Search

You searched for '1689 FEDERALISM'

I've found 12 results!

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 7: Of God's Covenant - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 37,007 views | 65,864 words | 5:42:00 hours | 04 March 2015 21:27

...!DOCTYPE html

Chapter 7: Of God’s Covenant

What is Covenant Theology? How many covenants does the Bible have and which are these? What is the Reformed Baptist and Paedobaptist understanding of the covenants? What is 1689 FEDERALISM? What are the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace? Is the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace? Was the Covenant of Grace established before the New Covenant? Were the Old Testament covenants administrations of the Covenant of Grace?

Here we come to a chapter that is different than the one in the Westminster and Savoy confessions (see the confessions side by side here). Were the Baptists trying to be original or were they trying to communicate something else? I and many others believe that the framers of the Confession were trying to communicate a different Covenant Theology than that of their Westminster and Savoy brethren. Let not the reader suppose that I will exhaustively deal with every point or seek to rebut oppositions and answer objections. My objective here is to lay an understanding of Covenant Theology as I see it in the Scripture, as I was helped by the books and men mentioned below and as the Confession conforms to the teaching of Holy Writ.

§1 The Covenant Of Works

The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God’s part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.1
1. Job 35:7-8; Ps. 113:5-6; Isa. 40:13-16; Luke 17:5-10; Acts 17:24-25^[1]

This distance between God and the creature is not spatial distance, but the Creator-creature distinction. God is different in His being than man. Even before the Fall, this distance was so great. Paragraph 1 does not only speak of covenants in general but specifically of the first covenant—the Covenant of Works with Adam. All reasonable creatures owe obedience to Him because He is their creator (Luke 10:17; Rom. 1:23-25). They must honor and worship Him because He created them and caused them to be (see chapter 2:2). They owe Him obedience and worship, but even in their innocence, they could never have attained the reward of life. This is in reference to the Adamic Covenant of Works which promised life upon perfect obedience. Even in the original Covenant of Works, God promised this reward of life by some voluntary condescension. This voluntary condescension to communicate with man and promise Him rewards God has expressed by way of covenant. In other words, a covenant made by God is His way of communicating with us, giving us rewards for obedience and punishments for disobedience. We, by nature, owe Him obedience, therefore, there is no reason for Him to reward our obedience. If He rewards our obedience then it must be upon another ground. This other ground is by way of covenant.

Introduction to Covenant Theology

Covenant theology (also known as Covenantalism, Federal theology, or Federalism) is a Calvinist conceptual overview and interpretive framework for understanding the overall flow of the Bible. It uses the theological concept of covenant as an organizing principle for Christian theology. The standard description of covenant theology views the history of God’s dealings with mankind, from Creation to Fall to Redemption to Consummation, under the framework of the three overarching theological covenants of redemption, works, a...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 29: Of Baptism - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 24,548 views | 45,510 words | 3:58:30 hours | 06 March 2015 23:14

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 29 Baptism Believer's Baptism Immersion Dipping Infant Baptism Covenant Theology 1689 Federalism Westminster Federalism

...eralists, deny this. We believe rather that the New Covenant/Covenant of Grace was revealed in these covenants and the blessings thereof given to the elect, but not because of the covenant they found themselves in, but because they believed the promise. We believe that the Covenant of Grace, prior to the cross, existed in promise form, and not an established covenant. As John Owen said, “Believers were saved under it [the Mosaic Covenant], but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.”^[24] See more on 1689 FEDERALISM and the case for it in chapter 7.

Signs

What do we actually mean by a sign and a seal? A sign is something visible which points to inward and spiritual realities. The rainbow was the visible sign of the Noahic Covenant, it functioned as a token (“Something serving as an indication, proof, or expression of something else”^[25]) that God will not destroy the earth by water again (Gen. 9:13-17). Circumcision functioned as a visible sign of the Abrahamic Covenant, which symbolized the need to be cleansed from sin through blood-spilling. For Abraham, it was a sign and a seal of the faith which he had prior to circumcision (Rom. 4:11). The Sabbath functioned as a visible sign of the Mosaic Covenant. It functioned as a sign that God had set His people apart (Ex. 31:12-17; Ezek. 20:12, 20). There is no sign mentioned in connection with the Davidic or the New Covenant explicitly. But the throne would probably fit as a visible sign for David that he will always have someone from his posterity to sit on it and rule over Israel. As for the New Covenant, we only have two “positive and sovereign institution[s]” (28:1). I admit from the start that we have no text in the New Testament identifying baptism or the Lord’s Supper either as signs individually, or signs together of the New Covenant. But does this then imply that we have no reason to see them as signs at all? Obviously not. We see them as signs of the New Covenant when we understand what a sign or a token is.

We noted above on Colossians 2:11-12 that we do not see baptism replacing/fulfilling circumcision as the sign of the New Covenant, as it is often alleged by our paedobaptist brethren, but rather, circumcision of the foreskin has its counterpart in the circumcision of the heart. Circumcision of the foreskin was not fulfilled in water baptism, but rather in the circumcision of the heart. There is nothing said there about water baptism being fulfilled and has become the sign of the covenant, as it functioned for the Abrahamic Covenant. That was not the purpose or intention of the apostle. But we may indeed see baptism as a sign of the covenant because baptism signifies something. Our Confession says that baptism is “a sign of fellowship” and union with Christ, as we tried to show above. Baptism shows us the blessings of the covenant. In water baptism, we picture the spiritual union which we have in Christ and thus we have it as a sign of the blessings of the New Covenant. In baptism, we picture the death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord Christ and our union with Him. Therefore, baptism is a sign of the New Covenant.

The Lord’s Supper likewise functions as a sign of the New Covenant. A sign to be celebrated and not neglected, because, with the celebration of the Lord’s Supper, we remember the Lord’s death until He comes (1 Cor. 11:26). When we remember the Lord’s death in the Lord’s Supper, we have the g...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 8: Of Christ the Mediator - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 37,056 views | 75,562 words | 6:40:27 hours | 04 March 2015 21:39

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Exposition Reformed Baptist Chapter 8 Christ The Mediator Prophet Priest King Definite Redemption Limited Atonement Arminianism Universal Atonement Hypostatic Union Humanity Of Christ God-Man

...were the promises of the coming New Covenant a reality for the Old Testament saints? By virtue of the Covenant of Grace. In 1689 Federalist understanding, the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant in promise form, i.e., it was the New Covenant before it was established. We reject the Westminster understanding of the covenants in the Old Testament being administrations of the one Covenant of Grace. Rather we believe that the covenants of the Old Testament were of works or dichotomous and only the New Covenant is purely and truly the Covenant of Grace. For more on this see my case in chapter 7 for 1689 FEDERALISM. It is by virtue of the Covenant of Grace in promise form that all the elect prior to the death of Christ and the establishment of the Covenant of Grace in time, i.e., the establishment of the New Covenant were saved. The Lord God did not count the sin of the elect under the Old Testament against them but cleansed and regenerated them based on the certain finished work of Christ on their behalf in the future. This is seen, for example, from Romans 3—

Rom. 3:23-26 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, 25 whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. 26 It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.

Let us notice a few things about this glorious passage of Sola Fide. I think it is absolutely clear that Paul argues here that justification has always been by faith. But not only that, but this justification is likewise by grace and it is a gift. This is based on the redemption that is in Christ, i.e., His atoning death. God, who put Christ as a propitiation, i.e., a sacrifice that satisfies divine wrath and brings divine favor, purposed for Him to be received by faith. This was by believing according to the knowledge they had in the types and shadows. They obviously did not possess as much knowledge as we have been privileged with, yet still, salvation was by grace and thanks to Christ. Justification by faith under the OT was based upon Christ’s future propitiatory death. Justification by faith in New Testament times is based upon Christ’s past propitiatory death.

God, in His patience, passed over those sins committed by the elect prior to Christ, not punishing them immediately because He had in eternity purposed to save those people, but waited until Christ the Lord was sacrificed on their behalf. Paul says the fact that God passed over former sins is to show His righteousness. It would not have been righteous if God passed over their sins without the proper punishment for those sins. But Paul had already declared that Christ was the propitiation—Christ was the sacrifice for sin and He was to be received by faith. It is based on Christ’s sacrifice that God can forgive and yet remain most just. From this, we learn that every sin will be punished either in the Substitute or in the sinner in Hell.

Another way to understand this passage, which some commentators defend (Schaff, The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges, Henry Alford) is that there is a distinct difference between this passing over and forgiveness. Passing over sins and offenses is connected with God’s patience, but forgiveness i...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 26: Of the Church - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 28,086 views | 38,282 words | 3:19:22 hours | 06 March 2015 23:00

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 26 Church Church Government Elders Deacons Members Universal Church Local Church Congregationalism Polity

...he church? What power does the church have? What is church discipline? What offices are there in the church? What about church membership? What does an elder do and who can become an elder? What does a deacon do and who can become a deacon? What is the work of the pastor? How is a church to govern itself?

This is the longest chapter in the Confession. Without question, this chapter is different than the sister confessions. The doctrine of the church was and is one of the most important distinctions between paedobaptists and Baptists. Covenant Theology, as noted in chapter 7, is an important difference between our Reformed paedobaptist brethren and us, Reformed Baptists. Practically, 1689 FEDERALISM manifests itself in the doctrine of the church. One of the primary distinctive of Baptist ecclesiology is regenerate membership. Furthermore, the distinction that only those baptized upon a profession of faith may be members of a local church. This distinction and difference must be placed in the light of the huge agreement concerning almost all other areas of the Confession. Our forefathers basically copy-pasted from the Congregationalists and Presbyterians. Alan Dunn observes the following on the historical setting of this chapter:

On the one hand, our Confession was written in an attempt to distinguish us from the false Roman Catholic Church. We will encounter statements in which Roman Catholic teaching is refuted. On the other hand, our Confession aligns us with churches that proclaim the gospel and worship Christ in obedient submission to Scripture.

Among such Biblically orthodox churches however, there are yet differences held with honest Biblical conviction. Therefore, our Confession also expresses our Baptistic and Reformed distinctives in contrast to our Presbyterian and non-Reformed brethren.^[1]

§1 The Universal Church Consists Of The Whole Number Of The Elect

The catholic or universal church, 1 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. 2
1. Matt. 16:18; 1 Cor. 12:28; Eph. 1:22; 4:11-15; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Col. 1:18, 24; Heb. 12:23^[2]
2. Eph. 1:22; 4:11-15; 5:23-25, 27, 29, 32; Col 1:18, 24; Rev. 21:9-14

The catholic (meaning universal) church, which is called invisible, consists of the whole number of the elect (e.g., 1 Cor. 1:2; Heb. 12:23). The universal church does not consist only of New Covenant Christians, but of the whole number of the elect who have been, are, or shall be gathered into one, under Christ. Notice that the church consists of the elect who are gathered, i.e., converted. In their unregenerate state, the elect are not part of the universal church until they are gathered into Christ. Christ is the head (Col 1:18) and the church is the spouse (Eph. 5:25), the body (Col 1:18) and the fullness (Eph. 1:23) of Christ.

The word “catholic” means universal and hereby, our forefathers are agreeing with the last part of the Apostles’ Creed:

I believe in the Holy Spirit, 9. the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, 10. the forgiveness of sins, 11. the resurrection of the body, 12. and the life everlasting. Amen.

Neither the Nicene Creed nor the Confession refers to the Roman Catholic Church in the word “catholic”, but to the un...

Quotes from A. W. Pink's The Divine Covenants

Simon Wartanian | 4,414 views | 780 words | 0:04:06 hours | 16 June 2017 22:13

AW Pink Covenant Theology Divine Covenants Covenant Of Grace New Covenant Westminster Federalism 1689 Federalism

...">^ Ibid. p. 9. ...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 17: Of The Perseverance of the Saints - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 24,943 views | 43,749 words | 3:48:12 hours | 05 March 2015 19:18

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Perseverance Of The Saints Preservation Of The Saints Assurance Of Salvation Eternal Security Apostasy Falling Away. Hebrews 6

...e all regenerate, therefore, a few observations are in order.

1. In contrast to the priestly ministry under the Mosaic Covenant, Christ’s ministry is more excellent, why? (i) The covenant under which He ministers is better and (ii) the covenant is established on better promises. (i) The New Covenant is better than the Old mainly because it has Christ as its Mediator and High Priest (Heb. 7:21-22). Not only that, but also because the Old Covenant was not a pure covenant of grace and the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace established in time (see chapter 7 for more on 1689 FEDERALISM). (ii) The promises of the New Covenant do not merely pertain to the earthly things, but have their focus on the heavenly and eternal things. We do not have shadows and earthly temporary things like the Temple and the sacrifices, but we now have the reality in Christ. This is what makes the priestly ministry of Christ more excellent and places it above the old Mosaic priesthood.

2. The Mosaic Covenant was not without fault for it demanded perfect righteousness from those who were sinful from birth. This did not work together and therefore, the Lord from the days of Moses (and before) declared the coming of the Christ and thereby the New Covenant which will deal with the problem of our sin and will not be a covenant with which the Lord will find fault. This Old Covenant is described as a covenant in which “they did not continue in my covenant”; a covenant that was broken. The people were faithless from the beginning. The covenant contained unbelievers and believers alike. That the covenant was broken from the beginning may be seen from the fact that when Moses came down from the Mountain of God and broke the Ten Commandments, in that way he pictured the fact that Israel had broken the covenant they just ratified with God. They wandered away so quickly from Him Whose voice shook the earth. The Mosaic Covenant is a covenant which demands perfect obedience in all points (Gal. 3:10), and therefore, sinful man is not able to keep the terms of this covenant. The fault of the covenant mainly lies in the fact that it was given to a sinful people and it had not the ability to deal with their sins as did the New Covenant. It was a subservient covenant pointing to the sin of man and the need for redemption (e.g., Rom. 3:20; Gal. 3:23-26).

3. In contrast to the Old Covenant, the New is not like the Old. Meaning, it will not be broken and its people will, in fact, continue in the covenant. This is the exact point which is here ascribed to the Mosaic and it is said that the New Covenant is unlike the Old. Therefore, the New Covenant is at least unlike the Mosaic Covenant respecting this point. Genuine apostasy from the covenant will be impossible, but that was not impossible under the Old Covenant. This does not mean that all the covenantees will obey God perfectly, but it means that no one will be cast out of the covenant. For the covenant is first of all made with Christ Who has fulfilled all conditions of the covenant and then in Christ with every believer. It is a covenant which certainly has conditions, but those conditions are fulfilled by and in the Mediator of the covenant. There are no covenants absolutely without conditions, but the question is merely what these conditions are and who is to fulfill them.

4. That true believers falling away from grace is impossible in this covenant is seen in the fact that they have the Law of God written on their hear...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 22: Of Religious Worship and the Sabbath Day - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 33,200 views | 73,377 words | 6:24:05 hours | 06 March 2015 19:29

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 22 Christian Sabbath Sabbath The Lord's Day Fourth Commandment Day Of Worship Day Of Rest Sunday Religious Worship Church

...http://www.prayermeetings.org/files/John_Owen/Hebrews_3.7-5.14.pdf"commentary on the relevant sections about the Sabbath question in Hebrews 3-4. But I have read the abridged version of Exercitations in what is called “A Treatise On The Sabbath”. John Owen is not an easy author to read. I find him to be very lengthy and verbose and thus it is hard to have the patience to read, for example, 42-page commentary on two passages (e.g. Heb. 2:1-2). I do not doubt the benefit I would receive from his insight. I have, in fact, read his commentary on Hebrews 8:6-13, which has greatly helped me understand Covenant Theology as expounded by Reformed Baptists who affirm what is known as 1689 FEDERALISM, for which I have argued in chapter 7. What I have read are the works of those who employ Owen’s contribution concerning the Sabbath question in their works and in their words.

I would like to discuss this passage under the following headings:

Who is the one who has entered God’s rest?
How is this an argument for present Sabbath-keeping?
How the change of the day takes place.

The last two points will be treated under one heading.

Who is the one who has entered God’s rest?

The majority of commentators answer that this refers to the believer’s entrance into God’s rest (Adam Clarke, Albert Barnes, Jamieson-Fausset-Brown, Matthew Henry, Matthew Poole). Yet Owen stands both against the majority in his day and our day in his opinion that, literally, the “he” should be the “He” of the Lord Jesus Christ. Some have likewise followed him in this understanding (John Gill, Henry Alford, Joseph Pipa, Robert Paul Martin, Richard Barcellos). This was not the first unique observation and contribution of Owen. In chapter 17, when dealing with Hebrews 10:29 (see here), we likewise noted Owen’s contribution.

Before beginning this important inquiry, let us get the literal translation of this passage. The ESV is unfortunately not wholly accurate in this verse.

Heb. 4:10 YLT for he who did enter into his rest, he also rested from his works, as God from His own.

Heb. 4:10 KJV For he that is entered into his rest, he also hath ceased from his own works, as God [did] from his.

What are the arguments for the assertion that v. 10 speaks of the Lord’s Jesus Christ here?

