Westminster Covenant Theology vs 1689 Federalism Comparison Chart

A side-by-side look at how these two Reformed covenant frameworks understand key doctrines. Both affirm the covenant of works, the covenant of grace, and salvation by faith in Christ—the differences lie mainly in how the Old Testament covenants relate to the covenant of grace.

Topic	Westminster Covenant Theology	1689 Federalism
What is the "Covenant of Grace"? After Adam sinned, God made a gracious way to save people. This is called the covenant of grace. In it, God offers life and forgiveness through Jesus Christ. People receive this gift by faith—not by perfect obedience. Both views agree: there is only one way to be saved throughout history. That way is grace through faith in Christ. Two terms help here. The substance is what the covenant is really about—Christ and salvation by faith. The administration is how it was outwardly carried out in history—its signs, ceremonies, and historical forms.	Westminster sees one covenant of grace through all of Bible history. The substance never changed: Christ and faith in Him. The covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David were different administrations—the outward ways God carried out that same covenant in different eras. The Abrahamic covenant is especially seen as the covenant of grace itself. In the Old Testament, circumcision was the outward sign of its administration. In the New Testament, baptism is.	1689 Federalism agrees the substance has always been Christ and faith. But it does not treat the Old Testament covenants as administrations of the covenant of grace. Instead, the covenant of grace is formally established in the New Covenant that Christ made (Jeremiah 31; Hebrews 8). The Old Testament covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David were real and separate. They pointed toward the gospel and prepared the way for Christ, but they were not the covenant of grace itself.
The dual nature of the Abrahamic covenant When God made a covenant with Abraham, He made two connected promises about Abraham's seed (his descendants). (1) A physical family line, marked by circumcision, through whom the Messiah would come. (2) A spiritual promise: salvation through that Messiah, received by faith. Both views agree these two promises are real and both are part of the Abrahamic covenant. Both also agree that Christ is Abraham's seed—the one to whom the promise was made (Galatians 3:16). The disagreement is over who else counts as Abraham's seed today.	Westminster treats both promises as parts of one covenant of grace. The spiritual promise is the main point. The physical family line and circumcision were the outward sign in the Old Testament. Westminster agrees Christ is Abraham's seed. But it also counts believers and their children as Abraham's seed within the continuing covenant—not only those who have already professed faith. Baptism replaces circumcision today. The children of believers are still counted as part of the covenant community.	1689 Federalism agrees both promises were real, but does not treat them as two parts of the covenant of grace. They belonged to a separate Abrahamic covenant that looked forward to Christ. 1689 Federalism also agrees Christ is Abraham's seed. But it teaches that only those united to Christ by faith are Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:26–29). Being born into a Christian home does not make you Abraham's seed. The physical family line has done its job. In the New Covenant, members are people who know the Lord (Jeremiah 31).
Does baptism replace circumcision? Both sides agree that baptism is a New Testament ordinance commanded by Christ and that circumcision was the Old Testament sign given to Abraham's physical seed. Both also agree that outward signs do not save anyone. Faith in Christ is what matters. The question is whether baptism stands in the same covenant line as circumcision—so that what was true of circumcision is now true of baptism. Westminster says yes: same covenant of grace, new sign. 1689 Federalism says no: similar role, but different covenants—so the rules for who receives the sign are not the same.	Westminster teaches that baptism replaces circumcision as the outward sign of the covenant of grace. Circumcision marked who belonged to the covenant community in the Old Testament. Baptism marks who belongs to that same community now. Because the covenant continues, so does the place of believers' children. Infant baptism is the New Testament counterpart to infant circumcision. Passages like Colossians 2:11–12 are read as linking the two signs: what circumcision pointed to outwardly, baptism now signifies in the era of Christ.	1689 Federalism rejects the idea that baptism simply replaces circumcision one-for-one. Circumcision belonged to the Abrahamic covenant and marked the physical seed through whom the Messiah would come. Baptism belongs to the New Covenant—the covenant of grace formally established in Christ. The signs are alike in being outward ceremonies, but they attach to different covenants with different membership rules. Because New Covenant members are those who know the Lord (Jeremiah 31), baptism is for believers who profess faith—not for infants by birth. The pattern in Acts is belief, then baptism.

Topic

Westminster Covenant Theology

1689 Federalism

What is the "Covenant of Grace"?

After Adam sinned, God made a gracious way to save people. This is called the covenant of grace.

In it, God offers life and forgiveness through Jesus Christ. People receive this gift by faith—not by perfect obedience.

Both views agree: there is only one way to be saved throughout history. That way is grace through faith in Christ.

Two terms help here. The substance is what the covenant is really about—Christ and salvation by faith. The administration is how it was outwardly carried out in history—its signs, ceremonies, and historical forms.

Westminster sees one covenant of grace through all of Bible history. The substance never changed: Christ and faith in Him.

The covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David were different administrations—the outward ways God carried out that same covenant in different eras.

The Abrahamic covenant is especially seen as the covenant of grace itself.

In the Old Testament, circumcision was the outward sign of its administration. In the New Testament, baptism is.

1689 Federalism agrees the substance has always been Christ and faith. But it does not treat the Old Testament covenants as administrations of the covenant of grace.

Instead, the covenant of grace is formally established in the New Covenant that Christ made (Jeremiah 31; Hebrews 8).

The Old Testament covenants with Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David were real and separate.

They pointed toward the gospel and prepared the way for Christ, but they were not the covenant of grace itself.

The dual nature of the Abrahamic covenant

When God made a covenant with Abraham, He made two connected promises about Abraham's seed (his descendants).

(1) A physical family line, marked by circumcision, through whom the Messiah would come.

(2) A spiritual promise: salvation through that Messiah, received by faith.

Both views agree these two promises are real and both are part of the Abrahamic covenant.

Both also agree that Christ is Abraham's seed—the one to whom the promise was made (Galatians 3:16). The disagreement is over who else counts as Abraham's seed today.

Westminster treats both promises as parts of one covenant of grace.

The spiritual promise is the main point. The physical family line and circumcision were the outward sign in the Old Testament.

Westminster agrees Christ is Abraham's seed. But it also counts believers and their children as Abraham's seed within the continuing covenant—not only those who have already professed faith.

Baptism replaces circumcision today. The children of believers are still counted as part of the covenant community.

1689 Federalism agrees both promises were real, but does not treat them as two parts of the covenant of grace.

They belonged to a separate Abrahamic covenant that looked forward to Christ.

1689 Federalism also agrees Christ is Abraham's seed. But it teaches that only those united to Christ by faith are Abraham's seed (Galatians 3:26–29). Being born into a Christian home does not make you Abraham's seed.

The physical family line has done its job. In the New Covenant, members are people who know the Lord (Jeremiah 31).

Does baptism replace circumcision?

Both sides agree that baptism is a New Testament ordinance commanded by Christ and that circumcision was the Old Testament sign given to Abraham's physical seed.

Both also agree that outward signs do not save anyone. Faith in Christ is what matters. The question is whether baptism stands in the same covenant line as circumcision—so that what was true of circumcision is now true of baptism.

Westminster says yes: same covenant of grace, new sign. 1689 Federalism says no: similar role, but different covenants—so the rules for who receives the sign are not the same.

Westminster teaches that baptism replaces circumcision as the outward sign of the covenant of grace.

Circumcision marked who belonged to the covenant community in the Old Testament. Baptism marks who belongs to that same community now.

Because the covenant continues, so does the place of believers' children. Infant baptism is the New Testament counterpart to infant circumcision.

Passages like Colossians 2:11–12 are read as linking the two signs: what circumcision pointed to outwardly, baptism now signifies in the era of Christ.

1689 Federalism rejects the idea that baptism simply replaces circumcision one-for-one.

Circumcision belonged to the Abrahamic covenant and marked the physical seed through whom the Messiah would come. Baptism belongs to the New Covenant—the covenant of grace formally established in Christ.

The signs are alike in being outward ceremonies, but they attach to different covenants with different membership rules.

Because New Covenant members are those who know the Lord (Jeremiah 31), baptism is for believers who profess faith—not for infants by birth. The pattern in Acts is belief, then baptism.