mystical or evangelical signification; but it signifies what is internal, solid, and real, in opposition to that which was ceremonial and figurative. And not in the letter. — Not that which takes place only in the flesh, according to the literal commandment, and in all the prescribed forms. In one word, it is to the spiritual circumcision that the Apostle refers, which is real in the heart and spirit. Whose praise is not of men, but of God. — Here Paul alludes to the name of Jew, which signifies praise, which may be taken either in an active sense, as signifying praising, or in a passive sense, as praised.
> 
> Moses has taken it in this second meaning; when relating the blessing of Jacob, he says, ‘Judah, thou art he whom thy brethren shall praise.’ The Apostle here takes it in the same way; but he does not mean that this praise is of men, but of God. The meaning is, that in order to be a true Jew, it is not sufficient to possess external advantages, which attract human praise, but it is necessary to be in a condition to obtain the praise of God.
> 
> The object of the whole of this chapter is to show that the Jews are sinners, violators of the law as well as the Gentiles, and consequently that they cannot be justified before God by their works; but that, on the contrary, however superior their advantages are to those of the Gentiles, they can only expect from His strict justice, condemnation. The Jews esteemed it the highest honor to belong to their nation, and they gloried over all other nations. An uncircumcised person was by them regarded with abhorrence. They did not look to character, but to circumcision or uncircumcision. Nothing, then, could be more cogent, or more calculated to arrest the attention of the Jews, than this argument respecting the name in which they gloried, and circumcision, their distinguishing national rite, with which Paul here follows up what he had said concerning the demands of the law, and of their outward transgressions of its precepts. He had dwelt, in the preceding part of this chapter, on their more glaring and atrocious outward violations of the law, as theft, adultery, and sacrilege, by which they openly dishonored God. Now he enters into the recesses of the heart, of which, even if their outward conduct had been blameless, and the subject of the praise of men, its want of inward conformity to that law, which was manifest in the sight of God, could not obtain his praise.


----------



## De Jager

Sam Renihan says "Considering the context of Paul's argument with respect to chronological order, this can be translated another way, as awaiting “the righteousness of the faith which was to be in the uncircumcision [gentiles].” So, what Paul means is that God gave the circumcision to confirm to Abraham that he would indeed have a son who would bless the nations."

This is quite the conclusion indeed, considering that literally a few verses earlier, Paul clearly says "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.". In the context of that passage, it is clearly talking about _Abraham's faith_, and the fact that _Abraham_ was justified by faith. And in the context of the passage, Paul is clearly trying to teach the Jews (who had misapplied and misunderstood circumcision) that circumcision itself was unnecessary to be made right with God, because _Abraham_ himself first believed and was declared righteous, and then received the sign. He didn't receive the sign of something that would only come later to the gentiles, he received the sign and seal of something that he had, right then and there. For this passage is all about the justification of _Abraham _and how _Abraham_ serves as the model for us all. Therefore, I conclude that the passage is not mistranslated at all, but perfectly fits the context of the passage, and that circumcision indeed pointed to the righteousness of faith, even from it's first institution.

Secondly, as to whether circumcision points to regeneration or not: while yes, the Jews were exhorted to circumcise their hearts and dedicate themselves to the Lord, this is not the only passage on this matter. For in Deuteronomy 30:6 it clearly says this: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart _wrought by God, by the Spirit_, as clearly taught by Paul in Romans 2. Therefore, even from the earliest days, circumcision pointed beyond some outward fleshy ordinance which merely pointed to the coming of a Saviour from the loins of Abraham, but to regeneration itself. Thus, the Jews were to look beyond their physical circumcision to a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, which means that the sign clearly pointed to regeneration, even from the time it was given.

Reactions: Like 7 | Amen 1


----------



## Romans678

De Jager said:


> Sam Renihan says "Considering the context of Paul's argument with respect to chronological order, this can be translated another way, as awaiting “the righteousness of the faith which was to be in the uncircumcision [gentiles].” So, what Paul means is that God gave the circumcision to confirm to Abraham that he would indeed have a son who would bless the nations."
> 
> This is quite the conclusion indeed, considering that literally a few verses earlier, Paul clearly says "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.". In the context of that passage, it is clearly talking about _Abraham's faith_, and the fact that _Abraham_ was justified by faith. And in the context of the passage, Paul is clearly trying to teach the Jews (who had misapplied and misunderstood circumcision) that circumcision itself was unnecessary to be made right with God, because _Abraham_ himself first believed and was declared righteous, and then received the sign. He didn't receive the sign of something that would only come later to the gentiles, he received the sign and seal of something that he had, right then and there. For this passage is all about the justification of _Abraham _and how _Abraham_ serves as the model for us all. Therefore, I conclude that the passage is not mistranslated at all, but perfectly fits the context of the passage, and that circumcision indeed pointed to the righteousness of faith, even from it's first institution.
> 
> Secondly, as to whether circumcision points to regeneration or not: while yes, the Jews were exhorted to circumcise their hearts and dedicate themselves to the Lord, this is not the only passage on this matter. For in Deuteronomy 30:6 it clearly says this: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart _wrought by God, by the Spirit_, as clearly taught by Paul in Romans 2. Therefore, even from the earliest days, circumcision pointed beyond some outward fleshy ordinance which merely pointed to the coming of a Saviour from the loins of Abraham, but to regeneration itself. Thus, the Jews were to look beyond their physical circumcision to a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, which means that the sign clearly pointed to regeneration, even from the time it was given.


Regarding the part where you said:

"This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart wrought by God..."

This is what I was trying to convey earlier but dropped the ball a bit. All of these gifts we receive belong to and are ultimately administered by God, not us. The Covenants, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. All of these are his! Not trying to cause a side discussion, just wanted to give a hearty amen. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Izaak, brother, you are very eager to critique our position, but I still encourage you to study our position (though I can sympathize, as I was very eager to critique Westminster's position when I first learned it). I think that your criticisms miss the mark by not understanding the whole context of our position.



De Jager said:


> This is quite the conclusion indeed, considering that literally a few verses earlier, Paul clearly says "For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.". In the context of that passage, it is clearly talking about _Abraham's faith_, and the fact that _Abraham_ was justified by faith. And in the context of the passage, Paul is clearly trying to teach the Jews (who had misapplied and misunderstood circumcision) that circumcision itself was unnecessary to be made right with God, because _Abraham_ himself first believed and was declared righteous, and then received the sign. He didn't receive the sign of something that would only come later to the gentiles, he received the sign and seal of something that he had, right then and there. For this passage is all about the justification of _Abraham _and how _Abraham_ serves as the model for us all. Therefore, I conclude that the passage is not mistranslated at all, but perfectly fits the context of the passage, and that circumcision indeed pointed to the righteousness of faith, even from it's first institution.


I think you have presented a false dichotonomy. The passage refers both to Abraham's justificiation by faith apart from circumcision as well as to the question of the Gentiles' justification. Rom 3:29-30 "is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." 4:9 "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?" So it is not simply Paul's point to show that one can be justified without circumcision, but also to show more specifically how God can justify the Gentiles. Paul goes on to specifically talk about the promise concerning the nations. So it is not an either/or. The context is addressing Abraham's faith, as well as the promise that the (uncircumcised) nations would be blessed/justified.


De Jager said:


> For in Deuteronomy 30:6 it clearly says this: "And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live." This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart _wrought by God, by the Spirit_, as clearly taught by Paul in Romans 2. Therefore, even from the earliest days, circumcision pointed beyond some outward fleshy ordinance which merely pointed to the coming of a Saviour from the loins of Abraham, but to regeneration itself. Thus, the Jews were to look beyond their physical circumcision to a circumcision of the heart wrought by God, which means that the sign clearly pointed to regeneration, even from the time it was given.


Again, I think you're skipping over typology and the contours of redemptive history. Deut 30:6 does not teach that circumcision was a sign unto the party circumcised of their regeneration (as baptism is a sign unto the party baptized of their regeneration and union with Christ WCF 28.1). Does it relate in some typological manner to regeneration and union with Christ? Yes, but it was not a covenant sign of regeneration. Note Calvin on Deut 30:6 “This promise far surpasses all the others, and properly refers to the new Covenant, for thus it is interpreted by Jeremiah.” I also highly recommend reading Bryan D. Estelle's chapter in "The Law is Not of Faith" on Lev 18:5 and how it relates to Deut 30:6.


> [T]his amazing passage anticipates ahead of time the plight of which the Israelite nation will find itself, destitute and unable to fulfill the stipulations of the covenant _on its own_. It also describes the new measure of obedience – accomplished by _divine initiative _– in which they will satisfy the conditions hanging over them. Finally, when Paul creatively brings these two significant passages (i.e., Lev 18:5 and Deut. 30) into closer proximity to one another (Rom 10:1-12), the mystery of the divine plan for fulfillment emerges from the shadows and into the light…
> 
> In Deut 10:16, the people are commanded to circumcise the foreskin of their hearts and not stiffen their necks any longer. Verse 6 of Deut 30, however, is no mere allusion to that passage! On the contrary, new covenant language and imagery permeate this Deuteronomy passage because it is clear that divine initiative will supercede human impotence… Verse 8 declares that when God himself circumcises hearts, “_you _[fronted in the Hebrew] will repent and you will obey the voice of the LORD and you will do all his commandments.” This will happen with the coming of the Spirit in the gospel age…
> 
> Just as Leviticus 18:5 is taken up in later biblical allusions and echoes, so also is this Deuteronomy passage. In Jeremiah 31:31-34, the language of the new covenant that was cloaked in the circumcision of heart metaphor is unveiled in this classic passage. I argued above that Deuteronomy 30:1-14 is a predictive prophecy of the new covenant, and, therefore, all that was implicit there becomes explicit in Jeremiah 31. In verse 31, Jeremiah says this will happen “in the coming days” and in verse 33 he says “after these days”; both refer to the new covenant, messianic days.
> 
> This new covenant, however, is going to be unlike the old covenant with respect to breaking. The old covenant was a breakable covenant, it was made obsolete… The reader is obliged to say that a works principle in the old covenant was operative in some sense because the text clearly states that it was a fracturable covenant, “not like the one _they broke.” _Here indeed was a covenant that was susceptible to fracture and breakable! They broke it at Sinai (Ex. 32), and they did it time and again until that old covenant had served its purposes. For the one who holds a high view of God directing history, there must be something going on here…
> 
> …the point is that the whole old covenant order will be annihilated, it will be wiped out, and it will go down in judgment as a _modus operandi_. The new covenant is not like that: it is not subject to breaking because it is built upon God’s initiative to complete it and Christ’s satisfaction in his penalty-paying substitution and his probation keeping. His merit is the surety of the new covenant promises, and therefore it cannot fail. The old Sinaitic covenant by way of contrast is built upon a very fallible hope, and therefore is destined to fail since Israel individually and corporately could not fulfill its stipulations.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

brandonadams said:


> Izaak, brother, you are so extremely eager to critique our position, but I wish you were as equally eager to study our position (though I can sympathize, as I was very eager to critique Westminster's position when I first learned it). Your criticism continues to miss the mark by not understanding the whole context of our position.
> 
> 
> You have presented a false dichotonomy. The passage refers both to Abraham's justificiation by faith apart from circumcision as well as to the question of the Gentiles' justification. Rom 3:29-30 "is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles also? Yes, of Gentiles also since God is one—who will justify the circumcised by faith and the uncircumcised through faith." 4:9 "Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?" So it is not simply Paul's point to show that one can be justified without circumcision, but also to show more specifically how God can justify the Gentiles. Paul goes on to specifically talk about the promise concerning the nations. So it is not an either/or. The context is addressing Abraham's faith, as well as the promise that the (uncircumcised) nations would be blessed/justified.
> 
> Again, what you're skipping over here is typology and the contours of redemptive history. Deut 30:6 does not teach that circumcision was a sign unto the party circumcised of their regeneration (as baptism is a sign unto the party baptized of their regeneration and union with Christ WCF 28.1). Does it relate in some typological manner to regeneration and union with Christ? Yes, but it was not a covenant sign of regeneration. Note Calvin on Deut 30:6 “This promise far surpasses all the others, and properly refers to the new Covenant, for thus it is interpreted by Jeremiah.” I also highly recommend reading Bryan D. Estelle's chapter in "The Law is Not of Faith" on Lev 18:5 and how it relates to Deut 30:6.


You say that circumcision relates "in some typological manner to regeneration and union with Christ" but "was not a covenant sign of regeneration". What does this even mean? To me, this is a distinction without a difference. If something is a "type", then it necessarily "points to" the antitype, which is the same idea as a a "sign" pointing to "the thing signified". 

You have essentially here admitted that circumcision points to regeneration and union with Christ. The question is, when did it start pointing to these spiritual things? Only once the NC was inaugurated, or when the sign was instituted? I contend that it was when the sign was instituted. When did the Passover meal start pointing to Christ's work on the cross? It was immediately upon the institution. These signs have always pointed to these spiritual things.

Circumcision was not simply a fleshly ordinance meant to seal the promises that the Christ would come from Abraham's loins. This does not make sense considering the fact that those who were _not of his seed_ were circumcised (Gen. 17:12) along with foreigners (Exodus 12:43-49).

Reactions: Like 8 | Amen 1


----------



## Romans678

Somebody needs to put this thread in a pamphlet. 

I'd buy 'em.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Regarding the part where you said:
> 
> "This is not a self-administered circumcision, this is a circumcision of the heart wrought by God..."
> 
> This is what I was trying to convey earlier but dropped the ball a bit. All of these gifts we receive belong to and are ultimately administered by God, not us. The Covenants, Baptism, the Lord's Supper, etc. All of these are his! Not trying to cause a side discussion, just wanted to give a hearty amen.
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


Yes, but though all those things are God's, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be administered by human ministers. While circumcision of the heart is done by God, the sign of that is done by men, and must be done according to His instructions.


----------



## Romans678

Ben Zartman said:


> Yes, but though all those things are God's, Baptism and the Lord's Supper are to be administered by human ministers. While circumcision of the heart is done by God, the sign of that is done by men, and must be done according to His instructions.


Are all who are given the sign circumcised of the heart?

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## TheInquirer

Ben Zartman said:


> While circumcision of the heart is done by God, the sign of that is done by men, and must be done according to His instructions.



Sincere question - Where do you see that in Scripture?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Are all who are given the sign circumcised of the heart?
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


No: because the sign is administered by fallible men, it is not administered infallibly. Some false converts make a pretty good confession for a time. The minister's duty is to baptize upon "the answer of a good confession." The same apostle who wrote that also excommunicated a false convert (Simon the Magician) who had been previously baptized.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

TheInquirer said:


> Sincere question - Where do you see that in Scripture?


Do you mean where do I see in Scripture that what we do must be according to God's instructions? Dear me, where do I begin? Moses and the rock? Moses and the Tabernacle? "You shall not add to it nor diminish from it?" "Go into all the world and make disciples, baptizing them..."
Are you seriously asking whether we should do what God says in the method He requires? Surely I misunderstand your question.


----------



## Smeagol

@brandonadams or any other PB proponent of the OP view:

So from your perspective are not all the OT covenants, in _*essence*_ Covenants of Work if they are not in _*essence*_ administrations of the CoG (saved by grace through faith)?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TheInquirer

Ben Zartman said:


> Do you mean where do I see in Scripture that what we do must be according to God's instructions?



No, I am asking where circumcision of the flesh was a sign of circumcision of the heart. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you were saying?



> So from your perspective are not all the OT covenants, in _*essence*_ Covenants of Work if they are not in _*essence*_ administrations of the CoG (saved by grace through faith)?



I think we are trying to break you out of the either/or paradigm that all covenants have to be either entirely this or entirely that.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> No, I am asking where circumcision of the flesh was a sign of circumcision of the heart. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> I think we are trying to break you out of the either/or paradigm that all covenants have to be either entirely this or entirely that.


So your saying it is some of both, without being an Administration of the CoG?

If a covenant is NOT in essence one of Grace proper than is it it not by necessity one based on men’s works? This is what is so puzzling for me, your view wants the CoG active and beneficial without it somehow being activated or inaugurated. I don’t understand how this is logical. Help me out.


----------



## TheInquirer

Smeagol said:


> If a covenant is NOT in essence one of Grace proper than is it it not by necessity one based on men’s works?



Under the one covenant/two administrations view, is the Mosaic Covenant one of works or of grace? If it is grace, what do you do with all the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28 based on the works of those under the covenant?

This is why there has been so much debate about the Mosaic Covenant because arguments can be made that it contains elements of both grace and works depending on what aspects you want to emphasize. If I am understanding it correctly, the subservient covenant view is trying to break out of the either/or mold by noting that the Mosaic Covenant doesn't fit neatly in either a Covenant of Grace or a Covenant of Works but is functionally serving both.

All of us are trying to understand both the unity and diversity in the covenants and properly account for both in our various views. Here are a couple of quotes from the OPC report on republication: https://www.opc.org/GA/republication.html



> "There are some historic presentations of the Mosaic covenant which hold that although it is different in substance from the covenant of grace, it does not institute a new way of salvation. As chapter five will explain, both the “subservient covenant” position and the position of historic Lutheranism are examples of this.[38] *One may hold that the Mosaic covenant differs in substance from the covenant of grace, without necessarily compromising the idea of the one way of salvation throughout history.* The question our report is addressing is whether one can hold to such positions without compromising the system of doctrine taught in our standards."



The same report puts forward 4 views on the Mosaic Covenant found in the Reformed Tradition:




> With this in view, we would approach the question of republication according to a four-fold taxonomy that is commonly found in the Reformed tradition. It can be found in Reformed writers such as John Ball, Anthony Burgess, Francis Roberts, and Francis Turretin, to name a few.[99] Other taxonomies can certainly be found, but this is arguably the most common framework in which the topic is addressed, and, we believe, the most helpful.
> 
> This fourfold taxonomy of the substance of the Mosaic covenant is as follows:
> 
> 
> View 1: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of works, promising eternal life and/or salvation upon condition of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience.
> View 2: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a mixed covenant, containing elements of both a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.
> View 3: The Mosaic covenant in substance is a subservient covenant, promising temporal life in Canaan upon condition of perfect obedience to the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws.
> View 4: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of grace, although uniquely administered in a manner appropriate to the situation of God’s people at that time.
> It is important to note at the outset that this fourfold taxonomy can also be further simplified terms of the basic categories for classifying versions of republication. As stated above, there are two forms of republication, substantial and administrative. Views 1–3 fall into the designation of substantial, since they place the republication of the Adamic covenant works in the substance of the Mosaic covenant in some fashion (e.g., in terms of its principle or constitutive condition). Whereas, View 4 is seen as administrative, since advocates of this position remove any “works” element from the substance of the covenant, and restrict it to an aspect of the administration of the covenant of grace.[100] Thus, our taxonomy will also include a section outlining the various distinctions used by proponents of the fourth view to account for the role of the law in the Sinaitic administration of the covenant of grace. The following chart may help to visualize the key differences among the four historic positions on the Mosaic covenant.
> 
> 
> WorksGrace​View 1​View 2​View 3​View 4​Covenant of Works​Mixed​Subservient​Covenant of Grace​Works alone, in essence​Works + grace, in essence​Pure works in essence but on temporal level​No works in essence, only grace​
> Positions one and four represent opposite poles of the spectrum: from no grace to pure grace. Positions two and three represent attempts to mitigate this polarity. The mixed covenant view does this by combining works and grace as equally ultimately aspects of the essence of the Mosaic covenant. The subservient covenant does this by temporalizing the works element, restricting the relationship of works to blessings on the earthly realm only, thus mitigating the tension with works and grace at the level of eternal salvation.[101]



The report then goes on to define the subservient covenant view in the following way:



> C. View 3: The Mosaic Covenant as a Third “Subservient Covenant”
> 
> The third view of the Mosaic covenant outlined in the traditional four-fold taxonomy is the “subservient covenant” view. This view maintained that there were three kinds of “special” or “hypothetical” covenants made between God and man: (1) a covenant of works with Adam, (2) a subservient covenant made with Israel, (3) and a covenant of grace with both old and new administrations.[119] The similarities and differences between these covenants are outlined in great detail by their proponents, but for the sake of simplicity they can be summarized in terms of their conditions and promises:
> 
> Condition:
> 
> 
> Covenant of works: perfect obedience to the moral law
> Subservient covenant: perfect obedience to moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws
> Covenant of grace: faith in the Redeemer, Jesus Christ
> Promise:
> 
> 
> Covenant of works: earthly life in the Garden of Eden
> Subservient covenant: blessed life in Canaan
> Covenant of grace: eternal life in Heaven
> Thus, the subservient covenant could be defined as follows: “The Old Covenant is that, whereby God doth require from the people of Israel, obedience of the Morall, Ceremoniall, and Judiciall Law; and to as many as doe give it him, he promises all sorts of blessings in the possession of the land of Canaan; on the contrary, to as many as deny it him, he denounces, most severely, curses and death; and that for this end, that he might bring them to be Messias which was for to come.”[120] *Thus, the subservient covenant is a third covenant distinct in kind from the covenants of nature and grace.*

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ethan

TheInquirer said:


> The same report puts forward 4 views on the Mosaic Covenant found in the Reformed Tradition:


It's been a while since I've read the whole report but I believe it specifically states that only variations of the fourth view are in line with the standards.


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> Under the one covenant/two administrations view, is the Mosaic Covenant one of works or of grace? If it is grace, what do you do with all the blessings and curses of Deuteronomy 28 based on the works of those under the covenant?


I view the Mosaic as essentially another admin of the CoG, but that is a topic for another thread. This seems to be the majority view as well. Further, the various views of Moses from the Presbyterian perspective would still see the CoG inaugurated in Gen. 3.

So can you please answer my question regarding the Abrahamic and Davidic as I asked here:

If a covenant is NOT in essence one of Grace proper than is it it not by necessity one based on men’s works? This is what is so puzzling for me, your view wants the CoG active and beneficial without it somehow being activated or inaugurated. I don’t understand how this is logical. Help me out.


----------



## TheInquirer

Ethan said:


> It's been a while since I've read the whole report but I believe it specifically states that only variations of the fourth view are in line with the standards.


 
Seems like you are correct from this quote, but that wouldn't bother a 1689 Baptist 



> In this report, we have identified two basic senses of republication: substantial and administrative. Administrative republication is consistent with our standards in that it coherently maintains that the Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of grace. Examples of administrative republication include declarative, material, and misinterpretive republications, as well as an indirect, redemptive reenactment of Adam’s sin and exile (as described in our report).
> 
> Views of substantial republication which are theologically inconsistent with our standards include: pure and simple republications, subservient republications, mixed republications, and a direct, non-redemptive reenactment of Adam’s pre-fall covenantal probation.\



Going back to my original post, the OPC report is just one more data point to show that the subservient covenant view of 1689 Federalism is not novel (i.e. "new and not resembling something formerly known or used.")

I think it might be helpful to note what WCF Federalism and 1689 Federalism do have in common:

1) Both believe in a Covenant of Grace
2) Both believe in a Covenant of Works
3) Both believe that all believers at all time are saved by the Covenant of Grace. There are not two ways of salvation
4) Both believe that all OT believers are saved by faith in the person and work of Christ before He actually dies at a future point in time.

Main Differences:

1) When the Covenant of Grace is actually inaugurated (right after the fall vs. at the death of Christ). For 1689 Federalists, the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace and believers before its inauguration are saved by faith in the New Covenant as revealed by promises and types in the prior covenants. The New Covenant benefits are applied to OT believers before it is inaugurated in time. 

2) How the Covenant of Grace operates with the other covenants (all the substance and administration debate we have been having).

Of course there are other differences that flow out of these but these two seem like the most "high level" to me that influence all the other differences.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TheInquirer

> This is what is so puzzling for me, your view wants the CoG active and beneficial without it somehow being activated or inaugurated. I don’t understand how this is logical. Help me out.



About as logical to me as Christ's blood somehow actually mediated (amd somehow present) from heaven through the sacrifices of bulls and goats before he actually dies in time. Both views have a "time" problem in my opinion - how to apply the blood of Christ to believers before He actually dies at a future point.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> About as logical to me as Christ's blood somehow actually mediated (amd somehow present) from heaven through the sacrifices of bulls and goats before he actually dies in time. Both views have a "time" problem in my opinion - how to apply the blood of Christ to believers before He actually dies at a future point.


Applied by the Holy Spirit by Grace through Faith in Christ, since I believe the CoG to be inaugurated and active in the OT. God made the sacrificial acts spiritually beneficial in a similar way we get spiritual benefit from NT elements of worship. The time problem would seem to be for the 1689 Federalist position because you are saying CoG benefits are active in time but the CoG is not yet active in time.

1. How were OT believers saved by a covenant NOT inaugurated ?

2. Does your view not claim OT elect were saved the same way we NT are?

3. Are you saying the CoW was republished in all OT covenants?

Btw, I am familiar and have read the OPC report when studying republication. Thanks for your earlier perspective on the differences in your estimation.


----------



## Ben Zartman

TheInquirer said:


> No, I am asking where circumcision of the flesh was a sign of circumcision of the heart. Or maybe I am misunderstanding what you were saying?
> 
> 
> 
> I think we are trying to break you out of the either/or paradigm that all covenants have to be either entirely this or entirely that.


Well, what else would it be a sign of? It was a sign of being in covenant with God, and God uses the language of circumcision to speak to their need of being not just administratively in covenant with Him, but actually so. God desires that they have the internal reality of what their external sign signifies. And how could they be circumcised in the heart? By repenting of their sins and seeking God for forgiveness. Regeneration has been the same in all ages: despairing of yourself and your works, you cast yourself on God, in whom is found mercy.


----------



## jw

How many volumes y'all aimin' for?


----------



## arapahoepark

jw said:


> How many volumes y'all aimin' for?


Of pamphlets?


----------



## Romans678

arapahoepark said:


> Of pamphlets?


Pamphlets? As many as we can get. Just enough for us, our children, and those who are far off [emoji846]

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Taylor

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> Pamphlets? As many as we can get. Just enough for us, our children, and those who are far off [emoji846]
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

Taylor said:


>


What did I say? LOL

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## brandonadams

Smeagol said:


> Applied by the Holy Spirit by Grace through Faith in Christ, since I believe the CoG to be inaugurated and active in the OT. God made the sacrificial acts spiritually beneficial in a similar way we get spiritual benefit from NT elements of worship. The time problem would seem to be for the 1689 Federalist position because you are saying CoG benefits are active in time but the CoG is not yet active in time.
> 
> 1. How were OT believers saved by a covenant NOT inaugurated ?
> 
> 2. Does your view not claim OT elect were saved the same way we NT are?


Grant, I appreciate the questions on this point. I encourage you to more closely consider Jim's answer above regarding Christ's atonement. His point was that you say the blood of Christ was applied to OT saints before it was shed. That presents the same logical problem as you have presented us with regarding the New Covenant.

You answered that the logical conundrum of timing is not a problem for you because you believe the CoG was inuagurated and active in the OT and the blood of Christ was applied by means of the sacrificial system. Note however that that does not answer the question. The issue is not the means by which the blood of Christ is applied, but rather how the blood of Christ can be applied before it is shed. Saying the CoG was inaugurated in the OT doesn't answer that logical dilemma. See if you can answer that question and then I will be happy to elaborate more on your two questions above.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Smeagol said:


> @brandonadams or any other PB proponent of the OP view:
> 
> So from your perspective are not all the OT covenants, in _*essence*_ Covenants of Work if they are not in _*essence*_ administrations of the CoG (saved by grace through faith)?


As Jim noted, the whole point of the subservient covenant view is to say you're presenting a false dichotomy. There are more than two covenants in Scripture (The Adamic Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace). Various subservient covenants that are distinct from those two covenants may be of a gracious nature or they may be of a works nature. The Noahic Covenant, for instance, is neither the Adamic Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace, but it is gracious. The Mosaic Covenant, as another instance, is neither the Adamic Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace, but it is of works/law.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Grant, I appreciate the questions on this point. I encourage you to more closely consider Jim's answer above regarding Christ's atonement. His point was that you say the blood of Christ was applied to OT saints before it was shed. That presents the same logical problem as you have presented us with regarding the New Covenant.
> 
> You answered that the logical conundrum of timing is not a problem for you because you believe the CoG was inuagurated and active in the OT and the blood of Christ was applied by means of the sacrificial system. Note however that that does not answer the question. The issue is not the means by which the blood of Christ is applied, but rather how the blood of Christ can be applied before it is shed. Saying the CoG was inaugurated in the OT doesn't answer that logical dilemma. See if you can answer that question and then I will be happy to elaborate more on your two questions above.


I think we just disagree here, if you don’t want to answer the other questions that is fine. I am just trying to get clarity to better understand/represent your position. I see the CoG as activated and effective “in time” in Gen 3. Your position does not, as I understand it, therefore it is strange to say the OT Saints were benefited “in time” by the CoG. It seems like your saying one can see a path in the dark by a flashlight that has not been turned on. Thank you for trying to clarify.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ethan

brandonadams said:


> The issue is not the means by which the blood of Christ is applied, but rather how the blood of Christ can be applied before it is shed. Saying the CoG was inaugurated in the OT doesn't answer that logical dilemma.


This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. 

. . . and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear. 

Paul and Zechariah seem cool with it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Ethan said:


> This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void.
> 
> . . . and to remember his holy covenant, the oath that he swore to our father Abraham, to grant us that we, being delivered from the hand of our enemies, might serve him without fear.
> 
> Paul and Zechariah seem cool with it.


Ethan, I'm sorry, but the point of your comment is not clear. I don't see how it relates to what I said.


----------



## brandonadams

Grant, I am happy to elaborate (I have numerous resources I can point you to), but I am trying to walk through this step by step so that you can understand my answer when I give it.

Can you please explain how logically, in your view, someone can receive the benefits of Christ's blood prior to Christ shedding His blood? I'm not asking you about the means through which it is received. I'm asking for the logical explanation for how it can be received before it exists.


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Grant, I am happy to elaborate (I have numerous resources I can point you to), but I am trying to walk through this step by step so that you can understand my answer when I give it.
> 
> Can you please explain how logically, in your view, someone can receive the benefits of Christ's blood prior to Christ shedding His blood? I'm not asking you about the means through which it is received. I'm asking for the logical explanation for how it can be received before it exists.


Because our Lord inaugurated a Covenant (CoG) in Time that he established to communicate the benefits of Christ blood through His Grace by Faith. I can see how you might claim the same, but I fail to understand how it can be so, since you do not see the Covenant as activated in time in the OT.


----------



## brandonadams

Brother, you're not addressing the logical conundrum. Let me state it differently: How can God inaugurate a Covenant in Gen 3 that promises to apply the blood of Christ to OT saints if the blood of Christ does not yet exist when those OT saints are living?


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Brother, you're not addressing the logical conundrum. Let me state it differently: How can God inaugurate a Covenant in Gen 3 that promises to apply the blood of Christ to OT saints if the blood of Christ does not yet exist when those OT saints are living?


Respectfully, this thread is NOT about Westminster CT, it is about 1689 Federalism. So I am trying to be brief as to keep on topic. God imputes Christ Righteousness to OT saints prospectively. Scriptures tells us that Abrahams faith was credited to him as righteousness. But again this is through a Covenant inaugurated. I think your side stepping because of a distinction without a difference.

Again I think my flashlight example is pertinent. The eternal covenant was activated in time by God (not bound by time), therefore the benefits could be prospectively applied to saints in time.

Also, as I am sure you know, see Westminster Chapter 8:


> 6. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto the elect, in all ages successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices, wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed of the woman which should bruise the serpent’s head, and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world, being yesterday and today the same, and forever.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol

It still seems like the 1689 Federalist is forced to admit, all OT covenants are then in essence of works. Grace only comes from the atonement/sacrifice of Christ which he made possible by is voluntarily surrendering the the will of the Father. It seems our efforts are either our own or those of a renewed disposition through the righteousness of Christ.


----------



## Smeagol

An Older post I found helpful from Rich here on this very subject:





Covenant of Grace


I think I can generally agree with those statements yes, but none of that takes away from the NC being the consummation (It is finished) of the overall CoG. Read the Matthew Henry commentary. It helped me at least. OT (elect) and NT (elect) have always been saved the same way in my opinion, by...




www.puritanboard.com


----------



## brandonadams

Smeagol said:


> Respectfully, this thread is NOT about Westminster CT, it is about 1689 Federalism. So I am trying to be brief as to keep on topic.


Thank you. I'm not trying to make this about Westminster CT.



Smeagol said:


> God imputes Christ Righteousness to OT saints prospectively.





Smeagol said:


> The eternal covenant was activated in time by God, therefore the benefits could be prospectively applied to saints in time.


We are getting closer. Can you please elaborate on these two statements? Can you define "prospectively" so that I am clear what you do and do not mean? Merriam Webster defines prospectively as:



> 1 : relating to or effective in the future
> 2a : likely to come about : expected the prospective benefits of this law
> b : likely to be or become a prospective mother


That doesn't seem to fit what you're saying.

What does it mean for the eternal covenant to be activated in time? Are you arguing that the eternal covenant is atemporal? Does not the eternal covenant still include the death of Christ, an act in time - specifically in the future?


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Thank you. I'm not trying to make this about Westminster CT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We are getting closer. Can you please elaborate on these two statements? Can you define "prospectively" so that I am clear what you do and do not mean? What does it mean for the eternal covenant to be activated in time? Are you arguing that the eternal covenant is atemporal? Does not the eternal covenant still include the death of Christ, an act in time - specifically in the future?


Brandon, I give up. You literally ask me to restate my direct answers to your questions 2 or 3 times minimum. I am tired of having to make distinctions about my own Westminster CT just to have 1689 Proponents explain their position clearly. I cited how I understand those words from Westminster Chapter 8. The word prospectively can be easily googled.

Ex: (rhetorical)
1. Define atemporal
2. Define death of Christ
3. Define activated
4. Elaborate further on how you need me to elaborate further, I almost understand

It feels like your hustling me as a Mormon where we have 2 different dictionaries. It seems like my 3 simple questions are not being addressed. I think you know the answers to the questions you are asking me.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner

A helpful thread from a while back. One comment:

"The Greek word, "diatheke," conveys different meanings in different contexts. It can mean covenant or testament. What is new is the testament, or will, or dispensation. Under the old testament the blessings of the covenant were conveyed through men who typically and temporarily served as mediators until the fulness of the time. These promised blessings are now conveyed personally and fully by Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and men.

"The 1677/1689 Confession was an antipaedoabaptist revision of the Independent's 1658 Savoy Declaration, which was a revision of the 1646 Westminster Confession as passed by the Long Parliament. To gain a fuller appreciation of covenant theology as a system it would be best to go back to the Westminster Confession as a source document, and then look at the revisions to see what has changed."

A helpful, brief discussion ensues. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/new-covenants-relation-to-the-abrahamic.90173/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Grant, I'm sorry that you are so frustrated. It was not my intent to frustrate you. I can easily give you clear answers, but my understanding is that people in this thread do not want a list of resources to read to answer their questions. Instead you all want a conversation. I am attempting to have a conversation here, rather than just sending you to the links that answer your question. That involves some back and forth. I'm sorry that you are tired of having to make distinctions and define words, but that is entirely necessary in theology, especially on the issue of Westminster Federalism vs 1689 Federalism. That is how my mind works. I make careful distinctions and define words (at least I try to).



Smeagol said:


> It feels like your hustling me as a Mormon where we have 2 different dictionaries.


It is sad that you think that lowly of me, but it is representative of how most Presbyterians tend to look at those of us who hold to 1689 Federalism.

Thank you for referencing WCF 8.6, but that does not help clarifying this point. Again, that just points to the means that God uses to apply the benefits of Christ's death to OT saints (and it is a point that we affirm). It does not comment on how that is logically possible.


Smeagol said:


> The word prospectively can be easily googled.


I did look it up (and edited my post to add that). The definition does not match how you are using it. Merriam Webster defines prospectively as:



> 1 : relating to or effective in the future
> 2a : likely to come about : expected the prospective benefits of this law
> b : likely to be or become a prospective mother


To prospectively apply something would be to apply it in the future. I think the opposite word "retroactive" more accurately communicates what you were trying to convey. The definition of retroactive is


> : extending in scope or effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed or originated in the past especially
> : made effective as of a date prior to enactment, promulgation, or imposition


To retroactively apply something would be to apply it to the past. Do you agree that retroactively is a more accurate word than prospectively here? Would you agree that God imputes Christ's righteousness to OT saints retroactively?

If so, I agree. The question is, on what basis can God do that? Here is how John Ball answered that question.



> For the Foundation and Mediatour of the Covenant of Grace is our Lord Jesus Christ, but either to be incarnate, crucified, and raised from the dead, or as already incarnate, crucified, and raised from the dead, and ascended into Heaven. For there was never sin forgiven but in him alone, who is _the same yesterday, and today, and forever_. Therefore although before the Incarnation, Christ was only God, he was our Mediatour, yet not simply as God, but as the divine person, who should [i.e. will] take our flesh, and in it should [i.e. will] finish all the Mysterie of our Redemption, and therefore he is called the Lambe of God slaine from the beginning of the world, and the Fathers by his grace were saved, even as we. In the acts of Mediation three things may be considered.
> 
> [1.] Reconciliation, by which we are accepted of God.
> [2.] Patronage, by which we have accesse unto the Father.
> [3.] Doctrine, whereby God hath made himselfe knowne unto men by a Mediatour.
> 
> This third act might be done before he assumed our flesh, and indeed was done: but the two first did require his coming in the flesh, although the fruit of them was communicated to the Fathers under the Old Testament, by force of the divine Promise, and certainty of the thing to come with God.
> 
> If it be objected that the cause is before the effect, and therefore the incarnation and death of Christ must goe before the communication of the fruit and benefit thereof unto the Fathers.
> 
> The answer is, That in naturall causes [i.e. physics] the Proposition holds true, but in morall causes the effect may be before the cause: and so the fruit and vertue of Christ’s death was communicated to the Fathers before his Incarnation. But although the Sonne of God before he was manifested in the flesh, was our Mediatour with God (to whom future things are present) because he should be, and therefore for his sake sinnes were remitted, men did teach and learne by his Spirit, the Church was governed by him: yet the manner and reason of that Mediation was proposed more obscurely, the force and efficacy of it was lesse, and did redound to fewer.
> 
> https://archive.org/details/treatiseofcovena00ball/page/28/mode/2up


In short, OT saints could receive the benefits of Christ's death because Christ promised the Father he would fulfill his work in the Covenant of Redemption, thus securing the redemption of the elect. Thus it was a guaranteed certainty that the OT saints could "take to the bank." In other words, OT saints received the benefits of the death of Christ in "advance" of the actual death of Christ in a way similar to how one can go to a Pay Day Loan business and get an "advance" on their paycheck because of the certainty of the paycheck to come.

Here are a couple of similar affirmations


> Christ can work out of that finished work in the future because it has been decreed and ordained. So the Holy Spirit can be active according to ordo salutis even in advance of the historia salutis pouring out.
> Camden Bucey, Christ the Center 700 Redemption Accomplished and Applied





> Old Testament believers enjoyed the benefits of union with Christ and His imputed righteousness prior to His earthy ministry. The covenantal-legal agreement of the pactum [i.e., the Covenant of Redemption] was sufficient in and of itself due to the Trinity’s utter trustworthiness to carry out its covenant-oaths. In other words, the stipulations of the pactum, an inherently legal arrangement, are the foundation for the application of redemption in covenant of grace.
> 
> J.V. Fesko, The Trinity and the Covenant of Redemption, 347



Do you agree thus far?

Now the question is how the New Covenant relates to this. We would argue that the efficacy of the mediation of Christ does not extend itself beyond the verge and compass of the New Covenant; for he is only the mediator and surety of this covenant. Therefore the only way for OT saints to receive the benefits of Christ's death is through the New Covenant. However, the New Covenant was inaugurated/established/promulgated at a specific point in history (I would say Pentecost to be exact). Thus we understand God to have applied the New Covenant retroactively to OT saints just as He did Christ's atonement.

Here are some quotes from other theologians affirming the same thing:



> There are clear passages indicating that ‘the forgiveness of sins’ is unique to the New Covenant (“remember their sins no more”; Jer 31:34)… Kuyper seems to confirm this conclusion. He argued that the energies of the Spirit at Pentecost worked retroactively in the lives of OT saints.
> 
> Horton, Rediscovering the Holy Spirit, p152ff (See extended quote here: Horton’s Retroactive New Covenant)





> [T]he work of Christ is the source of all human salvation from sin: the salvation of Adam and Eve, of Noah, of Abraham, of Moses, of David, and of all of Godâ’s people in every age, past, present, or future. Everyone who has ever been saved has been saved through the new covenant in Christ. Everyone who is saved receives a new heart, a heart of obedience, through the new covenant work of Christ. So though it is a new covenant, it is also the oldest, the temporal expression of the pactum salutis… The New Covenant does have a temporal inauguration… the shedding of Jesus’ blood, a datable historical event, is the substance of the New Covenant, the Covenant that purifies, not only the flesh, but the conscience, the heart. Nevertheless, as we saw earlier, the efficacy of the New Covenant, unlike that of previous covenants, extends to God’s elect prior to Jesus’ atonement. When believers in the Old Testament experienced “circumcision of the heart,” or when they were Jews “inwardly,” they were partaking of the power of the New Covenant.
> 
> John Frame, Systematic Theology, p. 79-81 (See extended quote here John Frame’s Retroactive New Covenant)





> These pertain to the new testament [covenant], are the children of promise, and are regenerated by God the Father and a free mother. Of this kind were all the righteous men of old, and Moses himself, the minister of the old testament, the heir of the new . . . Let us, therefore, choose whether to call the righteous men of old the children of the bondwoman or of the free. Be it far from us to say, of the bondwoman; therefore if of the free, they pertain to the new testament [covenant] in the Holy Spirit, whom, as making alive, the apostle opposes to the killing letter. For on what ground do they not belong to the grace of the new testament [covenant]?
> 
> Augustine, A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, 406-407 (See more quotes here)





> [A]lthough the Old Law contained precepts of charity, nevertheless it did not confer the Holy Ghost…
> the New Law is chiefly the grace itself of the Holy Ghost, which is given to those who believe in Christ…
> Nevertheless there were some in the state of the Old Testament who, having charity and the grace of the Holy Ghost, looked chiefly to spiritual and eternal promises: and in this respect they belonged to the New Law…
> As to those under the Old Testament who through faith were acceptable to God, in this respect they belonged to the New Testament: for they were not justified except through faith in Christ, Who is the Author of the New Testament…
> No man ever had the grace of the Holy Ghost except through faith in Christ either explicit or implicit: and by faith in Christ man belongs to the New Testament. Consequently whoever had the law of grace instilled into them belonged to the New Testament… at all times there have been some persons belonging to the New Testament, as stated above.”
> 
> Aquinas _Summa Theologica_ I-II, 106-107 (See more here and here)





> There were . . . under the regimen of the Old Covenant, people who possessed the charity and grace of the Holy Spirit and longed above all for the spiritual and eternal promises by which they were associated with the New Law… [E]ven though the Old Law prescribed charity, it did not give the Holy Spirit, through whom “God’s charity has been poured into our hearts.”
> 
> Catechism of the Catholic Church, quoting Aquinas (1964)





> [W]hatever spiritual gifts the fathers obtained, they were accidental as it were to their age; for it was necessary for them to direct their eyes to Christ in order to become possessed of them… There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question.
> 
> Calvin (Commentary Hebrews 8:10)



Does that answer your questions? If not, I am happy to elaborate. (I will return in a couple of days to check in).

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

brandonadams said:


> Grant, I'm sorry that you are so frustrated. It was not my intent to frustrate you. I can easily give you clear answers, but my understanding is that people in this thread do not want a list of resources to read to answer their questions. Instead you all want a conversation. I am attempting to have a conversation here, rather than just sending you to the links that answer your question. That involves some back and forth. I'm sorry that you are tired of having to make distinctions and define words, but that is entirely necessary in theology, especially on the issue of Westminster Federalism vs 1689 Federalism. That is how my mind works. I make careful distinctions and define words (at least I try to).
> 
> 
> It is sad that you think that lowly of me, but it is representative of how most Presbyterians tend to look at those of us who hold to 1689 Federalism.
> 
> Thank you for referencing WCF 8.6, but that does not help clarifying this point. Again, that just points to the means that God uses to apply the benefits of Christ's death to OT saints (and it is a point that we affirm). It does not comment on how that is logically possible.
> 
> I did look it up (and edited my post to add that). The definition does not match how you are using it. Merriam Webster defines prospectively as:
> 
> 
> To prospectively apply something would be to apply it in the future. I think the opposite word "retroactive" more accurately communicates what you were trying to convey. The definition of retroactive is
> 
> To retroactively apply something would be to apply it to the past. Do you agree that retroactively is a more accurate word than prospectively here? Would you agree that God imputes Christ's righteousness to OT saints retroactively?
> 
> If so, I agree. The question is, on what basis can God do that? Here is how John Ball answered that question.
> 
> 
> In short, OT saints could receive the benefits of Christ's death because Christ promised the Father he would fulfill his work in the Covenant of Redemption, thus securing the redemption of the elect. Thus it was a guaranteed certainty that the OT saints could "take to the bank." In other words, OT saints received the benefits of the death of Christ in "advance" of the actual death of Christ in a way similar to how one can go to a Pay Day Loan business and get an "advance" on their paycheck because of the certainty of the paycheck to come.
> 
> Here are a couple of similar affirmations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you agree thus far?
> 
> Now the question is how the New Covenant relates to this. We would argue that the efficacy of the mediation of Christ does not extend itself beyond the verge and compass of the New Covenant; for he is only the mediator and surety of this covenant. Therefore the only way for OT saints to receive the benefits of Christ's death is through the New Covenant. However, the New Covenant was inaugurated/established/promulgated at a specific point in history (I would say Pentecost to be exact). Thus we understand God to have applied the New Covenant retroactively to OT saints just as He did Christ's atonement.
> 
> Here are some quotes from other theologians affirming the same thing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does that answer your questions? If not, I am happy to elaborate. (I will return in a couple of days to check in).


Yes, that at least provides more detail for consideration. So thanks. Further, No, I stand by my use of prospectively as relative to the OT saints. OT Saints looked to the future, NT looked to what was already accomplished. Of course there is a sense we are still looking to a future. I agree the terms prospectively and retroactively can vary depending on one’s starting point. If I could have been more clear on that I apologize.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Taylor

brandonadams said:


> …it is representative of how most Presbyterians tend to look at those of us who hold to 1689 Federalism.


Is that really a fair assessment? Seems like a broad brush. I would bet most Presbyterians have never even heard of “1689 Federalism.”

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Heb_4:3 For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

Rev_13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

From the oldest book of the Bible. 

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

My point I want to make here is that there is something all encompassing. 

Eph_1:4 According as he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love:

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## 83r17h

I've been following this thread, and think that Grant and Brandon are addressing two different questions. I'll call them the "historia salutis" and the "ordo salutis" question. The historia salutis question is the same question for both groups (Westminster and 1689), and Brandon is trying to raise and answer that question. It asks "can a future event be the legal basis for current benefits" from the perspective of the OT saints. Both groups answer yes. You could also call this an "accomplishment" question.

However, the question that Grant has been trying to ask, and that seems to be lacking an answer so far, is the ordo salutis question, or the "application" question. It's not about the legal basis of benefits, and how that relates with time. It's about how the benefits are actually acquired subjectively by an OT saint, given that Christ's benefits are only given through the CoG. The Westminster answer is that the OT saints had, and were members of, the CoG, which was administered by the OT covenants. But the reason that they can actually subjectively experience the benefits in the ordo salutis, is because the CoG (the context of the ordo salutis) exists.

By contrast, in 1689 federalism, it asserts that the CoG does not exist. So the question is not one of Christ's accomplishment, by rather by what channel the OT saints subjectively acquire Christ's benefits, and the ordo salutis. Since they deny that the CoG exists in the OT, there is conceivably either 1) no way for them to experience Christ's benefits, or 2) a way outside of the CoG for them to experience Christ's benefits. Either of these is problematic. And if they say that they received the benefits through the OT covenants...then why do they reject that the OT covenants are administrations of the CoG, since "administering the benefits of Christ" is what is meant definitionally by "an administration of the CoG?" 

I might be misreading the whole exchange, but I think that that's the question Grant is trying to ask, while Brandon is trying to answer the former question. Of course, the problem is that the one doesn't really answer the other. So to clarify the question for 1689 federalism: what is the method by which the OT saints subjectively receive the benefits of Christ _during their lives_, if not the CoG since it doesn't exist for them?

Reactions: Like 7 | Love 2


----------



## Smeagol

83r17h said:


> I've been following this thread, and think that Grant and Brandon are addressing two different questions. I'll call them the "historia salutis" and the "ordo salutis" question. The historia salutis question is the same question for both groups (Westminster and 1689), and Brandon is trying to raise and answer that question. It asks "can a future event be the legal basis for current benefits" from the perspective of the OT saints. Both groups answer yes. You could also call this an "accomplishment" question.
> 
> However, the question that Grant has been trying to ask, and that seems to be lacking an answer so far, is the ordo salutis question, or the "application" question. It's not about the legal basis of benefits, and how that relates with time. It's about how the benefits are actually acquired subjectively by an OT saint, given that Christ's benefits are only given through the CoG. The Westminster answer is that the OT saints had, and were members of, the CoG, which was administered by the OT covenants. But the reason that they can actually subjectively experience the benefits in the ordo salutis, is because the CoG (the context of the ordo salutis) exists.
> 
> By contrast, in 1689 federalism, it asserts that the CoG does not exist. So the question is not one of Christ's accomplishment, by rather by what channel the OT saints subjectively acquire Christ's benefits, and the ordo salutis. Since they deny that the CoG exists in the OT, there is conceivably either 1) no way for them to experience Christ's benefits, or 2) a way outside of the CoG for them to experience Christ's benefits. Either of these is problematic. And if they say that they received the benefits through the OT covenants...then why do they reject that the OT covenants are administrations of the CoG, since "administering the benefits of Christ" is what is meant definitionally by "an administration of the CoG?"
> 
> I might be misreading the whole exchange, but I think that that's the question Grant is trying to ask, while Brandon is trying to answer the former question. Of course, the problem is that the one doesn't really answer the other. So to clarify the question for 1689 federalism: what is the method by which the OT saints subjectively receive the benefits of Christ during their lives, if not the CoG since it doesn't exist for them?


Albert,

This is great. You have taken my caveman language and brought more clarity. I hope this helps Brandon and others see what I have been trying to ask! Otherwise the differences just seemed semantic with all the snip quoting of reformed forefathers. I know the differences run much deeper than semantics and was having trouble putting it into words. At least for my part, I can say you have correctly assessed my concerns and I think provided clarity. Thank you brother.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

83r17h said:


> I've been following this thread, and think that Grant and Brandon are addressing two different questions. I'll call them the "historia salutis" and the "ordo salutis" question. The historia salutis question is the same question for both groups (Westminster and 1689), and Brandon is trying to raise and answer that question. It asks "can a future event be the legal basis for current benefits" from the perspective of the OT saints. Both groups answer yes. You could also call this an "accomplishment" question.
> 
> However, the question that Grant has been trying to ask, and that seems to be lacking an answer so far, is the ordo salutis question, or the "application" question. It's not about the legal basis of benefits, and how that relates with time. It's about how the benefits are actually acquired subjectively by an OT saint, given that Christ's benefits are only given through the CoG. The Westminster answer is that the OT saints had, and were members of, the CoG, which was administered by the OT covenants. But the reason that they can actually subjectively experience the benefits in the ordo salutis, is because the CoG (the context of the ordo salutis) exists.
> 
> By contrast, in 1689 federalism, it asserts that the CoG does not exist. So the question is not one of Christ's accomplishment, by rather by what channel the OT saints subjectively acquire Christ's benefits, and the ordo salutis. Since they deny that the CoG exists in the OT, there is conceivably either 1) no way for them to experience Christ's benefits, or 2) a way outside of the CoG for them to experience Christ's benefits. Either of these is problematic. And if they say that they received the benefits through the OT covenants...then why do they reject that the OT covenants are administrations of the CoG, since "administering the benefits of Christ" is what is meant definitionally by "an administration of the CoG?"
> 
> I might be misreading the whole exchange, but I think that that's the question Grant is trying to ask, while Brandon is trying to answer the former question. Of course, the problem is that the one doesn't really answer the other. So to clarify the question for 1689 federalism: what is the method by which the OT saints subjectively receive the benefits of Christ _during their lives_, if not the CoG since it doesn't exist for them?


I have a few minutes this evening and wanted to comment. Thank you Albert for chiming in and helping to clarify the question.

To clarify, we do not deny that the CoG/New Covenant "exists" in the OT. The question is over the nature of that existence. Does it exist as a legally established covenant? No. The CoG/New Covenant is legally established at Pentecost. However, the New Covenant can be applied to OT saints prior to its legal establishment for the reasons given above. From the FAQ titled "Did the Covenant of Grace Exist During the Old Testament?":


> 1689 Federalism teaches that only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, nor Davidic covenants were the Covenant of Grace. Neither was the Covenant of Grace established in Genesis 3:15.
> 
> The question then naturally arises: Did the Covenant of Grace exist during the Old Testament? The 1689 Federalism answer to this question centers around the meaning of "established"/"enacted" (Hebrews 8:6).
> 
> First, the 2LBCF states in *7.3* that _"it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality..."_ Among its references on this particular statement are *Hebrews 11:6, 13* _"And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him... by faith Noah... by faith Abraham... All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth." _*Rom 4:1, 2, &c* "_What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'" _and *John 8:56* _"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” _Thus when we identify the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant alone, we do not exclude those who lived before the establishment of the New Covenant - notably Abraham - from "the grace of this covenant." Nor do we believe that they waited to receive this grace until the death of Christ. In sum, this New Covenant of Grace was extant and effectual under the Old Testament, so as the church was saved by virtue thereof.
> 
> If the New Covenant of Grace was "in effect" since Genesis 3:15, then how can we say it was not established until the death of Christ? First, because its legal effectiveness as a covenant is entirely rooted in the death of Christ. Second, because the "establishment" of the New Covenant refers also to its being reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance - to its being made visible. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, was then made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church. When the New Covenant was given out only in the way of a promise (Gen 3:15, etc), it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was then brought to light, and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was then solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, were all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church.
> 
> The basic idea of the Covenant of Grace revealed and "in effect" prior to its legal establishment (where it is given ordinances of worship) is articulated by Louis Berkhof. "The first revelation of the covenant is found in the protevangel, Gen. 3:15. Some deny that this has any reference to the covenant; and it certainly does not refer to any formal establishment of a covenant... Up to the time of Abraham there was no formal establishment of the covenant of grace. While Gen. 3:15 already contains the elements of this covenant, it does not record a formal transaction by which the covenant was established. It does not even speak explicitly of a covenant. The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church." We would simply say that the New Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant, was the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace and marked the beginning of the institutional Church.


Note also John Ball:


> *The Covenant of Grace is either promised or promulgated and established*. Promised to the Fathers, first to _Adam_, and afterwards to the Patriarchs, and lastly to the people of Israel, and before their coming into the land of Canaan, and after their returne from the Babylonish captivity. Promulgated, after the fulnesse of time came. And hence the Covenant of Grace is distributed into the Covenant of Promise, or the New Covenant, so called by way of excellency. For the Foundation and Mediatour of the Covenant of Grace is our Lord Jesus Christ, but either *to be* incarnate, crucified, and raised from the dead, or *as already* incarnate, crucified, and raised from the dead, and ascended into Heaven. (27)


According to Ball, the Covenant of Grace was established after Christ's death. He identifies the establishment of the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant. Prior to that point, the Covenant of Grace is promised but not established. I encourage you to carefully read Owen's comments on Hebrews 8:6. See 1.2.1.9.2 in this outline https://www.1689federalism.com/owen/demo/owen_ordered.html



> It remains to the exposition of the words that we inquire what this covenant was of which our Lord Christ was the mediator, and what is here affirmed of it.
> 
> This can be no other in general but that which we call “the covenant of grace.” And it is so called in opposition to that of “works” which was made with us in Adam; for these two, grace and works, do divide the ways of our relation to God, being diametrically opposite, and every way inconsistent, Rom. 11:6. Of this covenant the Lord Christ was the mediator from the foundation of the world, namely, from the giving of the first promise, Revelation 13:8; for it was given on his interposition, and all the benefits of it depended on his future actual mediation.
> 
> But here arises the first difficulty of the context and that in two things; for,
> 
> [1.] If this covenant of grace was made from the beginning, and if the Lord Christ was the mediator of it from the first, then where is the privilege of the gospel-state in opposition to the law, by virtue of this covenant, seeing that under the law also the Lord Christ was the mediator of that covenant, which was from the beginning?
> 
> [2.] If it be the covenant of grace which is intended, and that be opposed to the covenant of works made with Adam, then the other covenant must be that covenant of works so made with Adam, which we have before disproved.
> 
> The answer to this is in the word here used by the apostle concerning this new covenant: nenomoqe,thtai, of which meaning we must inquire into. I say, therefore, that the apostle does not here consider *the new covenant* *absolutely, and as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world, in the way of a promise*; for as such it was consistent with that covenant made with the people in Sinai. And the apostle proves expressly, that the renovation of it made to Abraham was no way abrogated by the giving of the law, Gal. 3:17. There was no interruption of its administration made by the introduction of the law. But he treats of such an establishment of the new covenant as by which the old covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, and which was therefore to be removed out of the way. To that end he considers it here as it was actually completed, so as to bring along with it all the ordinances of worship which are proper to it, the dispensation of the Spirit in them, and all the spiritual privileges by which they are accompanied. It is now so brought in as to become the entire rule of the church’s faith, obedience, and worship, in all things.
> 
> This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe,thati, “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 to 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 to it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship to the whole church, nothing being to be admitted in that respect but what belongs to it, and is appointed by it. The apostle intends this by nenomoqe,thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. On this the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship in accordance with which it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was added into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent with that. *When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce worship and privileges expressive of it. To that end it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not to 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 to it. *Then it was established*. Therefore it follows, in answer to the second difficulty, that *as a promise, it was opposed to the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed to that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship to that belonging, accomplished this alteration.
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RCH, CHAPTER 10 : The Difference Between the Two Covenants | 1689 Federalism
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.1689federalism.com


I can guess what you will say next, but I have to leave it there for now. I will return when I can.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

brandonadams said:


> To clarify, we do not deny that the CoG/New Covenant "exists" in the OT. The question is over the nature of that existence. Does it exist as a legally established covenant? No. The CoG/New Covenant is legally established at Pentecost. However, the New Covenant can be applied to OT saints prior to its legal establishment for the reasons given above. From the FAQ titled "Did the Covenant of Grace Exist During the Old Testament?":


Yeah, this totally defines that we are not the same. It is a debate about Administration as I found out years ago. The Baptist views are various and their views of stand alone Covenants falls short and definitely displays a form of dispensationalism foreign to the scriptures in my estimation. The Mosaic Covenant was where I first started to recognize the situation but the problem also moves into all the other Covenants. Some view all of the various Covenants as administrations of the Covenant of Grace where Baptists and 1689 Federalists believe the prior Covenants vary and are stand alone Covenants separate from being Administered by the Covenant of Grace. 

I hope I cleared that up as good as muddy water. LOL.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## TheInquirer

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Yeah, this totally defines that we are not the same. It is a debate about Administration as I found out years ago. The Baptist views are various and their views of stand alone Covenants falls short and definitely displays a form of dispensationalism foreign to the scriptures in my estimation. The Mosaic Covenant was where I first started to recognize the situation but the problem also moves into all the other Covenants. Some view all of the various Covenants as administrations of the Covenant of Grace where Baptists and 1689 Federalists believe the prior Covenants vary and are stand alone Covenants separate from being Administered by the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> I hope I cleared that up as good as muddy water. LOL.



Then I would have to say you never really understood Baptist Covenant Theology very well because:

1) We don't believe the covenant are stand alone covenants
2) Our views fail the Dispensationalism test at just about every point of comparison

The "Dispensationalism" charge is absolutely ludicrous and is either:

1) A cheap rhetorical tactic designed to paint our view as negatively as possible
2) Borne completely out of ignorance of both our view and Dispensationalism

This is the same old "If it ain't WCF Federalism, it must be Dispensationalism" nonsense.

Reactions: Like 3 | Wow 1


----------



## Smeagol

TheInquirer said:


> Then I would have to say you never really understood Baptist Covenant Theology very well because:
> 
> 1) We don't believe the covenant are stand alone covenants
> 2) Our views fail the Dispensationalism test at just about every point of comparison
> 
> The "Dispensationalism" charge is absolutely ludicrous and is either:
> 
> 1) A cheap rhetorical tactic designed to paint our view as negatively as possible
> 2) Borne completely out of ignorance of both our view and Dispensationalism
> 
> This is the same old "If it ain't WCF Federalism, it must be Dispensationalism" nonsense.


Or it could be possible that in our reading of the source language linked, there do seem to be similarities with Dispensationalist statements regarding how they view the covenants.

Also regarding your 1), my understanding is that your position maintains at least 7 distinct covenants in essence. Sure you state the CoG was somehow active but do you not say it is stand alone?

Referenced here:





1689 Federalism Revisited


Not a monolithic movement: Among 1689 Federalists there is much variation. Any theological position contains variation within it. But theological positions exist because of unity/agreement on certain points. 1689 Federalism is a system of covenant theology unified around certain key points...




www.puritanboard.com


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

TheInquirer said:


> Then I would have to say you never really understood Baptist Covenant Theology very well because:
> 
> 1) We don't believe the covenant are stand alone covenants
> 2) Our views fail the Dispensationalism test at just about every point of comparison
> 
> The "Dispensationalism" charge is absolutely ludicrous and is either:
> 
> 1) A cheap rhetorical tactic designed to paint our view as negatively as possible
> 2) Borne completely out of ignorance of both our view and Dispensationalism


Hummm. It seems your response totally ignored the Administration discussion. 

I am unclear what many Baptists hold to anymore. There seems to be a new strain pop up more often then we want to acknowledge. I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I was 48 when I became Reformed. Maybe you can help me understand. I admit I could be wrong.


----------



## Jason F.

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Hummm. It seems your response totally ignored the Administration discussion.
> 
> I am unclear what many Baptists hold to anymore. There seems to be a new strain pop up more often then we want to acknowledge. I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I was 48 when I became Reformed. Maybe you can help me understand. I admit I could be wrong.


If not for the negative connotations that go with the term "dispensation", I think it could almost be used synonymously with "administration".


----------



## Ben Zartman

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Hummm. It seems your response totally ignored the Administration discussion.
> 
> I am unclear what many Baptists hold to anymore. There seems to be a new strain pop up more often then we want to acknowledge. I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I was 48 when I became Reformed. Maybe you can help me understand. I admit I could be wrong.


You're in good company. I also am unclear what many Baptists hold to anymore 
Every time I think I've got a handle on exactly where me and Federalism part ways, they come back and tell me that we're in exact agreement there, but I just don't understand the nuance.
What I wonder is, with such fine nuance at play, is it even worth saying there's a difference? Why bother with a new moniker if the only difference is so undetectably minute we can't seem to sort it out after umpteen pages of posts? It's not like we're trolls here deliberately obfuscating: we're mostly literate, well-read Christians seriously trying to figure out what our brothers believe.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Imputatio

I will confess, as someone whose only studying of Covenant Theology is half of Denault’s book and some John Flavel, rbis thread leaves me scratching my head. 

(I landed in an RB church after I was saved; I did not go there out of conviction. Just now studying the topic.)


----------



## Ben Zartman

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> I will confess, as someone whose only studying of Covenant Theology is half of Denault’s book and some John Flavel, rbis thread leaves me scratching my head.
> 
> (I landed in an RB church after I was saved; I did not go there out of conviction. Just now studying the topic.)


The LBCF is a brief and well-worded place to start: God promised a Messiah in Gen 3, and progressively revealed facts about him in the various covenants, which were promises of Christ and painted pictures of him. All the promises, all the pictures, all the shadows, were fulfilled by Christ--it was all about Christ, start to finish "that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." No one was ever or will ever be saved apart from union with Christ.
It's unfortunate that the precise meaning of the term "covenant of grace" is so earnestly contended for, since the term is not found in Scripture. Some take it to mean "God's redemptive plan," because surely that is all of grace, and others to mean "The New Covenant in Christs' blood," and a huge controversy rages over a term that can be used in whatever way one likes. If everyone were to state briefly exactly what they take the "Covenant of Grace" to mean, perhaps all these pages could have been avoided.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Ben Zartman said:


> The LBCF is a brief and well-worded place to start: God promised a Messiah in Gen 3, and progressively revealed facts about him in the various covenants, which were promises of Christ and painted pictures of him. All the promises, all the pictures, all the shadows, were fulfilled by Christ--it was all about Christ, start to finish "that he might be the firstborn among many brethren." No one was ever or will ever be saved apart from union with Christ.
> It's unfortunate that the precise meaning of the term "covenant of grace" is so earnestly contended for, since the term is not found in Scripture. Some take it to mean "God's redemptive plan," because surely that is all of grace, and others to mean "The New Covenant in Christs' blood," and a huge controversy rages over a term that can be used in whatever way one likes. *If everyone were to state briefly exactly what they take the "Covenant of Grace" to mean, perhaps all these pages could have been avoided.*



We 1689 Federalists haven't been coy about this at all. When we say "Covenant of Grace", we mean "The New Covenant in Christ's Blood".

We've been saying that over and over. I am not sure how you missed this.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## 83r17h

brandonadams said:


> I have a few minutes this evening and wanted to comment. Thank you Albert for chiming in and helping to clarify the question.
> 
> To clarify, we do not deny that the CoG/New Covenant "exists" in the OT. The question is over the nature of that existence. Does it exist as a legally established covenant? No. The CoG/New Covenant is legally established at Pentecost. However, the New Covenant can be applied to OT saints prior to its legal establishment for the reasons given above. From the FAQ titled "Did the Covenant of Grace Exist During the Old Testament?":
> 
> Note also John Ball:
> 
> According to Ball, the Covenant of Grace was established after Christ's death. He identifies the establishment of the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant. Prior to that point, the Covenant of Grace is promised but not established. I encourage you to carefully read Owen's comments on Hebrews 8:6. See 1.2.1.9.2 in this outline https://www.1689federalism.com/owen/demo/owen_ordered.html
> 
> 
> I can guess what you will say next, but I have to leave it there for now. I will return when I can.



Brandon, I've read through this a few times. It's interesting. However, I think it's still addressing the historia salutis question, not the ordo salutis one - which is why you're able to reference folks like Berkhof and Ball for support (since Berkhof is definitely not a 1689 federalist, and seemingly neither was Ball as he was very favorably received by members of the Westminster assembly). I'm not too keen to get into a discussion about interpreting older authors as it's not really the focus, and I'm in the middle of moving. But I think that citing these authors shows that you're still addressing the question where we are in agreement (the historia one), and not the one where we are in disagreement (the ordo one). 

To narrow the question down to a bit more specific one: when Abraham exercised faith during his life, did he at that point become a member of the covenant of grace? Or did he only become a member of the covenant of grace after Christ's work was complete? I think your wording of "retroactively" hints that in 1689 federalism the latter is the case.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## Pergamum

I hope this thread does not get closed; it is a very good discussion.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> I hope this thread does not get closed; it is a very good discussion.


Some time ago you said:


Pergamum said:


> I would argue that the Reformed generally read ALL books too much


and


Pergamum said:


> Read less and do more


I assume you have retracted these statements

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pergamum

Stephen L Smith said:


> Some time ago you said:
> 
> and
> 
> I assume you have retracted these statements


I would prefer the Puritanboard in purely meme form, but sometimes I break down and sound out the words to see what y'all are ranting about.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 3


----------



## TheInquirer

Martin, I apologize for speaking to you harshly out of frustration. That was sin and it was wrong. I should have waited to respond until the frustration wore off. I've always appreciated your calm demeanor on the board and I let my emotions get ahold of me. I am just tired of the Dispensationalism charge after demonstrating 1689 Federalism isn't at all like it but that is no excuse at all for the way I responded.

I don't always know how to answer every question in technical detail, especially when I am not clear how terms are being used by both sides. Brandon is much, much more astute and educated in those regards than I am.

Reactions: Like 1 | Praying 1


----------



## Romans678

Pergamum said:


> I hope this thread does not get closed; it is a very good discussion.


Let's get it to 300 replies.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Imputatio

How much newer is the current formulation of 1689 Federalism than that of what the WCF sought to capture? 

How far back can you trace the WCF formulation?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> How much newer is the current formulation of 1689 Federalism than that of what the WCF sought to capture?
> 
> How far back can you trace the WCF formulation?



If the "current formulation of 1689 Federalism" is taken to mean "the New Covenant in Christ's Blood alone is the Covenant of Grace", then it's actually older than the WCF formulation by over 1000 years. Augustine, for example, said that the Saints of the OT were saved by the New Covenant. I think he'd look at you funny if you tried to explain to him that the Old Covenant is of the same substance as the New Covenant.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Taylor

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> If the "current formulation of 1689 Federalism" is taken to mean "the New Covenant in Christ's Blood alone is the Covenant of Grace", then it's actually older than the WCF formulation by over 1000 years. Augustine, for example, said that the Saints of the OT were saved by the New Covenant. I think he'd look at you funny if you tried to explain to him that the Old Covenant is of the same substance as the New Covenant.


Would this not be somewhat anachronistic? With regard to the covenants of Scripture, was Augustine thinking in terms of substance and administration? Was he thinking in terms of continuity and discontinuity? When you say, "Augustine said that the Saints of the OT were saved by the New Covenant," even supposing those were his _exact_ words, how do we conclude from this that he is arguing for a theological formulation that would not exist for another 1200 years?

So, with regard to this utilization of Augustine, I have a few questions:

What were Augustine's exact words?
What did Augustine mean by those words? If Augustine did say, in so many words, "Saints are saved by the New Covenant," my question would be, "As opposed to what?" The Old Covenant? The Covenant of Works? It matters. I'm a Presbyterian, and I would never say anyone was saved _by_ the Old Covenant. Anyone who is saved is saved by union with Christ.
What were Augustine's categories and theological framework with regard to the covenants?

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## De Jager

One thing that I've learned in my years on the PB is that the early church fathers are often appealed to, but as soon as you think they say something that helps your position, they say or do something else that totally runs against it.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Eyedoc84

De Jager said:


> One thing that I've learned in my years on the PB is that the early church fathers are often appealed to, but as soon as you think they say something that helps your position, they say or do something else that totally runs against it.


Didn’t Calvin say much the same thing? The Fathers can be helpful in some respects, but often times they are all over the place. They also weren’t answering the same questions we’re asking.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Romans678

De Jager said:


> One thing that I've learned in my years on the PB is that the early church fathers are often appealed to, but as soon as you think they say something that helps your position, they say or do something else that totally runs against it.


I'm pretty sure the early church fathers fancied Arby's over Lion's Choice...

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Ben Zartman

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> We 1689 Federalists haven't been coy about this at all. When we say "Covenant of Grace", we mean "The New Covenant in Christ's Blood".
> 
> We've been saying that over and over. I am not sure how you missed this.


Then there is nothing to argue about: everyone believes that remission of sins has only ever been by the shedding of Christ's blood. So the question that remains is: why bother taking on a new name contra the "20th century RB" position?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

My main "beef" with the 1689 Federalists started with the stupid term "20th Century Reformed Baptist position".

That is like saying you are either a feminist or a domestic abuser. The very terms employed are a marketing/branding attempt to push an agenda and disadvantage the other side by mere labeling. This comes close to sophistry. As if 20th Century Baptist position was a short blip and this new-fangled (that's a word, right) "1689 Federalism" that has been pushed for less than 20 years is now THE "historic" position.

Furthermore, the term "1689 Federalist" attempts to claim the high ground through, again, branding. "We are THE confessional position!" they say, when the confession doesn't, in fact, say all that much on the topic.

It is better just to say that baptists have always been somewhat confused on the covenants...but that gets fewer followers. I believe this whole affair will result in, not an increase of Reformed Baptists, but in many RBs becoming Presbyterian. Every year there is something else I now need to affirm to be a "good" Reformed Baptist. How annoying when trying to plant a church in deep jungle only to emerge after several years and come home to get grilled over silly tertiary nuances of language and asked what new theological camp I belong to.

Reactions: Like 11


----------



## Smeagol

Pergamum said:


> annoying when trying to plant a church in deep jungle only to emerge after several years and come home to get grilled over silly tertiary nuances of language and asked what new theological camp I belong to.


I promise to only hand out tenderary nuanced chicken sandwich test, and no grilling just frying.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1 | Funny 1


----------



## brandonadams

83r17h said:


> Brandon, I've read through this a few times. It's interesting. However, I think it's still addressing the historia salutis question, not the ordo salutis one - which is why you're able to reference folks like Berkhof and Ball for support (since Berkhof is definitely not a 1689 federalist, and seemingly neither was Ball as he was very favorably received by members of the Westminster assembly). I'm not too keen to get into a discussion about interpreting older authors as it's not really the focus, and I'm in the middle of moving. But I think that citing these authors shows that you're still addressing the question where we are in agreement (the historia one), and not the one where we are in disagreement (the ordo one).


I did not quote Berkhof or Ball to imply they were 1689 Federalistsm, nor that they agreed with everything I said in that post or previously. I apologize if I was not clear, but I quoted them specifically to show support for the narrow point that they did not believe the Covenant of Grace was established in Genesis 3:15. Ball had significant influence on the formulation of the WCF, and yet he affirmed that the Covenant of Grace was promised and then later established. That's a common point of agreement with what I was explaining, contra most today who argue the Covenant of Grace was established in Gen 3:15. So that's why I quoted him. (And I quote people to demonstrate my point because otherwise I'll just be dismissed as a dispensationalist baptist who doesn't know what he's talking about and is just making stuff up.) If you read that section from Ball he goes on to explain that he believes the other OT covenants = the Covenant of Promise and argues they were the same in substance as the New. We disagree there, as I explain in this post https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2019/03/28/john-ball-on-salvation-prior-to-christs-death/

I disagree with your perspective that I am only addressing historia salutis. I don't believe that is the case. I am addressing both (or at least intending to).



83r17h said:


> To narrow the question down to a bit more specific one: when Abraham exercised faith during his life, did he at that point become a member of the covenant of grace? Or did he only become a member of the covenant of grace after Christ's work was complete? I think your wording of "retroactively" hints that in 1689 federalism the latter is the case.


I actually answered this above in my statement explaining 2LBCF 7.3 and its Scripture references. "Thus when we identify the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant alone, we do not exclude those who lived before the establishment of the New Covenant - notably Abraham - from "the grace of this covenant." Nor do we believe that they waited to receive this grace until the death of Christ." He was a member of the covenant of grace (New Covenant) during his life. Retroactive is not intended to imply the latter. Retroactive is used by Horton (see above), Tipton, and others to explain the work of the Spirit and the application of redemption.



> During the time of the law… [t]he children of God after the Spirit (though as underage children they were subject to the pedagogy of the law, yet) as to their spiritual and eternal state, walked before God and found acceptance with him on terms of the covenant of grace… this spiritual relationship to God [was] according to the terms of the new covenant which the truly godly then had[.]
> Coxe, Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ, p. 133





> The grace and blessings of the new covenant were given and ensured to Abraham for himself.
> Coxe, 75





> All believers, who lived under the Old Testament, were saved by the covenant of grace, which Christ was to establish.
> 
> Keach, “The Display of Glorious Grace” in _The Covenant Theology of Benjamin Keach_ (Conway: Free Grace Press, 2017), 110.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Pergamum said:


> I hope this thread does not get closed; it is a very good discussion.



Major Premise: Only the good threads die young.

Minor Premise: This thread is now nine pages long.

Ergo: .... ?????

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Eyedoc84

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Major Premise: Only the good threads die young.
> 
> Minor Premise: This thread is now nine pages long.
> 
> Ergo: .... ?????


This is possibly a bad thread.


----------



## Pergamum

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Major Premise: Only the good threads die young.
> 
> Minor Premise: This thread is now nine pages long.
> 
> Ergo: .... ?????


If there was ever anything to get excited about, it is the Word of God. Thus vigorous banter is a good thing. Unless I am losing.....

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum

Eyedoc84 said:


> This is possibly a bad thread.


That is philosophically possible. Let's thumb-wrestle over it!

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

51 replies left...

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum

Anthony W. Brown II said:


> 51 replies left...
> 
> Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk


I am sure Grant can talk about chicken sandwiches for 49 of them.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Romans678

Pergamum said:


> I am sure Grant can talk about chicken sandwiches for 49 of them.


I legitimately laughed out loud at this. 

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

De Jager said:


> You say that circumcision relates "in some typological manner to regeneration and union with Christ" but "was not a covenant sign of regeneration". What does this even mean? To me, this is a distinction without a difference. If something is a "type", then it necessarily "points to" the antitype, which is the same idea as a a "sign" pointing to "the thing signified".
> 
> You have essentially here admitted that circumcision points to regeneration and union with Christ. The question is, when did it start pointing to these spiritual things? Only once the NC was inaugurated, or when the sign was instituted? I contend that it was when the sign was instituted. When did the Passover meal start pointing to Christ's work on the cross? It was immediately upon the institution. These signs have always pointed to these spiritual things.


Izaak, thank you for your questions. Again, I encourage you to study the position in more depth. Reading Samuel Renihan's "The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom" will help you to better understand what is being briefly conveyed in my comments in this thread.

I believe that part of your difficulty in understanding what I said is that you are conflating a sign and a type. They are two different things. Augustine defines signs as "those things, to wit, which are used to indicate something else." Merriam-Webster offers the definition "a mark having a conventional meaning and used in place of words or to represent a complex notion." A type, on the other hand, is an analogy. Beale:



> The study of analogical correspondences among revealed truths about persons, events, institutions, and other things within the historical framework of God’s special revelation, which, from a retrospective view, are of a prophetic nature and are escalated in meaning... By “escalation” is meant that the antitype (the NT correspondence) is heightened in some way in relation to the OT type. For example, John 19:36 views the requirement of not breaking the bones of the Passover lamb in the OT epoch to point to a greater reality of the bones of Jesus not being broken at the crucifixion… [E]scalation would be the correspondence of God providing literal manna from heaven for physical sustenance and providing the manna of Christ from heaven for spiritual sustenance.
> https://www.wtsbooks.com/pdf_files/9780801038969.pdf



An example of a sign is a stop sign. It can take the form of a red, metal octogon on top of a pole or it can take the form of a red, circular light at the bottom of a traffic light. Both forms of the sign signify the same thing: you must stop your car. However, neither of them are analogies of stopping your car. They do not typify stopping your car.

On the other hand, a bicycle and a rocket ship have an analogical correspondence. A bicycle is to transportation to the grocery store as a rocket ship is to transportation to the moon. _bicycle : grocery store :: rocket ship : moon_. A bicycle is not a sign of a rocket ship. We could say that, in the history of transportation, a bicycle _points to_ the rocket ship as an early stage of discovery and invention culminating in the rocket ship. But that does not mean a bicycle is or was a sign of a rocket ship.

John Ball exemplifies the conflation of sign and type


> the Sacraments of the Jewes did signifie and seale to them, the same promises of eternal life, which our Sacraments doe to us. The Sacraments of the Old Testament were not types of our Sacraments, as sometimes they are called by Divines: but they typified the same things that ours doe. For as the Covenants under which they and we lived, were one for substance: so are the Sacraments one in their common nature and signification. (30)
> https://archive.org/details/treatiseofcovena00ball/page/n4



Note well the last sentence in Beale's statement above "E]scalation would be the correspondence of God providing literal manna from heaven for physical sustenance and providing the manna of Christ from heaven for spiritual sustenance." Ball says the sacraments of the Old and the New were the same because they "typified" the same thing. But he really means "signified" the same thing. He believes that the manna and the Lord's Supper both signified communion with Christ. However, they did not. Beale on the other hand says that the manna was physical sustenance for Israel, which ends up being analogous to the miraculous provision of Christ's body from heaven for our spiritual sustenance. Thus it was a type of Christ, but not a covenant sign of communion with Christ.

This part of the OPC Report is relevant:


> By adding obedience to the ceremonial law to the essential condition of the covenant, the subservient covenant position gives Mosaic typology a fundamentally works-based character, rather than an evangelical one. Proponents did not deny that these various types also signified spiritual benefits, but they insisted that they only did so “secondarily” or indirectly, while their primary reference was to temporal things promised in the covenant.169
> 
> [169] Cameron put it this way: “The Sacraments, Sacrifices, and Ceremonies of the Old Testament did set forth Christ, and the Benefits by Christ; not primarily, but secondarily…but the Sacraments of the New Covenant do shew forth Christ primarily, and that clearly” (as translated by Samuel Bolton in his True Boundes, 399). Thus circumcision primarily signified the separation between the seed of Abraham and the rest of the nations and sealed to them the earthly promise. The Passover primarily signified the passing over of the destroying Angel. The sacrifices and washings primarily represented only a carnal holiness. Only secondarily did these benefits signify Christ...



Izaak, you concluded:


> Circumcision was not simply a fleshly ordinance meant to seal the promises that the Christ would come from Abraham's loins. This does not make sense considering the fact that those who were _not of his seed_ were circumcised (Gen. 17:12) along with foreigners (Exodus 12:43-49).


I did not say that guaranteeing (seal) that Christ would come from the line of Abraham to justify the nations was the _only _meaning of circumcision. Please re-read what I wrote in comment #173. As a covenant sign, circumcision signified to the party circumcised their consecration to the service of Yahweh according to the terms of Mosaic law. Note Pink as well


> The next thing we would observe is that circumcision was “a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had.” Again we would say, Let us be on our guard against adding to God’s Word, for nowhere does Scripture say that circumcision was a seal to anyone but to Abraham himself; and even in his case, so far was it from communicating any spiritual blessing, it simply confirmed what was already promised to him. As a seal from God, circumcision was a divine pledge or guaranty that from him should issue that seed which would bring blessing to all nations, and that, on the same terms as justifying righteousness had become his—by faith alone. It was not a seal of his faith, but of that righteousness which, in due time, was to be wrought out by the Messiah and Mediator. Circumcision was not a memorial of anything which had already been actualised, but an earnest of that which was yet future—namely, of that justifying righteousness which was to be brought in by Christ.
> 
> But did not God enjoin that all the males of Abraham’s household, and in those of his descendants, should also be circumcised? He did, and in that very fact we find definite confirmation of what has just been said above. What did circumcision seal to Abraham’s servants and slaves? Nothing. “Circumcision neither signed nor sealed the blessings of the covenant of Abraham to the individuals to whom it was by Divine appointment administered. It did not imply that they who were circumcised were accounted the heirs of the promises, either temporal or spiritual. It was not applied to mark them individually as heirs of the promises. It did not imply this even to Isaac and Jacob, who are by name designated heirs with Abraham. Their interest in the promises was secured to them by God’s expressly giving them the covenant, but was not represented in their circumcision... It was the token of this covenant; and as a token or sign, no doubt applied to every promise in the covenant, but it did not designate the individual circumcised as having a personal interest in these promises. The covenant promised a numerous seed to Abraham; circumcision, as the token of that covenant, must have been a sign of this; but it did not sign this to any other. Any other circumcised individual, except Isaac and Jacob, to whom the covenant was given by name, might have been childless.
> 
> “Circumcision did not import to any individual that any portion of the numerous seed of Abraham should descend through him. The covenant promised that all nations should be blessed in Abraham—that the Messiah should be his descendant. But circumcision was no sign to any other that the Messiah should descend from him,—even to Isaac and Jacob this promise was peculiarly given, and not implied in their circumcision. From some of Abraham’s race, the Messiah, according to the covenant, must descend, and circumcision was a sign of this: but this was not signed by circumcision to any one of all his race. Much less could circumcision ‘sign’ this to the strangers and slaves who were not of Abraham’s posterity. To such, even the temporal promises were not either ‘signed’ or sealed by circumcision. The covenant promised Canaan to Abraham’s descendants, but circumcision could be no sign of this to the strangers and slaves who enjoyed no inheritance in it” (Alexander Carson, 1860).
> 
> That circumcision did not seal anything to anyone but to Abraham himself is established beyond shadow of doubt by the fact that circumcision was applied to those who had no personal interest in the covenant to which it was attached. Not only was circumcision administered by Abraham to the servants and slaves of his household, but in Genesis 17:23 we read that he circumcised Ishmael, who was expressly excluded from that covenant! There is no evading the force of that, and it is impossible to reconcile it with the views so widely pervading upon the Abrahamic covenant. Furthermore, circumcision was not submitted to voluntarily, nor given with reference to faith, it was compulsory, and that in every instance: “He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money must needs be circumcised” (Gen. 17:13)— those refusing, being “cut off from his people” (v. 14). How vastly different was that from Christian baptism!
> 
> -Pink, Arthur W. (2010-03-19). The Divine Covenants (Kindle Locations 2167-2186). . Kindle Edition.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Imputatio

@De Jager you are a former Baptist, correct? How long ago did you change your mind on these issues?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> @De Jager you are a former Baptist, correct? How long ago did you change your mind on these issues?


I was a Baptist. Well, to be honest I was just a broadly evangelical which is "baptist" by default. First came the doctrines of grace, then came the covenantal views after that.

PM me if you want to hear more.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ethan

The latest reformed forum episode is on John Owen, Jeremiah 31, and the relationship between the Old and New Covenant.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Romans678

Ethan said:


> The latest reformed forum episode is on John Owen, Jeremiah 31, and the relationship between the Old and New Covenant.


Are you in my brain? I was just about to post this. Thank you!

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Aspiring Homesteader said:


> @De Jager you are a former Baptist, correct? How long ago did you change your mind on these issues?


Me too. This is my story. If you can make heads or tails of it. My journey had a lot of different streams that all ran together into a river for me. So be patient with me. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Ethan said:


> The latest reformed forum episode is on John Owen, Jeremiah 31, and the relationship between the Old and New Covenant.


I haven't listened to this episode but something I noticed is that a lot of people read Jeremiah 31 and stop. They need to read Jeremiah 32 also. Paul Manata taught me that many moons ago.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Claudiu

Claudiu said:


> I find this frustrating with the 1689 Fed position. It seems like every exchange I’ve seen with the Federalist it gets to the Federalist saying: “you don’t get it, here’s a list of books to read.” Is there an exchange where the Federalist admits the other side understands the position but just doesn’t accept it? Or maybe, if truly everyone is misunderstanding the position, there is a fundamental problem with it.


I have to take this back. After wading into some of the literature, I have to admit the topic is more complicated, or at least more nuanced, than simply participating in a discussion board. Looking at the primary sources, and current scholarship, I can appreciate your contribution @brandonadams and pointing us to books and articles.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Claudiu said:


> I have to take this back. After wading into some of the literature, I have to admit the topic is more complicated, or at least more nuanced, than simply participating in a discussion board. Looking at the primary sources, and current scholarship, I can appreciate your contribution @brandonadams and pointing us to books and articles.


Claudia, wouldn't you agree that most of the situation is one of hermeneutics, Law Gospel Dichotomy stuff? Yes, there is a rediscovery of older anti-paedobaptist guys but we as Reformed People have this disagreement concerning Law Gospel hermeneutic too. Maybe it isn't one of hermeneutics, what do you think? It just seems to be a matter of how far you pursue interpretation by hermeneutics along with scripture.


----------



## Claudiu

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Claudia, wouldn't you agree that most of the situation is one of hermeneutics, Law Gospel Dichotomy stuff? Yes, there is a rediscovery of older anti-paedobaptist guys but we as Reformed People have this disagreement concerning Law Gospel hermeneutic too. Maybe it isn't one of hermeneutics, what do you think? It just seems to be a matter of how far you pursue interpretation by hermeneutics along with scripture.


I think I largely agree with you. The discussion is a (i) history of the (ii) theology. Brandon helpfully summarizes it here:



> The term "1689 Federalism" was coined approximately 5 years ago to describe the majority view of the 17th century particular baptists. It was a view that had been neglected/lost. 20th century Reformed Baptists were not familiar with it, thus a label was necessary to distinguish it from the view that was developed in the latter half of the 20th century. The label "1689 Federalism" was not intended to convey that the formulations of 20th century Reformed Baptists was contrary to the confession. The wording of the confession is broad enough to embrace both views.
> 
> Why was "1689 Federalism" used to describe one view and not the other? Because "1689 Federalism" explains the rationale behind the change in language of the 2LBCF with regards to covenant theology (whereas Waldron's view would not) and because it was the vast majority view (I believe only one author has been found to have held something closer to the modern 20th cent/Waldron view).








Clarification on the label "1689 Federalism"


In another thread, MW asked: Two different positions claim to follow the federalism of the 1689 Confession. One of them, which we might call Waldron's view, is much closer to the reformed covenant theology of the Westminster Confession. The other, which we might call Denault's view, is clearly...




puritanboard.com





(i) From my reading I think this is an accurate portrayal. This is akin to the various covenantal views within even the broader Reformed fold. It’s simplistic to assume a monolithic gloss of covenant theology. The Puritans themselves had differing views.

(ii) Re hermeneutics: I think the law/gospel distinction within the covenantal framework is one of the key factors. Don’t we see this play out historically with the Puritans, Murray, Kline, etc. on something like what the Mosaic Covenant is, and how it relates to the Edenic, Abrahamic and New?


----------



## jw

It’ll be multi-volume soon.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I noted Brandon's mention of Cameron and the OPC report above. For the mind of me I do not understand why he mentions Cameron and the OPC report. He was probably mentioned for historical context. It has been a while since I read the report. The report actually finds his position out of bounds because he is one of the early guys making the Mosaic Covenant a Covenant of Works. Samuel Bolton followed Cameron's theology and replaced someone on the Westminster Commission. But he joined after chapter 7 was done if my recollection serves me correctly.

