What is 1689 Federalism?

[prism]

Today I came across this term, and after a quick 'fly-over', I can't seem to make heads or tails of the thing.

Is 1689 Federalism a Reformed Baptist thing?
How does it (if any) differ from the WCF?
What is it's unique features?

 

[Josheb]

Try HERE.

Today I came across this term, and after a quick 'fly-over', I can't seem to make heads or tails of the thing.

Is 1689 Federalism a Reformed Baptist thing?

Yes, it appears o based on the vids I watched at that site.

How does it (if any) differ from the WCF?

That site has a video specifically comparing the two. There is also a chart there showing the two chief differences being creedal baptism (1869) versus pedobaptism (Westminster) and thereby the qualification of the Elect.

What is it's unique features?

I watched a few of the vides (they're about 30 minutes in length). Based on that limited viewing, they seek to "attempt to understand the Bible according to the framework the Bible itself gives us." They hold to a covenant of grace and a covenant of works. They believe the covenant of grace found in Christ was foreshadowed from Genesis. They appear to see the covenants as progressive and hold to a multiple-covenants view. The vids also speak repeatedly of the covenants as promissory, as opposed to contractual. I did not hear a consistency for which I was listening when it came to the conditional aspects of the covenant(s).

For what it is worth, I found a number of places where I agreed and a number where I disagreed. I wholeheartedly support the use of the framework the Bible itself gives us. I therefore view the covenant as singular, progressive, and conditional. I find points of disagreement in all three arenas either by statement or omission (I did not hear anything about the suzerain ritual, for example) at that site.

 

[prism]

I watched a few of the vides (they're about 30 minutes in length).

Where'd you find those? Never mind, I only already saw one of the videos where you said.."Try here". Was there more than one video?
Do they have any connection with the 1546 LBCF (as compared to the 1689)?

 

[prism]

Do they have any connection with the 1546 LBCF (as compared to the 1689)?

Make that the '1646' (timer ran out when I saw my typo).

 

[Josheb]

Where'd you find those? Never mind, I only already saw one of the videos where you said. "Try here". Was there more than one video?

Yes, there's more than one video. The video at the top has four links to videos and four links to charts below it. The videos are titled, "1689 Federalism" (which is the same as the introductory video), "1689 Federalism v Westminster Federalism," "1689 Federalism v Dispensationalism," and "1689 Federalism v The New Covenant Theology and Progressive Covenantalism."

Do they have any connection with the [1646] LBCF (as compared to the 1689)?

Do you mean 1646 WCF? Presumably there is some "connection." Most of the differences were simple points of clarification, not doctrinal. For example, "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable...," was changed to "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable..." (not a big change). Here's an article I found on the comparisons between the two Baptist CFs HERE.

 

[prism]

Yes, there's more than one video. The video at the top has four links to videos and four links to charts below it. The videos are titled, "1689 Federalism" (which is the same as the introductory video), "1689 Federalism v Westminster Federalism," "1689 Federalism v Dispensationalism," and "1689 Federalism v The New Covenant Theology and Progressive Covenantalism."

Do you mean 1646 WCF? Presumably there is some "connection." Most of the differences were simple points of clarification, not doctrinal. For example, "Although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence, do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable...," was changed to "The Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience, although the light of nature, and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest the goodness, wisdom, and power of God, as to leave men inexcusable..." (not a big change). Here's an article I found on the comparisons between the two Baptist CFs HERE.

No the 1646 London Baptist Confession of Faith.
Some prefer the 1646 LBCF, saying the 1689 is pretty much a plagiarist copy of the WCF.