brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
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: