Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
Also, does this mean no 1689 Federalist can believe that Romans 11 speaks of an ethnic revival of the Jews?
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.
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.