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 )
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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 )
Sure, the covenant of circumcision is no longer in force, because what it signified, and the sign that answers to it, of baptism, is now in play.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not even their claim, but it seems to be.As Brandon noted, if the command of the covenant (circumcision of males) is no longer in force, and the sanctions attached to it are no longer in force, how can the Abrahamic Covenant said to still be in force if both command and sanction, vital elements of a covenant, are no longer?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 They are inferior covenants that have been superceded by the fulfillment of the superior.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).
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..
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).
What exactly do you see in other baptists' understanding that bugs you?
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?
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.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).
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."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.
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?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.
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 If you feel that none of this applies to how you view things and there's no distinction, great!
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.
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 . 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.
Throughout this time [1640s and 1650s], a core model of Particular Baptist covenant theology developed. The covenant of grace was a covenant of sure salvation for all of God’s elect. The covenant of circumcision was a covenant of works for Abraham’s physical descendants intended to set them apart as the people from whom the promised seed of the woman would be born. The old covenant made salvation known through typology, though the types are distinct from the antitype. When Christ was born, the national covenant of works was aborgated and the new covenant remained alone, the antitype eclipsing the type. From Ritor to Cheare and Steed, the Particular Baptists presented a united but diversely presented covenant theology… For the rest of the seventeenth century it was expanded by the Particular Baptists with considerable continuity and minimal diversity.
The key difference between these confessions [WCF and 2LBC] is the Particular Baptists’ complete avoidance of distinguishing the covenant of grace into two historical administrations. In their “quill-skirmishes,” the Particular Baptists had repeatedly rejected the idea that the old covenant was the covenant of grace in a different form. Their typology distinguished the covenant of grace from the earthly national covenants made with Abraham and Moses. The hermeneutics they employed were not those of the continental Anabaptists, but of the Reformed tradition as exemplified by theologians from Ursinus to Cameron. The old covenant was distinct from the covenant of grace, but subservient to the covenant of grace.
In their Confession, the Particular Baptists directly tied the covenant of grace to the gospel. Where the gospel is found, there is the covenant of grace. As the gospel was progressively made known throughout history, the covenant of grace was progressively made known throughout history. The covenant of grace should not be flattened into two administrations, oversimplifying its progressive revelation and complex relationship to the old covenant. Rather, the covenant of grace should be seen through “farther steps.” Through the gospel, it permeated the entire Old Testament form the promise of the seed of the woman to “the full discovery thereof” in the New Testament. And all the elect were saved by this covenant.
The language is carefully broad and specific at the same time. Any of the Particular Baptists’ opponents could have subscribed to these statements. Many paedobaptist treatises dedicated great detail to the progressive historical development of the covenant of grace, often subdividing the two administrations of the covenant of grace into narrower periods. The difference between the confessions, then, has less to do with what the Particular Baptists said, and more to do with what they did not say. The model they confessed was not so exclusively or distinctively Baptist that others would disagree with it. But they clearly refused to commit themselves to the more common, and at times unclear, vernacular of substance and administration…
Though the Particular Baptists’ choice of words clearly reflects their model of the covenant of grace, it is possible that this chapter of the Confession was written broadly, not just to avoid unnecessarily distancing themselves from Presbyterian and Congregational allies, but also to fit varying thought on this subject within the Baptists themselves. This is something they were willing to do. For example, they “purposely omitted the mention of things” relating to open and closed membership.
The historical context of the confession lies in the London Baptist’ cooperation with the Broadmead Bristol Baptist church, an open-membership church. One of the pastors of the Bristol church, Thomas Hardcastle, whom Kiffen and Coxe had been asked to ordain but could not due to their dealing with Collier, taught a model that differed from most of the Particular Baptists. He contended that the old covenant was the covenant of grace…. but his views were taught privately and not published… Even Cheare, Steed, Hutchinson, and Delaune, despite their confusing language, rejected this idea. The language of 2LCF 7.3 is broad enough that while it confesses a covenantal model that intentionally departs from standard paedobaptist federalism, it seems to do so in a way that allows for some diversity of thought and expression.
(147, 326, 187-191, 327)
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.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?
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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?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.
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.
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.
I brought republication up myself in post #47. I am given to understand that Klinean republication is considered unconfessional.
- Klinean Republication: very different views of the Mosaic covenant
True, but neither of these issues are specific to Presbyterians, nor do they have direct bearing on baptism.
- 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.
Are you referring to the federal vision here, or is there an orthodox interpretation involving a conditional promise?
- 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.
Again, it is my understanding that presumptive regeneration is considered unconfessional from a WCF point of view.
- 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
These two are interesting - I will look into these.I'm sure there are many more if I thought a bit longer.
- 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
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 brought republication up myself in post #47. I am given to understand that Klinean republication is considered unconfessional.
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.True, but neither of these issues are specific to Presbyterians, nor do they have direct bearing on baptism.
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.Are you referring to the federal vision here, or is there an orthodox interpretation involving a conditional promise?
That is incorrect. See here for example of what I mean https://www.amazon.com/Presbyterian-Doctrine-Children-Covenant-Significance/dp/0875525237Again, it is my understanding that presumptive regeneration is considered unconfessional from a WCF point of view.
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.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