What are main Differences between the 1689 and Modern RB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich,

I appreciate your concerns and the spirit in which they are written. While I certainly see the potential for problems in any new idea, I am not ready to allow a caution to prevent properly vetting the conclusions of 1689 Federalism (not that I believe you seek to prevent such vetting).

The proponents of 1689 Federalism make some valid points about Baptist history when it comes to Covenant Theology. The American Reformed Baptist movement can be traced back to the late 1960's in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. As most people know, Grace Baptist Church of Carlisle became one of the leading proponents of a national Reformed Baptist Association. ARBCA was the result. ARBCA has done a good job of articulating Reformed Baptist belief and practices, and for that I am grateful. However, when respected theologians such as Sam Renihan, Jim Renihan, and Rich Barcellos are in agreement on a major point of Baptist doctrine that just so happens to be contra the position of Sam Waldron and many ARBCA leaders, it demands attention. I am not willing to dismiss the newness of it just for the sake of it being new. Perhaps that is because I am not willing to put blind trust in ARBCA.

I am not really concerned about a Baptist identity crisis, or for that matter comparing ourselves to Presbyterians. I am interested in finding out whether 1689 Federalism is biblical, and to that end, I am willing to research and test it.
 
If a fundamental principle cannot be preserved across generations then I question whether Gamaliel has a point that Baptists ought to wrestle with.

Right, because the confession and presbyterian structure worked so well to avoid liberal apostasy in the early 20th century. Are you suggesting that at every point in presbyterian history, every point of theology has been accurately and fully understood and maintained? I mean, there was never such a thing as a Presbyterian Dispensationalist, right?

If you haven't done so, I would encourage you to take the time to study the history of reformed baptists in the 20th century. It should provide further context for the comments in the video.

Baptist covenant theology (1689 Federalism) was not wholly lost. A. W. Pink, whose writings in the 20th century led to modern reformed baptist movement, taught it in his book The Divine Covenants. Reading his book and its quotations, it is clear he was well acquainted with the articulation of this view down through the centuries. It was also held by Spurgeon. Modern RB's simply chose to follow Murray more than Pink and Spurgeon in their study of covenant theology, and their influence came to overshadow Pink and Spurgeon. Over in the UK, things were different. Peter Masters (Metropolitan Tabernacle) recently commented on 1689 Federalism
As I remarked earlier, this was what I was taught in spiritual infancy. The 1689 covenant view was still alive in the 1950s. I remember as a very young man being surprised on first running into dispensationalism, and then being even more surprised to find that some Calvinistic Baptists had adopted a modified Presbyterian view, accepting the Mosaic order as an administration of the covenant of grace. They took the view that after the Fall there has been only one covenant – that of grace – administered in different ways in the Old and New Testaments. In other words, they took the ‘one-covenant two-administration’ view.

The heyday of dispensationalism almost crowded out the old view, then in the 1950s a renewed enthusiasm for good systematic theology swept in, but being largely from a Presbyterian stable, it led many Baptists to adopt their one-covenant position. The authentic Baptist view was not rendered altogether extinct, however, and it is grand to see it enjoying a considerable revival, several excellent studies having emerged in the USA in recent years. I used to visit the USA often years ago and it seemed to me that the historic Baptist view of covenants had died out there. It was a kind of side-hobby for me to chat to pastors about the authentic Baptist view of covenants, and I believe they viewed me as an eccentric, speaking of something unknown to mankind. But the revival of the historic view in recent years is immensely valuable, for few things are so scripturally logical, illuminating and practical.

Regardless, I think your comments are a tad overreacting. Insofar as your comments are directed towards the question of institutions, I would encourage reflection upon Spuregon's words:
Now, my objects this morning will be to glorify God, by showing to you, who love the Saviour, that the preservation and the triumph of the church are both of them to be accomplished, not by might, nor by power, but by the Spirit of God, in order that all the honor might be to God, and none of it to man... "Not by the combined might of men laboring to assist each other, nor by the separate might of any single hero, but by my Spirit, saith the Lord."...

The fact is, that just when the corporation began to be the greatest, God said, "Now then, you have done your work, to a great degree, it shall not be by you any longer; not by might, not by your allied forces. You have said our efforts will cover the earth with the gospel." "Now," says God, "I will diminish you by thousands, I will take off your roll year by year, as many as would make another denomination strong; and though you shall still exist, you shall have to weep and repent with bitterness, because of your departed zeal." It is just the same with every other denomination. When we Baptists were reckoned to be the poorest lot in the world, and everybody sneered at us, we did far more good than we do now. There was far more pure doctrine, and far better preaching than there is at the present time. But we began to be respectable—and just as we began to be respectable we began to lose our power. Every fresh Gothic Baptist chapel was a diminution of simplicity; and every fresh place where the minister become intellectual, as it was called, was just a loss of evangelical might, till now, as a denomination, we are just as low as any other: and we need some of our old leaders again, just to preach the word with demonstration and with power, and to overthrow all those grand conventionalisms which have tried to make the Baptist denomination respectable. I pray to God I may never be called to preach to a much applauded congregation; it would be a sad and evil day. To be despised, to be spit upon, to be caricatured, and to be jeered, is the highest honor that a Christian minister can have; and to be pampered, flattered, and applauded by men, is a poor, base thing, that is not worth having. If any come here and say "They are not a respectable sort;" we reply, "we labor to preach to the poor." But mark this, whenever a great denomination begins to get too great, God will cut away its horns, and take away its glory, till the world shall say, "It is not by might nor by power."

...And now, dear friends, let me counsel you. The grand thing the church wants in this time, is God's Holy Spirit. You all get up plans and say, "Now, if the church were altered a little bit, it would go on better." You think if there were different ministers, or different church order, or something different, then all would be well. No, dear friends, it is not there the mistake lies, it is that we want more of the Spirit.

https://www.blueletterbible.org/comm/spurgeon_charles/sermons/0149.cfm
 
Brandon,

You seem to miss the overall point.

First, stating that Presbyterian Churches apostasize as a rule is an equivocation of terms. Baptists believe in particular Churches. Insofar as, in the history of the decline of Presbyteries occured, local Churches continued in orthodoxy then Baptists ought to commend the fact that Presbyterian Churches have a continued presence throughout the world. In other words, even as the PCUS as an Assembly was apostosizing, orthodox local congregations came out from under that system and formed the PCA. The same thing happened with the OPC. Thus, by your standard of what constitutes a Church (since you don't recognize the authority of Presbyteries and Assemblies) there has not been the wholesale loss of Presbyterian Churches.

Secondly, during that same time, the Presbyterians have never lost their fundamental covenant theology. That was my larger point. As new Presbyteries were formed, the pattern of sound words was handed from generation to generation. It was not men rediscovering some lost doctrines that then affected practice but the preservation and extension of that wisdom from generation to generation. I realize I'm trying to describe something that is hard to understand unless one lives and moves within a centuries-old passing of wisdom but I can't imaging figuring things out from scratch. A local Baptist Church, for instance, asked for a copy of the PCA BCO because they wanted to start to get a handle on how to practice discipline effectively. When you're in a long line of "sound words" you are not merely reading those words but you have men with gray hair who learned from men with gray hair who learned from men long dead what it looks like to put theology in practice in a local context. That is wisdom that is invaluable in a way that can mostly be experienced rather than described.

Thus, my larger point is that the recovery of some organizing principle that may not have been lost in some academic or thological research is ultimately of limited value if it fails to find greater traction and passes down from generation to generation. Theology is not merely something apprehended but applied and, in the application of it, forms the pattern of how the Church lives together and goes out into the world. I don't wish ill for Baptist Churches but good and merely hope that this important principle is truly wrestled with to ask the important question: "Why did we lose this and how do we rebuild the supporting habits and practices that will continue to hold this up so that it's not merely of passing theological interest but 100 years from now our descendants will be enriched in ways we wish we had been had theis truth not been lost."
 
