1689 Federalism: An Introduction 

That's wonderful to hear Andrew. Glad the videos have been edifying! Make sure to check out the website for more resources

I just finished it too! Fantastic, it is!

I can't wait to read it, I had some really great Presbyterian brothers recommend it to me when I was still undecided/learning about Westminster Cov v. 1689

Hi Charles. Very glad it was helpful! Praise God

Cool finding you here😎

Farley Barnhardt agrees.

You're welcome! Hearing comments like yours make the production of the videos all worth it. Glad to hear it has helped bring clarity. Praise God.

Jerry, glad to hear the video was helpful!

Hi Aaron. Here are some other videos to consider: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-_Uq_S3-HjRo.html ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-UmviRWrqmJM.html See also the section titled "NCT/Progressive Covenantalism" here: contrast2.wordpress.com/

I intend to create several introductory level animated videos that are easier to understand. Just need to find the time to get them done. There are also several difference lecture/sermon series available here www.1689federalism.com/category/resources/audio/

Shorter, concise videos would be very helpful.

Jay, here you go! freegracepress.com/products/the-fatal-flaw?_pos=3&_sid=eaed9ae62&_ss=r

It depends on your perspective. In the UK, for example, Peter Masters says it was never lost, but Americans always looked at him weird whenever he talked to them about it. In America, A.W. Pink held to 1689 Fed in the early 20th century and his writings were the seed that launched the modern reformed baptist movement in the '50s. As the video mentions, however, those men came to be influenced by Westminster Seminary and John Murray, largely dismissing Pink and thus missing this baptist view. In America 1689 Fed was slowly rediscovered over the last 15 years or so.

Ask and ye shall receive! www.1689federalism.com/tag/spanish/ confessingbaptist.com/federalismo-1689-comparado-con-federalismo-westminster-video/ Note, all the 1689 Federalism videos currently have Portuguese subtitles (click the "CC" button in RU-vid to enable them). I can add Spanish subtitles if someone can provide the translation for me.

There is also a Spanish 1689 Federalism page on Facebook I believe

Thanks for the recommended resources, very good. I hope soon these may also be in Spanish. The grace of the Lord be with you.

The closest thing would be John Gill's whole bible commentary. www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/

@@brandonadams07 thanks

They do. Dr. James Renihan wscal.edu/academics/faculty/james-m-renihan and irbsseminary.org/ Dr. Richard Barcellos grbcav.org/leadership/ and www.rbap.net/ Drs. Samuel Renihan reformedbaptist.net/elders.htm and www.sermonaudio.com/search.asp?SpeakerOnly=true&currSection=sermonsspeaker&Keyword=Samuel^Renihan

Where? At the end? I'm talking about while they are talking, sort of like a documentary does on TV. It's not that hard and you've got a great sound and video production here. At the end, I only see a credit for the music.

0:24, 1:04, 1:34. Sorry it wasn't clearer

Hi Adam, take a look at this book www.rbap.net/our-books/the-lords-supper-as-a-means-of-grace-more-than-a-memory/

Thanks for this. I'm particularly curious in fact about baptism. Would the view on baptism be analogous to this non-Zwinglian view on the Lord's Supper?

See if this answers your question www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=102142010315 (note that not everyone, including paedobaptists, agree that Zwingli and Calvin really had that different of views)

The particular Baptists held to the standard view of Sacraments that the Reformed do, only difference is that for Baptism it is in the Credo Fashion

I have read Peter Masters make that argument www.1689federalism.com/peter-masters-on-1689-federalism/ However, I have not come across that view in my historical readings. It sounds closer to the dispensational view that Israel wrongly accepted the terms of the Sinai covenant. (I am happy to be corrected though). 1689 Federalism teaches that the Covenant of Grace was not made in Deut 29-30, but rather the Covenant of Grace is the New Covenant, established in the blood of Christ and first promulgated as an inaugurated covenant at Pentecost. In Deut 30, Moses is prophesying about this future covenant. The power of the New Covenant, however, was operative for all saints prior to the cross, since Christ's work was a certainty. I would recommend reading Pascal Denault "The Distinctiveness of 17th Century Baptist Covenant Theology" as well as the Coxe/Owen volume called "Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ" in order to understand the 17th century view.

Regarding historicity of the belief that the Sinai Covenant was an expression of the Covenant of Works and the Moab Covenant was an expression of the Covenant of Grace - I think I have found that the 18th Century Scottish minister Thomas Bell expressed this view, and he also references the Puritan Thomas Goodwin, who also seems to have followed this view. I guess though it might still be a different historic stream from 1689 Federalism.

Thank you. Take a look at John Cotton as well contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/22/john-cotton-proponent-of-the-mixed-covenant-view/

Thanks for this. Regarding my own view on this topic, I would have the understanding that the Law of the Old Covenant, in its core inherent substance, consisted of a set of commandments with attached legal jurisdiction for justification (Lev. 18:5, Rom. 10:5, Gal. 3:12) or condemnation (Deut. 27:26, Gal. 3:10). The ground for justification would be perfect obedience. Since all men are sinful by nature, each individual who is legally subject to the pure and undiluted Law would be condemned. The full solution to this “problem of the Law” would eventually come with the establishment of the New Covenant in Christ’s blood. However, it is obvious that God did not just leave all the Israelites, from Moses’ time up until the time of Christ’s earthly ministry, in a state of condemnation. I would hold that prior to the New Covenant, God did, under the ministry of Moses, subject the entire people of Israel to Law. Yet God also administered His grace, unto forgiveness of sins, justification and sanctification, in accordance with His foreknowledge of the sacrifice for sin that was going to be carried out when His Son would come to earth. This grace justified not via the legal jurisdiction of the Law. However, this grace was not of such full manifestation as to release the Israelite saints from being under the Law. The result of this grace, prior to the ushering in of the New Covenant, was only to “soften” the jurisdiction of the Law, so as to be compatible with the Israelite saints’ justification - even softening the weight of meaning of Lev. 18:5 and Deut. 27:26. Picture this by analogy - black and white are opposite colours, but that doesn’t stop it from being possible to mix them and produce grey. Likewise the operation of the Law fundamentally contrasts with the operation of grace, yet this does not forbid that grace may come in and soften the Law. I’d certainly like to think that this isn’t my own original idea. :)

I'm not sure I understand your view. The Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works operating upon the condition of "Do this and live" - a principle opposite to that of faith. However, it was limited to life and blessing in Canaan. Israelites were still born under the broken Adamic Covenant of Works like the rest of mankind. However, those who saw through the types and shadows and looked in faith to the coming Messiah were justified through faith alone apart from the law. They received their faith, justification, and sanctification by means of the New Covenant. They received the benefits of the New Covenant prior to its formal establishment in the death of Christ. Upon their conversion, they were transferred out of the Adamic Covenant of Works and into the New Covenant under Christ's federal headship. But they remained under the Old Covenant, which, again, was limited to temporal life and blessing in Canaan. Here are some resources to consider: www.1689federalism.com/interactive-outline-of-john-owens-exposition-of-hebrews-86-13/ www.1689federalism.com/republication-the-mosaic-covenant-and-eternal-life/ www.1689federalism.com/augustine-proto-1689-federalist/

+Brian Phoenix Hi Brian. That is standard reformed theology. Consider this sermon series: www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=22410110150

Does that mean a believer is indwelled with the Spirit before they are saved?

It is part of the conversion process. See 2LBCF Chapters 10, 13, 15-17

They were not indwelt in the same way and it is not the standard reformed position that I've read. They were REGENERATED and the Spirit was with them but not INDWELT in the same way NC believers are. Under the OC you see the Spirit coming upon people for certain tasks but not indwelling. I think Jesus describes this when He says He is WITH you and will be IN you when speaking to the apostles before Pentecost. There is a book about it called "God's Indwelling Presence". www.amazon.com/Gods-Indwelling-Presence-Testaments-Commentary/dp/0805443835

Dylan, you are mistaken. The reformed position, per the confessional references above, is that OT saints were indwelt. The book you linked to is not reformed.

Why could a CT not read Revelation?

@@OldSlabsides45 I didn't say they shouldn't read it, but the problem is they don't take it literally.

Derek Birmingham how so? Are you premil?

@@OldSlabsides45 Well if you take the book of revelation literally, you have to acknowledge a future plan for Israel and the Jews. CT denies that God has any sort of plan for Israel. They believe that it's all been done away with. That's why historically the book of revelation has always been seen as a joke.

@@derekbirmingham2244 Id reccomend reading Sam Waldrons book "The end times made simple" to fully understand a CT's understanding of Revelation.

See links in the video description above

Hi Phillip - buy the book

Brandon Adams aint interested....

Abraham believed God and it was counted to Him as righteousness

@@cjfoster4179 But it does NOT say that Abraham was "saved". Saved is a New Testament term, not an O.T. term / phrase. The people of God (Moses / Aaron and the Israelites that left Egypt) were told from early on (See Exodus chapter 20!) of what to DO and NOT DO. The rest of the Torah has further instructions for the children of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Abraham did animal sacrifices / blood offerings. In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ is the offering for sin(s). Two different things. There is no more Temple in Jerusalem, so since the 1st Century A.D. we put our trust, faith, obedience in the shed blood of Christ. Both, people born with a Jewish surname, and those not born in a Jewish family. BUT - There are still Jews on earth. Neither the rants of Martin Luther nor the R.C.C. torturers of the Spanish Inquisition nor the pogroms of Jew-hating Europeans nor the Nazis of the mid 1930's to mid 1940's, nor the radical followers of the m e c c a religion has killed off all the Jews.

They are trying to sound super-dooper intelligent. They are always trying to impress the Presbyterians with their intellect, so that the Presbys will someday invite them over for lunch. Never going to happen, because the Presbys want to continue the myth of infant baptism. I have heard all three of the guys in the video before (live) and on cassette. Dad and son Renihan and Barcellos. Son Renihan is akin to listening to a college philosophy teacher come up with something new each week yet expects the class to understand his circles and twists and rabbit trails. I'm so glad I left the "Calvin Camp". Sold off my Calvinistic books on E-bay, about 6 years ago.

Davy Marcelo Wow, did you come up that hashtag on your own or did you have google it? Serious question...

It's easy for WHITE MEN to profess how great God is and how their privilege is by his design.

Whit men, white men, white men!!