TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
If a promise of a prior covenant is being fulfilled in a subsequent one, does that require the prior covenant to be active? (asking for a friend 
)
)
Credo-Baptism Answers Distinctions in Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology
- Thread starter Blood-Bought Pilgrim
- Start date
- Status
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
If circumcision has ended, then so has the covenant of circumcision.
Here is how I put it in this essay https://www.1689federalism.com/wp-c...IRBS_PromiseLawFaith.ReviewArticle.Adams_.pdf
All of this brings us to the big elephant in the room: circumcision is Abrahamic. Gordon recognizes that circumcision separates Jew and Gentile. It did this from its inception, not 430 years later (Gen. 34:15). Circumcision is just as Abrahamic as it is Mosaic, which is why Scripture calls the Abrahamic covenant the covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:8). This alone negates the idea that Paul’s argument is to distinguish the Abrahamic covenant (simpliciter) from the Sinai covenant. Whatever incompatibility Paul finds between circumcision and the new covenant, he finds between the covenant of circumcision and the new covenant. The Sinai covenant did not change the meaning of circumcision. The DP interpretation argues, at this point, that Paul is not addressing a proper understanding of circumcision, but a misunderstanding and misuse of circumcision. But Gordon (rightly) rejects that line of reasoning.
Likewise, the Sinai covenant did not change the condition of Israel’s inheritance of the promised land (after all, once a covenant is ratified it cannot be annulled or voided). Circumcision obligated the one circumcised to keep the whole law (Gal. 5:3) even pre-Sinai to the extent that it was known. Recall that an offspring of Abraham would be cut off (killed) for trying to opt out of this obligation (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 4:24-26), and you begin to see why Peter says circumcision was a yoke “neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). The best way to understand the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, I suggest, is that the latter served as an addendum to the former, elaborating upon the obedience required by Abraham’s carnal offspring inherent in the original covenant of circumcision.
7. Justifies vs. does not justify
Gordon’s final contrast between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant is that the former justifies while the latter does not. He appears to assume this point based on Galatians 3:6, as it is not a point he demonstrates. Abraham was justified; therefore, the Abrahamic covenant justifies. This assumption, however, is negated by Gordon’s (correct) understanding that “justification is itself essentially an eschatological doctrine. To be acquitted/justified in the ultimate sense is to survive God’s final act of judgment that inaugurates the eschaton” (185). Gordon refers to “making alive” and “acquittal/righteousness” (3:21) as “two realities of the eschaton” (151). He recognizes that the promised Spirit, received by Jew and Gentile in Paul’s day, is an eschatological gift. A key component of his covenant-historical interpretation, however, is that “The Sinai covenant (ὁ νόμος) governed God’s visible people on earth before the eschatological age. It was associated, temporally, with sin and the flesh, with the pre-eschatological order” (107). He says, “The eschatological (‘promised’) Spirit will not come upon the Jews until that day when the eschatological blessings come to the Gentiles” (130). If “the Spirit is the active agent who produces faith in Jew and Gentile alike” (130), and that Spirit does not come until Christ, then how could anyone prior to Christ be saved? How could Abraham have received the future-promised Spirit through faith “just as” (3:6) the Galatian Gentiles did? How could Abraham be justified by the Abrahamic covenant if in the course of history the Abrahamic covenant is just as pre-eschatological as the Sinai covenant? One cannot say the Abrahamic covenant justified without rejecting the historia testamentorum. “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” (212). The eschatological gifts of the Spirit, faith, making alive, and justification can only come from an eschatological covenant and “the new covenant is profoundly and pervasively eschatological” (9). Wrestling with a similar dilemma in Hebrews 8:10, Calvin says, “There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question.” [29] Thus justification is not a contrast between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, but between the new covenant and both the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants. [30]
This helps resolve Gordon’s dilemma of how to interpret Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4:21–31. Is Paul comparing the Abrahamic and Sinai covenant, or the Sinai and new covenant? As Gordon noted, all the textual indicators point to Paul comparing Sinai to the new covenant. His reasons for considering it a comparison between the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants are those addressed above, as well as his opinion that “’Abraham had two sons’ is far more likely to be a reference to two covenant administrations made with his lineage” (175). This seems an odd line of thought given that Paul’s entire argument has been to demonstrate that those who are of faith (the new covenant) are Abraham’s sons. Furthermore, Gordon is being overly literal in his reading of the allegory on this point (for example, Paul is not arguing that a covenant was made with Ishmael) and missing the typological significance Paul gives Isaac and Ishmael. As Günther H. Juncker notes, “As a child of promise whose birth was wholly dependent on the gracious activity of God, Isaac stands as a type of the ‘children of promise,’ namely, Jewish and Gentile believers.” Paul’s point is to illustrate how the Abrahamic covenant gave birth to two different, subsequent covenants (Sinai and new). Commenting on this passage, Augustine notes, “This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants—the old and the new.” Once again, Paul is expounding upon the dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic covenant.
[30] The Abrahamic covenant of circumcision does promise that the nations will be blessed (referring to justification by faith), but this promise is of a historia salutis nature, not an ordo salutis nature. It promises that Abraham will be the father of the seed of the woman who will one day bless the nations (by establishing the new covenant, which bestows the ordo salutis blessings of the Spirit and forgiveness of sins; Deut. 30:6; Heb. 8:6–13). See John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Hebrews 8:1–10:39, 90, where he says: “[T]his covenant with Abraham was with respect to other things [than the ordo salutis covenant of grace], especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins.” See also John Owen, The Oneness of the Church, 177, where he says: “[God promised Abraham] [t]hat according to the flesh he should be the father of the Messiah, the promised seed . . . In pursuit hereof were his posterity separated from the rest of the world, and preserved a peculiar people, that through them the promised Seed might be brought forth in the fullness of time, and be of them according unto the flesh, Romans 9:5.” Because the Abrahamic covenant consisted only of historia salutis promises, it is now ended, having been fulfilled.
Here is how I put it in this essay https://www.1689federalism.com/wp-c...IRBS_PromiseLawFaith.ReviewArticle.Adams_.pdf
All of this brings us to the big elephant in the room: circumcision is Abrahamic. Gordon recognizes that circumcision separates Jew and Gentile. It did this from its inception, not 430 years later (Gen. 34:15). Circumcision is just as Abrahamic as it is Mosaic, which is why Scripture calls the Abrahamic covenant the covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:8). This alone negates the idea that Paul’s argument is to distinguish the Abrahamic covenant (simpliciter) from the Sinai covenant. Whatever incompatibility Paul finds between circumcision and the new covenant, he finds between the covenant of circumcision and the new covenant. The Sinai covenant did not change the meaning of circumcision. The DP interpretation argues, at this point, that Paul is not addressing a proper understanding of circumcision, but a misunderstanding and misuse of circumcision. But Gordon (rightly) rejects that line of reasoning.
Likewise, the Sinai covenant did not change the condition of Israel’s inheritance of the promised land (after all, once a covenant is ratified it cannot be annulled or voided). Circumcision obligated the one circumcised to keep the whole law (Gal. 5:3) even pre-Sinai to the extent that it was known. Recall that an offspring of Abraham would be cut off (killed) for trying to opt out of this obligation (Gen. 17:14; Exod. 4:24-26), and you begin to see why Peter says circumcision was a yoke “neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). The best way to understand the relationship between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, I suggest, is that the latter served as an addendum to the former, elaborating upon the obedience required by Abraham’s carnal offspring inherent in the original covenant of circumcision.
7. Justifies vs. does not justify
Gordon’s final contrast between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant is that the former justifies while the latter does not. He appears to assume this point based on Galatians 3:6, as it is not a point he demonstrates. Abraham was justified; therefore, the Abrahamic covenant justifies. This assumption, however, is negated by Gordon’s (correct) understanding that “justification is itself essentially an eschatological doctrine. To be acquitted/justified in the ultimate sense is to survive God’s final act of judgment that inaugurates the eschaton” (185). Gordon refers to “making alive” and “acquittal/righteousness” (3:21) as “two realities of the eschaton” (151). He recognizes that the promised Spirit, received by Jew and Gentile in Paul’s day, is an eschatological gift. A key component of his covenant-historical interpretation, however, is that “The Sinai covenant (ὁ νόμος) governed God’s visible people on earth before the eschatological age. It was associated, temporally, with sin and the flesh, with the pre-eschatological order” (107). He says, “The eschatological (‘promised’) Spirit will not come upon the Jews until that day when the eschatological blessings come to the Gentiles” (130). If “the Spirit is the active agent who produces faith in Jew and Gentile alike” (130), and that Spirit does not come until Christ, then how could anyone prior to Christ be saved? How could Abraham have received the future-promised Spirit through faith “just as” (3:6) the Galatian Gentiles did? How could Abraham be justified by the Abrahamic covenant if in the course of history the Abrahamic covenant is just as pre-eschatological as the Sinai covenant? One cannot say the Abrahamic covenant justified without rejecting the historia testamentorum. “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” (212). The eschatological gifts of the Spirit, faith, making alive, and justification can only come from an eschatological covenant and “the new covenant is profoundly and pervasively eschatological” (9). Wrestling with a similar dilemma in Hebrews 8:10, Calvin says, “There is yet no reason why God should not have extended the grace of the new covenant to the fathers. This is the true solution of the question.” [29] Thus justification is not a contrast between the Abrahamic covenant and the Sinai covenant, but between the new covenant and both the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants. [30]
This helps resolve Gordon’s dilemma of how to interpret Paul’s allegory in Galatians 4:21–31. Is Paul comparing the Abrahamic and Sinai covenant, or the Sinai and new covenant? As Gordon noted, all the textual indicators point to Paul comparing Sinai to the new covenant. His reasons for considering it a comparison between the Abrahamic and Sinai covenants are those addressed above, as well as his opinion that “’Abraham had two sons’ is far more likely to be a reference to two covenant administrations made with his lineage” (175). This seems an odd line of thought given that Paul’s entire argument has been to demonstrate that those who are of faith (the new covenant) are Abraham’s sons. Furthermore, Gordon is being overly literal in his reading of the allegory on this point (for example, Paul is not arguing that a covenant was made with Ishmael) and missing the typological significance Paul gives Isaac and Ishmael. As Günther H. Juncker notes, “As a child of promise whose birth was wholly dependent on the gracious activity of God, Isaac stands as a type of the ‘children of promise,’ namely, Jewish and Gentile believers.” Paul’s point is to illustrate how the Abrahamic covenant gave birth to two different, subsequent covenants (Sinai and new). Commenting on this passage, Augustine notes, “This interpretation of the passage, handed down to us with apostolic authority, shows how we ought to understand the Scriptures of the two covenants—the old and the new.” Once again, Paul is expounding upon the dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic covenant.
[30] The Abrahamic covenant of circumcision does promise that the nations will be blessed (referring to justification by faith), but this promise is of a historia salutis nature, not an ordo salutis nature. It promises that Abraham will be the father of the seed of the woman who will one day bless the nations (by establishing the new covenant, which bestows the ordo salutis blessings of the Spirit and forgiveness of sins; Deut. 30:6; Heb. 8:6–13). See John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews: Hebrews 8:1–10:39, 90, where he says: “[T]his covenant with Abraham was with respect to other things [than the ordo salutis covenant of grace], especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins.” See also John Owen, The Oneness of the Church, 177, where he says: “[God promised Abraham] [t]hat according to the flesh he should be the father of the Messiah, the promised seed . . . In pursuit hereof were his posterity separated from the rest of the world, and preserved a peculiar people, that through them the promised Seed might be brought forth in the fullness of time, and be of them according unto the flesh, Romans 9:5.” Because the Abrahamic covenant consisted only of historia salutis promises, it is now ended, having been fulfilled.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
It means that the covenant is not annulled, but fulfilled. Not that it was broken, but that real promises that were typified are coming to pass: what it really meant is now happening. I wouldn't call that inactive--I'd call it accomplished.If a promise of a prior covenant is being fulfilled in a subsequent one, does that require the prior covenant to be active? (asking for a friend
Jesus did not do away with the law; He fulfilled it, and everything it signified was bound up in Him. The moral law given at Sinai is the law He kept on behalf of His people, and is the law by which unbelievers will be judged on the Last Day.
The Covenant of Circumcision was a lesser covenant pointing to a better covenant, but the ultimate promises were the same: salvation in Christ for all who believe. Does a wedding band annul the engagement ring or make it less precious? Sure, it supersedes it in meaning and power: you're no longer engaged, but married: but the marriage is the fulfilment of that engagement of which the ring was the promise. You live on different terms, but there's great continuity.
I simply recognize the continuity in the fulfilment of promises made to Abraham, and before him, to Adam.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
As Brandon noted, if the command of the covenant (circumcision of males) is no longer in force, and the sanctions attached to it are no longer in force, how can the Abrahamic Covenant said to still be in force if both command and sanction, vital elements of a covenant, are no longer?
The promises made under the Abrahamic Covenant are being fulfilled in the New Covenant just as the promises made under the Davidic Covenant are being fulfilled in the New Covenant and the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Covenant are fulfilled in the New Covenant. There is a connection as you have noted but fulfillment made in a subsequent covenant does not require a prior covenant to still be in force. Prior covenants served to partially reveal and set up the coming of the New Covenant. They are inferior covenants that have been superceded by the fulfillment of the superior.
The New Covenant is the superior and terminal covenant in that all the prior covenants find their promises fulfilled in what Jesus has brought (all proimses find their yes in Jesus - 2 Cor. 1:20). It is superior in that it is perfect in a way that no prior covenant was and therefore has no need for any further covenant to supersede it in the future. It is complete and accomplishes what the prior covenants promised and/or typified.
This way of seeing the relationship of the covenants is not dispensational (as has been falsely alleged) in that it shows a much greater degree of continuity between the covenants and structures the storyline of Scripture around covenants, not dispensations that test the obedience of man. Instead, it shows a progression of covenant relationship ending in a superior covenant (New Covenant/Covenant of Grace) in a way the 1 Covenant/2 Administration view does not which is a very "flat" way of viewing the relationships between the covenants.
For example of how this "flatness" manifests itself, if read in the other threads here asking 1C/2A adherents what is "new" about the New Covenant, their answers don't sound anywhere near as exciting and climactic as the New Testament explains and presents the New Covenant. From conversations here, I have noticed this results in an overemphasis on the Abrahamic Covenant and an underemphasis on the New Covenant, which, ironically, is exactly what happens in Dispensationalism coming from a completely different paradigm (though the extent of over/under emphasis is certainly not the same).
For those who aren't convinced, I would simply say read Scripture over and over and note what it says about the New Covenant and the coming of Christ in relationship to prior covenants. Let the language of Scripture itself shape your thinking on the matter. 1689 Federalism is the only system I have ever come across that matched exactly what I was reading in Scripture and properly elevated the New Covenant to the proper pinnacle and climax of all the covenants while retaining the organic connection with the prior covenants (including the Covenant of Works denied by many).
The promises made under the Abrahamic Covenant are being fulfilled in the New Covenant just as the promises made under the Davidic Covenant are being fulfilled in the New Covenant and the ceremonial aspects of the Mosaic Covenant are fulfilled in the New Covenant. There is a connection as you have noted but fulfillment made in a subsequent covenant does not require a prior covenant to still be in force. Prior covenants served to partially reveal and set up the coming of the New Covenant. They are inferior covenants that have been superceded by the fulfillment of the superior.
The New Covenant is the superior and terminal covenant in that all the prior covenants find their promises fulfilled in what Jesus has brought (all proimses find their yes in Jesus - 2 Cor. 1:20). It is superior in that it is perfect in a way that no prior covenant was and therefore has no need for any further covenant to supersede it in the future. It is complete and accomplishes what the prior covenants promised and/or typified.
This way of seeing the relationship of the covenants is not dispensational (as has been falsely alleged) in that it shows a much greater degree of continuity between the covenants and structures the storyline of Scripture around covenants, not dispensations that test the obedience of man. Instead, it shows a progression of covenant relationship ending in a superior covenant (New Covenant/Covenant of Grace) in a way the 1 Covenant/2 Administration view does not which is a very "flat" way of viewing the relationships between the covenants.
For example of how this "flatness" manifests itself, if read in the other threads here asking 1C/2A adherents what is "new" about the New Covenant, their answers don't sound anywhere near as exciting and climactic as the New Testament explains and presents the New Covenant. From conversations here, I have noticed this results in an overemphasis on the Abrahamic Covenant and an underemphasis on the New Covenant, which, ironically, is exactly what happens in Dispensationalism coming from a completely different paradigm (though the extent of over/under emphasis is certainly not the same).
For those who aren't convinced, I would simply say read Scripture over and over and note what it says about the New Covenant and the coming of Christ in relationship to prior covenants. Let the language of Scripture itself shape your thinking on the matter. 1689 Federalism is the only system I have ever come across that matched exactly what I was reading in Scripture and properly elevated the New Covenant to the proper pinnacle and climax of all the covenants while retaining the organic connection with the prior covenants (including the Covenant of Works denied by many).
Last edited:
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
One other thing to consider and that's the views of the writers and adopters of the 1689 LBCF. By looking at the changes made from both the WCF and Savoy Declaration, in Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant, it is clear they rejected the language of one covenant/two administrations. I think this for the following reasons: (see https://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_sdfo_lbcf.html#WCF7 for a tabular comparison)
1) The Epistle that is given by the writers and adopters at the beginning of the Confession entitled "To the Judicious and Impartial Reader," makes it clear the writers greatly wanted to use both the form and words of both the WCF and Savoy Declaration wherever possible and avoid adding new words and ideas. Thus, whenever they felt they could do so, they adapted language of the previous confessions with fairly minimal changes in most of the document.
2) It is clear by a comparison of Chapter 7 in all three confessions, the Baptists made several major changes. Chapters 2 and 4 are deleted entirely (The Covenant of Works is addressed in Chapter 20). Chapter 5, which clearly presents the 1C/2A in WCF and Savoy, is completely changed. These changes are strong evidence that the writers did not want to retain the language of one covenant/two administrations but instead replace it with language of gospel revelation in covenants prior to the New with the full discovery coming in the New.
Here is a comparison of just WCF and the LBCF on Chapter 7 so anyone can see the changes clearly for themselves:
Anyone who wants to argue that the writers and adopters of the 1689 LBCF held to 1C/2A would have to clearly explain why those fairly radical changes were made in light of the information given in the introductory epistle and the great amount of retention of language in a vast amount of the rest of the confession.
1) The Epistle that is given by the writers and adopters at the beginning of the Confession entitled "To the Judicious and Impartial Reader," makes it clear the writers greatly wanted to use both the form and words of both the WCF and Savoy Declaration wherever possible and avoid adding new words and ideas. Thus, whenever they felt they could do so, they adapted language of the previous confessions with fairly minimal changes in most of the document.
2) It is clear by a comparison of Chapter 7 in all three confessions, the Baptists made several major changes. Chapters 2 and 4 are deleted entirely (The Covenant of Works is addressed in Chapter 20). Chapter 5, which clearly presents the 1C/2A in WCF and Savoy, is completely changed. These changes are strong evidence that the writers did not want to retain the language of one covenant/two administrations but instead replace it with language of gospel revelation in covenants prior to the New with the full discovery coming in the New.
Here is a comparison of just WCF and the LBCF on Chapter 7 so anyone can see the changes clearly for themselves:
Anyone who wants to argue that the writers and adopters of the 1689 LBCF held to 1C/2A would have to clearly explain why those fairly radical changes were made in light of the information given in the introductory epistle and the great amount of retention of language in a vast amount of the rest of the confession.
Last edited:
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
Sure, the covenant of circumcision is no longer in force, because what it signified, and the sign that answers to it, of baptism, is now in play. When it comes down to the nitty gritty, I don't really disagree with too much of Federalism, except where they seem to claim that the Abrahamic covenant was only ever about land promises and physical progeny. Maybe that's not even their claim, but it seems to be.
If it isn't, it leaves me wondering: the 1689 Federalists came up with a name for themselves to distinguish their understanding from other Baptists, but can't really seem to vocalize briefly what it is that they think other baptists believe that they must militate against or correct. Nobody thinks there was ever salvation outside of Christ; no one denies that Christ is the sum and substance of all previous covenants and of the New; no one denies that the New Covenant is better. What exactly do you see in other baptists' understanding that bugs you?
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
I will say as a Presbyterian, reading more about RB theology has really challenged me and raised questions in this area. Most Presbyterian explanations of the newness of the new covenant which I’ve read feel very flat.
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
I think most of our discussions here have focused on the relationship between the covenants and differences from the WCF understanding. It's not that it bugs me, it is more of a learning process of properly articulating and understanding differences in Baptist Covenant theology from P&R views.
I personally don't get too hung up on a name (1689 Federalism). It is just a label to identify and categorize a view when having discussions.
You are right, I think we have a tremendous amount in common, even with Presbyterians. Sometimes we do focus too much on the differences and forget about the great amount of commonality and unity. When it comes to fellowship with other Christians, I am actually not very tribalistic at all. I have my views that I teach and defend but at the end of the day, our fundamanetal unity comes in belonging to the family of God through Christ.
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
1. 1689 Federalism believes that the New Covenant (and only the New Covenant) is the Covenant of Grace, and thus OT saints were saved by the New Covenant (not the Covenant of Circumcision, nor the Old Covenant). Other Reformed Baptists disagree (see Waldron's Exposition of the 2LBCF, though he apparently has since come to agree; see also James White)
2. Following on #1, 1689 Federalism believes the Covenant of Grace only ever included the elect, while the other baptists believe that in its older administration the Covenant of Grace was mixed, but in the New Covenant administration it is not.
3. Other Reformed Baptists believe that the Mosaic Covenant, as an administration of the Covenant of Grace, was a gracious giving of the law to serve as a guide for a redeemed people (See Ernest Kevan's "The Grace of Law"), rather than viewing the Mosaic Covenant as a typological covenant of works (as 1689 Federalism does).
Keep in mind that part of the difference between the views is that 1689 Federalism has worked out its covenant theology in detail, whereas the other view has not. Thus with further dialogue the other view may come to agree with 1689 Federalism (Waldron being an example).
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
So it centers around what "Covenant of Grace" means. As I've pointed out before, being not a term found in Scripture, it can mean different things to different people. It seems like there's hairs being split over uninspired terms.
Perhaps I'm in neither camp, since I see the whole shebang, from Gen 3:15 to Christ, as one plan with one purpose--for Christ to redeem a people to God, played out in types, shadows, and promises until Jesus instituted the New Covenant of which all the others were shadows--seen through a glass darkly, perhaps. No one was ever justified by keeping the law; no one was ever justified by being circumcised; all, like Abraham, were justified by believing.
JD
Puritan Board Freshman
Very much agree. More than splitting hairs it can lead us to talk right past each other. Sometimes people say "Covenant of Grace" meaning "being counted in Christ" (ie in the Covenant of Redemption) and sometimes people say "Covenant of Grace" meaning "the avenue through which God metes out His grace in history."
This is something I feel like I hear somewhat often in my circles, and I kind of get it. But if this is the case, then why does Abraham matter? When Paul says it's those of faith that are sons of Abraham in Galatians 3:7, he indicates that being a son of Abraham matters. Does he just matter as an example of faith?
Last edited:
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
If you see it as splitting hairs, then move along and don't worry about the rest of us discussing the hairs If you feel that none of this applies to how you view things and there's no distinction, great!
If you feel that none of this applies to how you view things and there's no distinction, great!
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
I reckon I'm about at that point. It just took a long time to get here.If you see it as splitting hairs, then move along and don't worry about the rest of us discussing the hairs
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
"Splitting hairs" means making unimportant distinctions. I agree with your broad redemptive-historical framework but I also think trying to understand the interrelationships between the covenants are important if one wants to go that deep.
There is a lot to it and I personally have just hit the tip of the iceberg. Maybe in 20 years I will catch up to where Brandon is now
. He's done the deep dive into many of these details and I have learned alot from him and Sam Renihan and greatly appreciate their contributions as I certainly would not have gotten any of this in my church settings.I am learning more and more how Baptists have truly lost their covenant heritage (at least speaking of the Particular Baptist strain in America) and its a shame. We need to get it back but it feels like quite an uphill battle though I have been encouraged by my small Sunday School class attendees who have been enjoying learning more about historical Baptist theology and the 1689 LBCF the last few weeks. There is hope.
Ben Zartman
Puritan Board Junior
I agree that Baptist covenant theology was only thinly covered in the last decades, and that is a shame. I'm also glad to see it being fleshed out and studied more fully. I only wish that instead of forming a whole new group, we could simply say: we are confessional baptists adhering to the 1689 Confession. The minute differences within that are not sufficiently large to warrant a separation of camps."Splitting hairs" means making unimportant distinctions. I agree with your broad redemptive-historical framework but I also think trying to understand the interrelationships between the covenants are important if one wants to go that deep.
There is a lot to it and I personally have just hit the tip of the iceberg. Maybe in 20 years I will catch up to where Brandon is now
I am learning more and more how Baptists have truly lost their covenant heritage (at least speaking of the Particular Baptist strain in America) and its a shame. We need to get it back but it feels like quite an uphill battle though I have been encouraged by my small Sunday School class attendees who have been enjoying learning more about historical Baptist theology and the 1689 LBCF the last few weeks. There is hope.
It's not like we have "Christmas affirming" and "Non-Christmas affirming" Baptists. Both sorts may affirm the Confession, with the former group just being wrong about what it means. And that's a far bigger difference than the one between Federalist and Vanilla Baptists.
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
The intention was not to create different "camps." The intention was to label different views of covenant theology in order to better facilitate conversation. Again, if the difference are too minute to matter to you, then there's no need to participate in the conversation
JD
Puritan Board Freshman
Do differing views on the Covenant of Grace, New Covenant, and Mosaic Covenant (Re post #39) really count as minute?
I struggle to think of a similar differences within confessional presbyterianism (not that there aren't any). Differing views on such subjects tend to divide, it seems to me. I think of the republication debate for example.
Rev. Buchanan mentioned in the other thread how Presbyterianism has a percieved consistency in theology which is attractive to baptistic Christians when they become reformed. I would not be the one to judge if there is actual consistency or not, but as evidenced by my signature, I agree with the sentiment. It seems to me that this thread gives evidence to the actualinconsistency diversity within confessional credobaptist theology.
The real issue (from my imperfect vantage point) seems to be that the Baptist Confession allows for such broad disagreement. Would I be right to say that?
I struggle to think of a similar differences within confessional presbyterianism (not that there aren't any). Differing views on such subjects tend to divide, it seems to me. I think of the republication debate for example.
Rev. Buchanan mentioned in the other thread how Presbyterianism has a percieved consistency in theology which is attractive to baptistic Christians when they become reformed. I would not be the one to judge if there is actual consistency or not, but as evidenced by my signature, I agree with the sentiment. It seems to me that this thread gives evidence to the actual
The real issue (from my imperfect vantage point) seems to be that the Baptist Confession allows for such broad disagreement. Would I be right to say that?
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
Yes the 2LBCF allows for differing views on the subject. From the FAQ on the site:
1689 Federalism is a view of covenant theology (distinguished by its belief that the old and new covenants are different, distinct covenants and that only the new covenant is the covenant of grace) that was held by every published particular baptist work in the 17th century. It accounts for the change in language found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession with regards to covenant theology (in comparison to the WCF). However, this new language was written broadly enough to allow a variety of views to equally confess it. The label “1689 Federalism” is not intended to suggest that no other view is permissible amongst confessional baptists.
In his book From Shadow to Substance, Samuel Renihan elaborates.
1689 Federalism is a view of covenant theology (distinguished by its belief that the old and new covenants are different, distinct covenants and that only the new covenant is the covenant of grace) that was held by every published particular baptist work in the 17th century. It accounts for the change in language found in the 2nd London Baptist Confession with regards to covenant theology (in comparison to the WCF). However, this new language was written broadly enough to allow a variety of views to equally confess it. The label “1689 Federalism” is not intended to suggest that no other view is permissible amongst confessional baptists.
In his book From Shadow to Substance, Samuel Renihan elaborates.
Blood-Bought Pilgrim
Puritan Board Sophomore
By issue do you mean it is a problem? If so I'd have to disagree. The more I study covenant theology I actually see this as a preferable to the rigidity of the Westminster position. The distinctions in covenant theology can get so fine, and the historical witness of diversity on questions of the covenants within the Reformed tradition that it seems ill-fitting to try to bind everyone to exactly the same view of the covenants.
JD
Puritan Board Freshman
If you look back at all the old baptism threads (and I've put my hours in!) you'll find page after page of Presbyterians frustrated that they can't get a consistent answer out of Baptists for why only professing believers ought to be baptized. From the pb point of view baptists don't seem to know why they're baptists besides lack of positive NT command. Everyone seems to have their own understanding and no one is able to communicate it clearly - this is the impression anyway. There's not a unified Baptist front. On the other hand, baptists looking for answers from Presbyerians will get inundated with the same answer over and over again: one CoG, two administrations. Abraham IS the CoG. etc etc. Presbyterians all have their story straight.
What I'm saying is that this percieved inequality is not the baptists' fault, but is the fault of their own confession - which is (either purposefully or because of a lack of foresight) vague enough on these issues to allow for a difference of interpration which would be big enough to divide presbyterians
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
Sorry, but as someone who's been studying this issue for quite a while, that's just not true. I have to be very aware of who I am talking to in any given conversation because Presbyterians vary quite a bit on their understanding of the covenants as well as their understanding of baptism and how it relates to infants. This is evidenced even throughout this forum.
A church confession may not be the best place to lay out a systematic, detailed understanding of how all the covenants of the Bible relate. That was the whole point of the 1689federalism.com website: to provide an internally consistent, systematic presentation of one particular view of the covenants that people could point to (and either agree or disagree with). What's important is a clearly identifiable view, not necessarily that it be the basis of church/inter-church communion.
JD
Puritan Board Freshman
To clarify I've been mostly talking about perception. I'm sure there is nuance within the confessional presbyterian position. And you 100% are more studied than I, no argument here. Can you provide an example of a comparable variance in understanding the covenants as you laid out in post #39?
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
Thanks for clarifying.
As for differences amongst Presbyterians, here are a few off the top of my head
As for differences amongst Presbyterians, here are a few off the top of my head
- Klinean Republication: very different views of the Mosaic covenant
- Noahic Covenant: some believe it was the Covenant of Grace made with the church, others that it was a covenant of common grace made with the whole world. Some believe there was 1 covenant, others that there were 2 different Noahic Covenants
- Creation Covenant: Some believe creation itself was covenantal, others that the covenant of works/creation/nature was an act of God's providence distinct from creation. Some believe that Adam's reward would have been by works, others that it would have been by grace.
- Abrahamic Covenant: there are different interpretations of the nature of "the promise." Some hold that it is a conditional promise of salvation made to the offspring of believers, others that it is an unconditional promise of salvation made only to the elect.
- Status of baptized infants: some believe baptized infants should be presumed regenerate and thus discourage preaching the need for conversion, others that they should not be presumed regenerate and must be evangelized
- Dual aspect of the covenant: they do not agree on the nature of how one relates to the Covenant of Grace. See Berkhof's discussion of all the varying views
- 2 or 3 covenant schema: disagreement over whether or not the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption are different covenants
TheInquirer
Puritan Board Junior
I agree with you and I certainly do not wish to divide Reformed Baptists into camps. My intent on discussing these topics is for achieving understanding. I fellowship regularly with believers who are not necessarily even Reformed so again, I certainly am not tribalistic and don't intend to come across that way.
JD
Puritan Board Freshman
I brought republication up myself in post #47. I am given to understand that Klinean republication is considered unconfessional.
True, but neither of these issues are specific to Presbyterians, nor do they have direct bearing on baptism.
Are you referring to the federal vision here, or is there an orthodox interpretation involving a conditional promise?
Again, it is my understanding that presumptive regeneration is considered unconfessional from a WCF point of view.
These two are interesting - I will look into these.
I hope I am not just boldy demonstrating ignorance with these questions
brandonadams
Puritan Board Sophomore
It's contrary to the WCF, yet it is still very widely held by Presbyterians and reformed and very much involved in their baptism polemics.
I don't really know what your point is here. I'm simply demonstrating that Presbyterians are not united on this point and it directly relates to their view of the Covenant of Grace.
No, not FV. Some say it's a general conditional promise (the gospel offer): you will be saved if you repent and believe the gospel.
That is incorrect. See here for example of what I mean https://www.amazon.com/Presbyterian-Doctrine-Children-Covenant-Significance/dp/0875525237
JD
Puritan Board Freshman
A plain reading of WCF Ch 10 seems to preclude presumptive regeneration. I realize the Belgic Confession gives a little more wiggle room on this issue. Anyway we're veering off topic. Thank you for answering my questions Brandon. I know you've gone around and around on these topics again and again over the years - I appreciate your patience.
- Status
