30

Sep
2015

In Audio
Jeffery Johnson
Pascal Denault
Resources

By Brandon Adams

2015 Founders Conference w/ Commentary

On 30, Sep 2015 | In Audio, Jeffery Johnson, Pascal Denault, Resources | By Brandon Adams

2015 SOUTHERN BAPTIST FOUNDERS CONFERENCE—SOUTHWEST

HOSTED BY: HERITAGE BAPTIST CHURCH, Mansfield, Texas

The Distinctives of Baptist Covenant Theology

SEPTEMBER 24-25, 2015

2015 Founders Conference on SermonAudio.com

Psalm 32 Devotional

Jarrett Downs | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

THU 09/24/2015

Conference | 36 min

What Does it Mean to be Baptist and Reformed?

Rev. Fred Malone | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

THU 09/24/2015

Conference | 64 min

The Relationship of the Covenant of Grace to the Old Covenant

Pascal Denault | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

THU 09/24/2015

Conference | 65 min

Hebrews 8 and the New Covenant

Jeffrey D. Johnson | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

THU 09/24/2015

Conference | 57 min

The Relationship of the Covenant of Grace to the New Covenant

Pascal Denault | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

FRI 09/25/2015

Conference | 55 min

Contemporary Challenges

Jeffrey D. Johnson | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

FRI 09/25/2015

Conference | 67 min

Q and A

Various Speakers | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

FRI 09/25/2015

Conference | 70 min

Implications of Covenant Theology

Jeffrey D. Johnson | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

FRI 09/25/2015

Conference | 47 min

Galatians 4:21-31

Pascal Denault | 2015 Founders Conference

Heritage Baptist Church

Play

FRI 09/25/2015

Conference | 59 min

This conference was a great encouragement to 1689Federalism.com. 2 years ago very few people were aware of this view and now people are gathering together at a conference to learn more about it. Lord willing, this trend will continue.

Due to some of the material presented in the lectures, some comments will be offered.

Contemporary Challenges

Jeffrey Johnson helpfully outlined 3 contemporary challenges: Ignorance (many people are still not aware of it), Identity (what are the essential points), Intolerance (danger of splintering). His helpful list of the essential points of 1689 Federalism was:

There was a pre-fall covenant made with Adam, and it was the Covenant of Works
There is a dichotomy to the Abrahamic Covenant
The Old Covenant is a republication of the Covenant of Works
The third use of the moral law
The New Covenant alone is the Covenant of Grace (the most essential point)

This is a good list, but points 2 and 3 require some commentary.

First, in regards to Abraham, Johnson quotes Coxe, Collins, and Spilsbury. When Collins says “We must know the Covenant made with Abraham had two parts” he goes on to clarify “First, a spiritual, which consisted in God’s promising to… all his Spiritual-Seed… that through Jesus Christ [they] should have their Faith counted for Righteousness.” And “Second, This Promise consisted of temporal good: so God promised Abraham’s Seed should enjoy the (i) Land of Canaan, and have plenty of outward blessings, so sealed this Promise by Circumcision.”

When Spilsbury says “There was in Abraham at that time a spirituall seed and a fleshly seed. Between which seeds God ever distinguished through all their Generations.” he goes on to specify what concerned the fleshly seed “Now these being the particular expressions of the covenant, and as they lie barely in the letter, they are figurative speeches, and so considered onely as they were temporall, for so was Canaan a temporall inheritance, and so were the other outward blessings, under which were figured out spiritual substances, onely to the like Subjects. And as they were outwrad or temporal, so considered, they were both generall and conditional; for as the people did then believe God, and obey him, so they did enjoy them, and not else, as Heb. 3.”¹

When Coxe says “Abraham is to be considered in a double capacity: he is the father of all true believers and the father and root of the Israelite nation.” He goes on to say “God entered into covenant with him for both of these seeds and since they are formally distinguished from one another, their covenant interest must necessarily be different and fall under a distinct consideration. The blessings appropriate to either must be conveyed in a way agreeable to their peculiar and respective covenant interest. And these things may not be confounded without a manifest hazard to the most important articles in the Christian religion… [T]here is no way of avoiding confusion and entanglements in our conception of these things except by keeping before our eyes the distinction between Abraham’s seed as either spiritual or carnal, and of the respective promises belonging to each. For this whole covenant of circumcision given to the carnal seed, can no more convey spiritual and eternal blessings to them as such, than it can now enright a believer (though a child of Abraham) in their temporal and typical blessings in the land of Canaan.”²

What all of these men make clear is that not only are the two seeds distinguished, one as a type of the other, but so also the blessings are distinct, one a type of the other. The dichotomy is not that they have the same promise of eternal life, but are given two ways of obtaining it (works or faith). Instead, in keeping with typology, the blessings given to Abraham’s fleshly seed are fleshly, “temporal and typical blessings in the land of Canaan.” And this typical reward was held out upon the condition of obedience. It may be added that Augustine made the same point. “Now it is to be observed that two things are promised to Abraham, the one, that his seed should possess the land of Canaan… the other far more excellent, not about the carnal but the spiritual seed, through which he is the father, not of the one Israelite nation, but of all nations who follow the footprints of his faith… what we read of historically as predicted and fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to the flesh, we must also inquire the allegorical meaning of, as it is to be fulfilled in the seed of Abraham according to faith… In that testament, however, which is properly called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is expressly promised… And these, indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New Testament.”

As Coxe warns, if we do not keep the promises belonging to each distinct, we will not avoid confusion and entanglements. We must view typology in the Abrahamic dichotomy consistently. The earthly seed is given an earthly, temporal land of rest that they must work for, and this is a type of the heavenly rest that Christ worked for and gave to the spiritual seed.

This brings us to point 3 and the question of republication. The word “republication” is somewhat vague in that it can mean different things to different people. Because of this potential for confusion, clarity is improved if the word is avoided. Instead, we should simply state that the Old Covenant operated upon the works principle (Lev. 18:5). Calling the Old Covenant a republication of the Covenant of Works often leads to the confusion that the Old Covenant is the Covenant of Works. In fact, this is what Johnson says. He believes the Old Covenant offered eternal life and threatened eternal death. He makes this point in his other lecture on Hebrews 8 and the New Covenant where he argues that “Old Covenant” in Hebrews 8 refers to the Adamic Covenant of Works. Furthermore, he believes that Christ obeyed this republished Adamic Covenant of Works to earn eternal life for His people. He also believes this is the view of Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen. However, there is no reason to believe this was the view of Coxe and Owen, and it creates confusing implications. Owen was clear in his exegesis of Hebrews 8 that the first covenant being referred to was not the Adamic Covenant but was in fact a covenant that must be distinguished from it.

There was an original covenant made with Adam… This is the covenant of works, absolutely the old, or first covenant that God made with men. But this is not the covenant here intended; for, —… That first covenant made with Adam, had, as unto any benefit to be expected from it, with respect unto acceptation with God, life, and salvation, ceased long before, even at the entrance of sin… all those who receive not the grace tendered in the promise, it doth remain in fill force and efficacy, not as a covenant, but as a law… as a covenant, obliging unto personal, perfect, sinless obedience, as the condition of life, to be performed by themselves, so it ceased to be, long before the introduction of the new covenant which the apostle speaks of, that was promised “in the latter days.” But the other covenant here spoken of was not removed or taken away, until this new covenant was actually established.

Johnson mentions a few quotes from Owen and Coxe:

God did not intend in it to abrogate the covenant of works, and to substitute this in the place thereof; yea, in sundry things it re-enforced, established, and confirmed that covenant… It revived the sanction of the first covenant, in the curse or sentence of death which it denounced against all transgressors. Death was the penalty of the transgression of the first covenant: “In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt die the death.” And this sentence was revived and represented anew in the curse wherewith this covenant was ratified, “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10. … It revived the promise of that covenant, —that of eternal life upon perfect obedience. (Owen)

This also must not be forgotten: that as Moses’ law in some way included the covenant of creation and served for a memorial of it (on which account all mankind was involved in its curse), it had not only the sanction of a curse awfully denounced against the disobedient, but also a promise of the reward of life to the obedient. Now as the law of Moses was the same in moral precept with the law of creation, so the reward in this respect proposed was not a new reward, but the same that by compact had been due to Adam, in the case of his perfect obedience. (Coxe, p. 46)

How are we to understand these quotes if they are not teaching that the Old Covenant is the Adamic Covenant of Works, but is in fact distinct from it? Let’s start by reading the full context of Owen’s quote:

1. This covenant, called “the old covenant,” was never intended to be of itself the absolute rule and law of life and salvation unto the church, but was made with a particular design, and with respect unto particular ends. This the apostle proves undeniably in this epistle, especially in the chapter foregoing, and those two that follow. Hence it follows that it could abrogate or disannul nothing which God at any time before had given as a general rule unto the church. For that which is particular cannot abrogate any thing that was general, and before it; as that which is general doth abrogate all antecedent particulars, as the new covenant doth abrogate the old. And this we must consider in both the instances belonging hereunto. For, —

(1.) God had before given the covenant of works, or perfect obedience, unto all mankind, in the law of creation. But this covenant at Sinai did not abrogate or disannul that covenant, nor any way fulfill it. And the reason is, because it was never intended to come in the place or room thereof, as a covenant, containing an entire rule of all the faith and obedience of the whole church. God did not intend in it to abrogate the covenant of works, and to substitute this in the place thereof; yea, in sundry things it re- enforced, established, and confirmed that covenant. For, —
[1.] It revived, declared, and expressed all the commands of that covenant in the decalogue; for that is nothing but a divine summary of the law written in the heart of man at his creation. And herein the dreadful manner of its delivery or promulgation, with its writing in tables of stone, is also to be considered; for in them the nature of that first covenant, with its inexorableness as unto perfect obedience, was represented. And because none could answer its demands, or comply with it therein, it was called “the ministration of death,” causing fear and bondage, 2 Corinthians 3:7. [2.] It revived the sanction of the first covenant, in the curse or sentence of death which it denounced against all transgressors. Death was the penalty of the transgression of the first covenant: “In the day that thou eatest, thou shalt die the death.” And this sentence was revived and represented anew in the curse wherewith this covenant was ratified, “Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them,” Deuteronomy 27:26; Galatians 3:10. For the design of God in it was to bind a sense of that curse on the consciences of men, until He came by whom it was taken away, as the apostle declares, Galatians 3:19. [3.] It revived the promise of that covenant, —that of eternal life upon perfect obedience. So the apostle tells us that Moses thus describeth the righteousness of the law, “That the man which doeth those things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5; as he doth, Leviticus 18:5.
Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived. Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed unto it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it revived, saying, “Do this, and live.”

Hence it is, that when our apostle disputeth against justification by the law, or by the works of the law, he doth not intend the works peculiar unto the covenant of Sinai, such as were the rites and ceremonies of the worship then instituted; but he intends also the works of the first covenant, which alone had the promise of life annexed unto them.

And hence it follows also, that it was not a new covenant of works established in the place of the old, for the absolute rule of faith and obedience unto the whole church; for then would it have abrogated and taken away that covenant, and all the force of it, which it did not.
[…]
3. It will be said, as was before observed, ‘That if it did neither abrogate the first covenant of works, and come in the room thereof, nor disannul the promise made unto Abraham, then unto what end did it serve, or what benefit did the church receive thereby?’ I answer, —…

What hath been spoken may suffice to declare the nature of this covenant in general; and two things do here evidently follow, wherein the substance of the whole truth contended for by the apostle doth consist: —

(1.) That whilst the covenant of grace was contained and proposed only in the promise, before it was solemnly confirmed in the blood and sacrifice of Christ, and so legalized or established as the only rule of the worship of the church, the introduction of this other covenant on Sinai did not constitute a new way or means of righteousness, life, and salvation; but believers sought for them alone by the covenant of grace as declared in the promise. This follows evidently upon what we have discoursed; and it secures absolutely that great fundamental truth, which the apostle in this and all his other epistles so earnestly contendeth for, namely, that there neither is, nor ever was, either righteousness, justification, life, or salvation, to be attained by any law, or the works of it, (for this covenant at mount Sinai comprehended every law that God ever gave unto the church,) but by Christ alone, and faith in him.

(2.) That whereas this covenant being introduced in the pleasure of God, there was prescribed with it a form of outward worship suited unto that dispensation of times and present state of the church; upon the introduction of the new covenant in the fullness of times, to be the rule of all intercourse between God and the church, both that covenant and all its worship must be disannulled. This is that which the apostle proves with all sorts of arguments, manifesting the great advantage of the church thereby.

These things, I say, do evidently follow on the preceding discourses, and are the main truths contended for by the apostle…

4.) Into this estate and condition God brought them by a solemn covenant, confirmed by mutual consent between him and them. The tenor, force, and solemn ratification of this covenant, are expressed, Exodus 24:3-8. Unto the terms and conditions of this covenant was the whole church obliged indispensably, on pain of extermination, until all was accomplished, Malachi 4:4-6. Unto this covenant belonged the decalogue, with all precepts of moral obedience thence educed. So also did the laws of political rule established among them, and the whole system of religious worship given unto them. All these laws were brought within the verge of this covenant, and were the matter of it. And it had especial promises and threatenings annexed unto it as such; whereof none did exceed the bounds of the land of Canaan. For even many of the laws of it were such as obliged nowhere else. Such was the law of the sabbatical year, and all their sacrifices. There was sin and obedience in them or about them in the land of Canaan, none elsewhere. Hence, —

(5.) This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Corinthians: 3:9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works. And, —

(6.) Hereon occasionally fell out the ruin of that people; “their table became a snare unto them, and that which should have been for their welfare became a trap,” according to the prediction of our Savior, Psalm 69:22. It was this covenant that raised and ruined them. It raised them to glory and honor when given of God; it ruined them when abused by themselves to ends contrary to express declarations of his mind and will. For although the generality of them were wicked and rebellious, always breaking the terms of the covenant which God made with them, so far as it was possible they should, whilst God determined to reign over them unto the appointed season, and repining under the burden of it; yet they would have this covenant to be the only rule and means of righteousness, life, and salvation, as the apostle declares, Romans 9:31-33, 10:3. For, as we have often said, there were two things in it, both which they abused unto other ends than what God designed them: —
[1.] There was the renovation of the rule of the covenant of works for righteousness and life. And this they would have to be given unto them for those ends, and so sought for righteousness by the works of the law. [2.] There was ordained in it a typical representation of the way and means whereby the promise was to be made effectual, namely, in the mediation and sacrifice of Jesus Christ; which was the end of all their ordinances of worship. And the outward law thereof, with the observance of its institution, they looked on as their only relief when they came short of exact and perfect righteousness.
Against both these pernicious errors the apostle disputes expressly in his epistles unto the Romans and the Galatians, to save them, if it were possible, from that ruin they were casting themselves into. Hereon “the elect obtained,” but “the rest were hardened.” For hereby they made an absolute renunciation of the promise, wherein alone God had inwrapped the way of life and salvation.

This is the nature and substance of that covenant which God made with that people; a particular, temporary covenant it was, and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace.

Owen is very clear that the Old Covenant was not the Adamic Covenant of Works. It was not a continuation of it. It did not offer eternal life. It did not threaten eternal death. It was “confined unto things temporal.” If that is the case, then how are we to understand their statements about the Covenant of Works being revived and represented anew? We have to first understand that there is a distinction between the law and the law as a covenant of works (see bottom of here, as well as here). With that in mind, what these men mean is that the Old Covenant did, in fact, share something with the Adamic Covenant: 1) the moral law, and 2) the works principle. The Old Covenant said “Obey my commandments, and you will live in Canaan and be blessed” (Lev 18:5). “Obey my commandments, and you will live” was the same condition as the Adamic Covenant. But “live” is meant in two different senses. If we imagine the two covenants as contracts or covenant documents, there would be a footnote next to Leviticus 18:5 which says “See the original Adamic Covenant of Works.” In this way, Israel was reminded of that original covenant – a covenant that they did not have a written record of. The Old Covenant and the book of the law was written in order for Israelites, and by extension us, to understand the unwritten Adamic Covenant.

And so this is how it was “revived” in the minds of the Israelits as a “memorial.” It’s something written on every man’s heart. Coxe explains “They expect a reward of future blessedness for their obedience to the law of God and to stand before him on the terms of a covenant of works. This necessarily arises from man’s relationship to God at first in such a covenant (which included the promise of such a reward) and the knowledge of these covenant terms communicated to him, together with the law of his creation.” (45) And so when fallen man sees these terms written out for him, the terms of the original covenant written on his heart are revived and represented anew.

Owen later explains the overlap in the works principle:

Obs. IX. 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)…

The greatest and utmost mercies that God ever intended to communicate unto the church, and to bless it withal, were enclosed in the new covenant. Nor doth the efficacy of the mediation of Christ extend itself beyond the verge and compass thereof; for he is only the mediator and surety of this covenant. But now God had before made a covenant with his people. A good and holy covenant it was; such as was meet for God to prescribe, and for them thankfully to accept of. Yet notwithstanding all the privileges and advantages of it, it proved not so effectual, but that multitudes of them with whom God made that covenant were so far from obtaining the blessedness of grace and glory thereby, as that they came short, and were deprived of the temporal benefits that were included therein…

For whereas l[‘B’ signifies a “husband,” or to be a husband or a lord, b being added unto it in construction, as it is here, yTil][‘B; μb;, it is as much as “jure usus sum maritali,” —’I exercised the right, power, and authority of a husband towards them; I dealt with them as a husband with a wife that breaketh covenant:’ that is, saith the apostle, ‘“ I regarded them not” with the love, tenderness, and affection of a husband.’ So he dealt indeed with that generation which so suddenly brake covenant with him. He provided no more for them as unto the enjoyment of the inheritance, he took them not home unto him in his habitation, his resting-place in the land of promise; but he suffered them all to wander, and bear their whoredoms in the wilderness, until they were consumed. So did God exercise the right, and power, and authority of a husband towards a wife that had broken covenant. And herein, as in many other things in that dispensation, did God give a representation of the nature of the covenant of works, and the issue of it.

