1689 Federalism Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.
Not a monolithic movement:
Among 1689 Federalists there is much variation.

Any theological position contains variation within it. But theological positions exist because of unity/agreement on certain points. 1689 Federalism is a system of covenant theology unified around certain key points (i.e. Abrahamic Dichotomy, New Covenant = Covenant of Grace, Mosaic was "of works") while allowing diversity in expression on other points.

But again, you are completely free to be a baptist and reject 1689 Federalism. You are even free to reject 1689 Federalism and still hold to the 2LBC.

I am a baptist. But I see no reason we cannot focus on the unity of the Bible and state that God's plan of grace started from Genesis 3:15. All believers were united into Christ and the end goal was always union with Christ.

1689 Federalism agrees.
 
Brandon,

First, thanks for your clarification. I will try to answer the questions you directed towards me. If I miss anything let me know.

1.
Grant,
I am completely open to using a label other than "20th Century RB." Feel free to offer up another one. So far no one has done so.

Good question. Maybe Orthodox Reformed Baptist (joking). How about simply a confessional baptist or covenantal bapstist, I would rather you guys find more helpful titles than me? Even the article you linked from the FAQ on 1689Federalism admits that even during the 17th century there were baptist who held to a different CT than what today's 1689Federalist are advocating.

That fact alone makes it uncharitable to title themselves 1689Federalist because it ignores the very fact that the confession itself calls for inclusion of differing views. Their title may not have been intended to convey a "nose raising", but it does. Did I read the FAQ right?

2.
Who do you have in mind when you say that view existed well before the 20th century?

No one specifically. I am simply giving an honest admission that the CT the 1689Federalist attribute to the so called "20th century reformed baptist" existed well before the 20th century. 1 example being the CT which existed in the Westminster Standards and further the openness of the 2LBC in chapter 7 itself.
 
To clarify a point of discussion above:

1689 Federalism affirms a distinction between the visible and invisible church. However, it does not agree with the common view of paedobaptists that they correspond to two different memberships in the Covenant of Grace (internal and external). Rather, it agrees with the paedobaptists who see the distinction as a matter of perspective: God's vs man's. There is one church (body of Christ) with one membership. However, the church is seen infallibly by God (invisible) and fallibly by man (visible). That does not mean that men should attempt to be God and discern by our own means who is regenerate. God has given us instruction how we are relate to one another in the church, given our fallibility. We are to admit people to membership based on a credible profession of saving faith and we are to excommunicate those who negate that profession by their behavior.

For a much longer explanation, please see Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto?
 
Is it your claim that 17th century particular baptists did not have a covenant theology distinct from Westminster?
No. I think there were various views of CT. There are also differing views within the Pro-Paedo Westminster Camp.

Or is it your opinion that that difference was not reflected in any way in the 2LBC?
Yes & No...I think my answer above explains this.

Or are you just saying that it was not articulated in detail?
Kinda. I love their detail. However I think one holding to Westminster CT can read that same chapter and give a hardy Amen!
 
Pergamum, I want to be completely open and candid with you: Your angst in this thread makes it very hard for me to read and respond calmly. Would you be willing, for my sake, to tone down the rhetoric and state your questions or concerns in a different manner? Otherwise, due to my own weakness, I may not be able to continue in this discussion. Here are some verses I'll post for all of us to keep in min:

Proverbs 15:1
A soft answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.

Proverbs 15:18
A hot-tempered man stirs up strife, but he who is slow to anger quiets contention.

Proverbs 30:33
For pressing milk produces curds, pressing the nose produces blood, and pressing anger produces strife.



Grant,
I am completely open to using a label other than "20th Century RB." Feel free to offer up another one. So far no one has done so.

Who do you have in mind when you say that view existed well before the 20th century?



Brother, you seem to be ignoring what I have already stated above. 1689 Federalism does not claim to be the only confessionally acceptable view. Please stop misrepresenting us. Please see Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism? in the FAQ section of the site.

Regarding the 17th century baptists, what works have you read on the subject? Have you read Samuel Renihan's dissertation? Anyone wishing to comment on 17th century particular baptist covenant theology needs to read it. He notes "The second complementary branch of argumentation was the identity and nature of the covenant of grace. The Abrahamic covenant was made known to Abraham. Andrew Ritor, John Spilsbury, Christopher Blackwood, and William Kiffen, Hanserd Knollys, and Benjamin Coxe established this argument in the early 1640s. For the rest of the seventeenth century it was expanded by the Particular Baptists with considerable continuity and minimal diversity... In light of the diversity of the Reformed covenantal tradition, it is noteworthy that there is a marked lack of diversity in the Baptist tradition. (326-7)"



The purpose of the title was simply to let people know that White had not yet studied the position. People thought he held to 1689 Federalism but were confused when he made statements in a debate on baptism contrary to the position. It was confusing people who were trying to understand the position. The intention of the post was to clarify that he did not hold to 1689 Fed. However, it would have been inaccurate to say he rejected the position because he had not studied it. He was not even aware of it. So that's why I chose the title. As I clarified in the post itself, it was not meant in any way as derogatory towards White. Just a statement of fact to clear up confusion.

Again and again, your concern seems to be the fact that different views are being identified as different views. Why is that such a terrible thing? Should we say there is no difference between paedobaptism and credobaptism for the sake of unity? Should we say there is no difference between dispensationalism and covenant theology for the sake of unity? Making distinctions is just part of the wharp and whoof of theology. If it is something you object to, perhaps theological forums aren't the best place for you?

If your concern is only that those who hold to 1689 Federalism are trying to win the discussion by an appeal to historical authority, then I agree with you that is distasteful and wrong. But that is definitely not what I myself or others have done. The issue for me has always been what Scripture teaches. The appeal to history is merely a helpful aid. The intention of that post was not to say that White was wrong because he disagreed with the 17th century view. It was merely to point out there was a difference between his view and that - in order to therefore have a meaningful discussion about which view is correct.



I really have no idea what this is about. The claim is that the baptist covenant theology known as 1689 Federalism was held in the 17th, 18th, 19th, and early 20th century (Pink) before it was lost in the mid-late 20th century. ~50 years is not "all these millenia." Furthermore, from my studies I have found the early church writings on covenant theology to be much closer to 1689 Federalism than Westminster. So you shouldn't have anything to be suspicious of in this case.



Because 1689 Federalism agrees with the concept of "the Covenant of Grace" (salvation through covenant union). Perhaps you would have worded things differently if you were in their shoes.



The claim has never been that the 2LBC provides a "complete alternative covenantal system in the confession." Again, you have misunderstood (or have been misled by some). 1689 Federalism does not claim to be the only acceptable 2LBC position.



Grant, I'm unclear what you are trying to argue here. Is it your claim that 17th century particular baptists did not have a covenant theology distinct from Westminster? Or is it your opinion that that difference was not reflected in any way in the 2LBC? Or are you just saying that it was not articulated in detail? As mentioned above, 1689 Federalism does not claim that the 2LBC lays out 1689 Federalism in precise and complete detail. Its statements are left broad with the detailed outworking found in their other writings. Their other writings simply explain why there is any difference at all between WCF and LBCF on these points.

There is no angst here, brother. I know you've put a lot of work into publicizing your positions. And I believe deepening our understanding on this topic is a good thing.

I do admit I am unhappy with the labels. I do think it represents a subtle jockeying for the theological high-ground.

You wrote something very interesting and I think this would be an excellent area of study and might win me over to your side. You wrote:

"Furthermore, from my studies I have found the early church writings on covenant theology to be much closer to 1689 Federalism than Westminster."

That would make a most important area of study because it would remove the objection that 1689 Federalism is a relatively new innovation in Church History.

Peace, brother, and I appreciate you even if I might disagree. To be truthful I am STILL open to one of the varieties of 1689 Federalism. But right now, I cannot get past the objections that I had previously given.
 
To clarify a point of discussion above:

1689 Federalism affirms a distinction between the visible and invisible church. However, it does not agree with the common view of paedobaptists that they correspond to two different memberships in the Covenant of Grace (internal and external). Rather, it agrees with the paedobaptists who see the distinction as a matter of perspective: God's vs man's. There is one church (body of Christ) with one membership. However, the church is seen infallibly by God (invisible) and fallibly by man (visible). That does not mean that men should attempt to be God and discern by our own means who is regenerate. God has given us instruction how we are relate to one another in the church, given our fallibility. We are to admit people to membership based on a credible profession of saving faith and we are to excommunicate those who negate that profession by their behavior.

For a much longer explanation, please see Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto?
Thanks. I can support that distinction. I think I agree.
 
How about simply a confessional baptist or covenantal bapstist

As mentioned above, that does not distinguish between the two different views of confessional/covenantal baptist theology. In order to have theological discussion, those two views need to be distinguished. So labels must be found to distinguish them.

Even the article you linked from the FAQ on 1689Federalism admits that even during the 17th century there were baptist who held to a different CT than what today's 1689Federalist are advocating.

That FAQ actually needs to be updated in light of Samuel Renihan's completed dissertation, which showed much less diversity than originally thought (when that was written). The men in question did not hold to the view articulated by 20th century men.

But regardless, yes, I understand the unintended consequence of the label, but I still feel it is an appropriate label and I haven't been offered a better alternative yet.

I am simply giving an honest admission that the CT the 1689Federalist attribute to the so called "20th century reformed baptist" existed well before the 20th century.

I appreciate that, but we need some concrete examples if this is going to be a criticism of the label.

Again, I am not stuck on the label and I really have never intended any of this to be a debate about historical authority.
 
That would make a most important area of study because it would remove the objection that 1689 Federalism is a relatively new innovation in Church History.

See these posts for starters
Ligon Duncan did his dissertation years ago on covenant theology in the early church. I am working my way through his dissertation and plan on writing a series of posts on the blog analyzing his findings to see if the examples are closer to 1689 Fed or Westminster.
 
But regardless, yes, I understand the unintended consequence of the label, but I still feel it is an appropriate label and I haven't been offered a better alternative yet.

Tri-Covenant (to replace 20th centrey RB) Reformed Baptist (just thinking out loud)

Brandon how many completey distinct (as in not being properly considered the CoW of the CoG) covenants do 1689federalist see 7 or 8?
 
Brandon how many completey distinct covenants do 1689federalist see 7 or 8?
  1. Covenant of Redemption
  2. Adamic Covenant of Works
  3. Noahic Covenant
  4. Abrahamic Covenant of Circumcision
  5. Mosaic Covenant
  6. Davidic Covenant
  7. New Covenant of Grace
Christopher Blackwood added the Levitical covenant.
 
See these posts for starters
Ligon Duncan did his dissertation years ago on covenant theology in the early church. I am working my way through his dissertation and plan on writing a series of posts on the blog analyzing his findings to see if the examples are closer to 1689 Fed or Westminster.

Thanks. I will read these.

Just a gentle note: I am not your enemy or opponent. Several aspects of 1689 Federalism have rubbed me the wrong way, but perhaps you can help me through my objections. I do know as a movement develops, it might take some time to refine lingo, and work though minor points, and some folks go through a Cage State with any new doctrine. I have given you my blunt objections thus far, but there has been no personal animosity. Just pushing back and testing the doctrines. Who knows, I might thank you later for your dogged perseverance when I join your ranks. I usually don't believe anything easily. So, remember that brother, and work to convince me.
 
