05

Sep
2016

By Brandon Adams

How the “uses of the law . . . sweetly comply with . . . the grace of the Gospel ” (2LCF 19.7)

On 05, Sep 2016 | In Richard Barcellos, Uncategorized | By Brandon Adams

Here is a 2016 ARBCA circular letter on 2LCF 19.7, written by Richard Barcellos. PDF available here.

How the “uses of the law . . . sweetly comply with . . .the grace of the Gospel” (2LCF 19.7)

Richard C. Barcellos

Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it . . . (2LCF 19.7a)

Our subject is important for at least three reasons. First, because this is what we confess as confessional, associational churches. It is, therefore, what we believe the Bible teaches. Second, because it is one of those confessional assertions that is often misunderstood and, in our day, denied by prominent evangelicals.¹ And third, it is important for the well-being of our churches, which are comprised of God’s dear children. This last reason will be examined more fully in the conclusion.

In addressing the issue of how the “uses of the law . . . sweetly comply with the grace of the Gospel” (2LCF 19.7), we will consider 2LCF 19.7 in its confessional context, define some technical terms utilized in discussions about the law of God, identify the “uses of the law” implied by this paragraph, and discuss how the “uses of the law . . . sweetly comply with the grace of the Gospel.” A conclusion to the whole will be our final consideration of this topic in light of the discussion.

The Confessional Context of 2LCF 19.7

Our Confession at 19.7 assumes and builds upon the previous paragraphs. An outline of chapter 19 may help to see the progress and development of the doctrine of the law of God and how 2LCF 19.7 functions in light of what precedes it.²

The Initial Revelation of the Law of God–BCF 19:1 “God gave to Adam a law of universal obedience . . .”
The Subsequent Function and Revelation of the Law of God–2LCF 19.2-4
1. Its subsequent function: Adam to Moses–2LCF 19.2a “The same law that was first written in the heart of man continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness after the fall”
2. Its subsequent revelation: Mosaic Law–2LCF 19.2b-4 “and was delivered by God upon Mount Sinai”
  1. Mosaic law and the law written on the heart (i.e., Moral Law)
  2. Mosaic law and supplemental/positive law–2LCF 19.3-4 “Besides this law, commonly called moral . . .”
The Universal Obligation of the Law of God–2LCF 19.5
1. Its Statement–2LCF 19.5a “The moral law doth for ever bind all, (Rom. 13:8-10; James 2:8, 10-12) as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof”
2. Its Basis–2LCF 19.5b
  1. Because of its content: “and that not only in regard of the matter contained in it,”
  2. Because of its giver: “but also in respect of the (James 2:10, 11) authority of God the Creator, who gave it;”
  3. Its Strengthening–2LCF 19.5c “neither doth Christ in the Gospel any way dissolve, (Matt. 5:17-19; Rom. 3:31) but much strengthen this obligation.”
The Various Uses of the Law of God–2LCF19.6-7
1. Uses common to believers and unbelievers “Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others,”
  1. It directs and binds as a rule of life. “in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly;”
  2. It discovers sin within. “discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin;”
  3. It points to a remedy without. “together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience;”
2. Uses common to believers alone “it is likewise of use to the regenerate . . .”
  1. It restrains our corruptions by forbidding sin. “to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin;”
  2. It shows what the sins of believers deserve and what afflictions are to be expected in this life by its threatenings. “and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof.”
  3. It shows believers God’s approbation of and our expected blessings upon obedience by its promises. “The promises of it likewise shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man’s doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being under the law and not under grace.”
The Complementary Nature of these Uses with the Gospel for Believers–2LCF 19.7
1. Its denial: “Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law contrary to the grace of the Gospel,”
2. Its affirmation:
  1. the essence of its affirmation: “but do sweetly comply with it”
  2. the efficient cause of its affirmation:
    1. his person: “the Spirit of Christ”
    2. his work: “subduing and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.”

Working our way through 2LCF 19 puts us into the context of a discussion which utilizes terms or concepts, either explicitly or implicitly, that must be understood to grasp what is and is not being asserted. This being the case, let us consider some of the terms and concepts utilized in 2LCF 19.

Defining our Terms

Our Confession is the product of more than a century and a half of post-Reformation theological insight. It reflects the thinking of the movement sometimes called Protestant Orthodoxy. Before we identify the uses of the law as contained in 2LCF 19.6 (i.e., the uses implied by 19.7), let us define some terms utilized in this Reformed theological tradition in its discussions on the law of God. This will aid the current discussion by putting it into a recognized context of the conversation that predates us and upon which what we confess is built. It is proper to remind ourselves that doing theology involves utilizing terms and phrases that have evolved over time in an attempt to encapsulate crucial biblical teachings. We use technical terms and phrases to accommodate wide swaths of truth, putting these truths into brief, theological short-hand. Acquainting ourselves with the theological nomenclature typically utilized in discussions of the law of God will help us when coming to the specific confessional assertions about it.

Natural Law

Here is Richard Muller’s entry for natural law:

lex naturalis: natural law; also lex naturae; law of nature; the universal moral law either impressed by God upon the mind of all people or immediately discerned by the reason in its encounter with the order of nature. The natural law was therefore available even to those pagans who did not have the advantage of the Sinaitic revelation and the lex Mosaica [i.e., Mosaic law, which includes the natural law, though in a different form] with the result that they were left without excuse in their sins… The scholastics argue the identity of the lex naturalis with the lex Mosaica . . . according to substance, and distinguish them . . . according to form. The lex naturalis is inward, written on the heart and therefore obscure [due to sin], whereas the lex Mosacia is revealed externally and written on tablets and thus of greater clarity.³

The natural law is universal because God is the Creator of all men. Natural law is “founded on the natural right of God . . . (being founded on the very holiness and wisdom of God).”⁴ These laws are “just and good antecedently to the command of God . . .”⁵ They are commanded because just and good in light of who God is and what man is as His image bearer. Natural law is “the practical rule of moral duties to which men are bound by nature.”⁶Due to man’s created constitution, this law is written on his heart (2 LCF 4.2-3), though now obscured by sin (2LCF 6). Natural law is not acquired by tradition or formal instruction. This law was, however, promulgated (i.e., formally published) on Sinai, which differs from the natural law in form though identical to it in substance. Protestant Orthodoxy taught that the Decalogue summarily contains the moral law and is the inscripturated form of the natural law, as to its substance. A distinction was made between substance and form. Substance is one; form (and function) may vary. For example, when the Westminster Larger Catechism Q.98. says, “The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments,” it refers to the fact that the substance (i.e., the underlying substance) of the moral law is assumed in the propositions of the Decalogue as contained in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5. The form (and function) fits the redemptive-historical circumstances in which it was given. The substance, or underlying principles, are always relevant and applicable to man because he is created in the image of God. The application may shift based on redemptive-historical changes, such as the inauguration of the new covenant, but the substance and utility never changes. For example, the application of the second commandment under the inaugurated new covenant is different from its application under the Mosaic covenant but its substance is the same. We must worship God as God has revealed, and since the fall into sin, through a mediator and in accord with His revealed will.

Moral Law

Muller defines moral law in Protestant Orthodox thought as follows:

[S]pecifically and predominantly, the Decalogus, or Ten Commandments; also called the lex Mosaica . . ., as distinct from the lex ceremonialis . . . and the lex civilis, or civil law. The lex moralis, which is primarily intended to regulate morals, is known to the synderesis [i.e., the innate habit of understanding basic principles of moral law] and is the basis of the acts of conscientia [i.e., conscience–the application of the innate habit above]. In substance, the lex moralis is identical with the lex naturalis . . . but, unlike the natural law, it is given by revelation in a form which is clearer and fuller than that otherwise known to the reason.⁷

As noted above, the moral law is summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, not exhausted by it. Though the formal promulgation of the Decalogue had a unique redemptive-historical context and use, it is nothing other than the natural law incorporated into the Mosaic covenant in a new form. This is one of its uses in the Bible, though it does not exhaust its uses (e.g., Jer. 31:33).

Positive Law

Positive laws are those laws added to the natural or moral law. They are dependent upon the will of God. These laws are “good because God commands them.”⁸ They become just, because commanded by God. The first revelation of positive law was delivered to Adam in the Garden (Gen. 1:28; 2:17; cf. 2LCF 4.3; 6.1; 7.1-3; 19.1). Subsequent positive laws are spread throughout the Old and New Testaments. Positive laws can be abrogated for various reasons. They are not necessarily universal or perpetual. Some obvious examples of positive law in the Old Testament are circumcision and the laws of sacrifice and two New Testament illustrations are baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Neither circumcision, sacrifices, baptism, or the Lord’s Supper are universal or perpetual. The ceremonial laws of the Old Testament, as well as the judicial law of old covenant Israel, are also examples of positive law. Ceremonial law is not based on creation but conditioned upon God’s purpose to remedy the plight of man due to sin. It is positive law, law added to the natural or moral law and, in this case, for the purposes of redemption. The judicial law refers to the civil laws revealed through Moses for ancient Israel as God’s nation in the land of promise. Though the underlying principles of these laws (i.e., their general equity) are still of moral use (2LCF 19.7), the laws as universal, positive laws for God’s covenant people have expired along with the theocracy.

The Threefold Division of the Law

The threefold division of the law understands the moral law as based on creation and, therefore, perpetually binding on all men (though in differing ways) and the ceremonial and judicial law of the old covenant as supplemental to the Decalogue under the Mosaic covenant (cf. 2LCF 19.1-4 and the outline of 19.1-7 above). The ceremonial and judicial law of the Mosaic covenant is positive law, law added to the moral law for temporary redemptive-historical purposes. The threefold division of the law is based on the fact that the Bible makes distinctions between different types of law functioning under the Mosaic covenant (and prior to it) and views the principles of the Decalogue as pre-dating its formal promulgation at Sinai, going back to the creation of man.⁹ In one sense, the Decalogue under the Mosaic covenant is positive law, law for ancient Israel as God’s covenant nation to be obeyed as such in the land of promise.¹⁰

The Threefold Use of the Law

The threefold use of the law and the threefold division of the law are not one and the same thing. Concerning the doctrine of the threefold use of the law, Muller says:

usus legis: use of the law; as distinguished by the Protestant scholastics, both Lutheran and Reformed, there are three uses of the lex moralis. (1) . . . the political or civil use, according to which the law serves the commonwealth, or body politic, as a force for the restraint of sin. The first usus stands completely apart from any relation to the work of salvation and functions much as revelatio generalis . . . in bringing some knowledge of God’s will to all mankind. (2) . . . the elenctical or pedagogical use; i.e., the use of the law for the confrontation and refutation of sin and for the purpose of pointing the way to Christ. . . . (3) . . . the tertius usus legis, the third use of the law. This final use of the law pertains to believers in Christ who have been saved through faith apart from works. In the regenerate life, the law no longer functions to condemn, since it no longer stands elenctically over against man as the unreachable basis for salvation, but acts as a norm of conduct, freely accepted by those in whom the grace of God works the good. This normative use is also didactic inasmuch as the law now teaches, without condemnation, the way of righteousness.¹¹

The threefold use of the law refers to various functions of the moral law. The first use of the moral law applies to all men. The second use applies to all men who come in contact with the written Word of God. The third use applies to believers alone. Chapter 19 paragraph 7 concentrates on the use of the moral law for believers. It functions, among other things, as a pattern for life,¹² that is, it functions as a guide for the sanctification of believers.

The “Uses of the Law” Implied by 2LCF 19.7

What are the uses of the moral law implied by 2LCF 19.7, “the aforementioned uses of the law”? Here is 2LCF 19.6 with a list of the uses of the law contained in it.

6. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, (Rom. 6:14; Gal. 2:16; Rom. 8:1; 10:4) to be thereby justified or condemned, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; (Rom. 3:20; 7:7ff.) discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience; it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin; and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof. The promises of it likewise shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works; so as man’s doing good and refraining from evil, because the law encourageth to the one and deterreth from the other, is no evidence of his being (Rom. 6:12-14; 1 Pet. 3:8-13) under the law and not under grace.

There are six uses of the law contained here: three common to both believers and unbelievers and three common to believers exclusively.¹³ Notice carefully what is asserted: “. . . yet it [i.e., “The moral law,” cf. 2LCF 19.5] is of great use to them [i.e., “true believers”] as well as to others [i.e., unbelievers], in that . . .” Then notice the shift to believers exclusively: “. . . it is likewise of use to the regenerate . . .” The fact that believers and unbelievers have uses of the moral law common to them implies that they have something else in common that is the ground or basis for these uses. Believers and unbelievers are both creatures, “being made after the image God, . . . having the law of God written in their hearts” (2LCF 4.2; see 4.3; 6.1; 19.1, 2, 5). Here is an outline of the uses stated in 2LCF 19.6 and implied by 19.7.¹⁴

Uses Common to Believers and Unbelievers

it directs and binds as a rule of life: “in that as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; (Rom. 3:20; 7:7ff.)”
it discovers sin within: “discovering also the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts, and lives, so as examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against, sin;”
it points to a remedy without: “together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ and the perfection of his obedience;”

Uses Common to Believers Alone

4. it restrains corruption in believers by forbidding sin: “it is likewise of use to the regenerate to restrain their corruptions, in that it forbids sin;”
5. it shows what the sins of believers deserve and what afflictions are to be expected in this life by its threatenings: “and the threatenings of it serve to shew what even their sins deserve, and what afflictions in this life they may expect for them, although freed from the curse and unallayed rigour thereof.”
6. it shows believers God’s approbation of and expected blessings upon obedience by its promises: “The promises of it likewise shew them God’s approbation of obedience, and what blessings they may expect upon the performance thereof, though not as due to them by the law as a covenant of works;”

The Sweet Compliance of these Uses “with the Grace of the Gospel”

The specific issue we are focusing on is how these uses “sweetly comply with” “the grace of the Gospel.” What is meant by “sweetly comply”? I take this to mean assuredly agree with or not to contradict in any fashion. The assertion is that the uses of the moral law stated in 19.6 do not in any way contradict “the grace of the Gospel.” To what is “the grace of the Gospel” in this context referring? Notice it does not say “the Gospel.” The “grace of” refers to that which comes to believing sinners as a result of the gospel believed.¹⁵ It is “grace” which comes by virtue of the gospel believed. Recall that the Confession is dealing with present believers in 19.7. The “grace of the Gospel” refers not to redemption accomplished (or the announcement of it), but to redemption applied (i.e., the benefits of Christ). This “grace of the Gospel” refers not to the message to be believed; it refers to the grace which comes to believers, those having believed. In other words, “the grace of the Gospel” is that which comes to believing sinners and is given to them. This is referring to the Spirit-enabled obedience of believers and unique to them.¹⁶ This should become clearer as we continue the discussion. Let’s take a closer look at the paragraph.
The paragraph has a denial and an affirmation, as noted in the outline above. Here is 2LCF 19.7 again:

7. Neither are the aforementioned uses of the law (Gal. 3:21) contrary to the grace of the Gospel, but do sweetly comply with it, the Spirit of Christ subduing (Ezek. 36:27) and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.

The paragraph denies that the uses of the moral law for believers mentioned in 19.6 are “contrary to the grace of the Gospel.” It affirms that the various uses “do sweetly comply with it.” The denial is explained by the affirmation. We know that the uses of the moral law mentioned in 19.6 are not “contrary to the grace of the Gospel” because of the work of the Holy Spirit in the souls of Christ’s people as that relates them to the law of God. In other words, “the grace of the Gospel” in this context is concentrating on “the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling” believers as they are related to the law of God. It is the Spirit of Christ who changes the people of Christ that they might obey the law of Christ. I ask again, to what does “the grace of the Gospel” refer in its context? It refers to benefits brought to us by the Spirit of Christ. The “grace of the Gospel” includes, though is certainly not exhausted by, what the Spirit of Christ does to and in believers to relate them to the law of God. This means that believers do not relate to the law of God like unbelievers in all senses. Recall 2LCF 19.6, where we confess, “. . . true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned.”That this is the intent of the words under consideration seems clear from the reference to Ezekiel 36:27, which reads, “I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will be careful to observe My ordinances” (NAU 1995). By virtue of the citation of Ezekiel 36:26-27 in 2LCF 7.2, we learn that our framers viewed Ezekiel’s words as part of that which is promised in the covenant of grace.¹⁷

This paragraph is a wonderful testimony to the doctrine of the work of the Holy Spirit in the application of redemption in relating believers to the moral law of God. The Spirit of Christ empowers the people of Christ to do the will of Christ. As A. A. Hodge asserts, “In respect to regenerate men, the law continues to be indispensable as the instrument of the Holy Ghost in the work of their sanctification.”¹⁸ This comports with other assertions of our Confession. For example, 2LCF 16.3 says of the good works of believers, “Their ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ . . .” In 16.5, we read of the good works of believers, “. . . because they are good they proceed from his Spirit . . .” The reason why the uses of the moral law stated in 19.6 are not “contrary to the grace of the Gospel” is due to the work of the Spirit of Christ in believers, “subduing (Ezek. 36:27) and enabling the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.”

Theological and Practical Conclusions

Understanding the terms and concepts assumed by our Confession in this discussion helps our understanding of the doctrinal formulation contained in 2LCF 19.7.

We must recognize that the use of technical language is important. All subjects of inquiry utilize such. Our Confession utilizes terms and concepts which must be understood in order to grasp its meaning as intended. Doing the work of opening up Muller’s Dictionary and reading various entries can pay off dividends for years to come. Not only will it stock our minds with the technical language utilized in (and often assumed by) our Confession, it will help us understand its intent more clearly. For example, contemporary readers might take the word “law” in 19.7 and assume it means the Mosaic covenant. A little work behind the scenes will help to keep us from falling into idiosyncratic or anachronistic interpretations of our Confession.

Understanding 2LCF 19.7 properly should help us preach the law sweetly to our people.

Listen to Turretin:

It is one thing to be under the law to acquire life by it (as Adam was) or as a schoolmaster and prison to guard men until the advent of Christ; another to be under the law as a rule of life, to regulate our morals piously and holily. It is one thing to be under the law inasmuch as it is opposed to the gospel as to rigid and perfect exaction of obedience and the terrible curse with which it threatens sinners; another to be under the law inasmuch as it is subordinated to the gospel, as to sweet direction.¹⁹

As our Confession makes careful distinctions between types of biblical law and the various uses of the moral law following the Bible, so should we do the same in our pulpit ministries. On the one hand, we must not confuse law and gospel; on the other hand, we must preach in such a way as to assume the various uses of the moral law of God in the hand of the Spirit while we preach. As I once read in (I think) Thomas Watson, “We must preach the law most killingly,” but not to God’s people. The law’s maledictory, cursing, condemning function no longer applies to believers. “Therefore there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1). As shepherds of Christ’s sheep, we ought to guide them into safe pastures, giving them the “sweet direction” of the law sweetly. This leads to another related consideration.

While preaching, we ought to assume these uses of the moral law.

These uses of the moral law (for believers and unbelievers) do not become true or actuated only if the text we are preaching contains one of the ten commandments. This, along with all other divinely revealed theological facts, ought to be assumed by us as true at all times. We can know that something is true but do not know how or when the Spirit of Christ is wielding the preached word while we deliver it and which uses of the law are being experienced in the souls of our listeners. There is no need to have a list of “uses” in our sermons that seek to apply the various uses of the moral law to the types of hearers under our preaching. No biblical text exists where the moral law cannot be used by the Spirit of God in the souls of hearers. All individual biblical texts come in the context of the entire biblical text, which we know canonically as the testaments of the Bible. Everything that is true in light of God’s written word is true while we are preaching from any individual text. Add to that the fact that our hearers normally know more about the Bible than what we tell them in our sermon. Whether we assume the uses of the moral law consciously or not, the Spirit of Christ takes the word of Christ to the souls of men.

Our understanding of the sweet compliance of these uses of the law with the grace of the Gospel is fertile ground for humility, both in us and in our people.

When we see progress in sanctification, either in ourselves or our people, we must remember that it is due to “the Spirit of Christ subduing and enabling.” Growth in us and growth in our people, sweet conformity to the moral law of God, is due, not to the preacher of the word, but to the Spirit breathing upon the word, bringing its truth to sight. The sanctifying light is not ours to produce or manufacture or force into our hearers by powerful illustrations or fits of emotionally-charged rhetoric. We are to preach the word as accurately as possible and leave the efficient work of the sanctifying of souls to the Spirit of Christ, who enables “the will of man to do that freely and cheerfully which the will of God, revealed in the law, requireth to be done.”

It will be argued below that our Confession is applying the doctrine of what is more commonly called the threefold use of the law at 19.6-7. For an example of one contemporary evangelical who denies the third use of the law (i.e., the moral law as a rule of life for the believer), questions its legitimacy, and yet sees “the notion . . . not entirely wrong . . .” see Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions About Christians and Biblical Law (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2010), 97-100. Schreiner says, “Strictly speaking, the idea that believers are under the third use of the law is mistaken, for we have seen that the entire law is abolished for believers. Still, the notion is not entirely wrong . . .” and later “Calvin and Luther had different positions on the third use of the law. Luther is closer to the truth on this matter than Calvin, for he sees more clearly that the Old Testament law is not normative for believers, and that believers are no longer under the Mosaic covenant” (99). ↩
I wrestled with whether or not to include this somewhat extensive outline. I decided to include it for readers to see the flow of thought, the interconnectedness of the various doctrinal assertions, and the use of technical terms and concepts either explicit or implied by 2LCF 19.1-7. ↩
Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms Drawn Principally from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1985), 175. ↩
Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 3 vols., ed. James T. Dennison, Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992-97), 2.11.1 (II:2). ↩
Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 2.11.1 (II:2). ↩
Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 2.11.1 (II:2). ↩
Muller, Dictionary, 173-74. ↩
Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 2.11.1 (II:2). ↩
For the best contemporary discussion on the threefold division of the law see Philip S. Ross, From the Finger of God: The Biblical and Theological Basis for the Threefold Division of the Law (Ross-shire, Scotland: Mentor Imprint by Christian Focus Publications Ltd., 2010). ↩
See the discussion “The Concept of Abrogation in Owen and others” in Nehemiah Coxe and John Owen, Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, eds. Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan, and Francisco Orozco (Palmdale, CA: Reformed Baptist Academic Press, 2005), 325-31. ↩
Muller, Dictionary, 320-21. ↩
Muller, Dictionary, 321, terms this as the didactive use of the law under usus didacticus. “. . . this latter didactic or normative use is referred to simply as the tertius usus legis, the third use of the law. This final use of the law pertains to believers in Christ who have been saved through faith apart from works. In the regenerate life, the law . . . acts as a norm of conduct . . . This normative use [usus normativus] is also didactic inasmuch as the law now teaches, without condemnation, the way of righteousness.” Calvin also referred to the third use as usus in renatis, which means the use of the law for the regenerate. ↩
See Chad Van Dixhorn, Confessing the Faith: A reader’s guide to the Westminster Confession of Faith (Edinburgh and Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2014), 251, n. 1, where he acknowledges that the ordering of the uses of the law in the Confession differ from Calvin’s. The form is different from Calvin but not the concepts. ↩
Bold text in the confessional quotations indicates where and why I identified each use as I did. ↩
This is not to deny that the initial act of saving faith, justification, etc. are not graces or gifts which come to us. ↩
See Van Dixhorn, Confessing the Faith, 257. He uses the phrase “Spirit-enabled obedience” as a heading while commenting upon WCF 19.7. ↩
2LCF 10.1 also cites Ezekiel 36:26 and 27. ↩
A. A. Hodge, The Confession of Faith (1869; reprint, Edinburgh and Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1983), 258. ↩
Turretin, Elenctic Theology, 2.11.23 (II:143). ↩

Tags | the law

Comments

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]