James' take on Federalism

We talked a little about 1689 Federalism

For James White's political content, click here:

[Churchill]

Take time to read Sam Renihan’s book, you will enjoy it and benefit from it.

[rettcopple]

I wonder if the pressure to get James to engage 1689 Federalism is because of him joining Apologia and subsequently embracing theonomy? It seems that would be the main matter of substance here since it does appear theonomy is inconsistent with a 1689 federalist view of the mosaic covenant.

I had always believe Baptists agreed with the Presbyterians in regard to the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants and only differed on the nature of the New Covenant.

I see the validity of both the Baptist view of the New Covenant and the theonomy/autonomy dichotomy. Still working out the validity of "general equity theonomist" vs letter of the law theonomists but I do see the need for God's law to speak to define morality. It seems in the sermon on the mount Christ is emphasizing the spirit of the law (lust, hate) while not negating the letter of the law (adultery, murder) so I haven't landed in the "general equity" camp quite yet. There are issues where the letter of the law applies. We don't build railings around our roofs but we do build them around our decks.

Idk, just a blue collar untrained factory worker stumbling his way through systemic consistency over here.

[JayEhm]

1689 Federalism makes sense to me and I held it BEFORE it became a thing. Someone articulated the position online and bam, that was what I believed but I lacked the theological ability due to lack of theological training to explain it. I don't see how one can adopt the Westminster system of Covenant theology can remain a Baptist. One shouldn't ignore a position because a jerk presents it to them lol

Pick up The Divine Covenants by Pink.

[reformedpresbyterianpulpit]

"Arrogance and immaturity" - I know exactly who he's talking about and that description is perfect. My experience with the same guy was identical as White's... that fellow's elders need to deal with him - and have needed to, apparently, for many years.

[phillipgriffiths]

Is there or has there ever been any other covenant of which Christ is the mediator apart from the new covenant? Abraham saw Christ's day and rejoiced. If Abraham was in Christ he was then a participator in the blessings procured by Christ. The blessings of the NC where then retroactively applied him, and all who believed in the promise.

[simonchase]

If you compare chapter 7 of the Westminster Confession and chapter 7 of the 1689 Second London Confession you will see the key distinction in approaches. The WCF framework is a covenant of grace revealed and made with Abraham (which included his 'seed' so the boys got circumcised and subsequently the boys and girls got baptised). This covenant of grace is administered firstly in the Mosaic covenant and then in the New Covenant. These latter two covenants are in essence the same but with different outward arrangements - and a bit more besides. The 1689 presentation entails the one gospel, revealed fully in the new covenant, being present in typological forerunners of the new covenant. So in the Baptists' approach these successive covenant are the 'further steps' until the new covenant arrives in Christ. The WCF takes you along a corridor entering rooms that are basically the same - a hotel corridor. The 1689 takes you up a set of stairs - with levels to get your breath (so to speak) - until you reach the penthouse. In both approaches there is only one way of salvation, faith in Christ's finished work. But the 1689 approach sees the preceding covenants as essentially typical until the real deal is ultimately revealed with Christ's coming. The WCF's approach is 'one covenant in two administrations'. I think that can be seen fairly clearly by comparing the very different wording of the respective chapter 7s in the two confessions. A very great deal of the two confessions' wording is the same or very similar, so the places where they differ throw up the contemporary divergences. I think 20th century reformed baptists understandably followed the WCF's covenant structure but obviously differed over how that applied to baptism and the gathered church. More work has now been done to examine - and rediscover - not only the implications of the 1689's divergent wording, but the publications of those men who reframed chapter 7 when the 1689 was put together.

[harmonymira]

You are right people can overreact, but this IS used in scripture. Presbyterians often say a study into the covenants leads to the Presbyterians view of the covenants. In studying I agree with that statement as silly as it may be. However, when studying 1689 federalism there is no way to come to the same conclusion as the Westminster and it is clear that there are many flaws with their system. The widely held baptist view of the covenants is so similar and came into popularity in the 16th century, so yes there are a lot of works we have now on the topic and not as many on 1689 federalism which seems to be why people don’t understand the topic. They have read the popular view over the past several hundred years, but I strongly encourage studying this topic because 1689 federalism is biblical and we are blessed to have the works we do have on it, pascal and Coxe and others and the new works of barchellos and reinihand. Not anything to divide over. It makes more sense than any other view of covenant theology I’ve studied. Like you said, dr. White, because it hasn’t been studied doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Our understanding of covenant theology is absolutely essential to our understanding of the scripture hermeneutically so it’s of incredible importance and I hope more baptists begin to study and write more books on the topic in order for baptists to understand the incredible truth.

[michaelshelnutt]

Dr. White can download massive works by Muslims and Roman Catholics, and even works on Textual Criticism but wants a 15 page summary of the position? He could easily listen to Dr. Renihan’s Mystery of Christ on one of his bike rides…

[aaronkemp]

James White has debated atheists alongside James Renihan. Richard Barcellos has published James White's work as part of a compilation of reformed baptist essays. But he can't be bothered to address 1689 Federalism because Brandon Adams was "too arrogant." Okay...

[democratpro]

This the most confusing subject i have ever dun across. I STILL don't even know what federal vision is after watching a half dozen videos. The only problem with academics is that they all assume the normal people understand everything they do...and they don't know how to simplify things.