I sent a similar message to someone who asked me if I could make heads or tails with 1689 Federalism...

Basically Reformed Baptist Theology has just gotten a bit more nuanced. Using the historical writings from people like Nehemiah Coxe and Benjamin Keach it has been a bit more defined. They have tried to bring a more defined Systematic Theology into their midst. When I was Reformed Baptist we really didn't have a Systematic Theology. We had Boyce's Abstract Theology and maybe Strong's Systematic but that was about all. Wayne Grudem's came along later. We also had Waldron's commentary on the 1689. Rich Barcellos published Nehemiah Coxe's book From Adam to Christ which included a Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8 from John Owen. Reformed Baptist Theology like Reformed Theology has gone through some academic challenges and research in the past few decades. 1689 Federalism is Novel by definition but not necessarily new. It was becoming popular about the time I was working through understanding Administration, the Covenant of Grace and the Abrahamic / Mosaic / New Covenants. A lot of the 1689 Federalism references are rediscovered stuff. It looks like a lot of their research is hand picked statements that apply topically but not necessarily taking in full context sometimes. I refer you to a discussion on John Owen and the Covenant of grace here. It basically comes down to what hermeneutic is used when interpreting scripture. There is more of a Law Gospel dichotomy in their hermeneutic which is not new. It is recently even found in reformed camps such as Kline and his descendents Clark, Horton, David Van Drunen, Estelle, etc. The OPC report found the position out of bounds confessionally. 

I would like to know what differences you see between the 20th Century RB's and this recent small batch of guys.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Concerning Brandon's mention of the Baptist Confessions I recommend this book whole heartedly. 

https://www.amazon.com/discussion-seventeenth-century-Baptist-confessions/dp/B0006YNI6S
A discussion of seventeenth century Baptist confessions of faith: Published to examine the historical, political and religious background of the 1644 and 1689 Bapitst Confessions of Faith​by Richard P Belcher (Author)
Published to Examine the Historical, Political, and Religious Background of the 1644 and 1689 London Baptist Confessions of Faith. There are those today who claim that The First London Confession in its 1644 and 1646 editions has a different view of the Law than does The Second London Confession of 1689. It is contended that the First London Confession has a New Covenant emphasis that was lost or eliminated in the Second London Confession. The Second, it is claimed, possessed an Old Covenant emphasis concerning the Law because of the influence of the Westminster Confession as its view was forced on Baptists by the historical, religious, and political climate of the day. This volume by Dr. Belcher and Anthony Mattia examines these claims to determine their historical validity. The authors set forth the evidence from history in a clear and convincing manner as they reach definite conclusions concerning this important and controversial subject. This book is a must for those who want to inform themselves further about the religious and political background of the seventeenth century Baptist confessions of faith.

I whole heartedly recommend this book. I can't find my copy. LOL


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Just for some insight and because someone asked above..... Here is where my theological journey started to take a turn. I do not believe there is a Covenant of Works involved in the Mosaic. It is purely a Covenant of Grace to the redeemed. I actually make this statement. "The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God."

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

Wow, does time fly. I wrote that 10 years ago.


----------



## brandonadams

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I noted Brandon's mention of Cameron and the OPC report above. For the mind of me I do not understand why he mentions Cameron and the OPC report. He was probably mentioned for historical context. It has been a while since I read the report. The report actually finds his position out of bounds


I'm not sure what is confusing about me mentioning the OPC Report. Yes, it found that the subservient covenant view is contrary to the WCF. I agree. But I don't think the WCF is biblical, nor am I bound by it, so that doesn't settle the matter. I think the Report does a decent job of clarifying various issues, even though I don't agree with its biblical conclusions. I specifically quoted it above simply to lend support to the idea that there is/was another way of understanding typology than where WCF settled. The particular quote summarized the subservient view on the matter in a way that re-iterated what I had said, so I thought it was useful.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Claudiu said:


> I have to take this back. After wading into some of the literature, I have to admit the topic is more complicated, or at least more nuanced, than simply participating in a discussion board. Looking at the primary sources, and current scholarship, I can appreciate your contribution @brandonadams and pointing us to books and articles.


Thank you Claudiu.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

brandonadams said:


> I specifically quoted it above simply to lend support to the idea that there is/was another way of understanding typology than where WCF settled.


That is why I stated what I did. I assumed that is why you did it. I am sorry I couldn't put it together easier. LOL. I am getting slower in mind. I understand what you are saying Brandon. I do believe your position is novel. It is a lot of reintroduction. I understand that. I believe there were differing views in 77. Bunyan being one of them if I remember correctly. I am not sure he would be as defined or speak the way you guys do concerning the Covenant of Grace. I have forgotten so much of what I have read it. 




brandonadams said:


> I agree. But I don't think the WCF is biblical, nor am I bound by it, so that doesn't settle the matter.


We should be discussing hermeneutics maybe if we want to really discuss the issue and learn about it. It is alright if you don't agree with the WCF. I was an old School Baptist guy with a new bent before you guys. I had studied Mike Renihan's "Antipeadobaptism in the thought of John Tombe" book. Read Benjamin Keach and Coxe. I had those blogged on the PB but the PB Blogs are gone. I will have to repost them. They are good reads. But the issue is about Law / Gospel. It is a hermeneutic isssue. Another issue is language. Sometimes we say the say thing but do not mean the same thing. Sometimes we are disagreeing when actually we are in agreement. John Murray is a great example of that in my opinion.


----------



## Claudiu

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I noted Brandon's mention of Cameron and the OPC report above. For the mind of me I do not understand why he mentions Cameron and the OPC report. He was probably mentioned for historical context. It has been a while since I read the report. The report actually finds his position out of bounds because he is one of the early guys making the Mosaic Covenant a Covenant of Works. Samuel Bolton followed Cameron's theology and replaced someone on the Westminster Commission. But he joined after chapter 7 was done if my recollection serves me correctly.
> 
> I sent a similar message to someone who asked me if I could make heads or tails with 1689 Federalism...
> 
> Basically Reformed Baptist Theology has just gotten a bit more nuanced. Using the historical writings from people like Nehemiah Coxe and Benjamin Keach it has been a bit more defined. They have tried to bring a more defined Systematic Theology into their midst. When I was Reformed Baptist we really didn't have a Systematic Theology. We had Boyce's Abstract Theology and maybe Strong's Systematic but that was about all. Wayne Grudem's came along later. We also had Waldron's commentary on the 1689. Rich Barcellos published Nehemiah Coxe's book From Adam to Christ which included a Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8 from John Owen. Reformed Baptist Theology like Reformed Theology has gone through some academic challenges and research in the past few decades. 1689 Federalism is Novel by definition but not necessarily new. It was becoming popular about the time I was working through understanding Administration, the Covenant of Grace and the Abrahamic / Mosaic / New Covenants. A lot of the 1689 Federalism references are rediscovered stuff. It looks like a lot of their research is hand picked statements that apply topically but not necessarily taking in full context sometimes. I refer you to a discussion on John Owen and the Covenant of grace here. It basically comes down to what hermeneutic is used when interpreting scripture. There is more of a Law Gospel dichotomy in their hermeneutic which is not new. It is recently even found in reformed camps such as Kline and his descendents Clark, Horton, David Van Drunen, Estelle, etc. The OPC report found the position out of bounds confessionally.
> 
> I would like to know what differences you see between the 20th Century RB's and this recent small batch of guys.


You bring up different points and my work is bringing me into a busier season so I won't be able to engage in a lengthier meaningful sense.

In short, do you acknowledge that historically there was a diversity of theological opinions in the 17th century regarding covenant theology even among the Puritan divines? If not, do you contend that there was a singular view? I too thought before that the 1689 Federalist project, or even Kline et. al., were cherry picking or being revisionist. But even a cursory overview of the primary resources shows that not to be the case. Hence, I retracted my previous comment regarding my frustration, because this area is a lot more complicated and nuanced than many make it out to be. Do you have Beeke's Puritan systematic theology? The chapters in there are a good intro to at least underscore the diversity of opinions among our revered forefathers. What's wrong with scholarship going back and pointing that out?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Claudiu said:


> In short, do you acknowledge that historically there was a diversity of theological opinions in the 17th century regarding covenant theology even among the Puritan divines? If not, do you contend that there was a singular view? I too thought before that the 1689 Federalist project, or even Kline et. al., were cherry picking or being revisionist. But even a cursory overview of the primary resources shows that not to be the case. Hence, I retracted my previous comment regarding my frustration, because this area is a lot more complicated and nuanced than many make it out to be. Do you have Beeke's Puritan systematic theology? The chapters in there are a good intro to at least underscore the diversity of opinions among our revered forefathers. What's wrong with scholarship going back and pointing that out?


Of course I know how much diversity there was. There was also the Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius. As Ruben precisely stated many moons ago, "Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions." I came to my conclusions because of what I saw the scriptures saying though. And that is not cliche' with me. Yes, I have A Puritan Systematic Theology and Mark Jones also gave me permission to post this. The Love of God

I love good scholarship. Read Bavinck.... LOL


​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans678

jw said:


> It’ll be multi-volume soon.


This thread is going to be published on the Banner of Truth soon.

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## brandonadams

Ethan said:


> The latest reformed forum episode is on John Owen, Jeremiah 31, and the relationship between the Old and New Covenant.



I appreciate Reformed Forum's precision in their episodes, including this one. I also appreciate Wynne's attitude and that he has clearly read at least one book from Renihan, and has carefully considered Owen, not assuming Owen agrees with him and the WCF. Here are some quick reactions.

Thankfully Wynne recognizes that the comparison between the Old and New Covenants in Jer 31/Heb 8 is not about a difference in ceremonies. Rather, what is new in the New Covenant is regeneration, reconciliation, and the satisfaction of sin. He correctly notes that the question is how OT saints received these New Covenant benefits in their day.
The necessary implication of this, however, is that the Old and New Covenants are not the same in substance. Regeneration is not an accidental (to use Aristotelean terms) difference. It's not a difference in "administration." If the New Covenant regenerates but the Old does not, then they are not the same covenant in substance (essence).
This was Owen's point when he said "The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the Old Testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new. And whereas the essence and the substance of the covenant consists in these things, they are not to be said to be under _another covenant, _but only a _different administration _of it... But it will be said, and with great pretence of reason, for it is the sole foundation of all who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, ’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ And I grant that this would inevitably follow, *if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so*; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under the old covenant."
This relates to their confusion over Owen's view because they are working with a different definition or understanding of what constitutes the "substance" of a covenant. Wynne says "He says people were saved under the Old Covenant, but not by virtue of it. And at that level we can agree."



In several episodes Bucey has tried to use Vos' typology triangle to try to answer the question of how OT saints could be saved prior to Christ's incarnation. (If you're unfamiliar with the triangle, you can see it on screen in the first few minutes of this video 



) He uses it to imply that point "A" (the heavenly realities) is the source of these benefits prior to Christ's death & resurrection (point "C"). The problem is that there is no sacrifice offered in the heavenly sanctuary ("A") prior to the New Covenant ("C"). Those benefits can _only_ come from "C." So Vos' triangle is helpful in explaining the technical usage of the Greek language in a couple of verses of Hebrews, but it does not provide some kind of profound answer to the question at hand. The question still remains how OT saints can receive the benefits of "C" prior to "C." The arrow must start at "C" and get to "B". Starting at "A" doesn't get OT saints the benefits of "C".
Sacramental Salvation: In trying to answer the question of how OT saints are saved, they go straight to sacramentology. But is that how we answer how NT saints are saved? Do we go to the Lord's Supper to explain how someone is saved? No, we go to the Word and explain that in the elect the Lord makes the general call effectual. This is referred to by Calvin as the "inherent efficacy of the Word." Yet these brothers said nothing about this regarding OT saints and how they are saved. Can someone today be saved apart from the sacraments? Yes. Could someone in the OT be saved apart from the sacraments? Yes. Explain how and we can start finding some common ground on this issue.
WCF/2LBCF 14.1 says "The grace of faith, whereby the elect are enabled to believe to the saving of their souls, is the work of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts; and is ordinarily wrought by the ministry of the Word"
2LBCF 10.1 (nearly identical to WCF) says "Those whom God hath predestinated unto life, he is pleased in his appointed, and accepted time, *effectually to call, by his Word and Spirit,* out of that state of sin and death in which they are by nature, to grace and salvation by Jesus Christ; enlightening their minds spiritually and savingly to understand the things of God; taking away their heart of stone, and giving unto them a heart of flesh; renewing their wills, and by his almighty power determining them to that which is good, and effectually drawing them to Jesus Christ; yet so as they come most freely, being made willing by his grace."
2LBCF 20.1 (chapter 20 was added and is not in the WCF) says "The covenant of works being broken by sin, and made unprofitable unto life, God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, the seed of the woman, as the means of calling the elect, and begetting in them faith and repentance; *in this promise the gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and [is] therein effectual for the conversion and salvation of sinners.* ( Genesis 3:15; Revelation 13:8 )"
Genesis 3:15, the promise of a Messiah who will come to reverse the curse, is foundational to salvation in the Old Testament. It is the object of the saints' faith. WCF 8.6 is frequently cited in debate over 1689 Federalism, but look what it says about the promise: "Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, *in... those promises... wherein he was revealed... to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head*... being the same yesterday, and today and for ever."
Once again, explain how the promise of a future Messiah is sufficient to communicate (impart) the benefits of Christ to OT saints and we can begin to find common ground. Once we have this foundation we can then move on to talk about how typology relates.


Bucey's "Conundrum": Bucey presented this great condundrum that he could not find a solution to: "_What about the Jew who just says 'Well now that I’m believing in that, I’m going to stop offering sacrifices altogether.' What is the problem with the Jew that just decides to quit participating?_" The answer is very simply that God commanded him to participate, so not participating would be sinning against God. On our view the sacrifices served a purpose within the Old Covenant (typological atonement in a typological holy land) distinct from their purpose as a type pointing to Christ. The fact that Bucey sees this as a great conundrum demonstrates that, in my opinion, he tends to have a hard time putting himself in someone else's shoes and understanding a position distinct from his own.
Typological Covenant of Works: If Israel was under a covenant of works, how could they have survived one second?
Because it was under girded by the Covenant of Circumcision (His promise to give them the land), which was the basis of God's longsuffering towards them (see my JIRBS article or this podcast series for an elaboration https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...federalism-on-the-reformed-northwest-podcast/ )
Because Mosaic curse and blessing (entering and remaining in the land) was conditioned upon outward obedience to the letter of the law (though God still required full obedience from the heart under the terms of the Adamic Covenant of Works, which the unregenerate were also under) See Post-Fall Covenant of Works?
They pointed to Jeremiah 7 as why this was false, saying that Israel was resting in the sacrificial system. But Jeremiah 7:9 says "Will you steal, murder, commit adultery, swear falsely, make offerings to Baal, and go after other gods that you have not known?" That's not outward obedience to the letter of the law. That's outward disobedience to the letter of the law. And it is not our position that those things can be remedied with the sacrificial system. Only certain sins could be atoned for, most of which were ceremonial uncleanness.
They argue that obedience to the commandments was tethered to tenure in the land, but it is Spirit-wrought, faith-fueled obedience, the same in nature as what is required in the New Covenant. The problem here is that it makes Lev 18:5 a condition of the Covenant of Grace (note the reference to Lev 18:5 in the OPC version of WCF 19.6). See https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...according-to-the-opc-report-on-republication/


"Bare resemblance typology": The brothers on the podcast repeatedly derided what they called "bare resemblance" or "doppelgänger" typology, belittling the idea of NC grace being communicated to OT saints by means of typology as word pictures informing the "noetic prowess" of OT believers (see points about effectual calling by the Word above). But please carefully consider Vos' comments in _The Teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews_.

“The Old Testament law is dispensed with because of its weakness and unprofitableness. Its weakness is not merely a matter of degree, for in reality it accomplished nothing, since it made nothing perfect and did not lead to the goal. This is further implied in the quotation from Jer. 31:31, quoted in Heb. 8:8-12. The fathers did not continue in the covenant made with them. But in the new Berith the law would be put in their minds and written in their hearts. And the further promise is added: “Their sins I will remember no more.” In both these respects, therefore, the Old Testament law is inefficacious. In verse 7 the author goes on to say that God found fault with the first covenant, for otherwise there would have been no place found for a second…

But how could a true religion exist under such a system at all? Several observations are in order. First, we may turn to the types of the Old Testament as something which should have led the people to something better. The author does not make much of this, however. The types were primarily for the people, but objectively they were for the mind of God. Nowhere in the Epistle has the author set himself really to solve the problem as stated above. Nor is it really solved in Paul’s epistles. Still there was a possibility of the significance of the sacrificial system entering into the subjective mind of the Old Testament believers, by the latter raising themselves to a higher state through the types. We see an indication of this possibility first at 10:3. In the Old Testament sacrifices there was a remembrance made of sin year by year. This was necessary, since it was impossible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins. This yearly practice was not intended merely for an objective purpose; it was a remembrance in the minds of the people. Because of this remembrance the Psalmist, in Psalm 40, was led to speak concerning sacrifices which would satisfy the will of God. It should be noted that it was the Psalmist who rose to this consciousness - an inspired writer, not an ordinary individual believer under the Old Testament. Still, he did write it, with the result that higher consciousness later became the common property of Old Testament believers. It was with the aid of revelation, therefore, that this higher consciousness was brought about.

Likewise Psalm 110 is quoted. Here we have the prophecy of a future Priest, after the order of Melchizedek. Thus there was the consciousness of a higher order of priesthood than the Levitical being possible, and there was the prophecy that at a future time such higher priesthood would become actual.

Psalm 95 is also quoted, which speaks of the rest of Canaan. This idea of rest is eschatological, looking forward to the true rest which is to come in the future. The author of the Epistle to the Hebrews here again recognized, in one of the Old Testament Psalms, a certain higher consciousness on the part of the people of the Old Testament...

The Old Testament, however, had more than these mere symbols and ceremonies. It also contained direct promises, many of which were spiritual in content. And these promises were given repeatedly, form age to age. Therefore it was not necessary for the Old Testament believers to live exclusively on the basis of insight into the meaning of the types. Of these promises the author of Hebrews speaks much." (64-67)
"Disconnecting the New Covenant from Christ": To disagree with Bucey on the nature of the Old Covenant puts one on the trajectory of theological liberalism denying the incarnation? Really? Bucey says of this hypothetical position "Well, the Old Covenant was just one way that some abstract Grace of Christ was applied, and the New Covenant is just the newer way by which this abstract Grace or merit or being of Christ is applied... [T]hey both just kind of take some sort of abstract Grace or benefit of Christ and just apply it in different ways... If the old Covenant just illustrated Christ. But it's still Christ. They might want to flatten and say so also, the New Covenant merely illustrates Christ. And you do find similar issues where people will not want to say that the Lord's Supper or baptism are a means of Grace_"_

When we deny that Christ's benefits are conveyed to OT believers "by virtue of these very forms [OT sacrifices] - not merely something that they trigger or something that they point to in a formal way" we are not teaching that OT saints receive some abstract Grace or merit - depending on what Bucey means by "abstract." We believe that OT saints were united to Christ (who was to be incarnate) and that they received the benefits of Christ's atonement by virtue of that union with Christ, not by virtue of the blood of bulls and goats. In that sense, it is not abstract grace. It is grace that comes through union with Christ. We simply deny that the blood of bulls and goats is that union (if Bucey wants to put it in those terms). The New Covenant is union with Christ and the OT saints receive the benefits of Christ, the benefits of Christ were communicated to them, by virtue of that New Covenant union, which they possessed.

Bucey suggests that our view would entail the disconnecting of Christ from the New Covenant. Presbyterians tend to view the New Covenant primarily in terms of "administration" (see Bucey's comment above about Lord's Supper and baptism being the New Covenant) whereas we tend to view it primarily in terms of union with Christ. I believe this is no small part of often talking past each other. So I hear him say our view entails that we must disconnect Christ from the New Covenant and I really scratch my head. We believe the New Covenant is union with Christ, so how does that entail disconnecting Christ from the New Covenant? But I think what Bucey means is that disconnecting Christ sacramentally from the blood of bulls and goats entails disconnecting Christ sacramentally from baptism and the Lord's Supper - because he thinks of the New Covenant primarily in terms of administration. If we think that someone can be saved and receive the benefits of Christ apart from OT sacramental presence of Christ, then we must also think that someone can be saved and receive the benefits of Christ apart from NT sacramental presence of Christ. To which I would say - it is the reformed teaching that sacrements are not necessary to salvation and receiving the benefits of Christ, so that's not really a point of disagreement. But more to the point, I think Bucey may be correct that disagreement on OT sacramental presence or efficacy entails disagreement over NT sacramental presence or efficacy, but I would not refer to that as "abstract grace." I will leave it at that for now...

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Not much of a fan of Reformed Forum. There were remnants of Klinianism in Lane Tipton when I conversed with him years ago. I still have the emails. 

Here I address a few of the topics Brandon commented on above. I really don't want to get into the typology argument because it is much more simpler than that I believe. Maybe I am just a simpleton. 

From my blog.... PT 
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/


> *Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5*
> Pastor Patrick Ramsey
> The following is (I trust) a simple but not simplistic explanation of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.
> In 9:30-10:5 Paul explained the reason the Jews did not attain righteousness even though they pursued it. They mistakenly pursued it by works (9:32). Hence, they stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33). They sought to establish their own righteousness (10:3). Ignorant of the right way to righteousness, although they should have known better, they zealously pursued life on the basis of their own obedience to the law.
> In Rom. 10:5 Paul describes this wrong way of pursuing life (righteousness) from the OT, namely Leviticus 18:5 (see also Neh. 9:29; Eze. 20:11, 13, 21): “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Now the fact that Paul appeals to Moses to describe the wrong way, or if you will, the Pharisaical way of pursuing righteousness, is somewhat perplexing. As a result, this verse, along with its counterpart in Gal. 3, is quite controversial among commentators and theologians.
> Here is the difficulty from three different perspectives. First, in 9:32, Paul had said that the law itself did not teach that righteousness was based on works or obedience to the law. The Jews pursued the law as _if_ it led to righteousness. The Jews, as the NT says elsewhere, misread the OT. And yet Paul seems to be saying in vs. 5 that the OT did in fact teach and exhort the people to pursue life/righteousness by keeping the law. How then can Paul (or the rest of the NT) condemn the Pharisees for seeking righteousness by works if that is what Moses told them to do?
> Second, in vs. 8 Paul will quote Deut. 30 and later on he will cite Isaiah and Joel in direct contrast to Lev. 18:5 to describe the right way to find life and righteousness. So then it would seem that Paul pits Moses against Moses and the OT against the OT.
> Third, the context of Lev. 18:5 doesn’t seem to support the way Paul uses it in Rom. 10:5. Moses exhorts Israel to keep God’s commandments in the context of redemption and covenant. Verses 1-3 highlight the point that Israel already belongs to God as his redeemed people. These verses are very similar to the prologue to the Ten Commandments, which teaches that salvation precedes obedience. God didn’t give Israel the law so that they might be saved. He saves them so that they might keep the law. In short, the context of Lev. 18:5 speaks against the idea that it teaches legalism or a work-based righteousness. Yet, that is how Paul is using this verse!
> Now some have sought to solve this difficulty by saying that there is no actual contrast between verses 5 and 6. The “but” of vs. 6 should be translated “and.” The problem with this, however, is that it doesn’t fit the context of Paul’s argument. The apostle, beginning in 9:30 is contrasting two ways of seeking righteousness—works and faith—and this contrast clearly continues in vs. 5. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul speaks of works righteousness or righteousness based on law elsewhere (Gal. 3; Phil. 3:9) in a negative way.
> So then how are we to understand what Paul is saying in vs. 5 (and in Gal. 3)? Well, Paul is citing Lev. 18:5 according to how it was understood by the Jews of his day; and no doubt how he understood it before his conversion. The Jews of Paul’s day saw obedience to the law (which included laws pertaining to the atonement of sins) as the source of life and as the basis of salvation. Keeping the law was the stairway to heaven. The way to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted by God was to observe the law. Lev. 18:5 provided biblical support for this Pharisaical position. And it is not hard to see why they would appeal to this verse since it says that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
> In Rom. 10:6ff Paul refutes this works-based righteousness position including the Jewish appeal to Lev. 18:5. Now he doesn’t do it in the way you or I might think of doing it. We might tend to respond to the Pharisee and say: “Look, you have completely misunderstood what Moses is saying in Lev. 18:5. The specific and general context of that verse indicates that your interpretation is incorrect…” Instead, Paul uses a technique that was quite common in his day. He counters their interpretation of Lev. 18:5 by citing another passage: Deut. 30:12-14. In other words, Paul is saying that Deut. 30 demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of Lev. 18:5 is incorrect. We of course sometimes use this type of argument today. For example, some people today appeal to James 2 to prove that we need to obey the law in order to be justified. One way to disprove that interpretation would be to cite Paul in Romans or Galatians. So Paul is not pitting Moses against Moses in vv. 5-6 or saying that Moses taught salvation by works. Rather the apostle is using one Mosaic passage to prove that the legalistic interpretation of another Mosaic passage is wrong.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

pt 2

A statement was also made how the Mosaic should be viewed as an administration of death. I actually believe the above helps us answer this problem but I also saw this. We as fallen people tend to want to turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. Many people even do this concerning the New Covenant today when they add works to the equation of justification by faith.

In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.



> (2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
> (2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
> (2Co 2:16) *To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?*
> (2Co 2:17) *For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.*


Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.



> (Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
> (Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
> (Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
> (Heb 4:2)
> For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard _it._
> (Heb 4:3)
> For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.


The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, “to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death.” And how is to be considered that Paul and the Church is a savour unto death? They are because they do what Paul says he doesn’t do in the proceeding verse, “For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God.” Those who corrupt the word are rejecting the Chief Cornerstone and depending upon their works or acts that contribute to their justification. The book of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews have warnings and correctives for those who corrupt the word. But when they reject the truth they fall deeper into death. Even St. Paul acknowledged that the Law didn’t kill him. He was already dead and discovered it.

Rom 7:13    Did that which is good, then, bring death to me? By no means! It was sin, producing death in me through what is good, in order that sin might be shown to be sin, and through the commandment might become sinful beyond measure.

On another note I would mention that some say that the Mosaic was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works. Some differentiate that works was required in order for the Israelite’s to stay in and be blessed in the Land. They stayed in the Land based upon their works. Some say that this is different from the New Covenant. I am not seeing this difference. There are conditions set for us to remain in the Church even. For one thing Jesus himself said in Revelation 2 that he would remove a local Church’s candlestick if they didn’t repent. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man who was found to be exceedingly sinful was to be delivered to Satan and excommunicated from the Church. In Galatians 6:7 we are told that we reap what we sow.

I actually see what happened to the Church in the Old Covenant to be very gracious and just a form of discipline and general equity which we should experience now. It was grace that chastisement happened. It was grace that brought Israel back into the Land. They were the Church that was redeemed from bondage. God called them His people. They grew from dwelling in the wilderness to possessing the land. If it was by works then they would have never been brought back as they were. It looks quite the same to me as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. A casting out was performed. Excommunication was evident. Restoration by God’s grace was confirmed. The substance of both the Old pedagogical Covenant and the New are essentially the same. Salvation, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, and sanctification for the Church is the same between both the old and new. It is all by God’s Covenant of Grace. The substance seems to be the same to me.

Well, this is some of the stuff I am seeing now days. I do believe that works are important and a big part of our salvation. But I speak of salvation as a whole. Not in the respect of purely justification. There are no works considered in our justification. I do believe that our Union in Christ brings a twofold Grace of justification and sanctification. You can not separate them from our salvation. They are not dichotomized but are distinct in the process of salvation. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. This tension seems hard to process but it is summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10 and Philippians 2:12,13.



> (Eph 2:8-10) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
> (Php 2:12,13)Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of _his_ good pleasure.


Now a word from our Covenant Theologian John Ball…..


> Under this Covenant, the natural seed of Abraham bore the face of the Church and state, and God had promised abundance of temporals, and of spiritual a scantling; But all under the outward administration of the Covenant, were not in like manner partakers of the blessings promised in Covenant. For some had their part in temporal blessings only, and the outward ordinances; others were partakers of the spiritual blessings promised. But whatever good thing any of them enjoyed either temporal or spiritual, it was conferred upon them freely according to the Covenant of Grace, and not for the dignity of their works. It is true, the promise is conditional, if they obey, they shall reap the good things of the Land: but obedience was not a causal condition, why they should inherit the Land…So that herein there appears no intexture of the Covenant of works with the Covenant of Grace, nor any moderation of the Law to the strength and power of nature for the obtaining of outward blessings. But rather that God out of his abundant goodness is pleased freely to confer outward blessings promised in the Covenant upon some that did not cleave to him unfainedly, that he might make good his promise unto the spiritual seed, which by word and oath he had confirmed unto the Fathers.
> (John Ball, A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace [1645], 142).


I also hope you take some time to look at my blog on Galatians, the WCF and Chapter 19, and my posts on the Mosaic and the Covenant of Works in reference to republication.

Speaking of historical quotes, we see here the beautiful essential unity in substance between Old/New Covenant and law/gospel:



> “These things no doubt sufficiently shew that God has never made any other covenant than that which he made formerly with Abraham, and at length confirmed by the hand of Moses. This subject might be more fully handled; but it is enough briefly to shew, that the covenant which God made at first is perpetual.
> Let us now see why he promises to the people a new covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shewn what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known.” ~ John Calvin on Jeremiah 31:31


----------



## brandonadams

Martin (or anyone else), please see these posts on Lev 18:5

Promise, Law, Faith – A Review Article (JIRBS 20)
SRR 92 Brandon Adams on Covenant Theology & Republication
Acceptable Understanding of Mosaic Law (According to the OPC Report on Republication)
Are Good Works More Than Fruit?
Murray on Lev. 18:5 – Why Did John Murray Reject the Covenant of Works?
Neonomian Presbyterians vs Antinomian Congregationalists?
Guy Waters on Leviticus 18:5
OPC Report on Republication – Background

Reactions: Like 1


----------

