# What are main Differences between the 1689 and Modern RB?



## Dachaser

I am trying to get a handle on the different flavors within Covenant theology, and so what would be any major differences on how 1689 and the modern RB see Covenant theology worked out?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

How are you defining "modern RB"? Are these folks who do not affirm the 1689 LBCF? If so, what exactly are these _Modern Reform Baptists_ affirming confessionally?


----------



## brandonadams

Patrick, see https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/ to understand what he is referring to.

David, have you viewed the material at http://www.1689federalism.com ?












A large difference is the view of Israel and the Mosaic Covenant. The 20th century view follows WCF in saying the law was given to Israel as a guide, not as a covenant of works. They also speak regularly of Israel as the church, rather than as a type of the church (though they at times also affirm the latter). They would say that in the Covenant of Grace during the Old Covenant administration, both the regenerate and unregenerate were members, but in the New Covenant administration, only the regenerate are members. 

Here are some lectures from Waldron explaining the 20th century view http://deepsouthfounders.com/previous-conferences/2013-Christ-our-mediator/

and here are some comments on Waldron's lectures https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## Tyrese

I agree more with the 20th Century Reformed Baptist perspective. I guess I'm more Presbyterian in my understanding of Covenant Theology. In my opinion, you can be a committed Baptist and hold to this view without feeling the pressure to embrace infant baptism. If it's not in the Bible you don't have to accept it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Tyrese

I'm a bit perplexed by the "20th Century" title. Are we to be believe that there were no Paticular Baptist in the year 1689 or before who held to the view that the covenant of grace was one substance with multiple administrations?


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Patrick, see https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/ to understand what he is referring to.
> 
> David, have you viewed the material at http://www.1689federalism.com ?
> 
> A large difference is the view of Israel and the Mosaic Covenant. The 20th century view follows WCF in saying the law was given to Israel as a guide, not as a covenant of works. They also speak regularly of Israel as the church, rather than as a type of the church (though they at times also affirm the latter). They would say that in the Covenant of Grace during the Old Covenant administration, both the regenerate and unregenerate were members, but in the New Covenant administration, only the regenerate are members.
> 
> Here are some lectures from Waldron explaining the 20th century view http://deepsouthfounders.com/previous-conferences/2013-Christ-our-mediator/
> 
> and here are some comments on Waldron's lectures https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/


Would either viewpoint affirm that the church was given to us by God under the NC, and that while the saved under the OC were due to saving grace and included within the Church, its institution was under the NC itself?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

brandonadams said:


> Patrick, see https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/ to understand what he is referring to.


Brandon,

Assuming your answer is the answer that would be given by the member to whom I asked the question, then my question stands:
If so, what exactly are these _Modern Reform Baptists_ affirming confessionally?

In other words, where is it (the Modern RB confession) that I can read it?


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Brandon,
> 
> My question stands:
> If so, what exactly are these _Modern Reform Baptists_ affirming confessionally?
> 
> Where is it (the Modern RB confession) that I can read it?


I have read modern language versions of the 1689 Confession, but have never seen any Baptist Confession other then the 1689 one.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> I have read modern language versions of the 1689 Confession, but have never seen any Baptist Confession other then the 1689 one.


Mod Reminder:

d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "_Can two walk together unless they be agreed?_"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.

e. Under some circumstances, the Admins may approve an applicant who does not fully confess one of these historic Reformed confessions but whose soteriological and ecclesiological journey is taking them down that path. This has included some Lutherans, Episcopalians, and some independents in the process of Reforming.​
The point being, for a waiver one must genuinely be on the journey towards what we hold to be the Confessional basis of the board. If one's journey finally arrives at a place beyond the boundaries of the Confessions stated above, they need to be honest about it and move on.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Tyrese said:


> In my opinion, you can be a committed Baptist and hold to this view without feeling the pressure to embrace infant baptism. If it's not in the Bible you don't have to accept it.


I am going to assume the last sentence bears no connection to the preceding sentence clause related to infant baptism. Correct?


----------



## Tyrese

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I am going to assume the last sentence bears no connection to the preceding sentence clause related to infant baptism. Correct?



I think that depends. A Presbyterian friend told me once that my view of covenant theology leads to infant baptism. There seems to be a number of Reformed Baptist who share that sentiment. My response to that is my view of covenant theology does not lead to infant baptism because I don't see it in scripture. I don't feel the need to force something that I don't believe is there.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Tyrese said:


> I think that depends. A Presbyterian friend told me once that my view of covenant theology leads to infant baptism. There seems to be a number of Reformed Baptist who share that sentiment. My response to that is my view of covenant theology does not lead to infant baptism because I don't see it in scripture. I don't feel the need to force something that I don't believe it's there.


In the future, unless you are posting here, I suggest emphatic statements, "_If it's not in the Bible you don't have to accept it_" being made in the context of infant baptism on this site, be carefully moderated as personal opinions.


----------



## Tyrese

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> In the future, unless you are posting here, I suggest emphatic statements, "_If it's not in the Bible you don't have to accept it_" being made in the context of infant baptism on this site, be carefully moderated as personal opinions.



Will do. But out of curiosity does that mean that someone else's view of infant baptism be reduced to personal opinion?


----------



## Tyrese

I ask because I don't think infant baptism is someone else's personal opinion. I genuinely believe that brothers see infant baptism as a logical conclusion of covenant theology. I'm simply saying that I don't see that.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Tyrese,
Don't take the moderation too personally. Lately, there's been more posted on the topic of covenant theology and baptism in a short time than I remember for a long time. Consequently, the moderators are quick to preempt what may give needless offense to anyone, _as he sees it._ It's often a judgment call. You should just think of an umpire reacting to the flow of the game.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Tyrese said:


> I'm a bit perplexed by the "20th Century" title. Are we to be believe that there were no Paticular Baptist in the year 1689 or before who held to the view that the covenant of grace was one substance with multiple administrations?



Please see this thread https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> Would either viewpoint affirm that the church was given to us by God under the NC, and that while the saved under the OC were due to saving grace and included within the Church, its institution was under the NC itself?



Yes, take a look at some recent threads that discuss this point.


----------



## brandonadams

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> If so, what exactly are these _Modern Reform Baptists_ affirming confessionally?



Did you read the link I provided? As it explains, both groups hold to the 1689 Confession. The Confession is written broadly enough to include both views.


----------



## Tyrese

brandonadams said:


> Please see this thread https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/





brandonadams said:


> Please see this thread https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/clarification-on-the-label-1689-federalism.93257/



Makes sense. Thanks


----------



## Timotheos

Brandon,

I wonder if it would help if you had a list of publications that can be categorized in various forms of Baptists CT? I'm sure there is a continuum that many of these works could be placed upon. I know you have a reading list for 1689 federalism. But do you have a list that categorizes the other views or publications?

For example, I just purchased Nichols book on CT to see where he fits on the continuum. I know where Coxe/Owen & Denault would be (I'm there w/ them).

But there are a host of others: https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_...=aps&field-keywords=baptist+covenant+theology

For example, where would Blackburn/Chantry, Van Dorn, Johnson, Griffiths, & Nichols fit into the scheme?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Timotheos said:


> For example, where would Blackburn/Chantry, Van Dorn, Johnson, Griffiths, & Nichols fit into the scheme?



This might not be a good place for Brandon to say what he thinks who believes what here. From what I understand the new understanding of 1689 Federalism has some merit and has historical significance. But it is not a monolithic understanding yet. I have problems with some of the claims above as in the Old Fashioned Visa Card pie chart. I was a Reformed Baptist for 30 years. We should look at what they wrote and try to understand them in context. This is too knew to say what a teacher believes without their consent. I have been warned about that from some prominent Reformed Baptist guys.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Mod Reminder:
> 
> d. Confessional Requirements: One must hold to either the Westminster Standards, the Three Forms of Unity, the Second Helvetic Confession, or the LBCF to be approved for membership without a waiver. This does not mean that these confessions are viewed as the "Word of God." Rather, these confessions and creeds are taken to accurately summarize the key doctrines of the Bible and allow mutual, like-minded fellowship (Amos 3:3, "_Can two walk together unless they be agreed?_"). The adherence to any orthodox historical documents assure that the board will be kept "like-minded" in most of the basic points of salvation history and that the fellowship "exhortive and encouraging." Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim.
> 
> e. Under some circumstances, the Admins may approve an applicant who does not fully confess one of these historic Reformed confessions but whose soteriological and ecclesiological journey is taking them down that path. This has included some Lutherans, Episcopalians, and some independents in the process of Reforming.​
> The point being, for a waiver one must genuinely be on the journey towards what we hold to be the Confessional basis of the board. If one's journey finally arrives at a place beyond the boundaries of the Confessions stated above, they need to be honest about it and move on.


I hold and accept the 1689 LBC Confession .


----------



## brandonadams

Tim,

That would be worthwhile.

Check out http://www.1689federalism.com/category/resources/books/ for comments on several books.


Blackburn/Chantry is 20th century
Nichols is much closer to 20th century, but he rejects the Covenant of Works, so he is not 20th century. He is in his own camp.

Van Dorn is mostly in the 1689 Fed camp, but he has some idiosyncrasies. See post in above link
Griffiths is 1689 Fed
Brogden is NCT (see review in above link)
Johnson is 1689 Fed


----------



## brandonadams

Martin, while we should give people time to study 1689 Fed and perhaps revise their views, there is nothing wrong with stating whether or not their existing published works are consistent with it or not.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Yes, take a look at some recent threads that discuss this point.


Why do some here though insist that a RB cannot see the church as being founded in the NC/NT times, as that would make one a Dispensational? That we must hold with the 1 Covenant of Grace, but with 2 administrations of it?


----------



## brandonadams

David, that is a good question, but probably better to start a different thread, or read through the recent threads that address that.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

The moderators and admins have restored some posts; carry on.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## jomawh

[To essentially paraphrase the 1689 Fed website...]

1689 Federalism was prompted by a kind of re-discovery of how 17th century Particular Baptists formulated their take on the doctrine of the covenants, which differs from the historic covenantal view as expressed, to use the language of the Westminster, in one overarching Covenant of Grace with multiple dispensations. The "20th Century View" was prompted by Baptists, greatly influenced by Ligionier and Banner of Truth, who simply incorporated standard Reformed Covenantalism as a matter-of-course (having rediscovered, as it were, Calvinism).

The staunch 1689 Federalist would be adamant that holding to a "baptized" Westminsterian Covenantalism would open up such baptists to certain strong covenantal arguments for paedobaptism. I recall Les from the Reformed Pub, when he "came out" as a Presbyterian, sparred with Tanner and simply repeated" yeah, but you could apply that same logic to circumcision-" against all the arguements brought against paedobaptism- a rebuttal which presupposed that the Old Covenant is the same in substance as the New. With what the 1689 Federalist could arfue

I personally remain only partially convinced either way, but I could see myself becoming a Presbyterian if I end up finding that 1689 Federalism isn't tenable.


----------



## brandonadams

For what it's worth, I would never say that if someone doesn't agree with 1689 Federalism they should become a paedobaptist. The 20th century view still has insurmountable (in my opinion) objections to the paedobaptist view. I just don't find the view, as a whole, as biblical or consistent as 1689 Federalism.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I've been pretty busy lately but finally found some time to review some of this information and, in particular, wanted to make some observations about the presentation of the video.

1. I found it odd that they spoke of Baptists being "robbed" of the their covenant theology. This is after all the information they had given about books published by P&R people as if it was the fault of P&R publishing that Baptists didn't know their own theology.

2. I found it interesting that, at one point, someone pretty much admits that "you can't get there from here" and that using this CT leads to paedobaptist conclusions (in spite of others stating that Reformed Baptists have lodged "insurmountable" objections to the PB view.

3. This is my most pejorative statement but I can't help but think of Acts 5:38 when Gamaliel notes that, if a movement is from man it will not survive.

In other words, there is something artificial to me about this "resurgence" and my saying so will not win me any friends but I want to make some observations as a Church man that I think Baptists really ought to consider.

What is it about Baptist ecclesiology, theology, or practice that permits them to "lose" the prolegomena of their very identity as Baptists?

A Church's identity is not formed by a group of scholars unearthing books from 400 years ago discovering that, in reality, this is what a majority of Baptists believed at the time.

A Church's identity is formed by generations of common understanding and practice and the handing down of understanding and practice.

We've got some new members that just came out of Sovereign Grace and they appreciate the mature practices we have in our denomination. It would be foolish of me to take credit for them because they've been handed down over centuries of Church men leading people in worship and practicing Church discipline. The Pastors are from a long line of those who have been examined and then examine others to enter their Presbytery. I've been on our theological examining committe for about 6 years and have lost count of the number of Pastors who were once interns we were helping to refine how they expresed and understood key theological ideas.

I liken it to the Marine Corps, which has an identity where a Marine from WWII can still relate to Marines today. There's a 92 year old veteran of Iwo Jima who talks to young Marines all the time and they share a common ethos that's been handed down for over 225 years. Some things change with the times but the core of it is preserved by those who keep the traditions and train others to do the same.

How odd it is to me, as someone who leads a Church, to think of some historical research as essentially re-casting Covenant Theology as a matter of theological study but it has lost all contact with the history and traditions of the Church that has existed for over 400 years.

Look, Presbyterians have their problems and I'm not trying to be triumphalistic, but this is a good example to me of the inherent instability of Baptist theology to pass on its body of truths and traditions. While it may well be the case that this _WAS _THE Covenantal view of Baptists in the 17th Century it actually bears no organic connection nor does it function as any kind of constitutional imperative to any except those who decide to re-think it for their congregation. It also doesn't fix the other things that flow out from that understanding - all the ways that Church life and traditions may have been formed over generations but now, from ground zero, each Church will have to form its own ways that it will hand down to the next generation this apparently critical aspect of Baptist theology.

What will be the result 400 years from now if the Lord should tarry? Will it again be lost? What in Baptist practice will keep that from happening?

At the end of the day, while it is interesting that individuals come to some new insights the function of a Confession or Creed is for the Church. If a fundamental principle cannot be preserved across generations then I question whether Gamaliel has a point that Baptists ought to wrestle with.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Herald

Rich,

I appreciate your concerns and the spirit in which they are written. While I certainly see the potential for problems in any new idea, I am not ready to allow a caution to prevent properly vetting the conclusions of 1689 Federalism (not that I believe you seek to prevent such vetting).

