What are main Differences between the 1689 and Modern RB?

[KMK]

Secondly, Coxe (the probable writer of section 7 of the LBC) used special terms in the LBC to indicate these truths.

Do you mean paragraph 7? And to which special terms are you referring?

If the authors and signers of the LBC all agreed in 1689 Federalism, and that it was an important distinction, they could have done a better job of explaining it. They wasted no words explaining their position on Baptism and the Church contra Westminster.

 

[Timotheos]

Do you mean paragraph 7? And to which special terms are you referring?

If the authors and signers of the LBC all agreed in 1689 Federalism, and that it was an important distinction, they could have done a better job of explaining it. They wasted no words explaining their position on Baptism and the Church contra Westminster.

No. Chapter 7, all paragraphs. http://www.vor.org/truth/1689/1689bc07.html

Some have argued that their views allowed for variations of CT, just as the paedobaptist view does as well. If that is the case, then I don't care to make that big a deal w/ those RB who disagree. I think the point here is that (1) it connects RBs back to their theological ancestors (particular baptists) and (2) it gives them a thorough-going, confessional CT that actually bolsters the credo-baptist view. I'm not saying that one's baptismal conviction should force a view of CT. But in this case, it seems to be an added bonus for those of us in the 1689 federalist camp.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Some have argued that their views allowed for variations of CT, just as the paedobaptist view does as well. If that is the case, then I don't care to make that big a deal w/ those RB who disagree.

There may be various views concerning how God used the Moral Law but the OPC just had a study done that eliminates some who wanted to be included that are not. The various views are minimal. They all agree that the Mosaic is an administration purely of the Covenant of Grace. This situation between supposed Reformed Baptists seems to have more disagreement concerning the Mosaic Covenant. The Mosaic is an administration of Covenant of Grace, is administered by the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works (mixed, stand alone Covenant), is a Covenant of Works based upon worldly land promises and blessings and it only points the Covenant of Works done and to the New Covenant fulfillment of the Covenant of Grace as the New Covenant. These variations delve into things much wider and are much more confusing.

Remember, I didn't change because I was becoming paedobaptist. So the discussion shouldn't really focus on some Reformed Baptist boosting their position concerning baptism. That argument should also be included in an ecclesiastical argument. Who is a member of the Church and to whom does the Church have real authority given to it.

 

[Herald]

I have a problem with some of the things I have seen via video and readings. I didn't become reformed based upon my desire to baptize babies. I was perfectly content being a Reformed Baptist. My conclusion was based purely on the substance of the Covenant of Grace as it administered all of the Covenants after the Covenant of Works was violated.

I have not read much of John Bunyan. I wonder if he has written on the topic.

Randy, that is fine. If you became a Presbyterian because of your changed view on the Covenant of Grace, that is fine. The issue regarding 1689 Federalism is ultimately going to be decided on its faithfulness to scripture, and secondly by the 1689 LBC. This is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Baptists are famous for not agreeing 100% on anything!

 

[Herald]

So the discussion shouldn't really focus on some Reformed Baptist boosting their position concerning baptism. That argument should also be included in an ecclesiastical argument. Who is a member of the Church and to whom does the Church have real authority given to it.

Randy, the Renihans, Barcellos, and Denault are arguing exactly that. They are not starting with baptism. I have always believed how one views the New Covenant ends the baptism debate. If the New Covenant is actually new, then you are a Baptist. If it is a refreshed covenant (based on the Abrahamic covenant), then you are a Presbyterian.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

it gives them a thorough-going, confessional CT that actually bolsters the credo-baptist view. I'm not saying that one's baptismal conviction should force a view of CT. But in this case, it seems to be an added bonus for those of us in the 1689 federalist camp.

That is what makes this suspect for me. Because that wasn't the case for me. I have always heard if it is new it is not for you. I read Keach, Tombe, Owen, Conner, the most recent Fred Malone, and others. It seems Owen who was a Paedobaptist has a closer theology to this movement. Just my humble opinion

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

If the New Covenant is actually new, then you are a Baptist. If it is a refreshed covenant (based on the Abrahamic covenant), then you are a Presbyterian.

I prefer if the administration is fulfilled and confirmed into the next phase of the Administrator.

 

[Pergamum]

That is my understanding of the 1689 Federalist position. Opponents of the position are saying that 1689 Federalists do not believe the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. What I have read and watched so far by 1689 Federalists refutes that assertion, just as it does the accusation of their being dispensationalists.

Bill,

It seems that 1689 Federalists are saying that OT believers are saved by virtue of the New Covenant (fine) and that they participate in the promises of the Covenant of Grace while in the OT.

However, it seems better to say that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT and that OT believers participate in it. Not merely the promise but the effective reality, just like all NT believers. In other words, OT believers and NT believers are saved in the same way.

1689 Federalism seems to believe Gen 3:15 was a promise whereby the Covenant of Grace was "revealed" - but I believe it is better to say that this was where it actually began as an inaugurated Covenant....waiting for Christ, of course, for its fulfillment. All OT believers were active in it.

 

[Herald]

Bill,

It seems that 1689 Federalists are saying that OT believers are saved by virtue of the New Covenant (fine) and that they participate in the promises of the Covenant of Grace while in the OT.

However, it seems better to say that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT and that OT believers participate in it. Not merely the promise but the effective reality, just like all NT believers. In other words, OT believers and NT believers are saved in the same way.

1689 Federalism seems to believe Gen 3:15 was a promise whereby the Covenant of Grace was "revealed" - but I believe it is better to say that this was where it actually began as an inaugurated Covenant....waiting for Christ, of course, for its fulfillment. All OT believers were active in it.

OK. That is a valid critique. What 1689 Federalists need to do is explain how/why the Covenant of Grace was not inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, and how it became inaugurated at Pentecost. They say they have explained it and you can either accept or reject their conclusions.

A Presbyterian friend of mine told me offline that one of the reasons they believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is that if the covenant is not continued it interrupts the Covenant of Grace. In my opinion, this is where 1689 Federalism is proven correct or false. They try and make the case that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace inaugurated, whereas Genesis 3:15 is the Covenant of Grace promised. The Covenant of Grace promised in Genesis 3:15 could not possibly be the Covenant of Grace inaugurated because it can only be inaugurated after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Is this all just a semantical argument? Is there substance to it? It depends on who you ask.

 

[KMK]

It sounds a bit like a distinction without a difference from a practical perspective.

 

[Pergamum]

OK. That is a valid critique. What 1689 Federalists need to do is explain how/why the Covenant of Grace was not inaugurated in Genesis 3:15, and how it became inaugurated at Pentecost. They say they have explained it and you can either accept or reject their conclusions.

A Presbyterian friend of mine told me offline that one of the reasons they believe in the continuity of the Abrahamic Covenant is that if the covenant is not continued it interrupts the Covenant of Grace. In my opinion, this is where 1689 Federalism is proven correct or false. They try and make the case that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace inaugurated, whereas Genesis 3:15 is the Covenant of Grace promised. The Covenant of Grace promised in Genesis 3:15 could not possibly be the Covenant of Grace inaugurated because it can only be inaugurated after Christ's death, burial, and resurrection. Is this all just a semantical argument? Is there substance to it? It depends on who you ask.

Bill,

Keep me updated on your progress as you study these issues. It sounds like we are in the same boat studying these issues.

The Genesis 3:15 question is vital to me. I believe that at the point of promise the Covenant of Grace was inaugurated, but only came to fulfillment in Christ. The 1689 Federalists seem to say it was revealed or promised but was not actually operative. Yet, if OT believers are saved by virtue of it, it nonetheless seems active-but-not-yet-consummated. It seems effectual and operative by virtue of the fact that there were OT believers and these OT believers are one body with NT believers.

 

[Dachaser]

Has every generation fully and accurately understood every doctrine and therefore fully and accurately passed it down to the next generation? Has there ever been an instance where a study of historical theology led a presbyterian to disagree with one of his gray-haired elders?

The context to me regarding Baptist theology is important, for there MANY various strands of that within the large Baptist Community of faith, as there are RB, Dispensational Ones, NCT ones etc.

It is not nearly as monolithic as reformed Presbyterian theology would be regarding these issues.

 

[Dachaser]

That is my understanding of the 1689 Federalist position. Opponents of the position are saying that 1689 Federalists do not believe the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. What I have read and watched so far by 1689 Federalists refutes that assertion, just as it does the accusation of their being dispensationalists.

My understanding is that all saved in the OT were saved under/by the CoG, but that the NC itself is when that CoG fully was manifested and now established?

 

[Dachaser]

Randy, the Renihans, Barcellos, and Denault are arguing exactly that. They are not starting with baptism. I have always believed how one views the New Covenant ends the baptism debate. If the New Covenant is actually new, then you are a Baptist. If it is a refreshed covenant (based on the Abrahamic covenant), then you are a Presbyterian.

Yes, as much of this issue will rest upon just how much continuity/discontinuity one sees between the O/NC.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I mentioned the Everlasting Covenant in another thread. I asked if there were more than one. I asked that because of the various views concerning the New Covenant and it's relationship to the Covenant of Grace. It seems to me that the Covenant is Established with Abraham, then his seed in their generations, his descendent Isaac and his seed in their generations. It has been noted that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are synonymous if I am not mistaken. So as this discussion has carried on maybe we need to figure out what it means that God Established this Covenant with Abraham and the following generations.

(Gen 17:7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Heb 13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

 

[Timotheos]

That is what makes this suspect for me. Because that wasn't the case for me. I have always heard if it is new it is not for you. I read Keach, Tombe, Owen, Conner, the most recent Fred Malone, and others. It seems Owen who was a Paedobaptist has a closer theology to this movement. Just my humble opinion

This post is confusing to me. This is not new. It is a rediscovery of our Baptist heritage from the 17th cent. Most of the PBs who were writing advocate 1689 federalism in some way, shape, or form.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

There is something that seems to be new about this Tim. It seems that there are some discoveries that have been made but the formulation of the knowledge has not been systematically as clear as some want it to be. As one noted Confessing Baptist told me, the movement is not monolithic. It does seem to be causing confusion. It also seems to be something that is trying to be defined in a historical context that had various positions. Rich Barcellos told me that there were various views and the 20th Century view is one of those that did exist during the 17th Century among Baptists. He did note that he believed the majority position seems to have been the 1689 Federalist position.

Let me ask a question here, the label 1689 Federalist, is the name itself a new classification for an old doctrine? I don't ever remember reading that name in this context all the years I was a Reformed / Particular Baptist. I wonder if Richard Belcher has been a part of this discussion. He was a Confessional Baptist Scholar. I would be interested in his thoughts.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

It is a rediscovery of our Baptist heritage from the 17th cent. Most of the PBs who were writing advocate 1689 federalism in some way, shape, or form.

Is your implication of some way, shape, or form, an indication or validation that it wasn't a monolithic understanding even amongst Baptists of the 17th Century? Was its formulation still being worked out or not fully embraced?

 

[Dachaser]

I mentioned the Everlasting Covenant in another thread. I asked if there were more than one. I asked that because of the various views concerning the New Covenant and it's relationship to the Covenant of Grace. It seems to me that the Covenant is Established with Abraham, then his seed in their generations, his descendent Isaac and his seed in their generations. It has been noted that the New Covenant and the Covenant of Grace are synonymous if I am not mistaken. So as this discussion has carried on maybe we need to figure out what it means that God Established this Covenant with Abraham and the following generations.

(Gen 17:7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.

(Heb 13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.

Are the eternal covenant, the CoG, and the NC are exactly same thing?

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Are the eternal covenant, the CoG, and the NC are exactly same thing?

That is what I asked. I received an affirmative from one Reformed Baptist. I asked if there was more than one Everlasting Covenant. There are some who believe there is more than one Covenant of Grace. That is why it is mentioned in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

7.6
There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

This must be an old discussion or the Confession wouldn't have mentioned it.

 

[Dachaser]

That is what I asked. I received an affirmative from one Reformed Baptist. I asked if there was more than one Everlasting Covenant. There are some who believe there is more than one Covenant of Grace. That is why it is mentioned in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

7.6
There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.

This must be an old discussion or the Confession wouldn't have mentioned it.

My current understanding, its either that the Cog and NC are not exactly same thing, or else that the NC is the fullness and actual manifestation of the actual CoG here on Earth in times of Christ.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Yo my current understanding, its either that the Cog and NC are not exactly same thing, or else that the NC is the fullness and actual manifestation of the actual CoG here on Earth in times of Christ.

Please don't take this in the wrong spirit. You evidently have have a lot of reading and getting acquainted with to do. That includes the scriptures and views of past writers. If I were you I would ask more questions than give an opinion. Your last question is pertinent.

Are the eternal covenant, the CoG, and the NC are exactly same thing?

And I am not to be addressed by YO. Please, I am not looking down on you. I have kids. But I have reverence for writing even though I struggle with it also. The guys on the Puritanboard have helped me out a lot with my writing. I was probably worse than you with my slang and grammar at one time. Please don't take offence.

 

[Timotheos]

Is your implication of some way, shape, or form, an indication or validation that it wasn't a monolithic understanding even amongst Baptists of the 17th Century? Was its formulation still being worked out or not fully embraced?

No, it was the vast majority view. But the formulations were being worked out since Baptists in general were being worked out as well.

 

[Dachaser]

I am sorry about the Yo, as that was not my intention, and have now corrected it. and you are right, as I have been reading through various authors on these issues, and trying to reconcile those such as a Berkhof with a Strong and a Gill and Calvin is providing to be quite daunting, to say the least.

The reformed Dutch and Presbyterian seem to be pretty much in agreement on major issues, but the RB authors seem to be building on theology in subtle, but differing ways.

 

[Pergamum]

There is something that seems to be new about this Tim. It seems that there are some discoveries that have been made but the formulation of the knowledge has not been systematically as clear as some want it to be. As one noted Confessing Baptist told me, the movement is not monolithic. It does seem to be causing confusion. It also seems to be something that is trying to be defined in a historical context that had various positions. Rich Barcellos told me that there were various views and the 20th Century view is one of those that did exist during the 17th Century among Baptists. He did note that he believed the majority position seems to have been the 1689 Federalist position.

Let me ask a question here, the label 1689 Federalist, is the name itself a new classification for an old doctrine? I don't ever remember reading that name in this context all the years I was a Reformed / Particular Baptist. I wonder if Richard Belcher has been a part of this discussion. He was a Confessional Baptist Scholar. I would be interested in his thoughts.

This admission that all strands of Covenant Theology have been among baptists for years and that "20th Century Baptist" covenant theology can also be found among 17th Century Baptists confirms my assertion that a lot of this is Baptist Identity Politics for lack of a better phrase.

Groups are jockeying for position and branding themselves as THE true baptists, "1689 Federalism" trying to gain the high ground by claiming a name that sets them up as the REAL preservers of confessional baptist doctrine. Which of course is ironic because many of them get so mad when folks like R. Scott Clark try to deny them the title of "Reformed" (apparently he thinks he has the copyrights to the moniker "Reformed") even as they try to deny that all of these various strands all are part of Baptist history.

 

[Timotheos]

This admission that all strands of Covenant Theology have been among baptists for years and that "20th Century Baptist" covenant theology can also be found among 17th Century Baptists confirms my assertion that a lot of this is Baptist Identity Politics for lack of a better phrase.

Groups are jockeying for position and branding themselves as THE true baptists, "1689 Federalism" trying to gain the high ground by claiming a name that sets them up as the REAL preservers of confessional baptist doctrine. Which of course is ironic because many of them get so mad when folks like R. Scott Clark try to deny them the title of "Reformed" (apparently he thinks he has the copyrights to the moniker "Reformed") even as they try to deny that all of these various strands all are part of Baptist history.

I feel like you are only interacting w/ cage stage kinds of Baptist CTs.

My point is that you aren't reading on the subject. Other than Denault, have you read anyone else?

If you interact w/ the bad eggs, you may think all the eggs taste that way. There are people like this in every camp and system. So if this has turned you off to 1689 federalism, then good luck finding any view that does not have its "really bad eggs".

 

[Pergamum]

Who are the bad eggs and who are the good eggs, then?

 

[Timotheos]

Who are the bad eggs and who are the good eggs, then?

I can only assume the bad eggs are those you have been conversing with on Facebook who claim that 1689 federalism is the only view for RBs. The cage stage types.

The good eggs would those authors of which you don't seem to have read much. At least it appears since you still won't answer that question. I think I am safe in assuming you have only read Denault. Good start... but that is only a start. I have a free pdf option on a book not yet in publication if you want to hit me up on pm.

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, please send me any PDFs you have. I have read Denault, Johnson, Nichols, Blackburn, plus Presbyterian authors on the covenant. I have also read much from Brandon Adams' website and read the Coxe book on the Covenants. I think I have read almost every book there is on the subject, but remain unconvinced (maybe O' Palmer Robertson and his Christ of the Covenants got to me first). My qualms are not out of ignorance.

But I will continue to read anything else you suggest to me and I will thank you gratefully for the recommendations. Thanks.

 

[Dachaser]

Yes, please send me any PDFs you have. I have read Denault, Johnson, Nichols, Blackburn, plus Presbyterian authors on the covenant. I have also read much from Brandon Adams' website and read the Coxe book on the Covenants. I think I have read almost every book there is on the subject, but remain unconvinced (maybe O' Palmer Robertson and his Christ of the Covenants got to me first). My qualms are not out of ignorance.

But I will continue to read anything else you suggest to me and I will thank you gratefully for the recommendations. Thanks.

What is the gist of your main reason having issues with 1689 Federalism Covenant theology then?