Resources

24

Mar
2015

By Brandon Adams

John Owen, Baptism, and the Baptists (Crawford Gribben)

On 24, Mar 2015 | In Audio, Resources, Video | By Brandon Adams

March 20, 2015: Dr. Crawford Gribben, @GribbenC (Professor of Early Modern British History at Queen’s University Belfast and author of the recently published academic biography John Owen and English Puritanism: Experiences of Defeat (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology)) was the guest lecturer at the Strict Baptist Historical Society Annual Lecture which took place in Kensington Place, London. His lecture was titled, “John Owen, baptism & the Baptists.” The lecture was later published in By Common Confession: Essays in Honor of James M. Renihan.

Gribben addresses, amongst other things, the oft-cited tract “Of Infant Baptism.” He notes this was not published until 1721. It was never published in Owen’s lifetime.

(41:00) “Asty does not explain when this tract of infant baptism was written, whether it was intended to be separately published, nor why Owen did not publish it within his own lifetime. The reality is, simply, that Owen may not have been its author. Many of the texts within this edition were taken from manuscripts in Owen’s own hand. But many other items in this volume were taken from auditor’s notes. The tract’s abbreviated form and lack of intellectual development suggests that it may have its provenance in notes of a sermon or presentation Owen made upon this theme. But despite the lack of information about the provenance of the tract, some recent defenders of Owen’s infant baptismal theories have argued that he wrote it very precisely in 1657 or 1658 simply on the basis that Asty’s edition juxtaposes this brief, abbreviated, untraceable tract with a response to John Tombes book “Antipaedobaptism” which was published in 1657. The argument of significance of Owen’s only title focusing on infant baptism is based on some very uncertain presuppositions. The only thing we can be sure of about “Of Infant Baptism” is that Owen did not publish this tract within his own lifetime, that it did not circulate as representing his thinking on this issue for almost 40 years after his death when it appeared in a volume alongside many other texts reconstructed from sermon notes taken by an auditor.”

MP3 version

Tags | baptism, historical, Owen

09

Mar
2015

In Audio
James Renihan

By Brandon Adams

Baptists: Rooted in Covenant Grace

On 09, Mar 2015 | In Audio, James Renihan | By Brandon Adams

Below is Dr. James Renihan’s audio from Grace Baptist Chapel‘s annual Theology Conference “Baptists: Rooted in Covenant Grace”.

AUDIO:

Session 1 “Genealogy Baptist Style” [MP3]

Session 2 “How Christians Have Put the Bible Together”[MP3]

Session 3 “How Christians Have Put the Bible Together (Part 2)”[MP3]

Session 4 “How Early Baptists Put the Bible Together”[MP3]

Lord’s Day Worship Service – “Haggai 2:10-19 The Nature of True Religion”[MP3]

17

Feb
2015

In Richard Barcellos

By Brandon Adams

JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY

On 17, Feb 2015 | In Richard Barcellos | By Brandon Adams

[PDF available here]

JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY:
Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective

Richard C. Barcellos

John Owen was a giant in the theological world of seventeenth century England. He is known today as quite possibly the greatest English theologian ever. His learning was deep and his writings thorough and profound. He has left the Christian Church with a legacy few have equaled in volume, fewer yet in content. In saying this of Owen, however, it must also be recognized that some things he said are difficult to understand. Some statements may even appear to contradict other statements if he is not followed carefully and understood in light of his comprehensive thought and the Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant Scholastic world in which he wrote.

If one reads some of the difficult sections of Owen’s writings, either without understanding his comprehensive thought and in light of the theological world in which he wrote, or in a superficial manner, some statements can easily be taken to mean things they do not. When this is done, the result is that authors are misunderstood and sometimes, subsequent theological movements are aligned with major historical figures without substantial and objective warrant. Two such instances of this involve John Owen and New Covenant Theology (NCT).

John G. Reisinger claims that Owen viewed the Old Covenant¹ as “a legal/works covenant.”² He goes on and says:

This covenant was conditional because it was a legal/works covenant that promised life and threatened death. Israel failed to earn the blessings promised in the covenant. But under the New Covenant, the Church becomes the Israel of God and all her members are kings and priests (a kingdom of priests). Christ, as our Surety (Heb. 7:22), has kept the Old Covenant for us and earned every blessing it promised.³

The reader of Owen’s treatise on the Old and New Covenants in his Hebrews commentary, however, will quickly realize that Reisinger’s comments above do not give the full picture of Owen’s position. For Owen did not view the Old Covenant as a covenant of works in itself. He viewed it as containing a renewal of the original covenant of works imposed upon Adam in the Garden of Eden,⁴ something emphatically denied by Reisinger.⁵ Neither did Owen teach that Christ “kept the Old Covenant for us and earned every blessing it promised.”⁶ On the contrary, Owen taught that obedience or disobedience to the Old Covenant in itself neither eternally saved nor eternally condemned anyone and that its promises were temporal and only for Israel while under it.⁷ According to Owen, what Christ kept for us was the original Adamic covenant of works, not the Old Covenant as an end in itself. Owen says:

29

Jan
2015

In Audio
Richard Barcellos

By Brandon Adams

Radio: New Covenant Theology & The Law

On 29, Jan 2015 | In Audio, Richard Barcellos | By Brandon Adams

New Cov. Theology & The Law

Kevin Boling | Interview w/ Rich Barcellos

Tags | NCT, the law

27

Jan
2015

In Resources

By Brandon Adams

1689 Federalism & Theonomy

On 27, Jan 2015 | In Resources | By Brandon Adams

[Originally written in 2015, this post has been updated to clarify some misunderstandings.]

Theonomy has grown in popularity over the last 5 years among Christians who take the Bible seriously and want to understand how it relates to the political struggles we face today. In this post, theonomy is to be understood according to how Greg Bahnsen defined and defended it. Some may reject Bahnsen’s thesis and yet still use the word “theonomy” to describe their view. Whether that is appropriate is questionable, but that is a separate question from what we are addressing here.

Theonomy is the starting presumption that the Old Covenant judicial laws given to Israel have not been abrogated therefore all civil governments are morally obligated to enforce them (including the specific penalties) and furthermore that all civil governments must refrain from coercion in areas where Scripture has not prescribed their intervention (the “regulative principle of the state”).1 Theonomy relies upon an extreme version of the “one substance, multiple administrations” (Westminster) view of covenant theology. Foundational to theonomy’s understanding of the continuity of Old Covenant law is its belief that the Old Covenant is really just the Older Covenant and the New Covenant is just the Newer Covenant – both being administrations of the Covenant of Grace. Since 1689 Federalism rejects this understanding of the biblical covenants, there is no way to hold to both theonomy and 1689 Federalism. As appealing as theonomy may be for its apparently simple answer to a difficult subject, it is actually entirely (100%) incompatible with 1689 Federalism. (Please note that 1689 Federalism refers to a specific understanding of baptist covenant theology. Not everyone who holds to the 1689 Confession holds to 1689 Federalism. For an elaboration of this point, see the FAQ section).

Gary North:

Theonomy, as Greg Bahnsen uses the term.⁵ is a view of the Bible that argues for the continuing validity of God’s revealed law in every area of life. Bahnsen argues that unless a specific Old Testament law has been abrogated by the New Testament, either by specific revelation or because of an application of a New Testament principle, its authority is still morally and/ or judicially binding. “The methodological point, then, is that we presume our obligation to obey any Old Testament commandment unless the New Testament indicates otherwise. We must assume continuity with the Old Testament rather than discontinuity. This is not to say that there are no changes from Old to New Testament. Indeed, there are — important ones. However, the word of God must be the standard which defines precisely what those changes are for us; we cannot take it upon ourselves to assume such changes or read them into the New Testament.”⁶

Greg Bahnsen:

The fact is that all of the covenants of the Old Covenant (that is, all of the Old Testament covenants) are unified as parts of the one overall covenant of grace established by God. Paul spoke of Gentiles who were not part of the Old Covenant economy which included the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants as “strangers to the covenants of the promise” (Eph. 2:12)…There were many, progressively revealed aspects to the single promise of God in the Old Testament: many administrations of the overall covenant of grace… Given the unity of God’s covenant throughout history and the Bible, then, is it true that Christians living under the New Covenant are not obliged to keep the Old Covenant law (the commandments of the Old Testament, especially those given by Moses)?…[W]e saw that all of the covenants of God are unified into one overall Covenant of Grace, fully realized with the coming of Christ in the New Covenant. So if there is one covenant enjoyed by the people of God throughout the ages, then there is one moral code or set of stipulations which govern those who would be covenant-keepers. Therefore, we must answer that of course New Testament believers are bound to the Old Testament law of God. His standards, just like His covenant, are unchanging. (BTS, 41-42)…

There is no textual indication, however, that the New Covenant brings a new standard of moral conduct, and there is no textual indication that the Old Covenant standard has been categorically laid aside. The Covenantal administrations are dramatically different – in glory, power, realization, and finality – but not as codes defining right and wrong behavior or attitudes. (BTS, 168)

Bahnsen:

The New Testament and Covenant continue the same demand for obedience… Continued blessing for Adam in paradise, Israel in the promised land, and the Christian in the kingdom has been seen to be dependent upon persevering obedience to God’s will as expressed in His law. There is complete covenantal unity with reference to the law of God as the standard of moral obligation throughout the diverse ages of human history. (Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 201-2)

The Law(s) of God

In addition to monocovenantalism (there is only one divine covenant), Theonomy rejects the distinction between moral law (a transcript of God’s nature that applies at all times) and positive law (law that is created and abrogated at God’s will for certain times). Instead, it holds to a mononomism that sees all biblical law as an unchanging transcript of God’s nature. Bahnsen argued “Does God have a holiness, a standard of ethics, of perfection that is changing?… Jesus says every jot and tittle and he doesn’t allow us to draw lines and seams and divide God’s law up into what we’ll accept and what we won’t.”

1689 Federalism holds to the historic threefold division of Mosaic law: moral, ceremonial, and civil. Moral law transcends and predates Mosaic law and applies to all image bearers. Ceremonial and civil law are positive laws created for Israel under the Old Covenant and have been abrogated. Theonomy teaches a different two-fold division of Mosaic law.

The most fundamental distinction to be drawn between Old Testament laws is between moral laws and ceremonial laws. (Two subdivisions within each category will be mentioned subsequently.) This is not an arbitrary or ad hoc division, for it manifests an underlying rationale or principle. Moral laws reflect the absolute righteousness and judgment of God, guiding man’s life into the paths of righteousness; such laws define holiness and sin, restrain evil through punishment of infractions, and drive the sinner to Christ for salvation. On the other hand, ceremonial laws–or redemptive provisions–reflect the mercy of God in saving those who have violated His moral standards; such laws define the way of redemption, typify Christ’s saving economy, and maintain the holiness (or “separation”) of the redeemed community.

(By This Standard, 97)

The important point is that due to a mistaken exegesis of Matthew 5:17-18, theonomy has no category for positive law that may be abrogated. Not only moral (which includes judicial) law, but even “restorative” law continues (though the way we observe it changes).

It’s the thesis of my book [Theonomy in Christian Ethics] and I think it’s the way the bible would have us break down the commandments of the Old Testament – I’m suggesting that we have moral and ceremonial law, moral and restorative law and that all laws of God are binding today… I do not believe the restorative law has been abrogated.”

Has God Changed His Mind? (Lecture 2 of 6)

1689 Federalism

All of this is contrary to how 1689 Federalism understands the biblical covenants (particularly the Old) and biblical law. Note John Owen:

Wherefore the whole law of Moses, as given unto the Jews, whether as used or abused by them, was repugnant unto and inconsistent with the gospel, and the mediation of Christ, especially his priestly office, therein declared; neither did God either design, appoint, or direct that they should be co-existent…

It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions. For the apostle having already proved that the priesthood was to be abolished, he proceeds on that ground and from thence to prove that the whole law was also to be in like manner abolished and removed. And indeed it was of such a nature and constitution, that pull one pin out of the fabric, and the whole must fall unto the ground; for the sanction of it being, that “he was cursed who continued not in all things written in the law to do them,” the change of any one thing must needs overthrow the whole law…

And the whole of this system of laws is called a “command,” because it consisted in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11, 12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered…

By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church…

It is therefore plainly declared, that the law is “abrogated,” “abolished… disannulled.”

Exposition of Hebrews 7:12, 18-19

Richard Barcellos

Hearty agreement must be given when New Covenant theologians argue for the abolition of the Old Covenant. This is clearly the teaching of the Old and New Testaments (see Jeremiah 31:31-32; Second Corinthians 3; Galatians 3, 4; Ephesians 2:14-15; Hebrews 8-10). The whole law of Moses, as it functioned under the Old Covenant, has been abolished, including the Ten Commandments. Not one jot or tittle of the law of Moses functions as Old Covenant law anymore and to act as if it does constitutes redemptive-historical retreat and neo-Judaizing. However, to acknowledge that the law of Moses no longer functions as Old Covenant law is not to accept that it no longer functions; it simply no longer functions as Old Covenant law. This can be seen by the fact that the New Testament teaches both the abrogation of the law of the Old Covenant and its abiding moral validity under the New Covenant.