Pergamum, referencing back to your question about how to interpret Eph. 2:12 I think it's getting the truth that all of the post fall covenants pre-New Covenant bear relation to and subserviency to the New Covenant (Historical Administration of the Covenant of Grace) as originally promised in Gen. III. 15. The Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic Covenants typified the Savior and his work, pointed out sin and the necessity of the fullfillment of righteousness, and established the genealogical line through which Jesus would descend as well as proleptically offering the grace of the New Covenant to the saints living under their administration through the types and shadows that were instituted under those covenants to point to Christ. As well the Holy Scriptures were confined to the Jews in this time as they bore witness to the coming seed of the woman. They were covenants of promise because they were instituted by the true God to be the vehicles of the promise, namely Christ, the calling of the Gentiles, and formal institution of the Covenant of Grace in the institution of the church with her governance, worship, and constitution, namely whole completed Scripture.

Brandon could also address his thoughts on the passage as well but that would be my understanding of that passage. They are covenants of promise because they serve the ends of the establishment of the New Covenant and are subservient to those ends.
 
Bill,

How do you interpret Ephesians 2:12 "the covenants of promise."?

It seems all the covenants were described as covenants of promise and not merely law and they were meant to adminster grace. Therefore, we cannot say that the Mosaic Covenant was a Covenant of Works, the law was given by grace and the need for a Mediator was shown.

These covenants are all multiple re-affirmations of the Covenant of Grace leading up to the New Covenant in Christ.
Pergy,

Adam (Shanny01) answered this before I had the time to respond. I was on the road all day, so I am just getting to this.

Ephesians 2:12 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.

The covenants belonged to Israel, not the Gentiles. Along with the covenants went all the benefits of living in the covenant community. So, Paul reminds the Gentile believers in Ephesus of three things. 1. In their prior spiritual condition, they were separate from Christ. 2. They had no portion in the covenant community ("excluded from the commonwealth of Israel"). 3. They had no knowledge of the promise (Christ). Ergo, they had no hope and were without God in the world.

Adam stole some of my thunder when he wrote, "all of the post fall covenants pre-New Covenant bear relation to and subserviency to the New Covenant". In my own words, in the OT we see the Promise in successive covenants between God and Israel. As Adam said, these covenants were "subservient" to the New Covenant. So, while I would not use your phraseology ("multiple re-affirmations of the Covenant of Grace"), I will say that the OT covenants had a dual purpose. They had direct application to the covenant nation of Israel and they also pointed forward to Christ and the New Covenant.
 
@brandonadams

Honest question:

Is it correct that neither John Gill not Charles Spurgeon were proponents of 1689federalism? Just looking for info.
 
Have there been any direct responses/critiques to the CT being promoted on the 1689federalist website from someone holding a Westminsterian CT?
 
Have there been any direct responses/critiques to the CT being promoted on the 1689federalist website from someone holding a Westminsterian CT?
Grant,

I haven't read a scholarly refutation, although there's been plenty of responses in the blogesphere.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
 
Grant,

I haven't read a scholarly refutation, although there's been plenty of responses in the blogesphere.

Sent from my Pixel 2 XL using Tapatalk
Herald,

Do you find that odd considering how "Old" and "wide" the 1689federalist view purports to be?
 
Have there been any direct responses/critiques to the CT being promoted on the 1689federalist website from someone holding a Westminsterian CT?
Grant, I have often chuckled over a pun you made about me.

In this context, are you trying to smash 1689 Federalism to "Smith"ereens :lol:
 
Grant, I have often chuckled over a pun you made about me.

In this context, are you trying to smash 1689 Federalism to "Smith"ereens :lol:
Me too. But I was actually hoping you would since you've got the name for it.

Some of those I consider PB "heavy hitters" :judge: actually have already weighed in with much detail on 1689federalism. See Post #113:detective:
 
Last edited:
According to 1689 Federalism, the Old Covenant did not promise eternal life, not even upon the condition of faith in Christ. That was simply not part of the covenantal agreement. That was part of the covenantal agreement of the New Covenant. How then were OT saints saved?

The CoG is union with Christ, from which regeneration, faith, justification, sanctification flow. Was the Covenant of Grace "administered" during the time of the OT - i.e. did OT saints receive those things during their life? Yes, of course. We confess that in LBCF 8.6. How were these blessing "communicated" or "administered"? "y those promises, types, and sacrifices." In what way did these things communicate salvation? By "reveal[ing], and signif[ying]" Christ. It is a matter of revelation. Promises, types, sacrifices revealed information about the Messiah. They revealed the gospel (news). God gave some people hearts to understand this proclamation of the gospel. Thus, through this proclamation of the gospel (general call), OT saints were saved (effectual call).

Does that mean the Old Covenant was an administration of the Covenant of Grace? Well, that depends entirely on what is meant. If it just means that the Old Covenant, through type and shadows, revealed the gospel of the coming Messiah, then yes, the Old Covenant "administered" the CoG. But that's not what is meant by "an administration of the CoG." What is meant is that the Old Covenant WAS the CoG. Paedobaptists distinguish between the substance (essence) and the accidents (non-essentials) of a covenant. They say that all post-fall covenants ARE the CoG. They are the same in essence. Their only difference is how they look (the accidents). They equate "administration" with "accidents" and thus the administration changes, but the essence of all the covenants is the same. This is what is meant by saying the Old Covenant was an administration of the CoG. This is what Particular Baptists rejected. They did not reject that OT saints were saved through the revelation of Christ in types and shadows of the Old Covenant. They rejected the erroneous conclusion that therefore the Old Covenant WAS the CoG. The Old Covenant was not union with Christ. The New Covenant is. The Old and the New do not simply differ in their outward appearance. They differ in their essence because the conditions and rewards differ (temporal life in Canaan upon condition of obedience to Mosaic law vs eschatological life upon condition of faith in Christ).

The OPC Report on Republication acknowledges the difference between the subservient covenant's understanding of types and shadows vs Westminster's understanding. I would recommend reading those pertinent paragraphs and footnotes. In addition, here are two further resources:
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/201...Darznr1qFIhiiqahlU7-_yvyG8iwV_OV7X5nZCzAXvll0

https://pettyfrance.wordpress.com/2018/02/16/we-all-have-our-types/

I hope that helps clarify things. If not, please let me know.
So even under the OC, there were saved persons who would fall under the NC, and the lost who were still obeying as best they could the law were under the physical blessings promised to them under the OC?
And did the Church exist back in the OC, or start up at Pentecost under the NC then?
 
The below is a quick response my Pastor gave me, when I asked him to read the CT portion of the below the article (https://pilgrimandshire.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/covenant-theology-presbyterian-or-baptist/):

"

Adam Parker
10:48 AM (38 minutes ago)
cleardot.gif

cleardot.gif

to me
cleardot.gif


I couldn’t resist. I did read ahead. I was following along just fine until they started saying that the Old Testament covenants (with Moses and David) are covenants of works.

I’m actually having trouble following this fellow. On the one hand he says “The Covenant of Grace (which is the New Covenant) was just promised and revealed in Genesis 12,” then he argues that the whole OT is basically still the covenant of works. Even though he just said that God revealed and promised the covenant of grace to Abraham. So he dangles the COG out there in front of Abraham only? God reveals a covenant but then doesn’t expect Abraham to live in it?

I just couldn’t disagree more. Paul says the Gospel was preached to Abraham. Abraham looked forward to Jesus’ day and rejoiced. He lived in Christ with his eyes on Christ, the same way we do today (except he looked forward and we now look back). That is not the response of a man living under a covenant of works. He trusted in Christ. Paul uses Abraham as the example in Romans 4 of a person in the OT who lived his life in the Covenant of Grace and who lived by faith and was justified apart from works. In other words, he was saved the same way we are (by looking - one direction or another - toward Christ). How is that possible if it was only “just promised and revealed” in Genesis 12?

This is a very complex discussion. My favorite book on the subject is O. Palmer Robertson’s book ‘Christ of the Covenants’ for the lay-person - which I would recommend if you really want to start reading these New Covenant theology guys. And if you REALLY want to get into the meat of it I would point you to Witsius’ 2 Volume work ’The Economy of the Covenants.’ "



Again, my Pastor is not arguing for Paedo, rather for the classical CT, which even RBs can hold to.:detective:
 
Tri-Covenant (to replace 20th centrey RB) Reformed Baptist (just thinking out loud)

Brandon how many completey distinct (as in not being properly considered the CoW of the CoG) covenants do 1689federalist see 7 or 8?
Many Calvinistic Baptists prefer the label of being Particular Baptists, but many times we are called Peculiar Baptists!
 
Have there been any direct responses/critiques to the CT being promoted on the 1689federalist website from someone holding a Westminsterian CT?

I haven't read a scholarly refutation, although there's been plenty of responses in the blogesphere.

Do you find that odd considering how "Old" and "wide" the 1689federalist view purports to be?

No, I don't find it odd at all. Reformed baptists are re-learning this view that was indeed old and wide, prior to the second half of the 20th century. If Reformed Baptists are re-learning it now (which takes time), why would we assume Reformed Paedobaptists are already well acquainted with it enough to critique it? They are largely busy trying to figure out their own covenantal heritage (republication debate).

There was back and forth between paedobaptists and 1689 Federalism in the 17th century if you want to read those works. See Sam Renihan's book From Shadow to Substance and his essay in JIRBS 2015 "“DOLPHINS IN THE WOODS”: A Critique of Mark Jones and Ted Van Raalte’s Presentation of Particular Baptist Covenant Theology"

The most direct response was a several years ago by Chris Villi Chris Villi’s Analysis of 1689 Federalism (note that I would articulate some of the points in that reply slightly differently now - particularly Gal 3:17).

R. Scott Clark recently decided to weigh in, but he completely misunderstood/misrepresented the position and was not willing to be corrected on it, so it's really not a critique (and he doesn't hold to Westminsterian CT, so not sure if you're interested) The Heidelblog’s Monologue of Misrepresentation

The below is a quick response my Pastor gave me, when I asked him to read the CT portion of the below the article

I used to interact with Adam when he blogged at Bring the Books (if that's the same Adam). Great guy. However, I hardly think asking someone for a quick response to a summary of the position is going to be helpful. He needs to read the full treatments if he's interested in offering a critique. Do you think offering a quick unstudied response to Westminster CT based on a blog summary of it would really address the nuanced position?

I’m actually having trouble following this fellow. On the one hand he says “The Covenant of Grace (which is the New Covenant) was just promised and revealed in Genesis 12,” then he argues that the whole OT is basically still the covenant of works. Even though he just said that God revealed and promised the covenant of grace to Abraham. So he dangles the COG out there in front of Abraham only? God reveals a covenant but then doesn’t expect Abraham to live in it?

Note that this insufficient understanding of the position is to be expected from someone introduced to it for the first time from a blog summary and not having studied the position.

I just couldn’t disagree more. Paul says the Gospel was preached to Abraham. Abraham looked forward to Jesus’ day and rejoiced. He lived in Christ with his eyes on Christ, the same way we do today (except he looked forward and we now look back). That is not the response of a man living under a covenant of works. He trusted in Christ. Paul uses Abraham as the example in Romans 4 of a person in the OT who lived his life in the Covenant of Grace and who lived by faith and was justified apart from works. In other words, he was saved the same way we are (by looking - one direction or another - toward Christ).

1689 Federalism completely agrees.

How is that possible if it was only “just promised and revealed” in Genesis 12?

He'll have to study the position to find out. (See my response above explaining this point).

This is a very complex discussion. My favorite book on the subject is O. Palmer Robertson’s book ‘Christ of the Covenants’ for the lay-person - which I would recommend if you really want to start reading these New Covenant theology guys. And if you REALLY want to get into the meat of it I would point you to Witsius’ 2 Volume work ’The Economy of the Covenants.’ "

1689 Federalism is not New Covenant Theology. Those are two different views.

Again, my Pastor is not arguing for Paedo, rather for the classical CT, which even RBs can hold to.

No, your pastor is recommending that you read paedobaptist explanations of covenant theology. No, RBs don't hold to those, not even 20th century. 20th century may lean more towards Robertson, but it still departs from him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top