Yep! I used to be a 1689 federalist, so I was careful to say that this is its position, and not the Reformed Baptist position.
Federal Headship
- Thread starter Ryan&Amber2013
- Start date
- Status
Yep! I used to be a 1689 federalist, so I was careful to say that this is its position, and not the Reformed Baptist position.
Taylor, if you look back at your previous post, you said:
This implies all Reformed Baptists equate the C of G with the N.C., but I understand this is only true of 1689 Federalists.
I would be interested to hear (even if it is a new post) how you went from a 1689 Federalist position to a Reformed Paedobaptist position. I suspect I am making a similar journey.
Um, what...? I literally said it is essentially the 1689 Baptist position, which excludes all other Baptist positions, Calvinistic or otherwise. Any misunderstanding is the fault of the reader, not me.
I’m still learning how to articulate my move best. I’ll try to remember to PM you once I figure it out.
Taylor, I don't think you have realised there have been about 2 Reformed Baptist positions which complicates the issue, and why I asked for clarification. The view popular about 10-30 years ago was different to 1689 Federalism and probably would argue that the New Covenant was the purest form of the Covenant of Grace but would reject the argument that the New Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. This view was also willing to talk about the 'administration' of the covenant of grace, but the 1689 Federalist view would be uncomfortable with this language calling it 'too Presbyterian'. It also seems to me that the 1689 Federalists would make a greater distinction between the Old and New Covenants that what Reformed Baptists 10-30 years ago would say. To the best of my knowledge Sam Waldron in his commentary on the 1689 Baptist Confession rejects 1689 Federalism, yet would regard himself as a Reformed Baptist upholding the 1689 Baptist Confession.
For an example of 1689 Federalists disagreeing with 1689 Sam Waldron see https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2013/03/03/waldrons-sermons-on-covenant-theology/
Look forward to it
I do realize and know all of this; I’ve read the literature for years. I also know there are disagreements between Reformed Baptists about covenant theology, but that has nothing to do with the fact that there is only one 1689 covenant theology position, and that all others are exceptions. So, when I said 1689 federalism, I meant 1689 federalism, not New Covenant Reformed Baptist theology or so-called “20th Century” Reformed Baptist theology. “1689” is not some other nomenclature for “Reformed Baptist” in general.
I’m not trying to be bullheaded about this. I just assumed that when I said “1689,” it would be interpreted as meaning exactly what it can only mean—the federal theology as outlined exclusively and only in the Second London Baptist Confession of 1689.
Grant
Puritan Board Graduate
Last edited:
What you actually said was:
Which is why I was wondering if you meant 1689 Federalism or the 20 century Reformed Baptist position. Both could claim to be "essentially the 1689 Reformed Baptist position". I think you meant 1689 Federalism; that clears the matter up
The reason why I took an interest was it seems to me that the 1689 Federalism moves further from the classic Reformed Covenant Theology than does the 20 century Reformed Baptist position (the diagram Grant supplied was helpful). It has forced me to rethink my position as I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of moving further from classic Reformed Covenant theology.
What you actually said was:
Which is why I was wondering if you meant 1689 Federalism or the 20 century Reformed Baptist position. Both could claim to be "essentially the 1689 Reformed Baptist position". I think you meant 1689 Federalism; that clears the matter up
The reason why I took an interest was it seems to me that the 1689 Federalism moves further from the classic Reformed Covenant Theology than does the 20 century Reformed Baptist position (the diagram Grant supplied was helpful). It has forced me to rethink my position as I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of moving further from classic Reformed Covenant theology.
I see.
I used “essentially” in its proper sense: “of the essence of.” “Essentially” is often used today to mean “more or less.” That is not how I used it.
Thank you. This is exactly the chart I was visualizing when I originally posted. As I said above, when I said “1689,” I meant exactly what this chart says it is: the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant. All other Reformed Baptist positions are, as I said and as this chart says, different interpretations and positions, and therefore receive different nomenclature (i.e., “1689 federalism” vs. “20th century, etc.”).
Part of the difficulty is that until recently, Waldron's Commentary on the 1689 Confession, was the only main commentary available on the 1689 Confession, and that has been the "standard" interpretation for a number of decades now. Further as others have noted, John Gill did not fit neatly into a "1689 Federalism" mould, so the 20 Century Reformed Baptists can claim some historical lineage.
This is not how I interpret the diagram. Where the two circles intersect it says there are two interpretations of chapter 7 of the 1689 confession.
Ch 7:3 of the confession says:
This covenant is revealed in the gospel. It was revealed first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation through the seed of the woman.5 After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament.6 This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect.7 Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence.8
5Genesis 3:15. 6Hebrews 1:1. 72 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; 8Hebrews 11:6, 13; Romans 4:1, 2ff.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56.
Some would say this means that the New Covenant is the Covenant of grace. Others would say this means the New Covenant is the purest form of the Covenant of grace. The above diagram would suggest both are valid interpretations of the diagram (the comments where the two circles intersect).
For the record I think the 1689 Federalist claim may be closer to ch 7:3, but I am not sure it is the only valid interpretation.
You’re missing my point entirely. I never disputed that there were differing interpretations of ch. 7. Rather, my point is that, despite the differences, the chart still calls the position that identifies the NC and the CoG the “1689” position, and labels other positions differently, none of which contain the number “1689.” Therefore, when I said the number “1689,” I meant exactly what they mean. Otherwise, I would have said something else other than “1689.”
At any rate, my whole point, aside from all this, is that any sort of identifying the NC with the CoG is not the WCF’s position, and therefore I wanted to guard this thread against that. I did not post what I originally posted to make some authoritative or broad statement about Reformed Baptist covenant theology.
Assuming we are reading the same chart, mine says "Confessional Baptist Covenant Theology" then gives 2 options without saying one is the confessional position. It implies both are confessional positions. I double checked the post in post no 36. Further the chart was removed from the actual 1689 Federalism website so I think they wanted to avoid mute points.
Not an issue with me but just quoting what I see in the chart.
So.....just wondering.....all the big Baptist names like Dever, Mohler, Grudem ....do they hold to the federal position? Or is it mostly gone now in this century among Calvinist Baptists and everybody affirms the mosaic cov was one of grace?
What was Spurgeons position? Just curious.
Really interesting thread by the way.
What was Spurgeons position? Just curious.
Really interesting thread by the way.
This is from Brandon Adams blog https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/
Taylor I am a sensitive person and quick to apologise when I am wrong. I checked the diagram again. It heads the diagram "Confessional Baptist Covenant Theology" then lists the 2 options but does not state that one option is the official position. So if my interpretation of the diagram is correct, this is simply the argument I have been making in earlier posts.
On that we heartily agree.
I didn’t say that it said that. I just said it calls one position “1689,” which is the same one I called “1689.” If the reason you won’t leave me alone is merely because I did not add the word “federalism” after “1689,” then this is simply ridiculous. I have already explained what I meant. Please, brother, either take it or leave it. I have explained myself over and over and over.
This is my last post on the matter, brother. I am not trying to be mean, I just find discussions like this—where I feel I am being nitpicked despite what I meant, even after I have explained myself—to be particularly frustrating and obnoxious.
Last edited:
Thank you very much! I read it all.
Spurgeon makes my heart soar. I don't think I know any other writer so in love with Jesus Christ. Some of this is semantics, I mean, call it what you want but this paragraph is what it is all about:
"In 1867, Spurgeon wrote against a new teaching called Dispensationalism in his Sword and Trowel publication.
An earnest study of those Scriptures which disclose “the everlasting covenant” as it was gradually but distinctly revealed, will do more than any arguments of ours to dissipate the mist of those strange doctrines we have referred to. That Covenant was declared to Noah; it was still further opened to Abraham and Isaac, it was confirmed to David; Isaiah rejoiced in its sure mercies, Jeremiah was privileged to relate many of its special provisions; and Paul avers in his epistle to the Hebrews that this is the Covenant under the provisions of which the precious blood of Christ was shed; it is the blood of the new Covenant… According to the terms of the everlasting Covenant, and not according to the law, nor yet according to the tenor of any transient dispensations, the Old Testament saints were justified and accepted of God.
There Be Some Who Trouble You (Sword and Trowel essay against Dispensationalism)"
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Another useful observation, this time from Edmund Calamy; and another one on a similar theme here.
Lovely!
Jonathan R
Puritan Board Freshman
To the names that you mentioned, none of them are "Reformed Baptists" in the technical sense of adhering to the 1689 LBCF. They are merely calvinistic. Dever holds to the New Hampshire confession, which is broader than most of the historic reformed confessions. Mohler is SBC under the Abstract of Principles, which though originally just a shortened version of the 1689 is now viewed usually as a separate document. Grudem is way out in left field. So, none of them hold the view "1689 Federalism" to my knowledge.
I believe Spurgeon was 20th Century CT in its general structure. I would have to reread to recall specifics.
SeanPatrickCornell
Puritan Board Junior
As brother. Brandon Adams showed in an article (linked to above), a survey of Rev. Spurgeon's comments on Covenant Theology seem to place him the 1689 Fed. camp with a Mosaic CoW Republication twist.
Dear Brother, I am sorry this has troubled you. I did not mean confusion or trouble. I have genuinely enjoyed our discussions on the past. I remain unconvinced you have clarified the matter. I will attempt it and sign off. A moderator can clarify if I am wrong.
You made the argument relating to 1689 position that the covenant of grace is the new covenant. I requested clarification. A little later Grant helpfully provided a diagram. This diagram showed that the 1689 Federalists say the new covenant is the covennt of grace but that the 20 century Reformed Baptists say the covenant of grace is one substance multiple administrations. The diagram implies both are valid positions.
In post 39 you reaffirmed your argument that the diagram says the new covenant is the covenant of grace. But the diagram does not say this as I discussed in the above paragraph. As I see it the diagram is perfectly clear and reaffirms what I said in post 34.
Well I sign off. If this has not been clarified sufficiently moderators, feel free to do so. Thanks.
If you would like to read Spurgeon on covenant theology, I asked SGCB to publish his sermons on covenant theology which they did. "Taking hold of God's covenant". If you want to read his sermons but don't want to buy his multi volume sermon sets, the 5 volume set of Spurgeon's sermons is a nice sample. http://www.solid-ground-books.com/books_SpurgeonTitles.asp
Scott Bushey
Puritanboard Commissioner
“The New Covenant is taken either broadly or strictly.
V The New covenant is also taken in a twofold manner either broadly, inasmuch as it stands for the covenant of grace in general made with sinners , which existed under the Old Testament as well before Christ appeared as under the New after he had been manifested; or strictly, for the covenant of grace promulgated after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, which should continue to the end of the World”
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol 2, pg 234
V The New covenant is also taken in a twofold manner either broadly, inasmuch as it stands for the covenant of grace in general made with sinners , which existed under the Old Testament as well before Christ appeared as under the New after he had been manifested; or strictly, for the covenant of grace promulgated after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, which should continue to the end of the World”
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol 2, pg 234
Reformed Covenanter
Cancelled Commissioner
Another historical extract that is relevant to this discussion comes from William Perkins on the covenant, election, and the visible church.
The failure is his ability to distinguish between Christ's Mediatorial work and the ministry of those who work in the Church. A person who is under the preaching of the Word is under the ministry of the Word. Christ's Mediatorial office as Prophet is behind the preaching. If the man hears the Word preached and fails to bow the knee then he is under the wrath of God for his failure to heed. Christ's work has not failed. A man who is under the discipline of the Church and fails to heed the elders of the Church is under Christ's Mediatorial office as King. If he refuses discipline and is excommunicated then the Office of Christ stands behind his excommunication. What is bound on earth is bound in heaven. His office has not failed.
Solparvus
Puritan Board Senior
So in the end, anytime a man receives the preaching of the Word, Christ has mediated it to them whether or not they received it with faith. If they become members of the visible church, Christ has taken them as members. If they vow Him as King, He will treat them as those who swore allegiance and who have professed to believe and repent.
I think Judas is a frightening example of this. Jesus knew who Judas was and called him out as a devil (not by name) before there was any visible hint that he was a wolf, yet kept discipling Judas anyway. It can’t possibly be argued that the Word was not mediated to Judas by Christ—He was receiving it directly from the lips of Christ Himself, and not any other preacher. Not only that, but Judas received such revelation as would have fitted him to be the foundation of the New Covenant Church (Eph 2:20). It was no accident, and it was not out of ignorance, to commission Judas to apostleship in the first place. @Ryan&Amber2013, if your friend is right, then Jesus failed here.
It does no good either to argue that this was still Old Covenant Times—everything Christ is doing is preparing the way for bringing in the New Covenant, setting the house in order for the reception of the Spirit. The example needs to be set at this point. I don’t remember if it was the video in the OP or another one, but Mike Renihan pointed out such people (false converts) are like those entering the country illegally, and will be punished as intruders when found out. Judas was known to Jesus already, but never treated as such until he committted his treachery. Christ took Judas at his word and acted as Prophet and King over Judas according to the man’s own confession.
It leads to another question: by whom did the prophets prophesy? If by the Spirit, we know the Spirit is from Christ, but why all the effort to send the Word to people with uncircumcised hearts, who did not fear the Lord, who were cursed because they did not sigh and weep concerning the abominations in their nation, who were slain almost out of existence for their sin? If our brother is right, then what a mystery is Christ’s dealing with Israel.The NT makes no doubt that all these things came from Jesus. They had the same spiritual food, same spiritual drink, they had Christ the Rock—at the absolute least, the Spirit comes from the Father and the Son, so Christ’s hand has always been in the ordinances and Word as much as the Father’s. I suppose one could say it wasn’t written for their sakes but ours upon whom the end of the ages has come, yet still the Israelites understood the prophetic words as addressed to them, concerning their well-being, physical and spiritual. And truly they were. Thus, Christ did address them as Prophet and King. If not as effectual Priest, certainly as offering Himself. No one—not even Israel—ever got any benefit from God except through Christ, as no one comes to the Father or receives anything—internal or external mediation, either before or after the New Covenant times—from the Father except through Jesus.
Ryan&Amber2013
Puritan Board Senior
Thanks so much! Awesome stuff!
- Status
