I have been reading up on 1689 Federalism which purports to be the Baptist answer to Covenant Theology. I am a baptist and so, of course, I really, really tried to like it. But the more I read it, the more and more problems I see with it. Quite frankly, reading their rebuttal to Covenant Theology almost makes me want to go full Presbyterian. For instance, in Denault's book on the "Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: he writes that there is not one covenant with Abraham but two. Others writers repeat this as well, that there is a physical covenant and a spiritual covenant. That there is a physical people and then there is a spiritual people. This seems like warmed-over Dispensationalism-lite. Denault writes, "The padeobaptist refused to separate the dualities of the Abrahamic covenant in order to preserve their model of the covenant of grace which integrated these dualities… Their system was self sufficient, but it could not harmonize itself naturally with the Biblical data, and, in particular, to the fact that there was not one, but two covenants in Abraham” (loc 1863, 1929). But all the promises were given to Israel. Period. Some were grafted into Israel. Some were cut off. Also, Romans 4:11 says that Abraham is the father of all the faithful and seems to deny this two-covenant approach (though I'd love for someone here to more fully expound that). "11 And he received mthe sign of circumcision, na seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncircumcised: that ohe might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also." There seems to be dual elements perhaps, but not two covenants. Why are baptists insisting upon this?