The Singular Person

It is to be noted that this is the first time in which the Author speaks of the one who has entered God’s rest in the singular person. The Author speaks of:

“they” in Hebrews 3:11, 18, 19; 4:3, 5;
the plural “you” in Hebrews 4:1, 7;
“us” in Hebrews 4:2, 11;
“we” in Hebrews 4:3;
“some” in Hebrews 4:6;
“he” in Hebrews 4:10.

Isn’t it interesting to see that throughout Hebrews 3:11-4:13 the singular person is only once employed for entering God’s rest? Whenever the Author speaks of the believer’s entering God’s rest, he always speaks of us collectively and in the plural number. Even after v. 10, in v. 11, the Author calls upon “us” that we should “strive to enter God’s rest”. If the Author is speaking of believers in v. 10, why doesn’t he continue with his use of the plural and say “for we have entered God’s rest and have also rested from our works…” It is certainly strange because that is how the Author speaks throughout his discourse. Moreover, notice that this rest which is entered into is Christ’s own rest or alternatively, the believer’s. But all throughout the Author’s discourse, the believers do not enter their rest, but God’s.

The Tense Of The Verbs

...

Welcome To The Staunch Calvinist

Simon Wartanian | 13,823 views | 547 words | 0:02:57 hours | 08 March 2014 16:57

Calvinism Absolute Sovereignty Of God Reformed Theology Reformed Baptist 1689 Baptist Confession Calvinist Baptist

...

Of Creation

Of Divine Providence

Of the Fall of Man, Of Sin, And of the Punishment Thereof (Total Depravity)

Of God’s Covenant (1689 FEDERALISM)

Of Christ the Mediator (including a case for the Substitutionary Atonement, Active and Passive Obedience of Christ, Definite Atonement and answers to passages used against the doctrine)

Of Free Will (with the help of Jonathan Edwards, the consistency of moral agency being found in carrying one’s desires, the inconsistencies of libertarian free will, explanation of necessity and inability)

Of Effectual Calling (with a case for infant salvation)

Of Justification (faith is a gift and regeneration precedes faith)

Of Adoption

Of Sanctification

Of Saving Faith

Of Repentance Unto Life and Salvation

Of Good Works

Of The Perseverance Of The Saints (A positive case for the Reformed doctrine and responses to passages such as Hebrews 6 and the like)

Of The Assurance Of Grace And Salvation

Of The Law Of God (Threefold Division of the Law, the Decalogue before Moses, a brief exposition of the Decalogue, ceremonial and civil laws, the abiding moral law under the New Covenant in the OT prophecy and the NT, Threefold Uses of the Law, The Law and the Gospel)

Of The Gospel, And Of The Extent Of The Grace Thereof

Of Christian Liberty And Liberty of Conscience

Of Religious Worship And the Sabbath Day (A case for the Regulative Principle of Worship and the Christian Sabbath)

Of Lawful Oaths And Vows

Of The Civil Magistrate

Of Marriage

Of The Church

Of the Communion of Saints

Of Baptism And The Lord’s Supper

Of Baptism

Of The Lord’s Supper

Of The State Of Man After Death And Of The Resurrection Of The Dead (Intermediate State Hades, Sheol, Heaven; A Case for Amillennial Eschatology; critique of Premillennialism)

Of The Last Judgment (Endless punishment in Hell contra Annihilationism)

...

A Review of Jeffrey D. Johnson's The Fatal Flaw

Simon Wartanian | 9,262 views | 4,031 words | 0:20:42 hours | 27 November 2015 22:25

Reformed Baptist Covenant Theology 1689 Federalism Westminster Baptism Infant Baptism Book Review Jeffrey Johnson The Fatal Flaw

...t the case.

The old church practiced infant baptism for other reasons, than the Reformed Paedobaptist churches since the Reformation.

Although I do not believe that infant baptism is a biblical practice, but I must agree with Jeffery Johnson that the Westminster position of Covenant Theology and infant baptism is the closest to the Scripture from the above options. For some people to be truly “Reformed” you have to hold to Covenant Theology which supports the practice of infant baptism, forgetting that there is a difference between Baptist and Presbyterian Covenant Theology. If you would like to learn more about 1689 Baptist Covenant Theology, which is called 1689 FEDERALISM see my attempt to make a case for it when expositing the 7^th chapter of the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith here.

The Westminster Position

The author spends some time first to explain the Presbyterian/Westminster. The basis of the Westminster position is continuity between the covenants of the Bible.

They understand that the Lord established a covenant of works in the Garden with Adam as the representative of the human race which he broke. Then the Lord established the Covenant of Grace in Genesis 3:15 and onward. This was Covenant of Grace was differently administered under Noah, Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. But the essence of these covenants was the same.

The logic is understandable. If infants were admitted into the covenant under Moses and Abraham and the New Covenant is basically and essentially the same, then infants should also be admitted into the New Covenant. The question is, whether if these covenants truly were administrations of the one Covenant of Grace.

The Westminster says the following of the Covenant of Grace in chapter 7 –

Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe. (paragraph 3)

As Calvinists, our Presbyterian brethren along with us believe in salvation by grace and in Christ throughout the ages. This is what is here conveyed in the Confession. The essence of the Covenant of Grace is faith and salvation in Christ, although that had different outer form under the various covenants. Abraham did not have as much clarity about the Messiah as we now by the grace of God have. This is expressed in the fifth paragraph –

This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.

Under the law, by that meaning the whole period of the Old Testament, the Covenant of Grace was seen in the shadows and prophecies (See certain shadows in the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic and Davidic covenants). But under the New Testament dispensation we have a fuller...

1689 Baptist Confession Chapter 20: Of the Gospel, and of the Extent of the Grace Thereof - Commentary

Simon Wartanian | 11,889 views | 3,261 words | 0:17:00 hours | 05 March 2015 19:57

The 1689 Second Baptist Confession Of Faith Confession Commentary Reformed Baptist Chapter 20 General Revelation Special Revelation The Necessity Of The Gospel The Work Of The Holy Spirit

...aled that He will be a son of David (2Sam. 7) and so forth. It is not that the original Covenant of Works made with Adam has been completely done away with, but that it can no longer give life. The only thing it administers is its curse—death—under which all outside of Christ lie. Death is the wage of sin (Rom. 3:23), that was what Adam was threatened with by God (Gen. 2:17) and because of Adam all are made sinners (Rom. 5:12).

The substance of the Covenant of Grace was revealed to all the saints before Christ. The Covenant of Grace, prior to the inauguration of the New Covenant by the blood of Christ, existed not as an established covenant, but as a promise. This is how 1689 FEDERALISM understands Covenant Theology. For more see chapter 7. Believing in the coming promise of the Redeemer and believing God, was enough for salvation. The saints prior to Christ looked forward to Christ, but now that He has come, we look back to Christ. This is how Abraham was saved, the father of the faithful: “And he believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness” (Gen. 15:6). Justification has always been by grace, never was it by works! See here for our relevant discussions concerning the salvation of the elect under the Old Testament in chapter 11 of the Confession on justification.

§2 This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God

This promise of Christ, and salvation by him, is revealed only by the Word of God; 1 neither do the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ, or of grace by him, so much as in a general or obscure way; 2 much less that men destitute of the revelation of Him by the promise or gospel, should be enabled thereby to attain saving faith or repentance. 3
1. Acts 4:12; Rom. 10:13-15
2. Ps. 19; Rom. 1:18-23
3. Rom. 2:12a; Matt. 28:18-20; Luke 24:46-47 with Acts 17:29-30; Rom. 3:9-20; Prov. 29:18; Isa. 25:7; 60:2, 3

Salvation by Christ is revealed only by the Word of God (Rom. 10:13-15). It is only from the Scriptures that we know that by faith in Christ and repentance toward God, we attain to the forgiveness of sins. The message of the gospel comes from the special revelation of God and is not part of general revelation. Neither the works of creation or providence, with the light of nature, make discovery of Christ. General revelation reveals that there is a God, but to know Who this God is and what He requires, we need special revelation. Furthermore, those who are destitute of the revelation by Him by the promise or gospel cannot be saved (Rom. 10:13-15). It is by the embrace of the gospel and the revelation of God alone that we are saved.

The gospel, unlike the existence of God, is a special revelation, meaning it is only revealed in the Bible. You cannot look at creation and conclude that God gave His only Son to die in our place! Scripture, in no place, gives any hint that people can be saved outside of Christ or without believing the work of Christ. Therefore, for those who are neither infants nor people with mental problems (see chapter 10:3), their end is doom. Not because they rejected the gospel, but because they lived in sin. Romans 1 clearly teaches that all people know God and they suppress the truth about that one God and seek others ways. Paul writes:

Rom. 1:18-20 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth...