Not one but TWO covenants with Abraham?

[Dachaser]

There always was called out and reserved by God a faithful remnant among national Israel, as those who be pointing towards those saved under the NC.

 

[Pergamum]

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.

Why do you write that "1689 Federalism" believes or not believes. Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that Brandon does believe or does not believe. Why are you speaking for all of 1689 Federalism? Are you are saying it is a monolithic movement without variety. It appears there is much variety. Or else do you have a copyright on the term?


Also, does this mean no 1689 Federalist can believe that Romans 11 speaks of an ethnic revival of the Jews?

 

[brandonadams]

Why do you write that "1689 Federalism" believes or not believes.

I try to distinguish between my own views and those views that are held by 1689 Federalism. I'm happy to be corrected at any point. It's no different from someone saying "Amillennialism believes..." Yes, there is variety. I am trying to clarify wherever possible so that people have an easier time learning what it is.

No it's not a monolithic view.

Also, does this mean no 1689 Federalist can believe that Romans 11 speaks of an ethnic revival of the Jews?

Thank you for bringing that up. I have to retract my earlier statement as there were historic proponents that did interpret Romans 11 in that way. I believe Haldane did. Personally, I would tell them they are not being consistent with their typology at that point.

 

[Herald]

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.

Brandon, I asked Pascal Denault last evening if he could add some clarity to the discussion regarding two Abrahamic covenants. His reply was, "One formal Abr Cov through which the New Cov was revealed. I believe Gal 4:21-31 shows that the Old and New were intertwined since Abr until Christ." This is basically what you have been saying, no?

 

[brandonadams]

Yes

 

[Herald]

Yes

65 posts to get to a one word answer. Seriously, thank you. I was getting lost in all the verbosity. You have given me a lot to consider and more books to add to my reading list. Thankfully I have a few of them already.