Progressive Covenantalism and 1689 Subscription

[Adam McCarty]

I (1689 Fed) have heard from others (Progressive Cov.) that you could subscribe to the 1689 confession and be a Progressive Covenantalist.
I am doing a presentation for a class on Progressive Covenantlism, and have been looking for where this idea has come from.

Does anyone have any sources where a named Progressive Covenantlist has said that you could hold to the 1689 Confession?

 

[No Other Name]

I know of no one who claims to be PC and 1689. Frankly, I don't see how a progressive covenantalist could be confessional. They reject the covenant language as a single "Plan" of God and they reject the distinctions within the Law (not only rejecting tri-partite but even moral vs. positive) and thereby they reject the 4th Commandment in much the same way as NCT does.

This is in direct conflict with 1689 2LBCF Chapters 7,8, 19, 22 (and maybe others).

Maybe this will help:

 

[dsanch1120]

I feel like that’s a bit of a stretch. It reminds me of certain dispensational baptists calling themselves “reformed” or “Calvinist” because they have a somewhat Calvinistic soteriology but despite having very major differences with the tradition.
It seems to me like an attempt to legitimize something new by calling it old.
Ultimately, you can call yourself whatever you want, but if the beliefs don’t line up historically, logically, and theologically, you’re probably not in the camp.

 

[Adam McCarty]

I know of no one who claims to be PC and 1689. Frankly, I don't see how a progressive covenantalist could be confessional. They reject the covenant language as a single "Plan" of God and they reject the distinctions within the Law (not only rejecting tri-partite but even moral vs. positive) and thereby they reject the 4th Commandment in much the same way as NCT does.

This is in direct conflict with 1689 2LBCF Chapters 7,8, 11, 22 (and maybe others).

Maybe this will help:

These are my thoughts exactly. I was planning on building up a refutation to the claim that one could be a 1689 subscriptionist and PC. However, with the lack of any credible names making this claim, I may have to say that it would be impossible to do so- and it seems as if named PC would concur. Especially since they (Wellum) are so knowledgeable about the tripartite division of the law and would disagree with it.

 

[JD]

Most of the big name Progressive Covenantal guys (Wellum, Gentry, etc) claim to "broadly affirm" the 2LBCF. See the statement of beliefs at ChristOverAll (of which Wellum is an editor)

 

[No Other Name]

Most of the big name Progressive Covenantal guys (Wellum, Gentry, etc) claim to "broadly affirm" the 2LBCF. See the statement of beliefs at ChristOverAll (of which Wellum is an editor)

I had no idea Wellum was PC, but that's not weird since I am only acquainted with his name and never read anything by him. The Christ Over All is where I found the chart. INteresting, but to "broadly affirm" the 1689 while disagreeing with "covenant", "mediation", "Law", "Sabbath" is certainly a way to look at it.

Yet, with that meaning of "broad affirmation" then 1689 federalists "broadly affirm" WCF on more points than the points on which PC affirms 1689. hahaha

 

[Pilgrim]

Not possible. PC is anti-sabbatarian and basically takes a dispensational view of the law. Their "subscription" to some articles would have to be so loose that it probably even falls short of the PCA's "system subscription."

Moreover, they can't even quite subscribe to the Abstract of Principles, which is sabbatarian. Although it does not include the term "Sabbath," the teaching is there. They basically just give it a wink and a nod. Dr. Mohler "saved" SBTS by enforcing confessional subscription yet some of the foremost anti-sabbatarian theologians of the past several decades are on the faculty. I've gone round and round with a SBTS graduate on FB who argues that they aren't really in violation of that article. That makes about as much sense as saying you're against women in church leadership but have a woman preaching every Sunday.

 

[NickR]

Not possible. PC is anti-sabbatarian and basically takes a dispensational view of the law. Their "subscription" to some articles would have to be so loose that it probably even falls short of the PCA's "system subscription."

Moreover, they can't even quite subscribe to the Abstract of Principles, which is sabbatarian. Although it does not include the term "Sabbath," the teaching is there. They basically just give it a wink and a nod. Dr. Mohler "saved" SBTS by enforcing confessional subscription yet some of the foremost anti-sabbatarian theologians of the past several decades are on the faculty. I've gone round and round with a SBTS graduate on FB who argues that they aren't really in violation of that article. That makes about as much sense as saying you're against women in church leadership but have a woman preaching every Sunday.

I attend SBTS and find this absolutely infuriating.

 

[Eyedoc84]

I know of no one who claims to be PC and 1689. Frankly, I don't see how a progressive covenantalist could be confessional. They reject the covenant language as a single "Plan" of God and they reject the distinctions within the Law (not only rejecting tri-partite but even moral vs. positive) and thereby they reject the 4th Commandment in much the same way as NCT does.

This is in direct conflict with 1689 2LBCF Chapters 7,8, 19, 22 (and maybe others).

Maybe this will help:

Where did this chart come from? I have a quibble with a few points. Under “Members of the New Covenant” I would say some of the children are non-elect, not non-believers. Also, under the division of the law, the confession states that the ceremonial is abrogated and the civil is expired, except where general equity still obliges.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I attend SBTS and find this absolutely infuriating.

To clarify, do you mean you feel folks at SBTS are being misrepresented?

 

[No Other Name]

Where did this chart come from? I have a quibble with a few points. Under “Members of the New Covenant” I would say some of the children are non-elect, not non-believers. Also, under the division of the law, the confession states that the ceremonial is abrogated and the civil is expired, except where general equity still obliges.

I already said where I got it from.

I had no idea Wellum was PC, but that's not weird since I am only acquainted with his name and never read anything by him. The Christ Over All (website) is where I found the chart.

As a 1689 Federalist, I share your general equity addendum (and would advocate for re-wording of others on my column as well).

It was merely a help to show how PC cannot possibly affirm 1689, and that was the only context I was posting it for. I would never use it to delve into deep Covenant Theology discussions.

 

[NickR]

To clarify, do you mean you feel folks at SBTS are being misrepresented?

No. SBTS is hypocritical when it trumpets its confessionalism and completely ignores its article on the Lord's Day.

 

[DanSSwing]

Where did this chart come from? I have a quibble with a few points. Under “Members of the New Covenant” I would say some of the children are non-elect, not non-believers. Also, under the division of the law, the confession states that the ceremonial is abrogated and the civil is expired, except where general equity still obliges.

This is one place where I technically agree with LBCF but think it gives the wrong emphasis and reads like a grudging concession.

19:4 says, "Only [the judicial laws'] general principles of justice continue to have moral value."
in my opinion, it should say, "However, [the judicial laws'] general principles of justice continue to have moral value."