It was not men rediscovering some lost doctrines that then affected practice but the preservation and extension of that wisdom from generation to generation.

Has every generation fully and accurately understood every doctrine and therefore fully and accurately passed it down to the next generation? Has there ever been an instance where a study of historical theology led a presbyterian to disagree with one of his gray-haired elders?
 
Has every generation fully and accurately understood every doctrine and therefore fully and accurately passed it down to the next generation? Has there ever been an instance where a study of historical theology led a presbyterian to disagree with one of his gray-haired elders?
Brandon,

You can mock my concern but I hope that those who are responsible for the care of souls will at least ponder the point I'm trying to make. If, for instance, we were to lose justification by faith alone, and all that implies for the real piety and practice of the Church then those who rediscover it lack the benefit of those who came before them. We can see this in the recovery of that doctrine historically. There was a lot of "re-formation" that had to occur and it took the Reformed Churches generations to disentangle itself from not its wholesale loss but its severe obfuscation. If justification by faith alone had remained only of interest to historical theology and not gained a foothold in the life and work of the Church then we'd still be impoverished.
 
I hope that those who are responsible for the care of souls will at least ponder the point I'm trying to make.

You definitely make points worth considering, Rich. However, just remember that Baptists have not embraced autonomy for pragmatic reasons. Baptists believe it is the teaching of Scripture that...

"The Lord Jesus Christ is the Head of the church, in whom, by the appointment of the Father, all power for the calling, institution, order or government of the church, is invested in a supreme and sovereign manner...In the execution of this power wherewith he is so intrusted, the Lord Jesus calls out of the world unto himself...and...commands to walk together in particular societies, or churches...To each of these churches therefore gathered, according to his mind declared in his word, he has given all that power and authority, which is in any way needful for their carrying on that order in worship and discipline..."

Baptists have no choice but to trust the Lord, by the Spirit, to guide the church in the pursuit of unity and truth. It obviously looks messy from your vantage point, but Baptists have no other choice, by their understanding of Scripture, but to trust the Lord to preserve doctrine in each and individual church.

That is not to say that individual churches cannot receive assistance and edification from others, like yourself, for...

"in the exercise of their gifts and graces, so the churches, when planted by the providence of God, so as they may enjoy opportunity and advantage for it, ought to hold communion among themselves, for their peace, increase of love, and mutual edification."

Baptists definitely need to use every means possible, from every quarter, to guard against 'removing the landmark' because they have no heirarchical government.
 
Thanks Ken. I realize that independence is a Biblical conviction.

I'd have to go back and look at some of the research I did for a paper on the Cambridge Platform written by New England Puritans, who were congregationalists. It's sort of the first large-scale expression of Puritan congregationalism in the Americas (since they had the freedom there to get it off the ground in scale). I can't recall precisely how they made it function but they did have a way to "discipline" local congregations and maintain a sense of shared orthodoxy. Obviously the conditions of them controlling the State made some things unique but it's worth studying as a way to maintain some way of association that preserves a theological identity.
 
Rich, your post was specifically that baptist ecclessiology is insufficient to ensure the preservation of doctrine while presbyterianism is sufficient. That is what I am objecting to. Twice now you've avoided answering my question about the failures of presbyterianism in the same regard.

Here's a post about presbyterians rediscovering historic presbyterian beliefs about the baptism of children that was lost in America after revivalism. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/the-presbyterian-doctrine-of-children-in-the-covenant.414/ Some quotes:

It revealed the differences between todays Presbyterianism and that of the historic. I was very surprised to find the differences great. It is a sad thing to hear that the influences of the revival movement have so permeated every avenue of the Presbyterian church causing a neo Presbyterianism.

It is a very helpful book. Everyone who says they are Presbyterian should read it. They woudl be surprised...

[it refutes] those who have followed an Americanized Revivalism that deters us from the doctrines of the Reformers and Confession. If we had some sharp people who understood the distinctions, then keeping things orthodox, instead of confusing, woudl be much easier.

So, by all means, encourage the preservation of doctrine. (RBs are being very intentional about that issue and are working hard to do it). But please don't couch it in false presbyterian triumphalism.
 
Brandon,

I never claimed that Presbyterians were immune to theological error and, in my initial post, pointed out that Presbyterianism has had its problems. I'm regularly engaged in our Church courts to deal with such issues and can see how it occurs, firsthand, within my own denomination.
If you're looking for a sparring partner then I trust you'll find someone elsewhere with the interest and time to do so.
 
I think everyone can see quite clearly that your initial point was that presbyterians sufficiently preserve doctrine such that it cannot be lost from generation to generation, in contrast to inadequate baptist ecclessiology. My quotes above demonstrate there is no substantial difference between the two in this regard, contrary to your claim.
 
I think everyone can see quite clearly that your initial point was that presbyterians sufficiently preserve doctrine such that it cannot be lost from generation to generation, in contrast to inadequate baptist ecclessiology. My quotes above demonstrate there is no substantial difference between the two in this regard, contrary to your claim.

Perhaps one ought to be a bit more cautious and humble about his ability to speak for "everyone."
 
Here's a post about presbyterians rediscovering historic presbyterian beliefs about the baptism of children that was lost in America after revivalism

Other than your baseless attacks, I think your revisionism and misdirections are worse.

1) Kuyperian baptism is not the "historic" position. For this, read Bannerman or Cunningham.

2) Independency only goes as far as the local body. ARBCA seems to be a neo-Presbyterian pragmatism at best (inconsistent Independency).
 
OK. We're stopping the back and forth Presbyterian vs. Baptist sniping right now. Stick to the topic at hand, please.
 
Thanks Bill. It's really my own fault but you're correct that it is a distraction from the question at hand. I am actually intrigued by the nature of the question and appreciate the information that has been gathered by research to highlight the differences.
 
The naming of the two positions (which has come from the 1689 Federalist side) shows a partisanship and a jockeying for the "confessional" position.

They are saying, "Oh, they are the new invention...we are the ones who truly hold to the 1689 whereas the other side hold to a 20th Century invention."

However, if the Presbyterians/Reformed can show that their covenant theology predates the 17th and 18th Century baptist views (which are hardly monolithic) then this will go a long way in showing that 1689 Federalism is actually the new doctrine and not a rediscovery of old truths.
 
Just curious but what was the manner of the LBCF's writing? Was there any kind of assembly where the men got together and debated where one might be able to trace, based on debate, the specific language used? Were there letters or other kinds of "give and take" where someone maybe proposed a draft and others chopped on it?
 
Here are some links about the origins of the 1689:

http://betweenthetimes.com/index.php/2014/02/26/on-the-baptist-confession-of-1689/

https://www.ccel.org/creeds/bcf/origin.htm

On the authority of the Minute Book of the Petty France Church in the City of London, Ivimey ascribed authorship to the pastors of that church, William Collins and Nehemiah Coxe. The relevant entry for 26th August 1677 reads, ‘It was agreed that a Confession of Faith, with the Appendix thereunto, having been read and considered by the brethren, should be published’.[18] It is of course possible that there had been no general meeting of churches, but that the Petty France Church promoted the Confession and gained wider approval before taking it upon itself to publish. Whatever the mechanics of approval, both Collins and Coxe were men of considerable scholarship and Petty France was a church well adapted to take the lead in a move of this sort.

http://www.reformation-today.org/articles-of-interest/455/

As a representative document, the Westminster excels, since many hands took part in its creation. The 1689 had much fewer hands and is largely the work of only a few people such that their covenantal views became the representative view for baptist churches using this confession of faith. This may mean these views on the covenant were the majority view, but we have no proof.

Since the Savoy was also borrowed from, it might be helpful to study what the holders of the Savoy believed concerning the covenants.

To assert that 1689 Federalism was THE baptist view or THE view held by credobaptists reaches too far. We may say that it seemed to be the view of those few formulators of the 1689, but the info is more vague as to how widely it was held among baptists in general.
 
And again (from the longer article):

"The Baptist Confession shows a modification in the area of covenant theology. Like Westminster and Savoy it teaches a covenant of grace made between God and the elect sinner in Christ. However it completely removes all references to a covenant of works between God and Adam in the chapters on the Covenant and the Law. In the chapter on Creation there is a paragraph not found in the earlier confessions which refers to Adam and Eve receiving ‘a commandment not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil’, but any suggestion of a covenant of works is carefully avoided. Surprisingly in view of these omissions there is a reference to the covenant of works in that chapter on the Gospel taken from Savoy but not found in the Westminster. This could be a piece of careless editing, but in the light of the careful modifications of earlier statements this seems unlikely. Perhaps it is significant that there is no reference to Adam in the context. It would be interesting to know whether these changes represent a general adjustment in Reformed thinking in the 1670s or whether they are peculiar to the compilers of this Confession."

The author, as well, is unsure how much of the Confession's section on the covenants was due to general trends in thinking or "peculiar to the compilers of this Confession."
 
Last edited:
The naming of the two positions (which has come from the 1689 Federalist side) shows a partisanship and a jockeying for the "confessional" position.

They are saying, "Oh, they are the new invention...we are the ones who truly hold to the 1689 whereas the other side hold to a 20th Century invention."

Perg, I am not sure I agree with you. I do not know the Renihans personally, and I have only spoken with Rich Barcellos by phone, but none of these men strike me as rash or divisive. Their conclusions could be wrong, but I respect their motives. If you think about it, the modern Reformed Baptist movement (which is less than 50 years old), is the new guy on the block as far as its view on covenant theology. Now, if 1689 Federalism seemed like it was coming out of a theological left field, that would be one thing. However, it seems like it has a credible argument and is worth being vetted. What did the framers of the 1689 LBC actually believe when it came to the Covenant of Grace? Did they see a Covenant of Grace that was radically different than our Presbyterian brethren? Does their view have any impact on how Particular Baptists viewed the Covenant of Grace in relation the Abrahamic Covenant? I believe these are good and necessary questions. I am finding some things about 1689 Federalism that I agree with. There are other things I am not quite sure about. I am willing to let these things play out over time. Maybe it will just be a big fizzle at the end. I do not know. If for no other reason, I am heartened to see Reformed Baptists taking their theology seriously.
 
Yes, I am sure their motives are good. But good motives can also be partisan. Maybe you are seeing the word partisan in an overly negative way. There does seem to be a jockeying for position to see who actually represents Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. And, if you disagree, some may charge you with "an immersed Presbyterianism" like they have charged me of, or assert that you've never fully thought through the covenants and, if you did, you would become a 1689 Federalist.

Denault's book, after all, spoke of the "distinctiveness" of baptist covenant theology (i.e., "We are not like those Presbyterians" seems to be the message), and there seems to be a soft assumption that Presbyterians possess a whole covenant theology wrapped around their protection of infant baptism (sort of an insulting assumption towards the Presbyterians). Presbyterians are SO defensive about baptizing babies that, since they can find no explicit New Testament warrant for it, must craft an entire form of Covenant Theology to protect their system. Infant baptism drives their entire view of the continuity versus discontinuity of Scriptures, they assert. Do you think this is a fair way to treat the Presbyterians?

Also, now some Reformed Baptists are highlighting the view that 1689 Federalism is not like the other RB covenant theology either. They picture the covenant theology of other good baptist men to be merely borrowed from Presbyterians wholesale and not truly thought out. The RB movement was so new that they just sort of carelessly borrowed whole theological categories from the Reformed. This also seems a bit insulting to Waldron and other RB men who still hold to the Covenant Theology that I was taught.

So, yes, there is partisanship. People are making a play to show themselves to be the "true 1689 baptists" in the heritage of Kiffin and Keach and Coxe. It has been refreshing to hear some critiques of Coxe's view from Brandon Adam, for instance, but there is an assumption that there was wide agreement of past baptists on these issues and that they are merely rediscovering long-held baptist doctrine largely agreed upon and not inventing new doctrines.
 
Last edited:
Just curious but what was the manner of the LBCF's writing? Was there any kind of assembly where the men got together and debated where one might be able to trace, based on debate, the specific language used? Were there letters or other kinds of "give and take" where someone maybe proposed a draft and others chopped on it?
The London Baptist Confession of 1677 is the Westminster Confession of Faith “baptized” with anti-paedobaptist distinctives. In fact, the Savoy Declaration of 1658 is more fundamental to the confession on account of its Independent church polity, which the Baptists also favored. Forced into Nonconformity by the Restoration of Charles II (1630–1685) in 1660, along with other orthodox Calvinists and Dissenters, the Baptists also suffered under the Great Ejection of 1662 and the ban that the Five Mile Act of 1665 imposed. At the invitation of William Kiffin (1616–1701) and William Collins (†1702), the Particular Baptists sought to demonstrate harmony with other British Dissenters in a declaration of their faith. Collins, pastor of the Petty France congregation in London, along with Nehemiah Coxe (1688), elder in the congregation, are the alleged editors of the final compilation. The Particular Baptists were indeed demonstrating a measure of solidarity with their Presbyterian and Congregational brethren.
....
With the Act of Toleration (1689) following the Glorious Revolution of 1688, Baptists were encouraged to declare themselves openly. On July 22, 1689, Kiffin, Hanserd Knollys (ca. 1599–1691), Benjamin Keach (ca. 1640–ca. 1704), and several others invited the Baptist Churches of England and Wales to meet in London on September 3. Until September 12, 107 “messengers” from churches in the two nations perfected and publically endorsed the second edition of the 1677 document. The result is regarded as the most significant and mature of the Particular Baptist confessions (new editions 1699, 1719, 1720, 1791, and 1809).

Ending Statement and Signatories
We the ministers, and messengers of, and concerned for upwards of, one hundred Baptized Churches, in England and Wales (denying Arminianisim), being met together in London, from the third of the seventh month to the eleventh of the same, 1689, to consider of some things that might be for the glory of God, and the good of these congregations, have thought meet (for the satisfaction of all other Christians that differ from us in the point of Baptism) to recommend to their perusal the confession of our faith, which confession we own, as containing the doctrine of our faith and practice, and do desire that the members of our churches respectively do furnish themselves therewith.

Hansard Knollys, Pastor Broken Wharf, London William Kiffin, Pastor Devonshire-square, London John Harris, Pastor, Joiner’s Hall, London William Collins, Pastor, Petty France, London Hurcules Collins, Pastor, Wapping, London, Robert Steed, Pastor, Broken Wharf, London Leonard Harrison,Pastor, Limehouse, London George Barret, Pastor, Mile End Green, London Isaac Lamb, Pastor, Pennington-street, London Richard Adams, Minister, Shad Thames, Southwark Benjamin Keach, Pastor, Horse-lie-down, Southwark Andrew Gifford, Pastor, Bristol, Fryars, Som. & Glouc. Thomas Vaux, Pastor, Broadmead, Som. & Glouc. Thomas Winnel, Pastor, Taunton, Som. & Glouc. James Hitt, Preacher, Dalwood, Dorset Richard Tidmarsh, Minister, Oxford City, Oxon William Facey, Pastor, Reading, Berks Samuel Buttall, Minister, Plymouth, Devon Christopher Price, Minister, Abergayenny, Monmouth Daniel Finch, Minister, Kgs.worth, Herts John Ball, Minister, Tiverton, Devon Edmond White, Pastor, Evershall, Bedford William Prichard, Pastor, Blaenau, Monmouth Paul Fruin, Minister, Warwick, Warwick Richard Ring, Pastor, Southhampton, Hants John Tomkins, Minister, Abingdon, Berks Toby Willes, Pastor, Bridgewater, Somerset John Carter, Pastor, Steventon, Bedford James Webb, Pastor, Devizes, Wilts Richard Sutton, Pastor, Tring, Herts Robert Knight, Pastor, Stukeley, Bucks Edward Price, Pastor, Hereford City, Hereford William Phipps, Pastor, Exon, Devon William Hawkins, Pastor, Dimmock, Gloucester, Samuel Ewer, Pastor, Hemstead, Herts Edward Man, Pastor, Houndsditch, London Charles Archer, Pastor, Hock-Norton, Oxon
In the name of and on the behalf of the whole assembly.
Src: James T. Dennison Jr.. Reformed Confessions of the 16th and 17th Centuries in English Translation. Reformation Heritage Books. Kindle Edition.

Would be nice to see a comparison of the Collins and Coxe 1677 edition with the 1689 edition to see how much of their original content survived the meetings.
 
Yes, I am sure their motives are good. But good motives can also be partisan. Maybe you are seeing the word partisan in an overly negative way. There does seem to be a jockeying for position to see who actually represents Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology. And, if you disagree, some may charge you with "an immersed Presbyterianism" like they have charged me of, or assert that you've never fully thought through the covenants and, if you did, you would become a 1689 Federalist.

Denault's book, after all, spoke of the "distinctiveness" of baptist covenant theology (i.e., "We are not like those Presbyterians" seems to be the message), and there seems to be a soft assumption that Presbyterians possess a whole covenant theology wrapped around their protection of infant baptism (sort of an insulting assumption towards the Presbyterians). Presbyterians are SO defensive about baptizing babies that, since they can find no explicit New Testament warrant for it, must craft an entire form of Covenant Theology to protect their system. Infant baptism drives their entire view of the continuity versus discontinuity of Scriptures, they assert. Do you think this is a fair way to treat the Presbyterians?

Also, now some Reformed Baptists are highlighting the view that 1689 Federalism is not like the other RB covenant theology either. They picture the covenant theology of other good baptist men to be merely borrowed from Presbyterians wholesale and not truly thought out. The RB movement was so new that they just sort of carelessly borrowed whole theological categories from the Reformed. This also seems a bit insulting to Waldron and other RB men who still hold to the Covenant Theology that I was taught.

I am sure their motives are completely partisan. What else would they be? After all, they are arguing for their position. I do not have a problem with Presbyterians arguing for their position. The only thing I like to see is a solid, biblical argument for the position a person(s) holds to. It is then up to the hearer or reader to make their mind up.

The Jersey boy in me is not too troubled by accusations others may make about me. I am going to embrace the truth regardless of where it comes from or whatever others may say. I hope that does not come across as glib, but I have seldom been intimidated by naysayers.

I think your criticism of Denault is misplaced. He wrote a book on one view of Baptist Covenant Theology; the minority view. The purpose of the book was to posit an argument that Baptists have a historical position on Covenant Theology that is different than Presbyterian Covenant Theology. I am reading the book for the second time, and while it certainly advances Denaut's point of view, even aggressively in some areas, it is a scholarly work. The purpose of the book is not to critique different Baptist positions. Just look at the title of his book: "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism". I happen to believe Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Rich Barcellos et al. are advancing their argument, and we have the challenge of proving it right or wrong. I see this as a good thing.

As far as your last paragraph, we fellow Reformed Baptists need to treat each other with a certain level of respect and civility. Sam Waldon has been a leading voice among Reformed Baptists for decades. If there are some on the 1689 side that are dismissing men like Waldron, they are wrong. That is why I have a healthy dose of skepticism about 1689 Federalism. For me, it is too new to just jump on board. Sam Waldron is a 1689 LBC scholar and his conclusions should not be cast aside lightly.
 
Yes, Bill, I think we are agreed. I am reading up also on all sides. I have tried to give all sides a fair hearing.

But I am leaning against 1689 Federalism at present, due to (1) the fact that OT believers actively participate in the blessings of the Covenant of Grace even while being in the OT. Thus they were not merely participating in a promise but the actual presence of the Covenant of Grace. (2) We ought not to separate Israel and the Church. Mere physical promises only were not given to the people. (3) The Bible is (ALL of it) a unified book primarily about spiritual things, not a book of discontinuity largely about mere physical promises in the OT and spiritual promises in the NT.
 
The author, as well, is unsure how much of the Confession's section on the covenants was due to general trends in thinking or "peculiar to the compilers of this Confession."
Thus they were not merely participating in a promise but the actual presence of the Covenant of Grace.

If the framers of the LBC believed that the NC is the CoG, why did they write, "This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament?"

If they believed that the NC is the same as the CoG, and they believed it was an important point of doctrine, why didn't they write something like, "This covenant is promised in the gospel...until the full inauguration/consummation thereof was completed in the New Covenant"?
 
If the framers of the LBC believed that the NC is the CoG, why did they write, "This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament?"

If they believed that the NC is the same as the CoG, and they believed it was an important point of doctrine, why didn't they write something like, "This covenant is promised in the gospel...until the full inauguration/consummation thereof was completed in the New Covenant"?
Couple things.

Considering how this language is different form the WCF, this indicates a significant shift. So it was an important point of doctrine. Secondly, Coxe (the probable writer of section 7 of the LBC) used special terms in the LBC to indicate these truths. Third, your statements are actually parallel. If the covenant of promise is revealed, then it is promised. Same with "full discovery". The idea of the CoG in 1689 federalism is that it was revealed in Gen. 3:15ff but concluded at the NC.
 
Yes, Bill, I think we are agreed. I am reading up also on all sides. I have tried to give all sides a fair hearing.

But I am leaning against 1689 Federalism at present, due to (1) the fact that OT believers actively participate in the blessings of the Covenant of Grace even while being in the OT. Thus they were not merely participating in a promise but the actual presence of the Covenant of Grace. (2) We ought not to separate Israel and the Church. Mere physical promises only were not given to the people. (3) The Bible is (ALL of it) a unified book primarily about spiritual things, not a book of discontinuity largely about mere physical promises in the OT and spiritual promises in the NT.
I don't really think you have accurately expressed 1689 federalism, especially points 2 & 3. I would encourage you to keep giving it a fair hearing since you seem to have mischaracterized it. Now I'm not denying that the people you've been talking to on FaceBook may have construed it this way, but have you read anyone that has put for the time and study? I keep asking this, and you keep avoiding it.
 
The idea of the CoG in 1689 federalism is that it was revealed in Gen. 3:15ff but concluded at the NC.

That is my understanding of the 1689 Federalist position. Opponents of the position are saying that 1689 Federalists do not believe the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. What I have read and watched so far by 1689 Federalists refutes that assertion, just as it does the accusation of their being dispensationalists.
 
What I have read Bill seems to go back and forth between what Pergy is saying and what you have noted. In the article refuting dispensationalism in the last paragraph it seemed to say there was some attachment of a Covenant of Grace. It was kind of confusing. The other things I have read in the threads and blogs seem to indicate what Pergy is saying.
 
Denault's book, after all, spoke of the "distinctiveness" of baptist covenant theology (i.e., "We are not like those Presbyterians" seems to be the message), and there seems to be a soft assumption that Presbyterians possess a whole covenant theology wrapped around their protection of infant baptism (sort of an insulting assumption towards the Presbyterians). Presbyterians are SO defensive about baptizing babies that, since they can find no explicit New Testament warrant for it, must craft an entire form of Covenant Theology to protect their system. Infant baptism drives their entire view of the continuity versus discontinuity of Scriptures, they assert. Do you think this is a fair way to treat the Presbyterians?

I have a problem with some of the things I have seen via video and readings. I didn't become reformed based upon my desire to baptize babies. I was perfectly content being a Reformed Baptist. My conclusion was based purely on the substance of the Covenant of Grace as it administered all of the Covenants after the Covenant of Works was violated.

I have not read much of John Bunyan. I wonder if he has written on the topic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top