Lutheran influence in 1689 federalism

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jude24

Puritan Board Freshman
To add to the other recent related threads on the board, I'm currently going through a bit of a covenant theology crisis myself and have been reading through the 1689 federalism works. So far, I've read "From Shadow to Substance" by Renihan, "Distinctiveness of Baptist Theology" by Denault, and "The Kingdom of God" by Johnson. I'm currently working on "The Mystery of Christ" by Renihan.

In reading these, I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of overlap between 1689 federalism and Lutheranism. For example, unless I am not understanding, the foundation of 1689 federalism seems to be a strict law/gospel dichotomy. The Abrahamic/Mosaic covenants could not have been the covenant of grace because you cannot mix works and grace. In fact, it seems like Johnson teaches that the Mosaic covenant was a complete republication of the CofW in that it could give eternal life if followed completely (he does grant that this was impossible, but it still completely removes any grace from the Mosaic covenant). It also appears that in a recent work Samuel Renihan teaches the literal descent of Christ into hell after His death, which is another common Lutheran belief.

Am I completely misunderstanding 1689 federalism, or has anybody else found that it seems to be similar to Lutheranism?
 
It was predicated on reading Galatians and the metaphor of the two cities. Also, republication has some precedent among some Puritans.
 
I think there are affinities with certain aspects of Lutheran theology, but I think the fundamental approach to Scripture has more in common with the other Reformed of the era than with Lutherans.
 
To add to the other recent related threads on the board, I'm currently going through a bit of a covenant theology crisis myself and have been reading through the 1689 federalism works. So far, I've read "From Shadow to Substance" by Renihan, "Distinctiveness of Baptist Theology" by Denault, and "The Kingdom of God" by Johnson. I'm currently working on "The Mystery of Christ" by Renihan.

In reading these, I've noticed that there seems to be a lot of overlap between 1689 federalism and Lutheranism. For example, unless I am not understanding, the foundation of 1689 federalism seems to be a strict law/gospel dichotomy. The Abrahamic/Mosaic covenants could not have been the covenant of grace because you cannot mix works and grace. In fact, it seems like Johnson teaches that the Mosaic covenant was a complete republication of the CofW in that it could give eternal life if followed completely (he does grant that this was impossible, but it still completely removes any grace from the Mosaic covenant). It also appears that in a recent work Samuel Renihan teaches the literal descent of Christ into hell after His death, which is another common Lutheran belief.

Am I completely misunderstanding 1689 federalism, or has anybody else found that it seems to be similar to Lutheranism?

I think you're seeing true similarities but misattributing the reason.

It's not that 1689 Federalism is borrowing from Lutheranism, it's that 1689 Federalism and Lutheranism both look back to scripture and how the scripture was interpreted by various church fathers.

The Covenant Theology of Augustine, for example, has a lot of striking similarities with 1689 Federalism.

As for the literal descent of Christ to hell (I just finished Sam Renihan's book on the topic), this is a view with significant patristic support.

So again, just because Lutheranism has similarities, it doesn't mean these things come from Lutheranism or were influenced by Lutheranism.
 
Thanks for the post Zach. The foundation for 1689 Federalism is a reformed law/gospel dichotomy, as Renihan lays out in "Shadow to Substance." He also demonstrates the reformed context in which the particular baptists were educated.

Johnson is an outlier and not quite representative with his view of eternal life offered in the Abrahamic & Mosaic. (see here https://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/ )

On the descent of Christ, here's an RTS article arguing the same (I believe the author has since written a book on it, but I may be mistaken) https://journal.rts.edu/article/he-descended-into-hell/

That being said, how to interpret the Mosaic Covenant and its relation to the New Covenant is certainly a distinguishing factor between Lutherans and Presbyterians. Note Owen's agreement with Lutherans over against "most reformed" on this point:
The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new… The Lutherans, on the other side, insist on two arguments to prove that there is not a twofold administration of the same covenant, but that there are substantially distinct covenants and that this is intended in this discourse of the apostle…

…Having noted these things, we may consider that the Scripture does plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way as can hardly be accommodated by a twofold administration of the same covenant…Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than merely a twofold administration of the same covenant, to be intended. We must do so, provided always that the way of reconciliation and salvation was the same under both. But it will be said, and with great pretence of reason, for it is the sole foundation of all who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, ’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under the old covenant.

Having shown in what sense the covenant of grace is called “the new covenant,” in this distinction and opposition to the old covenant, so I shall propose several things which relate to the nature of the first covenant, which manifest it to have been a distinct covenant, and not a mere administration of the covenant of grace.
He says later:
Obs. 9. The promises of the covenant of grace are better than those of any other covenant, as for many other reasons, so especially because the grace of them prevents any condition or qualification on our part. I do not say the covenant of grace is absolutely without conditions, if by conditions we intend the duties of obedience which God requireth of us in and by virtue of that covenant; but this I say, the principal promises thereof are not in the first place remunerative of our obedience in the covenant, but efficaciously assumptive of us into covenant, and establishing or confirming in the covenant. The covenant of works had its promises, but they were all remunerative, respecting an antecedent obedience in us; (so were all those which were peculiar unto the covenant of Sinai). They were, indeed, also of grace, in that the reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience; but yet they all supposed it, and the subject of them was formally reward only. In the covenant of grace it is not so; for sundry of the promises thereof are the means of our being taken into covenant, of our entering into covenant with God. The first covenant absolutely was established on promises, in that when men were actually taken into it, they were encouraged unto obedience by the promises of a future reward. But those promises, namely, of the pardon of sin and writing of the law in our hearts, which the apostle expressly insisteth upon as the peculiar promises of this covenant, do take place and are effectual antecedently unto our covenant obedience. For although faith be required in order of nature antecedently unto our actual receiving of the pardon of sin, yet is that faith itself wrought in us by the grace of the promise, and so its precedency unto pardon respects only the order that God had appointed in the communication of the benefits of the covenant, and intends not that the pardon of sin is the reward of our faith.
In the latter part of the 17th century, these differing interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant were tied very closely to the neonomian/"antinomian" controversy, which was closely (though not exclusively) divided along Presbyterian/Congregationalist lines. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/neonomian-presbyterians-vs-antinomian-congregationalists/
 
I think you're seeing true similarities but misattributing the reason.

It's not that 1689 Federalism is borrowing from Lutheranism, it's that 1689 Federalism and Lutheranism both look back to scripture and how the scripture was interpreted by various church fathers.

The Covenant Theology of Augustine, for example, has a lot of striking similarities with 1689 Federalism.

As for the literal descent of Christ to hell (I just finished Sam Renihan's book on the topic), this is a view with significant patristic support.

So again, just because Lutheranism has similarities, it doesn't mean these things come from Lutheranism or were influenced by Lutheranism.
This makes sense. Thank you for your response!
 
Thanks for the post Zach. The foundation for 1689 Federalism is a reformed law/gospel dichotomy, as Renihan lays out in "Shadow to Substance." He also demonstrates the reformed context in which the particular baptists were educated.

Johnson is an outlier and not quite representative with his view of eternal life offered in the Abrahamic & Mosaic. (see here https://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/ )

On the descent of Christ, here's an RTS article arguing the same (I believe the author has since written a book on it, but I may be mistaken) https://journal.rts.edu/article/he-descended-into-hell/

That being said, how to interpret the Mosaic Covenant and its relation to the New Covenant is certainly a distinguishing factor between Lutherans and Presbyterians. Note Owen's agreement with Lutherans over against "most reformed" on this point:

He says later:

In the latter part of the 17th century, these differing interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant were tied very closely to the neonomian/"antinomian" controversy, which was closely (though not exclusively) divided along Presbyterian/Congregationalist lines. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/neonomian-presbyterians-vs-antinomian-congregationalists/
Thank you for your response and the resources! Your website has helped me tremendously as I learn more about covenant theology.

This all definitely makes sense to me. It seems as if the more I look into it, the more I realize that 1689 federalism is the only model that can fully explain the Biblical covenants. It made me a little nervous when I noticed the connection to Lutheran beliefs, but I now see this is no reason to abandon this model.

Thank you!
 
Thanks for the post Zach. The foundation for 1689 Federalism is a reformed law/gospel dichotomy, as Renihan lays out in "Shadow to Substance." He also demonstrates the reformed context in which the particular baptists were educated.

Johnson is an outlier and not quite representative with his view of eternal life offered in the Abrahamic & Mosaic. (see here https://www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/ )

On the descent of Christ, here's an RTS article arguing the same (I believe the author has since written a book on it, but I may be mistaken) https://journal.rts.edu/article/he-descended-into-hell/

That being said, how to interpret the Mosaic Covenant and its relation to the New Covenant is certainly a distinguishing factor between Lutherans and Presbyterians. Note Owen's agreement with Lutherans over against "most reformed" on this point:

He says later:

In the latter part of the 17th century, these differing interpretations of the Mosaic Covenant were tied very closely to the neonomian/"antinomian" controversy, which was closely (though not exclusively) divided along Presbyterian/Congregationalist lines. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/10/14/neonomian-presbyterians-vs-antinomian-congregationalists/
Is Owens view the same as republication (i.e R. Scott Clark 's view, i am not sure if there are distinctions in the republication camp)?
 
Is Owens view the same as republication (i.e R. Scott Clark 's view, i am not sure if there are distinctions in the republication camp)?
Short answer is "Yes." Long answer is "It depends." I have found that Klineans don't always speak clearly on the issue, so it is not always easy to discern exactly what they believe. My opinion is that ecclesiastical ramifications prevent them from speaking and thinking clearly on the issue. For example, what Clark had to say on the matter before the 2016 OPC Report on Republication is much more direct than what Clark now has to say after the Report. Now he distances himself from Kline and is really hard to pin down.

That being said, Lee Irons and T. David Gordon appealed to Samuel Bolton's subservient covenant view (held by Owen) as a precursor to Kline during Irons' OPC trial (see The Subservient Covenant: A 17th Century Precursor of Meredith Kline’s View of the Mosaic Covenant). And this critique of Kline from D. Patrick Ramsey likewise argues for similarities (though noting some nuanced differences) https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/mosaiccovenant/Ramsey In-defense-of-moses.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cqH0xbZAtTSjtI31vAQT3WTXegloR80I_EO9vmoN5rGTUkeZo20J_QGsxEciBWte1XtlFHIzMNtKuEKDLRFycuCkD4JXHtO34YM8bLXHdAXOmrXCmhEwL2-aCMxzF06iX403nSpIn3tyj4QS8s9J07DQyfQmNkmQSekvZK_9OZ6-bJhNyozUIJW7g9c_E_I_jqpXYO4mblOFmnOOmTmOHkLbA9Ezlnlj3j8HG1QFIFOSBzmw5A=&attredirects=1

See also https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/06/22/the-heidelblogs-monologue-of-misrepresentation/
 
My opinion is that ecclesiastical ramifications prevent them from speaking and thinking clearly on the issue. For example, what Clark had to say on the matter before the 2016 OPC Report on Republication is much more direct than what Clark now has to say after the Report.
I thought Dr. Clark is not OPC, and in fact subscribes to a different confession of faith.
 
He also claims the WCF. When I said ecclessiastical I should have said "ecclessiastical/professional." He's made his name as Mr. Reformed, so it would be consequential to admit his view of covenant theology is contrary to the WCF.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top