Home > 1689 federalism, Podcasts > Overview of 1689 Federalism on the Reformed Northwest Podcast

Overview of 1689 Federalism on the Reformed Northwest Podcast

I recently joined the Reformed Northwest Podcast for a 5-part overview of 1689 Federalism. I’d love to hear any comments/thoughts/feedback/criticism/disagreement you may have.

Advertisements
Categories: 1689 federalism, Podcasts Tags:
  1. January 2, 2018 at 8:15 am

    Excellent podcast; I especially enjoyed the comments about Abraham scaring away the birds of prey. Very interesting.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. January 12, 2018 at 7:01 am

    Hello, Brandon.

    I’ve been following closely your thoughts for some years now, and something in episode 3, concerning the Abrahamic Covenant, has puzzled me. I thought I read you saying somewhere, sometime ago, that Jeffery Johnson’s The Fatal Flaw was the most influential book upon your thought so far, though I can’t find that statement now. Anyway, in your recommendation of Recovering a Covenantal Heritage you present a good picture of Johnson’s chapter on the dichotomous nature of the Abrahamic Covenant. I’ve read both The Fatal Flaw and The Kingdom of God a while ago and Johnson takes a pretty firm stance on this point.

    Now, on the podcast you have argued for an interpretation of the Abrahamic Covenant as being exclusively conditional, is that right? Is this a departure from Johnson’s thought? Or am I misunderstanding something? If it is a departure, I have two further questions.

    1. Did Particular Baptists hold to your position in the 17th century? You quoted Coxe on the conditionality of the Abrahamic Covenant, but I believe you have some differences with his interpretation. Are there any other examples of a ‘one-fold conditional abrahamic covenant’ position?

    2. Could you point to some other author/work that has presently being a great influence upon your thought?

    Thank you very much,

    Pedro.

    Like

    • January 12, 2018 at 10:07 am

      Hi Pedro,

      Thanks for the question/comment. I think you may be misunderstanding something.

      I don’t recall saying that Johnson’s book was the most influential book on my thought. It’s not/hasn’t been.

      I have never entirely agreed with Johnson’s view of the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants. See http://www.1689federalism.com/2015-founders-conference-w-commentary/

      With regards to the conditionality of the Abrahamic Covenant, note the Renihan’s statement in RaCH:

      The Old Covenant is coextensive with and collectively representative of theocratic Israel, defined by the Abrahamic, conditioned by the Mosaic, and focused by the Davidic Covenants. The Old Covenant, and thus each of these three covenants, differs from the New Covenant not merely in administration, but also in substance.

      There are a variety of ways that 17th century antipaedobaptists expressed the Abrahamic Covenant. See my above link for quotes. For example, Tombes argued that it was a “mixed covenant”. Coxe argued that the Abrahamic Covenant = Covenant of Circumcision = Carnal, Conditional Covenant. I would recommend carefully working through this outline of Coxe http://www.1689federalism.com/interactive-outline-of-coxe-on-the-covenants/

      Where I disagree with Coxe is that he argued the “second Abrahamic promise” (as I called it) that “in you all nations of the earth will be blessed” was actually part of the New Covenant/Covenant of Grace and not actually part of the Abrahamic Covenant. See https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/25/some-disagreement-with-coxe-on-galatians-317/

      To be clear, I am not denying a dichotomous nature to the Abrahamic Covenant. I just have a slightly different understanding of that dichotomy than Johnson. If you haven’t finished the podcast series it might make more sense by the time you get to the end. I like the way that James Haldane expresses/explains the Abrahamic Covenant https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/06/06/klines-two-level-fulfillment-184-years-before-kingdom-prologue/

      Like

  3. January 12, 2018 at 1:29 pm

    Ok Brandon, thank you for the clarification. I will go through (or go back) to those texts and reach back to you if necessary.

    Like

  1. No trackbacks yet.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: