Puritan Board Senior
Because if a supposed prominent 1689federalist CT view pre-dated and contradicted Westminster, then one would expect to see an abundance of direct scholarly refutation from a Westminster POV. At least that is where my brain goes in trying to research.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).
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?
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.
1689 Federalism completely agrees.
He'll have to study the position to find out. (See my response above explaining this point).
1689 Federalism is not New Covenant Theology. Those are two different views.
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.
I assure you Adam is much more equipped to critique your position than you give him credit. A common theme I have seen from many 1689federalist (including yourself) is that when anyone makes valid points in refutation, a response of "well you just need to read more on the position, or you don't really understand 1689federalism, or well we don't really say it that way anymore" is commonly given.
I just do not think that is anymore courteous than for me to assume that you have failed to read up on Westminster CT. Adam is a full time pastor and college professor, so I do not expect, nor should you, some doctoral dissertation type of response when a laymen sends him a quick email asking for general thoughts on a online article.
Further many more scholarly than I have refuted in more detail here: