For context, see these two resources:
- Reformed Brotherhood: Episode 293 1689 Federalism
- Two-Tier Typology & OT Salvation [1689 Federalism]
The 1689 Federalist faces a dilemma. On the one hand, he faces the demands of Westminster with its accompanying system and covenant theology—a system and covenant theology which one 1689 Federalist pastor has told me is very consistent and whose subscribers he respects. On the other hand, the 1689 Federalist faces the inevitable fact: the more he departs from Westminster, by necessity, the more he tends to move toward and agree with Dispensationalism, if not in its entirety then at least on fundamental points.
How does the 1689 Federalist resolve this dilemma? Is it possible to establish a mediating tension between Westminster, on the one hand, and between Dispensationalism, on the other? Some may think this is ad hominem or a false dilemma. It is not. In fact, I think it is plain and basic. And I intend to demonstrate this below.
1689 Federalism & Westminster
I have before raised the criticism, that 1689 Federalism (hereafter 1689F) on several points is not only not meaningfully different than Westminster, but is engaged in semantics. We might say semantic slight of hand. We might say equivocation. We might say ad hoc formulations which, intended or not, help to make it seem like 1689F is differentiated from Westminster Federalism (hereafter WF), when it is not.
I have raised such criticisms myself against 1689F and its proponents, for which I have been told I am ignorant, that I misunderstand, etc. Well, it must be said that all objections to those criticisms are now invalidated. Why? Because, Brandon Adams, chief internet proponent of 1689F, now admits as much.
In Episode 293 of Reformed Brotherhood, Adams expressly concedes, that, as to the issues of (1) visible/invisible church and man’s view/God’s view of the church, and (2) the salvation of Old Testament saints, 1689F and WF are agreed. Adams is clear: the differences, whatever they may appear, are only semantic, not substantive, pertaining, at most, to emphases and words, not to fundamental concepts or ideas.
I agree.
Substance and Administration
But Adams, in this same podcast, raises a third point of common misunderstanding concerning 1689F. He speaks to the word and idea of “substance.” He admits that there is an historical, theological, reformed consensus on the word and its usage. He admits that it has an aristotelian background, and is a technical-philosophical distinction, with “substance” often being contrasted with “administration” or “accidents” (see WCF 7.6). He names Bullinger, Calvin, and “many others” who use this distinction of “substance” and “administration.”
He’s correct.
But then Adams does two things. First, he criticizes WCF 7.6 of equivocation on the word “substance”—it doesn’t equivocate; Brandon is likely without the proper categories to understand this, and his typology, I suspect, blocks him from understanding. Second, he then, without announcing it and perhaps without even knowing it, radically redefines the word “substance,” deviating from the reformed consensus. And he uses the word “substance” to speak, not of Christ and his benefits, but of the “parties, promises, and benefits” of the covenant. Now, conceptually, what Brandon means here is, little different than what WF would mean by “administration.”
That’s right. You read correctly.
Brandon—and other 1689 Federalists with him (I know from private and public conversations)—uses the word “substance” to denote the concept of “administration.” In other words, in 1689F the administration parking space is occupied by the substance-car. They conflate substance with administration. This is perhaps the most ironic equivocation possible in this discussion.
Now, if you are familiar at all with common Baptistic errors, this isn’t surprising in one sense. Reason being, the Baptist often, at the very least, conflates covenant and election, and visible and invisible church. Thus, it makes sense that he would then conflate substance with administration.
So let me state it as clearly as I can: 1689F uses the term “substance” to speak of the concept of “administration.” The concept of administration, traditionally denoted by the word administration, is, in 1689F, denoted by the word substance. Per Brandon’s initial admission, the reformed consensus has been to park the administration-car in the administration parking spot, and to put the substance-car in the substance parking spot. But 1689F takes the substance-car and parks it in the administration parking spot. Necessarily, then, he has introduces massive equivocation and confusion to the discussion, the most ironic equivocation possible here. Further, it does not seem he is even aware of this; thus, he does not announce this is what he is doing. So then, when the discussion goes on, it is easy to be deceived and confused. Reason being, the 1689 Federalist is using established terms in new ways; he has retained the term of “substance” and replaced it with the idea of “administration.”
In this way, he is a Dispensationalist, failing to rightly order and prioritize the elements of religion, redemption, spirituality, covenant, faith, and morality, on the one hand as chief, and carnal, physical, national, genealogical, ceremonial, and fleshly, on the other hand as secondary. This is an error of mis-emphasis.
But things do not stop here.
In the 2nd resource above, Two-Tier Typology & OT Salvation, Dr. Samuel Renihan, chief academic proponent of 1689F, engages in equivocation after equivocation, and errors of mis-emphasis and of omission in many places. When defining the Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant), Brandon and Renihan both agree: it was a typological covenant of works respecting temporal blessings and curses in the typological holy land of Canaan; and, the obedience therein required was an obedience an unbeliever could render. Renihan is emphatic on this latter point, repeating it some four or five, maybe six times.
