What are main Differences between the 1689 and Modern RB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I ask again: what is the vital importance of holding to this position?

Did you read what I wrote above about ordinances. Do you not think that is relevant to the question of baptism?

If your primary issue is with Owen remaining a paedobaptist, see
http://www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-baptism-and-the-baptists-crawford-gribben/
and
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/

Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism says the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. If you don't see how that makes a difference, I'm not really sure what else to say.

So what is so "distinctive" about 1689 Federalism?

That only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.

The Bible is about spiritual things, but 1689 Federalism seems to make it partly about earthly things by reducing the Mosaic Administration to a subservient covenant not really about Christ.

You're reading what you want into 1689 Federalism because that is not at all an accurate representation of it.

I discovered the strange doctrine that there was not A Abrahamic Covenant (singular), but Abrahamic Covenants (plural),

We've already discussed this in-depth in other threads. I don't agree with it. There was only one Abrahamic Covenant. But note that Charles Hodge said there were two different Abrahamic Covenants made with two different Abrahamic seed, and R. Scott Clark affirmed Hodge's view. See the other thread for that discussion.

The sacrificial system pointed to Christ and Moses prophesied of a Prophet like unto Him, yet I am told that the Mosaic administration was only a "covenant of works" (though not THE Covenant of Works).

Yes, it was a covenant of works THAT REVEALED THE GOSPEL. Please stop misrepresenting the position.

that does not really seem to advance the plan of salvation according to 1689 Federalists

Can you please provide a single quote from any published source that says that?

Yet, the Reformed confessions all use the 10 commandments in their catechisms as a basis of morality.

I was saying nothing different than Richard Barcellos (the author of "IN DEFENSE OF THE DECALOGUE"). I got it from him and he got it from Owen. The moral law, summarized in the 10 commandments, predates and transcends the Mosaic Covenant. The moral law was given to Israel as a covenant of works for life in the land. The Mosaic law is abolished. Christians are not under the moral law as a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan. They are still obligated to obey the moral law summarized in the 10 commandments.

Also, several 1689 Federalists have said that there are absolutely "no conditions" to enter the Covenant of Grace and make no mention of the condition of faith.

Correct. We are brought into the covenant in the effectual call. Faith is a condition of justification, but it is not an antecedent condition of entering the New Covenant. Faith is a blessing for those in the New Covenant.
 
Last edited:
Brandon,

As someone who has been investigating 1689 Federalism for awhile, and blessed by the content put out by folks like yourself, I have to say I have been utterly turned off by your tone. In my opinion, it reflects poorly on you and undermines what you are trying to defend. There is a reason we are called to correct one another in a spirit of gentleness.
 
Brandon,

Can you further explain this quote:

"Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism says the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. If you don't see how that makes a difference, I'm not really sure what else to say."

I do not understand it. And I simply cannot imagine that the Abrahamic Covenant was not part of the Covenant of Grace. It seemed very gracious, after all, and gave the promises of the coming Messiah and that the whole world would be blessed through him.
 
Thank you Jim. I have been on edge for reasons completely outside of this forum. It would have been wise for me to avoid posting for the time being, but I have not heeded my own counsel. Thank you for calling me out. I guess I will leave these things for the time being. Hopefully you can look beyond my sin and my tone to what is being said.
 
Last edited:
It seemed very gracious, after all, and gave the promises of the coming Messiah and that the whole world would be blessed through him.

Neither of which make it the Covenant of Grace, of which Christ is the mediator, that grants faith, justification, and eternal life. It promised that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah who could come and establish the New Covenant, which would bless all nations with faith, justification, and eternal life.
 
But all who are saved are saved by the same Mediator Christ. Thus the Covenant of Grace is active and effective in the lives of all OT believers. Your explanation makes it sound as if there is no Mediator for those to whom the Abrahamic Covenant was given.

If it is not either part of the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace, what is the 3rd category? Some covenantal limbo?
 
This paragraph is nearly verbatim from Owen. His name was not mentioned in the post to avoid distraction from the point of the post.
Moderator note:

Let's recap.

I entered this thread with a mod request that you provide your view of what Owen is teaching in support of your position. The request was made because you called upon another member to go read Owen and summarize what has been read. After being presented with a response, you became indignant because the member has not read Owen as you have read Owen. In response to my request, you direct me to see the link you have provided.

I read the link and asked for a clear citation from Owen in that link. There are none by your own admission. Instead there is an admission of your lifting something from Owen "nearly verbatim", all the while unattributed to Owen, and yet you expect the reader to catch this in the process. Er, no.

My focus here in this thread has been the promised/established concept - not Owen. I merely mentioned Owen as the most detailed elaboration of the concept for those looking to understand it.
Brandon, I am not seeking to debate the topic of this thread and the many others related thereto. I am, however, seeking to call it to your attention that your attitude is in need of rehabilitation.

You appealed to Owen. You stridently took issue with others who apparently do not understand Owen as you claim to do herein and elsewhere. Hence the focus of my entrance into the thread relates to strictly to this matter alone. Mud slung is ground lost in any discussion, brother. Check the attitude at the door when you enter these discussions.

Carry on.
 
Let's try not to get the thread shut down.

I have genuine questions and I have been open to 1689 Federalism. I just haven't been satisfied with most of the answers.

The main one continues to be where to fit in OT believers. If the schema of history is Cov of Works then Cov of Grace, and if the OT covenants (which are called covenants of promise in Ephesians) are not part of the Covenant of Grace it appears there is a gap or a limbo. But all of mankind fits under of these two two umbrellas.
 
Rich, for a helpful thread demonstrating how someone can learn about the position and ask questions, see here https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/baptists-only-what-does-jeremiah-31-31-34-mean.93407/ Jon does a good job of asking for understanding. That's not what you're doing. You're opining as to why our view is wrong, odd, and ignorant. Of course you are free to do so - I merely ask that you take the time to study the position first. I have asked you to read one short book you can get for $2.99 (not "all Baptist theology") so you have a good overview of the position rather than a piece here and there. That said, I could certainly be less defensive about it all. Thank you for reminding me.

Regarding Old Covenant ordinances revealing certain truths about the gospel - the question is whether they do that primarily or secondarily. It's a basic issue of typology. Did the slain lamb provide a picture of Christ? Yes. Was that its immediate purpose? No. At the Passover, the slain lamb literally saved the lives of those in the home, regardless of whether they had saving faith in Christ (the generation died in the wilderness). Secondarily it revealed something about the future Messiah for those who had eyes to see. Likewise, the blood of bulls and goats actually purified the flesh of the Israelites. If they were ceremonially unclean, they were purified by the blood of these animals (Heb 9:10, 13). The Levitical services and ordinances were in themselves carnal, and had carnal ends assigned unto them, and had only an obscure representation of things spiritual and eternal. Every defiled person was made common, excluded from the privilege of a right to draw nigh unto God in his solemn worship: but in his purification he was again separated to him, and restored unto his sacred right, without internal purity or holiness. Again, for those with eyes to see, this also taught something about the future Messiah and purification from moral, inward uncleanness for our entrance to heaven (Heb 8:5; 9:23).

This difference in understanding Old Covenant ordinances (compared to yours) is the difference between Westminster Federalism (for lack of a better term) and the subservient covenant view. The OPC Report on Republication notes
Thanks. I'll interact more but I understand your position. To point out that something is odd to me is not an insult. Furthermore, to ask whether someone really understood Owen is not an insult either. If your theology has really appropriated Owen's musings about the fact that the OC is not an administration of the CoG (absolutely) then it is Owen who misses the import of his own theology. In other words, the Baptists know better than he does regarding what this actually implies.

That said, I understand the point you're trying to make now. I don't really see it as something fundamentally different than what I already understood about Baptist Covenant theology. I may not have been an expert on it and could still stand to do more reading but the aspect of the immutable CoG is preserved and the main nuance difference is that the ordinances of the OC are in no way ordinances of the CoG (even if they could communicate salvation to the believer under the CoG).
 
