Is 1689 Federalism Novel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The question is: is it worth the bother? The Federalists say, "You Vanilla RB's have it all wrong. You need to read pages and pages of dead guy quotes in order to engage."
I say, "Well, from what I can glean through the fog of words, you seem to be saying X."
You: "No, actually we're in total agreement with you there, you just don't understand."
Me: "How about telling me in plain terms, without quotes, without links, without incomprehensible Venn diagrams, exactly HOW does Vanilla RB differ from Federalism?"
Because perhaps it doesn't very much at all, and these endless discussions are all for nothing.
I continually express my views here in relatively brief posts: could you please extend to me the same courtesy?
I find this frustrating with the 1689 Fed position. It seems like every exchange I’ve seen with the Federalist it gets to the Federalist saying: “you don’t get it, here’s a list of books to read.” Is there an exchange where the Federalist admits the other side understands the position but just doesn’t accept it? Or maybe, if truly everyone is misunderstanding the position, there is a fundamental problem with it.
 
Last edited:
The question is: is it worth the bother? The Federalists say, "You Vanilla RB's have it all wrong. You need to read pages and pages of dead guy quotes in order to engage."
I say, "Well, from what I can glean through the fog of words, you seem to be saying X."
You: "No, actually we're in total agreement with you there, you just don't understand."
Me: "How about telling me in plain terms, without quotes, without links, without incomprehensible Venn diagrams, exactly HOW does Vanilla RB differ from Federalism?"
Because perhaps it doesn't very much at all, and these endless discussions are all for nothing.
I continually express my views here in relatively brief posts: could you please extend to me the same courtesy?
I totally agree. Every time I try to look into this I always see the same the 2 presumptuous replies:

1. Go read xyz.

Or

2. Oh you have read XYZ? Well then you must need to go read it again because you’re not really understanding it.
 
1689 Federalism rhetorical tactic:

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

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

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

The 17th Century Reformed Baptists just systematized it better than had been done in prior centuries.
 
It's really bizarre seeing people on this forum complaining about having to read books to understand a theological position. Covenant theology is a complicated, nuanced topic. It requires a lot of reading and discussion to make sure you are properly understanding a position - that goes for all sides. Just look at all the nuanced argumentation and discussion in Presbyterian circles regarding Kline and republication (including claims that "you don't understand"). That's just life. Sorry it's not easier. I'm happy to discuss and clarify with anyone who has a genuine interest in understanding the position.
 
I ain't seen it on the fiction bookshelves anywhere. What genre of novel we talkin' about?

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

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

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

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

We try to avoid slander here as best we can at the PB in honor of God's commands. Yet some of the comments I have seen toward 1689 Federalism here come dangerously close to slander. I prefer to view them as comments not intended as slander, but born out of ignorance. We are trying to work on the "ignorance" part, and I realize as a position viewed as "the new kid on the block" (though historically it is not), there is naturally an uphill climb. That uphill climb gets much tougher if the audience is unwilling to provide a fair hearing.
 
As an administrator, is that really the kind of spirit you want to foster here on the Puritan Board Josh? The PB has shown a very gracious tone towards allowing and engaging with Reformed Baptists to date from what I have seen. Your comment seems out of line from what I have experienced here and does absolutely nothing good towards fostering useful discussion.

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

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

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

We try to avoid slander here as best we can at the PB in honor of God's commands. Yet some of the comments I have seen toward 1689 Federalism here come dangerously close to slander. I prefer to view them as comments not intended as slander, but born out of ignorance. We are trying to work on the "ignorance" part, and I realize as a position viewed as "the new kid on the block" (though historically it is not), there is naturally an uphill climb. That uphill climb gets much tougher if the audience is unwilling to provide a fair hearing.
Well, friend, I am not sure what spirit you thought I was attempting to foster, because I assure you I had no ill intent, nor am even involved in the content. It was merely a play on words from the thread title. Whatever maliciousness you may have perceived, I can assure you I hold none of it. I had no theological response in mind, nor clever gotchas. I was literally executing a dad joke on the word Novel. You know, like 1689 Fedarlism: A Novel. Novels are fiction. I didn't mean it pejoratively, it was just word play. That's it. I have no dog in the theological takes on Baptist Covenant Theology, nor am I inclined to be involved therein. Cheers.
 
Well, friend, I am not sure what spirit you thought I was attempting to foster, because I assure you I had no ill intent, nor am even involved in the content. It was merely a play on words from the thread title. Whatever maliciousness you may have perceived, I can assure you I hold none of it. I had no theological response in mind, nor clever gotchas. I was literally executing a dad joke on the word Novel. That's it. Cheers.
Josh, it took me a while to get the joke. And I am someone who loves puns.

As an administrator, is that really the kind of spirit you want to foster here on the Puritan Board Josh? The PB has shown a very gracious tone towards allowing and engaging with Reformed Baptists to date from what I have seen. Your comment seems out of line from what I have experienced here and does absolutely nothing good towards fostering useful discussion.
Brother, I think it was simply a play on words. Look at the heading of tis post. He was making a pun on the word 'novel' :)
 
But while I'm here, I'll just own the fact that the very confession of my own faith, and my adherence thereto, compels me to consider any Baptistic covenant theology novel, 1689 Fedarlistic or otherwise, not believing it fully or without error the biblical doctrine of God's covenantal ways in dealing with His people. I do not apologize for that, nor am I intending offense by that. I am thankful for my Reformed Baptist brethren's faithful adherence to the proper doctrine of God (as confessed in the LBCF), and Justification, etc. and I wish no ill will upon y'all, other than the faithful afflictions God sends upon all His people for their reformation, repentance, and sanctification. God speed (in all your lawful doctrines and endeavors). I expect for Baptists who believe their take on Covenant Theology to be the most biblical, to do so with the same diligence, fervency, as I do wrt to Westminster expression, btw.
 
Josh, it took me a while to get the joke. And I am someone who loves puns.


Brother, I think it was simply a play on words. Look at the heading of tis post. He was making a pun on the word 'novel' :)
Thanks, Stephen. It was clearly so terrible a dad joke -and thereby good- that one could not possibly believe it to be an attempt at a joke! I'll wear it like a badge!
 
You other more astute admins feel free to delete all my distractions from the thread content. ;)
 
1689 Federalism: All the Elect of all time have been saved by the New Covenant, even those saints who lived before the advent of Christ. The New Covenant alone is the "Covenant of Grace". Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, or Davidic Covenants are "THE" Covenant of Grace, but they all point to it and lay the foundations for it in various ways.
If the OT saints were saved by the NC (CoG), were they in the NC (CoG) proper? What language would you prefer to use?
 
If the OT saints were saved by the NC (CoG), were they in the NC (CoG) proper? What language would you prefer to use?
The New Covenant is union with Christ. OT saints were united to Christ, therefore they were "in" or "members of" the New Covenant prior to its establishment at Pentecost.
 
How about this?

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

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

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

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

How can one call the NC alone the "covenant of grace", when God clearly shows grace in all of his covenants?
"The Covenant of Grace" does not just mean "a covenant where God shows grace." Rather, it means (quoting John Ball)
The Covenant of Grace is that free and gracious Covenant, which God of his meere mercy in Jesus Christ made with man a miserable and wretched sinner, promising unto him pardon of sinne and eternall happinesse, if he will return from his iniquity, embrace mercy reached forth, by faith unfained, and walke before God in sincere, faithfull and willing obedience, as becomes such a creature lifted up unto such injoyment, and partaker of such precious promises.
I might quibble or nuance the definition here or there, but you get the idea. WCF 7.3 says
Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
2LBCF 7.2 likewise
Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved; and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
 
Thanks, Stephen. It was clearly so terrible a dad joke -and thereby good- that one could not possibly believe it to be an attempt at a joke! I'll wear it like a badge!
Nah, I got it immediately because I thought the same thing when I saw the title!

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

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

2LBCF 7.2 likewise
Right, but these promises of the covenant of grace have been made since Genesis 3:15. I'm not sure how anyone can say that these other covenants are not part of the covenant of grace. The original post I interacted with said "The NC alone is the covenant of grace". I'm not sure how that's tenable considering that by the definition provided, the covenant of grace has been progressively revealed, from seed to full flower, throughout the Bible.
 
How about this?

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

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

The 17th Century Reformed Baptists just systematized it better than had been done in prior centuries.
There, now we have a concise and clear statement. So what you're saying is that the elect in all ages have been saved by Christ washing their sins away with His blood. This is what every Reformed person believes, Presbyterian AND Baptist. So then the only difference between saints in either era is the visible administration.
So, in what way do you allege the Vanilla RBs have got it wrong? How is Federalism different?
 
Right, but these promises of the covenant of grace have been made since Genesis 3:15. I'm not sure how anyone can say that these other covenants are not part of the covenant of grace. The original post I interacted with said "The NC alone is the covenant of grace". I'm not sure how that's tenable considering that by the definition provided, the covenant of grace has been progressively revealed, from seed to full flower, throughout the Bible.
Well now you're asking a different question/objection. The other covenants are not the covenant of grace because they differ in their parties, promises, and conditions. They do not promise the Holy Spirit to regenerate, unite to Christ, and forgive of sins. The other covenants help support and reveal the New Covenant in various ways, yet they are distinct from it. As one simple example, the Old Covenant had a sacrificial system that helped reveal the New Covenant by way of analogy (typology). That doesn't therefore mean that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same covenant.
 
Well now you're asking a different question/objection. The other covenants are not the covenant of grace because they differ in their parties, promises, and conditions. They do not promise the Holy Spirit to regenerate, unite to Christ, and forgive of sins. The other covenants help support and reveal the New Covenant in various ways, yet they are distinct from it. As one simple example, the Old Covenant had a sacrificial system that helped reveal the New Covenant by way of analogy (typology). That doesn't therefore mean that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same covenant.
Thanks for your response.

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

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

I also do not agree that these other covenants "differ in their parties, promises, and conditions". If that is the case, then why would the Apostle Paul tell the Gentile Ephesians that they were once "strangers from the covenants of promise"? The clear implication is that they are now partakers in these covenants, just as the children of Israel were prior to the coming of Christ. In fact, even the very fact that Paul uses the phrase "covenants of promise" is an indication that the gospel promises are contained within them.
 
Izaak, you seem to be asking basic questions of understanding, but at the same time wanting to offer objection and critique at each step. Are you trying to understand the position, or do you already understand it and want to critique it?
 
Izaak, you seem to be asking basic questions of understanding, but at the same time wanting to offer objection and critique at each step. Are you trying to understand the position, or do you already understand it and want to critique it?
Hi Brandon. I understand the brief overviews given so far, and to me they are problematic in and of themselves. But to be fair, weighing the pros/cons of the position is not the objective of this thread, so I better bow out before I further derail the thread.

Izaak
 
I understand the brief overviews given so far, and to me they are problematic in and of themselves.
I'm a former Reformed Baptist and 1689 Federalism helped me become a paedobaptist. I see we are members of sister churches. As I thought through the issue the course Ruin and Redemption was some of the most helpful material I have read on covenant theology.
 
If you want to critique the position, you'll need to spend some time studying it in more depth beyond a couple sentence summaries. Lots of resources here, including audio overviews, books, and videos http://www.1689federalism.com
Again with this rhetorical tactic.

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

I am not completely sure YOU understand reformed covenant theology. We need to give you a list of 30 books to read on covenant theology and I suggest you don't post again until you read them all to ensure you properly understand the Reformed position.
Here's a list to start out with. Make sure to read in the original language:
Francis Robert's Mysterium & Medulla Biblorum
J.H. Heidegger's Corpus Theologiae
Cloppenburg's Disputationes de Foedere Gratiae
Witsius's Oeconomia Foederum
Rutherford's Covenant of Grace Opened
Bucer's Commentaria super quattuor evangeliorum
Oecolampadius's Commentaria super ezechiele
John Ball's Treatise on the Covenant of Grace
Cocceius's Summa doctrinae de foedere et testamento dei
Burman's Summa theologiae
Anonymous Scottish Presbyterian's A Snake in the Grass
Thomas Blake's Vindiciae Foederis
You shouldn't think yourself able to criticize Westminster covenant theology until you've read all of those, especially the ones in Latin. It's not on the other side to have a productive dialogue if you haven't done your research.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top