The Practical Theology of 1689 Federalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
How does 1689 Federalism's understanding of Covenant Theology, which they admit is different than that of 'vanilla' Confessional Baptists, work it's way out in practice? How would a 1689 Federalist church operate/worship differently than say, Dr. Waldron's church, for example?
 
So, the 1689 Federalist movement does not seek to change the Confession or Practice of the Reformed Baptist churches. What is the website, the publishing house, and the conferences all about? Is it only about making Reformed Baptists aware that maybe Coxe didn't mean exactly what we thought he meant about chapter 7?

I am not trying to be snarky. I just notice how much work you all are putting into this.
 
Just an outsider's perspective here. I think it's a good thing, even if just considered from the standpoint of historic awareness and fidelity. Intrinsically good, In other words,. From my read, 1689F stands between the 20thCentury RBs and the Dispensational-NCTs; and strikes me as possibly a more stable identity than either of them, if one is rooted between Baptist-evangelical and P&R-confessional worlds.

I also see a practical benefit. There are some Presbyterians who are really Baptists at heart; and there are Baptists who are really Presbyterians at heart. Living with tensions isn't always a heart-attack waiting to happen; but perhaps there can be some release of tension, resolved by finding peace in a more consistent expression of one's faith. This is what I see is a benefit of the 1689F effort.

I think it is true, what they say, about a lot of one-way influence by BoT reprints and the like. This has resulted in theological formation in many (former) Baptist minds that has resulted in extra tension, and a trickling away of more than a few Baptists into the P&R world, as they seek resolution of some of that tension. Sure, I think they've made a good decision; but sincere Baptist brethren are bound to be frustrated when seeing what appears to be a bad decision. For many of them, it just seems like "Romeward drift."

What I'm getting at is: in my opinion the more 1689F gets heard, the more it appeals to and supplies Baptist-formation and a deliberate Baptist-covenantalism, the easier it should be for people to figure out if they are more Baptist, or more Presbyterian. Some folk will stay right between them, either oblivious to any tension, or content in it for whatever advantage they have by it.

Presently, one of my big beefs I've expressed on the PB, is that the description "Covenant Theology" is being appropriated wholesale by some, so that left to the trend the words would no longer describe P&R theological method. I've long-past made my peace with the modifier "Reformed" being appropriated as just an adjective (easier, because I was a "Presbyterian"). As I see it, 1689F tries to avoid linguistic confusion precisely by distinguishing its theological method from historic Covenant Theology as something "too Presbyterian;" and they're doing this to KEEP Baptists Baptist. I don't have to agree with the conclusion to find it a commendable endeavor.
 
For me (who is living in that tension) it appears at first study like 1689 Federalism reduces the OT to a book primarily about physical things (physical people, land, and promises) instead of being a spiritual book primarily about spiritual things. It makes much of the OT to be about "subservient" purposes and not about the main purpose. Instead of continuity, it stresses discontinuity.
 
It is an obvious, undisguised pull toward a Baptist-first identity.

What is it that makes me who and what I am? We answer that question familialy, we answer it nationally; these identities are historically and ideologically rooted. We crave roots for our identity. If I don't have a solidly satisfying identity explaining who I am in terms of origins, I'm bound to go hunting.

The Baptist faith, if I have the history down, has always had objections to the degree of continuity that P&R views make so much of.
 
Thanks for the encouragement, Bruce. You are exactly right. I read most of the RBAP books before I even heard the term 1689 Federalism but have always felt more 'in tune' with the Westminsterian expression of the covenants. Maybe 1689 Federalism will show me that I have been a Presbyterian all along. Or maybe Perg and I can start our own denomination!
 
My "rooted" comment has also to do with my longstanding aversion (publicized many times here on the PB) against people "pulling themselves up by their baptism." I think of it as a very destabilizing, even dangerous. I would rather see a man remain a committed, well-grounded Baptist, than to have him be a poorly transplanted Baptist in Presbyterian soil. Baptism should be a conclusion from one's theology, not a practice in search of justification.
 
I think it's rather strange for a theologically minded person to say "What's the point in discussing theology if there's no practical difference?" I did not at all intend to convey the idea that there are no theological consequences for the view. My answer to your question was very simply that changing from the 20th Century RB view to the 1689 Federalism view will not require a restructuring of your church or writing a new constitution or order of liturgy. Pastors of both persuasions can serve together in the same church.

That said, there are numerous theological consequences of either system. My interest comes from my personal systematic bent. 1689 Federalism addresses my systematic concerns much more consistently than the 20th century view does (in my opinion). It provides a much stronger, more biblical foundation for the law/gospel distinction and therefore has very practical implications. It touches on a number of systematic topics such as union with Christ. It also has implications for worldview thinking on matters like civil government.

What is the website, the publishing house, and the conferences all about?

Personally, I became interested in teaching others about this view because I came to this view after my study of Scripture and was told again and again that it was contrary to the 2LBCF and reformed baptist covenant theology. It became a little frustrating, so when I found out it was actually the historic view, I wanted to let others know so they didn't have to scavenge the internet seeking direction and help like I did.

1) The website is about providing people with material on baptist covenant theology from a single, consistent perspective. I think that should be a great benefit to anyone studying the topic. Again, I find it very strange for someone on this board to be asking what the point of something like that is.

2) There is no 1689 Federalism publishing house. RBAP publishes material from both perspectives. It has never claimed to be a 1689 Federalism publishing house. It is a 1689 publishing house.

3) I'm not aware of a 1689 Federalism conference. The Southwest Founders conference had it as a topic a few years ago. Other than that, I'm not sure what you're referring to. But once again, I don't understand why someone would be asking what the point of a theological conference on a theological topic is.

Time and time again I have had people tell me how much deeper in Scripture this study has driven them and how much they have been blessed by it. So that alone is a "practical" reason to keep discussing it.

Is it only about making Reformed Baptists aware that maybe Coxe didn't mean exactly what we thought he meant about chapter 7?

Why is any material by old dead guys republished? Obviously because there is theological benefit. Again, this is just a bizarre line of questioning.

I am not trying to be snarky. I just notice how much work you all are putting into this.

Why do you put in so much work discussing things on this forum?

As I see it, 1689F tries to avoid linguistic confusion precisely by distinguishing its theological method from historic Covenant Theology as something "too Presbyterian;" and they're doing this to KEEP Baptists Baptist.

No, that is not the case at all. Federal is another word for Covenantal. 1689 Federalism just sounds better than 1689 Covenantalism and it also hints at a more historic root. It is definitely not intending to communicate the mistaken notion that Presbyterians have a monopoly on Covenant Theology. 1689 Federalism is a historic Covenant Theology.

For me (who is living in that tension) it appears at first study like 1689 Federalism reduces the OT to a book primarily about physical things

That's why you should start reading the books I recommended, because you're not understanding the position at all.
 
Thanks, Brandon. It has been difficult for me to keep up with everything. The only reason I am asking about confessional/practical implications is to try to figure out how much of a 'front burner' issue this is. You have asked all of us to do a great deal of reading about your movement and it might take some time for old timers like me to catch up. :cheers2:
 
Thanks for the encouragement, Bruce. You are exactly right. I read most of the RBAP books before I even heard the term 1689 Federalism but have always felt more 'in tune' with the Westminsterian expression of the covenants. Maybe 1689 Federalism will show me that I have been a Presbyterian all along. Or maybe Perg and I can start our own denomination!
Or maybe you agree with Covenant theology, but do still see baptism and church as baptists do?
 
Not a 1689 Federalist per se but I've been doing a lot of reading in it lately. My pastor and I have been meeting on Thursdays to work through Coxe's treatise on baptist covenantalism and it's been getting me to at least reconsider the one CoG, two dispensations model. If I end up falling on the Westminster's view, I'll probably become a Presbyterian- I don't see how one can consistently maintain that covenantal model and not end up a paedobaptist. I try to be honest.

With regard to its practical implications I'm not all that sure there would be that much of a difference. However, as stated above, with the departure of not a few Reformed Baptists for the Presbyterian camp there is a very real desire to emphasize Baptist distinctives to appeal to some sense of continuity and identity. The resurgence of the title "Particular Baptist" in opposition to "Reformed Baptist" reflects this.

Take, for example, the Calvinists within the SBC- 1689 Federalism provides them with a very strong historic argument for what constituted the Baptist view over and against the so-called traditionalist view (one wonders when they won't just come out as Pelagian), which as far as I can see from outside that group, is chiefly dispensational.

A few thoughts.
 
I have had two baptists now tell me that if I don't accept their view of the covenants (which is the consistent baptist view, they tell me) that I might fit better as a Presbyterian since my covenant theology leads that way. I think this is a rhetorical tactic by some to get baptists on board...but I think it might come back to bite them when many baptists, indeed, end up seeing 1689 federalism in all its glory and being sadly disappointed and turning to Presbyterianism as a result.
 
Not a 1689 Federalist per se but I've been doing a lot of reading in it lately. My pastor and I have been meeting on Thursdays to work through Coxe's treatise on baptist covenantalism and it's been getting me to at least reconsider the one CoG, two dispensations model. If I end up falling on the Westminster's view, I'll probably become a Presbyterian- I don't see how one can consistently maintain that covenantal model and not end up a paedobaptist. I try to be honest.

With regard to its practical implications I'm not all that sure there would be that much of a difference. However, as stated above, with the departure of not a few Reformed Baptists for the Presbyterian camp there is a very real desire to emphasize Baptist distinctives to appeal to some sense of continuity and identity. The resurgence of the title "Particular Baptist" in opposition to "Reformed Baptist" reflects this.

Take, for example, the Calvinists within the SBC- 1689 Federalism provides them with a very strong historic argument for what constituted the Baptist view over and against the so-called traditionalist view (one wonders when they won't just come out as Pelagian), which as far as I can see from outside that group, is chiefly dispensational.

A few thoughts.
I am not sure how a one Covenant of Grace view should require a switch to the paedo position (require is my word). It depends on how one views the Covenant of Grace. I will give 1689 Federalism credit for awakening Calvinistic Baptists to find out their true theological identity, and for fighting back against the redheaded step child syndrome. However, if I accept 1689 Federalism I want it to be for sound, biblical, reasons.
 
I am not sure how a one Covenant of Grace view should require a switch to the paedo position (require is my word). It depends on how one views the Covenant of Grace. I will give 1689 Federalism credit for awakening Calvinistic Baptists to find out their true theological identity, and for fighting back against the redheaded step child syndrome. However, if I accept 1689 Federalism I want it to be for sound, biblical, reasons.

Not require necessarily, but I do wonder whether or not one can consistently maintain or hold such a position. Covenantal paedobaptism is built upon the argument which flows from the unity of the Covenant of Grace throughout the ages- thus done to Abraham and his seed in the Old, the same for the seed of believers in the New. An integral part of this hermeneutic is the principle that a command remains abiding except for a specific abrogation/fulfillment in the New, which covenantal paedobaptists use to argue, in the case of the command to give the sign of the Covenant of Grace to the (male) infants of at least one believing parent, that such a change has not taken place (but rather, an expansion!).

What you open yourself up to in holding to the one CoG, two dispensations model is the argument that states "Any argument against paedobaptism in the New could equally be levied against paedocircumcision in the Old." That gets 1689 Federalists sweaty.

The appeal of 1689 Federalism is that, unlike dispensationalism/NCT, it affirms that the law was given for graceful reasons even though it was not the Covenant of Grace, opening the door to being able to reject paedobaptism on the grounds of the Old Testament's typological function in pointing to the New. Where I start scratching my head is when this argument starts to break down; folks like R.S. Clark remind us that "Okay, Jeremiah 31 is talking about the covenant at Sinai- but paedobaptism finds its root in Abraham, not Moses!" and looking at the text itself I'm honest enough to realize that's true. The arguments that I've heard from 1689 Federalists (e.g. "Well, the NT speaks of a very close relationship between the Mosaic Covenant and circumcision, so Jeremiah 31 can still be used to argue the nature of the New Covenant being absolutely unique even over the Abrahamic") just aren't all that satisfying to my ears.

Like I said, still reading and working through the issues.

I have had two baptists now tell me that if I don't accept their view of the covenants (which is the consistent baptist view, they tell me) that I might fit better as a Presbyterian since my covenant theology leads that way. I think this is a rhetorical tactic by some to get baptists on board...but I think it might come back to bite them when many baptists, indeed, end up seeing 1689 federalism in all its glory and being sadly disappointed and turning to Presbyterianism as a result.

Cage-stage 1689 Federalists.
 
Last edited:
Not require necessarily, but I do wonder whether or not one can consistently maintain or hold such a position. Covenantal paedobaptism is built upon the argument which flows from the unity of the Covenant of Grace throughout the ages- thus done to Abraham and his seed in the Old, the same for the seed of believers in the New.

I think what 1689 Federalism is trying to do is to understand Baptist covenant theology from a time before the Reformed Baptist movement. The Reformed Baptist movement really took hold in the latter half of the 20th Century, and as such it developed its own theological positions. I believe it is a good thing to drill down on what our Particular Baptist brethren believed in regards to covenant theology. I am not sure how much Spurgeon was influenced by Darby's work on eschatology, but that is something I want to look into. Particular Baptists that preceded Spurgeon did not have the heavy weight of Dispensationalism to carry around. So, this is going to be a journey that I think all self-proclaimed Reformed Baptists have a stake in; not out of fear of becoming Presbyterians, but out of desire to better understand the truth.

I go into this study with a firm set of presuppositions. I have no problem with a Covenant of Grace that governs our understanding of the Old and New Covenants. I have no issue with the discontinuity of Abrahamic Covenant, and do not see why I should have a problem with it in light of the Covenant of Grace. I do believe there are types and shadows of the New Covenant sprinkled throughout the subservient covenants that operated under the administration of the Old Covenant. I view the New Covenant as a promise made exclusively to a people of faith as opposed to a promise made through a physical nation. I do not believe that places me in any type of dispensational system, as I also believe the promise of eternal life has always been predicated on faith in Christ; in the Old Covenant the promised Messiah, and in the New Covenant the Messiah revealed. I believe the Church is made up of one people of God, not distinguished by when they were saved. So, with those presuppositions established, I am going to see what Baptists of old believed and compare them to the majority view among Reformed Baptists today.

I predict a lot of posting on this topic in the near future.
 
I think what 1689 Federalism is trying to do is to understand Baptist covenant theology from a time before the Reformed Baptist movement. The Reformed Baptist movement really took hold in the latter half of the 20th Century, and as such it developed its own theological positions.
I think that's a big part of it, yeah.

I am not sure how much Spurgeon was influenced by Darby's work on eschatology, but that is something I want to look into. Particular Baptists that preceded Spurgeon did not have the heavy weight of Dispensationalism to carry around. So, this is going to be a journey that I think all self-proclaimed Reformed Baptists have a stake in; not out of fear of becoming Presbyterians, but out of desire to better understand the truth.
Spurgeon is an interesting case study. While he most closely fit to what we might call the historic premillennial position, covenantal hermeneutics included, he did believe in a restoration of ethnic Jews to the land, which most would today consider to be one of the dispensationalist positions. He emphatically rejected the Plymouth Brethren movement and the beginnings of what became dispensationalism, once systematized. He even published an article against the attempt to separate God's people into two camps, Jew and Gentile- I'll look to see if I can find it for you.

I predict a lot of posting on this topic in the near future.
Hopefully! I've found it at the very least edifying.
 
I think what 1689 Federalism is trying to do is to understand Baptist covenant theology from a time before the Reformed Baptist movement. The Reformed Baptist movement really took hold in the latter half of the 20th Century, and as such it developed its own theological positions. I believe it is a good thing to drill down on what our Particular Baptist brethren believed in regards to covenant theology. I am not sure how much Spurgeon was influenced by Darby's work on eschatology, but that is something I want to look into. Particular Baptists that preceded Spurgeon did not have the heavy weight of Dispensationalism to carry around. So, this is going to be a journey that I think all self-proclaimed Reformed Baptists have a stake in; not out of fear of becoming Presbyterians, but out of desire to better understand the truth.

I go into this study with a firm set of presuppositions. I have no problem with a Covenant of Grace that governs our understanding of the Old and New Covenants. I have no issue with the discontinuity of Abrahamic Covenant, and do not see why I should have a problem with it in light of the Covenant of Grace. I do believe there are types and shadows of the New Covenant sprinkled throughout the subservient covenants that operated under the administration of the Old Covenant. I view the New Covenant as a promise made exclusively to a people of faith as opposed to a promise made through a physical nation. I do not believe that places me in any type of dispensational system, as I also believe the promise of eternal life has always been predicated on faith in Christ; in the Old Covenant the promised Messiah, and in the New Covenant the Messiah revealed. I believe the Church is made up of one people of God, not distinguished by when they were saved. So, with those presuppositions established, I am going to see what Baptists of old believed and compare them to the majority view among Reformed Baptists today.

I predict a lot of posting on this topic in the near future.

Would you see then the possibility of there being 2 distinct reformed Baptists theologies, one for the 1689 Confession /Federalists, and those for later on, such as a Spurgeon and a Dr Macarthur , who espoused Dispensational viewpoints.

Were not some prominent theologians holding to some Dispensational eschatology viewpoints in addition to Covenant theology from 18/19 Centuries also muddling the waters?
 
Would you see then the possibility of there being 2 distinct reformed Baptists theologies, one for the 1689 Confession /Federalists, and those for later on, such as a Spurgeon and a Dr Macarthur , who espoused Dispensational viewpoints.
Spurgeon emphatically rejected the core theological presupposition of dispensationalism, chiefly that one cannot "confuse" Israel with the Church, so I would not say that he espoused dispensationalists views. His hermeneutic was an odd mix of historicist and futurist premillennialism, and as any reader of Spurgeon will be able to tell you, eschatology was just not something that he focused on (Likely in part because he saw how ridiculous the proto-Dispensational Brethren were in their end-times hysteria). At the forefront of his preaching was personal piety and enthusiasm for the glory of Christ, not the particulars of the End. In holding to a recollection of the Jews in Palestine he did so for very different reasons than dispensationalists.

MacArthur himself, as I understand him, is only truly dispensationalist with regard to ecclesiology (he says that he is a "leaky dispensationalist"). As a Calvinist he must agree that anyone and everyone in either the Old Testament and the New Testament were only ever saved by the blood of the Lamb, which is, again, a major departure from classical dispensationalism, which would affirm that Israel in the Old Testament was "saved by law." For this reason I think he's able to be more cordial and find much common ground with the Reformed. Under most standard definitions he is, in spite of being a thorough-going Calvinist, neither confessional in his subscription nor (purely) covenantal in his hermeneutic, so I would not classify him as being Reformed- as much as I love the man for his decades of faithful service and in bringing many, such as myself, into Calvinism out of the bleak world of Arminianism.

I would not classify dispensationalism as a Baptist hermeneutic, let alone a Reformed Baptist hermeneutic. Even a cursory glance at the first few pages of the original Scofield bible will find many a Presbyterian endorsing it, and few Baptists. Its origins being in Anabaptism, to which the 17th and 18th century Particular Baptists emphatically rejected a relation, further strengthens the case. Dispensationalism is "beyond the pale" of Reformation theology.

The historic Particular Baptists held to Covenant theology, but of a kind that was of their own formulation. If you're interested in some deep but enlightening reading, I highly suggest you buy Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, published by Reformed Baptist Academic Press. https://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Theology-Christ-Nehemiah-Coxe/dp/0976003937

Were not some prominent theologians holding to some Dispensational eschatology viewpoints in addition to Covenant theology from 18/19 Centuries also muddling the waters?
Dispensationalism is primarily an hermeneutic, not an eschatology (though the hermeneutic drives their eschatology). One cannot consistently hold to both covenantalism and dispensationalism as they are opposing hermeneutics.
 
Last edited:
What seems to be happening at the present time is that there seems to be gaining traction though, at least in my opinion, a reaching out from the progressive side of Dispensational towards those who would hold to day Historical premil Covenant theology, as the lines are blurring from what was seen as being hard and fast differences between these 2 camps within the Church of Christ.
 
I am not sure how much Spurgeon was influenced by Darby's work on eschatology, but that is something I want to look into.

Not much, I don't think. He did not think much of Darby, although some of his problem with him had to do with other issues, such as the sectarianism of the Exclusive Brethren. Phil Johnson has some pages on this.

There are a lot of things in Darbyism and Brethrenism that had been taught before they came on the scene. (This may even include pre-trib, (which Spurgeon definitely denied) but I'll have to look into that more. You can read quotes from older writers that may appear to say something that they are not upon further examination. But things like Early English Books Online help here just as it does with researching early Particular Baptist federalism.) It was Darby's systematization that was unique. To be sure, he popularized views that were very marginal before if they were in circulation at all. His ecclesiology (stark Israel/church separation) is much more unique than his eschatology. All of these areas of theology ultimately intersect at some point, of course. And many Dispensationalists defend pre-trib on the grounds of needing to keep Israel and the church separate. Thus their ecclesiology drives their eschatology. But there have been people who are pre-trib that have actually affirmed the unity of the covenant of grace and have strongly opposed dispensationalism, or at least the worst aspects of it.

Other Calvinistic covenantal premils (it seems that there were hardly any Arminian ones back then although there were actually some notable Lutheran ones) like Ryle, the Bonars, M'Cheyne and others also believed in a restoration of Israel to the land. I'd actually like to see an example of a "historic premil" from that era that denied it. I think that it may well be accurate to view Ladd and his successors as teaching "20th Century Historic Premil" given the differences between their teaching on "unfulfilled" OT prophecy and the older premils. (And I guess we may as well call preterist theonomic postmil "20th Century postmil" given its differences from the earlier postmilennialism.)

he did believe in a restoration of ethnic Jews to the land, which most would today consider to be one of the dispensationalist positions.

While understandable, the idea that such a restoration automatically puts you in the Dispensational camp is palpable error. At best it is the result reading the current state of the eschatology debates back into the 19th Century and perhaps even the 18th Century. A good many "classic" postmils also believed in a restoration of ethnic Jews to the land. (If memory serves, that number includes Edwards, a' Brakel and David Brown of the famous Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary.) I believe Iain Murray delves into this in his "Puritan Hope." If I recall correctly there is a Scottish postmil brother on the board who believes this. So it isn't necessarily even a premil distinctive at all, much less a dispensational one. Admittedly, there are relatively few outside of dispensational circles today that affirm it, which is the reason for the idea that it is necessarily a Dispensational distinctive.
 
Would you see then the possibility of there being 2 distinct reformed Baptists theologies, one for the 1689 Confession /Federalists, and those for later on, such as a Spurgeon and a Dr Macarthur , who espoused Dispensational viewpoints.

Were not some prominent theologians holding to some Dispensational eschatology viewpoints in addition to Covenant theology from 18/19 Centuries also muddling the waters?

MacArthur (along with dispensationalism generally) divvies up the redeemed into three groups: The OT Saints, the Church (existing only from Pentecost to the Rapture) and the Tribulation Saints. Spurgeon emphatically denied this. The idea that Abraham wasn't a member of the universal church (or even the visible church for some of them) was repugnant to Spurgeon and others who held similar eschatalogical views (i.e. classic covenantal/historic premil.)

As I noted a little earlier, it is wrong to say that Spurgeon held to some "Dispensational eschatology viewpoints." This is an anachronism--projecting the current eschatological landscape back into an earlier age.
 
While understandable, the idea that such a restoration automatically puts you in the Dispensational camp is palpable error...Admittedly, there are relatively few outside of dispensational circles today that affirm it, which is the reason for the idea that it is necessarily a Dispensational distinctive.
I agree absolutely.
 
Thank you for that clarification, as I once strongly held to the sane viewpoints in this area as Dr MacArthur does, but I now see the OT saints also part of the Church of Christ, as all of the elect are, but still do not see the church until the NT age as a distinct Body, as there was the church group within the OC Israel, but not all under that OC were saved, but all in it in NC/NT times are now.
 
Not much, I don't think. He did not think much of Darby, although some of his problem with him had to do with other issues, such as the sectarianism of the Exclusive Brethren. Phil Johnson has some pages on this.

There are a lot of things in Darbyism and Brethrenism that had been taught before they came on the scene. (This may even include pre-trib, (which Spurgeon definitely denied) but I'll have to look into that more. You can read quotes from older writers that may appear to say something that they are not upon further examination. But things like Early English Books Online help here just as it does with researching early Particular Baptist federalism.) It was Darby's systematization that was unique. To be sure, he popularized views that were very marginal before if they were in circulation at all. His ecclesiology (stark Israel/church separation) is much more unique than his eschatology. All of these areas of theology ultimately intersect at some point, of course. And many Dispensationalists defend pre-trib on the grounds of needing to keep Israel and the church separate. Thus their ecclesiology drives their eschatology. But there have been people who are pre-trib that have actually affirmed the unity of the covenant of grace and have strongly opposed dispensationalism, or at least the worst aspects of it.

Other Calvinistic covenantal premils (it seems that there were hardly any Arminian ones back then although there were actually some notable Lutheran ones) like Ryle, the Bonars, M'Cheyne and others also believed in a restoration of Israel to the land. I'd actually like to see an example of a "historic premil" from that era that denied it. I think that it may well be accurate to view Ladd and his successors as teaching "20th Century Historic Premil" given the differences between their teaching on "unfulfilled" OT prophecy and the older premils. (And I guess we may as well call preterist theonomic postmil "20th Century postmil" given its differences from the earlier postmilennialism.)



While understandable, the idea that such a restoration automatically puts you in the Dispensational camp is palpable error. At best it is the result reading the current state of the eschatology debates back into the 19th Century and perhaps even the 18th Century. A good many "classic" postmils also believed in a restoration of ethnic Jews to the land. (If memory serves, that number includes Edwards, a' Brakel and David Brown of the famous Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary.) I believe Iain Murray delves into this in his "Puritan Hope." If I recall correctly there is a Scottish postmil brother on the board who believes this. So it isn't necessarily even a premil distinctive at all, much less a dispensational one. Admittedly, there are relatively few outside of dispensational circles today that affirm it, which is the reason for the idea that it is necessarily a Dispensational distinctive.
The Historical premil viewpoint would include the restoration of national Israel unto the Lord at the Second Coming event then, correct?
 
The Historical premil viewpoint would include the restoration of national Israel unto the Lord at the Second Coming event then, correct?
Not to speak for Pilgrim, but historic premillennialism allows for, but does not necessarily require, a restoration of national Israel- but only ever on equal footing with any other nation, by submission to Christ.
 
Not to speak for Pilgrim, but historic premillennialism allows for, but does not necessarily require, a restoration of national Israel- but only ever on equal footing with any other nation, by submission to Christ.
This is what I have been seeking, as though no longer holding to Israel as Dispensational Christians do, still see God doing something unique with national Israel at the time of the Second Advent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top