Brandon and all,

Forgive me if I still do not get it. I have read Brandon's website quite a bit. I have read Owen. I have read most of the books on the reading list. Maybe 1,000 pages of pro-1689 stuff.

It seems both positions: (1) believe that OT believers are saved by the Cov of Grace even while in the OT, (2) That they are saved by the same Mediator Jesus Christ even prior to His coming, (3) That the Cov of Grace was promised and revealed and was effective even in the OT.

But, the difference appears the further nuanced assertion that even though the Cov of Grace was effective and promised in the OT, it was not "established" until the death of Christ.

I ask again: what is the vital importance of holding to this position?

Does it make a better defense against paedobaptism? And if so, how? Owen keeps coming up, but Owen remained a Paedobaptist despite (it is claimed) having a "1689 Federalist" view of the Cov of Grace, right?

I have been told I am an "immersed Presbyterian" because I do not hold to any form of 1689 Federalism yet, and that my Covenant theology ought to lead me to paedobaptism, but one of the chief writers used to defend 1689 Federalism (Owen) was himself a paedobaptist who defended his view of baptism by appealing to the nature of the covenant.

So what is so "distinctive" about 1689 Federalism?


Bill (Herald)....maybe you are reading this? I know you are studying this, too. Maybe you've got some light.


Brandon,

What I see about 1689 Federalism so far is that it seems to over-stress discontinuity, whereas I see great continuity throughout the Scripture. The Bible is about spiritual things, but 1689 Federalism seems to make it partly about earthly things by reducing the Mosaic Administration to a subservient covenant not really about Christ. From one 1689 Federalist site, I discovered the strange doctrine that there was not A Abrahamic Covenant (singular), but Abrahamic Covenants (plural), "1689 Federalism is unique in that it sees two covenants between God and Abraham. One covenant is with the physical descendants of Abraham’s seed; the other covenant is with the spiritual descendants of faith. 1689 Federalists see two separate inheritances for two separate posterities (Galatians 4:21-31; Romans 2:28-29; 9:6-8; 11; John 8:39; Matthew 3:9; Galatians 3:29; 1 Thessalonians 2:15-16)." Forgive me if I am not excited about this "uniqueness."

The sacrificial system pointed to Christ and Moses prophesied of a Prophet like unto Him, yet I am told that the Mosaic administration was only a "covenant of works" (though not THE Covenant of Works). Therefore, we see the slow gradual progress towards Christ as the whole OT points to Christ, yet here we see a side-show, a subserviant covenant that does not really seem to advance the plan of salvation according to 1689 Federalists. 1689 Federalism seems to upset the flow of Scriptures.

Also, you write that the Mosaic law is abolished. "No one today, believer or unbeliever, is under the Mosaic law. The Mosaic law can be divided into moral, ceremonial, and judicial. That three fold distinction is really a two-fold distinction: moral (unchanging) and positive (changing). However, moral, ceremonial, and judicial were all given to Israel on Mt. Sinai as a covenant of works for life in Canaan. And when the Old Covenant was abolished, the entire Mosaic law was abolished as it was given to Israel. In this sense, no one is under Mosaic law today."

Yet, the Reformed confessions all use the 10 commandments in their catechisms as a basis of morality.

Also, several 1689 Federalists have said that there are absolutely "no conditions" to enter the Covenant of Grace and make no mention of the condition of faith.

These are all stumbling points for me as I explore 1689 Federalism.
Perg,

I actually think it's pretty simple what's being said at the end of the day. This quote sort of puts it together:

[169] Cameron put it this way: “The Sacraments, Sacrifices, and Ceremonies of the Old Testament did set forth Christ, and the Benefits by Christ; not primarily, but secondarily…but the Sacraments of the New Covenant do shew forth Christ primarily, and that clearly” (as translated by Samuel Bolton in his True Boundes, 399). Thus circumcision primarily signified the separation between the seed of Abraham and the rest of the nations and sealed to them the earthly promise. The Passover primarily signified the passing over of the destroying Angel. The sacrifices and washings primarily represented only a carnal holiness. Only secondarily did these benefits signify Christ.

If you read Owen's commentary on Hebrews where he talks about the CoG with respect to the OC and NC he talks about the fact that the CoG is eternal and immutable. He then points out that, historically speaking, it's not inaugurated until the death of Christ. Consequently, although the CoG is in effect, the OC is (strictly speaking) not an administration of it because it contains ordinances that don't strictly correspond to the nature of the CoG. I actually don't have a problem with everything Owen writes given his qualifications.

Where the Baptists go with this is that they look at circumcision (among other things but focus here) and say: "See, here's an example of something that, strictly speaking, does not belong to the CoG because it's not perfect. It's administered to the reprobate." That's not to say, according to Owen, that these ordinances have promissary value and effects that bring Christ forth. The point is that, because of the nature of the OC it's a mixed covenant and not, properly speaking, an administration of the CoG.

Thus, the NC being the CoG fully realized and inaugurated in history with a perfect Mediator, all its ordinances properly correspond to the nature of the CoG and, therefore, it is the only historical covenant that (properly speaking) has ordinances of the CoG because every single worship and ordinance element holds forth the reality of what the CoG signifies. Put another way, OT Saints worshiped with and in copies but we enter the very throne room of grace through Christ's flesh.

I can see why some Baptists now are asking what's the practical import. It may be that the point is that really understanding Owen (and others) distinction that the ordinances of the OT either do or don't properly belong to the CoG in its perfection will help people to be guarded against some pure circumcision=baptism motif. I think there are certainly Presbyterians who think that way but there's always been a type/shadow nuance among PB. As you note, also: "Owen doesn't go there." As with all Baptist arguments here, there still needs to be the logical: OK there were mixed articles in the OC but as the NC is administered how does that imply that infants won't be baptized?

I won't argue the point, I'm just trying to explain what became more clear as I interacted (which is why I do it).
 
Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace.
I think this is a simplification of a more profound point. The Puritans did not believe that any dispensation of the one CoG was, purely speaking, the full administration thereof. This is why I keep referring to the misappropriation of the theology either because it is not understood or to make a polemical point.

The issue for Westministerian theology is sort of the "Two Adam" issue. You can see it operative in Paul in Romans, Ephesians, and Colossians. Circumcision of the heart belongs to the Lord. Fundamentally, whatever else various signs and symbols might have served they served no more important purpose than to signify the one Mediator. It can always be admitted that there were imperfect shadows in the ways God dealt with man but if, fundamentally, God pointed men in any direction other than the God-Man as the solution to the problem of Adam's sin then it defies the only way of salvation. In other words, whatever other purpose these things might have served ceremonially or pedagogically they are swallowed up by the fact that the elect ought to have looked to this Mediator in faith. This is why Paul condemns the Judaizers and Christ the Pharisees in His own day for sort of looking at the shadows and letting them swallow up Christ instead of the other way around.
 
The moral law was given to Israel as a covenant of works for life in the land. The Mosaic law is abolished. Christians are not under the moral law as a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan.


This is a misunderstanding of categories.

The moral law was given to Adam as a covenant of work. It was given to him as a covenant of works, because he was able to fulfill the conditions thereof: perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. Adam received the blessing of life pre lapsum by merit ex pacto. After the fall (post lapsum), God made a new covenant with man. However, the moral law was still there, not as a covenant of works, since what was once broken, cannot be renewed. Man can no longer merit blessings through the broken covenant of works. Only one Man (Christ) can now merit blessings for us.

The mosaic covenant had three categories for law: ceremonial, judicial (civil), and moral. The Ten Commandments are a sum of the moral law, which is perpetually binding on all men for all time. The ceremonial and judicial laws (nt counting those judicial laws which have essence of the moral law) are positive laws, subject to change. The moral law, by nature, is natural to man as created in the image of God and as was put "upon his heart".

Thus being stated, the condition of the moral law, which can no longer be fulfilled except by Christ alone, was perfect, personal, and perpetual obedience. The only way the moral law has any connection to the covenant of works is by way of reminding us of the broken covenant of works.

The mosaic administration in toto is not based upon the "moral law". The land promises were a blessing to them that were obedient to God, but the condition of the mosaic covenant was faith (not in and from man himself, but given to man as a gift from God), not works. This is repeatedly portrayed in the OT ("circumcise your hearts"; "For thou desirest not sacrifice; else would I give it: thou delightest not in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit").
 
Last edited:
This view allows us to be able to hold to the Church being instituted for real at Pentecost, and to having the Promises of God become all real to us now saved under the New Covenant. Is the Cog same exact thing as the NC? And how new was the new One seems to be the questions here.
 
Did you read what I wrote above about ordinances. Do you not think that is relevant to the question of baptism?

If your primary issue is with Owen remaining a paedobaptist, see
http://www.1689federalism.com/john-owen-baptism-and-the-baptists-crawford-gribben/
and
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/01/27/a-summary-of-why-baptists-appeal-to-owen/

Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism says the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. If you don't see how that makes a difference, I'm not really sure what else to say.



That only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace.



You're reading what you want into 1689 Federalism because that is not at all an accurate representation of it.



We've already discussed this in-depth in other threads. I don't agree with it. There was only one Abrahamic Covenant. But note that Charles Hodge said there were two different Abrahamic Covenants made with two different Abrahamic seed, and R. Scott Clark affirmed Hodge's view. See the other thread for that discussion.



Yes, it was a covenant of works THAT REVEALED THE GOSPEL. Please stop misrepresenting the position.



Can you please provide a single quote from any published source that says that?



I was saying nothing different than Richard Barcellos (the author of "IN DEFENSE OF THE DECALOGUE"). I got it from him and he got it from Owen. The moral law, summarized in the 10 commandments, predates and transcends the Mosaic Covenant. The moral law was given to Israel as a covenant of works for life in the land. The Mosaic law is abolished. Christians are not under the moral law as a covenant of works for life in the land of Canaan. They are still obligated to obey the moral law summarized in the 10 commandments.



Correct. We are brought into the covenant in the effectual call. Faith is a condition of justification, but it is not an antecedent condition of entering the New Covenant. Faith is a blessing for those in the New Covenant.
All of the other Covenants/administrations of the CoG were pointing towards the coming of the NC, when it got set up in full, due to the death and resurrection of Yeshua, and the day of Pentecost, when the CoG was now here in full as the NC was now set up.
 
Let's try not to get the thread shut down.

I have genuine questions and I have been open to 1689 Federalism. I just haven't been satisfied with most of the answers.

The main one continues to be where to fit in OT believers. If the schema of history is Cov of Works then Cov of Grace, and if the OT covenants (which are called covenants of promise in Ephesians) are not part of the Covenant of Grace it appears there is a gap or a limbo. But all of mankind fits under of these two two umbrellas.
The saved of all time are included in the CoG, as the Cross of Christ is what God ysed to save any and all sinners, but the actual fullness of that CoG did not occur in actual real history until the coming of messiah and the setting up of the NC at that time. The NC is the CoG.
 
The NC is the CoG.
I would note that the New Covenant is the Fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace as the prior administrations of the Covenant of Grace were full of progressive revelation.

I believe it is first revealed in Genesis 3:15 and God continually establishes it with others as I have noted before.

Again, I ask, are there more than one Everlasting Covenant? I mentioned the Everlasting Covenant in another thread. I asked if there were more than one. I asked that because of the various views concerning the New Covenant and it's relationship to the Covenant of Grace. It seems to me that the Covenant is Established with Abraham, then his seed in their generations, his descendent Isaac and his seed in their generations. It has been noted that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are synonymous if I am not mistaken. So as this discussion has carried on maybe we need to figure out what it means that God Established this Covenant with Abraham and the following generations.

(Gen 17:7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Heb 13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Evidently there was a belief that there were more than one Covenants of Grace during the time period our respective Confessions were written. The Westminster notes that it was a belief by responding to the doctrine in the negative.

"There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." WCF 7
 
I would note that the New Covenant is the Fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace as the prior administrations of the Covenant of Grace were full of progressive revelation.

I believe it is first revealed in Genesis 3:15 and God continually establishes it with others as I have noted before.

Again, I ask, are there more than one Everlasting Covenant? I mentioned the Everlasting Covenant in another thread. I asked if there were more than one. I asked that because of the various views concerning the New Covenant and it's relationship to the Covenant of Grace. It seems to me that the Covenant is Established with Abraham, then his seed in their generations, his descendent Isaac and his seed in their generations. It has been noted that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are synonymous if I am not mistaken. So as this discussion has carried on maybe we need to figure out what it means that God Established this Covenant with Abraham and the following generations.

(Gen 17:7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Heb 13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Evidently there was a belief that there were more than one Covenants of Grace during the time period our respective Confessions were written. The Westminster notes that it was a belief by responding to the doctrine in the negative.

"There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations." WCF 7
The Abrahamic One is an aspect of the CoG, under it, but the actual CoG is the NC itself.
 
The Abrahamic One is an aspect of the CoG, under it, but the actual CoG is the NC itself.
But when is the Covenant of Grace Established? I am kind of reading things into your response. Your language is not precise enough for me to understand you. I have read one Reformed Baptist affirming that the Everlasting Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. But I am not totally sure what you are saying. I am reading that you imply that the Everlasting Covenant established by God, the Covenant that God calls his Covenant, is not the actual Covenant of Grace. The one established with Abraham and with the said recipients must be something else. It is something subjective as some who report the Mosaic Covenant is subject to the Covenant of Grace.

What is it you see as a difference between what God established in Genesis and the New Testament? I understand the fulfillment issue as I think you do, but you are separating things in a way I am not understanding. As far as Ceremonial, Judicial, Moral Law goes, I believe they are all found in the Abrahamic Covenant. They are more precise and made in a more precise context in the Mosaic Covenant but I believe they are there. The Judicial and Ceremonial are pedagogical prior to the New Covenant and are progressive revelation in the Old Testament revealing God's Christ and redemption of Mankind. I do see these same laws in the New Covenant Church also as she has them found in fullfilment and in a New Testament Context. I may be incorrect here but all the Covenants seem to be administrations of the One Covenant of Grace that God calls His Covenant, the Everlasting Covenant, and the one He established back in Genesis with His people.
 
I am still working my way through this Covenant Theology, but to my current understanding of it, what God promised in genesis was that the messiah would come and redeem lost sinners, and that the various relationships with God until Messiah actually came fit under the umbrella of the CoG, but none of them were actually the CoG , not until established by God in the NC.
 
Last edited:
but none of them were actually the CoG , not until established by God in the NC.
So what was established with Abraham? An Everlasting Covenant was established with him. That is why I asked about the two Covenants of Grace.

I am asking you these questions because I think I have come from where you are. Even as a participant of the Puritanboard for the past 13 years. I held to a theology more like Johannes Cocceius. He sees so much disunity and emphasis in a dichotomy Grace and Works. Those two doctrines are separated far too much in his theology when we start to read Ursinus the commentator of the Reformed Church Confessions, the Westminster Standards, and most importantly the scriptures. Grace gave us the Law and makes it adorable to us as His will. Grace and Law are both cheapened by this disunity in my estimation. So is the understanding of Covenant Theology.
Among the Dutch Reformed, Cloppenburg and Cocceius made the covenant the fundamental premise and controlling principle of dogmatics as a whole. Cocceius had an eccentric view of the covenant, notably the notion of successive covenantal abrogations, which in fact undermined the key element of grace, making it uncertain. After Cocceius, a more general disparagement of the Old Testament took place among modern thinkers such as Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Schleiermacher. Judaism was then seen as no better than paganism as preparation for Christianity.

...The covenant of grace, fulfilled in the New Testament, was and is surrounded and sustained by God’s covenant with nature, with all creatures. Unlike what Cocceius taught, the covenant of grace is not the successive abolition of the covenant of works but its fulfillment and restoration. “Grace repairs and perfects nature.” God’s demand of obedience remains as the only way to eternal life. The difference between the covenant of works and grace is that God now approaches us not in Adam but in Christ, who fulfilled all the obedience required of Adam. Christ is the second and last Adam who restores what the first Adam had corrupted; he is the head of a new humanity.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2013/11/08/herman-bavinck-the-covenant-of-grace-read-bavinck/
 
Last edited:
I wrote this blog almost 5 years ago. I don't think I have ever been attacked by Reformed Baptists. They have never denounced my claims. Brandon did say that he disagreed with me about my comments concerning a diagram he had recently. But it just now has been revealed to me that I may be wrong about Reformed Baptists. I was a Confessional Reformed Baptist for 30 years. I have received more friction from recent supposed Reformed guys, Authors, supposed adheres to the Bible and Westminster Confession of Faith, than I have others.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/


My conversation with Brandon was private. I will not go into that for that reason. It was about the visa card looking diagram as posted in another thread. The following is what I have had problems with and confirmation with.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...new-not-according-to-modern-reformed-thought/
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...cott-clarks-7-point-summary-of-republication/
 
Last edited:
So what was established with Abraham? An Everlasting Covenant was established with him. That is why I asked about the two Covenants of Grace.

I am asking you these questions because I think I have come from where you are. Even as a participant of the Puritanboard for the past 13 years. I held to a theology more like Johannes Cocceius. He sees so much disunity and emphasis in a dichotomy Grace and Works. Those two doctrines are separated far too much in his theology when we start to read Ursinus the commentator of the Reformed Church Confessions, the Westminster Standards, and most importantly the scriptures. Grace gave us the Law and makes it adorable to us as His will. Grace and Law are both cheapened by this disunity in my estimation. So is the understanding of Covenant Theology.
I currently see there being just One Covenant of grace, but that were different administrations of that One Covenant throughout History, and the the actual CoG itself would be the NC itself.
 
On a side note the New Covenant still has promises to be fulfilled. Sure Messiah has performed His work in fulfilling the Covenant of Works and and completely paying the price to justify His people. One of the things that is found and promised in the Old and New is the resurrection. That is why I still hold to the position that the Substance is the same in both Covenants. When was Abraham justified and righteousness imputed to him. It is recorded in the book of Romans that it happened when he was alive. So something was established with him and active.

Just to prove my point that we are still looking for fulfillment as the Covenant of Grace Administers the New Covenant allow me to post some passages concerning the hope we have yet to see fulfilled.

(Job 19:25) For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth:
(Job 19:26) And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:
(Job 19:27) Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.

(Heb 11:15) And truly, if they had been mindful of that country from whence they came out, they might have had opportunity to have returned.
(Heb 11:16) But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

I use to hold to a position that both the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants administered the knowledge of cursing and blessing of both the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. I appreciated John Tombes and Nehemiah Coxe for helping me understand some of the Baptist distinctives. But when I started looking at the substance of these Covenants they started to all look the same concerning man and his relationship with God. There seems to always be a Promise and Fulfillment issue as the Covenant of Grace administers them. My point is that the New Covenant has promises and fulfillment that is still to be worked out. That is why it still is only an administration of the Everlasting Covenant in my understanding.

Here are two things I wrote to explain my move from being a Reformed Baptist to a Reformed theologian. Not sure you would be interested but they might help you understand what I am saying.

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...nced-republication-and-mosaic-covenant-study/
 
Last edited:
different administrations of that One Covenant throughout History, and the the actual CoG itself would be the NC itself.
This sentence in internally inconsistent. If there were different administrations of that one covenant (the CoG) throughout history, then the CoG was in existence during those administrations of it. Therefore, the NC cannot (solely) be the CoG (unless you are prepared to say that the NC also existed since Gen 3:15 and all of those administrations of that one covenant were actually administrations of the NC).
 
This sentence in internally inconsistent. If there were different administrations of that one covenant (the CoG) throughout history, then the CoG was in existence during those administrations of it. Therefore, the NC cannot (solely) be the CoG (unless you are prepared to say that the NC also existed since Gen 3:15 and all of those administrations of that one covenant were actually administrations of the NC).
The NC was established and made active with the death and resurrection of Jesus, and the coming of the Holy Spirit at Day of Pentecost.
 
Maybe a good thing to do at this point would be to define what the word NEW means. A Renewed Covenant is one definition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top