Is 1689 Federalism Novel?

Status
Not open for further replies.
The terminology of Everlasting Covenant is not a new invention. It is mentioned in the Scriptures. I have understood it as being the Covenant of Grace. I may be incorrect but what are your thoughts?

Gen_9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen_17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen_17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen_17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Lev_24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Num_25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
2Sa_23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.
1Ch_16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
Psa_105:10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
Isa_24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa_55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Isa_61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Jer_32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
Eze_16:60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
Eze_37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Heb_13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
 
The terminology of Everlasting Covenant is not a new invention. It is mentioned in the Scriptures. I have understood it as being the Covenant of Grace. I may be incorrect but what are your thoughts?

Gen_9:16 And the bow shall be in the cloud; and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Gen_17:7 And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
Gen_17:13 He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised: and my covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant.
Gen_17:19 And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
Lev_24:8 Every sabbath he shall set it in order before the LORD continually, being taken from the children of Israel by an everlasting covenant.
Num_25:13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
2Sa_23:5 Although my house be not so with God; yet he hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure: for this is all my salvation, and all my desire, although he make it not to grow.
1Ch_16:17 And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant,
Psa_105:10 And confirmed the same unto Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant:
Isa_24:5 The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; because they have transgressed the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant.
Isa_55:3 Incline your ear, and come unto me: hear, and your soul shall live; and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.
Isa_61:8 For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery for burnt offering; and I will direct their work in truth, and I will make an everlasting covenant with them.
Jer_32:40 And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.
Eze_16:60 Nevertheless I will remember my covenant with thee in the days of thy youth, and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant.
Eze_37:26 Moreover I will make a covenant of peace with them; it shall be an everlasting covenant with them: and I will place them, and multiply them, and will set my sanctuary in the midst of them for evermore.
Heb_13:20 Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
 
Jim, do you think that the covenant is primarily about the promises to Israel, or about the salvation of the elect? Which one is subservient to the other? Is one perhaps an earnest; a picture; a type: or is the physical aspect what it was all about, and it just sort of vaguely showed some future thing that wasn't really connected to it?

But Romans contradicts your point #4, when Paul instructs us not to despise ethnic Israel, because theirs are the fathers; they were given the law; they preserved it in writing; Messiah came through their line. And while Israel was a physical nation, they did much good: the Queen of Sheba was converted; the Ninevites; Naaman; Ruth, Rahab, and all the strangers that joined themselves to Israel, and then even in captivity they witnessed through Daniel and his companions, and Nebuchadnezzar got instructed. Not much of a blessing, you say? I think the folks I mentioned disagree.

Ben, I would say the Abrahamic Covenant has both peoples in view. I would say the promises to ethnic Israel are subservient to the salvation of the elect if that is the proper language to use. I think there is a physical reality that serves as a type for a greater antitype to come in the New Covenant and everything that Jesus is and does as the faithful ethnic Israelite and God the Son.

I think if we looked at OT Israel as a whole their experience is not a blessing to the nations as a whole but a relative few Gentiles benefitting here and there due to God's graciousness which also provides foreshadowing for the Great Commission of the New Covenant where the gospel will be preached to all nations and the elect will be gathered from the four corners of the earth. We can't really say OT Israel was very "missions minded." :) There is a reason Paul says the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been brought down in Christ.

Queen of Sheba - She witnessed God's hand of blessing on Solomon but did she also witness Solomon's later covenant unfaithfulness that later ripped the nation in half in the time of his son Rehoboam?

Nebuchadnezzar - Context: Many of Israel are dead and most of the rest are in exile due to covenant infidelity. Nebuchadnezzar is blessed through Daniel's faithfulness and God's judgment in humbling him, not Israel as a nation.

Ruth - Context: time of the Judges. Israel is constantly committing covenant unfaithfulness through idol worship and constantly under the oppression of foreign enemies. Ruth seems more faithful and trusting of God than her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi.

Ninevites - Jonah went there because he had to not because he wanted to bless them :)

The OT itself looks forward to a time when the nations will be blessed through Israel. That is fulfilled in Jesus (the true and faithful Israelite), His New Covenant, and His Great Commission. Us Gentiles benefit from what God gave Israel (promises, covenants, etc.) now because of Jesus.