So according to Owen, the Old Covenant was a covenant of works (for life in Canaan), but it was not the Covenant of Works. It “republished” the covenant of works insofar as it said “Do this and live.”

New Testament interpretation of the Old Covenant

The question may then arise, “Why then does Paul seem to refer to the Old Covenant as the Covenant of Works?” In the Q&A, Jeffery Johnson notes:

I want to emphasize that when the New Testament’s talking about the Mosaic Covenant– Now, if you read the Old Testament, it’s mainly dealing with the transient, temporal aspects of it. You can’t get away, reading the Old Testament, knowing that’s a heavy emphasis of the Old Testament. But when you read the New Testament interpretation of the Old, the New Testament authors are heavily emphasizing the eternal aspect of that law, the condemnation of the law, and the guilt of that law. I think that’s what Paul’s doing in Romans. I think that’s what’s emphasized in the book of Hebrews. And that wants to be my emphasis. The Mosaic Covenant has the two aspects, but I don’t want that first aspect to be minimized. The Mosaic Covenant does remind us that you have to be righteous to go to heaven. It’s not that the Mosaic Covenant established that. That was already established.

Notice the point: the Old Testament seems to speak one way, but then the New Testament interprets it a different way. This pattern is common in the New Testament, but the way we explain it is through typology. If you read John 19:36, John says there was a prophecy about Christ’s crucifixion in Exodus. But if you go back and read Exodus 12:46, the verse says nothing about Christ. It was referring to the actual lamb of the passover meal. But John makes a series of logical deductions in light of his understanding of typology (that the Old Testament sacrifices were typological of Christ) and simply states that this was a prophecy of Christ that his bones should not be broken. He doesn’t show each step in his logical argument comparing the paschal lamb to Christ, the true Paschal Lamb. He just states the conclusion. Technically speaking, this is known as an enthymeme, but it is a very common part of everyday speech. This is how we are to understand the typological interpretation of the OT by the NT. The Mosaic Covenant itself does not list eternal life as a blessing or reward, but when it is applied typologically in the NT, it does say something about eternal life as a reward for works. Pascal Denault noted right after Johnson’s previous statement:

Denault: So you would say that formally the Mosaic Covenant is bound to earthly realities, in itself, and it’s only typologically showing the eternal or heavenly realities?

Johnson: Formally speaking– but because it is a republication of that Covenant of Works, you can’t ever disjoin or separate that eternal, moral condition of the covenant of works. If you take the covenant of works given to Adam, and say that didn’t exist, I think the Mosaic Covenant itself would fall apart. If that makes sense. How can it be a republication if there wasn’t anything to republish? And that was one of the main functions of it to stop everyone’s mouth before God. If the Mosaic Covenant, if all it was, was just temporal obedience and relative obedience for temporal blessings, well maybe the Pharisees had a right to say, “I can do that.” There was generations that was blessed by God and received some of the temporal blessings. How does that condemn them? If it was just that side of it, how does that cause the nation of Israel to shut their mouth and say “I am guilty before God.”

Denault: Because we make a distinction between the moral law and the Mosaic Covenant itself. So it’s true there is this eternal condemnation that comes with the law of Moses–

Johnson: Which already existed. This is what Owen said. The Mosaic Covenant in and of itself doesn’t save or condemn anybody, in and of itself. It does show us that we already are condemned. And it does show us how we are redeemed in Christ and how he fulfills the moral law.

Denault: I think it’s an important distinction to say it’s something to reveal, or to actually do it.

The way to understand the New Testament interpretation and application of the Old Covenant is through typology. The Old Covenant revealed information about the Covenant of Works by way of typology, but it was not the Covenant of Works. Just as the paschal lamb revealed information about The Paschal Lamb, but the paschal lamb was not Christ. Just as the paschal lamb can exist apart from and be separated/distinguished from Christ, so too can the Mosaic Covenant exist apart from and be separated/distinguished from the Covenant of Works. Of course the paschal lamb’s full significance can only be understood by it’s relation to Christ – but that does not mean it is Christ. And the Mosaic Covenant’s full significance can only be understood by its relation to the Covenant of Works (as well as the Covenant of Works as fulfilled by Christ) – but that does not mean it is the Covenant of Works.

Bryan Estelle notes “[T]he life promised upon condition of performing the statutes and judgments in its immediate context in Leviticus here is ‘the covenantal blessing of abundant (and long) life in the land of Israel.’… [Now in Paul’s day] Israel’s disobedience has triggered the curse sanctions [of the Old Covenant]. Therefore, the new covenant context has essentially changed matters here… What was prototypical [life in Canaan] has been eclipsed by what is antitypical [eternal life].” And therefore Paul appeals to the written Old Covenant to make various points about the Adamic Covenant (which was not written anywhere for him to directly quote), because of the overlap of law and works principle (as illustrated in the image above).

(Note: to see an elaboration of Denault’s answer to Johnson’s question about how the moral law functioned for national temporal curse vs. individual eternal condemnation, see here).

In sum, Richard Barcellos notes:

However one views the Mosaic Covenant, it cannot be a republication of the Covenant of Works as it stood with Adam. This is so for at least two reasons: first, Adam was sinless; and second, Adam represented others. Israel was neither sinless nor representative of others. So if we view the Mosaic Covenant as republishing something of the Covenant of Works, it cannot be the essence and substance of that covenant on its original terms. It may be (and I think it is) a republication of certain principles of the original Covenant of Works, but for different purposes than initially given.

We must be careful to distinguish the two because great confusion and contradiction results when we do not. Identifying the Old Covenant with the Adamic Covenant of Works creates exegetical, logical, and confessional problems. As Owen demonstrated, exegetically it does not fit with the text of Hebrews 8, and Owen’s entire argument proceeds upon this basis. If one identifies the Old Covenant with the Adamic Covenant of Works, Owen’s rigorous deduction and accurate analysis of the nature of the covenant of grace revealed/established must be rejected. Simply follow Owen’s argument here to see.

Logically this winds up creating the same type of problem we are rejecting in the paedobaptist’s substance/administration view. It rejects the substance/administration view of the covenant of grace and replaces it with a substance/administration view of the covenant of works. It eliminates careful distinctions between the biblical covenants and combines them into one. Doing so results in several contradictions. The claim that Christ fulfilled the Old Covenant as the Adamic Covenant of Works creates an irreconcilable contradiction in that it claims Christ was under Adam’s federal headship, and therefore not sinless (contradicting LBCF 8.2). The biblical and confessional teaching is that Christ was born of a virgin and was therefore not under Adam’s federal head, meaning he was not under the Adamic Covenant of Works. Claiming that the Old Covenant is the Adamic Covenant of Works denies this since Christ was, as Abraham’s physical seed, under the Old Covenant. Christ did fulfill a covenant of works for eternal life, but it was his own covenant of works: the Covenant of Redemption/New Covenant, of which he is the federal head.

Furthermore, saying the Old Covenant is the Adamic Covenant of Works requires Old Covenant saints to simultaneously be in Christ and in Adam: in the covenant of grace and in the covenant of works. This contradicts LBCF 19.6. Moses was certainly a member of the Mosaic Covenant. Moses was certainly saved and thus under Christ’s federal headship. Moses was both of these at the same time: under Christ and in the Old Covenant. Therefore the Old Covenant was not the Adamic Covenant of Works.

Again, the solution to this dilemma is the recognition that a particular covenant can reveal another covenant without being that covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant can reveal the Covenant of Grace without being the Covenant of Grace. Likewise, the Old Covenant can reveal the Adamic Covenant of Works without being the Adamic Covenant of Works. In this way Paul can appeal to the Old Covenant to make a point about the Adamic Covenant of Works, just as he can appeal to the Abrahamic Covenant to make a point about the Covenant of Grace. For more on this, see Samuel Renihan’s Form and Matter in Covenant Theology and Form and Matter + Promise and Promulgation = Particular Baptist Federal Theology.

We still have a lot of work to do in fleshing out our covenant theology and presenting it to others (since 17th century writings are not the final word), but if we are careful in reading some of these men, we can avoid rehashing points they already worked out.

Johnson’s discussion of contemporary challenges was a helpful call to clarify the essential points of 1689 Federalism and to proceed with humility as we discuss with each other and seek to teach others about it. In light of the above, a modified 5 points of 1689 Federalism might be:

There was a pre-fall covenant made with Adam, and it was the Covenant of Works.
There is a dichotomy to the Abrahamic Covenant. (Properly/consistently understood via typology)
The Old Covenant functioned according to the works principle (Lev 18:5). (Properly/consistently understood as limited to temporal blessing and curse in the land of Canaan)
The third use of the moral law.
The New Covenant alone is the Covenant of Grace. (The most essential point)

Jeffery Johnson and Pascal Denault have done great work writing on baptist covenant theology and Heritage Baptist Church has done great work in hosting a conference on the Distinctives of Baptist Covenant Theology. May the Lord bless the ongoing work.

Does 1689 Federalism require "Regeneration Goggles"?

Critics of 1689 Federalism often caricature baptists as claiming to know who the elect are. This does not follow from any 1689 Federalism belief. We agree with the reformed "judgment of charity." Based upon a credible profession of faith, we judge (with charity) a person to be saved. The only difference is that we do not believe that being born to a professing parent is sufficient warrant to charitably judge a person to be saved. Note this statement from an 1857 issue of the Princeton Review

And this statement from Hodge in an 1858 Princeton Review.

As well as this statement from Scottish Presbyterian John Erskine (1765).

Is the Covenant Theology of the 1689 Confession Substantially Different from the 1644/46?

No.

[T]he writings of the men who published the First London Confession demonstrate that they were committed to the same kind of Covenant Theology that is more explicitly articulated in the Second London Confession. John Spilsbury, sometimes suggested as the author of the First Confession, writing in his 1643 book A Treatise Concerning the Lawful Subject of Baptisme, said on the very first page of the text, “As the Scriptures being a perfect rule of all things, both for faith and order; this I confesse is a truth. And for the just and true consequence of Scripture, I doe not deny; and the covenant of life lying between God and Christ for all his elect, I doe not oppose: and that the outward profession of the said Covenant, hath differed under severall Periods, I shall not deny.” No Substantial Theological Difference between the First and Second London Baptist Confessions

Though the word “covenant” is not used extensively in the [1644] document, the concept is at the very root of the theology described. After an introductory paragraph and several important statements about God, his purposes in the world, and the centrality of Scripture, paragraph x explicitly introduces the language of “covenant.” We are told that Jesus Christ (who is the theme of Scripture, paragraphs viii and ix) is the “mediator of the new Covenant, even the everlasting covenant of grace. Covenant Theology in the First and Second London Baptist Confessions, Recovering a Covenantal Heritage

Did the Covenant of Grace Exist During the Old Testament?