The proponents of 1689 Federalism make some valid points about Baptist history when it comes to Covenant Theology. The American Reformed Baptist movement can be traced back to the late 1960's in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. As most people know, Grace Baptist Church of Carlisle became one of the leading proponents of a national Reformed Baptist Association. ARBCA was the result. ARBCA has done a good job of articulating Reformed Baptist belief and practices, and for that I am grateful. However, when respected theologians such as Sam Renihan, Jim Renihan, and Rich Barcellos are in agreement on a major point of Baptist doctrine that just so happens to be contra the position of Sam Waldron and many ARBCA leaders, it demands attention. I am not willing to dismiss the newness of it just for the sake of it being new. Perhaps that is because I am not willing to put blind trust in ARBCA.

I am not really concerned about a Baptist identity crisis, or for that matter comparing ourselves to Presbyterians. I am interested in finding out whether 1689 Federalism is biblical, and to that end, I am willing to research and test it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Semper Fidelis said:


> If a fundamental principle cannot be preserved across generations then I question whether Gamaliel has a point that Baptists ought to wrestle with.



Right, because the confession and presbyterian structure worked so well to avoid liberal apostasy in the early 20th century. Are you suggesting that at every point in presbyterian history, every point of theology has been accurately and fully understood and maintained? I mean, there was never such a thing as a Presbyterian Dispensationalist, right?

If you haven't done so, I would encourage you to take the time to study the history of reformed baptists in the 20th century. It should provide further context for the comments in the video.

Baptist covenant theology (1689 Federalism) was not wholly lost. A. W. Pink, whose writings in the 20th century led to modern reformed baptist movement, taught it in his book The Divine Covenants. Reading his book and its quotations, it is clear he was well acquainted with the articulation of this view down through the centuries. It was also held by Spurgeon. Modern RB's simply chose to follow Murray more than Pink and Spurgeon in their study of covenant theology, and their influence came to overshadow Pink and Spurgeon. Over in the UK, things were different. Peter Masters (Metropolitan Tabernacle) recently commented on 1689 Federalism


> As I remarked earlier, this was what I was taught in spiritual infancy. The 1689 covenant view was still alive in the 1950s. I remember as a very young man being surprised on first running into dispensationalism, and then being even more surprised to find that some Calvinistic Baptists had adopted a modified Presbyterian view, accepting the Mosaic order as an administration of the covenant of grace. They took the view that after the Fall there has been only one covenant – that of grace – administered in different ways in the Old and New Testaments. In other words, they took the ‘one-covenant two-administration’ view.
> 
> The heyday of dispensationalism almost crowded out the old view, then in the 1950s a renewed enthusiasm for good systematic theology swept in, but being largely from a Presbyterian stable, it led many Baptists to adopt their one-covenant position. The authentic Baptist view was not rendered altogether extinct, however, and it is grand to see it enjoying a considerable revival, several excellent studies having emerged in the USA in recent years. I used to visit the USA often years ago and it seemed to me that the historic Baptist view of covenants had died out there. It was a kind of side-hobby for me to chat to pastors about the authentic Baptist view of covenants, and I believe they viewed me as an eccentric, speaking of something unknown to mankind. But the revival of the historic view in recent years is immensely valuable, for few things are so scripturally logical, illuminating and practical.



Regardless, I think your comments are a tad overreacting. Insofar as your comments are directed towards the question of institutions, I would encourage reflection upon Spuregon's words:


> Now, my objects this morning will be to glorify God, by showing to you, who love the Saviour, that the preservation and the triumph of the church are both of them to be accomplished, not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of God, in order that all the honor might be to God, and none of it to man... "Not by the combined might of men laboring to assist each other, nor by the separate might of any single hero, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord."...
> 
> The fact is, that just when the corporation began to be the greatest, God said, "Now then, you have done your work, to a great degree, it shall not be by you any longer; not by might, not by your allied forces. You have said our efforts will cover the earth with the gospel." "Now," says God, "I will diminish you by thousands, I will take off your roll year by year, as many as would make another denomination strong; and though you shall still exist, you shall have to weep and repent with bitterness, because of your departed zeal." It is just the same with every other denomination. When we Baptists were reckoned to be the poorest lot in the world, and everybody sneered at us, we did far more good than we do now. There was far more pure doctrine, and far better preaching than there is at the present time. But we began to be respectable—and just as we began to be respectable we began to lose our power. Every fresh Gothic Baptist chapel was a diminution of simplicity; and every fresh place where the minister become intellectual, as it was called, was just a loss of evangelical might, till now, as a denomination, we are just as low as any other: and we need some of our old leaders again, just to preach the word with demonstration and with power, and to overthrow all those grand conventionalisms which have tried to make the Baptist denomination respectable. I pray to God I may never be called to preach to a much applauded congregation; it would be a sad and evil day. To be despised, to be spit upon, to be caricatured, and to be jeered, is the highest honor that a Christian minister can have; and to be pampered, flattered, and applauded by men, is a poor, base thing, that is not worth having. If any come here and say "They are not a respectable sort;" we reply, "we labor to preach to the poor." But mark this, whenever a great denomination begins to get too great, God will cut away its horns, and take away its glory, till the world shall say, "It is not by might nor by power."
> 
> ...And now, dear friends, let me counsel you. The grand thing the church wants in this time, is God's Holy Spirit. You all get up plans and say, "Now, if the church were altered a little bit, it would go on better." You think if there were different ministers, or different church order, or something different, then all would be well. No, dear friends, it is not there the mistake lies, it is that we want more of the Spirit.
> 
> https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/spurgeon_charles/sermons/0149.cfm


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brandon,

You seem to miss the overall point.

First, stating that Presbyterian Churches apostasize as a rule is an equivocation of terms. Baptists believe in particular Churches. Insofar as, in the history of the decline of Presbyteries occured, local Churches continued in orthodoxy then Baptists ought to commend the fact that Presbyterian Churches have a continued presence throughout the world. In other words, even as the PCUS as an Assembly was apostosizing, orthodox local congregations came out from under that system and formed the PCA. The same thing happened with the OPC. Thus, by your standard of what constitutes a Church (since you don't recognize the authority of Presbyteries and Assemblies) there has not been the wholesale loss of Presbyterian Churches.

Secondly, during that same time, the Presbyterians have never lost their fundamental covenant theology. That was my larger point. As new Presbyteries were formed, the pattern of sound words was handed from generation to generation. It was not men rediscovering some lost doctrines that then affected practice but the preservation and extension of that wisdom from generation to generation. I realize I'm trying to describe something that is hard to understand unless one lives and moves within a centuries-old passing of wisdom but I can't imaging figuring things out from scratch. A local Baptist Church, for instance, asked for a copy of the PCA BCO because they wanted to start to get a handle on how to practice discipline effectively. When you're in a long line of "sound words" you are not merely reading those words but you have men with gray hair who learned from men with gray hair who learned from men long dead what it looks like to put theology in practice in a local context. That is wisdom that is invaluable in a way that can mostly be experienced rather than described.

Thus, my larger point is that the recovery of some organizing principle that may not have been lost in some academic or thological research is ultimately of limited value if it fails to find greater traction and passes down from generation to generation. Theology is not merely something apprehended but applied and, in the application of it, forms the pattern of how the Church lives together and goes out into the world. I don't wish ill for Baptist Churches but good and merely hope that this important principle is truly wrestled with to ask the important question: "Why did we lose this and how do we rebuild the supporting habits and practices that will continue to hold this up so that it's not merely of passing theological interest but 100 years from now our descendants will be enriched in ways we wish we had been had theis truth not been lost."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## brandonadams

Semper Fidelis said:


> It was not men rediscovering some lost doctrines that then affected practice but the preservation and extension of that wisdom from generation to generation.



Has every generation fully and accurately understood every doctrine and therefore fully and accurately passed it down to the next generation? Has there ever been an instance where a study of historical theology led a presbyterian to disagree with one of his gray-haired elders?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> Has every generation fully and accurately understood every doctrine and therefore fully and accurately passed it down to the next generation? Has there ever been an instance where a study of historical theology led a presbyterian to disagree with one of his gray-haired elders?


Brandon,

You can mock my concern but I hope that those who are responsible for the care of souls will at least ponder the point I'm trying to make. If, for instance, we were to lose justification by faith alone, and all that implies for the real piety and practice of the Church then those who rediscover it lack the benefit of those who came before them. We can see this in the recovery of that doctrine historically. There was a lot of "re-formation" that had to occur and it took the Reformed Churches generations to disentangle itself from not its wholesale loss but its severe obfuscation. If justification by faith alone had remained only of interest to historical theology and not gained a foothold in the life and work of the Church then we'd still be impoverished.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## KMK

Semper Fidelis said:


> I hope that those who are responsible for the care of souls will at least ponder the point I'm trying to make.



You definitely make points worth considering, Rich. However, just remember that Baptists have not embraced autonomy for pragmatic reasons. Baptists believe it is the teaching of Scripture that...

"The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner...In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calls out of the world unto himself...and...commands to walk together in particular societies, or churches...To each of these churches therefore gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he has given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline..."

Baptists have no choice but to trust the Lord, by the Spirit, to guide the church in the pursuit of unity and truth. It obviously looks messy from your vantage point, but Baptists have no other choice, by their understanding of Scripture, but to trust the Lord to preserve doctrine in each and individual church.

That is not to say that individual churches cannot receive assistance and edification from others, like yourself, for...

"in the exercise of their gifts and graces, so the churches, when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves, for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification."

Baptists definitely need to use every means possible, from every quarter, to guard against 'removing the landmark' _because_ they have no heirarchical government.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks Ken. I realize that independence is a Biblical conviction.

I'd have to go back and look at some of the research I did for a paper on the Cambridge Platform written by New England Puritans, who were congregationalists. It's sort of the first large-scale expression of Puritan congregationalism in the Americas (since they had the freedom there to get it off the ground in scale). I can't recall precisely how they made it function but they did have a way to "discipline" local congregations and maintain a sense of shared orthodoxy. Obviously the conditions of them controlling the State made some things unique but it's worth studying as a way to maintain some way of association that preserves a theological identity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Rich, your post was specifically that baptist ecclessiology is insufficient to ensure the preservation of doctrine while presbyterianism is sufficient. That is what I am objecting to. Twice now you've avoided answering my question about the failures of presbyterianism in the same regard.

Here's a post about presbyterians rediscovering historic presbyterian beliefs about the baptism of children that was lost in America after revivalism. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-presbyterian-doctrine-of-children-in-the-covenant.414/ Some quotes:



> It revealed the differences between todays Presbyterianism and that of the historic. I was very surprised to find the differences great. It is a sad thing to hear that the influences of the revival movement have so permeated every avenue of the Presbyterian church causing a neo Presbyterianism.





> It is a very helpful book. Everyone who says they are Presbyterian should read it. They woudl be surprised...





> [it refutes] those who have followed an Americanized Revivalism that deters us from the doctrines of the Reformers and Confession. If we had some sharp people who understood the distinctions, then keeping things orthodox, instead of confusing, woudl be much easier.



So, by all means, encourage the preservation of doctrine. (RBs are being very intentional about that issue and are working hard to do it). But please don't couch it in false presbyterian triumphalism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brandon,

I never claimed that Presbyterians were immune to theological error and, in my initial post, pointed out that Presbyterianism has had its problems. I'm regularly engaged in our Church courts to deal with such issues and can see how it occurs, firsthand, within my own denomination.
If you're looking for a sparring partner then I trust you'll find someone elsewhere with the interest and time to do so.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## brandonadams

I think everyone can see quite clearly that your initial point was that presbyterians sufficiently preserve doctrine such that it cannot be lost from generation to generation, in contrast to inadequate baptist ecclessiology. My quotes above demonstrate there is no substantial difference between the two in this regard, contrary to your claim.


----------



## TheOldCourse

brandonadams said:


> I think everyone can see quite clearly that your initial point was that presbyterians sufficiently preserve doctrine such that it cannot be lost from generation to generation, in contrast to inadequate baptist ecclessiology. My quotes above demonstrate there is no substantial difference between the two in this regard, contrary to your claim.



Perhaps one ought to be a bit more cautious and humble about his ability to speak for "everyone."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Andrew P.C.

brandonadams said:


> Here's a post about presbyterians rediscovering historic presbyterian beliefs about the baptism of children that was lost in America after revivalism



Other than your baseless attacks, I think your revisionism and misdirections are worse.

1) Kuyperian baptism is not the "historic" position. For this, read Bannerman or Cunningham.

2) Independency only goes as far as the local body. ARBCA seems to be a neo-Presbyterian pragmatism at best (inconsistent Independency).

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

brandonadams said:


> Has every generation fully and accurately understood every doctrine and therefore fully and accurately passed it down to the next generation



See Woolsey's book:

Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought


----------



## Herald

OK. We're stopping the back and forth Presbyterian vs. Baptist sniping right now. Stick to the topic at hand, please.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Thanks Bill. It's really my own fault but you're correct that it is a distraction from the question at hand. I am actually intrigued by the nature of the question and appreciate the information that has been gathered by research to highlight the differences.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

The naming of the two positions (which has come from the 1689 Federalist side) shows a partisanship and a jockeying for the "confessional" position.

They are saying, "Oh, they are the new invention...we are the ones who truly hold to the 1689 whereas the other side hold to a 20th Century invention."

However, if the Presbyterians/Reformed can show that their covenant theology predates the 17th and 18th Century baptist views (which are hardly monolithic) then this will go a long way in showing that 1689 Federalism is actually the new doctrine and not a rediscovery of old truths.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Just curious but what was the manner of the LBCF's writing? Was there any kind of assembly where the men got together and debated where one might be able to trace, based on debate, the specific language used? Were there letters or other kinds of "give and take" where someone maybe proposed a draft and others chopped on it?


----------



## Pergamum

Here are some links about the origins of the 1689:

http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2014/02/26/on-the-baptist-confession-of-1689/

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/origin.htm



> On the authority of the Minute Book of the Petty France Church in the City of London, Ivimey ascribed authorship to the pastors of that church, William Collins and Nehemiah Coxe. The relevant entry for 26th August 1677 reads, ‘It was agreed that a Confession of Faith, with the Appendix thereunto, having been read and considered by the brethren, should be published’.[18] It is of course possible that there had been no general meeting of churches, but that the Petty France Church promoted the Confession and gained wider approval before taking it upon itself to publish. Whatever the mechanics of approval, both Collins and Coxe were men of considerable scholarship and Petty France was a church well adapted to take the lead in a move of this sort.



http://www.reformation-today.org/articles-of-interest/455/

As a representative document, the Westminster excels, since many hands took part in its creation. The 1689 had much fewer hands and is largely the work of only a few people such that their covenantal views became the representative view for baptist churches using this confession of faith. This may mean these views on the covenant were the majority view, but we have no proof.

Since the Savoy was also borrowed from, it might be helpful to study what the holders of the Savoy believed concerning the covenants.

To assert that 1689 Federalism was THE baptist view or THE view held by credobaptists reaches too far. We may say that it seemed to be the view of those few formulators of the 1689, but the info is more vague as to how widely it was held among baptists in general.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum

And again (from the longer article):

"The _Baptist Confession _shows a modification in the area of covenant theology. Like _Westminster _and _Savoy _it teaches a covenant of grace made between God and the elect sinner in Christ. However it completely removes all references to a covenant of works between God and Adam in the chapters on the Covenant and the Law. In the chapter on Creation there is a paragraph not found in the earlier confessions which refers to Adam and Eve receiving ‘a commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’, but any suggestion of a covenant of works is carefully avoided. Surprisingly in view of these omissions there is a reference to the covenant of works in that chapter on the Gospel taken from _Savoy _but not found in the _Westminster. _This could be a piece of careless editing, but in the light of the careful modifications of earlier statements this seems unlikely. Perhaps it is significant that there is no reference to Adam in the context. It would be interesting to know whether these changes represent a general adjustment in Reformed thinking in the 1670s or whether they are peculiar to the compilers of this _Confession."_

The author, as well, is unsure how much of the Confession's section on the covenants was due to general trends in thinking or "peculiar to the compilers of this Confession."


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> The naming of the two positions (which has come from the 1689 Federalist side) shows a partisanship and a jockeying for the "confessional" position.
> 
> They are saying, "Oh, they are the new invention...we are the ones who truly hold to the 1689 whereas the other side hold to a 20th Century invention."



Perg, I am not sure I agree with you. I do not know the Renihans personally, and I have only spoken with Rich Barcellos by phone, but none of these men strike me as rash or divisive. Their conclusions could be wrong, but I respect their motives. If you think about it, the modern Reformed Baptist movement (which is less than 50 years old), is the new guy on the block as far as its view on covenant theology. Now, if 1689 Federalism seemed like it was coming out of a theological left field, that would be one thing. However, it seems like it has a credible argument and is worth being vetted. What did the framers of the 1689 LBC actually believe when it came to the Covenant of Grace? Did they see a Covenant of Grace that was radically different than our Presbyterian brethren? Does their view have any impact on how Particular Baptists viewed the Covenant of Grace in relation the Abrahamic Covenant? I believe these are good and necessary questions. I am finding some things about 1689 Federalism that I agree with. There are other things I am not quite sure about. I am willing to let these things play out over time. Maybe it will just be a big fizzle at the end. I do not know. If for no other reason, I am heartened to see Reformed Baptists taking their theology seriously.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, I am sure their motives are good. But good motives can also be partisan. Maybe you are seeing the word partisan in an overly negative way. There does seem to be a jockeying for position to see who actually represents Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. And, if you disagree, some may charge you with "an immersed Presbyterianism" like they have charged me of, or assert that you've never fully thought through the covenants and, if you did, you would become a 1689 Federalist.

Denault's book, after all, spoke of the "distinctiveness" of baptist covenant theology (i.e., "We are not like those Presbyterians" seems to be the message), and there seems to be a soft assumption that Presbyterians possess a whole covenant theology wrapped around their protection of infant baptism (sort of an insulting assumption towards the Presbyterians). Presbyterians are SO defensive about baptizing babies that, since they can find no explicit New Testament warrant for it, must craft an entire form of Covenant Theology to protect their system. Infant baptism drives their entire view of the continuity versus discontinuity of Scriptures, they assert. Do you think this is a fair way to treat the Presbyterians?

Also, now some Reformed Baptists are highlighting the view that 1689 Federalism is not like the other RB covenant theology either. They picture the covenant theology of other good baptist men to be merely borrowed from Presbyterians wholesale and not truly thought out. The RB movement was so new that they just sort of carelessly borrowed whole theological categories from the Reformed. This also seems a bit insulting to Waldron and other RB men who still hold to the Covenant Theology that I was taught.

So, yes, there is partisanship. People are making a play to show themselves to be the "true 1689 baptists" in the heritage of Kiffin and Keach and Coxe. It has been refreshing to hear some critiques of Coxe's view from Brandon Adam, for instance, but there is an assumption that there was wide agreement of past baptists on these issues and that they are merely rediscovering long-held baptist doctrine largely agreed upon and not inventing new doctrines.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Semper Fidelis said:


> Just curious but what was the manner of the LBCF's writing? Was there any kind of assembly where the men got together and debated where one might be able to trace, based on debate, the specific language used? Were there letters or other kinds of "give and take" where someone maybe proposed a draft and others chopped on it?


The London Baptist Confession of 1677 is the Westminster Confession of Faith “baptized” with anti-paedobaptist distinctives. In fact, the Savoy Declaration of 1658 is more fundamental to the confession on account of its Independent church polity, which the Baptists also favored. Forced into Nonconformity by the Restoration of Charles II (1630–1685) in 1660, along with other orthodox Calvinists and Dissenters, the Baptists also suffered under the Great Ejection of 1662 and the ban that the Five Mile Act of 1665 imposed. At the invitation of William Kiffin (1616–1701) and William Collins (†1702), the Particular Baptists sought to demonstrate harmony with other British Dissenters in a declaration of their faith. *Collins, pastor of the Petty France congregation in London, along with Nehemiah Coxe (1688), elder in the congregation, are the alleged editors of the final compilation*. The Particular Baptists were indeed demonstrating a measure of solidarity with their Presbyterian and Congregational brethren.
....
With the Act of Toleration (1689) following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Baptists were encouraged to declare themselves openly. On July 22, 1689, Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys (ca. 1599–1691), Benjamin Keach (ca. 1640–ca. 1704), and several others invited the Baptist Churches of England and Wales to meet in London on September 3. Until September 12, *107 “messengers” from churches in the two nations perfected and publically endorsed the second edition of the 1677 document*. The result is regarded as the most significant and mature of the Particular Baptist confessions (new editions 1699, 1719, 1720, 1791, and 1809).



Spoiler



*Ending Statement and Signatories *
We the ministers, and messengers of, and concerned for upwards of, one hundred Baptized Churches, in England and Wales (denying Arminianisim), *being met together in London, from the third of the seventh month to the eleventh of the same, 1689*, to consider of some things that might be for the glory of God, and the good of these congregations, have thought meet (for the satisfaction of all other Christians that differ from us in the point of Baptism) to recommend to their perusal the confession of our faith, which confession we own, as containing the doctrine of our faith and practice, and do desire that the members of our churches respectively do furnish themselves therewith.

Hansard Knollys, Pastor Broken Wharf, London William Kiffin, Pastor Devonshire-square, London John Harris, Pastor, Joiner’s Hall, London William Collins, Pastor, Petty France, London Hurcules Collins, Pastor, Wapping, London, Robert Steed, Pastor, Broken Wharf, London Leonard Harrison,Pastor, Limehouse, London George Barret, Pastor, Mile End Green, London Isaac Lamb, Pastor, Pennington-street, London Richard Adams, Minister, Shad Thames, Southwark Benjamin Keach, Pastor, Horse-lie-down, Southwark Andrew Gifford, Pastor, Bristol, Fryars, Som. & Glouc. Thomas Vaux, Pastor, Broadmead, Som. & Glouc. Thomas Winnel, Pastor, Taunton, Som. & Glouc. James Hitt, Preacher, Dalwood, Dorset Richard Tidmarsh, Minister, Oxford City, Oxon William Facey, Pastor, Reading, Berks Samuel Buttall, Minister, Plymouth, Devon Christopher Price, Minister, Abergayenny, Monmouth Daniel Finch, Minister, Kgs.worth, Herts John Ball, Minister, Tiverton, Devon Edmond White, Pastor, Evershall, Bedford William Prichard, Pastor, Blaenau, Monmouth Paul Fruin, Minister, Warwick, Warwick Richard Ring, Pastor, Southhampton, Hants John Tomkins, Minister, Abingdon, Berks Toby Willes, Pastor, Bridgewater, Somerset John Carter, Pastor, Steventon, Bedford James Webb, Pastor, Devizes, Wilts Richard Sutton, Pastor, Tring, Herts Robert Knight, Pastor, Stukeley, Bucks Edward Price, Pastor, Hereford City, Hereford William Phipps, Pastor, Exon, Devon William Hawkins, Pastor, Dimmock, Gloucester, Samuel Ewer, Pastor, Hemstead, Herts Edward Man, Pastor, Houndsditch, London Charles Archer, Pastor, Hock-Norton, Oxon
In the name of and on the behalf of the whole assembly.


Src: James T. Dennison Jr.. _Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation_. Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.

Would be nice to see a comparison of the Collins and Coxe 1677 edition with the 1689 edition to see how much of their original content survived the meetings.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Yes, I am sure their motives are good. But good motives can also be partisan. Maybe you are seeing the word partisan in an overly negative way. There does seem to be a jockeying for position to see who actually represents Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. And, if you disagree, some may charge you with "an immersed Presbyterianism" like they have charged me of, or assert that you've never fully thought through the covenants and, if you did, you would become a 1689 Federalist.
> 
> Denault's book, after all, spoke of the "distinctiveness" of baptist covenant theology (i.e., "We are not like those Presbyterians" seems to be the message), and there seems to be a soft assumption that Presbyterians possess a whole covenant theology wrapped around their protection of infant baptism (sort of an insulting assumption towards the Presbyterians). Presbyterians are SO defensive about baptizing babies that, since they can find no explicit New Testament warrant for it, must craft an entire form of Covenant Theology to protect their system. Infant baptism drives their entire view of the continuity versus discontinuity of Scriptures, they assert. Do you think this is a fair way to treat the Presbyterians?
> 
> Also, now some Reformed Baptists are highlighting the view that 1689 Federalism is not like the other RB covenant theology either. They picture the covenant theology of other good baptist men to be merely borrowed from Presbyterians wholesale and not truly thought out. The RB movement was so new that they just sort of carelessly borrowed whole theological categories from the Reformed. This also seems a bit insulting to Waldron and other RB men who still hold to the Covenant Theology that I was taught.



I am sure their motives are completely partisan. What else would they be? After all, they are arguing for _their _position. I do not have a problem with Presbyterians arguing for their position. The only thing I like to see is a solid, biblical argument for the position a person(s) holds to. It is then up to the hearer or reader to make their mind up. 

The Jersey boy in me is not too troubled by accusations others may make about me. I am going to embrace the truth regardless of where it comes from or whatever others may say. I hope that does not come across as glib, but I have seldom been intimidated by naysayers. 

I think your criticism of Denault is misplaced. He wrote a book on one view of Baptist Covenant Theology; the minority view. The purpose of the book was to posit an argument that Baptists have a historical position on Covenant Theology that is different than Presbyterian Covenant Theology. I am reading the book for the second time, and while it certainly advances Denaut's point of view, even aggressively in some areas, it is a scholarly work. The purpose of the book is not to critique different Baptist positions. Just look at the title of his book: "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism". I happen to believe Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Rich Barcellos et al. are advancing their argument, and we have the challenge of proving it right or wrong. I see this as a good thing. 

As far as your last paragraph, we fellow Reformed Baptists need to treat each other with a certain level of respect and civility. Sam Waldon has been a leading voice among Reformed Baptists for decades. If there are some on the 1689 side that are dismissing men like Waldron, they are wrong. That is why I have a healthy dose of skepticism about 1689 Federalism. For me, it is too new to just jump on board. Sam Waldron is a 1689 LBC scholar and his conclusions should not be cast aside lightly.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, Bill, I think we are agreed. I am reading up also on all sides. I have tried to give all sides a fair hearing. 

But I am leaning against 1689 Federalism at present, due to (1) the fact that OT believers actively participate in the blessings of the Covenant of Grace even while being in the OT. Thus they were not merely participating in a promise but the actual presence of the Covenant of Grace. (2) We ought not to separate Israel and the Church. Mere physical promises only were not given to the people. (3) The Bible is (ALL of it) a unified book primarily about spiritual things, not a book of discontinuity largely about mere physical promises in the OT and spiritual promises in the NT.

Reactions: Like 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## KMK

Pergamum said:


> The author, as well, is unsure how much of the Confession's section on the covenants was due to general trends in thinking or "peculiar to the compilers of this Confession."





Pergamum said:


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



If the framers of the LBC believed that the NC is the CoG, why did they write, "This covenant is *revealed* in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full *discovery* thereof was completed in the New Testament?" 

If they believed that the NC is the same as the CoG, and they believed it was an important point of doctrine, why didn't they write something like, "This covenant is *promised* in the gospel...until the full *inauguration/consummation* thereof was completed in the New Covenant"?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos

KMK said:


> If the framers of the LBC believed that the NC is the CoG, why did they write, "This covenant is *revealed* in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full *discovery* thereof was completed in the New Testament?"
> 
> If they believed that the NC is the same as the CoG, and they believed it was an important point of doctrine, why didn't they write something like, "This covenant is *promised* in the gospel...until the full *inauguration/consummation* thereof was completed in the New Covenant"?


Couple things.

Considering how this language is different form the WCF, this indicates a significant shift. So it was an important point of doctrine. Secondly, Coxe (the probable writer of section 7 of the LBC) used special terms in the LBC to indicate these truths. Third, your statements are actually parallel. If the covenant of promise is revealed, then it is promised. Same with "full discovery". The idea of the CoG in 1689 federalism is that it was revealed in Gen. 3:15ff but concluded at the NC.


----------



## Timotheos

Pergamum said:


> Yes, Bill, I think we are agreed. I am reading up also on all sides. I have tried to give all sides a fair hearing.
> 
> But I am leaning against 1689 Federalism at present, due to (1) the fact that OT believers actively participate in the blessings of the Covenant of Grace even while being in the OT. Thus they were not merely participating in a promise but the actual presence of the Covenant of Grace. (2) We ought not to separate Israel and the Church. Mere physical promises only were not given to the people. (3) The Bible is (ALL of it) a unified book primarily about spiritual things, not a book of discontinuity largely about mere physical promises in the OT and spiritual promises in the NT.


I don't really think you have accurately expressed 1689 federalism, especially points 2 & 3. I would encourage you to keep giving it a fair hearing since you seem to have mischaracterized it. Now I'm not denying that the people you've been talking to on FaceBook may have construed it this way, but have you read anyone that has put for the time and study? I keep asking this, and you keep avoiding it.


----------



## Herald

Timotheos said:


> The idea of the CoG in 1689 federalism is that it was revealed in Gen. 3:15ff but concluded at the NC.



That is my understanding of the 1689 Federalist position. Opponents of the position are saying that 1689 Federalists do not believe the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. What I have read and watched so far by 1689 Federalists refutes that assertion, just as it does the accusation of their being dispensationalists.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What I have read Bill seems to go back and forth between what Pergy is saying and what you have noted. In the article refuting dispensationalism in the last paragraph it seemed to say there was some attachment of a Covenant of Grace. It was kind of confusing. The other things I have read in the threads and blogs seem to indicate what Pergy is saying.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pergamum said:


> Denault's book, after all, spoke of the "distinctiveness" of baptist covenant theology (i.e., "We are not like those Presbyterians" seems to be the message), and there seems to be a soft assumption that Presbyterians possess a whole covenant theology wrapped around their protection of infant baptism (sort of an insulting assumption towards the Presbyterians). Presbyterians are SO defensive about baptizing babies that, since they can find no explicit New Testament warrant for it, must craft an entire form of Covenant Theology to protect their system. Infant baptism drives their entire view of the continuity versus discontinuity of Scriptures, they assert. Do you think this is a fair way to treat the Presbyterians?



I have a problem with some of the things I have seen via video and readings. I didn't become reformed based upon my desire to baptize babies. I was perfectly content being a Reformed Baptist. My conclusion was based purely on the substance of the Covenant of Grace as it administered all of the Covenants after the Covenant of Works was violated. 

I have not read much of John Bunyan. I wonder if he has written on the topic.


----------



## KMK

Timotheos said:


> Secondly, Coxe (the probable writer of section 7 of the LBC) used special terms in the LBC to indicate these truths.



Do you mean paragraph 7? And to which special terms are you referring? 

If the authors and signers of the LBC all agreed in 1689 Federalism, and that it was an important distinction, they could have done a better job of explaining it. They wasted no words explaining their position on Baptism and the Church contra Westminster.


----------



## Timotheos

KMK said:


> Do you mean paragraph 7? And to which special terms are you referring?
> 
> If the authors and signers of the LBC all agreed in 1689 Federalism, and that it was an important distinction, they could have done a better job of explaining it. They wasted no words explaining their position on Baptism and the Church contra Westminster.


No. Chapter 7, all paragraphs. http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc07.html

Some have argued that their views allowed for variations of CT, just as the paedobaptist view does as well. If that is the case, then I don't care to make that big a deal w/ those RB who disagree. I think the point here is that (1) it connects RBs back to their theological ancestors (particular baptists) and (2) it gives them a thorough-going, confessional CT that actually bolsters the credo-baptist view. I'm not saying that one's baptismal conviction should force a view of CT. But in this case, it seems to be an added bonus for those of us in the 1689 federalist camp.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Timotheos said:


> Some have argued that their views allowed for variations of CT, just as the paedobaptist view does as well. If that is the case, then I don't care to make that big a deal w/ those RB who disagree.


There may be various views concerning how God used the Moral Law but the OPC just had a study done that eliminates some who wanted to be included that are not. The various views are minimal. They all agree that the Mosaic is an administration purely of the Covenant of Grace. This situation between supposed Reformed Baptists seems to have more disagreement concerning the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic is an administration of Covenant of Grace, is administered by the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works (mixed, stand alone Covenant), is a Covenant of Works based upon worldly land promises and blessings and it only points the Covenant of Works done and to the New Covenant fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace as the New Covenant. These variations delve into things much wider and are much more confusing.

Remember, I didn't change because I was becoming paedobaptist. So the discussion shouldn't really focus on some Reformed Baptist boosting their position concerning baptism. That argument should also be included in an ecclesiastical argument. Who is a member of the Church and to whom does the Church have real authority given to it.


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have a problem with some of the things I have seen via video and readings. I didn't become reformed based upon my desire to baptize babies. I was perfectly content being a Reformed Baptist. My conclusion was based purely on the substance of the Covenant of Grace as it administered all of the Covenants after the Covenant of Works was violated.
> 
> I have not read much of John Bunyan. I wonder if he has written on the topic.


Randy, that is fine. If you became a Presbyterian because of your changed view on the Covenant of Grace, that is fine. The issue regarding 1689 Federalism is ultimately going to be decided on its faithfulness to scripture, and secondly by the 1689 LBC. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Baptists are famous for not agreeing 100% on anything!


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So the discussion shouldn't really focus on some Reformed Baptist boosting their position concerning baptism. That argument should also be included in an ecclesiastical argument. Who is a member of the Church and to whom does the Church have real authority given to it.



Randy, the Renihans, Barcellos, and Denault are arguing exactly that. They are not starting with baptism. I have always believed how one views the New Covenant ends the baptism debate. If the New Covenant is actually new, then you are a Baptist. If it is a refreshed covenant (based on the Abrahamic covenant), then you are a Presbyterian.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Timotheos said:


> it gives them a thorough-going, confessional CT that actually bolsters the credo-baptist view. I'm not saying that one's baptismal conviction should force a view of CT. But in this case, it seems to be an added bonus for those of us in the 1689 federalist camp.


That is what makes this suspect for me. Because that wasn't the case for me. I have always heard if it is new it is not for you. I read Keach, Tombe, Owen, Conner, the most recent Fred Malone, and others. It seems Owen who was a Paedobaptist has a closer theology to this movement. Just my humble opinion


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> If the New Covenant is actually new, then you are a Baptist. If it is a refreshed covenant (based on the Abrahamic covenant), then you are a Presbyterian.


I prefer if the administration is fulfilled and confirmed into the next phase of the Administrator.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> That is my understanding of the 1689 Federalist position. Opponents of the position are saying that 1689 Federalists do not believe the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. What I have read and watched so far by 1689 Federalists refutes that assertion, just as it does the accusation of their being dispensationalists.


Bill,

It seems that 1689 Federalists are saying that OT believers are saved by virtue of the New Covenant (fine) and that they participate in the promises of the Covenant of Grace while in the OT. 

However, it seems better to say that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT and that OT believers participate in it. Not merely the promise but the effective reality, just like all NT believers. In other words, OT believers and NT believers are saved in the same way. 

1689 Federalism seems to believe Gen 3:15 was a promise whereby the Covenant of Grace was "revealed" - but I believe it is better to say that this was where it actually began as an inaugurated Covenant....waiting for Christ, of course, for its fulfillment. All OT believers were active in it.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Bill,
> 
> It seems that 1689 Federalists are saying that OT believers are saved by virtue of the New Covenant (fine) and that they participate in the promises of the Covenant of Grace while in the OT.
> 
> However, it seems better to say that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT and that OT believers participate in it. Not merely the promise but the effective reality, just like all NT believers. In other words, OT believers and NT believers are saved in the same way.
> 
> 1689 Federalism seems to believe Gen 3:15 was a promise whereby the Covenant of Grace was "revealed" - but I believe it is better to say that this was where it actually began as an inaugurated Covenant....waiting for Christ, of course, for its fulfillment. All OT believers were active in it.


OK. That is a valid critique. What 1689 Federalists need to do is explain how/why the Covenant of Grace was not inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, and how it became inaugurated at Pentecost. They say they have explained it and you can either accept or reject their conclusions. 

A Presbyterian friend of mine told me offline that one of the reasons they believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is that if the covenant is not continued it interrupts the Covenant of Grace. In my opinion, this is where 1689 Federalism is proven correct or false. They try and make the case that the New Covenant _is_ the Covenant of Grace inaugurated, whereas Genesis 3:15 is the Covenant of Grace promised. The Covenant of Grace promised in Genesis 3:15 could not possibly be the Covenant of Grace inaugurated because it can only be inaugurated after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Is this all just a semantical argument? Is there substance to it? It depends on who you ask.


----------



## KMK

It sounds a bit like a distinction without a difference from a practical perspective.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> OK. That is a valid critique. What 1689 Federalists need to do is explain how/why the Covenant of Grace was not inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, and how it became inaugurated at Pentecost. They say they have explained it and you can either accept or reject their conclusions.
> 
> A Presbyterian friend of mine told me offline that one of the reasons they believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is that if the covenant is not continued it interrupts the Covenant of Grace. In my opinion, this is where 1689 Federalism is proven correct or false. They try and make the case that the New Covenant _is_ the Covenant of Grace inaugurated, whereas Genesis 3:15 is the Covenant of Grace promised. The Covenant of Grace promised in Genesis 3:15 could not possibly be the Covenant of Grace inaugurated because it can only be inaugurated after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Is this all just a semantical argument? Is there substance to it? It depends on who you ask.


Bill,

Keep me updated on your progress as you study these issues. It sounds like we are in the same boat studying these issues. 

The Genesis 3:15 question is vital to me. I believe that at the point of promise the Covenant of Grace was inaugurated, but only came to fulfillment in Christ. The 1689 Federalists seem to say it was revealed or promised but was not actually operative. Yet, if OT believers are saved by virtue of it, it nonetheless seems active-but-not-yet-consummated. It seems effectual and operative by virtue of the fact that there were OT believers and these OT believers are one body with NT believers.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Has every generation fully and accurately understood every doctrine and therefore fully and accurately passed it down to the next generation? Has there ever been an instance where a study of historical theology led a presbyterian to disagree with one of his gray-haired elders?


The context to me regarding Baptist theology is important, for there MANY various strands of that within the large Baptist Community of faith, as there are RB, Dispensational Ones, NCT ones etc.

It is not nearly as monolithic as reformed Presbyterian theology would be regarding these issues.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> That is my understanding of the 1689 Federalist position. Opponents of the position are saying that 1689 Federalists do not believe the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. What I have read and watched so far by 1689 Federalists refutes that assertion, just as it does the accusation of their being dispensationalists.


My understanding is that all saved in the OT were saved under/by the CoG, but that the NC itself is when that CoG fully was manifested and now established?


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Randy, the Renihans, Barcellos, and Denault are arguing exactly that. They are not starting with baptism. I have always believed how one views the New Covenant ends the baptism debate. If the New Covenant is actually new, then you are a Baptist. If it is a refreshed covenant (based on the Abrahamic covenant), then you are a Presbyterian.


Yes, as much of this issue will rest upon just how much continuity/discontinuity one sees between the O/NC.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I mentioned the Everlasting Covenant in another thread. I asked if there were more than one. I asked that because of the various views concerning the New Covenant and it's relationship to the Covenant of Grace. It seems to me that the Covenant is Established with Abraham, then his seed in their generations, his descendent Isaac and his seed in their generations. It has been noted that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are synonymous if I am not mistaken. So as this discussion has carried on maybe we need to figure out what it means that God Established this Covenant with Abraham and the following generations. 

(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 17:19) 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.

(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*,
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.


----------



## Timotheos

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is what makes this suspect for me. Because that wasn't the case for me. I have always heard if it is new it is not for you. I read Keach, Tombe, Owen, Conner, the most recent Fred Malone, and others. It seems Owen who was a Paedobaptist has a closer theology to this movement. Just my humble opinion


This post is confusing to me. This is not new. It is a rediscovery of our Baptist heritage from the 17th cent. Most of the PBs who were writing advocate 1689 federalism in some way, shape, or form.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

There is something that seems to be new about this Tim. It seems that there are some discoveries that have been made but the formulation of the knowledge has not been systematically as clear as some want it to be. As one noted Confessing Baptist told me, the movement is not monolithic. It does seem to be causing confusion. It also seems to be something that is trying to be defined in a historical context that had various positions. Rich Barcellos told me that there were various views and the 20th Century view is one of those that did exist during the 17th Century among Baptists. He did note that he believed the majority position seems to have been the 1689 Federalist position. 

Let me ask a question here, the label 1689 Federalist, is the name itself a new classification for an old doctrine? I don't ever remember reading that name in this context all the years I was a Reformed / Particular Baptist. I wonder if Richard Belcher has been a part of this discussion. He was a Confessional Baptist Scholar. I would be interested in his thoughts.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Timotheos said:


> It is a rediscovery of our Baptist heritage from the 17th cent. Most of the PBs who were writing advocate 1689 federalism in some way, shape, or form.


Is your implication of some way, shape, or form, an indication or validation that it wasn't a monolithic understanding even amongst Baptists of the 17th Century? Was its formulation still being worked out or not fully embraced?


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I mentioned the Everlasting Covenant in another thread. I asked if there were more than one. I asked that because of the various views concerning the New Covenant and it's relationship to the Covenant of Grace. It seems to me that the Covenant is Established with Abraham, then his seed in their generations, his descendent Isaac and his seed in their generations. It has been noted that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are synonymous if I am not mistaken. So as this discussion has carried on maybe we need to figure out what it means that God Established this Covenant with Abraham and the following generations.
> 
> (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 17:19) 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.
> 
> (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*,
> (Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.


Are the eternal covenant, the CoG, and the NC are exactly same thing?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Are the eternal covenant, the CoG, and the NC are exactly same thing?


That is what I asked. I received an affirmative from one Reformed Baptist. I asked if there was more than one Everlasting Covenant. There are some who believe there is more than one Covenant of Grace. That is why it is mentioned in the Westminster Confession of Faith. 

7.6
There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

This must be an old discussion or the Confession wouldn't have mentioned it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> That is what I asked. I received an affirmative from one Reformed Baptist. I asked if there was more than one Everlasting Covenant. There are some who believe there is more than one Covenant of Grace. That is why it is mentioned in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
> 
> 7.6
> There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.
> 
> This must be an old discussion or the Confession wouldn't have mentioned it.


My current understanding, its either that the Cog and NC are not exactly same thing, or else that the NC is the fullness and actual manifestation of the actual CoG here on Earth in times of Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Yo my current understanding, its either that the Cog and NC are not exactly same thing, or else that the NC is the fullness and actual manifestation of the actual CoG here on Earth in times of Christ.


Please don't take this in the wrong spirit. You evidently have have a lot of reading and getting acquainted with to do. That includes the scriptures and views of past writers. If I were you I would ask more questions than give an opinion. Your last question is pertinent.



Dachaser said:


> Are the eternal covenant, the CoG, and the NC are exactly same thing?




And I am not to be addressed by YO. Please, I am not looking down on you. I have kids. But I have reverence for writing even though I struggle with it also. The guys on the Puritanboard have helped me out a lot with my writing. I was probably worse than you with my slang and grammar at one time. Please don't take offence.


----------



## Timotheos

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is your implication of some way, shape, or form, an indication or validation that it wasn't a monolithic understanding even amongst Baptists of the 17th Century? Was its formulation still being worked out or not fully embraced?


No, it was the vast majority view. But the formulations were being worked out since Baptists in general were being worked out as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

I am sorry about the Yo, as that was not my intention, and have now corrected it. and you are right, as I have been reading through various authors on these issues, and trying to reconcile those such as a Berkhof with a Strong and a Gill and Calvin is providing to be quite daunting, to say the least.

The reformed Dutch and Presbyterian seem to be pretty much in agreement on major issues, but the RB authors seem to be building on theology in subtle, but differing ways.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is something that seems to be new about this Tim. It seems that there are some discoveries that have been made but the formulation of the knowledge has not been systematically as clear as some want it to be. As one noted Confessing Baptist told me, the movement is not monolithic. It does seem to be causing confusion. It also seems to be something that is trying to be defined in a historical context that had various positions. Rich Barcellos told me that there were various views and the 20th Century view is one of those that did exist during the 17th Century among Baptists. He did note that he believed the majority position seems to have been the 1689 Federalist position.
> 
> Let me ask a question here, the label 1689 Federalist, is the name itself a new classification for an old doctrine? I don't ever remember reading that name in this context all the years I was a Reformed / Particular Baptist. I wonder if Richard Belcher has been a part of this discussion. He was a Confessional Baptist Scholar. I would be interested in his thoughts.



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

Groups are jockeying for position and branding themselves as THE true baptists, "1689 Federalism" trying to gain the high ground by claiming a name that sets them up as the REAL preservers of confessional baptist doctrine. Which of course is ironic because many of them get so mad when folks like R. Scott Clark try to deny them the title of "Reformed" (apparently he thinks he has the copyrights to the moniker "Reformed") even as they try to deny that all of these various strands all are part of Baptist history.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos

Pergamum said:


> This admission that all strands of Covenant Theology have been among baptists for years and that "20th Century Baptist" covenant theology can also be found among 17th Century Baptists confirms my assertion that a lot of this is Baptist Identity Politics for lack of a better phrase.
> 
> Groups are jockeying for position and branding themselves as THE true baptists, "1689 Federalism" trying to gain the high ground by claiming a name that sets them up as the REAL preservers of confessional baptist doctrine. Which of course is ironic because many of them get so mad when folks like R. Scott Clark try to deny them the title of "Reformed" (apparently he thinks he has the copyrights to the moniker "Reformed") even as they try to deny that all of these various strands all are part of Baptist history.


I feel like you are only interacting w/ cage stage kinds of Baptist CTs. 

My point is that you aren't reading on the subject. *Other than Denault, have you read anyone else? *

If you interact w/ the bad eggs, you may think all the eggs taste that way. There are people like this in every camp and system. So if this has turned you off to 1689 federalism, then good luck finding any view that does not have its "really bad eggs".


----------



## Pergamum

Who are the bad eggs and who are the good eggs, then?


----------



## Timotheos

Pergamum said:


> Who are the bad eggs and who are the good eggs, then?


I can only assume the bad eggs are those you have been conversing with on Facebook who claim that 1689 federalism is the only view for RBs. The cage stage types.

The good eggs would those authors of which you don't seem to have read much. At least it appears since you still won't answer that question. I think I am safe in assuming you have only read Denault. Good start... but that is only a start. I have a free pdf option on a book not yet in publication if you want to hit me up on pm.


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, please send me any PDFs you have. I have read Denault, Johnson, Nichols, Blackburn, plus Presbyterian authors on the covenant. I have also read much from Brandon Adams' website and read the Coxe book on the Covenants. I think I have read almost every book there is on the subject, but remain unconvinced (maybe O' Palmer Robertson and his Christ of the Covenants got to me first). My qualms are not out of ignorance. 

But I will continue to read anything else you suggest to me and I will thank you gratefully for the recommendations. Thanks.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> Yes, please send me any PDFs you have. I have read Denault, Johnson, Nichols, Blackburn, plus Presbyterian authors on the covenant. I have also read much from Brandon Adams' website and read the Coxe book on the Covenants. I think I have read almost every book there is on the subject, but remain unconvinced (maybe O' Palmer Robertson and his Christ of the Covenants got to me first). My qualms are not out of ignorance.
> 
> But I will continue to read anything else you suggest to me and I will thank you gratefully for the recommendations. Thanks.


What is the gist of your main reason having issues with 1689 Federalism Covenant theology then?


----------



## Timotheos

Pergamum said:


> Yes, please send me any PDFs you have. I have read Denault, Johnson, Nichols, Blackburn, plus Presbyterian authors on the covenant. I have also read much from Brandon Adams' website and read the Coxe book on the Covenants. I think I have read almost every book there is on the subject, but remain unconvinced (maybe O' Palmer Robertson and his Christ of the Covenants got to me first). My qualms are not out of ignorance.
> 
> But I will continue to read anything else you suggest to me and I will thank you gratefully for the recommendations. Thanks.


So what of Johnson have you read? I'm curious b/c I've only read his chapter in _Recovering a Covenantal Heritage_.


----------



## Pergamum

Timotheos said:


> So what of Johnson have you read? I'm curious b/c I've only read his chapter in _Recovering a Covenantal Heritage_.


I read his Fatal Flaw and a few online articles. Does the chapter in Covenantal Heritage differ any from Fatal Flaw or is it just a restatement?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Pergamum said:


> I read his Fatal Flaw and a few online articles. Does the chapter in Covenantal Heritage differ any from Fatal Flaw or is it just a restatement?


Pergamum,
Most of the material in this chapter comes from his book "Kingdom of God: A Baptist Expression of Covenant & Biblical Theology".

It is worth reading 'A Covenantal Heritage'. It is one of the more substantial works on Baptist Covenant Theology.

By the way, you said you had read a number of Paedobaptist Covenant Theology books? Have you read Witsius' "Economy of the Covenants between God and man"? This is widely rgarded as one of the finest on the subject (Dutch Reformed).


----------



## Pergamum

Yes, it is free online here:

http://www.apuritansmind.com/covena...enants-between-god-and-man-by-herman-witsius/

And here:

http://www.wtsbooks.com/common/pdf_links/9781601780959.pdf


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Serious question here (not looking for a fight but for explanation): I keep reading here (as much as I have time to follow) that the CoG was not "inaugurated" in Genesis 3:15. 

Chapter VII.1 agrees (mostly) with WCF that the distance between God and man is so great that the only fruition man has with God is that God would condescend to man by way of Covenant.

VII.2 notes that man, being under the curse of the law, has no hope apart from God's making of a CoG with Christ and the elect.

VIII.1 notes that Christ is the alone Mediator of the CoG.

If the 1689 Federalist perspective is that the CoG was not inaugurated until the NC then who mediated between God and man prior to Christ's coming? I can understand the Baptist idea that the CoG was not inaugurated historically or fully in their view but the idea that it was not somehow, in substance, _active_ for the elect then how can even a Promise of it save someone if there is no Mediator while they were living?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum

Semper Fidelis said:


> Serious question here (not looking for a fight but for explanation): I keep reading here (as much as I have time to follow) that the CoG was not "inaugurated" in Genesis 3:15.
> 
> Chapter VII.1 agrees (mostly) with WCF that the distance between God and man is so great that the only fruition man has with God is that God would condescend to man by way of Covenant.
> 
> VII.2 notes that man, being under the curse of the law, has no hope apart from God's making of a CoG with Christ and the elect.
> 
> VIII.1 notes that Christ is the alone Mediator of the CoG.
> 
> If the 1689 Federalist perspective is that the CoG was not inaugurated until the NC then who mediated between God and man prior to Christ's coming? I can understand the Baptist idea that the CoG was not inaugurated historically or fully in their view but the idea that it was not somehow, in substance, _active_ for the elect then how can even a Promise of it save someone if there is no Mediator while they were living?


That is also what hangs me up as well as a baptist.


----------



## KMK

Do they think that Christ was somehow able to mediate 'without' or 'outside' a covenant?


----------



## brandonadams

Semper Fidelis said:


> If the 1689 Federalist perspective is that the CoG was not inaugurated until the NC then who mediated between God and man prior to Christ's coming? I can understand the Baptist idea that the CoG was not inaugurated historically or fully in their view but the idea that it was not somehow, in substance, _active_ for the elect then how can even a Promise of it save someone if there is no Mediator while they were living?



http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/

I would really encourage you to read one of the books, particularly Denault's.


----------



## brandonadams

For all of you struggling to understand what is meant by the promised/established or revealed/inaugurated distinction, In addition to the link I just provided above, you will find a detailed explanation of it in Owen's commentary on Hebrews 8. It is not a concept the baptists invented. It is a logical deduction from Scripture, particularly Hebrews 8. It is derived from what Scripture says about the Old and New Covenants. You may not agree with the deduction, but for Owen it was a result of wrestling with the logic of Hebrews 8.



> The other covenant or testament here supposed, whereunto that whereof the Lord Christ was the mediator is preferred, is none other but that which God made with the people of Israel on mount Sinai...
> 
> It remains unto the exposition of the words, that we inquire what was this covenant, whereof 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.”...
> 
> But here ariseth 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 unto 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 unto 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 hereunto is in the word here used by the apostle concerning this new covenant: νενομοθετηται, whose meaning we must inquire into.


----------



## Herald

brandonadams said:


> http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/
> 
> I would really encourage you to read one of the books, particularly Denault's.


Brandon, what would you say to the person who says that this is a semantical argument; that whether promised or in effect in Genesis 3:15, all are saved in Christ? As I read many of the comments in the various 1689 Federalism threads, this is the basic question many are asking.


----------



## brandonadams

I would say they have not really understood the issue (which is not surprising since most of the people commenting in these threads have not studied the position). Nobody should come to a conclusion on it or claim it is just semantics until they have at least read Owen.


----------



## Pergamum

Bill,

Yes, I am trying to figure out what difference it makes. After all Owen remained a paedobaptist despite baptists trying to put him on their side. 

If the CofG is effective in the OT and it saves and OT believers are living in its reality and it is thus operative in the OT, why not say it was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment or consummation in Christ? That seems to be the language I've seen most commonly. 

As you have said before, it seems a distinction without a difference. Why is this point critical?


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum, per my previous comment, if you want to understand why it makes a difference, read Owen (whether or not he was or remained a paedobaptist is irrelevant in terms of you understanding what the promised/established distinction means).


----------



## Pergamum

That seems a non-answer. I have read Owen. What am I missing?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Pergamum said:


> That seems a non-answer. I have read Owen. What am I missing?



The notion that Owen holds to baptist distinctions is deceitful at best. I encourage anyone to read Owen in his entirety.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> That seems a non-answer. I have read Owen. What am I missing?



Please summarize what Owen says about the promised/established distinction so that I can determine what you are missing.


----------



## Pergamum

Now I've got to do homework before you will simply answer me?

Owen says this, for instance:

"Believers, not singly considered, but they and their seed, or their children, are this people..." _Hebrews_ vol 4:328 (Banner edition)

"Believers under the gospel are, as we have spoken, the people of God; and that with all sorts of advantages annexed unto that condition, above what were enjoyed by them who of old were so. How is it, then, that this people of God, made so by Jesus Christ in the gospel, should have their charter, upon its renewal, razed with a deprivation of one of their choicest rights and privileges? Assuredly it is not so. And therefore if believers are now, as the apostle says they are, "the people of God," their children have a right to the initial seal of the covenant." _Hebrews_ vol 4:329

"And this one consideration is enough to confirm the grant of the initial seal of the covenant unto the seed of present believers, which was once given by God himself in the way of an institution, and never by him revoked." _Hebrews_ vol 5:434

These quotes go a long way towards answering the 1689 Federalist response found here: http://www.1689federalism.com/the-marrow-of-modern-john-owen-debates/


I really don't understand why there is such an attraction in appealing to Owen. 

So Owen believed in two covenants instead of 1 covenant with two administrations? So what? What did that get him?

He was still a most ardent defender of paedobaptism. Sure, you might argue that he was inconsistent with his own covenant theology. But his arguments for infant baptism are strongly based upon that covenant theology. So I am not sure why he is being recruited to your cause.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Steve Curtis

brandonadams said:


> Please summarize what Owen says about the promised/established distinction so that I can determine what *(I think that) *you are missing.


Unless you would claim to speak for Owen definitively, the added words above may help to keep this a discussion/debate, rather than a "schooling."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> Owen says this, for instance:



Pergamum, I'm sorry, but you have shown time, and time, and time, and time, and time again in these threads that you're just not interested in learning the position. You want to argue about it before studying and understanding it.

We are talking about the promised/established distinction. I asked you to summarize what you think the view teaches (no, that's not "homework" - that's just a basic part of having a dialogue) and you come back with quotes from Owen related to paedobaptism. That's not what we're discussing at the moment. You keep saying you "don't understand" this or that, but you aren't interested in "understanding." Sorry, but I am not interested in continuing any 1689 Federalism discussion with you.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

brandonadams said:


> Pergamum, I'm sorry, but you have shown time, and time, and time, and time, and time again in these threads that you're just not interested in learning the position. You want to argue about it before studying and understanding it.
> 
> We are talking about the promised/established distinction. I asked you to summarize what you think the view teaches (no, that's not "homework" - that's just a basic part of having a dialogue) and you come back with quotes from Owen related to paedobaptism. That's not what we're discussing at the moment. You keep saying you "don't understand" this or that, but you aren't interested in "understanding." Sorry, but I am not interested in continuing any 1689 Federalism discussion with you.


*Moderator Note:*
Brandon,

Please explain what you think Owen's position is per your understanding. This _Whack-A-Mole_ tactic of yours is not conducive to edification of all parties. If you are going to just wax eloquent and declare the positions you are affirming are being misunderstood, then take the time to provide some clear commentary about where your interlocutors are misunderstanding you. Just pointing someone to a web site or the writings of another, while necessary, is insufficient when your audience has plainly stated that they have availed themselves of the materials, yet questions remain.


----------



## brandonadams

Patrick, I have already explained the position numerous times. There is nothing wack-a-mole about it. I am responding specifically to Pergamum because his comments evidence that he does not understand the position, though he claims to. If he has not understood the view from the numerous explanations already given, then my advice was for him to read a detailed explanation of it found in Owen. He said he has, so I have asked him to explain what he thinks the position is so that I can determine where he is misunderstanding it. As he asked "What am I missing?"

Please see the link I provided above: http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/ as well as numerous comments in recent threads on this point for further elaboration.



Pergamum said:


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



Why did Berkhof say the CoG was not inaugurated until the Abrahamic Covenant even though it was operative and effective prior to then? Because no covenant was established in Genesis 3:15.

Why not say the New Covenant was established in Genesis 3:15? Because Hebrews 8:6 says the New Covenant was established in the death of Christ/Pentecost - not Gen 3:15. Why not say Christ died on the cross in Genesis 3:15? Because he didn't. Genesis 3:15 was a promise that he would die on the cross in the future. As Owen explains, the New Covenant operated invisibily prior to its legal establishment in the death of Christ (in the exact same way his atonement operated prior to its actual occurrence). It had no ceremonies or ordinances expressive of it. Once it was legally established in the death of Christ (from which it receives its legal efficacy), it became the rule of faith and worship. Therefore the Old Covenant, which was not the New Covenant, was abolished. Its ordinances were not ordinances of the Covenant of Grace. Only the ordinances of the New Covenant are the ordinances of the Covenant of Grace because only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. It should be quite clear how this is relevant to the question of baptism.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/
> 
> I would really encourage you to read one of the books, particularly Denault's.


I'm busy at the moment with many things on my reading list.

Can someone else who understands the 1689 Federalist position answer whether or not OT believers had a Mediator or while they were living? If they did then were they saved, in life, inside the CoG or did it not exist for them to be yet saved?

These are simple questions. They may have some nuances in the way they are answered (even as our Covenant theology does) but they should be explicable in a manner that a child can understand how men were saved under the OC.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

brandonadams said:


> Please see the link I provided above: http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/did-the-covenant-of-grace-exist-during-the-old-testament/ as well as numerous comments in recent threads on this point for further elaboration.


Brandon,
Please point out at the link above where Owen is specifically mentioned.

How difficult would it have been for you to provide links to your answers related to Owen "in recent threads" to help make your point that what is being asked has actually been answered? For that matter, I find a couple of references you make to Owen "in recent threads", all of which are directing the reader to links elsewhere. But I have yet to find a recent thread wherein you establish your claims about Owen therein.

In fact the only detailed explanations I find you have provided regarding Owen are found in your post here that points here

or, perhaps this:

https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/whats-new-about-the-new-covenant.71338/page-4#post-914636


----------



## brandonadams

Semper Fidelis said:


> Can someone else who understands the 1689 Federalist position answer whether or not OT believers had a Mediator or while they were living?



I don't understand how my link did not explicitly answer your question. Did you read the link?



> 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.



Yes, these are simple questions and I have provided simple answers. Jesus Christ is mediator of the New Covenant alone. Jesus Christ mediated for Abraham by means of the New Covenant in Abraham's day.


----------



## brandonadams

Patrick, please see:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...e-covenant-of-grace.93187/page-2#post-1137386 (and the subsequent replies)

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...the-church-in-the-oc-then.93354/#post-1138863 (and the subsequent replies)

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...th-spiritual-israel.93208/page-3#post-1137757 (and the subsequent replies)



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Please point out at the link above where Owen is specifically mentioned.



This paragraph is nearly verbatim from Owen. His name was not mentioned in the post to avoid distraction from the point of the post.


> 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.



See also "Owen's Promised/Established Covenant of Grace"
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/01/30/owens-promisedestablished-covenant-of-grace/

My focus here in this thread has been the promised/established concept - not Owen. I merely mentioned Owen as the most detailed elaboration of the concept for those looking to understand it.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> I don't understand how my link did not explicitly answer your question. Did you read the link?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, these are simple questions and I have provided simple answers. Jesus Christ is mediator of the New Covenant alone. Jesus Christ mediated for Abraham by means of the New Covenant in Abraham's day.


Had you provided that link to begin with we would not be cross-posting. I read the article and it explains the position. It makes me wonder if the Particular Baptists understood the distinctions the Puritans made about the nature of the CoG under its various administrations given the assumptions it makes. You do realize that the idea that there is one CoG under different administration (in the WCF view) does not mean that anyone was ever saved outside of the death and resurrection of Christ? In my estimation, the primary thing the 1689 Federalist position does is clear away any historical administration as having no ordinances that sacramentally sealed any elect OT believers to Christ. The sacrifices may have prefigured things in some way but the believer could never have looked from his senses of a lamb being slain to a future promise and say: "...as sure as this lamb was slain, so are my sins taken away by God's promise of a once-for-all sacrifice...." It could only, ever, be a bare sacrifice that did...nothing.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Semper Fidelis said:


> Had you provided that link to begin with we would not be cross-posting.



Rich, please see reply #98 above (my first reply to you telling you to read the link) https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-1689-and-modern-rb.93344/page-4#post-1139967



Semper Fidelis said:


> It makes me wonder if the Particular Baptists understood the distinctions the Puritans made about the nature of the CoG under its various administrations given the assumptions it makes.



Yes, they fully understood it and they interact with it at great length. If you're curious, I recommend reading what they said before jumping to conclusions about what they did and did not understand. Read Denault for a great summary. Here's a post that may be helpful if you want to get a little better grasp before reading Denault https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2...-and-the-substanceadministration-distinction/



Semper Fidelis said:


> You do realize that the idea that there is one CoG under different administration (in the WCF view) does not mean that anyone was ever saved outside of the death and resurrection of Christ?



Yup, sure do brother.



Semper Fidelis said:


> he sacrifices may have prefigured things in some way but the believer could never have looked from his senses of a lamb being slain to a future promise and say: "...as sure as this lamb was slain, so are my sins taken away by God's promise of a once-for-all sacrifice...."



I don't really understand why you're arguing against the position when you said you don't have time to take to understand the position. What you just opined does not follow from 1689 Federalism at all. I recommend reading more on it.

LBCF 8.6._____ 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 and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever.
(  1 Corinthians 4:10;  Hebrews 4:2;   1 Peter 1:10, 11;   Revelation 13:8;   Hebrews 13:8 )


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> Yup, sure do brother.


Well, if you're the author of the article cited, there are statements about the PB view of the CoG that lead me to believe you either do not understand this or you are leading your readers to believe that each administration is a full-blown representation.



brandonadams said:


> I don't really understand why you're arguing against the position when you said you don't have time to take to understand the position.


Because I have time to read what people are writing here and interact with them. If you don't want to respond to me then that's fine but I'm under no obligation to study all Baptist theology to interact with a Baptist on what they believe any more than I expect them to do the same with me.



brandonadams said:


> What you just opined does not follow from 1689 Federalism at all. I recommend reading more on it.
> 
> LBCF 8.6._____ 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 and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever.
> (  1 Corinthians 4:10;  Hebrews 4:2;   1 Peter 1:10, 11;   Revelation 13:8;   Hebrews 13:8 )


Keep in mind here that my "arguments" here are more "...that's really curious to me and doesn't make a whole lot of sense..." and this is another example.

I believe I read correctly from your article that there were no ordinances of the CoG prior to Christ yet, from my perspective, these non-COG ordinances are signifying Christ to them (in shadow). I know there's some debate among Baptists over how "sacramental" some are but it strikes me as an odd theological paradigm to insist that the former covenants and other things that prefigured the NC are in no way ordinances or administration of the CoG and yet they function for the elect to signify the Promise to them. Again, you have to understand where I'm coming from but this strikes me as a terribly odd straining to do everything you can to have the features of something that raises the eyes of the elect to faith in Christ (the Promise) but, whatever you do, don't call it a sacrament of the CoG. Other than the fact that you don't recognize ordinances (what I call sacraments) as seals of grace for the elect, I have no problem at all with the above statement.

Incidentally, you can put your boxing gloves away. Someday when you get a little more gray you might look back and wonder why you felt like you had to turn every interaction into a duel. I'm just expressing my curiosity and enjoying learning from you what you know about Baptist theology. I don't have to agree with you to benefit from what you've learned. The fact that I find the theology odd ought not to be a point of offense any more than I understand you reject my own theology on the matter.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Pergamum

Brandon and all,

Forgive me if I still do not get it. I have read Brandon's website quite a bit. I have read Owen. I have read most of the books on the reading list. Maybe 1,000 pages of pro-1689 stuff.

It seems both positions: (1) believe that OT believers are saved by the Cov of Grace even while in the OT, (2) That they are saved by the same Mediator Jesus Christ even prior to His coming, (3) That the Cov of Grace was promised and revealed and was effective even in the OT.

But, the difference appears the further nuanced assertion that even though the Cov of Grace was effective and promised in the OT, it was not "established" until the death of Christ. 

I ask again: what is the vital importance of holding to this position? 

Does it make a better defense against paedobaptism? And if so, how? Owen keeps coming up, but Owen remained a Paedobaptist despite (it is claimed) having a "1689 Federalist" view of the Cov of Grace, right? 

I have been told I am an "immersed Presbyterian" because I do not hold to any form of 1689 Federalism yet, and that my Covenant theology ought to lead me to paedobaptism, but one of the chief writers used to defend 1689 Federalism (Owen) was himself a paedobaptist who defended his view of baptism by appealing to the nature of the covenant.

So what is so "distinctive" about 1689 Federalism?


Bill (Herald)....maybe you are reading this? I know you are studying this, too. Maybe you've got some light. 


Brandon,

What I see about 1689 Federalism so far is that it seems to over-stress discontinuity, whereas I see great continuity throughout the Scripture. The Bible is about spiritual things, but 1689 Federalism seems to make it partly about earthly things by reducing the Mosaic Administration to a subservient covenant not really about Christ. From one 1689 Federalist site, I discovered the strange doctrine that there was not A Abrahamic Covenant (singular), but Abrahamic Covenants (plural), "1689 Federalism is unique in that it sees two covenants between God and Abraham. One covenant is with the physical descendants of Abraham’s seed; the other covenant is with the spiritual descendants of faith. 1689 Federalists see two separate inheritances for two separate posterities (Galatians 4:21-31; Romans 2:28-29; 9:6-8; 11; John 8:39; Matthew 3:9; Galatians 3:29; 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16)." Forgive me if I am not excited about this "uniqueness." 

The sacrificial system pointed to Christ and Moses prophesied of a Prophet like unto Him, yet I am told that the Mosaic administration was only a "covenant of works" (though not THE Covenant of Works). Therefore, we see the slow gradual progress towards Christ as the whole OT points to Christ, yet here we see a side-show, a subserviant covenant that does not really seem to advance the plan of salvation according to 1689 Federalists. 1689 Federalism seems to upset the flow of Scriptures.

Also, you write that the Mosaic law is abolished. "No one today, believer or unbeliever, is under the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law can be divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. That three fold distinction is really a two-fold distinction: moral (unchanging) and positive (changing). However, moral, ceremonial, and judicial were all given to Israel on Mt. Sinai _as a covenant of works for life in Canaan._ And when the Old Covenant was abolished, the entire Mosaic law was abolished _as it was given to Israel_. In this sense, no one is under Mosaic law today."

Yet, the Reformed confessions all use the 10 commandments in their catechisms as a basis of morality. 

Also, several 1689 Federalists have said that there are absolutely "no conditions" to enter the Covenant of Grace and make no mention of the condition of faith. 

These are all stumbling points for me as I explore 1689 Federalism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

Rich, for a helpful thread demonstrating how someone can learn about the position and ask questions, see here https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/baptists-only-what-does-jeremiah-31-31-34-mean.93407/ Jon does a good job of asking for understanding. That's not what you're doing. You're opining as to why our view is wrong, odd, and ignorant. Of course you are free to do so - I merely ask that you take the time to study the position first. I have asked you to read one short book you can get for $2.99 (not "all Baptist theology") so you have a good overview of the position rather than a piece here and there. That said, I could certainly be less defensive about it all. Thank you for reminding me.

Regarding Old Covenant ordinances revealing certain truths about the gospel - the question is whether they do that primarily or secondarily. It's a basic issue of typology. Did the slain lamb provide a picture of Christ? Yes. Was that its immediate purpose? No. At the Passover, the slain lamb literally saved the lives of those in the home, regardless of whether they had saving faith in Christ (the generation died in the wilderness). Secondarily it revealed something about the future Messiah for those who had eyes to see. Likewise, the blood of bulls and goats actually purified the flesh of the Israelites. If they were ceremonially unclean, they were purified by the blood of these animals (Heb 9:10, 13). The Levitical services and ordinances were in themselves carnal, and had carnal ends assigned unto them, and had only an obscure representation of things spiritual and eternal. Every defiled person was made common, excluded from the privilege of a right to draw nigh unto God in his solemn worship: but in his purification he was again separated to him, and restored unto his sacred right, without internal purity or holiness. Again, for those with eyes to see, this also taught something about the future Messiah and purification from moral, inward uncleanness for our entrance to heaven (Heb 8:5; 9:23).

This difference in understanding Old Covenant ordinances (compared to yours) is the difference between Westminster Federalism (for lack of a better term) and the subservient covenant view. The OPC Report on Republication notes


> 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.
> 
> From a confessional viewpoint, the basic weakness here is that it reverses the true biblical priority of Christ as the substance and primary signification of these types and shadows. According to our standards, the purpose of these various types and ordinances was to function as an aspect of the covenant of grace, being means of administering the eternal and salvific blessings procured by Christ (WCF 7.5, 8.6, 17.5). He is the “substance” of the types and ordinances (not merely their secondary referent), even as he is the substance of God’s covenant of grace (WCF 7.6), while all else remains secondary or accidental. The subservient covenant effectively reverses this in insisting that these types primarily signify temporal benefits, and only secondarily signify Christ. As John Cameron stated, the subservient covenant leads to Christ only “indirectly” whereas the covenant of grace leads to him directly. It is difficult to harmonize the idea that Christ was the “substance” of all these types and ordinances and at the same time only their secondary referent…





> [A]nything that functions as an “administration” of the covenant of grace must, in fact, administer grace to those who are under it. Such it is with the other types, ceremonies, and other ordinances delivered to the Jews. The administrative aspects of the old covenant were to function as the “outward and ordinary means whereby Christ communicates” to Israel “the benefits of redemption” (SC 88)… [T]ypology is a subset of the broader category of the administration of the covenant… According to our standards, typology is an aspect of the administration of the covenant of grace in the Old Testament, which in turn is described as the outward means of the Old Testament era for communicating grace to the elect of that era. Saving grace was not simply administered merely as a _consequence_ or _by-product_ of these types.275 Rather, saving grace was present _by _and_ in these types, _and in this way communicated grace to believers.276 In terms of our confessional definitions, to say that something is an administration of grace means that grace is communicated by and in that thing.
> 
> [275] This seems to be the distinctive typological construction of the subservient covenant position, discussed above.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> I ask again: what is the vital importance of holding to this position?



Did you read what I wrote above about ordinances. Do you not think that is relevant to the question of baptism?

If your primary issue is with Owen remaining a paedobaptist, see
http://www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-baptism-and-the-baptists-crawford-gribben/
and
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/

Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism says the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. If you don't see how that makes a difference, I'm not really sure what else to say.



Pergamum said:


> So what is so "distinctive" about 1689 Federalism?



That only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.



Pergamum said:


> The Bible is about spiritual things, but 1689 Federalism seems to make it partly about earthly things by reducing the Mosaic Administration to a subservient covenant not really about Christ.



You're reading what you want into 1689 Federalism because that is not at all an accurate representation of it.



Pergamum said:


> I discovered the strange doctrine that there was not A Abrahamic Covenant (singular), but Abrahamic Covenants (plural),



We've already discussed this in-depth in other threads. I don't agree with it. There was only one Abrahamic Covenant. But note that Charles Hodge said there were two different Abrahamic Covenants made with two different Abrahamic seed, and R. Scott Clark affirmed Hodge's view. See the other thread for that discussion.



Pergamum said:


> The sacrificial system pointed to Christ and Moses prophesied of a Prophet like unto Him, yet I am told that the Mosaic administration was only a "covenant of works" (though not THE Covenant of Works).



Yes, it was a covenant of works THAT REVEALED THE GOSPEL. Please stop misrepresenting the position.



Pergamum said:


> that does not really seem to advance the plan of salvation according to 1689 Federalists



Can you please provide a single quote from any published source that says that?



Pergamum said:


> Yet, the Reformed confessions all use the 10 commandments in their catechisms as a basis of morality.



I was saying nothing different than Richard Barcellos (the author of "IN DEFENSE OF THE DECALOGUE"). I got it from him and he got it from Owen. The moral law, summarized in the 10 commandments, predates and transcends the Mosaic Covenant. The moral law was given to Israel _as a covenant of works _for life in the land. The Mosaic law is abolished. Christians are not under the moral law as a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan. They are still obligated to obey the moral law summarized in the 10 commandments.



Pergamum said:


> Also, several 1689 Federalists have said that there are absolutely "no conditions" to enter the Covenant of Grace and make no mention of the condition of faith.



Correct. We are brought into the covenant in the effectual call. Faith is a condition of justification, but it is not an antecedent condition of entering the New Covenant. Faith is a blessing for those in the New Covenant.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheInquirer

Brandon,

As someone who has been investigating 1689 Federalism for awhile, and blessed by the content put out by folks like yourself, I have to say I have been utterly turned off by your tone. In my opinion, it reflects poorly on you and undermines what you are trying to defend. There is a reason we are called to correct one another in a spirit of gentleness.


----------



## Pergamum

Brandon, 

Can you further explain this quote:

"Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism says the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. If you don't see how that makes a difference, I'm not really sure what else to say."

I do not understand it. And I simply cannot imagine that the Abrahamic Covenant was not part of the Covenant of Grace. It seemed very gracious, after all, and gave the promises of the coming Messiah and that the whole world would be blessed through him.


----------



## brandonadams

Thank you Jim. I have been on edge for reasons completely outside of this forum. It would have been wise for me to avoid posting for the time being, but I have not heeded my own counsel. Thank you for calling me out. I guess I will leave these things for the time being. Hopefully you can look beyond my sin and my tone to what is being said.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> It seemed very gracious, after all, and gave the promises of the coming Messiah and that the whole world would be blessed through him.



Neither of which make it the Covenant of Grace, of which Christ is the mediator, that grants faith, justification, and eternal life. It promised that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah who could come and establish the New Covenant, which would bless all nations with faith, justification, and eternal life.


----------



## Pergamum

But all who are saved are saved by the same Mediator Christ. Thus the Covenant of Grace is active and effective in the lives of all OT believers. Your explanation makes it sound as if there is no Mediator for those to whom the Abrahamic Covenant was given.

If it is not either part of the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace, what is the 3rd category? Some covenantal limbo?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

brandonadams said:


> This paragraph is nearly verbatim from Owen. His name was not mentioned in the post to avoid distraction from the point of the post.


*Moderator note:*

Let's recap. 

I entered this thread with a mod request that you provide your view of what *Owen is teaching in support of your position*. The request was made because you called upon another member to go read Owen and summarize what has been read. After being presented with a response, you became indignant because the member has not read Owen _as you have read Owen_. In response to my request, you direct me to see the link you have provided.

I read the link and asked for a clear citation *from Owen* in that link. There are none by your own admission. Instead there is an admission of your lifting something from Owen "nearly verbatim", all the while unattributed to Owen, and yet you expect the reader to catch this in the process. Er, no.



brandonadams said:


> My focus here in this thread has been the promised/established concept - not Owen. I merely mentioned Owen as the most detailed elaboration of the concept for those looking to understand it.


Brandon, I am not seeking to debate the topic of this thread and the many others related thereto. I am, however, seeking to call it to your attention that your attitude is in need of rehabilitation.

You appealed to Owen. You stridently took issue with others who apparently do not understand Owen _as you claim to do_ herein and elsewhere. Hence the focus of my entrance into the thread relates to strictly to this matter alone. Mud slung is ground lost in any discussion, brother. Check the attitude at the door when you enter these discussions.

Carry on.


----------



## Pergamum

Let's try not to get the thread shut down. 

I have genuine questions and I have been open to 1689 Federalism. I just haven't been satisfied with most of the answers. 

The main one continues to be where to fit in OT believers. If the schema of history is Cov of Works then Cov of Grace, and if the OT covenants (which are called covenants of promise in Ephesians) are not part of the Covenant of Grace it appears there is a gap or a limbo. But all of mankind fits under of these two two umbrellas.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> Rich, for a helpful thread demonstrating how someone can learn about the position and ask questions, see here https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/baptists-only-what-does-jeremiah-31-31-34-mean.93407/ Jon does a good job of asking for understanding. That's not what you're doing. You're opining as to why our view is wrong, odd, and ignorant. Of course you are free to do so - I merely ask that you take the time to study the position first. I have asked you to read one short book you can get for $2.99 (not "all Baptist theology") so you have a good overview of the position rather than a piece here and there. That said, I could certainly be less defensive about it all. Thank you for reminding me.
> 
> Regarding Old Covenant ordinances revealing certain truths about the gospel - the question is whether they do that primarily or secondarily. It's a basic issue of typology. Did the slain lamb provide a picture of Christ? Yes. Was that its immediate purpose? No. At the Passover, the slain lamb literally saved the lives of those in the home, regardless of whether they had saving faith in Christ (the generation died in the wilderness). Secondarily it revealed something about the future Messiah for those who had eyes to see. Likewise, the blood of bulls and goats actually purified the flesh of the Israelites. If they were ceremonially unclean, they were purified by the blood of these animals (Heb 9:10, 13). The Levitical services and ordinances were in themselves carnal, and had carnal ends assigned unto them, and had only an obscure representation of things spiritual and eternal. Every defiled person was made common, excluded from the privilege of a right to draw nigh unto God in his solemn worship: but in his purification he was again separated to him, and restored unto his sacred right, without internal purity or holiness. Again, for those with eyes to see, this also taught something about the future Messiah and purification from moral, inward uncleanness for our entrance to heaven (Heb 8:5; 9:23).
> 
> This difference in understanding Old Covenant ordinances (compared to yours) is the difference between Westminster Federalism (for lack of a better term) and the subservient covenant view. The OPC Report on Republication notes


Thanks. I'll interact more but I understand your position. To point out that something is odd to me is not an insult. Furthermore, to ask whether someone really understood Owen is not an insult either. If your theology has really appropriated Owen's musings about the fact that the OC is not an administration of the CoG (absolutely) then it is Owen who misses the import of his own theology. In other words, the Baptists know better than he does regarding what this actually implies.

That said, I understand the point you're trying to make now. I don't really see it as something fundamentally different than what I already understood about Baptist Covenant theology. I may not have been an expert on it and could still stand to do more reading but the aspect of the immutable CoG is preserved and the main nuance difference is that the ordinances of the OC are in no way ordinances of the CoG (even if they could communicate salvation to the believer under the CoG).


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Brandon and all,
> 
> Forgive me if I still do not get it. I have read Brandon's website quite a bit. I have read Owen. I have read most of the books on the reading list. Maybe 1,000 pages of pro-1689 stuff.
> 
> It seems both positions: (1) believe that OT believers are saved by the Cov of Grace even while in the OT, (2) That they are saved by the same Mediator Jesus Christ even prior to His coming, (3) That the Cov of Grace was promised and revealed and was effective even in the OT.
> 
> But, the difference appears the further nuanced assertion that even though the Cov of Grace was effective and promised in the OT, it was not "established" until the death of Christ.
> 
> I ask again: what is the vital importance of holding to this position?
> 
> Does it make a better defense against paedobaptism? And if so, how? Owen keeps coming up, but Owen remained a Paedobaptist despite (it is claimed) having a "1689 Federalist" view of the Cov of Grace, right?
> 
> I have been told I am an "immersed Presbyterian" because I do not hold to any form of 1689 Federalism yet, and that my Covenant theology ought to lead me to paedobaptism, but one of the chief writers used to defend 1689 Federalism (Owen) was himself a paedobaptist who defended his view of baptism by appealing to the nature of the covenant.
> 
> So what is so "distinctive" about 1689 Federalism?
> 
> 
> Bill (Herald)....maybe you are reading this? I know you are studying this, too. Maybe you've got some light.
> 
> 
> Brandon,
> 
> What I see about 1689 Federalism so far is that it seems to over-stress discontinuity, whereas I see great continuity throughout the Scripture. The Bible is about spiritual things, but 1689 Federalism seems to make it partly about earthly things by reducing the Mosaic Administration to a subservient covenant not really about Christ. From one 1689 Federalist site, I discovered the strange doctrine that there was not A Abrahamic Covenant (singular), but Abrahamic Covenants (plural), "1689 Federalism is unique in that it sees two covenants between God and Abraham. One covenant is with the physical descendants of Abraham’s seed; the other covenant is with the spiritual descendants of faith. 1689 Federalists see two separate inheritances for two separate posterities (Galatians 4:21-31; Romans 2:28-29; 9:6-8; 11; John 8:39; Matthew 3:9; Galatians 3:29; 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16)." Forgive me if I am not excited about this "uniqueness."
> 
> The sacrificial system pointed to Christ and Moses prophesied of a Prophet like unto Him, yet I am told that the Mosaic administration was only a "covenant of works" (though not THE Covenant of Works). Therefore, we see the slow gradual progress towards Christ as the whole OT points to Christ, yet here we see a side-show, a subserviant covenant that does not really seem to advance the plan of salvation according to 1689 Federalists. 1689 Federalism seems to upset the flow of Scriptures.
> 
> Also, you write that the Mosaic law is abolished. "No one today, believer or unbeliever, is under the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law can be divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. That three fold distinction is really a two-fold distinction: moral (unchanging) and positive (changing). However, moral, ceremonial, and judicial were all given to Israel on Mt. Sinai _as a covenant of works for life in Canaan._ And when the Old Covenant was abolished, the entire Mosaic law was abolished _as it was given to Israel_. In this sense, no one is under Mosaic law today."
> 
> Yet, the Reformed confessions all use the 10 commandments in their catechisms as a basis of morality.
> 
> Also, several 1689 Federalists have said that there are absolutely "no conditions" to enter the Covenant of Grace and make no mention of the condition of faith.
> 
> These are all stumbling points for me as I explore 1689 Federalism.


Perg,

I actually think it's pretty simple what's being said at the end of the day. This quote sort of puts it together:



> [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.



If you read Owen's commentary on Hebrews where he talks about the CoG with respect to the OC and NC he talks about the fact that the CoG is eternal and immutable. He then points out that, historically speaking, it's not inaugurated until the death of Christ. Consequently, although the CoG is in effect, the OC is (strictly speaking) not an administration of it because it contains ordinances that don't strictly correspond to the nature of the CoG. I actually don't have a problem with everything Owen writes given his qualifications.

Where the Baptists go with this is that they look at circumcision (among other things but focus here) and say: "See, here's an example of something that, strictly speaking, does not belong to the CoG because it's not perfect. It's administered to the reprobate." That's not to say, according to Owen, that these ordinances have promissary value and effects that bring Christ forth. The point is that, because of the nature of the OC it's a mixed covenant and not, properly speaking, an administration of the CoG.

Thus, the NC being the CoG fully realized and inaugurated in history with a perfect Mediator, all its ordinances properly correspond to the nature of the CoG and, therefore, it is the only historical covenant that (properly speaking) has ordinances of the CoG because every single worship and ordinance element holds forth the reality of what the CoG signifies. Put another way, OT Saints worshiped with and in copies but we enter the very throne room of grace through Christ's flesh.

I can see why some Baptists now are asking what's the practical import. It may be that the point is that really understanding Owen (and others) distinction that the ordinances of the OT either do or don't properly belong to the CoG in its perfection will help people to be guarded against some pure circumcision=baptism motif. I think there are certainly Presbyterians who think that way but there's always been a type/shadow nuance among PB. As you note, also: "Owen doesn't go there." As with all Baptist arguments here, there still needs to be the logical: OK there were mixed articles in the OC but as the NC is administered how does that imply that infants won't be baptized?

I won't argue the point, I'm just trying to explain what became more clear as I interacted (which is why I do it).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Pergamum said:


> Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace.


I think this is a simplification of a more profound point. The Puritans did not believe that any dispensation of the one CoG was, purely speaking, the full administration thereof. This is why I keep referring to the misappropriation of the theology either because it is not understood or to make a polemical point.

The issue for Westministerian theology is sort of the "Two Adam" issue. You can see it operative in Paul in Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians. Circumcision of the heart belongs to the Lord. Fundamentally, whatever else various signs and symbols might have served they served no more important purpose than to signify the one Mediator. It can always be admitted that there were imperfect shadows in the ways God dealt with man but if, fundamentally, God pointed men in any direction other than the God-Man as the solution to the problem of Adam's sin then it defies the only way of salvation. In other words, whatever other purpose these things might have served ceremonially or pedagogically they are swallowed up by the fact that the elect ought to have looked to this Mediator in faith. This is why Paul condemns the Judaizers and Christ the Pharisees in His own day for sort of looking at the shadows and letting them swallow up Christ instead of the other way around.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

brandonadams said:


> The moral law was given to Israel _as a covenant of works _for life in the land. The Mosaic law is abolished. Christians are not under the moral law as a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan.




This is a misunderstanding of categories.

The moral law was given to Adam as a covenant of work. It was given to him as a covenant of works, because he was able to fulfill the conditions thereof: perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. Adam received the blessing of life _pre lapsum by merit ex pacto. _After the fall (post lapsum), God made a new covenant with man. However, the moral law was still there, not as a covenant of works, since what was once broken, cannot be renewed. Man can no longer merit blessings through the broken covenant of works. Only one Man (Christ) can now merit blessings for us.

The mosaic covenant had three categories for law: ceremonial, judicial (civil), and moral. The Ten Commandments are a _sum_ of the moral law, which is perpetually binding on all men for all time. The ceremonial and judicial laws (nt counting those judicial laws which have essence of the moral law) are _positive laws_, subject to change. The moral law, by nature, is natural to man as created in the image of God and as was put "upon his heart".

Thus being stated, the condition of the moral law, which can no longer be fulfilled except by Christ alone, was perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. The only way the moral law has any connection to the covenant of works is by way of reminding us of the broken covenant of works.

The mosaic administration in toto is not based upon the "moral law". The land promises were a blessing to them that were obedient to God, but the condition of the mosaic covenant was faith (not in and from man himself, but given to man as a gift from God), not works. This is repeatedly portrayed in the OT ("circumcise your hearts"; "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give _it: t_hou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God _are_ a broken spirit").

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

This view allows us to be able to hold to the Church being instituted for real at Pentecost, and to having the Promises of God become all real to us now saved under the New Covenant. Is the Cog same exact thing as the NC? And how new was the new One seems to be the questions here.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Did you read what I wrote above about ordinances. Do you not think that is relevant to the question of baptism?
> 
> If your primary issue is with Owen remaining a paedobaptist, see
> http://www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-baptism-and-the-baptists-crawford-gribben/
> and
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/
> 
> Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism says the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. If you don't see how that makes a difference, I'm not really sure what else to say.
> 
> 
> 
> That only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> 
> 
> You're reading what you want into 1689 Federalism because that is not at all an accurate representation of it.
> 
> 
> 
> We've already discussed this in-depth in other threads. I don't agree with it. There was only one Abrahamic Covenant. But note that Charles Hodge said there were two different Abrahamic Covenants made with two different Abrahamic seed, and R. Scott Clark affirmed Hodge's view. See the other thread for that discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it was a covenant of works THAT REVEALED THE GOSPEL. Please stop misrepresenting the position.
> 
> 
> 
> Can you please provide a single quote from any published source that says that?
> 
> 
> 
> I was saying nothing different than Richard Barcellos (the author of "IN DEFENSE OF THE DECALOGUE"). I got it from him and he got it from Owen. The moral law, summarized in the 10 commandments, predates and transcends the Mosaic Covenant. The moral law was given to Israel _as a covenant of works _for life in the land. The Mosaic law is abolished. Christians are not under the moral law as a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan. They are still obligated to obey the moral law summarized in the 10 commandments.
> 
> 
> 
> Correct. We are brought into the covenant in the effectual call. Faith is a condition of justification, but it is not an antecedent condition of entering the New Covenant. Faith is a blessing for those in the New Covenant.


All of the other Covenants/administrations of the CoG were pointing towards the coming of the NC, when it got set up in full, due to the death and resurrection of Yeshua, and the day of Pentecost, when the CoG was now here in full as the NC was now set up.


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> Let's try not to get the thread shut down.
> 
> I have genuine questions and I have been open to 1689 Federalism. I just haven't been satisfied with most of the answers.
> 
> The main one continues to be where to fit in OT believers. If the schema of history is Cov of Works then Cov of Grace, and if the OT covenants (which are called covenants of promise in Ephesians) are not part of the Covenant of Grace it appears there is a gap or a limbo. But all of mankind fits under of these two two umbrellas.


The saved of all time are included in the CoG, as the Cross of Christ is what God ysed to save any and all sinners, but the actual fullness of that CoG did not occur in actual real history until the coming of messiah and the setting up of the NC at that time. The NC is the CoG.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> The NC is the CoG.


I would note that the New Covenant is the Fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace as the prior administrations of the Covenant of Grace were full of progressive revelation.

I believe it is first revealed in Genesis 3:15 and God continually establishes it with others as I have noted before.

Again, I ask, are there more than one Everlasting Covenant? I mentioned the Everlasting Covenant in another thread. I asked if there were more than one. I asked that because of the various views concerning the New Covenant and it's relationship to the Covenant of Grace. It seems to me that the Covenant is Established with Abraham, then his seed in their generations, his descendent Isaac and his seed in their generations. It has been noted that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are synonymous if I am not mistaken. So as this discussion has carried on maybe we need to figure out what it means that God Established this Covenant with Abraham and the following generations.

(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 17:19) 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.

(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*,
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Evidently there was a belief that there were more than one Covenants of Grace during the time period our respective Confessions were written. The Westminster notes that it was a belief by responding to the doctrine in the negative.

"There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." WCF 7


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I would note that the New Covenant is the Fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace as the prior administrations of the Covenant of Grace were full of progressive revelation.
> 
> I believe it is first revealed in Genesis 3:15 and God continually establishes it with others as I have noted before.
> 
> Again, I ask, are there more than one Everlasting Covenant? I mentioned the Everlasting Covenant in another thread. I asked if there were more than one. I asked that because of the various views concerning the New Covenant and it's relationship to the Covenant of Grace. It seems to me that the Covenant is Established with Abraham, then his seed in their generations, his descendent Isaac and his seed in their generations. It has been noted that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are synonymous if I am not mistaken. So as this discussion has carried on maybe we need to figure out what it means that God Established this Covenant with Abraham and the following generations.
> 
> (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 17:19) 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.
> 
> (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*,
> (Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
> 
> Evidently there was a belief that there were more than one Covenants of Grace during the time period our respective Confessions were written. The Westminster notes that it was a belief by responding to the doctrine in the negative.
> 
> "There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." WCF 7


The Abrahamic One is an aspect of the CoG, under it, but the actual CoG is the NC itself.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> The Abrahamic One is an aspect of the CoG, under it, but the actual CoG is the NC itself.


But when is the Covenant of Grace Established? I am kind of reading things into your response. Your language is not precise enough for me to understand you. I have read one Reformed Baptist affirming that the Everlasting Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. But I am not totally sure what you are saying. I am reading that you imply that the Everlasting Covenant established by God, the Covenant that God calls his Covenant, is not the actual Covenant of Grace. The one established with Abraham and with the said recipients must be something else. It is something subjective as some who report the Mosaic Covenant is subject to the Covenant of Grace. 

What is it you see as a difference between what God established in Genesis and the New Testament? I understand the fulfillment issue as I think you do, but you are separating things in a way I am not understanding. As far as Ceremonial, Judicial, Moral Law goes, I believe they are all found in the Abrahamic Covenant. They are more precise and made in a more precise context in the Mosaic Covenant but I believe they are there. The Judicial and Ceremonial are pedagogical prior to the New Covenant and are progressive revelation in the Old Testament revealing God's Christ and redemption of Mankind. I do see these same laws in the New Covenant Church also as she has them found in fullfilment and in a New Testament Context. I may be incorrect here but all the Covenants seem to be administrations of the One Covenant of Grace that God calls His Covenant, the Everlasting Covenant, and the one He established back in Genesis with His people.


----------



## Dachaser

I am still working my way through this Covenant Theology, but to my current understanding of it, what God promised in genesis was that the messiah would come and redeem lost sinners, and that the various relationships with God until Messiah actually came fit under the umbrella of the CoG, but none of them were actually the CoG , not until established by God in the NC.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> but none of them were actually the CoG , not until established by God in the NC.


So what was established with Abraham? An Everlasting Covenant was established with him. That is why I asked about the two Covenants of Grace.

I am asking you these questions because I think I have come from where you are. Even as a participant of the Puritanboard for the past 13 years. I held to a theology more like Johannes Cocceius. He sees so much disunity and emphasis in a dichotomy Grace and Works. Those two doctrines are separated far too much in his theology when we start to read Ursinus the commentator of the Reformed Church Confessions, the Westminster Standards, and most importantly the scriptures. Grace gave us the Law and makes it adorable to us as His will. Grace and Law are both cheapened by this disunity in my estimation. So is the understanding of Covenant Theology.


> Among the Dutch Reformed, Cloppenburg and Cocceius made the covenant the fundamental premise and controlling principle of dogmatics as a whole. Cocceius had an eccentric view of the covenant, notably the notion of successive covenantal abrogations, which in fact undermined the key element of grace, making it uncertain. After Cocceius, a more general disparagement of the Old Testament took place among modern thinkers such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Schleiermacher. Judaism was then seen as no better than paganism as preparation for Christianity.
> 
> ...*The covenant of grace, fulfilled in the New Testament*, was and is surrounded and sustained by God’s covenant with nature, with all creatures. Unlike what Cocceius taught, the covenant of grace is not the successive abolition of the covenant of works but its fulfillment and restoration. “Grace repairs and perfects nature.” God’s demand of obedience remains as the only way to eternal life. The difference between the covenant of works and grace is that God now approaches us not in Adam but in Christ, who fulfilled all the obedience required of Adam. Christ is the second and last Adam who restores what the first Adam had corrupted; he is the head of a new humanity.
> 
> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/herman-bavinck-the-covenant-of-grace-read-bavinck/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I wrote this blog almost 5 years ago. I don't think I have ever been attacked by Reformed Baptists. They have never denounced my claims. Brandon did say that he disagreed with me about my comments concerning a diagram he had recently. But it just now has been revealed to me that I may be wrong about Reformed Baptists. I was a Confessional Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I have received more friction from recent supposed Reformed guys, Authors, supposed adheres to the Bible and Westminster Confession of Faith, than I have others.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/


My conversation with Brandon was private. I will not go into that for that reason. It was about the visa card looking diagram as posted in another thread. The following is what I have had problems with and confirmation with.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...new-not-according-to-modern-reformed-thought/
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...cott-clarks-7-point-summary-of-republication/


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> So what was established with Abraham? An Everlasting Covenant was established with him. That is why I asked about the two Covenants of Grace.
> 
> I am asking you these questions because I think I have come from where you are. Even as a participant of the Puritanboard for the past 13 years. I held to a theology more like Johannes Cocceius. He sees so much disunity and emphasis in a dichotomy Grace and Works. Those two doctrines are separated far too much in his theology when we start to read Ursinus the commentator of the Reformed Church Confessions, the Westminster Standards, and most importantly the scriptures. Grace gave us the Law and makes it adorable to us as His will. Grace and Law are both cheapened by this disunity in my estimation. So is the understanding of Covenant Theology.


I currently see there being just One Covenant of grace, but that were different administrations of that One Covenant throughout History, and the the actual CoG itself would be the NC itself.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

On a side note the New Covenant still has promises to be fulfilled. Sure Messiah has performed His work in fulfilling the Covenant of Works and and completely paying the price to justify His people. One of the things that is found and promised in the Old and New is the resurrection. That is why I still hold to the position that the Substance is the same in both Covenants. When was Abraham justified and righteousness imputed to him. It is recorded in the book of Romans that it happened when he was alive. So something was established with him and active.

Just to prove my point that we are still looking for fulfillment as the Covenant of Grace Administers the New Covenant allow me to post some passages concerning the hope we have yet to see fulfilled.

(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.

(Heb 11:15) And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
(Heb 11:16) But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

I use to hold to a position that both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants administered the knowledge of cursing and blessing of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. I appreciated John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe for helping me understand some of the Baptist distinctives. But when I started looking at the substance of these Covenants they started to all look the same concerning man and his relationship with God. There seems to always be a Promise and Fulfillment issue as the Covenant of Grace administers them. My point is that the New Covenant has promises and fulfillment that is still to be worked out. That is why it still is only an administration of the Everlasting Covenant in my understanding.

Here are two things I wrote to explain my move from being a Reformed Baptist to a Reformed theologian. Not sure you would be interested but they might help you understand what I am saying. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/


----------



## Steve Curtis

Dachaser said:


> different administrations of that One Covenant throughout History, and the the actual CoG itself would be the NC itself.


This sentence in internally inconsistent. If there were different administrations of that one covenant (the CoG) throughout history, then the CoG was in existence during those administrations of it. Therefore, the NC cannot (solely) be the CoG (unless you are prepared to say that the NC also existed since Gen 3:15 and all of those administrations of that one covenant were actually administrations of the NC).


----------



## Dachaser

kainos01 said:


> This sentence in internally inconsistent. If there were different administrations of that one covenant (the CoG) throughout history, then the CoG was in existence during those administrations of it. Therefore, the NC cannot (solely) be the CoG (unless you are prepared to say that the NC also existed since Gen 3:15 and all of those administrations of that one covenant were actually administrations of the NC).


The NC was established and made active with the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Day of Pentecost.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Maybe a good thing to do at this point would be to define what the word NEW means. A Renewed Covenant is one definition.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Maybe a good thing to do at this point would be to define what the word NEW means. A Renewed Covenant is one definition.


I would see it as ushering in now sometime that up until that point in time was not here in full.


----------



## KMK

Dachaser said:


> I would see it as ushering in now sometime that up until that point in time was not here in full.



This makes no sense.


----------



## Dachaser

KMK said:


> This makes no sense.


The New Covenant was established on the basis of the death of Jesus, and His resurrection and ascension, as that now meant God was bringing the full extent of the CoG , as in the NC itself.


----------

