LBCF vs. WCF view of Israel

I seriously doubt it. Generally the Baptist position has been that the invisible church is the new or spiritual Israel.

Because the Bible teaches that professing believers are to be baptized.

See above.

See their chart on the WCF, as well as the other charts, in order to get an idea about what their position is. They have some helpful videos as well, although how helpful they are will be in the eye of the beholder, I'm sure. Brandon Adams and the Renihans have also churned out a ton of blog posts in the past several years. See also the books they list, especially the ones toward the top like Denault's and "Recovering a Covenantal Heritage."

The most helpful of the charts is probably the one differentiating themselves from "20th Century Reformed Baptist" theology, which they think owes too much to Presbyterian CT. That's the reason why they call themselves 1689 federalists. (I do think they have a point in that older Baptist writers generally don't seem to have endorsed the idea that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace, for example, although there were probably some exceptions. I noticed this years ago and wasn't quite sure what to make of it since all of the RBs I knew taught "one covenant, two administrations.") This reference to a recent series of articles by Dr. Peter Masters is very interesting.

No. That's dispensationalism, (as the chart indicates) and basically "classic" dispensationalism of the Scofield/Chafer type at that. (The chart is clear that that is a dispy teaching, not a 1689 teaching.) For what it's worth, as time goes on, fewer and fewer dispys use that language, and Progressive Dispensationalism totally rejects it. Some who aren't particularly "progressive" don't use that language either.

BTW, the chart is also wrong about dispys necessarily rejecting the covenant of redemption, although it is true that most probably do today. Actually, it was not uncommon for older ones to agree with it in some form, although probably not without some modification compared to the WCF, etc.

Dispys have hardly been unified on the New Covenant either. Some have taught that it was only made with Israel. Some have taught that there are two New Covenants, one for Israel and one with the church. I think some would say that in some sense the NC was made with the church as well as Israel, or at least that the church partakes in some of the benefits. But all dispensationalists (as well as some non-dispensationalists) will say that there is to be a future restoration of Israel to the land, etc. When it comes to the NC, they are going to harp on Jer. 31:33-40 and insist that covenant promises remain for national Israel and that they aren't to be "spiritualized" and applied solely to the church and that there is more to it than soteriology.

 

Just as an aside, the charts at 1689federalism, when describing the Westminster view is often misrepresenting the view. Or they try to make it so simple worded (given the diagram they are doing) that it doesn't communicate fully the meaning, etc. I have challenged some of them before and they just say, "No, you're wrong."

 

I think a lot of that is attacking what one sees as the implications of the opposing view rather than what is actually being said. But that is also probably unavoidable to an extent, although we should seek to generate more light than heat.

 

It would be a sorry looking confessionalism that espoused the necessity of initiation into a society in order to be able to understand its teachings. Some might even call that cultish. The strength of a biblical confession is its open manifestation of the truth to the world.