How do they reach this conclusion? Renihan says the obedience demanded was external-unbelieving obedience, in the sense that the Israelites could go up into the land, they could take it and go to war, that yes God was fighting with them and through them, but nevertheless even the unregenerate could go up.
To any sensible student of Scripture, questions ought to immediately present themselves. Why is this used to define the nature of the covenant? Why does this logic not also apply to the New Covenant? E.g. Christ commands us to disciple the nations, beginning in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and the uttermost parts of the earth. Are these not external-physical nations, comprised of like people, and aren’t external-physical means, i.e. the use of the brain and lips and tongue and breath to preach, and the use of the legs to walk and stand, the hands to motion—aren’t all these employed in obeying the command to preach the gospel to all creation and to disciple the nations? Then why is not the New Covenant merely external? Aren’t Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria, and all parts of the earth physical, temporal, external places? When Paul commands Timothy to take a little wine for his stomach, is this telling us the nature of the New Covenant ministry is one of external-temporal-physical health? When water is used in baptism, which is physical and upon a physically-bodied person, and this baptism is a sacrament of the New Covenant; is the New Covenant therefore physical? And the Lord’s Supper, with its bread and wine in the cup, all touched and tasted and smelled, as a NC sacrament; is this physical-external-temporal element indicative of the nature of the NC?
If not, why not? And why is this logic only good for the OC?
Now I suspect the 1689 Federalist will say the NC alone is the CoG and run to places like Jeremiah 31 etc. That’s well and good but it doesn’t answer the question; it is evasion.
Further, why is Deuteronomy 10:12ff not used to define the nature, scope, and design of the Mosaic Covenant? And upon what basis, we need to ask, does the 1689 Federalist discriminate between the passages and commands and promises he will use, on the one hand, to define the nature, scope, and design of the Mosaic Covenant, and which he will use, on the other hand, not to?
Sam goes on to mention that, though there is this externalized-obedience required in the Mosaic Covenant, it also provided a means of reconciliation. Of course, he clarifies: he does not at all mean religious, redemptive, spiritual, moral, or eternal reconciliation; he merely means ceremonial, outward, external, fleshly, carnal reconciliation. And so we have the beginning of the bifurcations necessary for 1689F to prop itself up. No longer is sin chiefly a moral and therefore spiritual, universal, and religious, matter, concerning both the inner and outer man. No, it is now chiefly or exclusively, in the Mosaic Covenant, a matter external and outward. Once again, we are faced with the error of mis-emphasis.
One wonders, at this point, what the Lord Jesus was doing rebuking the Jews for merely external rites, instructing them that it was out of the heart that man was made unclean, not outside him; that the inside of the cup must be washed.
Sam goes on for some time in equivocation. Then Brandon plays another clip from Reformed Forum, in which they criticize the notion of God ever requiring an external-unbelieving obedience. Sam responds by saying this is not what he is saying. Of course it is exactly what he has said some four times at this point. He says he is not talking about an outward obedience that is not concerned with the heart. But he is. And he has stated he is, multiple times, when he says the obedience required in the Mosaic Covenant was an obedience an unbeliever could render.
Then Sam, from about 21:56 to 23:05 engages in one long equivocation. At the start he says he is not talking about an outward obedience. At the end he says he is talking about an outward obedience. It appears his theology forces him to tie himself in knots.
Later—and we are swinging back around to substance and administration—Sam suggests we need to jettison the word administration. He says it is unhelpful, too imprecise and ambiguous, etc. Now, think. Think for a minute. What have we already established about the words and ideas of substance and administration?
Brandon has already admitted there is a reformed consensus.
He then radically redefines the word substance to speak of the idea of administration.
We likened this to the substance-car occupying the administration parking space.
Therefore, it only makes sense that Sam wants to jettison the word administration.
Why?
Because he already has the space occupied with the word “substance.”
He doesn’t have room for it any longer in his system.
Therefore, it needs to go.
Otherwise, if he tries to use it, what will he use it for? He can’t use the word administration to speak of the concept of administration, because the concept of administration is already present in his system under the word substance. Thus, again, the administration parking space is already occupied by the substance-car. And if this parking lot is representative of 1689F, then there is no space left in the system for the word administration.
Do you understand?
So perhaps now you are seeing the massive equivocations necessary for this covenant theology to maintain itself.
Back to my original comments about Westminster and Dispensationalism…
1689F is Westminsterian on visible-invisible church and on the salvation of OT saints. Brandon admits, and I agree, there is no real substantive or meaningful difference here. The differences are semantic at most. Whether this is wittingly or unwittingly, I don’t know. But certainly, 1689F has much to gain by differentiating, or at least trying to differentiate, itself from Westminster wherever it can. Otherwise, what’s the point?
1689F is Dispensational on making the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants mainly or merely carnal for then-present people; thus failing to see that religion, relationship with God, spirituality, morality, covenant, and faith were all primary while other elements were secondary. Thus 1689F engages in what Fairbairn calls an all too common hermeneutical error: over-carnalizing the OT.