JTB.SDG
Puritan Board Junior
Guys,
I'm convinced that the Covenant with Noah belongs wholly to the Covenant of Grace. Thomas Goodwin has some great stuff on this (Works, V9) and argues convincingly for it. Francis Roberts also takes the same position, as do many of those who followed in their footsteps, like A.W. Pink, Jonathan Edwards, etc.
I need to brush up on the alternative position, and may be mis-characterizing it, but from what I understand, many folks take it to be part of the Covenant of Grace ONLY IN SO FAR AS it serves to preserve the world FOR the Covenant of Grace (but in and of itself it's not really part of the Covenant of Grace, most notably because it is said that God's covenant is with not only Noah and his seed, but all the animals). I personally take the animals (clean and unclean) as representing Jew and Gentile, and that the focus isn't animals--but that God makes the covenant with EVERYTHING that comes out of the ark with Noah. It's not with the whole world--the whole world was destroyed in the flood--the covenant is made only with those whom God saved in the ark with Noah out of the world; IE, believers in Christ.
Here's my question: Where did this second way of handling the Noahic Covenant come from (in church history)? It seems that some of the Puritans simply skipped over Noah and went straight from Adam to Abraham (IE, Ball); perhaps not knowing what to do with Noah? But those who actually dealt with the Covenant with Noah among the puritans seemed to place it squarely in the Covenant of Grace. Where and how did this OTHER view emerge? Thoughts? Many thanks in advance...
I'm convinced that the Covenant with Noah belongs wholly to the Covenant of Grace. Thomas Goodwin has some great stuff on this (Works, V9) and argues convincingly for it. Francis Roberts also takes the same position, as do many of those who followed in their footsteps, like A.W. Pink, Jonathan Edwards, etc.
I need to brush up on the alternative position, and may be mis-characterizing it, but from what I understand, many folks take it to be part of the Covenant of Grace ONLY IN SO FAR AS it serves to preserve the world FOR the Covenant of Grace (but in and of itself it's not really part of the Covenant of Grace, most notably because it is said that God's covenant is with not only Noah and his seed, but all the animals). I personally take the animals (clean and unclean) as representing Jew and Gentile, and that the focus isn't animals--but that God makes the covenant with EVERYTHING that comes out of the ark with Noah. It's not with the whole world--the whole world was destroyed in the flood--the covenant is made only with those whom God saved in the ark with Noah out of the world; IE, believers in Christ.
Here's my question: Where did this second way of handling the Noahic Covenant come from (in church history)? It seems that some of the Puritans simply skipped over Noah and went straight from Adam to Abraham (IE, Ball); perhaps not knowing what to do with Noah? But those who actually dealt with the Covenant with Noah among the puritans seemed to place it squarely in the Covenant of Grace. Where and how did this OTHER view emerge? Thoughts? Many thanks in advance...
Last edited: