Is 1689 Federalism Novel?

[TheInquirer]

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

Sincere question - Where do you see that in Scripture?

 

[Ben Zartman]

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

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

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

 

[Ben Zartman]

Sincere question - Where do you see that in Scripture?

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

 

[TheInquirer]

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

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

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

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

 

[Grant]

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



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

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

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

 

[TheInquirer]

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

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

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

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

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

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

With this in view, we would approach the question of republication according to a four-fold taxonomy that is commonly found in the Reformed tradition. It can be found in Reformed writers such as John Ball, Anthony Burgess, Francis Roberts, and Francis Turretin, to name a few.[99] Other taxonomies can certainly be found, but this is arguably the most common framework in which the topic is addressed, and, we believe, the most helpful.

This fourfold taxonomy of the substance of the Mosaic covenant is as follows:

• View 1: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of works, promising eternal life and/or salvation upon condition of perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience.
• View 2: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a mixed covenant, containing elements of both a covenant of works and a covenant of grace.
• View 3: The Mosaic covenant in substance is a subservient covenant, promising temporal life in Canaan upon condition of perfect obedience to the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws.
• View 4: The Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of grace, although uniquely administered in a manner appropriate to the situation of God’s people at that time.

It is important to note at the outset that this fourfold taxonomy can also be further simplified terms of the basic categories for classifying versions of republication. As stated above, there are two forms of republication, substantial and administrative. Views 1–3 fall into the designation of substantial, since they place the republication of the Adamic covenant works in the substance of the Mosaic covenant in some fashion (e.g., in terms of its principle or constitutive condition). Whereas, View 4 is seen as administrative, since advocates of this position remove any “works” element from the substance of the covenant, and restrict it to an aspect of the administration of the covenant of grace.[100] Thus, our taxonomy will also include a section outlining the various distinctions used by proponents of the fourth view to account for the role of the law in the Sinaitic administration of the covenant of grace. The following chart may help to visualize the key differences among the four historic positions on the Mosaic covenant.

Works			Grace​
View 1​	View 2​	View 3​	View 4​
Covenant of Works​	Mixed​	Subservient​	Covenant of Grace​
Works alone, in essence​	Works + grace, in essence​	Pure works in essence but on temporal level​	No works in essence, only grace​

Positions one and four represent opposite poles of the spectrum: from no grace to pure grace. Positions two and three represent attempts to mitigate this polarity. The mixed covenant view does this by combining works and grace as equally ultimately aspects of the essence of the Mosaic covenant. The subservient covenant does this by temporalizing the works element, restricting the relationship of works to blessings on the earthly realm only, thus mitigating the tension with works and grace at the level of eternal salvation.[101]

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

C. View 3: The Mosaic Covenant as a Third “Subservient Covenant”

The third view of the Mosaic covenant outlined in the traditional four-fold taxonomy is the “subservient covenant” view. This view maintained that there were three kinds of “special” or “hypothetical” covenants made between God and man: (1) a covenant of works with Adam, (2) a subservient covenant made with Israel, (3) and a covenant of grace with both old and new administrations.[119] The similarities and differences between these covenants are outlined in great detail by their proponents, but for the sake of simplicity they can be summarized in terms of their conditions and promises:

Condition:

1. Covenant of works: perfect obedience to the moral law
2. Subservient covenant: perfect obedience to moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws
3. Covenant of grace: faith in the Redeemer, Jesus Christ

Promise:

1. Covenant of works: earthly life in the Garden of Eden
2. Subservient covenant: blessed life in Canaan
3. Covenant of grace: eternal life in Heaven

Thus, the subservient covenant could be defined as follows: “The Old Covenant is that, whereby God doth require from the people of Israel, obedience of the Morall, Ceremoniall, and Judiciall Law; and to as many as doe give it him, he promises all sorts of blessings in the possession of the land of Canaan; on the contrary, to as many as deny it him, he denounces, most severely, curses and death; and that for this end, that he might bring them to be Messias which was for to come.”[120] Thus, the subservient covenant is a third covenant distinct in kind from the covenants of nature and grace.

 

[Ethan]

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

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

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

 

[TheInquirer]

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

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

In this report, we have identified two basic senses of republication: substantial and administrative. Administrative republication is consistent with our standards in that it coherently maintains that the Mosaic covenant is in substance a covenant of grace. Examples of administrative republication include declarative, material, and misinterpretive republications, as well as an indirect, redemptive reenactment of Adam’s sin and exile (as described in our report).

Views of substantial republication which are theologically inconsistent with our standards include: pure and simple republications, subservient republications, mixed republications, and a direct, non-redemptive reenactment of Adam’s pre-fall covenantal probation.\

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

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

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

Main Differences:

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

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

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

 

[TheInquirer]

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Ben Zartman]

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



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

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

 

[Joshua]

How many volumes y'all aimin' for?

 

[arapahoepark]

How many volumes y'all aimin' for?

Of pamphlets?

 

[Romans678]

Of pamphlets?

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

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Taylor]

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

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[Romans678]

What did I say? LOL

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk

 

[brandonadams]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[brandonadams]

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

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

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

 

[Ethan]

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

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

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

Paul and Zechariah seem cool with it.

 

[brandonadams]

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

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

Paul and Zechariah seem cool with it.

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

 

[brandonadams]

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

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

 

[brandonadams]

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

 

[Grant]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Grant]

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

 

[Grant]

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

Covenant of Grace

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

www.puritanboard.com

 

[brandonadams]

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

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

God imputes Christ Righteousness to OT saints prospectively.

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

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

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

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

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