[tomhardy]

I do not doubt what James White says here and I actually have dealings with the "young man" whom James White made mention of. He is actually a very Godly young man, who responded in a video, about this very issue. He apologized profusely for any immaturity he may of displayed to Dr. White. As far as 1689 Federalism goes, I have no doubt in my mind that it holds the same view of the 1689 LBCF as the original authors that penned it. Nehemiah Coxe for example, who is believed to be the editor of the 1689 LBCF is widely read on the subject.

[Valkaneer]

I wish I knew what differences he is talking about. 1689 Federalism is all I know of. I don't know any other positions in the world of Reformed Baptist. I live on the east side of Michigan where you can travel about 150 square miles and maybe find 2 or 3 Reformed Baptist churches, and they are relatively new churches. In fact, I only know of 2 actual Reformed Baptist Churches within a 2 hour drive. When our church moved from IFB to Reformed we actually had Dr Renihan come out for a week and teach us because there was no one we knew of in our area, and Dr Renihan taught at Westminster Theological Seminary in California for the Reformed Baptist.

Sadly you won't find this topic discussed much anywhere. So we that don't know, still don't know. I once asked one of our pastors what the difference was between Dr White's position and what we believe. He said, "There is no difference". Yet I know we follow what Dr Renihan teaches, Pastor confers with Dr Renihan when he's stuck on a topic or finds it very hard.

[evamobbin]

That’s what happens when you claim to be subscribed to 1689 confession but don’t know what it teaches entirely or why.

[opendebate]

You need to read Pascal Denault James, I don't get the feel you understand the position well at all in all due respect. What you stated after 2 min did not seem to make sense if you truly have read their position. Have you read Nehemia Coxe?

[philiphughes]

I believe White is referring to Brandon Adams. I have listened to much of what Adams had had to say, and do not find him arrogant or immature. If people paid a little more attention to what Adams has to say, they would benefit enormously. He is spot on in his covenant theology. White, unfortunately, is wrong. He still believes the new covenant to be another, albeit, fuller, administration of the old covenant. He essentially believes in a tinkered form of Presbyterianism. The truth is all the saved have belonged to the new covenant. Let's face it, there is NO other covenant of which Jesus Christ is Mediator.

[GracUntoYou]

What does dr.james bring up at the 4:00 min vid? Juskal? Huscal?

[jburghau]

Democrat Pro, this is not Federal Vision, this is 1689 Federalism. Brandon Adams has some good YouTube videos

[justinlundmark]

I am absolutely sure now that the caller is the same person asking different questions each time. They always sound the same 😂

[abecarranza]

To Dr James White,

I am sorry I have to say this but there are some things in this video I don’t agree with. Just being totally honest here.

1.) You are complaining about others being arrogant and immature? I can remember countless times hearing you mock Arminian brothers in the Radio Free Geneva for example. I am not an Arminian so I am not trying to defend their theology by any means. Yet, you have often spoken disparagingly and even arrogantly about their views and yet you now expect proper demeanor ought to be given to you? Have you (specially being a church elder for so long) led by example other young men in this area? I am sorry, I can't help but to be reminded of the following text in our context. Matthew 7:5 . Let's have a little more humility around here Dr White.

2) I have never heard Brandon nor read anything in the 1689 website talk about the 'Abrahamic Covenants, and Noahic Covenants, Mosaic covenants (plural)". To my knowledge there is only one of each. Why did you talk in plural? Are you deliberately trying to setup a straw man here? Was this just a rhetorical point of yours? Or you simply mis-spoke Dr White? Let's try to be fair in our representation of those with whom we disagree.

3) You consider the theological task of trying to understand how the covenants relate to one another, how they are fulfilled, the nature of circumcision, how the promises are mapped etc. an 'incredibly complicated' task and also 'minutiae'? Isn't this understanding what makes up the entire fabric of the history of redemption? Isn't this understanding what informs your credo-baptist convictions? I don't think parsing out these biblical themes is like taking a walk in the park, it's hard work don't give me wrong, but it's certainly NOT 'minutiae'. I believe you are seriously mistaken here Dr White.

4) The fact that you dismissed a theological position on the basis of the other person not displaying enough charity as that truth was being conveyed is a terrible excuse for not considering the matter. I have followed your ministry for many years and have been greatly blessed by it but I am afraid you continue to have a mere knee-jerk reaction to this subject. And it's not helping your case to be perfectly honest. Please let not pride fill your heart Dr. White. Reconsidering (and even at times) modifying, our lifelong-held beliefs is not something that is easily done but sometimes is necessary. I think it's true to say we are all learning here.

5) The nuances being put forth by what is being called 1689 Federalism are not too small to be ignored. Thanks to the work of the 1689 Federalism guys I have been able to understand inherent flaws with Westminster Covenant theology among many other things which the 20th Century baptist position would have never spotted for me. I didn't have neither the theological training nor the theological-historical background to know this. One example would be the problem of Republication as it relates to the one-covenant-of-grace under multiple administration Westminster construct, something which Brandon's writings have immensely helped me to sort out . And by the way I don't agree entirely with the 1689 Federalism position to be perfectly honest, but I think many good thing can be learned from it.

I see that Brandon has now offered an apology to you for his past behavior so hopefully you can accept it, thus becoming the basis of a better interaction among fellow brothers.

If others here believe I am wrong or I am being unfair please call me out on it, let's have a discussion.

Regards,

[brockingtonexotics]

Is legalism not a work? If so, how has it made it's way into reformed churches?