1689 Federalism: What is it?

Hello everyone and welcome to the Reform Rookie video podcast. My name is Anthony Vigneault and I'm your Reform Rookie host bringing you all things from a reform perspective. The goal of this podcast is to take the deep rich truths of the reform tradition and help you see the beauty in them and the joy you'll experience in understanding them better.

Understanding these truths will help you better know the God of the scriptures and help us better appreciate the hope and confidence we have in Jesus Christ. And to that I say Semper Ephemanda. So today I'm excited to have Brandon Adams on the show and I'm eager to speak to him with regards to our topic today which is going to be 1689 Federalism.

A little while back there was a little dust up about the issue and hopefully we can lend some clarity to this and see how we can better understand it. Now before I do that I always ask first time guests to share their testimony into reform theology.

Brandon Adams’s Introduction to Reformed Theology

So Brandon welcome to the show. Hey thanks for having me Anthony, my pleasure. It's a joy to have you. I appreciate you coming on. So tell me have you always been reformed? What was it that brought you to reform theology?

How did you get to the position you're.

At now theologically? I grew up mostly non-denominational and went off to college and through serious events wound up attending a small church plant real close to the college and I ended up being a reformed baptist church.

So that wound up being my introduction to the Doctrines of Grace. I actually had a class called Five Point Cafe I think is what they called it. So it was you know walking through the Doctrines of Grace and that was my introduction and so it's all history from there but that's where it started for me.

Calvinism, Humility, and the Need for Grace

So do you ever get pushback with being a Calvinist? Like you know do you talk to people online who are like oh how could you possibly be a Calvinist? They're demonic you know.

Not a ton in the circles that I'm in. I guess I haven't gotten a lot of pushback from that. You know sometimes people will you know hear Fred Phelps or somebody like that who you know supposedly holds to the second Lenten Baptist Confession and that's their idea of what a reformed baptist is.

So really just trying to graciously model that that's not the case.

Right. Yeah I think Calvinists get a bad reputation sometimes because they're a little arrogant and look down their nose and you know I try to tell people if you hold to the Doctrines of Grace and then are not gracious in your conversation it really doesn't matter what you believe because it's what they see that's going to make a difference.

I mean obviously in addition to what you hold to theologically if it comes across in an arrogant or snobby manner you're just going to turn people away. So don't be outraced by other people especially when you.

Hold to the Doctrines of Grace. Yeah God had a bit more work to do in me after I learned the Doctrines of Grace. Were you a little caged age? I was yeah. I hope I'm not any longer but there was certainly a fair amount of pride and arrogance that I had to work through that the work through in me and I'll let others judge but hopefully I've grown somewhat since then.

Amen.

Likewise I share the sentiment I was caged stage for a while and thankfully in God's providence and grace he's led me through and calmed me down and helped me understand things a little bit better especially you know coming from a reformed perspective you know everything that we hold to and believe is given to us as a gift by God anyway so certainly I should not be looking down my nose or arrogantly towards anyone who doesn't hold the same view.

I mean obviously I want to fight for the truth of the scriptures but in such a loving and respectful and gentle way so that people are enamored by my demeanor to show them that the Doctrines of Grace have really helped me become gracious.

What 1689 Federalism Is

So with that I know our topic today is 1689 Federalism. A little while ago some might say you poked a hornet's nest and got a couple of people in a little dust up so what exactly is 1689 Federalism? Can you give us a definition explain it a little bit?

Sure so I tend to be verbose so just cut me off if I'm being too long-winded but 1689 Federalism is a form of covenant theology so covenant theology broadly speaking is the idea that the history of salvation or the history of eternal life is governed by two covenants.

A covenant of works with Adam where God offered him eternal life upon the condition of his perfect obedience to the law. After Adam failed God offered the what's known as the covenant of grace which offers the same eternal rest the same eternal life that was offered to Adam but this time the condition is faith in the finished work of Christ.

So covenant theology sees all of history governed by those two federal heads. Within that you'll have a couple different variations of how that exactly works out so a Westminster view would tend to see all of the other covenants that come after the one with Adam so the Noahic and the Abrahamic and Mosaic and Davidic and new they would they would tend to see all of those as the same covenant just different versions of the same covenant.

Where 1689 Federalism is different is we would identify only the new covenant as that covenant of grace that offers salvation in Christ and the other covenants would be subservient to them so they further they throughout history they play different roles so the Noahic covenant preserves humanity preserves the earth from destruction as salvation plays out so they they play different roles but they are not the offer of eternal life in Christ only the new covenant is so that in short summary that's that's 1689 Federalism.

Westminster Covenant Theology and Different Administrations

Would Presbyterians.

Or Westminster people hold to the fact that those covenants are one covenant or are they different covenants. And then we get to the new covenant and that's.

Part of that one covenant? So they would they would see them the the term they like to use is they're all different administrations of the same covenant. Okay an analogy they like to use is it's all the same person.

He's just wearing different clothes right. Or or somebody gets a haircut. They're still the same person. It's just you know the old covenant was a different clothes. The new covenant is newer clothes that look different.

So the outward appearance the ordinances were different in the old covenant. And so in the old covenant you had circumcision and animal sacrifices and Passover. Now we have baptism in the Lord's Supper.

They would say they're really just the same thing. They just look different. And their argument there is that well all throughout history salvation has always only been through faith in Christ. That's how Abraham was saved that's how Moses was saved and David so.

So therefore it must be the same covenant. So that's their view. And and we would say well it is true that they were all saved in the same way. They were all saved through union with Christ through faith in Christ.

But we would say that's.

That must mean therefore that they were saved by the new covenant. The new covenant right. Okay. So that would. That would differentiate a reformed baptist from a presbyterian now within reformed circles.

Uh there are some 1689 federalists and what would you call the other people.

That's a good question. Um just baptists. Yeah it's. Um the trouble is there's never been necessarily a systematic uh outworking or labeling of what that view was. So um reformed baptists baptists in general the second line of baptism confession kind of of of died out in the 20th century early 20th century um and it was sort of rediscovered in the 50s 60s.

Um and when it was a lot of that the history uh was sort of lost and what had to be kind of rediscovered anyways. Uh these men tried to work out a covenant theology that they recognized that scripture taught creedal baptism.

Um but they tried to put the pieces together and they didn't quite put it together the same way 1689 federalism does. And they they tended to adopt more of that uh one covenant one overarching covenant with different administrations model.

Um they would tend to argue well yeah you know infants and and the nation was included in the covenant grace in the old old covenant. But now what's new about the new covenant is they're not um it's now it's only the elect.

So there's similarities there's overlap. But they would they would tend to argue in that administration um the the one covenant of various administrations model. But that being said it's hard to point to.

Um a systematic outworking of that greg nichols book is probably the closest to it. But um so that would be they would tend to view the mosaic covenant as the covenant of grace as a gracious giving of the law.

1689 federalism would see it as a a temporal or typological covenant of works not for eternal life but for blessing and curse in the land of canaan. And so that would tend to distinguish uh 1689 federalism from that other reformed baptist view.

Um so broad strokes those are those are some of the differences. They would they would not agree with the idea that old testament saints.

Were saved by the new covenant. Okay. So they would say uh that there was grace in the old covenant and they're saved by that grace in the old covenant until the new covenant comes. It's it's a.

Good question. Um so the way sam waldron has articulated it in the past. Um he would argue that the covenant of grace was actually an overarching covenant that was above and separate from the old covenant.

So he would say they weren't saved by the old covenant itself. They were saved by the covenant of grace overarching that. But the covenant of grace is not identical to the new covenant so they weren't saved by the new covenant right.

The covenant of grace they would see is over the top of the new covenant and the old covenant. Um at least that's the way sam waldron had previously argued it. Um if anybody's interested apparently he's he's come around more to the more 1689 federalism view.

But um. But yeah. So were they saved by the old covenant. I'm not sure if they would use that language specifically right. But that's kind of the idea.

Old Testament Salvation, the New Covenant, and Christ’s Finished Work

Yeah would they. Would they basically point to the covenant of redemption that happened before creation and say that that's the grace that they enter into until it's hard to say i'm not sure.

These are these are all questions i would love to ask some of them. Um i haven't haven't had opportunity to have very much dialogue. Um and it's uh a lot of them have actually come around to 1689 federalism in the last 10 years since the materials become available and more widely known and things like that.

But um no they would they would tend to to point to the covenant of grace and say they're saved by the covenant of grace. The difference is they would they would uh call that a theological covenant and they would distinguish that from what they would see as the historical covenant.

So um it's it's separate from the old covenant the new covenant the abrahamic covenant all of those. It's it's over and above them and it's god's plan of salvation.

If that makes sense. Okay so let me give you a little bit of pushback. How can you be in the new covenant. If the new covenant hasn't been ratified yet how's that possible. That's an.

Excellent question. Let me give you a question in response. How is it possible that anybody could be.

Saved by the blood of christ before he died. Wasn't that what we're discussing now brandon. Well that's.

A good question is is it one of the same thing right. So so i would say yeah it is one of the same thing. It's it's the same idea. Um and a lot of people who who push back against that idea that somebody could be saved from the new covenant in the old testament at the same time they have no problem affirming that those people were saved by the death of christ even though he hadn't died yet.

Right. Um so it's important to recognize if you can affirm one there's no theoretical problem affirming the other. But how does that work. How is that possible. Uh i think the best way to think about it is sort of the idea of um a payday loan or a um an advance on a paycheck.

Right. So if you have a contract with an employer you you get a paycheck every two weeks um but you need some of that before your payday comes. You can go to some banks or other places and say look here's here's my agreement it's a certainty i'm gonna get this paycheck on this date.

I just need the money before that date comes and and you're able to get that money. Um obviously no analogy is perfect. But in a similar way right. God the son promised god the father that he would come in history live a perfect life die a death on a cross for his people to redeem his people the fact that he agreed to do that he promised to do that makes it a certainty.

It's 100 certain because of that um the benefits that he earns for his people can be given to his people before he actually completes that act. Right. They they receive an advance on the benefits of his life and death before it actually occurs.

Um and that that connection the way that they receive that is through union with christ. Uh through right. The bible talks about us being married to christ all right christ is our our husband. That's a a legal union a marriage union and we would say a new covenant union.

We would say the new covenant is our marriage union with christ. And from that all that's his is ours and all it's ours. Our sin is his. We share in those things and so the old testament saints were able to to share in that in advance of its legal establishment in his death.

John 3 and the New Birth Before Christ

So when when we.

Read let's say john chapter three. Uh starting at five it says. Jesus says truly i say to you unless one is born of water and spirit he cannot enter the kingdom of god. That which is born of flesh of flesh that which is born of spirit of spirit do not marvel that i said to you you must be born again.

And then he's skipping to verse 11. He says truly i say to you we speak of what we know and bear witness to what we have seen. Would you. Would you say that jesus was pointing to um the fact that the the being born again was something that was prior to him.

Uh can you go on and read the next verse. Just give me a little more context. Sure. He says truly truly i say to you we speak of what we know and bear witness to what we have seen. But you do not receive our testimony.

If i have told you earthly things and you do not believe how come you believe. If i tell you of heavenly things no one is ascended into heaven except he who descended from heaven. The son of man. As moses has and as moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness so must the son of man be lifted up.

That whoever believes in him may have eternal life. I was just thinking you know because he said we speak of what we know and bear witness to what we have seen. And he's talking about the new birth. You know seeing abraham and seeing all the old testament saints.

Uh total depravity holds true from genesis to revelation. So anyone who no one can get into the kingdom unless he's born again. That i i would say would hold true for all the saints from adam to revelation.

Yeah. That's a good.

Question. I haven't looked at that verse in that in that uh in that light before. Um possibly yeah. I'd have to look at a little more closely. He also talks about uh if i uh if i have told you earthly things and you do not believe how can you believe if i tell you heavenly things.

So i don't know if he's referring to that they're earthly things that we've seen um because the new birth is isn't really something that we see. Um so i don't know. I'd have to give that one a little more thought.

The Spirit, Pentecost, and Old Testament Saints

Okay okay okay. So um would you say that it's the the same indwelling spirit uh that we receive in the new covenant. In the new testament. Um that they received in the old testament i mean would it be um the same.

Would they receive the same the spirit the same way we have and have all the uh power we have as believers with the indwelling spirit within us. Yeah that's a really good.

Question and not an easy one to answer. Um but generally speaking yes i would say that it is the same work of the spirit. Uh right what does the spirit do in our life. He takes our heart of stone gives us a heart of flesh uh and continues to indwell us to continually mortify our flesh and put to death the deeds of the flesh and and sanctify us and and to sustain our faith.

Um if we need the spirit for that you know obviously old testament saints did as well. And their faith and um and lives excel many of ours. So um on on that idea alone yes i would say it was the same same work of the spirit same indwelling in the spirit.

Um it can get a little bit confusing then. Well what. What exactly was pentecost. And and jesus in the spirit hadn't come yet. Um i would tend to see all those things in the same way that we just talked about the new covenant.

And you talked about the kingdom kingdom of god. Nobody can see the kingdom of god. The kingdom of god wasn't an old testament reality. It was. It's something that came to earth and it was inaugurated in the new covenant.

Um but but we wouldn't want to exclude old testament saints from that either. So similar with the spirit. I believe it's something that um receives its power from pentecost. Right. Christ sends out the spirit at pentecost to do what it's really to take the benefits that he has earned for his people and dispense them to his people.

So regeneration is is a benefit that christ earned for us and and he delivers it to us through the spirit. And so pentecost is the official sending out of that spirit. And and i think the old testament saints again in advance of that formal sending out they were able to participate in that by the spirit as.

Well so really the only options are they're either saved by the grace found in the old covenant looking towards i'm sorry the grace of the old covenant looking towards the new covenant or they're saved retroactively in the actual new covenant.

I mean would there be any other options.

Um i somebody might be able to come up with with some other ideas you know have you heard of any like is. Uh i'd have to think about it some more. I don't recall off the top of my head um but yes it's it.

Basically if you're coming from a reformed perspective yeah the option is yeah you save from the new covenant or he was saved from the new covenant which is the same thing as the old.

Covenant it's all the covenant of grace. Um so is it possible uh for a human being to be in two covenants at the same time like let's say the covenant of moses and the new covenant at the same time. Um would it be your position that the mosaic covenant wasn't to earn eternal life that was to earn blessings or curses and the new covenant is specifically for eternal life only.

Correct. Yeah. So just if we look at a human level uh you know you and i can be in multiple human covenants at the same time. Uh we're in a covenant of marriage. If we if we're employed we also have a covenant with our employer.

Um we can have a covenant just a variety of different overlapping covenants. You could even have um you know husband and wife could be involved in two different covenants a marriage covenant and then maybe they work together in a business.

And um you know so so each covenant would carefully define what that relationship is. And they could be in multiple at the same time same parties in two different covenants at the same time. On a human level.

And i think the same is true on a on a divine level. Divine human level. Um provided that the the terms of those covenants um are not mutually exclusive. Right. So the covenant of works with adam offered eternal life upon the condition of perfect obedience to the law.

The covenant of grace or what we call the new covenant offers eternal life upon the condition of faith in christ. Those are those are mutually exclusive. So you couldn't be in both of those at the same time.

Right. But as long as those conditions don't conflict or or are not mutually exclusive i don't see any problem with that. So we would say that uh after the fall all human beings are in the noahic covenant.

Right. All human beings god has promised not to destroy again in a worldwide flood. Um and christians and non-christians alike are both in that covenant. Um at the same time as they are also either in the adamic covenant of works or or the um messianic new covenant.

So yes like you said about the the mosaic heaven i would say yeah it. It was not a covenant of works for eternal life. It was a covenant of works for life and blessing or potentially temporal cursing in the land of canaan.

So sickness and disease and famine or bountiful harvest and you know victory over enemies. So could an old testament saint could david be in the mosaic covenant as well as the new covenant i would say yes.

I don't see any conflict between those two. It um it can be a little complicated working that out at times perhaps. But.

Hebrews, Abraham, and the Supremacy of the New Covenant

I don't see any um contradiction between the two. Okay so i think dr white did a little video with regards to this and his pushback was did the author of hebrews missed this argument for the supremacy of the new covenant when he wrote the book of hebrews wouldn't he have mentioned the fact that the old testament saints was saved by virtue of the new covenant and not the old.

How would you respond to that. Well i would say he he did say that. Uh you know i i mean i just i would love to talk to dr white about this some more. But if you just look at all of his arguments against pedo baptist there it's all about how the mediation of christ is tied to the new covenant.

Christ mediation is perfect and he saves those he dies for those whom he saves and he applies it through his mediation the new covenant and all of his arguments there they're fantastic. And they're wonderful.

And they're i agree with them and it's limited to the elect. And i would just say well then how was abraham saved. Right. Was he saved by the mediation of christ. Well if it's tied to the new covenant you know it it's the argument of hebrews.

It's the argument that dr white makes. He just he just hasn't i think worked through those those logical implications of it. Um you know i was just looking at this earlier today. Hebrews uh 10 4 says it's impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sin.

And then hebrews 9 14 or 15 says so jesus came to establish a new covenant and and and offer his mediation for the sins that were formerly overlooked in the old covenant. Okay. Right. Um and so it's just it's just all throughout there that you know the new covenant is not like the old covenant because i will send the spirit and give them faith and i will forgive their sins.

Right. Right. So all of these things um it's just the necessary implication is that this this is how old um old testament saints were saved. And i think it is what the author of hebrews is saying. He doesn't spell that explicitly but that's part of how theology works.

Um and it's interesting that uh just wrestling through hebrews 8. Uh calvin in his commentary when he he's forced to kind of exegete this he gets to verse 10 which talks about this the spirit um working faith and as a benefit of the new covenant he's kind of scratching his head saying well well what do we do with abraham.

At first he's like well well it's it just means you know a more abundant grace more abundant faith. He's like but wait a minute abraham's faith was stronger than mine. Right. He didn't have like so he's like gosh what how can i solve this.

He said i these are his words. There is yet no reason why the grace of the new covenant could not be extended to the fathers. This is the real solution to the question. So that's the conclusion calvin came to wrestling through hebrews.

So i don't think calvin was this wacky baptist you know trying to invent some some weird doctrine and and isogeted into the text. Right. It's just it's just the logical outworking. When you look at at the implications of what.

Hebrews says okay. So uh speaking about abraham uh in romans 10 we're grafted in right now. Are we grafted into abraham or are we grafted into jesus. How does that work. With regards to you know 1689.

Federalism. Yeah it's a good question. A lot of the the israel and church issues um can be a little confusing to wrap our heads around especially when we look at how how the new testament applies certain prophecies in the old old testament and and the way.

Because if you go back and look at a lot of those you kind of scratch your head and say how is that a prophecy of of what's going on in the new covenant it just doesn't make sense. Um uh matthew he talks about uh uh jesus goes as a child goes down to egypt to escape uh herod trying trying to kill him and and then joseph brings him back and it says this was to fulfill the prophecy out of egypt i've called my son.

Right. Well he's quoting isaiah. Excuse me josea if you go back and look at that jose is explicit he's referring to the nation of israel coming up out of egypt the first time. Right. But then matthew says that was a prophecy of jesus the true israel coming up out of egypt.

So it takes a it's not it takes a little bit of work. We wouldn't say that jesus is israel but in another sense we would say well yes he is israel. He's the true israel. Sure. So there's there's this uh what i'm getting at is there's um this kind of wiggle room with with the the terms here uh where the new testament will use them in a way that would seem to equate them with old testament ideas.

But but israel is not the nation of israel. So we get to um this olive tree. Um and early in romans 9 paul talks about not all who are descended from israel are israel. And then he goes through and talks about election and the end of nine.

He talks about how. Um there's this prophecy that uh those who are not my people i will call my people. Uh and he will he will draw them back in. And in the old testament that was referring to the exiled israelites.

But paul in romans 9 applies that to the gentiles being saved. Right. Right. And so they they they come in and and uh in that sense they are the israel of god. He talks about in galatians. So there's this idea that you've got the nation of israel on the one hand.

And then you have the church which is now the israel of god the spiritual israel in christ. And these aren't the same thing. So some people will will make the mistake of equating those two and then trying to talk about two different levels of of of being in the in the israeli covenant or the or the new covenant.

Um but those are really two separate separate concepts two separate people. But they're typologically related. So i believe paul's making a typological argument. So we get to romans um 11 there with the olive tree.

And yeah he talks about this tree where the natural branches have been cut off. Right. Referring to the jews. And then wild branches have been grafted in referring to gentiles. What is that. Well some people uh some reformed people will say well that's that's the church that's the covenant of grace and the root is jesus.

And so they kind of they come up with their view of kind of this two-level covenant of grace. And um you're externally in the covenant of grace. For internally in the covenant of grace. And and it's but it's this tree is all the covenant of grace.

Um but the root there is is not jesus in the text the root is the patriarchs abraham isaac and jacob. Okay. Um so so it's it's not the covenant of grace it's not the church. Because abraham is not the root jesus is.

If we're to talk about the church or the covenant of grace so whatever paul's talking about abraham is the root of it. And um in in light of what paul has said in romans 9 and 10 i think. And and the rest of 11 um i think paul is identifying the olive tree with israel.

But which israel. Right. So we just talked about how there's these two different concepts of israel. Sure. And my opinion is that paul is referring to both with that image of the olive tree where the nation of israel sprung up from the root of abraham.

Right. They were his offspring. They they were the branches. But there came a point in time. Right. With the death of christ the establishment of the new covenant. Again this is what hebrews talks about the establishment of the new covenant makes the old obsolete.

So there's this transition period. And i think that's also what um john the baptist refers to when he talks about uh the axe is laid to the root to the root. Right. Um and so there's this point now where it's not enough to simply be born from abraham to be considered his offspring to be part of this tree called israel.

That's not enough. What's what's needed now at this point is to be uh to be united with christ through faith. And in that sense you can be an israelite. And so now at this point in history there's a judgment that comes upon the nation of israel.

And if they don't have faith they're cut off. So i argue that's actually what what the john 15 vine refers to as well this in several other passages it's this coming judgment upon the nation of israel.

And those who are not found in christ are no longer israel.

Abraham, Israel, and the Olive Tree in Romans 11

They're cut off and correct me if i'm wrong. But abraham is not jewish. Correct. Tell me what you mean by that though. I may just so i understand. He's not an israelite. I mean his grandson is called israel.

So you know abraham at that point is not an israelite. He's not a jew from the tribe of judah which is how right referring to it. So he he's a gentile. So the jews actually came forth from the gentiles.

He he was uh. His father was ebear so he was in a hebrew. Right. Right. Uh. But he wasn't.

He wasn't israel. Yeah. Correct. He he was not israel. He wasn't a jew specifically but he was naturally their head. So i'm not sure if i would call him a gentile. Necessarily. Okay. Um because there's there's still a natural um right.

The nation of israel received its holiness because of abraham um. So i think there's still a natural connection there in that sense. Okay. Um i i haven't thought about that i don't know that i would refer to him as a gentile.

Um. I don't know if i've come across that but um but sorry. Go ahead. What were you saying. That's okay. And you know.

What strikes me is you know some people who are reluctant to call jesus israel and say well israel is the whole nation. And i try to point them back to the fact that jacob was called israel. It was a single person right.

And i think this gets back to one of the things that uh sam renagin goes through in his book the mystery of christ and the covenants. The type anti-type. Right. So here's the type uh jacob who is called israel and from him come the 12 tribes.

And now i think it points to jesus. Who's the anti-type. When the the type terminates in christ. And now he brings forth the 12 apostles. Um and it's it's a picture obviously of the truth of what god was pointing to all along.

The substance is here and the shadows are gone. The shadows pointed to him and that type terminates in christ because he's the fulfillment of that. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely.

Yeah so that's how i would i would see the olive tree there. I think it's just a metaphor an analogy that paul uses for one specific application there and we don't want to stretch it too far. Sure um but i think that's a general idea.

Is he's referring to israel as it existed in its typical sense and as it now exists in its anti-typical spiritual sense where where now the natural branches have no connection to the root the only connection to the root is through faith at this point to.

Be grafted in and considered part of israel in christ right now. When um stephen in acts chapter seven talks about the church in the wilderness would you say that that would be the the born again believers who were in uh physical israel who were trusting in christ.

Would that be the church.

The gathering of believers. That's a good question. Um personally i really wish that they would translate um that word uh more accurately rather than church. Okay uh church comes. I could be wrong here.

I think it comes through the latin um the gathering. Yeah ecclesia. So the the more accurate translation there would be assembly or congregation or gathering. Something along those lines. Um and those words gathering assembly congregation.

Right. Those are not exclusively christian or religious ideas. Right. You can have any kind of gathering congregation assembly. It could be political sports you know any number of things. And that's really all the word means uh whereas church that that you say the word church and the only thing that comes to mind is specifically christian and sometimes other religious gatherings.