The Mosaic Covenant was established with physical Israel not with spiritual Israel?

[Scott Bushey]

"Scott's criticism of baby dedication is expected since he is a Presbyterian. I am criticizing it as a Baptist."

I have amply critiqued it along the lines of scripture alone. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism.

 

[Herald]

Because they are not the same group of people. One group is made up of Abraham's physical descendants. Faith was not a requirement to be part of this group. The other is made up of Abraham's spiritual descendants. Faith is a requirement to be part of this group. Furthermore, the typology would be self-contradictory if you said that the same group was a type of itself. Israel according to the flesh was a type of Israel according to the Spirit. Please let me know how I can state it more clearly if you aren't getting the distinction.

Brandon, thank you for replying.

I am trying very hard to understand what you wrote. Extend me a little slack.

Saints during the Old Covenant can be said to serve a typological purpose of contrasting those who are external members of the covenant community, and those who are spiritual members (c.f. Rom. 9:6). Those who are spiritual members are part of the invisible church that spans both covenants. As such they are one people of God, distinguished only by the times in which they lived, and the external administration of the respective covenants.

I'm not deliberately trying to be obtuse here. Please point out where we may be in disagreement or where my understanding is lacking.

 

[Herald]

"Scott's criticism of baby dedication is expected since he is a Presbyterian. I am criticizing it as a Baptist."

I have amply critiqued it along the lines of scripture alone. Ultimately, it has nothing to do with Presbyterianism.

Brother, no insult intended. I was just trying to make the point to David that I was critical of baby dedication form an active Baptist position. I should have added that caveat in my response to David.

 

[BG]

Just to provide clarity, since this thread began with a discussion of 1689 Federalism - What Ben has just articulated would fit in the 20th Century RB view. 1689 Federalism does not agree with what Ben said. 1689 Federalism affirms that Israel according to the flesh is a different group than the church (Israel according to the Spirit). So there are/were two different peoples of God. One was a temporal and temporary people who served a typological purpose that has now ceased (thus it is very different than Dispensationalism). Though there were two different groups, the elect in the OT were part of both groups.

Wow

 

[Scott Bushey]

Bill,
I wasn't offended by your remark. I just wanted to clarify that my position will always be scripture and not a system. As well, Presbyterianism, technically speaking is polity and not paedobaptism.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

paedobabtism

I have not heard of this type of Presbyterian polity before. Is this a new theology in Presbyterianism?

 

[brandonadams]

Saints during the Old Covenant can be said to serve a typological purpose of contrasting those who are external members of the covenant community, and those who are spiritual members (c.f. Rom. 9:6).

I'm sorry, but this statement does not make sense. You are conflating two different readings of Romans 9:6. The paedobaptist reading does not view it as typological. Rather, Romans 9:6 simply describes covenant membership in the Covenant of Grace: inward and outward (or however you want to describe it). There is nothing typological about it. 1689 Federalism, on the other hand, recognizes that in that passage, Paul is making a typological argument. Give this a read and see if it helps https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/they-are-not-all-israel-who-are-of-israel/

 

[Scott Bushey]

Thanks, Stephen LOL

 

[Ben Zartman]

Ben,

If we isolate our discussion to the Mosaic Law, then yes, the commandments of the Mosaic Law can be broken. Abiding sin reminds me they are broken all the time. The moral law of God, pre-dating the Mosaic Law, has never been kept perfectly by sinful man. When I think of the term "in covenant" I am referring to a state of being that is different than just the external administration of the covenant. Every Jew in Israel during the time of the Old Covenant was bound by the external administration of the covenant; i.e. they were bound to observe the Sabbath, bound to dietary restrictions, bound to the judicial aspects of the Law et al. However, when Paul wrote, "For they are not all Israel who are descended from Israel" (Rom. 9:6), he was making a distinction between an ethnic Jew and a spiritual Jew. The spiritual Jew was in a covenant relationship with God (i.e. Abraham), not just under an external administration. I hope I am making sense. And just so you know, I am always open to being instructed as well.

Thanks for the gracious response. I must process this mentally, since though I have always known that there were some jews who were circumcised in their hearts and some who were not, I never thought about whether the uncircumcised of heart were not in actual covenant. I will meditate upon this conundrum with delight.

 

[BG]

Brandon said:
Faith was not a requirement to be part of this group.

There was one requirement they were to love God and keep his commandments

And if they did not they were to be cut off or excommunicated from the church

 

[Pergamum]

Wow

1689 Federalism affirms that Israel according to the flesh is a different group than the church (Israel according to the Spirit). So there are/were two different peoples of God. One was a temporal and temporary people who served a typological purpose that has now ceased (thus it is very different than Dispensationalism). Though there were two different groups, the elect in the OT were part of both groups.

Two peoples of God? Two different sets of promises?

And yet a 1689 Federalist seemed to get irked at me last week for saying his view sounded Dispensational. How is this not Dispensational?

 

[BG]

Two peoples of God? Two different sets of promises?

And yet a 1689 Federalist seemed to get irked at me last week for saying his view sounded Dispensational. How is this not Dispensational?

It is dispensationalism

 

[KMK]

It sounds like 1689 Federalism is still working out some of the kinks in regards to this issue. Denault has revised his book to reflect this:

"REVISITING THE MOSAIC COVENANT

Finally, I was sharpened by a lot of discussions among the Reformed Baptist community that forced me to articulate a more precise and consistent covenant theology on some specific points. In the process I have rejected the idea that the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life as an absolute republication of the Covenant of Works. I came to the understanding that the Mosaic Covenant was strictly limited to life in Canaan and was only typologically tied to the heavenly realities brought by the New Covenant. I had previously endorsed Samuel Petto’s view that understands the Mosaic Covenant both as an earthly covenant of works for Israel in Canaan and an absolute covenant of works for Christ to obtain eternal life. I still believe the former (Israel), but I now believe that the latter (Christ) is only typologically true. In other words, Christ didn’t accomplish the Old Covenant but the New Covenant which was set forth as a covenant of works between him and the Father (the Covenant of Redemption), the terms of which were prefigured but not properly stipulated in the Old Covenant.

The main issue, in my opinion, was that I used to blend the type with the antitype or the shadow with the reality in the same covenant by attributing eternal life as a promise proper to the Mosaic Covenant. I believe that this mixed approach to covenant theology is the essence of paedobaptism with its internal/external distinction that blends earthly kingdom with heavenly kingdom, Old Covenant with New Covenant, etc. 1689 Federalism, on the other hand, relies on the fundamental distinctions between Old and New, type and antitype, shadow and reality and, therefore, distinguishes between the Mosaic typological republication and Christ’s established New Covenant: typologically related, but essentially distinct.

This revised edition of The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology now reflects this view and I believe that this was Coxe and Owen’s view. Many brothers were involved in important discussions that led me to this clarification. I especially want to thank brother Brandon Adams who was very instrumental in that regard and I want to commend him for all his laboring for the cause of the Gospel by his defense of 1689 Federalism."

This blurb can be found here: https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/

 

[Dachaser]

David,

Scott's criticism of baby dedication is expected since he is a Presbyterian. I am criticizing it as a Baptist. The ceremony accomplishes nothing more than what the body of Christ should already be doing for parents of new children; encouraging and helping them when needed. There is no warrant for such a ceremony in the New Testament. It really is a feel-good moment and a photo op, not much else. I would much rather see the child come to faith in Christ, and go under the waters of baptism as a public declaration of their faith.

We all would desire to see all of the children of saved parents come to faith in Jesus as their Messiah/Lord, and we do take seriously the dedicating both the parents and the church ourselves to assist the child to grow up in the ways of the Lord.
I can see where they can be problems with this, for just as some just hang on that one time "alter call" experience, some could just look back at this ceremony as being when their child was "saved"

 

[Dachaser]

It is dispensationalism

I do not think that it is full blown version of it though, as I was raised and trained up in that system, and would see Reformed baptists like me seeing the one Covenant of Grace in both Old/New Covenants, but that the Old one was like a type or a shadow of the full version that came in person and work of the Messiah Jesus Christ.

 

[Dachaser]

Bill,
I wasn't offended by your remark. I just wanted to clarify that my position will always be scripture and not a system. As well, Presbyterianism, technically speaking is polity and not paedobaptism.

All of us here would be basing our theology upon the scriptures themselves, hopefully.
I think part of the "problem" here is that while i now look upon myself as being a Reformed baptist, my Baptist church is not one that holds to Confessions. as more akin to a "normal" Baptist church.

 

[brandonadams]

And yet a 1689 Federalist seemed to get irked at me last week for saying his view sounded Dispensational. How is this not Dispensational?

1689 Federalism is fundamentally anti-Dispensational. No Dispensationalist would ever consider it Dispensational. Please re-read this if you are confused. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/

 

[Dachaser]

1689 Federalism is fundamentally anti-Dispensational. No Dispensationalist would ever consider it Dispensational. Please re-read this if you are confused. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/

Dispensational would still see a plan for national Israel yet to be fulfilled, and would not hold to Covenant theology, so the two are not saying the same thing.

 

[GulfCoast Presbyterian]

Does 1689 federalism posit one people of God, or "two" peoples of God?

 

[brandonadams]

Does 1689 federalism posit one people of God, or "two" peoples of God?

In agreement with numerous paedobaptists, 1689 Federalism believes that the nation of Israel was a distinct, temporary, typological "people of God" in a way that the church is not. Israel and the church are/were peoples of God in two different senses (and Israel's status ended with the Old Covenant). There is no "dual-destinationism" as Dispensationalism teaches. Israel was typological of the church and ceased at the coming of Christ. Furthermore, elect members of the nation of Israel were also part of the church of Christ.

That such appellations as God’s people, God’s Israel, and some other like phrases, are used and applied in Scripture with considerable diversity of intention… And with regard to the people of Israel, it is very manifest, that something diverse is oftentimes intended by that nation being God’s people, from their being visible saints, visibly holy, or having those qualifications which are requisite in order to a due admission to the ecclesiastical privileges of such. That nation, that family of Israel according to the flesh, and with regard to that external and carnal qualification, were in some sense adopted by God to be his peculiar people, and his covenant people… On the whole, it is evident that the very nation of Israel, not as visible saints, but as the progeny of Jacob according to the flesh, were in some respect a chosen people, a people of God, a covenant people, an holy nation; even as Jerusalem was a chosen city, the city of God, a holy city, and a city that God had engaged by covenant to dwell in. Thus a sovereign and all-wise God was pleased to ordain things with respect to the nation of Israel…

That nation was a typical nation. There was then literally a land, which was a type of heaven, the true dwelling-place of God; and an external city, which was a type of the spiritual city of God; an external temple of God, which was a type of his spiritual temple. So there was an external people and family of God, by carnal generation, which was a type of his spiritual progeny. And the covenant by which they were made a people of God, was a type of the covenant of grace; and so is sometimes represented as a marriage-covenant.

Jonathan Edwards on the Nation of Israel as a Type of the Church

Let it then be observed, that men are said to be sanctified or made holy in very different senses. Sanctification, for the distinction, though an old, is not a bad one, is either real or relative.

…That separation from other nations, in which the holiness of the Jews chiefly consisted (r), was not spiritual, resulting from rectitude of heart and a correspondent behavior; but barely external, resulting from certain sacred rites and ceremonies different from or opposite to those of other nations, and confined to certain places and persons (d). The middle wall of partition between Jews and Gentiles, was the ceremonial law (e), which was neither necessary nor fit to make a spiritual separation In fact, it did not separate between good and bad men among the Jews: but between the house of Israel and the fearers of God or devout persons in the heathen nations (f). For which reason, though Cornelius was one that feared God, gave much alms, and prayed to God always, Peter was afraid of being polluted by intercourse with him.

(a) Lev. xxi. (b) Exod. xix. 6. (c) Exod. xix. 5, 6. Num. xxiii. 9. Deut. xxvi. 18, 19. (d) Lev. xx. 24,—26. Deut. xiv. 21. (e) Eph. ii. 14, 15. (f) Pial. cxviii. 4. A6ls xiii. 16, 26. xvii. 4, 17.

…as things were termed unclean, which were types or emblems of moral impurity, so the Jews were termed holy, not only because they were separated from other nations, but because they typified real Christians, who are in the fullest and noblest sense a holy nation, and a peculiar people (a). Types are visible things, different in their nature, from the spiritual things which they typify. If then the Jewish dispensation was typical, we may safely conclude, that the holiness of the Jewish nation being intended to typify the holiness of the Christian church, was of a different nature from it. And it is for this reason, that the Jewish dispensation is called the flesh and the letter, because persons and things in that dispensation, typified and represented persons and things under a more spiritual dispensation. (a) 1 Pet. ii. 9.

John Erskine’s “The Nature of the Sinai Covenant” (17-21)

 

[Dachaser]

In agreement with numerous paedobaptists, 1689 Federalism believes that the nation of Israel was a distinct, temporary, typological "people of God" in a way that the church is not. Israel and the church are/were peoples of God in two different senses (and Israel's status ended with the Old Covenant). There is no "dual-destinationism" as Dispensationalism teaches. Israel was typological of the church and ceased at the coming of Christ. Furthermore, elect members of the nation of Israel were also part of the church of Christ.

When did the Church of God then get instituted by 1689 view point?

 

[brandonadams]

When did the Church of God then get instituted by 1689 view point?

http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/when-did-the-church-begin/

The church began in Genesis 3:15 and the church began at Pentecost.

How can both be true? Because of how the institutional church relates to the promised/established New Covenant.

Old Testament saints were saved in the same way that we are today: through saving faith produced by the regenerating power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2LBC 8.6, 8.8, 10.1, 11.6). They were united to Christ and were therefore part of his mystical body, the church (2LBC 26.1).

But it does not therefore follow that Israel was the church ("assembly") of Christ. Israel was an assembly, but not the assembly of Christ (Heb. 12:23). Though regenerate Old Testament saints were part of the body of Christ, they were a remnant within the broader body of the assembly of Israel (which was governed by the Old Covenant). Likewise, believers outside of Israel were not under the Old Covenant (for example, Lot & Melchizedek were not circumcised - see Coxe p. 117-118).

It was not until Pentecost that the invisible church gathered ("assembled") together as the assembly of Christ (the church) (2LBC 26.2, 26.5-7). The visible church was instituted at Pentecost and given ordinances of worship and its own government. John Owen explains how this relates to the New Covenant as promised & established.

This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration. (Exposition of Hebrews 8:6)

The first solemn promulgation of this new covenant, so made, ratified, and established, was on the day of Pentecost, seven weeks after the resurrection of Christ. And it answered the promulgation of the law on mount Sinai, the same space of time after the delivery of the people out of Egypt. From this day forward the ordinances of worship, and all the institutions of the new covenant, became obligatory unto all believers. Then was the whole church absolved from any duty with respect unto the old covenant, and the worship of it, though it was not manifest as yet in their consciences. (Exposition Hebrews 8:10)

Thus the church began as soon as God began to redeem lost sinners through the promise of the New Covenant (Gen. 3:15), which was efficacious to save, bringing an individual into the invisible church. But it was not until the New Covenant was formally established that the visible church was instituted with its own worship and governance.

For more, see Tom Ascol's Toward a Confessional Doctrine of the Church (3-Part Video)

 

[Dachaser]

http://www.1689federalism.com/faq/when-did-the-church-begin/

Interesting. So the Church proper was really instituted at Pentecost, but the saved in Israel were also part of that Body of Christ?

 

[brandonadams]

Correct.

 

[RamistThomist]

and we do take seriously the dedicating both the parents and the church ourselves to assist the child to grow up in the ways of the Lord.

Where do you see that practice in Scripture?

 

[Scott Bushey]

Interesting. So the Church proper was really instituted at Pentecost, but the saved in Israel were also part of that Body of Christ?

No....
37 This is that Moses, which said unto the children of Israel, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me; him shall ye hear. 38 This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:

The Holy Bible: King James Version, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ac 7:36–38.

Do a simple Hebrew word study on the word 'congregation' or 'assembly' and u will see....To think that the church is a new testament phenomenon is dispensationalism.

More here:
http://www.semperreformanda.com/ecc...dex/is-the-church-a-new-testament-phenomenon/

 

[brandonadams]

I second Scott's encouragement to do a word study. Make sure to compare not just the similarities in use, but also the differences. The congregation of Israel was not the congregation of the first born who are enrolled in heaven (Heb 12:23). One was a type of the other.

 

[Scott Bushey]

I disagree.
Ch 19 of the WCF:
III. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a Church under age, ceremonial laws, containing several typical ordinances, partly of worship, prefiguring Christ, his graces, actions, sufferings, and benefits; and partly holding forth divers instructions of moral duties. All which ceremonial laws are now abrogated under the New Testament.

Ch 20
I. The liberty which Christ hath purchased for believers under the gospel consists in their freedom from the guilt of sin, the condemning wrath of God, the curse of the moral law; and in their being delivered from this present evil world, bondage to Satan, and dominion of sin, from the evil of afflictions, the sting of death, the victory of the grave, and everlasting damnation; as also in their free access to God, and their yielding obedience unto him, not out of slavish fear, but a childlike love, and a willing mind. All which were common also to believers under the law; but under the New Testament the liberty of Christians is further enlarged in their freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law, to which the Jewish Church was subjected; and in greater boldness of access to the throne of grace, and in fuller communications of the free Spirit of God, than believers under the law did ordinarily partake of.


Ch 25

I. The catholic or universal Church, which is invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fullness of Him that filleth all in all.



II. The visible Church, which is also catholic or universal under the Gospel (not confined to one nation, as before under the law), consists of all those throughout the world that profess the true religion; and of their children: and is the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ, the house and family of God, out of which there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.

III. Unto this catholic and visible Church, Christ hath given the ministry, oracles, and ordinances of God, for the gathering and perfecting of the saints, in this life, to the end of the world; and doth by his own presence and Spirit, according to his promise, make them effectual thereunto.

IV. This catholic Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less, visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

Add to your word study: Synagogue

 

[brandonadams]

Thank you for providing references for your opinion.

I will just note that this discussion needs to be carefully nuanced. Simply pointing to a word does not suffice. For example, 1689 Federalism distinguishes between different uses of the term Israel.

If the church is a New Testament phenomenon only, then the Groom only has a NT bride!

Please re-read what was actually said. You've rather massively misunderstood/misrepresented what was said.

 

[brandonadams]

To try to state it more clearly:

The church, the body and bride of Christ, has existed since the first sinner believed the promise of Christ in Genesis 3:15. However, the church, the assembly of the firstborn enrolled in heaven, did not gather together as the church until Pentecost. The congregation in the wilderness, the nation of Israel, was not a gathering of "those sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to be saints," although at least some saints were in their midst.