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.

So, Brandon, welcome to the show. Hey, thanks for having me, Anthony. I appreciate it. 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. 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 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.

So do you ever get pushback with being a Calvinist? Like 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, 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 outraged 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, Nate? 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

Lord worked 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 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 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.

So with that, I know our topic today is 1689 federalism. A little while ago, some might say you poked the 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.

So I tend to be verbose, so just just cut me off if I'm being too long winded.

But 1689 federalism is a 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 on 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 of 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 they 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 play different roles. But they are not the author of eternal life in Christ.

Only the new covenant is so that in short summary, that's that's 1689 federalism.

Would 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 term they like to use is they are all different administrations of the same covenant.

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 the old covenant was a different pair of 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 in the

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 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. OK, so that would that would differentiate a reformed Baptist from a Presbyterian. Now, within reformed

Baptist circles, there are some 1689 federalists. And what would you call the other people?

That's a good question. It's Baptist. Yeah, it's. The trouble is, there's never been necessarily a systematic outworking or labeling of what that view was.

So reformed Baptist in general, the second line of Baptist confession kind of of died out in the 20th century, early 20th century.

And it was sort of rediscovered in the 50s, 60s.

And when it was a lot of that, the. History was sort of lost and had to be kind of rediscovered in any ways.

These men tried to work out a covenant theology that they recognized that scripture taught creedal baptism.

But they tried to put the pieces together and they didn't quite put it together the same way as 1689 federalism does.

And they tended to adopt more of that one covenant, one overarching covenant with different administrations model.

They would tend to argue, well, yeah, you know, infants and the nation was included in the

Covenant of Grace and the old old covenant. But now what's new about the new covenant is they're not 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, the one covenant of various administrations model.

But that being said, it's hard to point to a systematic outworking of that.

Greg Nichols book is probably the closest to it. But. 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 1689 federalism from that other Reformed Baptist view.

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.

OK, so they would say 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. So the way Sam Waldron has articulated it in the past, 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, at least that's the way

Sam Waldron had previously argued it. If anybody's interested, apparently he's he's come around more to the more 1689 federalism view.

But 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. 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. I haven't haven't had opportunity to have very much dialogue.

And it's 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 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 call that a theological covenant and they would distinguish that from what they would see as the historical covenant.

So 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.

OK, 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 is that possible? It'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 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. And a lot of people 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. 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? I think the best way to think about it is sort of the idea of a payday loan or a an advance on a paycheck.

Right. So if you have a contract with an employer, you get a paycheck every two weeks, 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 going to get this paycheck on this date.

I just need the money before that date comes. And you're able to get that money. 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 percent certain because of that, the benefits that he earns for his people can be given to his people before he actually completes that act.

Right. They receive an advance on the benefits of his life and death before it actually occurs.

And that that connection, the way that they receive that is through union with Christ, through the

Bible talks about us being married to Christ. All right. Christ is our husband. That's 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 that's ours, our sin is his.

We share in those things. And so the Old Testament saints were able to share in that in advance of its legal establishment in his death.

So when when we read, let's say, John, chapter three, starting at five,

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 is flesh.

That which is born of spirit is 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 the fact that the being born again was something that was prior to him?

Can you go on to 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 can 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 it in the past test, 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. 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 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 in that light before. Possibly, yeah,

I'd have to look at a little more closely. He also talks about if I 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 because the new birth is isn't really something that we see.

So I don't know, I'd have to give that one a little more thought. OK, OK, OK. So would you say that it's the the same indwelling spirit that we receive in the new covenant in the

New Testament that they received in the Old Testament? I mean, would it be the same?

Would they receive the same the spirit the same way we have and have all the 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. But generally speaking, yes,

I would say that it is the same work of the spirit. Right. What does the spirit do in our life?

He takes our heart of stone, gives us a heart of flesh 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.

If we need the spirit for that. You know, obviously,

Old Testament saints did as well and their faith and and lives excel many of ours.

So on that idea alone, yes, I would say it was the same same work of the spirit, same indwelling in the spirit.

It can get a little bit confusing then. Well, what exactly was Pentecost and Jesus and the spirit hadn't come yet?

I would tend to see all those things in the same way that we just talked about the new covenant. And you talk 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.

But we wouldn't want to exclude Old Testament saints from that either. So similar with the spirit, I believe it's something that 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 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? Somebody might be able to come up with with some other ideas.

You know, have you heard of any like is I'd have to think about it some more.

I don't recall off the top of my head. But yes, it's basically if you're coming from a reformed perspective, yeah, the option is, yeah, you say from the new covenant or he was saved from the new covenant, which is the same thing as the old covenant.

And it's all the covenant of grace. So is it possible 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?

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, you and I can be in multiple human covenants at the same time, we're in a covenant of marriage, if we if we're employed, we also have a covenant with our employer.

We can have a covenant, just a variety of different overlapping covenants, you could even have, 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, 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, provided that the the terms of those covenants 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.

So 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 are not mutually exclusive,

I don't see any problem with that. So we would say that 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.

And Christians and non -Christians alike are both in that covenant at the same time as they are also either in the

Adamic covenant of works or or the Messianic new covenant. So, yes, like you said about the the

Mosaic covenant, I would say, yeah, 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 can be a little complicated working that out at times, perhaps, but I don't see any contradiction between the two.

OK, so I think Dr. White did a little video with regards to this and his pushback was, did the author of Hebrews miss 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 saint was saved by virtue of the new covenant and not the old?

How would you respond to that? Well, I would say he did say that. You know,

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 Paedo -Baptist there, it's all about how the mediation of Christ is tied to the new covenant and Christ's mediation is perfect and he saves those, he dies for those whom he saves and he applies it through his mediation of the new covenant and all of his arguments there, they're fantastic and they're wonderful and 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's the argument of Hebrews, it's the argument that Dr.

White makes, he just hasn't, I think, worked through those logical implications of it. You know,

I was just looking at this earlier today, Hebrews 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 offer his mediation for the sins that were formerly overlooked in the old covenant.

Okay, right. 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, it's just the necessary implication is that this, this is how

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.

And it's interesting that just wrestling through Hebrews 8,

Calvin in his commentary, when he's forced to kind of exegete this, he gets to verse 10, which talks about this, the spirit 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, 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 one yet. So he's like, gosh, what, how can

I solve this? He says, 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 exegeted into the text.

Right. It's just, it's just the logical outworking when you look at the implications of what

Hebrews says. Okay. So speaking about Abraham 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, that's a good question.

A lot of the, 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, well, how is that a prophecy of, of what's going on in the new covenant?

It just doesn't make sense. Um, uh, 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 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, Hosea. If you go back and look at that, Hosea 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, it's not, it takes a little bit of work.

We wouldn't say that Jesus is Israel, but in other 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 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 nine,

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 nine 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, spiritual Israel in Christ. Uh, 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, 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. 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 nine and 10, I think, 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. 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, um, uh, the ax is laid to the root, 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. Um, so I've argued that's actually what, what the

John 15 vine refers to as well. This and 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, right? 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 mean, I may, just so he's, 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 we're 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 Eber. 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 Renehan goes through in his book, the mystery of Christ and the covenants, the type of 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 type terminates in Christ.

And now he brings forth the 12 apostles. Um, and it's a, 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 and 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, um, 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, yeah,

Ecclesia. So the, the more accurate translation there would be assembly or congregation, uh, 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. Um, but that's not necessarily what the, what the

Greek word itself means. It just means assembly or, or congregation. So what Stephen's saying there is the assembly of Israel.

So I don't, I think it's just referring to the nation of Israel. So the, there's a Hebrew word, uh, that's equivalent.

I don't know the correct pronunciation, but, uh, Cahal. Yes. U Q a

H a L something along those lines. Um, and so you see that throughout the old Testament and it really just means right.

The gathering, the assembly of the nation of Israel and I don't think based on those words, we can equate that with the body of Christ, the assembly of believers.

Um, I think they're two different concepts related as, as type and antitype, but, but not equivalent. So, okay.

So if someone wanted more information with regards to 1689 federalism, do you have any resources or things that we can point some of the listeners to so that they could, uh, you know, dig a little deeper and figure these things out?

Absolutely. So there's a website it's called 1689federalism .com.

Very, very creative, very creative. Okay. Uh, I've, I've tried to make that, um, a helpful resource for people who want to understand more, um, a collection of, uh, on the main page, it's got some introductory videos and then, uh, a few of the key books on the front page.

And then up at the top, there's a recommended reading list where it gives the order of books that recommends reading them in. And then some people miss this, but at the top, there's an additional resources link as well.

You can click on that. And that's, uh, kind of an assembly of everything I can find online in terms of journal articles, other books, podcasts, uh, sermons, videos, anything like that.

Um, so there's a lot of different resources on there that people can dig into. Oh, that's great. That's great. Now is, did you come to this position or was this something that you kind of always held and then realized,

Hey, you know, this is called 1689 federalism. How did you, how did you, did you stumble into it or were you, you know, did you read something that said,

Oh, wow, this, this started to make you think differently. So I mentioned, I, I was introduced to the doctrines of grace to reform theology in college at that church.

And so I'd never heard of reform theology before that. I hadn't even heard of dispensationalism.

I just, you know, hadn't looked into any of these things really. And so as I'm starting to read my

Bible, like I kind of just thought as I heard covenant theology compared to dispensationalism,

I just sort of thought that's what covenant theology was, was that, you know, Abraham was saved by the new covenant because right when you learn the doctrines of grace, you taught, you see these passages about, uh,

I'll remove their heart of stone and give them a heart of flesh. And these prophecies Ezekiel 36 and the parallel there is, is what it's

Jeremiah 31. So we're saying, well, yeah, Abraham had a heart of stone and, and God removed it and gave him a heart of flesh.

And so that's how you learn kind of the doctrines of grace. And it's like, well, okay, well, the Bible says that's the new covenant. So I just simplistically, maybe ignorantly, that's what

I thought. That's how I thought it all worked out. That's what I thought covenant theology was. And, you know, a few years later,

I wound up, you know, trying to teach a class through Genesis, just a Bible study. And so I realized I was going to have to get into the covenant theology and figure things out.

And so I started reading books at that point and putting things together and, and coming towards, towards the position that I have now.

And, um, as I was doing that, you know, there's just a lot of stuff from Baptist. I didn't necessarily agree with, um, they were saying something different.

One of the typical things that they, that they would say that you would disagree with would be a point of contention.

Um, well just that basic idea that anybody was saved by the new covenant, um, in the old

Testament, that, that would be, uh, uh, that was kind of the crux of it, I would say. Um, and then the other part would be how, how a lot of them handled the old covenant.

Uh, one of the things I did, I was just trying to wrap my head around it. I got some colored highlighters and I just made, made myself a little, uh, code here.

I can't remember what it was exactly, but it was, um, you know, orange was all the conditional statements.

Uh, green was all those statements that blessings or curses that, um, were limited to earthly, uh, temporal life.

Uh, yellow was something that was about eternal life. And I had another color in there.

I don't know what it was, but, uh, you know, so I just start reading through, uh, the Pentateuch and highlighting as I go and, and, you know,

Exodus and Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and most of that thing is orange and green, right?

It's conditional and it's about earthly life. And, um, and so some of, some of what

I was hearing from, from these other reformed Baptists was talking about it more as, you know, no, this is the covenant of grace. It's a gracious giving of the law.

It's, it's teaching or redeem people how to live. And it just wasn't necessarily right lining up totally with, with the view

I was developing. And eventually I was pointed in the right direction to, um, uh, there's a volume from reformed

Baptist academic press. Uh, it's a combination of John Owens commentary on Hebrews eight, as well as a reformed

Baptist from the 17th century named Nehemiah Cox. Um, sure. His treatment of the

Adamic covenant all the way up through the, um, I guess the Abrahamic covenant. So they put those two together.

And so I, I, I finally saw, ah, yes, this is what I've been okay. Trying to, to formulate here.

Um, and so that experience led me to realize that we need a better way to, to communicate this and let people know about this view and summarize the contents.

Cause I was really struggling for a while trying to, trying to find things. So, uh, that's, that's kind of what led to the website.

So, okay, good. So when you had gone through the covenants, what was it, your conclusion that all of the covenants prior to the new covenant were basically for earthly blessings and did not pertain to future heavenly promises?

Uh, yes. So they, um, well, uh, pertain might be, not be the best word.

They, um, to be real precise, the way I'd articulated is that, um, only the new covenant offers the benefits of the ordo salutis, the, the order of salvation, right?

So regeneration, faith, forgiveness of sins, sanctification. Um, the other ones are, are largely about earthly life, but often related to in some way related to the new covenant, right?

So the new covenant was, was preserving life for the new covenant to come. The Abrahamic covenant, it promised that, uh, it was partly about the land that Abraham would have numerous offspring that they would inherit the land of Canaan, but it also promised that in Abraham, all the nations of the earth would be blessed.

Right. And the new Testament interprets that third promise specifically as the promise of Christ. So in that sense, it did pertain to eternal life.

It was related to it, but the Abrahamic covenant did not promise, uh, forgiveness of sins, regeneration, faith, sanctification, the ordo salutis benefits.

It promised, um, a technical term is the historia salutis, the history of salvation.

Okay. Okay. So it promised that Abraham would be the father of the Messiah who would come to bless the nations.

How does he bless the nations? By establishing the new covenant and dispensing the benefits of his death and resurrection.

Right. Would you also say that, uh, when Christ comes, uh, in addition to establishing the new covenant, he dies for the sins of the world in the sense that he even purchases the common grace that God gives to unbelievers to get us to this historical point that Jesus can come into the world?

Um, I have to, I have to sit down and think about a little bit more carefully. Do we want to say that common grace is something that's purchased?

I'm not certain. Um, I can God be, uh, long suffering towards someone apart from the death of Christ.

I'm not certain. Maybe. Okay. Um, I, I think it's certainly in light of Christ promised to come and save his people in light of that, uh, the covenant of graces is,

I mean, the, the common grace is established to preserve people. So it's certainly not separate from that. It is, it is in light of that work of Christ.

Is it specifically, is specifically that preservation purchased by the blood of Christ? I'm not,

I'm not sure. I'm not sure if I go that far. I was thinking of, um, uh, it's, uh, first Timothy when it says

Jesus is the savior of all mankind, especially those who believe Gary North had said that, uh,

Jesus dies for the sins of the world. Uh, for some it's temporally others it's eternally.

So he, he, he would extend the grace to, to the unbeliever, uh, and even bless them with common grace, uh, but doesn't redeem them from their sin because they, they won't turn and believe it's possible.

I'd have to give it some more thought. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Just food for thought. So I know you were mentioned in Sam Renahan's book.

Did you, did you, have you read his book? I have. Yes. It's been, I read it when it first came out. I think maybe that was a year.

Oh man, that's been a while, huh? Time flies a year and a half. I'm going through it now and it's, it's fantastic.

I love it. Yes. So did you, did you contribute to it anyway? Or what were the conversations that you guys had?

No, we just, um, you know, Sam, uh, I used to be a member of Sam's church years ago. Um, and then, um, you know,

I interviewed Sam for some of the first videos on the 1689 federalism website. And I can't remember how long ago that was now.

It's been a while. Um, and so that's, that sort of started a broader conversation and got a lot of people realizing that there's this idea here.

And, and that was, that was, uh, that was when, uh, Sam Renahan was still in seminary.

Uh, and so he hadn't written any, hadn't finished his dissertation or, or his book yet. So it was, it was kind of things that kind of paved the way and gave a platform for him to articulate and express these views.

So excellent. Excellent. Well, listen, I really appreciate we're coming up on about an hour here. I, I appreciate your time.

Brandon is any final words, any, any, uh, words of encouragement for those who are maybe on the fence, how would they, you know, see 1689 federalism?

How could they embrace it? Uh, I would just say, uh, open your Bible, take out your highlighters and do the, do the best you can to saturate yourself in the whole story of scripture.

So one thing that was actually really helpful for me is, uh, find a chronological reading plan.

So I think I use the ESV puts out a chronological reading plan. And if you follow that, you start to see connections that you would otherwise miss in how this, the story and the narrative fits together.

And, and it's really that, that, that, uh, narrative what's sometimes referred to as biblical theology that 1689 federalism really, um, uh, uh, sharpens

Westminster federalism on it. It's something that we, we add to, and I think makes it, makes it better. Um, so that, that progress through history, how things change.

So, so try a chronological reading plan, get through the Bible beginning to end through that plan and, and take notes as you're going and everything you see about these different covenants, you know, take highlights notes and things like that, and try to wrap your mind around how these fit together and, and then maybe visit some of these books and see what you think.

Excellent. Well, just one last question. Did you read, uh, Pascal Donald's book? Did reform back? Absolutely.

Okay. Did that help? Oh yeah, absolutely. That came out, um, shortly after we had the website.

So it may have been within the first year or so that the website was up, that book came out, I think. And so it was fine.

The one that we could really point to and say, Hey guys, this is, this is an older view. That's, that's kind of been forgotten. Take a look. And so it was very, very helpful.

Absolutely. Excellent. Excellent. Brandon, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate it. Uh, again, friends, for those of you who want to read more of Brandon stuff or see his stuff, 1689federalism .com.

Correct. That's it. I've also got a, uh, that's kind of a collection of 69 federalism resources. I've also got my own blog.

Um, that's mostly geared towards 1689 federalism topics. Okay. Um, it's called a contrast.

It's the URL is contrastto .wordpress .com.

Okay. So if you go to that page, yeah, if you send that, if you send that to me, I'll put it in the information box on the video so that people would just click through and go right and see all your stuff.

Sounds good. If you go to that page, it's got all the posts categorized by topic. So there's posts on the

Abrahamic covenant posts on the old covenant on the new covenant, break it down like that. And so, Oh, terrific.

That's going to be a tremendous resource for people. Thank you so much. I appreciate it. You betcha. You betcha. Thanks for having me on.

I appreciate the conversation and thanks for the interest. Oh yeah, no problem. Well, friends, thanks again for joining us on the reform rookie podcast.

Uh, please check us out on the web at www .reformrookie .com where you can find all kinds of articles on reform theology.

You can find the catechism and video and audio form, uh, and this podcast, uh, be also be sure to also tune into the

YouTube channel and subscribe there. Uh, we also have a weekly podcast. Thanks again for listening and remember a life reformed is a life conformed to the

Jesus of the scriptures and to God be the glory. So simple ref Amanda always be reforming again.