I merely want to emphasize that the New Covenant is the pinnacle of God's covenants. It is the covenant that all prior covenants looked forward to and served to bring about in some way.

This is why I am convinced 1689 Federalism is the best system I have come across. Dispensationalism diminishes the glory and uniqueness of the New Covenant by calling it a mere "parenthesis" in God's plan. The one covenant/two administrations view for me does not adequately elevate the New Covenant in its importance over prior covenants since it is merely an "adminsitration" of the Covenant of Grace rather than uniquely "the" Covenant of Grace. I don't see the New Covenant being on equal footing to the prior covenants at all - it is greater in every way. Everything prior is ultimately pointing forward to the majesty and pinnacle of Jesus' work as the New Covenant mediator, sacrifice, and high priest.
 
Ben, I would say the Abrahamic Covenant has both peoples in view. I would say the promises to ethnic Israel are subservient to the salvation of the elect if that is the proper language to use. I think there is a physical reality that serves as a type for a greater antitype to come in the New Covenant and everything that Jesus is and does as the faithful ethnic Israelite and God the Son.

I think if we looked at OT Israel as a whole their experience is not a blessing to the nations as a whole but a relative few Gentiles benefitting here and there due to God's graciousness which also provides foreshadowing for the Great Commission of the New Covenant where the gospel will be preached to all nations and the elect will be gathered from the four corners of the earth. We can't really say OT Israel was very "missions minded." :) There is a reason Paul says the dividing wall of hostility between Jew and Gentile has been brought down in Christ.

Queen of Sheba - She witnessed God's hand of blessing on Solomon but did she also witness Solomon's later covenant unfaithfulness that later ripped the nation in half in the time of his son Rehoboam?

Nebuchadnezzar - Context: Many of Israel are dead and most of the rest are in exile due to covenant infidelity. Nebuchadnezzar is blessed through Daniel's faithfulness and God's judgment in humbling him, not Israel as a nation.

Ruth - Context: time of the Judges. Israel is constantly committing covenant unfaithfulness through idol worship and constantly under the oppression of foreign enemies. Ruth seems more faithful and trusting of God than her Jewish mother-in-law Naomi.

Ninevites - Jonah went there because he had to not because he wanted to bless them :)

The OT itself looks forward to a time when the nations will be blessed through Israel. That is fulfilled in Jesus (the true and faithful Israelite), His New Covenant, and His Great Commission. Us Gentiles benefit from what God gave Israel (promises, covenants, etc.) now because of Jesus.

I merely want to emphasize that the New Covenant is the pinnacle of God's covenants. It is the covenant that all prior covenants looked forward to and served to bring about in some way.

This is why I am convinced 1689 Federalism is the best system I have come across. Dispensationalism diminishes the glory and uniqueness of the New Covenant by calling it a mere "parenthesis" in God's plan. The one covenant/two administrations view for me does not adequately elevate the New Covenant in its importance over prior covenants since it is merely an "adminsitration" of the Covenant of Grace rather than uniquely "the" Covenant of Grace. I don't see the New Covenant being on equal footing to the prior covenants at all - it is greater in every way. Everything prior is ultimately pointing forward to the majesty and pinnacle of Jesus' work as the New Covenant mediator, sacrifice, and high priest.
So how does this relate to 1689 Federalism? I am mostly posting to bring out the thinking of Reformed Baptist Federalism. I think I can refute some of what you are posting but the thread is about Reformed Baptist Federalism and the Covenants. Would you say you represent what 1689 Federalism teaches?
 
So how does this relate to 1689 Federalism? I am mostly posting to bring out the thinking of Reformed Baptist Federalism. I think I can refute some of what you are posting but the thread is about Reformed Baptist Federalism and the Covenants. Would you say you represent what 1689 Federalism teaches?

Just to clarify, this thread is not about what 1689 Federalism is, or a defense of it. This thread is about whether 1689 Federalism is novel or not.
 
Well, can we start again here?

nov·el | \ ˈnä-vəl \
Essential Meaning of novel
: new and different from what has been known beforea novel ideaShe has suggested a novel approach to the problem.Handheld computers are novel devices.

Full Definition of novel

(Entry 1 of 2)
1a: new and not resembling something formerly known or usedNew technologies are posing novel problems.
b: not previously identifiedtransmission of a novel coronavirusa novel genetic mutationnovel bacterial strains
2: original or striking especially in conception or stylea novel scheme to collect moneynovel solutions

novel
noun
Definition of novel (Entry 2 of 2)
1: an invented prose narrative that is usually long and complex and deals especially with human experience through a usually connected sequence of events
2: the literary genre consisting of novels
 
Yes, I believe it is novel in my estimation. Feel free to disagree.

My reasoning: Snips of older reformed men have been taken out of fuller works and patched together to make a new (novel) quilt (if you will), using the thread (stitching) of today’s modern label 1689 Federalism. So in that sense 1689 Federalism, as it is branded today, seems to be novel and still changing from time to time.
 
Grant, you have claimed multiple times now that we have incorrectly referenced various theologians in support of specific aspects of 1689 Federalism (side note: 169 pages doesn't qualify as a "snip"). However, you have not offered anything to substantiate that claim, thus it is not possible for anyone to evaluate your claim.

To clarify:
  1. What specifically is novel about 1689 Federalism?
  2. What specifically is incorrect in our references to various theologians?
    1. Make sure to specifically note why a theologian is referenced and then demonstrate why that reference is wrong.
 
Grant, you have claimed multiple times now that we have incorrectly referenced various theologians in support of specific aspects of 1689 Federalism (side note: 169 pages doesn't qualify as a "snip"). However, you have not offered anything to substantiate that claim, thus it is not possible for anyone to evaluate your claim.

To clarify:
  1. What specifically is novel about 1689 Federalism?
  2. What specifically is incorrect in our references to various theologians?
    1. Make sure to specifically note why a theologian is referenced and then demonstrate why that reference is wrong.
Not true Brandon. I have linked 2 references (Post #65 and Post #89) to material on PB cited for Gill and Owen. I know you differ on from me on Owen and Gill. From what else I have read on PB, others feel Owen is overly isolated by 1689ers. Of course, you will feel differently and that’s fine by me, considering our presuppositions.
 
Last edited:
I think R. Scott Clark provides good info in summary of some of the in-house (Baptist) stances on Covenant Theology:

In light of the manifest discontinuities between each of these three Baptist approaches and Reformed theology since the 1520s, we must reject Michael Haykin’s assertion that the republication of Coxe’s work, “clearly demonstrates that 17th century (sic) Calvinistic Baptists like Coxe—and his modern descendants in this century—are fully a part of that stream of Reformed theology that has come down from the Reformation work of men like Huldreich Zwingli, John Calvin, Heinrich Bulliner, and Théodore de Bèze.” This remarkable assertion is, at best, only partly true.
 
Last edited:
Grant, I apologize I overlooked those posts. Thanks for referencing them again.

Regarding Gill, can you please clarify how dispute over the position of an 18th century theologian has bearing on a the novelty of a 17th century theology?

I already posted a link to Owen’s words outside of his hebrews commentary. Below was another old PB snippet from Gill.


Notice that in order to demonstrate that 1689 Federalism has abused Gill by "snipping" quotes from numerous different sources (BDD, book, commentary, etc), you have provided exactly 1 "snip." I don't think that you are judging yourself by the same standard you are judging us. I address this 1 "snip" that you have referenced in my post on Gill, yet you have not provided any comment on the other quotes from Gill explaining why I am wrong to reference them.
From what I have read of Owen, beyond just focusing on snippets from his Hebrews Commentary, he affirmed the Abrahamic Covenant as being a part of the CoG. Same can be said for Gill.
Here is Gill:
The next covenant is that made with Abraham and his seed, on which great stress is laid (Gen. 17:10-14)… Now that this covenant was not the pure covenant of grace, in distinction from the covenant of works, but rather a covenant of works, will soon be proved… that it is not the covenant of grace is clear http://www.ccel.org/ccel/gill/practical.iv.i.html
and
The covenant of circumcision, or the covenant which gave Abraham’s infant children a right to circumcision, is not the covenant of grace; for the covenant of circumcision must be more certainly, in the nature of it, a covenant of works, and not of grace. Some Strictures on Mr. Bostwick’s Fair and Rational Vindication… (30-31)
Note that you linked to R. Scott Clark's "Engaging With 1689." He has an entire section in that post arguing against Gill on this matter. See the heading "Was John Gill Right? Was the Abrahamic Covenant A Covenant of Works?"



From what I have read, it would seem that Owen’s view of the Abrahamic Covenant would have been acceptable to Westminster.

@PuritanCovenanter has an entry here highlighting 2 excellent PB posts that help better understand how Owen viewed the Abrahamic Covenant:
First of all, Coxe pointed his readers to Owen's treatment of the Old and the New Covenants, not Owen's treatment of the Abrahamic Covenant. Coxe wrote his own lengthy treatment on the Abrahamic Covenant. Owen also makes statements about the New Covenant and the Abrahamic Covenant in his commentary that are in conflict with statements that he makes elsewhere on the Abrahamic Covenant. I have notated and briefly commented upon these ocurrences in this post if anyone is interested A Summary of Why Baptists Appeal to Owen. Sam Renihan elaborates upon this in his dissertation From Shadow to Substance (pages 213-223 "Tensions in John Owen's Covenant Theology"). Importantly, Owen also makes modifications to the Abrahamic Covenant, acknowledging a twofold seed of Abraham to whom distinct promises were made. The baptist build upon this acknowledgment as well.

Martin's post consists of references to other PB threads. The first from Paul Korte. Paul argues, in part, that Owen has been misread because he is being read through modern lenses. Samuel Renihan's dissertation on the subject demonstrates that is not true in the case of 1689 Federalism. In fact, he demonstrates that those who try to make Owen's view compatible with the WCF have failed to sufficiently understand the historical context of Owen's writing, namely its place in the Cameronian tradition as it was being debated in 17th century England (see also D. Patrick Ramsey's "In Defense of Moses" on Owen). Renihan's dissertation is essential reading for anyone who wants to seriously wrestle with questions of historical theology and 1689 Federalism. Any argument that 1689 Federalism is novel has to address the material he has put forward.

Second in Martin's post is a statement from Rich L. who quotes "A Puritan Theology's" treatment of the matter. For a response to that see Renihan's "Dolphins in the Woods" in JIRBS, as well as his dissertation. Keep in mind that Owen very clearly told everyone in his commentary that he disagreed with Calvin and agreed with the Lutherans on the relationship between the Old and New Covenants.

Third is McMahon's response to me in response to him. I'll let readers read for themselves and decide. See also A Summary of Why Baptists Appeal to Owen



As for R. Scott Clark's "Engaging With 1689," I cannot commend it as an accurate understanding of our position. Since he initially wrote that post and was corrected by Barcellos and Renihan, he has greatly expanded it in length. I have much to say on it, but will not do so here. In short, Clark conflates numerous distinct issues. I think he is scratching at a legitimate difference (typology), but he is not accurately conveying the difference.
 
Regarding Gill, can you please clarify how dispute over the position of an 18th century theologian has bearing on a the novelty of a 17th century theology?
Yes. Both the 17th and 18th centuries occurred before the 20th & 21st century, which is when I believe the “1689 Federalist” discovery/label use occurred.

Thanks for providing the additional links.
 
Last edited:
Yes. Both the 17th and 18th centuries occurred before the 20th & 21st century, which is when I believe the “1689 Federalist” discovery/label use occurred.

Thanks for providing the additional links.
I'm having a hard time making sense of your statement. Just to clarify, are you claiming that 21st century baptists have completely misread all of the sources, including all of the 17th century particular baptists, such that no one held to "1689 Federalism" until the 21st century?
 
I'm having a hard time making sense of your statement. Just to clarify, are you claiming that 21st century baptists have completely misread all of the sources, including all of the 17th century particular baptists, such that no one held to "1689 Federalism" until the 21st century?
I am stating that I think the 1689 Federalist label is espousing a newly cleaned up version of Baptist CT that is certainly not out of bounds with the 1689 confession. Yes, it seems it has some historic roots as you have helpfully shown. It also seems that there have been small adjustments and subtle changes within your camp (I think even you have admitted this regarding views on the mosaic and republication of CoW), and for me that still makes it seem novel. The “discovery” as you call it and the label “1689 Federalist” would still be novel, in my opinion.:2cents:
 
@brandonadams

Help me out on your words below (https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/04/14/some-comments-on-john-gills-covenant-theology/):
No one has ever said or suggested that “everyone else since Coxe and Keach lost the confession on CT.” Whipps’ working thesis appears to be that 1689 Federalism was never lost, it was merely rejected nearly as soon as it was put foward. John Gill, the giant of baptist thought, rejected 1689 Federalism in the mid 18th century and it was never heard from again. That is why men in the 20th century held to a similar covenant theology. If Whipps would like to present an argument that the confessional baptist resurgence and their subsequent development of covenant theology was influenced by Gill, I’m all ears. But from my readings, those men were not very big fans of Gill on the whole. Perhaps others like James White or Whipps himself were more influenced by Gill. Regardless of whether modern baptists were influenced by Gill in the development of their covenant theology, they still weren’t exposed to 1689 Federalism because it was lost with the loss of confessionalism and historic baptist texts. And men like James White who saw the value in Owen’s Hebrews commentary didn’t fully grasp all that Owen was arguing as it related to 1689 Federalism.

1. Are you saying John Gill was NOT a 1689 Federalist?

2. Are you staying that James White does not fully grasp Owen’s Hebrews commentary and you do?

I just want to make sure I am reading correctly because I could not be reading you right.
 
Thank you for the questions.

1. Are you saying John Gill was NOT a 1689 Federalist?
The point of the post is to show the substantial agreement between Gill and 1689 Federalism, so no that is not what I intended to convey. The one sentence "Regardless of whether modern baptists were influenced by Gill in the development of their covenant theology, they still weren’t exposed to 1689 Federalism because it was lost with the loss of confessionalism and historic baptist texts." is poorly expressed. It should have said something like "Regardless of whether modern baptists were influenced by Gill in the development of their covenant theology, they still weren’t exposed to 17th century particular baptist writings on covenant theology because it was lost with the loss of confessionalism and historic baptist texts."

2. Are you staying that James White does not fully grasp Owen’s Hebrews commentary and you do?
Yes, on Hebrews 8 I am saying that scholars like James Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos have explained that James White missed some important aspects of Owen's commentary (note that S. Renihan and Barcellos both did their dissertations on Owen). White has chosen not to read their work on the matter and has offered no comment upon it.
 
I am stating that I think the 1689 Federalist label is espousing a newly cleaned up version of Baptist CT that is certainly not out of bounds with the 1689 confession. Yes, it seems it has some historic roots as you have helpfully shown. It also seems that there have been small adjustments and subtle changes within your camp (I think even you have admitted this regarding views on the mosaic and republication of CoW), and for me that still makes it seem novel. The “discovery” as you call it and the label “1689 Federalist” would still be novel, in my opinion.:2cents:
I'm still unclear what you're saying. Does it have historic roots, or is it novel?
 
Can you please specifically state what is novel about 1689 Federalism?
Brandon I feel I did so as concisely as I could in post # 130, I realize you don’t think that passes your test, but I don’t expect you to agree. I am not the only one who has concerns with how Owen and Gill are used by 7 Covenant Baptist. I have read your Gill exerts that say one thing and I have also read Gill to use 1 covenant under various administration language. So which Gill is right? So feel free to lump me in the camp of “read more, read again” group if that helps. I DO plan to keep reading on the newly discovered historical federalist position, but I have stated where I am as of today. I can’t read all of your links in 1 day as they are longer blogs/articles.
 
Last edited:
Brandon I feel I did so as concisely as I could in post # 130, I realize you don’t think that passes your test, but I don’t expect you to agree. I went back and counted and you have asked me to clarify at least 5 times. I am not the only one who has concerns with how Owen and Gill are used by 7 Covenant Baptist. I have read your Gill exerts that say one thing and I have also read Gill to use 1 covenant under various administration language. So which Gill is right? So feel free to lump me in the camp of “read more, read again” group if that helps. I DO plan to keep reading on the newly discovered historical federalist position, but I have stated where I am as of today. I can’t read all of your links in 1 day as they are longer blogs/articles.
Grant, it's not about passing or not passing my test. At this point I simply don't know what you're trying to say. You have said that 1689 Federalism has historic roots, but that it is novel. Those are mutually exclusive. Are you saying some aspects of it are historic and some aspects are novel? If so, which? I asked you to clarify multiple times because you are not being clear. I have asked you a couple of times to state specifically what doctrinal point(s) of 1689 Federalism is novel (the point of the original post), and you have not done so. Can you please do so?
 
Grant, it's not about passing or not passing my test. At this point I simply don't know what you're trying to say. You have said that 1689 Federalism has historic roots, but that it is novel. Those are mutually exclusive. Are you saying some aspects of it are historic and some aspects are novel? If so, which? I asked you to clarify multiple times because you are not being clear. I have asked you a couple of times to state specifically what doctrinal point(s) of 1689 Federalism is novel (the point of the original post), and you have not done so. Can you please do so?
For me the Novelty:
- The label “1689 Federalist” and the detailed polishing of Chapter 7 of 2LBC to sine a newly discovered light on viewing 7 distinct covenants in scripture as being confessional. The first time I had heard this being taught within confessional circles was when the “1689 Federalist” label was coined. I think even a query on PB threads will show the topic is relatively novel in reformed circles. Growing up a Baptist it was only the dispensational that I had heard of so dividing up and isolating the OT covenants.

- Relatively New Books drawing on Owen and Gill in confirmation of the distinct views on Abraham and Moses as being 1689 Federaist-like in approach. Seems it just depends which Owen & Gill quotes one uses. I don’t deny Owen was different from say, Brakel, but I also think the 1689ers come across as knowing Owen better than Owen

- The label itself has seemed to create 2 new camps within confessional Baptist covenant theology, as should be clear from all the new articles that detail out everyone else’s apparent misunderstandings.

- Have not the 1689 Federalist changed their “official” views on the Mosaic and republication of CoW relatively recently?

- Previously thought of Confessional Baptist are jumping between camps (as evidenced by the OP) as newer explanations come to light.

So there is an undeniable novelty to this in my estimation.

Brandon, for me the above are what stick out the most. You have already given links to material you have written to help explain, which I am thankful for. I stated that I need more time to read your blog entries as they are longer.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for clarifying. The number of covenants isn't really something that we focus on, but I understand what you're saying. I encourage you to perhaps reframe your investigation a bit, if this is something you're interested in pursuing. Searching for theologians who delineate 7 different covenants may or may not yield anything fruitful. Rather, something more along the following lines might be more fruitful:

Cameronian Subservient Covenant Tradition: The majority reformed view, epitomized by John Calvin and summarized in the WCF is that all post-fall covenants are the Covenant of Grace (in substance), the only other covenant being the Adamic Covenant of Works. A minority view, first articulated in the reformed world by John Cameron, argued that the Mosaic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace (in substance), but neither was it the Adamic Covenant of Works. Rather it was a third, distinct covenant. This view was carried on by the English Congregationalists. It is this view that Owen sides with, over against Calvin and the WCF (see his comments on the "majority" view). Focus your study here and see if 1689 Federalism's view of the Mosaic Covenant is in line with the subservient covenant tradition or not (study the OPC Report on Republication if you're leery of any baptist resource). If it is, then it will make sense why 17th century baptists would appeal to Owen on this point.

Noahic Covenant: This should not be a controversial point, as many (maybe even most) reformed today, following Kuyper, believe the Noahic Covenant is distinct from and subservient to the Covenant of Grace. The 17th century baptists also believed that. I haven't studied the history of this particular point in detail.

Abrahamic Covenant: Are the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant made to the same group of people, or are there distinct promises made to (or concerning) distinct people? Is there a covenantal distinction between Abraham's carnal and spiritual offspring such that some promises are made to (or concerning) the carnal offspring but not the spiritual and some promises are made to (or concerning) the spiritual offspring but not the carnal? Owen argued that this was the case (see Exercitation 6) and the 17th century baptists also appealed to him on this point, drawing conclusions from it that Owen himself did not. Going back centuries earlier, Augustine also distinguished the different promises to the different seed. How then the Abrahamic Covenant relates to the Covenant of Grace can be a very nuanced discussion, but this is a starting point.

Focusing your investigation in this manner may help you better ascertain what is and is not being argued and why certain people are appealed to in the process.

Relatively New Books drawing on Owen and Gill
The appeal to Owen was made explicitly in the 17th century by Nehemiah Coxe in his book on the covenants, so it's not something new.

What book drawing on Gill are you referring to? I'm not aware of any.

I don’t deny Owen was different from say, Brakel
In what way? In the way described above regarding the subservient covenant? Take baby steps and understand specifically why particular theologians are referenced. Perhaps it is specifically because of the difference between Owen and someone like Brakel.