In Defense of the Decalogue, 61.
See also JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective

To be clear, LBCF chapter 19 affirms that the moral law, the decalogue, continues to guide Christians as a rule of righteousness. The difference, however, is that moral law does not continue to guide by virtue of its Mosaic establishment. It continues to guide as universal moral standard that transcends all covenants and pre-dated the Mosaic covenant.

The point is that the law was given to Israel on Mt. Sinai as a typological covenant of works (limited to temporal blessing and curse in the land of Canaan). Note Owen “it consisted in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel…” The Old Covenant operated upon the works principle “Do this and live” (Leviticus 18:5). As Owen notes, Paul quotes Leviticus 18:5 to demonstrate that this principle of works is directly opposed to the principle of faith. Thus “with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered…”

The law says “do this”, a covenant of works says “do this and live.” The curses found in the Mosaic covenant (and the blessings) are derived from the law as a covenant of works. Violation of the law brought curses upon individuals and the nation. That is why people were put to death in Israel for violating the moral law. Because it was a covenant of works with life in the balance (Lev 18:5, cited in Gal 3:12 & Rom 10:5). Augustine put it this way

In that testament, however, which is properly called the Old, and was given on Mount Sinai, only earthly happiness is expressly promised. Accordingly that land, into which the nation, after being led through the wilderness, was conducted, is called the land of promise, wherein peace and royal power, and the gaining of victories over enemies, and an abundance of children and of fruits of the ground, and gifts of a similar kind are the promises of the Old Testament. And these, indeed, are figures of the spiritual blessings which appertain to the New Testament; but yet the man who lives under God’s law with those earthly blessings for his sanction, is precisely the heir of the Old Testament, for just such rewards are promised and given to him, according to the terms of the Old Testament, as are the objects of his desire according to the condition of the old man…
[T]he law of works, which was written on the tables of stone, and its reward, the land of promise, which the house of the carnal Israel after their liberation from Egypt received, belonged to the old testament [covenant]…
“But the law is not of faith: but The man that doeth them shall live in them.” (Gal 3:12) Which testimony, quoted by the apostle from the law, is understood in respect of temporal life, in respect of the fear of losing which, men were in the habit of doing the works of the law, not of faith; because the transgressors of the law were commanded by the same law to be put to death by the people.

“‘Cursed be anyone who does not confirm the words of this law by doing them.’ And all the people shall say, ‘Amen.’” Deuteronomy 27:26 (cited in Gal 3:10)

The death penalty instituted under the Old Covenant for violation of the moral law was not itself part of the moral law. It was an addition to the moral law given by way of covenant. The shedding of blood by man for violation of the moral law was specifically a curse. Theonomists who believe Christians should enforce Mosaic curses for violation of the moral law are putting Christians under a covenant of works that we have been freed from (Gal 5:1; Acts 15:10).

“And if a man has committed a crime punishable by death and he is put to death, and you hang him on a tree, his body shall not remain all night on the tree, but you shall bury him the same day, for a hanged man is cursed by God. You shall not defile your land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance.”
(Deuteronomy 21:22-23, cited in Gal 3:13)

In A Consuming Fire: The Holy of Holies in Biblical Law, Joel McDurmon notes “some laws were just based upon the eye-for-an-eye rule; others were just based upon God’s immediate judgment under cherem.” He notes “These laws were typological.”

It is specifically this principle of curse for violation of the law that Christ died on the cross for (Gal 3:13). Christians are not under the decalogue as a means to earn their life or lose it. Christ has earned our life and saved us from the curse. (Note, however, that although the Old Covenant was a covenant of works, it was not the covenant of works: it did not deal with eternal blessing and curse).

Theonomy holds to a different understanding of the law of God and His covenants than 1689 Federalism. They are incompatible, contrary views. It is for this reason that Peter Boland, the host of 5 Sola Studios podcast, recognized that he could no longer hold to 1689 Federalism because of his belief in theonomy. On the flip side, others have recognized they can no longer hold to theonomy because of their belief in 1689 Federalism.

See What Is “Theonomy”? PE180 New Horizons (April, 1994). Chapter 2 “A Recognizable, Distinct Position,” in No Other Standard. Brian Schwertley “A Critique of a Critique of Theonomy: An Analysis of Matthew Winzer’s Misrepresentations of Theonomy and the Confession of Faith,” p. 2.

For more on this, see

Theonomy? (Brandon Adams)
Podcast Discussion of Theonomy (According to Christ)
Theonomy, Greg Bahnsen, and the Federal Vision?
The Divine Law of Political Israel Expired: General Equity Sherman Isbell
Theonomy, A Reformed Baptist Assessment Sam Waldron
Theonomy’s Dispensational Hermeneutic by Lee Irons
The Law in the 1689 Confession (James Renihan)
Natural Law and Positive Law (Samuel Renihan)
Theonomy: Good or Bad (Guest: Tom Hicks) – Episode 25
What About Theonomy? | Modern Marrow Men
General Equity Theonomy? | Modern Marrow Men
Abraham Booth’s An Essay on the Kingdom of Christ.

The concept of the “general equity” of Old Covenant judicial law remaining applicable today is not the same thing as theonomy. Below are some resources on the concept of general equity.

Tags | the law, theonomy

04

Dec
2014

In Resources

By Brandon Adams

RCH, CHAPTER 10 : The Difference Between the Two Covenants

On 04, Dec 2014 | In Resources | By Brandon Adams

[PDF Available Here]

CHAPTER 10 The Difference Between the Two Covenants

John Owen¹

But now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. (Heb. 8:6)²

There is no material difference in any translators, ancient or modern, in the rendering of these words; their significance in particular will be given in the exposition.

In this verse begins the second part of the chapter, concerning the difference between the two covenants, the old and the new, with the pre-eminence of the latter above the former, and of the ministry of Christ above the high priests on that account. The whole church-state of the Jews, with all the ordinances and worship of it, and the privileges annexed to it, depended wholly on the covenant that God made with them at Sinai. But the introduction of this new priesthood of which the apostle is discoursing, did necessarily abolish that covenant, and put an end to all sacred ministrations that belonged to it. And this could not well be offered to them without the supply of another covenant, which should excel the former in privileges and advantages. For it was granted among them that it was the design of God to carry on the church to a perfect state, as has been declared on chap. 7; to that end he would not lead it backward, nor deprive it of any thing it had enjoyed, without provision of what was better in its room. This, therefore, the apostle here undertakes to declare. And he does it after his usual manner, from such principles and testimonies as were admitted among them. Read more…

This is a slightly revised version of Owen’s exposition taken from Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ (Palmdale, CA: RBAP, 2005) and is used with permission. The footnotes are the ones in the Coxe/Owen volume. Those bracketed with [ ] were provided by the editors of the Coxe/Owen volume. ↩
Νυνὶ δὲ διαφορωτέρας τέτυχεν λειτουργίας, ὅσῳ καὶ κρείττονός ἐστιν διαθήκης μεσίτης, ἥτις ἐπὶ κρείττοσιν ἐπαγγελίαις νενομοθέτηται. Exposition.- Turner remarks that nuni., now, is not here so much a mark of time, as a formula to introduce with earnestness something which has close, and may have even logical, connection with what precedes. See also for this use of the term, ch. xi.16, 1 Cor. xv.20, xii.18, 20; in which passages it does not refer to time, but implies strong conviction grounded upon preceding arguments.- Ed. [Banner of Truth Edition.] ↩

Tags | Owen

03

Dec
2014

In Resources

By Brandon Adams

Baptist Catechisms (Covenant Excerpts)

On 03, Dec 2014 | In Resources | By Brandon Adams

Below are excerpts from various baptist catechisms related to covenant theology.

A SHORT CATECHISM ABOUT BAPTISM

1659 by John Tombes, B.D.¹

19. Had it not been a discomfort to the believing Jews to have their Children unbaptized, and out of the Covenant?

The want of Baptism to Infants was never any grievance to Believers in the New Testament, nor were they thereby put out of the Covenant of Grace.

20. Was not the proper reason of Circumcising the Infants of the Jews the interest which they had in the Covenant to Abraham, Gen. 17.7. to be a God to him and to his seed? Read more…

“Here is a rare glimpse into the baptismal debate that raged in England between the 1620’s and, well, today. After questioning the infants interest in the covenant while delivering the 1627 catechetical lectures at Magdelan Hall, Oxford, John Tombes pondered his views for 15 years before he finally came to credobaptist (believer’s baptism) convictions. For another Seventeen years, he championed the cause for credobaptism as a needed reform in the National Church. This Short Catechism was published as a distilation of 32 years of thought as regards baptism. Here is Tombes’ mature, yet succinct presentation of the essence of baptism. During these 32 years, Tombes engaged the leading theological minds about this topic. He had a public debate with an ingenious Baptist who convinced him 1 Cor. 7:14 was no basis to practise infant baptism, he had a public debate with Richard Baxter on the subject, he exchanged polemics directly with Marshall and Ballie, and he wrote against more than thirty proponents of paedobaptism during his age. His writings are exegetically based, historically accurate, and theologically informed. Of all the men in the history of the Church who have written about baptism, Tombes’ has more published pages than anyone. Yet, he has been lost to the modern reader. There are some anomalies in his thought. However, there is great profit to be found from time spent with a man who has become my friend, though dead, John Tombes, BD.” Mike Renihan, Grace Chapel, Editor, 1995 ↩

Tags | catechism, historical

02

Dec
2014

In Richard Barcellos

By Brandon Adams

Chapter 1 of Recovering a Covenantal Heritage

On 02, Dec 2014 | In Richard Barcellos | By Brandon Adams

[PDF with full footnotes available HERE]

See here for information on purchasing Recovering a Covenantal Heritage

CHAPTER 1 A Brief Overview of Seventeenth-Century

Reformed Orthodox Federalism

Richard C. Barcellos, Ph.D.¹

It is no secret that various seventeenth-century Reformed orthodox theologians articulated theology utilizing a federal or covenantal model. There are many sources (primary and secondary) available for the contemporary reader which amply display and discuss this model.² We will examine briefly a few of the more important federal theologians of the seventeenth century to introduce readers to the world of seventeenth-century federal or covenant theology. This brief survey understands federal theology as a method and not as a distinct school.³

Federal or covenant theology did not begin in the seventeenth century. The seventeenth-century Reformed orthodox built upon the labors of their Reformed predecessors, who built upon the labors of others before them. Such theologians as Zwingli, Bullinger, Calvin, Ursinus, Olevianus, Rollock, Perkins, Ames, and Ball all played key roles in the early development of federal theology.⁴ We will look briefly at some of the key contributors to the development of federalism in the early and late seventeenth century, and even into the eighteenth century, to provide a wider context to introduce the reader to the thought-world of post-Reformation federalism. This should assist the reader as he continues through this volume. Knowing the historical-theological issues of the most productive era of the formulation of federal or covenant theology (among paedobaptists and Particular Baptists) will introduce readers to the ways and means utilized in such formulations and help understand some of the post-Reformation confessional statements and the biblical and theological issues at stake. Read more…

Richard C. Barcellos, Ph.D., is pastor of Grace Reformed Baptist Church, Palmdale, CA (www.grbcav.org), and author of The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology: Geerhardus Vos and John Owen – Their Methods of and Contributions to the Articulation of Redemptive History, Better than the Beginning: Creation in Biblical Perspective, and The Lord’s Supper as a Means of Grace: More than a Memory. This chapter is a slightly revised section from the author’s The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology and is used with permission. ↩
For instance, for primary sources see Herman Witsius, The Economy of the Covenants Between God and Man: Comprehending A Complete Body of Divinity, Two Volumes (Escondido, CA: The den Dulk Christian Foundation, Reprinted 1990); Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ (Owensboro, KY: RBAP, 2005); Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, Reprint edition of 1978); Edward Fisher, The Marrow of Modern Divinity: In Two Parts – Part I. the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace; Part II. An Exposition of the Ten Commandments (Edmonton, AB, Canada: Still Water Revival Books, Reprint edition of 1991); Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, Volume Two (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1994); and for secondary works see A. T. B. McGowan, The Federal Theology of Thomas Boston (Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1997); John Von Rohr, The Covenant of Grace in Puritan Thought (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986); John L. Girardeau, The Federal Theology: Its Import and Its Regulative Influence (Greenville, SC: Reformed Academic Press, 1994); Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Know Press, 1991); Mark W. Karlberg, Covenant Theology in Reformed Perspective: Collected Essays and Book Reviews in Historical, Biblical, and Systematic Theology (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2000); Lyle D. Bierma, German Calvinism in the Confessional Age: The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1996); Rowland S. Ward, God & Adam: Reformed Theology and The Creation Covenant – An Introduction to the Biblical Covenants – A Close Examination of the Covenant of Works (Wantirna, Australia: New Melbourne Press, 2003); Peter Golding, Covenant Theology: The Key of Theology in Reformed Thought and Tradition (Ross-shire, Scotland: Christian Focus Publications, 2004); Peter Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2001); Willem J. van Asselt, The Federal Theology of Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) (Leiden, Boston, Koln: Brill, 2001); John Murray, “Covenant Theology” in Collected Writings, Volume Four (Edinburgh: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1982), 216-40; Geerhardus Vos, “The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology” in Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., editor, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1980), 234-67. ↩
Cf. Willem J. van Asselt, “The Fundamental Meaning of Theology: Archetypal and Ectypal Theology in Seventeenth-Century Reformed Thought,” Westminster Theological Journal (WTJ) 64 (2002): 323, where he notes, “This should warn us against any facile juxtaposition of federal-biblical theology with scholastic-dogmatic theology…” ‘This’ in context refers to the fact that many late sixteenth- and seventeenth-century Reformed theologians utilized Junius’ classification of archetypal and ectypal knowledge. Van Asselt claims that this is true of continental Reformed theologians as well as some English Puritans. John Owen makes such distinctions in his Biblical Theology (Pittsburgh: Soli Deo Gloria, 1994). (Cf. Chapter 8 of my The Family Tree of Reformed Biblical Theology, Owen, Biblical Theology, Chapter 3 Book I, and Sebastian Rehnman, Divine Discourse: The Theological Methodology of John Owen (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 57-71 for an extended discussion as it relates to Owen.). Once again, this is further evidence that Reformed scholasticism was a complex method and not a static system of theology. Reformed orthodox theologians could be and were often both scholastic and federal. ↩
For a well-referenced treatment of the history of federal theology in the post-Reformation era see Ward, God & Adam. Cf. also Golding, Covenant Theology, 13-66. ↩

Tags | historical

01

Dec
2014

In Resources
Samuel Renihan

By Brandon Adams

Kingdom Through Covenant (Review)

On 01, Dec 2014 | In Resources, Samuel Renihan | By Brandon Adams

[PDF available here]

Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants

A Review Article

Samuel Renihan¹

Just as the Israelites feared to enter Canaan because there were giants in the land, so also the one who approaches Kingdom through Covenant² must consider the viability of digesting and interacting with a work of such magnitude. That being said, Gentry and Wellum have produced a book worthy both of digestion and interaction. Read more…

Samuel Renihan, M.Div., is a pastor at Trinity Reformed Baptist Church, La Mirada, CA. This review article was published in the Journal of the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies (2014): 153-76, and is used with permission from RBAP. ↩
Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012, 848pp.). ↩

Tags | NCT, progressive covenantalism

28

Nov
2014

In Audio
Pascal Denault
Resources

By Brandon Adams

Pascal Denault Covenant Theology (1689 Conference)

On 28, Nov 2014 | In Audio, Pascal Denault, Resources | By Brandon Adams

Pascal Denault recently taught on the covenant theology of the 1689 London Baptist Confession at the first annual 1689 Conference.

Here is the MP3

Here are other formats.

Here are the rest of the sessions from the conference.

« Previous 1 … 5 6 7 8 9 … 12 Next »

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]

24

09

AUDIO:

17

JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective

29

27

The Law(s) of God

1689 Federalism

04

CHAPTER 10

The Difference Between the Two Covenants

03

02

CHAPTER 1

A Brief Overview of Seventeenth-Century

Reformed Orthodox Federalism

01

Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants

28

Donate

Categories

Tags

Recent Posts

Get Answers

Donate

Frequently Asked Questions

Does 1689 Federalism require "Regeneration Goggles"?

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

Did the Covenant of Grace Exist During the Old Testament?

Is 1689 Federalism Dispensational?

When Did the Church Begin?

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

Was the Mosaic Covenant THE Covenant of Works?

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

What Covenant did Christ fulfill?

Is 1689 Federalism compatible with Theonomy?

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

Do you deny the visible/invisible church distinction?

Additional Resources

Topics

Recent Posts

JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY:
Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective