Not one but TWO covenants with Abraham?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would love to read any tentative notes that you have.

I am also not satisfied with the current batch of books explaining 1689 Federalism. They seem to stress discontinuity too much.

I'd love also to read anything by Dr Waldron as well if you can point me to any links.
Again I ask, which ones? Denault of course. But who else are you reading?
 
I think you mean Brandon Adams. If so, is he the same as our own brandonadams? https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/1689-fed-and-republication.86832/#post-1079377

There's a good chance.

Thank you for your nuanced replies Tim.

Pergamum, I would encourage you to slow down a little. You seem to be making judgments very quickly about what you are reading (based on all your recent threads).

1) 1689 Federalism does not believe there were 2 Abrahamic Covenants, but rather that 2 covenants came from Abraham (the Old and the New). Admittedly, Coxe is a bit confusing on this point. I don't actually agree with some of the things he says on this point (particularly his interpretation of Gal 3:17 - see here if you're interested). This dichotomy in Abraham between promises to his natural seed in the land of Canaan and a promise concerning Christ is found in many paedobaptists (see Owen, Turretin, Hodge, Kline, Jonathan Edwards as just a few examples off the top of my head). Note R. Scott Clark's quotation of Hodge on this point here. See also Kline’s Two-Level Fulfillment 184 Years Before Kingdom Prologue.

2) Nichols is neither 1689 Fed nor 20th cent. He denies a covenant of works, which both 1689 Fed and 20th cent affirm.
 
There's a good chance.

Thank you for your nuanced replies Tim.

Pergamum, I would encourage you to slow down a little. You seem to be making judgments very quickly about what you are reading (based on all your recent threads).

1) 1689 Federalism does not believe there were 2 Abrahamic Covenants, but rather that 2 covenants came from Abraham (the Old and the New). Admittedly, Coxe is a bit confusing on this point. I don't actually agree with some of the things he says on this point (particularly his interpretation of Gal 3:17 - see here if you're interested). This dichotomy in Abraham between promises to his natural seed in the land of Canaan and a promise concerning Christ is found in many paedobaptists (see Owen, Turretin, Hodge, Kline, Jonathan Edwards as just a few examples off the top of my head). Note R. Scott Clark's quotation of Hodge on this point here. See also Kline’s Two-Level Fulfillment 184 Years Before Kingdom Prologue.

2) Nichols is neither 1689 Fed nor 20th cent. He denies a covenant of works, which both 1689 Fed and 20th cent affirm.
Thanks for the helpful reply. Since "2 covenants in Abraham" and "2 Abrahamic Covenants" sounds so much alike, do you think some baptists are stating it both ways? I have heard both in the last 2 weeks, especially the statement that "God made two covenants with Abraham" - a physical and a spiritual one (producing a physical seed and producing a spiritual seed).

One brother stated that God gave some physical promises to the one group of people and gave spiritual promises to believers. That makes it sound like God has two people. Wouldn't it be better to simply say that God gave these promises to Israel?

It seems most writers speak of dual elements in the one covenant. If you believe that, then how is 1689 Federalism "distinct" on this point?
 
There is certainly a possibility that baptists are not clearly communicating (or maybe understanding) the concept. There is also certainly a possibility they are being misunderstood. Reading this may provide some clarity as to why this point is not clearly articulated: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/some-disagreement-with-coxe-on-galatians-317/

That makes it sound like God has two people.

God did have two different covenant people: Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the Spirit. Here is Jonathan Edwards defending that point https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...the-nation-of-israel-as-a-type-of-the-church/

If you believe that, then how is 1689 Federalism "distinct" on this point?

I would say the distinction is in carrying the daulity of the Abrahamic Covenant to its logical conclusion. Note: we do not mean "dual elements" in the sense of an external administration and an internal substance. We mean "dual elements" as referring to a typical element regarding Abraham's physical descendants that has passed away and an anti-typical element regarding Abraham's spiritual descendants that has not passed away.
 
There is certainly a possibility that baptists are not clearly communicating (or maybe understanding) the concept. There is also certainly a possibility they are being misunderstood. Reading this may provide some clarity as to why this point is not clearly articulated: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/some-disagreement-with-coxe-on-galatians-317/



God did have two different covenant people: Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the Spirit. Here is Jonathan Edwards defending that point https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...the-nation-of-israel-as-a-type-of-the-church/



I would say the distinction is in carrying the daulity of the Abrahamic Covenant to its logical conclusion. Note: we do not mean "dual elements" in the sense of an external administration and an internal substance. We mean "dual elements" as referring to a typical element regarding Abraham's physical descendants that has passed away and an anti-typical element regarding Abraham's spiritual descendants that has not passed away.


Wouldn't it be better to say that the promises were made to Israel. Period. And that Israel was a mixed company. There is one tree Israel and some Gentile branches are grafted in and some unbelieving branches were cut off. But there were not two separate peoples.
 
No, it would not be better to say that because it would not be true. It would ignore typology. The NT distinguishes between Israel according to the flesh and Israel according to the Spirit. The first is a type of the latter. Promises were made to the first that were not made to the second. Promises were made to the second that were not made to the first. Yes, they are two different groups of people who have/had two different relationships with God (though there is some overlap insofar as some of Israel according to the flesh was also Israel according to the Spirit).

Rom 9:6 https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/

Rom 11:16-24 https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/02/08/the-olive-tree/
 
As an RB, I say that baptism in the NC answers to circumcision in the OT. The old and new covenants aren't opposites, or two different tries at the same thing--the new covenant is the reality that the old was prefiguring. The old covenant had a meal--the Passover--to which the Lord's Supper answers, though the NC meal is far more simple and meaningful, and is applied differently. Likewise baptism, a sign of the NC, is far more simple and meaningful than circumcision, and also applied differently.



David, your assessment is wrong: regardless of what many who call themselves Baptists think (and there's as many different flavors of baptists are there are of presbyterians), the traditional baptist approach (see the LBCF, chapter 7), is that God revealed the Covenant of Grace first to Adam, and developed it--singular--by different means, until Jesus came, who is the subject and reason and cause of all things. So we see the New Covenant as the fruition of the Old--same tree, all grown up and bearing glorious fruit. Or you can think of the old covenant as an arch under construction, surrounded by scaffolding, its final form only half-discernible through the clutter of the builder's impedimenta. But once the keystone is dropped in, the scaffold is removed, and the arch is revealed in it's full glory--the same arch that was under construction, but fully realized.

Your views expressed here would seem to be far closer to what Presbyterians brethren hold in regards to how to view the NC than a Baptist viewpoint would be on this topic though.
 
While David's response may be somewhat imprecise, he is quite correct that the nature of the New Covenant is one of the major differences, if not the major difference, between Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians. See James White's essay on the newness of the New Covenant in the Reformed Baptist Theological Review, for example. I think I'm safe in saying that Baptists of all kinds will charge that paedobaptists have a hard time explaining what is new about the new covenant. I've never seen a Baptist hem and haw around when asked that question, even those who believe in one covenant, two administrations.
We Baptists get the node of baptism and the coming of the Church due to how we view the tension between the Old and the New Covenants. We are indeed one in Christ, but we also do have some real discernible differences among us.
 
This is for Pergamum. Since you will not answer which books you are reading on 1689 federalism, I'll provide a quote from J. Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant," in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, p. 228,

"It is important to remember that the Abrahamic Covenant is not two covenants, but a single covenant. Like a coin, it is a single entity with two sides. These two sides, for the most part, coincide with the different emphases within the Old and New Testaments."
 
This is for Pergamum. Since you will not answer which books you are reading on 1689 federalism, I'll provide a quote from J. Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant," in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, p. 228,
Two different aspects of the one Covenant of Grace then, between physical promises/blessings for physical descendants of Abraham, and the spiritual blessings for his spiritual ones.
 
Your views expressed here would seem to be far closer to what Presbyterians brethren hold in regards to how to view the NC than a Baptist viewpoint would be on this topic though.
I think my view is that of most confessional Baptists since the Reformation. What all the other multitudes of so-called Baptists wish to believe is up to them, but remember that the writers of the 1689 LBCF purposely copied the WFC word-for-word in many cases, with the express purpose of highlighting how much they agreed with their Presbyterian brethren in most things. Presbyterians, on the whole, are not a bad lot, and we owe them much for their excellent theological work.
 
David, your assessment is wrong: regardless of what many who call themselves Baptists think (and there's as many different flavors of baptists are there are of presbyterians), the traditional baptist approach (see the LBCF, chapter 7), is that God revealed the Covenant of Grace first to Adam, and developed it--singular--by different means, until Jesus came, who is the subject and reason and cause of all things. So we see the New Covenant as the fruition of the Old--same tree, all grown up and bearing glorious fruit.

Again, to avoid confusion, 1689 Federalism believes that the Old and the New are two distinct covenants with different rewards, different conditions, and different parties - not different administrations of the same covenant. The Old and the New are not the "same tree" though the Old certainly served the purposes of the New. (Not certain what view you hold Ben - just trying to be as clear as possible).
 
This is for Pergamum. Since you will not answer which books you are reading on 1689 federalism, I'll provide a quote from J. Johnson in "The Fatal Flaw of Infant Baptism: The Dichotomous Nature of the Abrahamic Covenant," in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, p. 228,
Timotheos,

Denault says the following:

“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).

READ: "two covenants in Abraham..."

Instead of saying the covenant has dual purposes, he clearly says, "two covenants" (plural).

And again, another quote:

“The Baptists saw two posterities in Abraham, two inheritances and consequently two covenants… Not that the posterity of Abraham was of a mixed nature, but that Abraham had two distinct posterities and that it was necessary to determine the inheritance of each of these posterities on the basis of their respective promises… This understanding was vigorously affirmed amongst all Baptist theologians and characterized their federalism form its origin” (119-120).

So it is easy to see how I might believe (rather wrongly or rightly) that many baptists are asserting that there are two Abrahamic Covenants.
 
Last edited:
it is easy to see how I might believe (rather wrongly or rightly) that many baptists are asserting that there are two Abrahamic Covenants.

Yes, and even A.W. Pink says "There were not two distinct and diverse covenants made with Abraham (as the older Baptists argued), the one having respect to spiritual blessings and the other relating to temporal benefits." Coxe is a bit confusing on this point. Not as clear or as accurate as he could have been. It's certainly a point that could use some clarification and simpler articulation. James Haldane, the 19th century Scottish Presbyterian turned Baptist articulates the duality idea better, in my opinion.
 
Yes, and even A.W. Pink says "There were not two distinct and diverse covenants made with Abraham (as the older Baptists argued), the one having respect to spiritual blessings and the other relating to temporal benefits." Coxe is a bit confusing on this point. Not as clear or as accurate as he could have been. It's certainly a point that could use some clarification and simpler articulation. James Haldane, the 19th century Scottish Presbyterian turned Baptist articulates the duality idea better, in my opinion.
I would love to read Haldane if you have a link or reference.
 
Again, to avoid confusion, 1689 Federalism believes that the Old and the New are two distinct covenants with different rewards, different conditions, and different parties - not different administrations of the same covenant. The Old and the New are not the "same tree" though the Old certainly served the purposes of the New. (Not certain what view you hold Ben - just trying to be as clear as possible).
I believe I hold what you have called "20th Century" CT. I agree that much of the OC was typological--the fulfilment of those land promises and temporal blessings teach many important things about our God. But those were real things: real promises kept, real blessings given, a real people of God--yet all serving as an earnest and illustration and type of the covenant in it's full fruit. It's difficult to articulate, since I am not a man of great education, but I think I see greater continuity between the old and new covenants than the 1689 federalists would.
Still, I thank you for your replies and the clarity you bring to your position.
My next question is, how much of the OT can the federalist appropriate as his own? Does he pray for the peace of Jerusalem? (not in the sense a Dispensational would, of course: a bit of Palestinian real estate); Does he read Psalm 129 and assent that Israel may now say we have been afflicted from our youth?
One of the horrors of dispensationalism is that they say that very little if any of the OT is relevant to Christians today--that a good bit of the promises are not for us, but for some future imagined physical Israel. It would be a great comfort to know that federalists are not drifting down that dark path of unbelief.
 
Timotheos,

Denault says the following:

“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).

READ: "two covenants in Abraham..."

Instead of saying the covenant has dual purposes, he clearly says, "two covenants" (plural).

And again, another quote:

“The Baptists saw two posterities in Abraham, two inheritances and consequently two covenants… Not that the posterity of Abraham was of a mixed nature, but that Abraham had two distinct posterities and that it was necessary to determine the inheritance of each of these posterities on the basis of their respective promises… This understanding was vigorously affirmed amongst all Baptist theologians and characterized their federalism form its origin” (119-120).

So it is easy to see how I might believe (rather wrongly or rightly) that many baptists are asserting that there are two Abrahamic Covenants.
And I have quoted 2 times already the full context of what he was saying which clears that up. But here goes for a 3rd time:

"It is in this way that the Baptists understood that there were two covenants with Abraham, not two formal covenants, but a promise that revealed the Covenant of Grace followed by the covenant of circumcision. In light of Galatians 4.22-31, the theologians of the 1689 considered that the two covenants that came from Abraham (Hagar and Sara) were the Old and New Covenants. The covenant of circumcision, Hagar, corresponded to the Old Covenant; a covenant of works established with the physical posterity of Abraham. The covenant of the promise, Sara, corresponded to the New Covenant; the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham and concluded with Christ and the spiritual posterity of Abraham (Ga. 3.29)." (loc 1922-1927).Underline added.

So the "two covenants in Abraham" does not refer to 2 ACs but 2 covenants which derive from Abraham. The context is clear and you are misusing Denault's words.

As for your second quote, that is simply referring to the OC and NC. Just as the 2 inheritances and 2 posterities derive from the AC, so also do the 2 covenants he mentioned. Again, he is not saying there are 2 ACs but 2 covenants which derive as a result of the AC: the OC and the NC.
 
I think my view is that of most confessional Baptists since the Reformation. What all the other multitudes of so-called Baptists wish to believe is up to them, but remember that the writers of the 1689 LBCF purposely copied the WFC word-for-word in many cases, with the express purpose of highlighting how much they agreed with their Presbyterian brethren in most things. Presbyterians, on the whole, are not a bad lot, and we owe them much for their excellent theological work.
I agree with you on our brethren, as some of the very best theological works ever done came from those holding to their viewpoint.
 
And I have quoted 2 times already the full context of what he was saying which clears that up. But here goes for a 3rd time:

"It is in this way that the Baptists understood that there were two covenants with Abraham, not two formal covenants, but a promise that revealed the Covenant of Grace followed by the covenant of circumcision. In light of Galatians 4.22-31, the theologians of the 1689 considered that the two covenants that came from Abraham (Hagar and Sara) were the Old and New Covenants. The covenant of circumcision, Hagar, corresponded to the Old Covenant; a covenant of works established with the physical posterity of Abraham. The covenant of the promise, Sara, corresponded to the New Covenant; the Covenant of Grace revealed to Abraham and concluded with Christ and the spiritual posterity of Abraham (Ga. 3.29)." (loc 1922-1927).Underline added.

So the "two covenants in Abraham" does not refer to 2 ACs but 2 covenants which derive from Abraham. The context is clear and you are misusing Denault's words.

As for your second quote, that is simply referring to the OC and NC. Just as the 2 inheritances and 2 posterities derive from the AC, so also do the 2 covenants he mentioned. Again, he is not saying there are 2 ACs but 2 covenants which derive as a result of the AC: the OC and the NC.
There is One Covenant of Grace, but within that would be the Old and New Covenants, and again, it seems the big question would be just how much of a continuity there is between the old and the New.
 
It would be a great comfort to know that federalists are not drifting down that dark path of unbelief.

1689 Federalism does not believe there are any future unfulfilled promises to Israel according to the flesh. They only ever served to typologically point to Christ and His bride.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top