1689 Federalism teaches that only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. Neither the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, nor Davidic covenants were the Covenant of Grace. Neither was the Covenant of Grace established in Genesis 3:15. The question then naturally arises: Did the Covenant of Grace exist during the Old Testament? The 1689 Federalism answer to this question centers around the meaning of "established"/"enacted" (Hebrews 8:6). First, the 2LBCF states in 7.3 that "it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality..." Among its references on this particular statement are Hebrews 11:6, 13 "And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him... by faith Noah... by faith Abraham... All these died in faith, without receiving the promises, but having seen them and having welcomed them from a distance, and having confessed that they were strangers and exiles on the earth." Rom 4:1, 2, &c "What then shall we say that Abraham, our forefather according to the flesh, has found? For if Abraham was justified by works, he has something to boast about, but not before God. For what does the Scripture say? 'Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.'" and John 8:56 "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” Thus when we identify the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant alone, we do not exclude those who lived before the establishment of the New Covenant - notably Abraham - from "the grace of this covenant." Nor do we believe that they waited to receive this grace until the death of Christ. In sum, this New Covenant of Grace was extant and effectual under the Old Testament, so as the church was saved by virtue thereof. How can we affirm this while at the same time holding that the New Covenant of Grace was not established until the death of Christ? In the same way that we can affirm that Abraham and other OT saints were covered by the blood of Christ prior to Christ's actual death on the cross (2LBCF 8.6). Christ promised the Father he would fulfill his work in the Covenant of Redemption, thus securing the redemption of the elect. Thus it was a guaranteed certainty that the OT saints could "take to the bank." In other words, the New Covenant was effectual prior to the death of Christ as an "advance" on it's formal establishment in the future (similar to the way a person can receive a cash advance on their paycheck prior to payday). If the New Covenant of Grace was "in effect" since Genesis 3:15, then how can we say it was not established until the death of Christ? First, because its legal effectiveness as a covenant is entirely rooted in the death of Christ. Second, because the "establishment" of the New Covenant refers also to its being reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance - to its being made visible. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, was then made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church. When the New Covenant was given out only in the way of a promise (Gen 3:15, etc), it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was then brought to light, and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was then solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, were all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. The basic idea of the Covenant of Grace revealed and "in effect" prior to its legal establishment (where it is given ordinances of worship) is articulated by Louis Berkhof. "The first revelation of the covenant is found in the protevangel, Gen. 3:15. Some deny that this has any reference to the covenant; and it certainly does not refer to any formal establishment of a covenant... Up to the time of Abraham there was no formal establishment of the covenant of grace. While Gen. 3:15 already contains the elements of this covenant, it does not record a formal transaction by which the covenant was established. It does not even speak explicitly of a covenant. The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church." We would simply say that the New Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant, was the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace.

The following are statements by 1689 Federalism theologians affirming the above. Samuel & Micah Renihan:

Christ is the one and only federal head of the covenant of grace, the New Covenant... [T]he covenant of grace is the retro-active application of the New Covenant... The fact that we see this redemption promised and typified from the fall onward has led Reformed theologians to see God’s grace extending into history prior to the incarnation and death of Christ. Where God’s grace extended into the past, it came by way of covenant, wherein Christ’s blood of the New Covenant was retroactively applied to those who believed in the promise, and that retroactivity of the New Covenant was and remains distinct from the Old Covenant. Thus, Christ’s people have always been those who were promised to him by the Father, and it is those people for whom he spilled his blood. Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology and Biblical Theology, in Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, p. 487, 490

Nehemiah Coxe

During the time of the law… [t]he children of God after the Spirit (though as underage children they were subject to the pedagogy of the law, yet) as to their spiritual and eternal state, walked before God and found acceptance with him on terms of the covenant of grace… this spiritual relationship to God [was] according to the terms of the new covenant which the truly godly then had[.] Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ, p. 133

Samuel Renihan

The language of administration is extremely nebulous and problematic. Many responses to the above videos and data [referring to 1689federalism.com] have pushed back by saying that the old covenant(s) were means through which OT believers obtained salvation, and thus were “Administrations” in the sense of “getting thing A to person B.” Surely that is the case. LBCF 8.6 confesses this… But while the use of administration in the WCF includes the notion of “getting thing A to person B,” its use of “Administration” refers more fully to “a diverse manner of dispensing, and outward managing the making of the covenant with men, but the covenant was still one and the same, clothed and set forth in a diverse manner, and did no other ways differ then and now, but as one and the self same man differeth from himself, cloathed sutably one way in his minority, and another in his riper age.” [David Dickson, Therapeutica Sacra (Edinburgh: 1697), 142.] The administration is the outward visible form of covenantal life and organization… The question is, was the old covenant a visible organizational form of covenantal life for the covenant of grace? The question is not, were the benefits of Christ’s mediation available in the old covenant? All are agreed on the second question. It is the first question that needs careful answering. This is the difference between the substance of the covenant of grace being revealed in the old covenant and actually being the old covenant in an older form. Particular Baptists and the Substance/Administration Distinction

Jeffery Johnson

The 1689 does not claim that the Mosaic Covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. Rather, it simply says that the covenant of grace was innately revealed in the protoevangelium (Genesis 3:15), and then with greater clarity it was revealed throughout the progression of the Old Testament dispensation until it came to its fullest manifestation in the New Testament: “This covenant is revealed [not established] in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by further steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament” (7:3). More explicitly, the 1689 says that the covenant of grace, which was established by the blood of Jesus, was retroactive during the Old Testament dispensation: “Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages” (8:6). This is in agreement with Benjamin Keach who said: “All believers, who lived under the Old Testament, were saved by the covenant of grace, which Christ was to establish.”2 This implies that the covenant of grace is identical to the New Covenant. So rather than the covenant of grace being established through various administrations of the different covenants of the Old Testament (Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic), it was established by Christ in the New Covenant. Therefore, Old Testament believers were saved by faith in Christ, in the same way New Testament believers are saved by faith in Christ. Or as paragraph 3 states: “It is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality” (7:3). The Confession of 1689 and Covenant Theology

Pascal Denault

The covenant of grace is, simply put, salvation by grace alone, by faith alone, through Christ alone... The Epistle to the Hebrews attributes directly to the grace of the New Covenant (the covenant of grace), the salvation of those who were called since the fall:
And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance (Hebrews 9:15).
Even if the sacrifice of the covenant of grace by which all blessings proceed was not shed till long after the promise was made, many had already been called and did possess by faith the eternal inheritance. The retroactive efficacy of the New Covenant is one of the main reasons why many Particular Baptists equated the covenant of grace with the New Covenant... Where Was the Covenant of Grace During the Old Covenant Time? If the Old Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace what was it and where was the covenant of grace during this time? The first part of LBC 7:3 answers this question:
This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament…
The 1689 federalism replaced the paedobaptist concept of one covenant of grace under different administrations by the one covenant of grace revealed by farther steps model... The New Covenant is the concrete manifestation of the heavenly realities in the visible world. It’s only by this covenant (New Covenant) that the eternal inheritance (eternal covenant of redemption/covenant of grace) is given (Hebrews 9:15). The confession ends this section by affirming that “it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality”. Thus, from all time, all those that were saved, were saved by the grace offered in the New Covenant in Jesus Christ. Before it was established in the form of a covenant sealed in the blood (Hebrews 13:20) it was revealed by a promise guaranteed by God’s oath (Hebrews 6:17). This covenant of grace revealed and concluded in history is founded on the eternal covenant between the Father and the Son for the redemption of the elect. It is the exclusive source of salvation according to what Scripture expressly declares: “there is salvation in no one else; for there is no other name under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). From the Covenant of Works to the Covenant of Grace

[Link to this Question]

Is 1689 Federalism Dispensational?

No. It is actually anti-Dispensational. Charles Ryrie identified 3 essential tenets of Dispensationalism.

Keeping Israel and the church distinct throughout eternity.
A hermeneutic of literal interpretation. (#1 is derived from #2)
Salvation is not the main underlying purpose of God’s work in history.

1689 Federalism rejects all 3. With regards to #1, Ryrie says “This is probably the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist… The essence of dispensationalism, then, is the distinction between Israel and the church [throughout eternity]. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation [#2]… The spiritualizing may be practiced to a lesser or greater degree, but its presence in a system of interpretation is indicative of a nondispensational approach.” And finally “The error of covenant theologians is that they combine all the many facets of divine purpose in the one objective of the fulfillment of the covenant of grace,” (as 1689 Federalism does). On each of these essential points, 1689 Federalism is not merely contrary to Dispensationalism; it is contradictory to Dispensationalism. Its Christological (“spiritualizing”) hermeneutic “is indicative of a nondispensational approach” resulting in a typological view of Israel that fails “the most basic theological test of whether or not a person is a dispensationalist.” 1689 Federalism is Anti-Dispensational (just ask a Dispensationalist). For a longer explanation, please see Is 1689 Federalism Dispensational? (Contrast) [Link to this Question]

When Did the Church Begin?

The church began in Genesis 3:15 and the church began at Pentecost. How can both be true? Because of the visible/invisible church distinction as it relates to the promised/established New Covenant. Old Testament saints were saved in the same way that we are today: through saving faith produced by the regenerating power of the indwelling Holy Spirit (2LBC 8.6, 8.8, 10.1, 11.6). They were united to Christ and were therefore part of his mystical body, the church (2LBC 26.1). But it does not therefore follow that Israel was the church ("assembly") of Christ. Israel was an assembly, but not the assembly of Christ (Heb. 12:23). Though regenerate Old Testament saints were part of the body of Christ, they were a remnant within the broader body of the assembly of Israel (which was governed by the Old Covenant). Likewise, believers outside of Israel were not under the Old Covenant (for example, Lot & Melchizedek were not circumcised - see Coxe p. 117-118). It was not until Pentecost that the invisible church gathered ("assembled") together as the assembly of Christ (the church) (2LBC 26.2, 26.5-7). The visible church was instituted at Pentecost and given ordinances of worship and its own government. John Owen explains how this relates to the New Covenant as promised & established.

This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church, nothing being to be admitted therein but what belongs unto it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. Hereon the other covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the covenant itself, but all that system of sacred worship whereby it was administered. This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith. When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it. Wherefore it was consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, and those composed into a yoke of bondage which belonged not unto it. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to be conformed unto it. Then it was established. Hence it follows, in answer unto the second difficulty, that as a promise, it was opposed unto the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed unto that of Sinai. This legalizing or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship thereunto belonging, did effect this alteration. (Exposition of Hebrews 8:6) The first solemn promulgation of this new covenant, so made, ratified, and established, was on the day of Pentecost, seven weeks after the resurrection of Christ. And it answered the promulgation of the law on mount Sinai, the same space of time after the delivery of the people out of Egypt. From this day forward the ordinances of worship, and all the institutions of the new covenant, became obligatory unto all believers. Then was the whole church absolved from any duty with respect unto the old covenant, and the worship of it, though it was not manifest as yet in their consciences. (Exposition Hebrews 8:10)

Thus the church began as soon as God began to redeem lost sinners through the promise of the New Covenant (Gen. 3:15), which was efficacious to save, bringing an individual into the invisible church. But it was not until the New Covenant was formally established that the visible church was instituted with its own worship and governance. Consider Samuel Waldron's Exposition of the 1689 Confession on this point:

Does the Bible teach that this universal church consists of all the elect? Here a distinction is crucial. The church is the final, organized, earthly expression of the people of God. We must distinguish between the church as an institution and the church as the people of God. Such a distinction enables us to do justice to portions of the New Testament which are frequently misinterpreted. There was a very important sense in which the church began as an institution and organism in the complex of events surrounding Christ's first advent. There was a sense in which historically the church began in the vents of Christ's earthly ministry, death, resurrection and pouring out of the Spirit. The apostles of Christ are the historical foundation upon which Christ is now building his church (Matt. 16:18; Eph. 2:20; Heb. 12:18-24). The future tense in the statement of Christ, 'I will build my church', may, therefore, be given its natural force. Though Israel was a type of the church (Rom. 2:28-29; 1 Cor. 10:18; Gal. 6:16; Phil. 3:3) and though the church is the new Israel of God and the fulfillment of prophecy (Acts 2:16; 15:14-18; 1 Cor. 10:11; Gal. 6:16; Eph 2:12-19; Heb. 8:7-13), it is true that the church as an institution and organism did not exist in the Old Testament. These truths contradict the tendency of some strains of covenant theology to flatten the difference between the church and Israel in the interests of paedo-baptism. On the other hand, the church is the climactic earthly expression of the people of God. Thus language is frequently used which equates the church with all those in union with Christ. The church is the body and bride of Christ (Eph. 1:22; 4:11-116; 5:23-27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18; 2:4). Furthermore, the bride of Christ is composed in the last day of the saved from every age (Eph. 5:27; Rev. 21:9-14; note also Matt. 8:11-12; John 10:14-17; Heb. 11:39-40). Thus the church will one day be composed of all the redeemed. As the people of God, the church does consist 'of the whole number of the elect'. These considerations refute Dispensationalism with its church/Israel distinction and its denial that the Old Testament saints are part of the church.

For more, see Tom Ascol's Toward a Confessional Doctrine of the Church (3-Part Video). [Link to this question]

What about the apostasy passages? (Hebrews 10, John 15, etc)

Paedobaptists often appeal to various "apostasy passages" as final proof that the new covenant/covenant of grace contains reprobate members who can be cut off. The important thing to note is that these passages do not teach a two-sided dual-sanction covenant of grace. Rather, paedobaptists arrive at such a view of the covenant of grace from their belief that the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of grace, and then import such a view into these passages. They believe such a view is the only way to make sense of Hebrews 10:29 and John 15:1-6, but it is important to recognize that view of the covenant of grace is brought to those texts, not derived from them. For a 1689 Federalism understanding of the texts in question, please see:

[Link to this answer]

Was the Mosaic Covenant THE Covenant of Works?

However one views the Mosaic Covenant, it cannot be a republication of the Covenant of Works as it stood with Adam. This is so for at least two reasons: first, Adam was sinless; and second, Adam represented others. Israel was neither sinless nor representative of others. So if we view the Mosaic Covenant as republishing something of the Covenant of Works, it cannot be the essence and substance of that covenant on its original terms. It may be (and I think it is) a republication of certain principles of the original Covenant of Works, but for different purposes than initially given. -Richard Barcellos

While holding that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works, meaning it operated upon the works principle, 17th century particular baptists varied on what reward was offered by the Mosaic Covenant. Nehemiah Coxe agreed with John Owen that the Mosaic Covenant was only about temporal life in the land of Canaan, not eternal life. This is the view articulated in the videos on this site. Others said it potentially offered eternal life for perfect obedience. This is the view articulated by Jeffery Johnson. For much more on this question, including extensive interaction between these two views by modern proponents, please see Republication, the Mosaic Covenant, and Eternal Life [Link to this answer]

Does the 2nd London Baptist Confession only permit 1689 Federalism?

No. 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.

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)

[Link to this answer]

What Covenant did Christ fulfill?

The law of God (moral law) itself is not a covenant of works. It is the standard for all image bearers (servants), but there is no reward offered for obedience (Luke 17:7-10). Because it is the standard of all image bearers, it is included in every covenant that God makes with men. However, the role the law plays is determined by the particular covenant stipulations. In the Adamic Covenant, God adds the promise of eternal rest for Adam's obedience, turning the law into a covenant of works (Rom 4:4, LBCF 7.1, 19.6). The Old Covenant also contained the moral law, as all covenants do. Its terms were similar to the Adamic Covenant, but different. It gave the law as a covenant of works (Rom 4:4, Lev 18:5) but the reward was temporal life and blessing in Canaan. In this sense, it served as a reminder of the Adamic Covenant of Works, but it was not itself the Adamic Covenant of Works. The New Covenant is the outworking of the Covenant of Redemption in time, and thus it is Christ's Covenant of Works. The moral law was part of this covenant as well. It was given to Christ as a covenant of works, along with the added stipulation of bearing the wrath of his people, with the promised reward being a heavenly inheritance and a people (John 6:38, etc). In that way we can clearly articulate what reward is in question and how typology relates. We can also see that as Christians are still image bearers, we are still obligated to obey the moral law, but not as a covenant of works (LBCF 19.6). When Paul speaks of not being under the law but under grace he is referring to the law as a covenant of works, from which we are freed by the life and death of Christ for us. For more, see Republication, the Mosaic Covenant, and Eternal Life [Link to this answer]

Is 1689 Federalism compatible with Theonomy?

No. See 1689 Federalism & Theonomy [Link to this answer]

How do you explain the Olive Tree (Romans 11:16-24)?

Romans 11:16-24 describes a one-time event in redemptive history. Abraham is the root and Israel (not "the visible church") is the tree. At the coming of Christ, the nation of Israel (typical) was cut off for violating the Old Covenant. The branches that remained were the remnant, the true Israel of God/the Church (anti-typical), to which Gentiles were added through faith alone. Abraham had two seeds: carnal and spiritual. They are both represented as Israel, the Olive Tree. For a full explanation, see: The Olive Tree [Link to this answer]

Do you deny the visible/invisible church distinction?

No. Chapter 26 of the 2nd London Baptist Confession states:

1._____ The catholic or universal church, which (with respect to the internal work of the Spirit and truth of grace) may be called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ, the head thereof; and is the spouse, the body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. ( Hebrews 12:23; Colossians 1:18; Ephesians 1:10, 22, 23;Ephesians 5:23, 27, 32 ) 2._____ All persons throughout the world, professing the faith of the gospel, and obedience unto God by Christ according unto it, not destroying their own profession by any errors everting the foundation, or unholiness of conversation, are and may be called visible saints; and of such ought all particular congregations to be constituted. ( 1 Corinthians 1:2; Acts 11:26; Romans 1:7; Ephesians 1:20-22 ) 3._____ The purest churches under heaven are subject to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan; nevertheless Christ always hath had, and ever shall have a kingdom in this world, to the end thereof, of such as believe in him, and make profession of his name. ( 1 Corinthians 5; Revelation 2; Revelation 3; Revelation 18:2; 2 Thessalonians 2:11, 12;Matthew 16:18; Psalms 72:17;Psalm 102:28; Revelation 12:17 )

The difference in our understanding of the visible church is that we make a distinction between de jure and de facto membership. To understand this distinction, please see Church Membership: De Jure or De Facto? [Link to this answer]

Audio

30