1689 Federalism Revisited

[Shanny01]

I wouldn't be opposed to saying that the covenant of grace was active and operative in the lives of Old Testament saints as they were regenerated, called, justified, idwelt, sealed, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit by efficacy of that which the Old Covenant typified and promised. However, if by active and operative you mean that each covenant was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace as in classic Westminster Covenant Theology, that is the whole point of contention since we would see the Old Testament covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) as being legal covenants pointing out sin and the necessity of righteousness, bearing the line through which the Messiah would come, and bearing a typological relationship to the New Covenant and the Church, even though intrinsically those covenants were related to life in the land of Israel among the physical seed of Abraham.

 

[Solparvus]

I wouldn't be opposed to saying that the covenant of grace was active and operative in the lives of Old Testament saints as they were regenerated, called, justified, idwelt, sealed, and sanctified by the Holy Spirit by efficacy of that which the Old Covenant typified and promised. However, if by active and operative you mean that each covenant was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace as in classic Westminster Covenant Theology, that is the whole point of contention since we would see the Old Testament covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic) as being legal covenants pointing out sin and the necessity of righteousness, bearing the line through which the Messiah would come, and bearing a typological relationship to the New Covenant and the Church, even though intrinsically those covenants were related to life in the land of Israel among the physical seed of Abraham.

I don't think I have ever interacted with you before, so let me first say good to meet you.

Question for you though: Could those types and shadows have been means of grace to convert the elect, apply Christ's life and death to them, give grace to them, and strengthen their faith in Christ?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

In Denault's book on the "Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology

What edition are you using Pergamum? I understand the new edition makes important clarifications on this. The first edition was translted from the French and Denault was concerned some important nuances were lost hence the new edition. See https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/

The prophets did not say, "Now to you Physical Israel I promise to keep you in the land, etc, but to you Spiritual Israel I promise to give you eternal life." He merely addressed "Israel" as a whole. The church was a mixed assembly of both the saved and the lost, all who held the covenant sign.

You sound like you have 1 3/4 foot in the Baptist camp, and 1/4 foot in the Paedobaptist camp

These non-Elect may be under the covenant administration but not properly "in" the Covenant. Only those in Christ are in the New Covenant, properly speaking.

Acts 26:28 'Authorised version' Then Stephen said to Pergamum, “You almost persuade me to become a Paedobaptist.”

If you say the church was a 'mixed' assembly, and that non-elect are under the covenant administraton, it seems to me you are close to making the Paedobaptist distinction between the visable and invisable church.

 

[Pergamum]

What edition are you using Pergamum? I understand the new edition makes important clarifications on this. The first edition was translted from the French and Denault was concerned some important nuances were lost hence the new edition. See https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/


You sound like you have 1 3/4 foot in the Baptist camp, and 1/4 foot in the Paedobaptist camp


Acts 26:28 'Authorised version' Then Stephen said to Pergamum, “You almost persuade me to become a Paedobaptist.”

If you say the church was a 'mixed' assembly, and that non-elect are under the covenant administraton, it seems to me you are close to making the Paedobaptist distinction between the visable and invisable church.

Stephen,
You don't believe there is a distinction between the visible church and the invisible church?

I am a baptist but we must admit that some grow up under the outward blessings of the church and yet remain unsaved.

 

[Pergamum]

If the Covenant of Grace is effective in the OT and it saves, and if OT believers were living in its reality, and it is thus operative in the OT, why not say simply say the Covenant of Grace was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment or consummation in Christ?

 

[brandonadams]

Thanks for this update on your studies Harold. I'm glad you are striving to understand the issue as best you can and make your own informed decision. May God bless your efforts.

In the 17th-century, Baptist Federalism was not considered a thing, or least not the main thing. During that time, English Particular Baptists were more concerned with the freedom to practice their faith.

I'm curious where this idea stems from. 17th century particular baptists were very conscious of the fact that they had a distinct covenant theology, so in that sense it was "considered a thing." They wrote numerous works on the subject, so persecution was a not a distraction from this topic.

Just a minor note.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Stephen,
You don't believe there is a distinction between the visible church and the invisible church? I am a baptist but we must admit that some grow up under the outward blessings of the church and yet remain unsaved.

No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense. I have traditionally argued that the church is the eschological filfullment of the true Israel. Ie, even in the Old Covenant only the reminant were in the church.

If the Covenant of Grace is effective in the OT and it saves, and if OT believers were living in its reality, and it is thus operative in the OT, why not say simply say the Covenant of Grace was inaugurated in Genesis 3:15 and has come to fulfillment or consummation in Christ?

I think this is well put.

Pergamum, have you read Samuel Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)"? I understand this is the most mature 1689 Federalism writing out to date.

I need to make a disclaimer: I think you have been alluding to this Pergamum, but it seems to me the 1689 Federalist movement has put Reformed Baptists in a thelogical quandary. It seems to me the 1689 Federalism movement emphasises 'discontinuity' between covenants to a greater degree than what Reformed Baptists were doing 10 - 20 years ago, thus making them liable to the charge they are not Reformed. I am at the stage of rethinking some of my older Reformed Baptist convictions and I can see the merit of some paedobaptist arguments. Maybe I need to write the book "confessions of a heretic"

 

[Kinghezy]

No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense.

How is the following verse understood then?
Matthew 13:29-30
But he said, No, lest in gathering the weeds you root up the wheat along with them. Let both grow together until the harvest, and at harvest time I will tell the reapers, Gather the weeds first and bind them in bundles to be burned, but gather the wheat into my barn.

From John Gill -- The scope of the parable, and the design of our Lord in it, are chiefly to be attended to; which are to show, that a pure and perfect church cannot be expected in the present state of things; and that saints should not be immoderately uneasy, but patiently bear such exercises, until Christ's time is come to relieve them, when the tares and chaff shall be separated from the wheat; when sinners shall not stand in the congregation of the righteous, and there shall be no more a pricking briar, nor a grieving thorn in the house of Israel.

 

[Kinghezy]

@Stephen L Smith your profile says you hold to the LBC. Unless I am misunderstanding the quote below, it has an invisible / visible distinction.


Chapter 26: Of the Church
1. The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called 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 fulness of him that filleth all in all. ( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23; Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 )

2. All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 )

 

[Stephen L Smith]

How is the following verse understood then?
Matthew 13:29-30

Reformed Baptists would take the words of our Lord in v 38 literally "The field is the world".

 

[Stephen L Smith]

@Stephen L Smith your profile says you hold to the LBC. Unless I am misunderstanding the quote below, it has an invisible / visible distinction.

I cannot see this distinction you mention. It specifically says "It consists of the full number of the elect who have been, are, or will be gathered into one under Christ her head."

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I cannot see this distinction you mention. It specifically says "It consists of the full number of the elect who have been, are, or will be gathered into one under Christ her head."

Section 1 says that, specifically in reference to the "catholic" or "universal" church which may be called "invisible".

Section 2 speaks of the "visible" church.

The Visible / Invisible church distinction is very fully realized in the 1689 LBCF.

 

[brandonadams]

(3) Do you believe that the Mosaic Covenant was given so that its members could use the law as a means of obtaining life?

One 1689er wrote: "When Paul says we are no longer under law but grace, he means we are no longer under the law as a requirement for justification and eternal life. As I said, I affirm the third use of the law as a rule of obedience for the Christian. But the members of the Mosiac Covenant were under the law as means of eternal life, which it was only able to bring forth death and condemnation."

1689 Federalism does not believe that the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life upon the condition of obedience to Mosaic law. The Mosaic Covenant only offered temporal life and blessing in Canaan upon condition of obedience to the law.

3. This claim stems from the fact the Pascalt Denault in his first version of his book espoused that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works properly considered, whereby if a person perfectly performed the commands of Mosaic Law, he would inherit eternal life. He has since revised his book and rejected this view in favor of the majority view that the Mosaic Covenant republished the terms of the Covenant of Works (Do this and live), but that the reward and punishments of that covenant in itself related only to life in the land of Canaan and blessings there. Since his revision, I know of no 1689 Federalists that say the Mosaic Covenant was given for eternal life, but rather that the covenant was earthly and subservient to the Covenant of Grace in the promulgation of the New Covenant.

Denault's first edition did not teach that "members of the Mosaic Covenant were under the law as a means of eternal life." Rather, he taught (following 17th century congregationalist Samuel Petto) that Christ earned eternal life for his people through the Mosaic Covenant. As you said, this has been revised. "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." https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/

Jeffery Johnson also teaches that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants offered eternal life upon condition of obedience to the law - though with the intention of convicting sinners and also of allowing Christ a covenant in which to fulfill the law. I believe he is mistaken and not representative of 1689 Federalism on this point. For more, see http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/

 

[Pergamum]

No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense. I have traditionally argued that the church is the eschological filfullment of the true Israel. Ie, even in the Old Covenant only the reminant were in the church.


I think this is well put.

Pergamum, have you read Samuel Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)"? I understand this is the most mature 1689 Federalism writing out to date.

I need to make a disclaimer: I think you have been alluding to this Pergamum, but it seems to me the 1689 Federalist movement has put Reformed Baptists in a thelogical quandary. It seems to me the 1689 Federalism movement emphasises 'discontinuity' between covenants to a greater degree than what Reformed Baptists were doing 10 - 20 years ago, thus making them liable to the charge they are not Reformed. I am at the stage of rethinking some of my older Reformed Baptist convictions and I can see the merit of some paedobaptist arguments. Maybe I need to write the book "confessions of a heretic"

Stephen,

You wrote: "No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense."

If you keep talking like this, I think I will become a Presbyterian.

The unbeliever is under the external blessings of the covenant many times. They are not "in" but under the covenant administration.

Yes, I agree: I think 1689 Federalism emphasizes discontinuity too much.

 

[Pergamum]

No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense. I have traditionally argued that the church is the eschological filfullment of the true Israel. Ie, even in the Old Covenant only the reminant were in the church.


I think this is well put.

Pergamum, have you read Samuel Renihan's "From Shadow to Substance: The Federal Theology of the English Particular Baptists (1642-1704)"? I understand this is the most mature 1689 Federalism writing out to date.

I need to make a disclaimer: I think you have been alluding to this Pergamum, but it seems to me the 1689 Federalist movement has put Reformed Baptists in a thelogical quandary. It seems to me the 1689 Federalism movement emphasises 'discontinuity' between covenants to a greater degree than what Reformed Baptists were doing 10 - 20 years ago, thus making them liable to the charge they are not Reformed. I am at the stage of rethinking some of my older Reformed Baptist convictions and I can see the merit of some paedobaptist arguments. Maybe I need to write the book "confessions of a heretic"

I don't read Reformed Baptists any more. I am tired of them focusing on minor issues while the world burns.

 

[Pergamum]

1689 Federalism does not believe that the Mosaic Covenant offered eternal life upon the condition of obedience to Mosaic law. The Mosaic Covenant only offered temporal life and blessing in Canaan upon condition of obedience to the law.



Denault's first edition did not teach that "members of the Mosaic Covenant were under the law as a means of eternal life." Rather, he taught (following 17th century congregationalist Samuel Petto) that Christ earned eternal life for his people through the Mosaic Covenant. As you said, this has been revised. "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." https://www.unherautdansle.net/what...distinctiveness-of-baptist-covenant-theology/

Jeffery Johnson also teaches that the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants offered eternal life upon condition of obedience to the law - though with the intention of convicting sinners and also of allowing Christ a covenant in which to fulfill the law. I believe he is mistaken and not representative of 1689 Federalism on this point. For more, see http://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/

If there is such a wide variation among these positions, why lump them all under the name 1689 Federalism? Why not just refer to all of these positions as "baptist covenant theology." Further, why contrast these positions against "traditional reformed baptist covenant theology" when there is so much diversity within the ranks?

I think it is because Reformed Baptists want their own identity. And by claiming it is "1689" Federalism they've claimed to be "the" Confessional position even if the authors cannot even agree among themselves.

 

[Herald]

I don't read Reformed Baptists any more. I am tired of them focusing on minor issues while the world burns.

This is not a helpful comment. It will be wise for you to not to allow your passion for this topic to cause you to judge motives. Just because there is a movement among Confessional Baptists to better understand the covenant theology held by early Particular Baptists does mean we are blind to the other issues of our time.

 

[Herald]

No. I see this as a paedobaptist conception. From a Baptist perspective to be "in the church" is to be "in Christ". Those not in Christ are not in the church in any sense. I have traditionally argued that the church is the eschological filfullment of the true Israel. Ie, even in the Old Covenant only the reminant were in the church.

Stephen, you have a point here. 26.2 of the 1689 LBC states:

All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted.

I understand what is meant by a visible/invisible church distinction when those terms are used. We can never truly know the heart of another person. An unsaved person may even be someone who has been voted into membership in the church, however, they are not part of the body of Christ. One of the tenents of Baptist belief is that of regenerate church membership.

 

[Herald]

Thanks for this update on your studies Harold. I'm glad you are striving to understand the issue as best you can and make your own informed decision. May God bless your efforts.



I'm curious where this idea stems from. 17th century particular baptists were very conscious of the fact that they had a distinct covenant theology, so in that sense it was "considered a thing." They wrote numerous works on the subject, so persecution was a not a distraction from this topic.

Just a minor note.

Brandon,

My comment as to the focus of 17th-century Particular Baptists is based on some conversations I had with other RB's in the Baptist Federalism camp. In hindsight it may not be completely accurate. I'm sure our Particular Baptist forefathers we're capable of theological multitasking.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Herald]

Brandon,

So, the criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology. How do you respond to that?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Brandon,

So, the criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology. How do you respond to that?

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Brother, for the edification ofr the spectators here (like me), can you clarify this?

When you say, "he criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology", who do you take the perpetrators to be? The modern Reformed Baptists that are promoting 1689 Federalism or the 17th century Particular Baptists that developed it?

 

[Herald]

Brother, for the edification ofr the spectators here (like me), can you clarify this?

When you say, "he criticism has been made here (and also other online venues) that 1689 Federalism is just a contrived attempt to craft a covenantal identify that is separate from paedobaptist covenant theology", who do you take the perpetrators to be? The modern Reformed Baptists that are promoting 1689 Federalism or the 17th century Particular Baptists that developed it?

Some other Baptists who disagree with Baptist Federalism.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Pergamum]

I say it for one thing.

Many Baptists long for their own identity. They are tired of being Presbyterian-lite, and so I think this psychology causes them to try to find a uniquely baptist covenantal theology. And if they can prove it from the 17th Century they can say, "See, it was here all along...we are just recovering it." (even though the 17th Century was also relatively new). Of course, all baptists would say that covenant theology should not lead us into pedobaptism, but whether there was 1 solitary view or whether there was ever a "uniquely baptist perspective on covenant theology" I don't think there was...it was not monolithic and there was great variety in the views (and still is). But to push one view ahead of the others and label it the "Confessional" view makes me a bit uneasy.

 

[Herald]

Sean,

1689 Federalism is an attempt to promote the covenant theology held by 17th-century Particular Baptists; specifically the framers of the 1689 LBC. Their efforts have not been universally received by Reformed Baptists. It is the latter group that has pushed back against 1689 Federalism, accusing those promoting it of wanting to craft a covenantal identify separate from paedobaptists. While the conclusions of 1689 Federalism does just that, it doesn't mean 1689 proponents contrived a system just for that purpose.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Herald]

I say it for one thing.

Many Baptists long for their own identity. They are tired of being Presbyterian-lite, and so I think this psychology causes them to try to find a uniquely baptist covenantal theology. And if they can prove it from the 17th Century they can say, "See, it was here all along...we are just recovering it." (even though the 17th Century was also relatively new). Of course, all baptists would say that covenant theology should not lead us into pedobaptism, but whether there was 1 solitary view or whether there was ever a "uniquely baptist perspective on covenant theology" I don't think there was...it was not monolithic and there was great variety in the views (and still is). But to push one view ahead of the others and label it the "Confessional" view makes me a bit uneasy.

Brother, it is a debate worth having. There are paedobaptists who are not in complete agreement on covenant theology. I am fine with the debate. It forces us to seek out truth. If we arrive at different conclusions, so be it, as long as we arrive at them honestly.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[Pergamum]

Brother, it is a debate worth having. There are paedobaptists who are not in complete agreement on covenant theology. I am fine with the debate. It forces us to seek out truth. If we arrive at different conclusions, so be it, as long as we arrive at them honestly.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Thanks. I am still open to all views; though I admit I am biased against the 1689 view. Hopefully I am fair in my assessments.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Some other Baptists who disagree with Baptist Federalism.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

Maybe I didn't ask my question correctly, because that answer doesn't correspond to the question I am asking.

I am asking this:

Do the people who claim that 1689 Federalism is contrived to carve out a unique Baptist covenantal identity make the accusation against the formulators of 1689 Federalism (the PBs in the 1600's) or do they make the accusation against the modern proponents of 1689 Federalism?

 

[Herald]

Maybe I didn't ask my question correctly, because that answer doesn't correspond to the question I am asking.

I am asking this:

Do the people who claim that 1689 Federalism is contrived to carve out a unique Baptist covenantal identity make the accusation against the formulators of 1689 Federalism (the PBs in the 1600's) or do they make the accusation against the modern proponents of 1689 Federalism?

They make it against the modern proponents.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Got it. Thank you.

 

[Dachaser]

Based on my understanding of Baptist Federalism, the blessings of the New Covenant were promised-only until the New Covenant was inaugurated. So, were Old Testament believers truly "participating in the blessings of the New Covenant"? Was the Holy Spirit given to the church the way that it was at Pentecost? Had the outward requirements of the Law been abrogated? The justification by faith of Old Testament believers was rooted in the Cross, which had not yet taken place. There was never a time when Christ's incarnation, death on the cross, and subsequent resurrection was ever in doubt. God's promise of redemption for His elect was made in Genesis 3:15, so the promise was as good as God's word. In some ways, we are living with a similar expectation. The promise of eternal life is a "now and not yet" situation. We know that we have the promise of eternal life (1 John 5:13) but we will not fully enjoy that blessing until we are in the eternal state.



I do not believe there is a separation. Old Testament saints were saved by the Promised One who was yet to come. New Testament saints are saved by the Promised One who has already been revealed. The only difference is that the Jewish Old Testament believers were still under the requirements of the Law, whereas there is no longer any distinction between Jew and Gentile. The Law did not impart life, but obeying its precepts was a requirement of life as a Jew under the Old Covenant. This is why I believe the dispensational charge that some have made against Baptist Federalism is erroneous.


It is also a book of history. The fact that a sound view of biblical theology represents how God reveals His redemptive and eschatological purpose throughout human history does not mean it is not part of a cohesive whole.

How would an Old Testament saint have understood all of this? If they were Jewish, they knew the Law. They were obligated to observe it. Like Abraham, who believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness (Genesis 15:6), the Law was intended to draw people to God. However, the Law could not save - only condemn. It served as a tutor (Galatians 3:24) to point us to the One who would do what the Law could not. Life under the Old Covenant found its blessings within the covenant community. These blessings were not always spiritual. Consider Deuteronomy 28. So, I agree with you that the Bible is a book primarily about spiritual things and not a book largely about physical promises. It is a book with a redemptive message that begins in types and shadows, and is finally revealed in the person of Jesus Christ.

Did the OT believers in the coming Messiah actually experience the Spirit in the same fashion we do today after Pentecost happened, or did God remit their sins, but did not have them all indwelt as all of us now under NC are?