The label itself has seemed to create 2 new camps within confessional Baptist covenant theology, as should be clear from all the new articles that detail out everyone else’s apparent misunderstandings.
That's a matter of perspective. Another way to look at it would be that the confessional men who followed Murray rather than the 17th century particular baptists created a "new camp." The purpose of the label was then to make note of that difference. It doesn't really matter either way, as the confession is written broadly enough to embrace both.

Have not the 1689 Federalist changed their “official” views on the Mosaic and republication of CoW relatively recently?
No.

Previously thought of Confessional Baptist are jumping between camps (as evidenced by the OP) as newer explanations come to light.
I don't see how this entails novelty. If there is an older view that people are embracing when they start reading it, that doesn't mean that view is novel. If someone was an Arminian and then someone handed them Calvin's Institutes and they became a Calvinist, that doesn't mean Calvinism is a novelty.

I stated that I need more time to read your blog entries as they are longer.
Please take all the time you need. I appreciate you reading them. However, at this point I would strongly encourage you to read at least 1 book from this list (preference for #3, 6, 7, or 9) http://www.1689federalism.com/recommended-reading-list/
 
What book drawing on Gill are you referring to? I'm not aware of any.
Simply referring to Gill also being someone that multiple “camps” claim. Gill does seem to have some conflicting quotes.

Brandon, thanks for providing the rest of the information and explanations. They were helpful. My current opinion remains the same. I can’t make any promises right now on additional books, but I have your recommended list noted for when my own list (relatively short) hits 0. I just finished Brakel’s 4 volumes. Currently reading Durham on Job, then I am hitting the institutes. Afterwards I may dabble in one of the Renihan books.
 
Last edited:
I'm not a 1689 federalist any longer but I was a few years ago and I would've said no. Galatians 3 was what convinced me otherwise.
Is this the passage you are referring to or am I missing the mark?

Know then that it is those of faith who are the sons of Abraham. And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel beforehand to Abraham, saying, “In you shall all the nations be blessed.” So then, those who are of faith are blessed along with Abraham, the man of faith.
Galatians 3:7‭-‬9

(I've been having a blast reading this thread so I thought I'd participate with something. Blessings from Missouri [emoji106])

Sent from my SM-A326U using Tapatalk
 
Is this the passage you are referring to or am I missing the mark?
That's certainly a portion of it. What I find particularly striking is the final verse (29). Paul easily could've ended with v. 28 and the passage still would've sounded complete, but that wouldn't have completed his thought. What's he getting at? We, through our Spirit wrought union with Christ by faith, are in the covenant that was ratified with Abraham. The New Covenant was not ratified with Abraham. My conclusion: One substance, multiple administrations.
 
That's certainly a portion of it. What I find particularly striking is the final verse (29). Paul easily could've ended with v. 28 and the passage still would've sounded complete, but that wouldn't have completed his thought. What's he getting at? We, through our Spirit wrought union with Christ by faith, are in the covenant that was ratified with Abraham. The New Covenant was not ratified with Abraham. My conclusion: One substance, multiple administrations.
Thanks for sharing your thoughts Ethan. Note an important point that you just made: The Abrahamic and New Covenants are not the same covenants. The ratification/establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant was not the ratification/establishment of the New Covenant. Importantly, the ratification/establishment of the New Covenant meant the end of the Old (Mosaic) Covenant, while the ratification/establishment of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision did not. The author of Hebrews says this is because the New Covenant was established on better promises than the Old (regeneration and justification). The author of Hebrews also says that Jesus is the guarantor of a better covenant specifically because His priesthood is not derived from Abraham (7:1-21). Abraham ("him who had the promises") was inferior to Melchizedek. The New Covenant is "better" because Jesus' priesthood is superior to Abraham (7:6-7). Jesus is not the guarantor of the Covenant of Circumcision, but of the New "better" Covenant.

Concerning Galatians (and I would say the same applies to Hebrews), T. David Gordon argues

Some may wonder why I do not describe Paul’s reasoning in the Galatian letter as covenant-theological. I could do so, and if one did so, the explanation could work reasonably well. But “covenant-historical” is better suited to Galatians, because so many of Paul’s statements are of a temporal nature (which I will discuss later), where he reminds them that the Abrahamic covenant antedated the Sinai covenant by 430 years and thus temporalized/relativized the Sinai administration (Gal. 3:17). In this letter, Paul conceived the Sinai covenant as a temporary, provisional covenant-administration that governed between the other two covenants; it governed after the Abrahamic covenant and before the new covenant. The temporal analogies Paul employed to describe the tutelage of the Sinai covenant (“guardians,” “managers,” “trustees”) all point to this temporary/provisional nature of the Sinai covenant; and to understand Paul, we must adjust our thinking to his thoroughly historical reasoning...

Paul’s thinking in Galatians is also deeply historia salutis, as well as pervasively eschatological.[20] The reader will quickly discover my dependence upon those twentieth-century interpretations of Paul that have (rightly) disclosed the pervasively eschatological nature of his theological conceptions (including, but not limited to, his eschatological understanding of the Spirit, his eschatological conception of justification, and his eschatological understanding of Abraham’s promised blessings to the nations).[21] Thus, in introducing somewhat more overtly the category of historia testamentorum, it is not in any way my intention to diminish the importance of historia salutis categories in the deeper substructure of Paul’s thought. Rather, it is designed to facilitate understanding how it is that Paul reasons about the new covenant realities in light of two previous covenants: the Abrahamic and the Mosaic covenants.

In a variety of ways, the new covenant is profoundly and pervasively eschatological, and it would require an additional monograph to demonstrate how eschatological the “new covenant” was conceived by Jeremiah even before Paul...

If we permit Paul to reason covenant-historically, and if we permit ourselves to reason with Paul, using the categories of historia testamentorum, we will find his argumentation in Galatians to be more accessible than if we approach Galatians by other categories...

For Paul, faith, as an existential human capacity, even faith as the instrument of justification, had been here since Abraham. Therefore, when Paul in the same chapter says that “before faith came, we were . . . under the law,” he must be using “faith” as a reference to the new covenant, so that “before faith came” and “before Christ came” have virtually the same meaning. Indeed, many commentators have routinely recognized that “before faith came” in this passage refers to the new covenant realities, and that “faith” here is a synecdoche for the new covenant or realities associated with it.[26] What they less frequently recognize, at least explicitly, is that ὁ νόμος here is a synecdochal reference to the Sinai covenant-administration, a point I will attempt to argue throughout.

Static systematic-theological categories are incapable of processing the deeply historical/temporal (and covenantal) reasoning in Galatians. Paul understands God to have unfolded his redemptive purposes in a series of covenants over time, and Paul’s reasoning is therefore profoundly temporal...

Until and unless we think covenant-historically, we cannot think Paul’s thoughts after him . . . His ‘whens’ (4:3, 3, 8), ‘befores’ (3:23), ‘afters/nows’ (3:17, 25; 4:9), and ‘untils’ (3:19) must become ours”

- Promise, Law, Faith: Covenant-Historical Reasoning in Galatians (7-13, 212)

I believe Paul's argument in Galatians is much more nuanced than saying Christians are part of the Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision. Rather, I believe Paul is making an intra-Abrahamic argument, distinguishing between the different promises to the different seed (Gal 3:16), demonstrating that the promise to bless all nations in Abraham refers to Christ, not to his numerous offspring (Jews). Receiving the blessing of the nations comes through Christ, not by being a circumcised offspring of Abraham (as the land promise required).

The Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision and the New Covenant relate, not as two phases of the same covenant, but as historia salutis and ordo salutis. The Covenant of Circumcision promised that the Christ would come from Abraham (and the Davidic narrowed that down, promising that the Christ would be a Jew from the line of David) and that he would bless the nations. However, the actual blessing (ordo salutis) comes through union with Christ (the New Covenant). The Judaizers erred in believing that in order to receive the blessing of the nations one had to become a Jew by being circumcised like the physical offspring of Abraham because 430 years prior to the law (which circumcision obligates one to obey and which conditioned reception of the Abrahamic land promise) God promised that salvation would come through the New Covenant.

The Abrahamic inheritance of the land of Canaan by his physical offspring (what the Covenant of Circumcision promised, in part) was typological of the eschatological inheritance through Christ. Thus Paul argues with the heirs of the sub-eschatological promise to Abraham that the heirs of the eschatological promise are those who are in Christ.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top