Image Image Image Image Image
Scroll to Top

To Top

FAQ

Don’t see your question here? Submit a question

Frequently Asked Questions

1689 Federalism Go To Top

Is 1689 Federalism compatible with Theonomy?

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]

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]

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 differ in substance and that only the new covenant is the covenant of grace) that was held by the vast majority of particular baptists 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.

For more on this, please see these helpful posts from Samuel Renihan:

Particular Baptists and the Substance/Administration Distinction (Part 1)

Particular Baptists and the Substance/Administration Distinction (Part 2)

4. The confession declines to confess the Westminster model of one covenant of grace under two/multiple administrations, when in the preface it is stated that the same words will be used where agreement exists. It does not teach, employ, or endorse this distinction anywhere else in the confession.

5. The confession does not state a difference of substance between the old and new. While that is the best explanation for the changes from WCF 7 to LBCF 7, it is not explicitly asserted.

6. While the confession positively supports that notion (that the old and new differ in substance), it is probable that it also remains broad enough to accommodate some of the variety within Particular Baptist federal thought.

7. From my reading, the majority opinion of the Particular Baptists was a self-conscious rejection of the Westminster model. And in my opinion, making a Baptist argument within the Westminster Paedobaptist framework is fraught with problems, nor does it take advantage of the rich heritage that our forefathers left us in their writings on this topic.

[Link to this answer]

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.

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 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]

Is 1689 Federalism Dispensational?

No. It is actually anti-Dispensational.

Charles Ryrie identified 3 essential tenets of Dispensationalism.

  1. Keeping Israel and the church distinct throughout eternity.
  2. A hermeneutic of literal interpretation. (#1 is derived from #2)
  3. 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]