# How many "Reformed" understandings of the covenant of grace are there?



## Steve Paynter

I am still in the process of grappling with the diversity of different covenant theologies, so please excuse this question if it is a little naïve. It isn't meant to be critical of anyone either ... I am simply seeking understanding.

My understanding is that there are at 3 broadly distinguishable takes on the "covenant of grace" in Reformed thought.

1). One-covenant of grace, in two dispensations - the Old (Mosaic? or Abrahamic-Mosaic?) covenant, and the New ... as stated in the WCF.

2). A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.

3). One covenant of grace, established either post-Fall or with Abraham, and elaborated or renewed in the New covenant, where the Mosaic covenant
is not part of the covenant of grace, as it was a "republication" of the covenant of works, and was not salvific, but concerned with national / temporal blessings for Israel. ... this, if I understand it correctly, is the John Owen - Meredith Kline - Michael Horton position.

I guess my questions are multiple. 
a) what subtleties am I missing?
b) are there other positions I am missing?
c) how do the advocates of "3" square it with the "one-covenant, two dispensations" phraseology of the WCF? Or don't they?

PS. Sorry about the spelling mistake in the title of this thread ... apparently I can't edit it.


----------



## Christopher88

Bumping this thread, because I would an answer my self.


----------



## MW

Steve Paynter said:


> My understanding is that there are at 3 broadly distinguishable takes on the "covenant of grace" in Reformed thought.



There is only one reformed understanding and it is that which is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy, or in the light of a variety of dispensational frameworks. I prefer to leave it to "Baptist" theologians to struggle with those issues. Owen's view was mainly that of Westminster. The Kline-Horton position, as far as I know, still "claims" affinity with Westminster. At the least, they teach the continuity of the Abrahamic promise, which would make them sympathetic to Westminster's emphasis on continuity even if other elements of their system introduce discontinuity and challenge the Westminsterian view.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> I prefer to leave it to "Baptist" theologians to struggle with those issues.



And I am glad that many of us are _struggling _with these issues. Covenant Theology is an under developed area of study in Baptist circles. As more Baptist scholars continue their research in Covenant Theology, I am hoping it will lead to furthering the dialog at the local church level.


----------



## VictorBravo

armourbearer said:


> What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy



I, for one, certainly follow what Matthew describes.




Steve Paynter said:


> A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.



That view seems strange to me. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBCF speaks of a covenant progressively revealed. I presume it means "established" because it was first revealed in Genesis Chapter 3.


----------



## Brock Organ

armourbearer said:


> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that there are at 3 broadly distinguishable takes on the "covenant of grace" in Reformed thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one reformed understanding and it is that which is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith.
Click to expand...


Hi Rev Winzer,

Herman Hoeksema, for example, seems to offer a reputable and alternative "reformed" position regarding the nature of the Covenant of Works:



> … First of all, there is the chief objection that this doctrine (The Covenant of Works) finds no support in Scripture. We do read of the probationary command, prohibiting man to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and of the penalty of death threatened in the case of disobedience. But nowhere do we find any proof in Scripture for the contention that God gave to Adam the promise of eternal life if he should obey that particular commandment of God. It is true, of course, that Adam would not have suffered the death penalty if he had obeyed. But this is quite different from saying that he would have attained to glory and immortality. This cannot be deduced or inferred from the penalty of death that was threatened. Adam might have lived everlastingly in his earthly state. He might have continued to eat of the tree of life and live forever; but everlasting earthly life is not the same as what Scripture means by eternal life. And that Adam would have attained to this higher level of heavenly glory, that there would have come a time in his life when he would have been translated, the Scriptures nowhere suggest. Besides, this giving of the probationary command and this threat of the penalty of death are no covenant or agreement, constitute no transaction between God and Adam…. In vain does one look in the Word of God for support of this theory of a covenant of works.
> 
> … it is quite impossible that man should merit a special reward with God. Obedience to God is an obligation. It certainly has its reward, for God is just and rewards the good with good. But obedience has its reward in itself: to obey the Lord our God is life and joy. Sin is misery and death. Life and joy there are in obedience. To keep the commandments of God and to serve Him is a privilege. But the covenant of works teaches that Adam could merit something more, something special, by obeying the command of the Lord.



Regards!


----------



## MW

Brock Organ said:


> Herman Hoeksema, for example, seems to offer a reputable and alternative "reformed" position regarding the nature of the Covenant of Works:



As with John Murray, "covenant" has been redefined, and this simply leaves no room for a covenant of works per se. But when they come to teach the imputation of Adam's sin they are thrown back upon the two-Adam construct of New Testament teaching, which is nothing other than traditional federal theology in its all simplicity. So the concept is there even if the name has been abandoned. And as for the name, "covenant of works," even Westminster adopts it as something "commonly called" such in dogmatic theology; not because it is itself exhaustive of biblical teaching.

At any rate, Hoeksema, as with Murray, affirmed the Wesminster doctrine of one "covenant of grace," which is the specific point raised by the OP.


----------



## Brock Organ

armourbearer said:


> Brock Organ said:
> 
> 
> 
> Herman Hoeksema, for example, seems to offer a reputable and alternative "reformed" position regarding the nature of the Covenant of Works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As with John Murray, "covenant" has been redefined, and this simply leaves no room for a covenant of works per se. But when they come to teach the imputation of Adam's sin they are thrown back upon the two-Adam construct of New Testament teaching, which is nothing other than traditional federal theology in its all simplicity. So the concept is there even if the name has been abandoned.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your response, Rev. Winzer, though I believe the critique is a bit deeper than simply abandoning a name; Dr. Greg Nichols summarizes Hoeksema's critique in this way:



> Every Reformed theologian has not adopted this traditional conception of God's relationship with Adam. Some critique the covenant of works idea. Therefore, I present this critique. Herman Hoeksema, for example, argues against the covenant of works in Reformed Dogmatics, pgs. 214-226. In fairness to Hoeksema, I must add that he clearly regards the relationship between God and Adam as covenantal. His contention is that the covenant of works doctrine fails to define that covenant relationship biblically.
> a. Hoeksema argues that Scripture does not mandate this speculative reasoning. The fact that God warned Adam that he would die if he disobeyed does not necessarily imply a promise to Adam that, after a period of obedience, his life would become a heavenly life or that his soul would become impeccable. All it necessarily implies is that if Adam did not disobey, then Adam would not die, but rather, would always continue to live on earth in paradise. On this issue Hoeksema clearly makes a cogent observation.
> b. Hoeksema argues that no mere man could ever merit any special reward from God. When Adam had done all, all that he could have said was, "I am an unprofitable servant." Adam could not have merited by obedience anything more than what he already had.
> c. Hoeksema argues that the promise of eternal life is simply "inconceivable." He says that we cannot even conceive of God conferring heavenly life upon Adam without doing violence to the whole intention of the created order.
> d. Hoeksema argues that the covenant of works would make the covenant relation incidental to Adam's life with God. He says a covenant relationship is never incidental. He asserts that covenant always defines the very heart of a creature's relationship to his God.
> e. Hoeksema argues that the idea is unworthy of God's sovereignty and wisdom. Although some truth is found in all his other arguments, this goes too far and uses too much heat.



Regards!


----------



## Brock Organ

armourbearer said:


> At any rate, Hoeksema, as with Murray, affirmed the Wesminster doctrine of one "covenant of grace," which is the specific point raised by the OP.



Thanks, Rev. Winzer, I think the Hoeksema response would indicate another permutation in addition to Steve's original point 1:



> 1). One-covenant of grace, in two dispensations - the Old (Mosaic? or Abrahamic-Mosaic?) covenant, and the New ... as stated in the WCF.



Best Regards!


----------



## Herald

VictorBravo said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, certainly follow what Matthew describes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That view seems strange to me. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBCF speaks of a covenant progressively revealed. I presume it means "established" because it was first revealed in Genesis Chapter 3.
Click to expand...


Vic,

I think Denault's view of the Covenant of Grace needs to speak for itself:



> By rejecting the notion of a covenant of grace under two administrations, the Baptists were in fact rejecting only half of this concept; they accepted, as we have previously seen, the notion of one single Covenant of Grace in both testaments, but they refused the idea of two administrations. For the Baptists, there was only one Covenant of Grace which was revealed from the Fall in a progressive way until its full revelation and conclusion in the New Covenant. This model is clearly expressed in Chapter 7 paragraph 3 of the Confession of 1689: "This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by father steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament."
> 
> Upon first impression, this definition does not seem to be radically different from that of paedobaptists since they also recognized the progressive revelation of the Covenant of Grace. However, in studying Baptist theology in its historical context, it becomes evident that this definition of the Covenant of Grace had a meaning that was very specific and fundamentally different from the paedobaptist understanding.
> 
> The first particularity is found in the difference between the notion of administration and that of revelation. The Baptists believed that before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was not formally given, but only announced and promised (revealed). This distinction is fundamental to the federalism of the 1689. Nehemiah Coxe, the protagonist of this confession of faith, firmly maintains the distinction between the revelation and the administration:
> _
> "It must also be noted that although the Covenant of Grace was revealed this far to Adam, yet we see in all this there was no formal and express covenant transaction with him. Even less was the Covenant of Grace established with him as a public person or representative of any kind. But as he obtained interest for himself alone by his own faith in the grace of God revealed in this way, so must those of his posterity that are saved."
> _
> This specification is highly significant and plays a determining role in Baptist federalism. For Coxe, the Covenant of Grace was not concluded when God revealed it to Adam. John Owen explains why the Covenant of Grace could not be considered a formal covenant before the establishment of the New Covenant, but was confined to the stage of promise:
> _
> "It lacked its solemn confirmation and establishment, by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged to it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a covenant or a testament, as our apostle proves, Heb. 9:15-23. For neither, as he shows in that place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. To that end the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant."
> _
> The distinction between the revelation and the administration of the Covenant of Grace finds its whole meaning when the second element of Baptist federalism is added to it, that is to say, the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant. If the Westminster federalism can be summarized in _"one covenant under two administrations,"_ that of the 1689 would be _"one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant" _(The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, Pascal Denault, p. 61-63).


----------



## MW

Brock Organ said:


> Thanks for your response, Rev. Winzer, though I believe the critique is a bit deeper than simply abandoning a name; Dr. Greg Nichols summarizes Hoeksema's critique in this way:



This critique simply assumes parallel terms and concepts and does not reveal what Hoeksema was trying to do, which, in a word, was to remove the idea of conditionality. He was working with a different covenant framework, one that emphasised the eternal aspect of the covenant of grace and de-emphasised historical contingencies. There was not a simpliciter rejection of the covenant of works but a complete reformulation of the system of covenant theology in terms of a bond of friendship. See David Engelsma's evaluation here: http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2006.pdf.

We come at concepts by terms. One must define terms carefully. Hoeksema rejected human merit as well as the idea of a covenant of works; the Westminster divines rejected human merit but accepted the terminology of the covenant of works. It is obvious that the term, covenant of works, admits of more than one interpretation, especially where "merit" is concerned. One should carefully analyse what concepts are specifically being denied when a theologian rejects a term.


----------



## Steve Paynter

VictorBravo said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, certainly follow what Matthew describes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That view seems strange to me. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBCF speaks of a covenant progressively revealed. I presume it means "established" because it was first revealed in Genesis Chapter 3.
Click to expand...


I understand that there are Reformed Baptists who adopt the WCF position of "one covenant of grace with two administrations". Samuel Waldron, I believe, in his commentary on the 1689 adopts this reading. However, as another post in this thread has shown, Denault, returning to the writings of 17th century Particular Baptists, such as 

• John Spiilsbury (1598-1668), "A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme", 1643.
• Henry Lawrence (1600-1664), "Of Baptism", 1646.
• Thomas Patient (?-1666). "The Doctrine of Baptism and the Distinction of the Covenants", 1654.
• John Bunyan (1628-1688), "The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded", 1659
• Edward Hutchinson (?-?), "A Treatise Concerning the Covenant and Baptism", 1676.
• Nehemiah Coxe (?-1688), "A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with Men before the Law", 1681.
• Benjamin Keach (1640-1704),"The Display of Glorious Grace, or The Covenant of Peace Opened", 1689.
• Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), "The Everlasting Covenant", 1693.


argues that the 1689 means "progressively revealed" as opposed to "established" - as a close reading of the 1689 shows. In other words, this was the distinguishing feature of early Reformed Baptist covenant theology.

So, presumably, for Reformed Baptists who adopt the WCF understanding of "one covenant, two administrations", there are other areas of disagreement with the WCF understanding of the covenant of grace ... presumably, something to do with the parallels or aspects of continuity between the two administrations, and especially the circumcision = baptism parallel.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Brock Organ said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> At any rate, Hoeksema, as with Murray, affirmed the Wesminster doctrine of one "covenant of grace," which is the specific point raised by the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, Rev. Winzer, I think the Hoeksema response would indicate another permutation in addition to Steve's original point 1:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1). One-covenant of grace, in two dispensations - the Old (Mosaic? or Abrahamic-Mosaic?) covenant, and the New ... as stated in the WCF.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Best Regards!
Click to expand...


I'm afraid I must be being dim this morning. I can't quite see how the Hoeksema quotation impinges on the covenant of grace question.

I'm itching to critique the Hoeksema position of the covenant of works, but I am manfully resisting, as I don't want to derail my own thread!!

With regard to my position 1, what is the official line on the "old dispensation" of the covenant of grace, when was it established? a) when the proto-gospel was given to Adam?
b) when the Abrahamic covenant was made, or renewed with Isaac and Jacob; or c) when the Mosaic covenant was made?

It sort of ties into the 1689 Denault reading: do the paedobaptists also recognise a "revealed/promised" phase, before being "established"? Or, is the first revealing, also the establishment of the covenant of grace? 

Part of the problem with answering, I think, is the fact that the "covenant of grace" is a theologically constructed doctrine, rather than one read off the surface of the text of the Bible.


----------



## Steve Paynter

armourbearer said:


> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My understanding is that there are at 3 broadly distinguishable takes on the "covenant of grace" in Reformed thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is only one reformed understanding and it is that which is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy, or in the light of a variety of dispensational frameworks. I prefer to leave it to "Baptist" theologians to struggle with those issues. Owen's view was mainly that of Westminster. The Kline-Horton position, as far as I know, still "claims" affinity with Westminster. At the least, they teach the continuity of the Abrahamic promise, which would make them sympathetic to Westminster's emphasis on continuity even if other elements of their system introduce discontinuity and challenge the Westminsterian view.
Click to expand...


I am not sure that you are right about Owen. Ferry, in his paper in "The Law is not of Faith", clearly has him making a sharp distinction between the Mosaic covenant and the
covenant of grace. This is also the Reformed Baptist reading of Owen ... from the time of Nehemiah Coxe, but continued on 'til today. Having said that, Owen is credited with having
a big impact on the Savoy Declaration of Faith, and that follows the WCF line on the covenants.

Yes, my understanding is that the Kline-Horton position "claims affinity" with the WCF, although I am not quite sure how that works.

I think you are right, that it is all about the Abrahamic promise/covenant. It seems to me that there is a fairly close match between the 1689/Denault understanding of the
covenant of grace and the Owen/Kline/Horton position ... at least in as far as both schools see the Mosaic covenant as not a part of the covenant of grace. The difference between them it seems to me, lies in whether the Abrahmaic covenant is seen as establishing the covenant of grace, and hence establishing a parallel between circumcision and baptism (Horton), or the Abrahamic promise merely being a revelation of the not yet established covenant of grace, which won't be established until Christ (1689/Denault), and hence denying a circumcision-baptism parallel. 

Is anyone aware of another Reformed position on the covenant of grace? What about the debates about the conditionality or unconditionality of the covenant of grace? Do those debates, which I currently know very little about, introduce other options?


----------



## jason d

VictorBravo said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I, for one, certainly follow what Matthew describes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That view seems strange to me. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBCF speaks of a covenant progressively revealed. I presume it means "established" because it was first revealed in Genesis Chapter 3.
Click to expand...


For a good book and podcast on the 1689 view, check out: Pascal Denault | The Confessing Baptist


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Well, as you guys probably know.... Rich Barcellos and I are good friends and he holds to a solid good position of Reformed Baptist Theology. I held to a Reformed Baptist position for 30 years and it seemed very close to many Presbyterians that I use to debate the issue with. I still have a lot of Reformed Baptist arguments on my PB blog, I won't remove them, for the edification of our RB brothers. 


I like many Reformed Baptists held to the position that there was an element of the Covenant of Works that progressively was inherent in slowly being eliminated through the progressive Covenants and as the One Covenant of Grace was progressively being revealed until it met it full fruition in the New Covenant. 


I no longer hold to that position and the explanation is kind of long so I made a blog concerning the topic at the following link. Maybe there will be portions of it that will be helpful for you to understand my understanding as the Westminster Chapter 7.5.6 became very important for me in understanding this. There are some in the Reformed camp that hold to a position concerning Republication of the Law that diverge from the Westminsterian position. 


The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? | RPCNA Covenanter


I find Murray and Hoeksema confusing and always have but find that Murray still holds to the framework of bicovenantal Federal Framework. I read Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics too long ago to have the memory required to really understand him. But I do hold that the substance of the Old and New Covenants to be of the same substance as being both administrations of the Covenant of Grace as the Westminster Confession states. The Mosaic Covenant is not a mixed Covenant of Works and Grace as some are teaching it or as I understand their various teachings concerning the Old Covenant. I have blogged quite a bit about that subject.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Steve Paynter said:


> do the paedobaptists also recognise a "revealed/promised" phase, before being "established"? Or, is the first revealing, also the establishment of the covenant of grace?


Since this thread has elements of a technical discussion, I'm going to "redefine" the question above, and return (as Rev.Winzer did above) to a technical definition of the adjective "reformed." ** It doesn't do justice to the issue to identify this question as one that turns on a commitment to *paedobaptism*. That this is a genuine crux is further demonstrated by the latter statement, "the "covenant of grace" is a theologically constructed doctrine, rather than one read off the surface of the text of the Bible."

Well, the latter is just what is central here. In it we touch on the real difference between Reformed and Baptist understandings, and how that intersects with what is called Covenant-Theology. The fundamental issue is hermeneutical; we differ on _*how the Bible is to be read*_. The Reformed will never consent to that latter statement. We read the Covenant of Grace plainly revealed in the text of Scripture. I refuse to concede any impropriety in 1) finding the substance of covenant though a particular term is lacking; or 2) applying the breadth of understanding supplied by fuller revelation to the terse remnants of earlier revelation.

So the technically proper question is: Do the reformed recognize a "revealed/promise" phase, before being "established"?

And the answer is: No, not in the classic expression of CT. We wouldn't deny that "promise" characterizes the quality of the covenant prior to the Mediator's entrance in the flesh. But the relationship is strictly that of promise-to-fulfillment, rather than promise-to-establishment. Today, there remains aspects of fulfillment yet to come (e.g. glorification, new heavens/earth). It is undeniable that future conditions will be radically different from the present, and those will call for covenant-expressions suitable to the final state. But we don't say that our covenant is not yet established, simply because Christ has arrived, but we have not.

There is some manner of giving/establishment in Gen.3:15. There is a special formality in the covenant-expression to Abraham, Gen.12,15,&17. The promissory (gracious) and unilateral nature of the covenant is just what Paul appeals to in Gal. against the strength of a later covenant-expression (Moses/Sinai/Old) that contained so much more character of Law--although, grace very obviously was found at the core, in a right understanding of the sacrificial system.

Regardless of how Sinai is construed in relation to the overall picture, God's covenant with man is in the Mediator from the beginning. This Mediator is not even absent from the scene throughout the OT, even from Genesis, as the repeated theophanies are interpreted in light of the Person of the Son. The covenant is made from the beginning with believers, the paradigmatic case being Abraham--and all believers are reckoned the seed of Abraham by faith.






** "Reformed" should be used technically in the thread, to describe what the Reformed confessions consistently taught on all the major points of doctrine and practice. I'm willing to admit that the 20th century bequeathed to us _historically_ an elastic definition of the term, that expands to include the calvinistic/particular Baptist, while at the same time contracting to *exclude* (!) as definitive one of the MARKS of the church, which was clearly *confessed* as integral to the system up to that point. I appreciate how the Baptists created their own confession, that mirrors the Reformed confession 80% of the time. But we have to acknowledge that the Baptist's understood themselves in 1644 or 1689 that they were diverging from the consensus of a century and a half--a consensus still maintained down to the present day among those not at the margin of the Reformed tradition. I will still use the name "Reformed-Baptist" out of grace and politeness, granting someone's predilection to self-gloss.


----------



## Peairtach

The unity of the Covenant of Grace is the teaching of Scripture, not a theological construct, anymore than the Holy Trinity is a theological construct. For instance the Apostle talks about the "covenants" (plural) of "the promise" (singular); one in essence, plural in administration.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

In Dabney's Systematics he consistently posits a two "schools" in his lectures on the Reformed view of the Covenant of Grace. 

1) Westminster/Dabney view

2) Cocceius-School (the way Dabney describes this looks very much like the republication view of many at WSC)


----------



## py3ak

Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

py3ak said:


> Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

py3ak said:


> Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions.



That is about as concise of a statement that one can make.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> do the paedobaptists also recognise a "revealed/promised" phase, before being "established"? Or, is the first revealing, also the establishment of the covenant of grace?
> 
> 
> 
> Since this thread has elements of a technical discussion, I'm going to "redefine" the question above, and return (as Rev.Winzer did above) to a technical definition of the adjective "reformed." ** It doesn't do justice to the issue to identify this question as one that turns on a commitment to *paedobaptism*.
Click to expand...


I agree. I apologise if that is what seemed to be implied in my question. I know that arguments have been made on both sides of the Baptism question which do contend that the other side only adopt their position on the covenants because of a prior commitment to a particular stance on baptism/ecclesiology. I have always been uncomfortable with such arguments, because it "plays the man" rather than addressing the issue. It seems to me that such comments only have value in as far as they cause me to question my own heart, and my own preparedness to follow Scripture.



Contra_Mundum said:


> That this is a genuine crux is further demonstrated by the latter statement, "the "covenant of grace" is a theologically constructed doctrine, rather than one read off the surface of the text of the Bible."
> 
> Well, the latter is just what is central here. In it we touch on the real difference between Reformed and Baptist understandings, and how that intersects with what is called Covenant-Theology. The fundamental issue is hermeneutical; we differ on _*how the Bible is to be read*_. The Reformed will never consent to that latter statement. We read the Covenant of Grace plainly revealed in the text of Scripture. I refuse to concede any impropriety in 1) finding the substance of covenant though a particular term is lacking; or 2) applying the breadth of understanding supplied by fuller revelation to the terse remnants of earlier revelation.



That was a very interesting comment. I don't claim to speak for other "Reformed" Baptists - nor do I know what the "Reformed" Baptist party-line is on whether or not the covenant of grace is seen as a "theologically constructed doctrine" - maybe, however, you do, and it is something you have found common to other Baptists. I, however, do not know if this is right. My comment was much more naïve ... more a throw-away assumption, than a thought-out position or hermeneutical stance.

I am glad that you do not concede any impropriety in either of your observations. Neither do I, as a general principle. By calling it a "theologically constructed doctrine", I did not
mean to cast aspersions on its utility or veracity. I was rather thinking along the lines of your first point, that the substance of the teaching might be present, without the 
particular term. I think, maybe, that I am less certain than you are that the full "substance" of the teaching is present. I think I recognise that more synthesis has taken place.





Contra_Mundum said:


> So the technically proper question is: Do the reformed recognize a "revealed/promise" phase, before being "established"?
> 
> And the answer is: No, not in the classic expression of CT. We wouldn't deny that "promise" characterizes the quality of the covenant prior to the Mediator's entrance in the flesh. But the relationship is strictly that of promise-to-fulfillment, rather than promise-to-establishment. Today, there remains aspects of fulfillment yet to come (e.g. glorification, new heavens/earth). It is undeniable that future conditions will be radically different from the present, and those will call for covenant-expressions suitable to the final state. But we don't say that our covenant is not yet established, simply because Christ has arrived, but we have not.
> 
> There is some manner of giving/establishment in Gen.3:15. There is a special formality in the covenant-expression to Abraham, Gen.12,15,&17. The promissory (gracious) and unilateral nature of the covenant is just what Paul appeals to in Gal. against the strength of a later covenant-expression (Moses/Sinai/Old) that contained so much more character of Law--although, grace very obviously was found at the core, in a right understanding of the sacrificial system.
> 
> Regardless of how Sinai is construed in relation to the overall picture, God's covenant with man is in the Mediator from the beginning. This Mediator is not even absent from the scene throughout the OT, even from Genesis, as the repeated theophanies are interpreted in light of the Person of the Son. The covenant is made from the beginning with believers, the paradigmatic case being Abraham--and all believers are reckoned the seed of Abraham by faith.



Thank you, this was most helpful, and has given me something to think about.





Contra_Mundum said:


> ** "Reformed" should be used technically in the thread, to describe what the Reformed confessions consistently taught on all the major points of doctrine and practice. I'm willing to admit that the 20th century bequeathed to us _historically_ an elastic definition of the term, that expands to include the calvinistic/particular Baptist, while at the same time contracting to *exclude* (!) as definitive one of the MARKS of the church, which was clearly *confessed* as integral to the system up to that point. I appreciate how the Baptists created their own confession, that mirrors the Reformed confession 80% of the time. But we have to acknowledge that the Baptist's understood themselves in 1644 or 1689 that they were diverging from the consensus of a century and a half--a consensus still maintained down to the present day among those not at the margin of the Reformed tradition. I will still use the name "Reformed-Baptist" out of grace and politeness, granting someone's predilection to self-gloss.



I respect this technical use, and also only use the phrase "Reformed Baptist" because it is widely used. The original "Reformed" Baptists in England called themselves "Particular
Baptists", of course, and they were keen to emphasise their distinction from General "Arminian" Baptists, and even more from the Anabaptists on the continent, with which they shared no common roots. The Particular Baptists arose from (out of) Reformed Presbyterians and Independents - probably because of a modified covenant theology (although, as discussed above, some have suggested, the commitment to Believer's Baptism came first, and the covenant theology was developed to justify it).

At time the 1689 was written (1677), many Paedobaptist Puritans, like the Particular Baptists, were suffering religious persecution, and had lost their livings in the Church of England in 1662. The 1677 (or Second London Confession) was an attempt to show as much solidarity with fellow persecuted Reformed Christians as possible. I suspect also that it was written in part because the superiority of the WCF over the first London Confession (which came out, while the Westminster assembly was still sitting) was recognised. It wasn't until 1689 after the worst of the persecution ended, that the 1677 could be openly acknowledged by over 100 Particular Baptist ministers. (My previous church I worshipped at, Cairns Road Baptist Church, Bristol, is a congregation that is a direct descendent from one of the congregations that sent their minister to be one of the people who signed the 1689 confession. The church minutes from the days of persecution are fascinating to read!)


----------



## Steve Paynter

Peairtach said:


> The unity of the Covenant of Grace is the teaching of Scripture, not a theological construct, anymore than the Holy Trinity is a theological construct. For instance the Apostle talks about the "covenants" (plural) of "the promise" (singular); one in essence, plural in administration.
> 
> Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2



It seems Richard that "theological construct" conveys a lot more negative connotations for you, than it does for me. I would say that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - which it goes without saying on these boards, given the subscriptions we all make, I believe wholeheartedly - is "a theological construct". By this I mean that it is a doctrine that has been constructed - synthesised - out of numerous statements of Scripture - no one of which gives us our whole doctrine of the Trinity, still less uses the term. Perhaps it is the New Testament scholar in me, but distinguishing between biblical terminology and concepts and the terminology and concepts which hundreds of years later the church came to embrace as a sound synthesis of the Bible's teaching - is important. 

Thank you for pointing me to the statement in Paul that you think makes the WCF one-covenant, multiple administrations, a biblical rather than a theological concept. I will reflect further on this.

I just want to apologise to everyone - my comment about the covenant of grace being a theological construct was not meant to side-track this thread, or, more importantly suggest that the covenant of grace was not true. The whole point of this thread is about me trying to clarify what people have meant when they use the phrase "covenant of grace". My summary of the thread is that the three meanings I identified are the three meanings that we might stumble upon in literature that is broadly "Reformed", even if some have argued that only the WCF position has a right to be called "Reformed".


----------



## MW

Steve Paynter said:


> Ferry, in his paper in "The Law is not of Faith", clearly has him making a sharp distinction between the Mosaic covenant and the
> covenant of grace. This is also the Reformed Baptist reading of Owen ... from the time of Nehemiah Coxe, but continued on 'til today. Having said that, Owen is credited with having a big impact on the Savoy Declaration of Faith, and that follows the WCF line on the covenants.



Ferry provides a useful introduction to taxonomical issues but he fails to properly classify some of the writers. Certainly Dickson and Boston would not have recognised their place in his chart. As for Owen, you might find the discussion on Owen's view in Beeke/Jones' Puritan Theology of some interest. It shows there were other concerns at work in his exegesis.

Like Rev. Buchanan, I am wary of any approach which thrusts the baptism issue to the fore. Reformed covenant theology is first and foremost soteriological, and that includes infant salvation. Most "reformed baptists" with whom I am better acquainted are also primarily concerned with salvation, but then again, they also accept the Waldron interpretation of the 1689 Confession.

One source worth consulting for the historical "baptist" position is Keach's Catechism. The system of Westminster is adopted, and the paedobaptist position is rejected without any reworking of covenant theology, but simply on the basis that it is not explicitly commanded. For myself, the nature of the church and of divine warrant are the primary issues relating to the subjects of baptism.


----------



## Peairtach

There is also the fact that some of the Reformed don't like to speak about "the Covenant of Redemption" or "Pactum Salutis" - between the Father, Son (and the Spirit) - as distinguished from "the Covenant of Grace", but place the covenant planned in eternity and executed in time, all under the rubric of "the Covenant of Grace". 

That seems to be more of a difference of approach to the subject, rather than anything substantial, but you may come across this.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Steve Paynter,

I appreciate the fact that you are knowledgeable, moderate in speech, as much a listener as a contributor, conciliatory without being milquetoast.

Welcome to the PB. May we all imitate that gracious manner.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Peairtach said:


> There is also the fact that some of the Reformed don't like to speak about "the Covenant of Redemption" or "Pactum Salutis" - between the Father, Son (and the Spirit) - as distinguished from "the Covenant of Grace", but place the covenant planned in eternity and executed in time, all under the rubric of "the Covenant of Grace".
> 
> That seems to be more of a difference of approach to the subject, rather than anything substantial, but you may come across this.



Oh, yes, thank you. I have read this in various places, but I haven't read all that widely in sixteenth and seventeenth sources yet, so I haven't come across it myself. I have just tidied it away in the corner of my brain that says, "earlier generations may not have used terms like we do", and then promptly forgotten about it.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Steve Paynter,
> 
> I appreciate the fact that you are knowledgeable, moderate in speech, as much a listener as a contributor, conciliatory without being milquetoast.
> 
> Welcome to the PB. May we all imitate that gracious manner.



Thank you for the welcome and the kind words. I will try to live up to this assessment of me! 

(I had to look up "milquetoast" ... I've never heard or read it before. What a useful word! It is a little like
I once had to look up "pusillanimous" which was used by one theologian or other to describe themselves ... was it Calvin or Whitefield?)

I must say, I am loving the PB. For various reasons, I have not worshipped with other Calvinists for many decades, and it is delight to find like-minded people who care about the things I care about, and can engage with information on these precious truths.


----------



## Steve Paynter

I was thinking that this thread had come to its natural conclusion, but re-reading through it, I noticed that I hadn't replied to this very helpful comment.



armourbearer said:


> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ferry, in his paper in "The Law is not of Faith", clearly has him making a sharp distinction between the Mosaic covenant and the
> covenant of grace. This is also the Reformed Baptist reading of Owen ... from the time of Nehemiah Coxe, but continued on 'til today. Having said that, Owen is credited with having a big impact on the Savoy Declaration of Faith, and that follows the WCF line on the covenants.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ferry provides a useful introduction to taxonomical issues but he fails to properly classify some of the writers. Certainly Dickson and Boston would not have recognised their place in his chart. As for Owen, you might find the discussion on Owen's view in Beeke/Jones' Puritan Theology of some interest. It shows there were other concerns at work in his exegesis.
Click to expand...


That is a helpful comment on Ferry's paper. I do find his taxonomy useful, so it is good to know that his assigning theologians to the different positions needs checking.
Also, thank you for the pointer to Beeke/Jones book. I will read it as soon as I can get access to a copy.





armourbearer said:


> Like Rev. Buchanan, I am wary of any approach which thrusts the baptism issue to the fore. Reformed covenant theology is first and foremost soteriological, and that includes infant salvation. Most "reformed baptists" with whom I am better acquainted are also primarily concerned with salvation, but then again, they also accept the Waldron interpretation of the 1689 Confession.



In a reply to the Rev. Bruce Buchanan I have apologised for apparently thrusting the baptism issue to the fore. That wasn't my intention, I was just seeking to make clear which of the positions I was talking about. 

I agree by the way that covenant theology is first and foremost soteriological. That is my interest too. I am working on PhD in which I am trying to bring N.T. Wright's covenantal context for justification and the various "Reformed" (in a broad sense of the term) covenant theologies, into conversation with the author of Luke-Acts. (i.e. test them against that portion of Scripture.) One of the good things about N.T. Wright's position is that he recognises that covenant theology is the context for understanding Paul's doctrine of justification ... something that "Reformed" covenant theologians of all stripes do ... the rub, of course, is that Wright's covenant theology differs significantly from "ours". I've yet to do the 
spade work to determine the "implicit" and "explicit" covenant theology in Luke-Acts.




armourbearer said:


> One source worth consulting for the historical "baptist" position is Keach's Catechism. The system of Westminster is adopted, and the paedobaptist position is rejected without any reworking of covenant theology, but simply on the basis that it is not explicitly commanded. For myself, the nature of the church and of divine warrant are the primary issues relating to the subjects of baptism.



Thank you again. I recently acquired a pdf of this catechism, but have yet to read it. Your comment has pushed it up my "must read" list.


----------



## MW

Steve Paynter said:


> In a reply to the Rev. Bruce Buchanan I have apologised for apparently thrusting the baptism issue to the fore. That wasn't my intention, I was just seeking to make clear which of the positions I was talking about.



Sorry if I gave the impression you were doing this; I was just speaking in general; I don't see it is in your posts.



Steve Paynter said:


> I agree by the way that covenant theology is first and foremost soteriological. That is my interest too. I am working on PhD in which I am trying to bring N.T. Wright's covenantal context for justification and the various "Reformed" (in a broad sense of the term) covenant theologies, into conversation with the author of Luke-Acts. (i.e. test them against that portion of Scripture.)



That looks like it will be a very fruitful field of study. I hope it goes well for you.


----------



## JM

Great thread! Subscribed.


----------



## Petty France

With respect,

To say that the WCF is the only reformed position is overstating the case by presenting 17th and 16th reformed paedobaptist federal theology as a uniform entity. While the Westminster Confession represents consensus, there was development and diversity in thought and expression. I highly recommend: Unity and Continuity in Covenantal Thought: A Study in the Reformed Tradition to the Westminster Assembly Reformed Historical - Theological Studies: Amazon.co.uk: Andrew A. Woolsey: Books

I also recommend: Christ & the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto: Amazon.co.uk: Michael Brown: Books

Regarding Particular Baptist federal theology, as was mentioned Pascal's book is indispensible: The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: Amazon.co.uk: Pascal Denault, Mac & Elizabeth Wigfield: Books

His reading of the sources is not peculiar or idiosyncratic. He is bringing to light that which has been sadly neglected for far too long.

Regarding Keach's catechism, it is most likely to be connected to William Collins who was appointed by the 1693 General Assembly to draft it. Keach may have had a part in revising its later editions, and he may have been a co-owner of the rights to its publication, but it was commissioned to Collins. This makes sense not only because the documents show that Collins was tasked, but also because Collins is one of the two most likely editors of the confession itself (Nehemiah Coxe being the other). Keach could not have been the editor of the confession for a variety of reasons. (See Dr. James Renihan's True Confessions for an introduction to the catechism). For that reason, it is inaccurate to say that the catechism that bears Keach's name reproduces the federal theology of the WCF. Also, Keach's own writings show that he most certainly did deviate from the federal theology of WCF 7. Returning to the catechism, however, the only things posited by it regarding covenant theology are the covenant of works and covenant of grace as the covenants pertaining to damnation and salvation. It does not enter into how the Old Testament covenants relate to the covenant of grace (although it does interchange the covenant of grace and new covenant without comment, which was a very Particular Baptist thing to do). Furthermore, if we take Collins as the editor of the catechism (which claims to be in accord with the confession), and if we take Collins as a co-editor of the confession, then we need only note that LBCF 7 heavily edits WCF 7. The LBCF preface states that wherever possible they maintained the same words as the WCF. For that reason, the significant changes in chapter 7 are self-conscious, not an automatic adoption of WCF federal theology in the least. 

This departure was not dispensational at all, and to make that claim is not only misguided, but is also unnecessary. The continuity of salvation via the covenant of grace in all of redemptive history is stated as clearly as possible (and all Reformed theologians see dividing epochs in redemptive history), what then is dispensational? The Particular Baptists did not construct their federal theology ex nihilo. They critiqued, refined, and reformed almost every reformed theologian you can think of from Calvin to Owen. They were conversant with the men of their time, and emerged out of the men of their time. Surely, they did not always agree amongst themselves, and I think they were wrong on a few points (so don't hear me putting them on a golden pedestal). My point is simply to prevent the metanarrative of 1. WCF is the only Reformed paradigm (even if you think RB's are not actually RB's), 2. The Baptist catechism belongs to Keach and default-adopts WCF federal theology, 3. LBCF is dispensational.

Pascal's work demonstrates the nature of the Particular Baptist self-conscious departure from WCF in detail. You will also find helpful thoughts from primary source Particular Baptists on federal theology here: Covenant Theology | Particular Voices

Neither side was uniform in its federal theology, before the WCF, during the composition of the WCF, and after the WCF. Was there unity and consensus in the confessional documents? Yes. Uniformity? No.

If the tone seems blunt, forgive the unpolished style. I'm trying to be straightforward, not dismissive.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I agree with Renihan the Younger. He has learned well from Renihan the Elder. LOL There was diversity but they all had a Federal Theology of the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace. Like Ruben stated about Cocceius' view, which sounds similar to what I use to hold to as a Reformed Baptist, doesn't seem to be supported by the Reformed Confessions. I am not so sure it is supported by the LBCF either. 

As a Reformed Baptist I wouldn't have used the word Ruben used in describing the Covenant of Works being abrogated but think I understand it. I would have made the distinction of which Covenant was imputed upon the Elect by Federal Head. I did see the Covenant of Works being administered along side the Covenant of Grace in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants as did John Tombe and Nehemiah Coxe. Obviously I don't hold to that position any longer. 



py3ak said:


> Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here are a few good books for reference concerning Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective. They are necessarily also tying in Baptism but they speak to the Covenantal postion. I also have some quotes from the books on my blog.

Amazon.com: Antipaedobaptism in the thought of John Tombes: Michael Thomas Renihan: Books

Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ: Nehemiah Coxe, John Owen: 9780976003939: Amazon.com: Books

The baptism of disciples alone: A covenantal argument for credobaptism versus paedobaptism: Fred A Malone: 9780971336131: Amazon.com: Books

From my old blogs.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/john-tombes-genesis-17-7-71/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/does-baptism-replace-circumcision-51/

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/new-covenant-really-new-315/


----------



## MW

Petty France said:


> If the tone seems blunt, forgive the unpolished style. I'm trying to be straightforward, not dismissive.



Straightforward speaking is helpful.

Reformed covenant theology was formulated in opposition to Romanism and Radicalism, including the Radicalism of Anabaptism. The unity of the covenant of grace is the historically reformed position and comes to mature development in the Westminster formulary. Divergence from it is divergence from the historically reformed position. The fact that a different covenant theology may be traced historically through the same time periods does not entitle it to the name "Reformed." 

When the unity of the covenant of grace is understood as the standard reformed position, any introduction of disunity will by definition be dispensational. One might play with words but the concepts are non-negotiable.

And the final authorship of "Keach's Catechism" will not alter its contents.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

"The unity of the covenant of grace is the historically reformed position and comes to mature development in the Westminster formulary."

That is where I ended up after I started understanding the substance of the Administration of the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## brandonadams

> When the unity of the covenant of grace is understood as the standard reformed position, any introduction of disunity will by definition be dispensational. One might play with words but the concepts are non-negotiable.





> The debate is not over whether there are dispensations. Of course there are. Nor is the debate over the number of dispensations. You can make as many as you wish by introducing finer distinctions. Hence, properly speaking, “dispensationalism” is an inaccurate and confusing label for the distinctiveness of D-theologians. But some terminology is needed to talk about the distinctiveness of D-theologians. For the sake of clarity, their distinctive theology might perhaps be called “Darbyism” (after its first proponent), “dual destinationism” (after one of its principal tenets concerning the separate destinies of Israel and the church), or “addressee bifurcationism” (after the principle of hermeneutical separation between meaning for Israel and significance for the church). However, history has left us stuck with the term “dispensationalism” and “dispensationalist.” (Vern Poythress, Understanding Dispensationalists, 12)



The 1689 Confession is not "Darbyism", "dual destinationism", nor "addressee bifurcationism".


----------



## Petty France

armourbearer said:


> Reformed covenant theology was formulated in opposition to Romanism and Radicalism, including the Radicalism of Anabaptism. The unity of the covenant of grace is the historically reformed position and comes to mature development in the Westminster formulary. Divergence from it is divergence from the historically reformed position. The fact that a different covenant theology may be traced historically through the same time periods does not entitle it to the name "Reformed."
> 
> When the unity of the covenant of grace is understood as the standard reformed position, any introduction of disunity will by definition be dispensational. One might play with words but the concepts are non-negotiable.



Are you implying that the Particular Baptists were Anabaptists? They did not come from anabaptists, nor were they anabaptists (as they repeatedly attempted to communicate to their paedobaptist brethren).

It is misleading to say that the Particular Baptists denied the unity of the covenant of grace. As the confession states, the covenant of grace is one pure entity from Genesis onward. It is never disrupted, circumvented, or eclipsed. The issue is that the Particular Baptists do not affirm the unity of the covenant of grace _in substance_ with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. But that is not a uniquely Particular Baptist move (e.g. Petto and Owen on the Mosaic covenant). To say that the unity of the covenant of grace (i.e. its relation to the OT covenants) was or can only be articulated in one way (the way of the WCF), and all else is dispensational, is overstating the case.

The WCF could be matured in its covenant theology with regard to the covenant of redemption (while that doctrine can be said to be present in substance, it nevertheless represents an underdeveloped area of covenant theology in the WCF). The Westminster was not the last stop on the road of development in federal theology (don't hear me saying the 1689 was either).



armourbearer said:


> One source worth consulting for the historical "baptist" position is Keach's Catechism. The system of Westminster is adopted, and the paedobaptist position is rejected without any reworking of covenant theology, but simply on the basis that it is not explicitly commanded. For myself, the nature of the church and of divine warrant are the primary issues relating to the subjects of baptism.





armourbearer said:


> And the final authorship of "Keach's Catechism" will not alter its contents.



From the catechism, please substantiate the claim that the Baptist catechism, which claims to be in line with the confession, which in turn rejects WCF 7, adopted the system of Westminster "without any reworking of covenant theology." From the following data, that claim cannot be substantiated (when the catechism is understood in light of the confession).

Q. What special act of providence did God exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created? 
A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him upon condition of perfect obedience: forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death (Gal. 3:12; Gen. 2:17). 

Q. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression? 
A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression (Gen. 2:16, 17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22). 

Q. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery? 
A. God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life (Eph. 1:4, 5), did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer (Rom. 3:20-22; Gal. 3:21, 22). 

I am pressing these issues because, as is being gradually noticed, there has been a great deal of misinformation and a great lack of primary source knowledge with regard to our confession in general and its federal theology in particular. These claims about the catechism, in such a public forum, will only further that misunderstanding. I also do not want the Anabaptist slur thrown at our heritage (if that was the connection you intended or implied). Nor do I want the dispensational label thrown at our confession. You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational). I do not feel obligated to free them from the net which you have constructed.


----------



## JM

When I read the accusation of 'dispensationalism' it is very difficult to take the post seriously.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

*But when one necessarily separates the Mosaic Covenant as a Superadded covenant, that is a dispensational understanding. I as a Reformed Baptist understood that Brandon just as I understood that a Reformed Baptist wasn't Reformed. Don't be scared of the terms if you own them properly. Sure it is not Darbyism. But it is still a separation and a disunity that isn't there in the mature Reformed Thought. As Ruben noted earlier, even Coccieus' thought was not propagated in the Confessions. Sure the term dispensation is not a bad term. But when you divide the Covenant of Grace and make admixtures of other Covenants with it, it dilutes the truth of the Biblically Reformed position and the substance of the Covenants. *


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Petty France said:


> The issue is that the Particular Baptists do not affirm the unity of the covenant of grace in substance with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. But that is not a uniquely Particular Baptist move (e.g. Petto and Owen on the Mosaic covenant).



And it is hard to find their view propagated by their contemporaries and not rejected by many who would recognize their view to look more like the Lutheran view. The Mosaic is necessarily a dispensation that is superadded. Thus the reality of the term dispensational.


----------



## Petty France

Are you willing to include Cameron, Bolton, Owen, and Petto in your dispensational category? You must see what an anachronism this is.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> When I read the accusation of 'dispensationalism' it is very difficult to take the post seriously.



Jason, the terminology is not bad. Learning to use it properly is very important. I remember being called dispensationalist and hating it as a Baptist. I kept thinking they were calling me a follower of John Darby, Woolvard, Scoffield.....etc. But that wasn't what they were doing. Even the Westminster uses the word dispensation in the WCF chapter 7. One has to have a broader understanding sometimes to understand those with whom he is communicating with. I learned that in Communications class. That is about all I learned.


----------



## JM

Petty France said:


> It is misleading to say that the Particular Baptists denied the unity of the covenant of grace. As the confession states, the covenant of grace is one pure entity from Genesis onward. It is never disrupted, circumvented, or eclipsed. The issue is that the Particular Baptists do not affirm the unity of the covenant of grace _in substance_ with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. But that is not a uniquely Particular Baptist move (e.g. Petto and Owen on the Mosaic covenant). To say that the unity of the covenant of grace (i.e. its relation to the OT covenants) was or can only be articulated in one way (the way of the WCF), and all else is dispensational, is overstating the case.



Makes sense. It also makes one wonder if the position in the WCF is one of _hyper unity_, not acknowledging the differences as other Reformed infant baptists of the 17th century believed...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Petty France said:


> Are you willing to include Cameron, Bolton, Owen, and Petto in your dispensational category? You must see what an anachronism this is.


 Oh absolutely. Their views were definitely minority and on the fringe so much the topic wasn't even discussed as I can find during the commission of the Divines at the assembly. Cameron being the Father if I remember correctly. I believe he was the proponent and developer for that position around 1600. They are few in number. That is why it is called a minority position.


----------



## JM

PuritanCovenanter said:


> JM said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I read the accusation of 'dispensationalism' it is very difficult to take the post seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jason, the terminology is not bad. Learning to use it properly is very important. I remember being called dispensationalist and hating it as a Baptist. I kept thinking they were calling me a follower of John Darby, Woolvard, Scoffield.....etc. But that wasn't what they were doing. Even the Westminster uses the word dispensation in the WCF chapter 7. One has to have a broader understanding sometimes to understand those with whom he is communicating with. I learned that in Communications class. That is about all I learned.
Click to expand...


Brother, 

I do understand how Reformed theologians have used it in the past and I also understand how it is used today. I object to the play on theological terms. see post 39


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> It also makes one wonder if the position in the WCF is one of hyper unity,



That would be monocovenantalism Jason. There is Trichotomist and dichotomist included in this discussion when it comes to understanding the positions of Covenant Theologians as I understand it. To use the term hyper might be true when considering a Reformed position in comparison to a Baptist position but but it is truly incorrect to start throwing around such a term I believe. As noted, the term dispensation is not necessarily bad. It is a legit term. I don't think you could apply the adjective hyper here correctly when referring to the Reformed position.


----------



## MW

The rhetoric is making this more complex than it needs to be. We have "covenants" and "dispensations." When a "dispensation" is reformulated to be a "covenant" we have dispensationalism. Now Westminster teaches one covenant of grace under the dispensations of law and gospel. Revised theories turn one or more of the Old Testament "dispensations" into distinct "covenants." That is dispensationalism from the Westminsterian and Reformed perspective.

A distinct covenant of redemption was not regarded as a development so far as Scottish reformed orthodoxy and the Marrow Controversy is concerned. But that is another topic.

And the "Baptist" catechism is in line with the covenant theology of the Westminster Catechism, however one understands the differences between the two confessions or the relationship of the "Baptist" catechism with the "Baptist" confession. The point here is that there is no need to reformulate covenant theology in order to arrive at the "Baptist" distinctive of the 17th century.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

JM said:


> I object to the play on theological terms. see post 39



Are we speaking about the same thing here? Where is the term being played? I don't see it. In post 39, I see someone else is taking offense because some might be talking past each other. And that happens when someone who knows history much better than the other person does sometimes. Even when it is about his own confessional standards. Actually post 39 started to get garbled for me half way through when I started reading about the catechism. And I wasn't going to respond to it anyways. 



Petty France said:


> From the catechism, please substantiate the claim that the Baptist catechism, which claims to be in line with the confession, which in turn rejects WCF 7, adopted the system of Westminster "without any reworking of covenant theology." From the following data, that claim cannot be substantiated (when the catechism is understood in light of the confession).
> 
> Q. What special act of providence did God exercise towards man in the estate wherein he was created?
> A. When God had created man, he entered into a covenant of life with him upon condition of perfect obedience: forbidding him to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, upon pain of death (Gal. 3:12; Gen. 2:17).
> 
> Q. Did all mankind fall in Adam's first transgression?
> A. The covenant being made with Adam, not only for himself but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation sinned in him, and fell with him in his first transgression (Gen. 2:16, 17; Rom. 5:12; 1 Cor. 15:21, 22).
> 
> Q. Did God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
> A. God having out of his mere good pleasure, from all eternity, elected some to everlasting life (Eph. 1:4, 5), did enter into a covenant of grace, to deliver them out of the estate of sin and misery, and to bring them into an estate of salvation by a Redeemer (Rom. 3:20-22; Gal. 3:21, 22).



Actually this sounds like a summation of the Westminster to me. But I think I will leave that for Rev. Winzer to speak about.


----------



## MW

Just a quick comment on the "Anabaptist/Baptist" difference in the 17th century. The "Baptists" certainly made the effort to present themselves as different to the "Anabaptist" tradition and more in line with the "Reformed" tradition; but (1) the fact they had to make this effort alerts us to the reality of their estrangement at the time, (2) they made this effort through confessions which agreed with Reformed confessions, such that differences with Reformed confessions must then be taken as representing differences with the "Reformed" position, and (3) how little they succeeded in convincing their Reformed brethren is seen in the fact that Reformed polemicists of the time continued to call these "Baptist" differences by the name "Anabaptist."


----------



## JM

Petty France said:


> I am pressing these issues because, as is being gradually noticed, there has been a great deal of misinformation and a great lack of primary source knowledge with regard to our confession in general and its federal theology in particular. These claims about the catechism, in such a public forum, will only further that misunderstanding. I also do not want the Anabaptist slur thrown at our heritage (if that was the connection you intended or implied). Nor do I want the dispensational label thrown at our confession. You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational). I do not feel obligated to free them from the net which you have constructed.



Exactly.


----------



## JM

Randy, I think you are answer me and talking past the points already posted.


----------



## MW

Petty France said:


> You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational).



My comment -- on leaving it to "Baptists" to sort out the difficulties -- relates to the division which has arisen within "Baptist" circles as to the proper understanding of the "Baptist" confession. I have not construed any difficulty except the one which is already inherent in this division. If the "Baptist" stream ends up interpreting its Confession in another light than the Westminster/Savoy light which one school of thought has generally followed, I think that will be a loss; but that is its prerogative.


----------



## JM

Thank you Randy and Rev. Winzer, you good fellas have given me more to think about. 

j


----------



## Steve Paynter

I just wanted to select this one statement from the above exchange to make two observations.



Petty France said:


> The WCF could be matured in its covenant theology with regard to the covenant of redemption (while that doctrine can be said to be present in substance, it nevertheless represents an underdeveloped area of covenant theology in the WCF). The Westminster was not the last stop on the road of development in federal theology (don't hear me saying the 1689 was either).



First, the "transitional" nature of the WCF becomes clearer when it is studied in relation to the Savoy Declaration (SD) and the 1689 BCF. I have read various papers about the WCF which agonise over whether it teaches the substance of the active-passive distinction with regard to the righteousness of Christ imputed to believers, as well as whether the covenant of redemption is present. Both these doctrines became clearer as the 17th century rolled around, and are more explicitly spelt out in the SD and the 1689 BCF. Great though the WCF undoubtedly was, and ... from a Presbyterian point of view, perhaps it is the greatest confession yet - nevertheless it is not perfect, nor even the most mature extant confession on matters such as the imputation of Christ's righteousness that are shared by all "reformed" (in a broad inclusive sense of that word).

Secondly, given the fact that theological discourse has continued, I wonder whether it is not time to re-start the writing of great confessions. Certainly, not for centuries, have conservative Reformed thinkers been so well educated and aware of (and committed to) the tradition within which they stand. Furthermore, never before has it been so easy to coordinate a truly international team of Reformed theologians - through the use of the web, Skype, the Puritan-Board, etc.

I can't help thinking that there are things to add to a new confession, so that it addresses issues like, the inerrancy debates, the hermeneutic debates, postmodernism, the openness debates, the Federal vision/New Perspective debates, as well as the renewed appreciation of Trinitiarian teaching that has occurred in the last couple of decades. It would be kind of cool to have "official" paedobaptist/Baptist recensions of the same core confession ... but perhaps that is me just dreaming!

My one reservation about such an enterprise arises from reading about the piety of the Westminster divines ... those guys really knew how to pray ... and I am not sure our churches have that degree of holiness that God would use us in the same way.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Steve Paynter said:


> My one reservation about such an enterprise arises from reading about the piety of the Westminster divines ... those guys really knew how to pray ... and I am not sure our churches have that decree of holiness that God would use us in the same way.



I think another reservation is that, in order to make _progress_ in a Confessional discussion, one has to understand what has already been understood to be the case. Development on Confessions in the 16th and 17th century was not a process of tearing out old foundations and building new foundations but building upon what was laid down, agreed upon, and then developed further.

Today, we have a major problem of not only historical ignorance as to the original understanding of the Confessions but also a fairly widespread indifference to such matters. Many are simply willing to equivocate on what the Confessions teach because it is easier to make a Confession a "wax nose" where the reading can be suited to new developments rather than seeking to see if the new developments are at odds with what came before.

What often happens, then, is not that someone wants to develop Covenant theology building upon what has already been confessed for centuries but a new Covenant theology is proposed and then the person comes to the Church and says "I can read the Confession in such a way that I can see my Covenant Theology within this Confession." I find it very rare the minister who will admit that their new idea actually demands that the Church decide to reject a previous understanding of the WCF in favor of the new understanding. Rather, the Church has been generally content to allow for the subversion of the Confession permitting new paradigms to be "read into" the existing Confession.

In summary, the Church would actually have to start taking existing Confessions more seriously if their aim was to allow for development on a Confessional basis because, today, development or "schools of thought" are seen to be matters of personal conviction and not something that should be constrained by a common Confession.


----------



## JM

Semper Fidelis said:


> the Church would actually have to start taking existing Confessions more seriously


----------



## Steve Paynter

armourbearer said:


> Just a quick comment on the "Anabaptist/Baptist" difference in the 17th century. The "Baptists" certainly made the effort to present themselves as different to the "Anabaptist" tradition and more in line with the "Reformed" tradition; but (1) the fact they had to make this effort alerts us to the reality of their estrangement at the time, (2) they made this effort through confessions which agreed with Reformed confessions, such that differences with Reformed confessions must then be taken as representing differences with the "Reformed" position, and (3) how little they succeeded in convincing their Reformed brethren is seen in the fact that Reformed polemicists of the time continued to call these "Baptist" differences by the name "Anabaptist."



The Baptist option seemed to have created a strong visceral reaction from many who opposed it. Some of this no doubt arose from misunderstanding and fear. What was known was that there were some socially disruptive (and perhaps even seditious) Anabaptists in the early days of the Reformation ... and no-one wanted that in England. Then the General Baptists seemed to have formed first (maybe by as much as a decade), and "Baptist" had come to mean "Arminian" in the minds of many, and these were in the days when the Arminian mistake was not considered insignificant. Finally, there were scurrilous rumours about the indecency that was involved in the baptism of adults by immersion. In these heated debates fairness was not always paramount, and some polemicists seemed to think casting aspertions was justified in fighting off a dangerous deviation. The failure to convince is not necessarily a safe measure of the value of the argument or the evidence.

A recent paper on the origins of the Particular Baptists is "Gordon L. Belyea, "Origins of the Particular Baptists", Themelios, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2007. Balyea argues that there were no links between the Anabaptists and the Particular Baptists.

With regard to the differences in the confessions, there is a lot of sense in what you say about the differences. However, it is not entirely safe. There appear to be places in the 1689 concerning the covenant of works where the confessions diverge not because of theological differences, but because they were trying to improve wording, and the slightly awkward mess the WCF gets into with its headings. Waldron's commentary on the 1689 provides details.


----------



## Petty France

Steve Paynter said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick comment on the "Anabaptist/Baptist" difference in the 17th century. The "Baptists" certainly made the effort to present themselves as different to the "Anabaptist" tradition and more in line with the "Reformed" tradition; but (1) the fact they had to make this effort alerts us to the reality of their estrangement at the time, (2) they made this effort through confessions which agreed with Reformed confessions, such that differences with Reformed confessions must then be taken as representing differences with the "Reformed" position, and (3) how little they succeeded in convincing their Reformed brethren is seen in the fact that Reformed polemicists of the time continued to call these "Baptist" differences by the name "Anabaptist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Baptist option seemed to have created a strong visceral reaction from many who opposed it. Some of this no doubt arose from misunderstanding and fear. What was known was that there were some socially disruptive (and perhaps even seditious) Anabaptists in the early days of the Reformation ... and no-one wanted that in England. Then the General Baptists seemed to have formed first (maybe by as much as a decade), and "Baptist" had come to mean "Arminian" in the minds of many, and these were in the days when the Arminian mistake was not considered insignificant. Finally, there were scurrilous rumours about the indecency that was involved in the baptism of adults by immersion. In these heated debates fairness was not always paramount, and some polemicists seemed to think casting aspertions was justified in fighting off a dangerous deviation. The failure to convince is not necessarily a safe measure of the value of the argument or the evidence.
Click to expand...


Well said, allow me to add some historical data for the consideration of all involved: Were the Particular Baptists Anabaptists? | Particular Voices


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

You have to admit there were some similarities with the anabaptists that caused alarm though. Yes, I understand that the Particular Baptists needed to separate their foundations. But concerning the Covenant of Grace they diverged from the Reformed concerning the Covenant of Grace and Covenant Theology. I believe that is the point of this thread. That is why the association happened. And while the root may be different the truth about the Covenant of Grace and its administration has some similarity. I will bow out now as Rev. Winzer noted that he also will leave it to you guys to work out. 

Be Encouraged,
Christ is our hope.


----------



## MW

In a discussion which involves history terms must be defined historically. Today we have "Reformed Baptists." In the period under discussion, the 16th and 17th centuries, when Reformed theology was being standardised, there was no such thing as a "Reformed Baptist." The fact that a certain theological formulation is espoused by "Reformed Baptists" today does not entitle it to be called "Reformed" according to the historical definition of the term.

It should also be borne in mind that the Westminster/Savoy interpretation of the covenant of grace has been espoused by "Reformed Baptists" today, and is likely one of the factors why "Reformed Baptists" have been more widely accepted as "Reformed."

On the question of "development," the Presbyterian community settled on Westminster, not on a later Confession. Hence developments in other confessions are not regarded as developments by Presbyterians. At any rate, as the saying goes, not every development is an improvement.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

brandonadams said:


> I also recognize that you want to reserve "covenant theology" and "reformed" for the WCF, and label anything else "dispensational".



Wow, Brandon, Really? Reread. This is such a misrepresentation I had to speak up.


----------



## MW

brandonadams said:


> Just reading back through this whole thread, I had to chuckle here. Apparently when the Mosaic *covenant* is called a covenant, we have dispensationalism. If that's the definition of dispensational, I'll take it.



The word "covenant" could have a biblical or a dogmatic context. The terms "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are dogmatic categories. I was speaking in the context of these dogmatic categories. You have taken my words in a dogmatic context and related them back to a biblical context in order to amuse yourself. Poor form!


----------



## Steve Paynter

armourbearer said:


> In a discussion which involves history terms must be defined historically. Today we have "Reformed Baptists." In the period under discussion, the 16th and 17th centuries, when Reformed theology was being standardised, there was no such thing as a "Reformed Baptist." The fact that a certain theological formulation is espoused by "Reformed Baptists" today does not entitle it to be called "Reformed" according to the historical definition of the term.
> 
> It should also be borne in mind that the Westminster/Savoy interpretation of the covenant of grace has been espoused by "Reformed Baptists" today, and is likely one of the factors why "Reformed Baptists" have been more widely accepted as "Reformed."
> 
> On the question of "development," the Presbyterian community settled on Westminster, not on a later Confession. Hence developments in other confessions are not regarded as developments by Presbyterians. At any rate, as the saying goes, not every development is an improvement.



I have already indicated earlier in this thread that I have no problem with a technical meaning of the word "Reformed" which limits it in the way you have articulated it, although I am not associated with a Baptist church which has "Reformed" in its title, so perhaps I don't have quite the motivation that other might have to argue differently! "A rose by any other name ..." and all that! 

[I always have to do a double-take when thinking about the word in the Jewish context, where "Reformed" doesn't mean "bastion of conservative rectitude" (which is how I implicitly gloss it to myself), but something like "liberal deviation from historic norm". Then I remember that that is what one would expect from the normal everyday meaning of the word "reform". ]

There is, I think, a couple of potential dangers associated with the stance taken here. The first is a historical problem of delineating the "Reformed" camp. There are other Reformed confessions than the WCF, and not all were as explicit about the covenants as the WCF was, and not all who subscribe to them would also subscribe to the WCF. There is a danger of anachronistically forcing the WCF insights onto a wider movement, and perhaps disenfranchising some. The historical situation seems to have been significantly more complex than this strict line would suggest.

A second one, is one that I am only just beginning to glimpse, and I am not sure I know how to articulate it, without being misunderstood and unduly critical. It has something to do with using this confessional debate to close down serious consideration of the issues. Drawing boundaries to exclude others can have the effect of putting them beyond the need to be taken seriously. ... I must hasten to add, that this is only a potential danger, and not one I see happening here. I think that by and large the discussions are exemplary, and everyone is engaging most thoughtfully with each others' position. 

On your point that not every development is an improvement, I am reminded of a comment by Peter Toon, that he made in his paper, “The Westminster and Savoy Confessions: A Brief Comparison”, Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Vol. 15, No. 3, 1972. Toon writes: 



> “In conclusion, we may say that it does seem to be the case that the Declaration of Faith contains an unbalanced presentation of the doctrines of the gospel. Perhaps this imbalance may be seen as one root of that hyper-Calvinism which infected both Congregational and Baptist churches in the early eighteenth century. In the hands and minds of less able men than Goodwin and Owen, this great stress on federal theology became the basis of a gospel that had within it no missionary endeavor. At least this thought deserves further investigation!”


 
Toon goes on to observe: 



> “In my The Emergence of hyper-Calvinism in English Nonconformity 1689-1765, London, 1967, I did not look at this possibility.”



Having said that, personally, I am not sure Toon is right. But it does confirm the need to think carefully about such issues, with a hermeneutic of suspicion.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Steve Paynter said:


> A second one, is one that I am only just beginning to glimpse, and I am not sure I know how to articulate it, without being misunderstood and unduly critical. It has something to do with using this confessional debate to close down serious consideration of the issues. Drawing boundaries to exclude others can have the effect of putting them beyond the need to be taken seriously. ... I must hasten to add, that this is only a potential danger, and not one I see happening here. I think that by and large the discussions are exemplary, and everyone is engaging most thoughtfully with each others' position.


Steve,

I first want to affirm that I agree this is a danger where the Confession or Creed not only may go unexamined but also serve to stymie any further insight into the Scriptures because we believe we have learned all there is to know. The Confessions are not meant to be exhaustive in the first place but it must be kept in mind that sound hermeneutics requires a balance of systematics and exegesis where both inform the other.

It's interesting that, on this forum, we tend to warn each other pretty regularly of the danger of allowing the Confessions to shut down discussion but this community of people who actually _care_ about the Confessions is such a tiny, tiny minority that the larger issue the Christian Church has today is recognizing the value of Creeds and Confessions in the least. Summarizing a Carl Trueman quote, we're so accustomed to the autonomy of personal interpretation and a theology of the first glance that we find the idea of being restricted by a Confession in any way to be alien. I can't tell you the number of times that I've heard ministers in the Reformed community say things like: "I know the Confession says X but the Bible says Y" and they expect the debate to end there. Few are interested in the idea that the Church might come to a common confession or that they need to slow down and submit their own views of the Bible to the tempering of the wisdom of many peers or the centuries of systematic and historical development.

I'm a child of the spirit of this age and so I always find myself, in a real sense, having to constantly apologize to others that I'm actually quoting the Confession because, even in these circles, there's the consistently wary eye that you've just played the Pharisee and don't follow the Scriptures.

Thus, returning to your earlier point about the things that sort of hinder modern Confessions we might add another: suspicion of Confessions. Frankly, in one sense, it would be a welcome change if we actually had to worry about a widespread use of the WCF to the point where I might actually bump into a real person in the real world on the floor of Presbytery who was inflexible about the Confession.


----------



## PatrickTMcWilliams

armourbearer said:


> Petty France said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comment -- on leaving it to "Baptists" to sort out the difficulties -- relates to the division which has arisen within "Baptist" circles as to the proper understanding of the "Baptist" confession. I have not construed any difficulty except the one which is already inherent in this division. If the "Baptist" stream ends up interpreting its Confession in another light than the Westminster/Savoy light which one school of thought has generally followed, I think that will be a loss; but that is its prerogative.
Click to expand...


Reverend Winzer, why do you always place quotation marks around "Baptist"? You speak of the "Baptist" confession and the "Baptist" catechism, "Baptist" circles inhabited by "Baptists," etc. It would seem you do not believe it is the proper word. What word would you prefer?


----------



## Petty France

My participation in this thread has had one purpose, to clarify historical misrepresentation of Particular Baptists. In light of the various trails that have run to and fro, allow me to sort and and sift what needs to be understood by the confessional baptists on this board.

1. The Baptist catechism does not "adopt the system of Westminster without any reworking of covenant theology." The following logic does not work: "The WCF teaches a covenant of works and covenant of grace. The Baptist catechism teaches a covenant of works and covenant of grace. The Baptist say nothing further abou this. Therefore, the Baptist catechism adopts the Westminster system without any reworking." This syllogism fails because the catechism itself claims to be in line with the LBCF which most surely does not adopt the WCF system (not to mention reading the Particular Baptist writings themselves). I provided the data from the catechism to prove that what is affirmed is the covenant of works and covenant of grace, and that this does not in any way commit the catechism to the substance/administration framework of the WCF federal theology. If the Baptists did not have their own confession, and simply produced their own catechism, in light of the WCF, it would be a very plausible option. But the connection of the catechism to the LBCF eliminates this possibility. 

2. A connection was implied between the Particular Baptists and Anabaptists. This connection was defended as follows: "(1) the fact they had to make this effort alerts us to the reality of their estrangement at the time, (2) they made this effort through confessions which agreed with Reformed confessions, such that differences with Reformed confessions must then be taken as representing differences with the "Reformed" position, and (3) how little they succeeded in convincing their Reformed brethren is seen in the fact that Reformed polemicists of the time continued to call these "Baptist" differences by the name "Anabaptist."" In reply, I posted a blog entry which details how Stephen Marshall, Robert Baillie, Daniel Featley, and Thomas Edwards treated the 1644 confession of the Particular Baptists. The "estrangement" and "little success in convincing their brethren" takes on a whole new light when you see how the Particular Baptists were treated. The deck is stacked against you when even Westminster Assembly divines are mudslinging and simply refusing to believe your sincerest attempts at confessing orthodoxy, when your religious convictions are illegal, and when your ministers are being put in jail for those convictions. It wasn't as simple as "they failed to convince their brethren." Go and read the sources, the blog post shows the writings of those men themselves, not a Baptist version.

3. The word dispensational has been attached to our confession's formulation of federal theology. It was explained in the following manner, "When a "dispensation" is reformulated to be a "covenant" we have dispensationalism. Now Westminster teaches one covenant of grace under the dispensations of law and gospel. Revised theories turn one or more of the Old Testament "dispensations" into distinct "covenants." That is dispensationalism from the Westminsterian and Reformed perspective." When challenged on the fact that calling the Mosaic covenant a covenant would be tantamount to dispensationalism, the defense was, "The word "covenant" could have a biblical or a dogmatic context." It sounds nice and tidy till again we read John Ball asserting that “Most divines hold the old and new Covenants to be one in substance and kind, differing in only degrees.” Yet when confronted with the discontinuity of biblical language directed at the old and new covenants he expressed, “How all these differences should stand, if they be not covenants opposite in kind, it is not easy to understand.” Samuel Rutherford, likewise expressed concern at this point when he said, “And it is true, Gal. 4, 22, 23, 24, etc, they seeme to be made contrare Covenants.” (Go read Brown's chapter on the Mosaic covenant in reformed orthodoxy in the Petto volume). Why do we read doubts and diverging views in the 17th century and then pretend that the WCF represents uniformity? We need to understand that the WCF, _in England_, was not a matter of personal subscription but of public teaching. It was intended to be the standard of public teaching which could not be contradicted. For that reason, we cannot think that the WCF expresses uniform views from all divines involved. It was the agreed public standard of teaching in England, something not to be contradicted, not the peculiar confession of each and every individual on every point. (See Confessional Subscription and the Westminster Assembly | Particular Voices). So, this dragnet term "dispensational" and this uniform presentation of 17th century federal theology via the WCF are an overly narrow presentation via an imposed metanarrative. If taken as presented, and as already noted, the term "dispensational" must be applied to Cameron, Bolton, Petto, Owen, and others. And Rutherford and Ball had "dispensational" questions. 

Bringing this back to the Particular Baptists, were they perfect? Were they the last stop in the development of theological understanding? Of course they weren't. But lest the errors of Marshall, Baillie, Featley, and Edwards be repeated here on this board (as they are to a certain extent) then know that the Particular Baptists did not adopt the WCF system of federal theology without qualification, they were not Anabaptists, and if they were "dispensational," they were in good company.

What's the point? Make sure that claims are substantiated and the full picture is being presented. Tolle lege.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

PatrickTMcWilliams said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Petty France said:
> 
> 
> 
> You may reply that you leave it to Baptists to resolve the supposed difficulties, but the difficulties lie in your construal of the debate (i.e. all federal theology other than WCF is dispensational).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My comment -- on leaving it to "Baptists" to sort out the difficulties -- relates to the division which has arisen within "Baptist" circles as to the proper understanding of the "Baptist" confession. I have not construed any difficulty except the one which is already inherent in this division. If the "Baptist" stream ends up interpreting its Confession in another light than the Westminster/Savoy light which one school of thought has generally followed, I think that will be a loss; but that is its prerogative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reverend Winzer, why do you always place quotation marks around "Baptist"? You speak of the "Baptist" confession and the "Baptist" catechism, "Baptist" circles inhabited by "Baptists," etc. It would seem you do not believe it is the proper word. What word would you prefer?
Click to expand...

Patrick,

If you go back and read Rev. Winzer's posts he does that for the subject matter in a lot of his sentences. He also does it with the terms covenant, covenant of works, covenant of grace, etc. It is an emphasis on subject matter.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Thank you Rich for your wise words about the spirit of this age with regard to confessions and confessionalism. I find that I am far from free of that same spirit, for although I am happy to subscribe to the 1689 agree with the caveats I express in my signature, I very much only do so because it happens to agree with my reading of Scripture. In Baptist circles there has never been a history (or if there has, it has not been very wide-spread) of requiring subscription to confessions. 

In some ways this is healthy, as confessions have to be tested - over and over - against the fresh light that is being shed by the Holy Spirit and succeeding generations of Christians struggling to bring ever new issues into captivity to Christ. The danger, as you point out, is of not being rooted in the historical faith.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Petty France said:


> What's the point? Make sure that claims are substantiated and the full picture is being presented. Tolle lege.


I think that, when read carefully, some differentiations between exegetical vs dogmatic uses of terms as well as modern vs historical uses of terms are being used. I think the problem, even in your analysis, is that the "full picture" is not being painted as far as transporting us back to the categories of thinking that came with those terms at the time they were used and so there is a bit of talking past each other. To utilize a term we apply to proper Biblical interpretation, if we apply the same grammatico-historical analysis to some of these issues then I've found that some of my modern understanding of terms leads me to conclude one thing on the surface and then I learn that the terms were used differently in the past. Furthermore, the Reformed had a way of writing one thing in a commentary that seems to contradict or overthrow a dogmatic category but, when we look at the way those disciplines functioned during the time of the Puritans, we find that no such contradiction exists. Your example of Rutherford on the Covenants is one such example. It's a "conclusion of the first glance" where, you have have suggested to all of us, you might want to read more in order to see how exegetical and dogmatic categories differed.

This is a discussion. It may seem that, on the surface, there is mud-slinging going on. Certain terms are pejorative in a modern context that are not so in a historical context. In one sense, the difficulty here is that we would have to agree on whether historical usage of a bygone era controls terminology or modern use of those terms. That clearly has not been settled in this discussion but, if further dialogue is allowed to occur then there may be a way to at least better understand what is being said whether or not agreement can be arrived at.


----------



## Steve Paynter

In the article linked above, there was the following sentence ...



> The Baptists did not treat their confession(s) in the same way ...



Can anyone expand on this? I remember reading Spurgeon's comments when he republished the 1689 in the 19th century ... but that is all that I know about it.


----------



## Petty France

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think the problem, even in your analysis, is that the "full picture" is not being painted as far as transporting us back to the categories of thinking that came with those terms at the time they were used and so there is a bit of talking past each other.



I agree, brother. I didn't intend to communicate that my presentation had every piece to it. And I recognize that there are disjunctures in language going on here, especially in point 3 of my post. In light of all of this, my sincere desire is to see more ad fontes among us. Even wikipedia requires citation for the simplest of articles, we should ask for more of the same. Not everyone has the time, resources, or access to get into the vast primary and secondary literature that is at play here. For that reason, it is very easy for one person (that's pointed at all of us) to produce or perpetuate historical falsehoods, and thus those who do not have time and access accept these statements without any evidence upon which to act as Bereans. My desire is to contribute to the discussion via primary resources and to encourage others to do the same. This would go further in preventing any one of us from unintentionally misleading others about our confessional heritage and context. Sadly on the internet there is all too much talking, and all too little reading. We need to educate ourselves and others in a well-rounded fashion, understanding with patience that this is a large and complicated context. The best way to do this is to put our cards on the table, define our terms, quote our sources, and be as transparent as possible. 

This is difficult when the data is put forward and ignored, thus repeating history's errors. Therein lies my frustration (see points 1 and 2 in my post above). It would go a long way to see those statements retracted. I'm not really looking for any conclusion to point three. I recognize how our confession fits into Rev. Winzer's explanation of the term "dispensational" and I have no reason to eschew that. My point there was to prevent our confession from looking so utterly detached from reformed theology as the term "dispensational" implies in our minds.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Returning to the opening question of this thread, I have recently been reading Michael Brown's "Christ and the Condition: The Covenant Theology of Samuel Petto (1624-1711)", Reformation Heritage Books (Grand Rapids: Michigan), 2012. On page 85, he writes:



> ... the views of the Reformed orthodox on this point [the number of covenants and how Sinai should be related to the covenants of works and grace] cannot be reduced to a single paradigm or simplistically delineated into a mere two or three different positions.



In a footnote at that point, Brown observes that this was the mistake that E.F. Kevan made in his book, "The Grace of Law" 1964.

So ... my attempt at articulating three different positions on the covenant of grace is suitably rebuked! 

Fortunately, Brown provides two taxonomies from the 17th century that might help to make my understanding a little more sophisticated. The first is by Samuel Bolton (1606-1654) from his 1645 work, "The True Bounds of Christian Freedom", and concerns the relationship of the Mosaic covenant. Brown tells us ...



> 1. Some would have it a covenant of works, and yet will not have it opposite to the covenant of grace
> 2. Some would have it a covenant of grace, but more legally dispensed.
> 3. Some again would have it a mixed covenant, mixed of the covenant of nature and of Grace
> 4. Some again would have it a subservient covenant, a covenant given to them in way of subservincie to the gospel and grace.
> 5. And others would have it no covenant, but rather the repetition of the covenant of works made with man in innocency. And that God in giving of the law, did but repeat the covenant under which we did, and do stand, till we come over unto Christ ... And this God did with merciful purposes, to drive us out of ourselves and to bring us over unto Christ.



Brown adds later (page 91) that Bolton had a sixth category:



> There is another interpretation, and that is, that Do this and live, though it was spoken to them immediately, yet not terminatively, but through them to Jesus Christ, who hath fulfilled all righteousness for us, and purchased life by his own obedience.




Brown also gives Edmund Calamy's (1600-1666) taxonomy of positions on Sinai in his day, articulated in his "Two Solemn Covenants Made Between God and Man" (1647).



> He enumerated five main categories. The first consisted of those who saw four covenants: a prelapsarian covenant of works with Adam, a postlapsarian covenant with Israel, and two covenants of grace - one with Abraham and the other with Christ as his incarnation. ...
> 
> In his second category were those who believed there to be three covenants: a prelapsarian covenant of works with Adam, a postlapsarian covenant of works with Israel, and a postlapsarian covenant of grace with Christ.
> 
> The third category was made up of those who saw only two covenants: a postlapsarian covenant of works with Israel and a covenant of grace not made until Christ's death. ...
> 
> In the fourth category were those who held Sinai to be a covenant of grace different from the covenant of grace mediated by Christ. ...
> 
> In the fifth group were those who, like Calamy, claimed that there were only two covenants - namely a prelapsarian covenant of works and a postlapsarian covenant of grace mediated by Christ. For Calamy, the Mosaic covenant was "a perfect copy of the covenant of works, yet being given to another end"; that is, it functioned as a standard for godly living, not as an actual covenant. Sinai was simply "a rule of life for those already in the covenant."



I don't know about any of you ... but I need to pause to think through all this!!

(Again, remember, I am not interested in arbitrating between which of these positions are compliant with which confession. My interest is more that of understanding the options, before coming to the Bible to test them, and only then - later - to judge which, if any, agree with which confession, and hence reassess what I think of the different confessions. There is a time to stand by the confessions, and there is also a time to judge the confessions against Scripture. I, however, am personally a long way off having enough of a grasp of the arguments and positions to form any such judgment at this stage on the subject of covenant theology.)


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Steve Paynter said:


> I don't know about any of you ... but I need to pause to think through all this!!


I think you're equivocating on the issue of the OP. You asked for "Reformed" understanding and then you jump to the fact that there were many views among ministers at the time of the creation of the Confesions that either did or did not ever make their way into a Confession. Are you suggesting that the Reformed Church is not a Confessing Church?



Steve Paynter said:


> I am not interested in arbitrating between which of these positions are compliant with which confession.



At some point, there needs to be some differentiation in order to make sense of words. Does "Reformed" understanding have any historical meaning at all if it means "...Reverend X attends a Reformed Church and his view is Y, therefore Y is a Reformed understanding." It seems arbitrary, if you accept this definition, to exclude the likes of Charles Finney or Karl Barth from your list.

If I might apply your logic of gathering relevant "opinions", let me pose to you a scenario. Let's suppose you asked me: How many Reformed understandings of the Atonement are there?

Would you want me to include the "opinions" of the Remonstrants (members of a Reformed Church) or would Dordt have anything to say about excluding their view?


----------



## MW

PatrickTMcWilliams said:


> Reverend Winzer, why do you always place quotation marks around "Baptist"? You speak of the "Baptist" confession and the "Baptist" catechism, "Baptist" circles inhabited by "Baptists," etc. It would seem you do not believe it is the proper word. What word would you prefer?



A person who is called a "Baptist" because he immerses or only baptises those who personally profess faith is not a true Baptist according to the way the Bible is interpreted by paedobaptists. To concede the name is to give up the debate. The quotation marks indicate that the term itself requires further clarification.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Semper Fidelis said:


> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about any of you ... but I need to pause to think through all this!!
> 
> 
> 
> I think you're equivocating on the issue of the OP. You asked for "Reformed" understanding and then you jump to the fact that there were many views among ministers at the time of the creation of the Confesions that either did or did not ever make their way into a Confession. Are you suggesting that the Reformed Church is not a Confessing Church?
> 
> 
> 
> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not interested in arbitrating between which of these positions are compliant with which confession.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> At some point, there needs to be some differentiation in order to make sense of words. Does "Reformed" understanding have any historical meaning at all if it means is "...Reverend X attends a Reformed Church and his view is Y, therefore Y is a Reformed understanding." It seems arbitrary, if you accept this definition, to exclude the likes of Charles Finney or Karl Barth from your list.
> 
> If I might apply your logic of gathering relevant "opinions", let me pose to you a scenario. Let's suppose you asked me: How many Reformed understandings of the Atonement are there?
> 
> Would you want me to include the "opinions" of the Remonstrants (members of a Reformed Church) or would Dordt have anything to say about excluding their view?
Click to expand...


This is a great set of questions. Maybe I am equivocating at bit ... but the OP had Reformed in quotation marks because I was not trying to use it in a limited technical sense. I am quite happy for "Reformed" to be restricted to positions which comply with particular confessions, for in one sense, I don't care about the label. I want to understand the range of options so that I can come to the Bible with a sophisticated understanding of the interpretive options. I firmly believe that while exegesis should be the basis of our systematic theology, our exegesis will be informed by our systematic theology. We need to keep going around the hermeneutical spiral, and part of helping that task, is approaching the interpretation of Scripture with the most sophisticated understanding of systematics that I can develop at the stage I'm at. Hence, the OP of this thread. However, I don't want to waste my time taking too seriously views which are coming from totally different positions, positions which entail understandings of the Bible that have no credibility to me ... Hence the use of a wide meaning of "Reformed" in my OP.

Clearly the label Reformed can be defined so that it means "confessing church" without remainder. But I think that "Reformed" should mean something along the lines "confessing church that is always open to having its confessions reformed by Scripture". This - as I understand it - is true of the majority of Reformed churches historically.

I liked your challenge of the Remonstrants ... Clearly the Synod of Dort excluded Arminianism from the Reformed church. Prior to Dort, Arminianism was a school of thought in the Reformed churches of Holland (it wasn't Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). However, even now excluded from Reformed church, it is still important to understand Arminianism, and to reject it ourselves ... not primarily because it was rejected by Dort, but because it is not compatible with the Bible. In other words, we should reject it for the same reasons as Dort rejected it. Confessions are guides; but must not take the place of Scripture.

I am trying to learn to be a New Testament scholar. I want to be one who is sophisticated and informed in matters of systematic and historical theology. I want to operate within broadly defined Reformed orthodoxy, but I dare not slavishly follow Reformed confessions without asking the question as to whether they are the best fit at each point with Scripture (or even more, with the particular portion of Scripture that I am studying at the time.) That would be failing in my job as a New Testament scholar. I need to understand the positions which didn't make it into the confessions. 

I don't think I am wrong in thinking I need to do this, but am open and interested in arguments that I am.


----------



## MW

Steve Paynter said:


> There are other Reformed confessions than the WCF, and not all were as explicit about the covenants as the WCF was, and not all who subscribe to them would also subscribe to the WCF. There is a danger of anachronistically forcing the WCF insights onto a wider movement, and perhaps disenfranchising some. The historical situation seems to have been significantly more complex than this strict line would suggest.



Our brethren who derive their Reformed lineage from the continental tradition agree with us concerning an unified covenant of grace. That should strengthen, not weaken, the Reformed status of Westminster. There are obviously issues related to the "covenant of works" or "covenant of redemption" which are open for discussion, but that is not the subject of this thread.



Steve Paynter said:


> It has something to do with using this confessional debate to close down serious consideration of the issues.



Given the literature on the subject from within confessionally reformed churches it is obvious that the confessional standards have not closed down discussion. There are numerous intramural discussions which are yet to be finalised.


----------



## MW

Petty France said:


> 3. The word dispensational has been attached to our confession's formulation of federal theology.



Actually, it hasn't. It was a specific understanding of that confession which was under discussion, not the confession itself.

As for Owen, he affirmed an unified covenant of grace. As noted earlier in the thread, even the Kline/Horton understanding seeks to stand within the mainstream of reformed thought. Obviously authors like to explain themselves and express nuances so as to clarify their use of terms; but their clarifications should not be used by readers to move them from their stated position.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Steve Paynter said:


> We need to keep going around the hermeneutical spiral, and part of helping that task, is approaching the interpretation of Scripture with the most sophisticated understanding of systematics that I can develop at the stage I'm at. Hence, the OP of this thread. However, I don't want to waste my time taking too seriously views which are coming from totally different positions, positions which entail understandings of the Bible that have no credibility to me ... Hence the use of a wide meaning of "Reformed" in my OP.


I'm conversant with Grant Osbourne's view of the Hermeneutic spiral and it is a good way of looking at the interplay between Systematics, Historical, Biblical, and exegetical theology but you still have a problem in determining how "wide" you want your options to be. Since you don't want any Confessions to be the boundary then why do you start with three options in the OP? Surely there are hundreds once the boundary of what "Reformed" means is taken down altogether. To many Lutherans, Reformed includes not only John Calvin but the theology of Joel Osteen and faith healers. Barth considered himself Reformed as well.


Steve Paynter said:


> I liked your challenge of the Remonstrants ... Clearly the Synod of Dort excluded Arminianism from the Reformed church. Prior to Dort, Arminianism was a school of thought in the Reformed churches of Holland (it wasn't Lutheran, Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox). However, even now excluded from Reformed church, it is still important to understand Arminianism, and to reject it ourselves ... not primarily because it was rejected by Dort, but because it is not compatible with the Bible. In other words, we should reject it for the same reasons as Dort rejected it. Confessions are guides; but must not take the place of Scripture.


Everyone believes they are rejecting non-Biblical doctrines. May a person who still affirms all five points of the Remonstrants correctly call themselves "Reformed"? The issue is not whether the Remonstrants were repudiated by Scripture but that Dordt "confessed" as a _Church_ what the Scripture taught. To say that the Remonstrants were repudiated not by a Confession but the Scriptures is to deny that Dordt confessed what the Scriptures taught. Every time you write or say something about the Scriptures you are individually confessing what the Scriptures teach. Is it proper for a person to interrupt your preaching or teaching at every turn and remind you that what you just said about the Scriptures is not the Scriptures themselves and that they can't be expected for your sound exposition to "take the place of Scripture"? Confession is, in the end, inevitable.

Nobody within the Reformed tradition claims that the Confessions replace the Scriptures. They are seen as a standard exposition of the Scriptures - not _my_ standard exposition but _our_ Church's standard exposition. Theology is not an endeavor where the individual stands apart from the Church but the Church confesses together as it is built up by those who are given the gifts and office to handle soundly the Word of Truth (Eph 4). I'll never understand why so many people find the idea strange that the Church could arrive at unanimity about what the Scriptures principally teach and write it down for posterity. The same people often don't find it strange that they can _individually_ interpret the Scriptures. It's when that individual autonomy runs aground of the Church that I find the default response is not the rejection of all confession but the confession that disagrees with _my own_.



Steve Paynter said:


> I am trying to learn to be a New Testament scholar. I want to be one who is sophisticated and informed in matters of systematic and historical theology. I want to operate within broadly defined Reformed orthodoxy, but I dare not slavishly follow Reformed confessions without asking the question as to whether they are the best fit at each point with Scripture (or even more, with the particular portion of Scripture that I am studying at the time.) That would be failing in my job as a New Testament scholar. I need to understand the positions which didn't make it into the confessions.


It's interesting to me how you use the term "sophisticated" a number of times. I think my concern may be summed up in something that a minister friend of mine once said about the person who kept saying to him: This is how _I_ interpret the Scriptures. He gently rebuked him to remind him that _we_ confess the Scriptures together. The Reformed Confessions arise out of a couple of convictions that they are not only understandable by the use of regular means but also that the Scriptures themselves teach the notion that gifts are given to men to arrive at the unity of the faith. Taken together, the Church should expect that the Spirit can lead men to come to an understanding of the Scriptures, to agree upon what it teaches, and in turn hold each other accountable and grow together in that understanding. The Reformed Church was obviously protesting against a kind of theology that only starts talking to itself with no reference to the Scriptures but they still maintained the Scriptural idea that we ought to be able to confess truths together. It is the hallmark of the Reformation (and not its detriment) that they've publicly confessed what the Scriptures teach. It is the Radicals, like the Romanists, who don't want to ever define what the Scriptures teach because it doesn't fit their system to be bound by the written Word.

It is not safe to either be one who blindly accepts Church authority above the Scriptures or to think that one is somehow an island of "sophisticated" Biblical scholarship that can function apart from the ongoing life of the Church. The Word creates the Church and it creates a Church that confesses the Word. I would urge you to consider the danger of the position of scholarship that believes it does not need to be anchored in the Church or that the hermeneutical spiral is a continual reinvention of the faith "...once for all delivered to the Saints". It is my experience that those who are most faithful to the work of theology for and in conversation with the Church grounded in the Scriptures are those who are extremely "liberal" in their understanding of modern notions and the spirit of the age and know how to "re-form" that faith once for all delivered to the Saints that a new generation may confess anew that faith.


----------



## MW

Semper Fidelis said:


> Taken together, the Church should expect that the Spirit can lead men to come to an understanding of the Scriptures, to agree upon what it teaches, and in turn hold each other accountable and grow together in that understanding.



Well stated, Rich. In the words of holy writ, "to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Steve Paynter said:


> It has something to do with using this confessional debate to close down serious consideration of the issues. Drawing boundaries to exclude others can have the effect of putting them beyond the need to be taken seriously. ... I must hasten to add, that this is only a potential danger,





armourbearer said:


> Given the literature on the subject from within confessionally reformed churches it is obvious that the confessional standards have not closed down discussion. There are numerous intramural discussions which are yet to be finalised.



My situation tends to rely upon the Divines and there exegesis, historical writings, and how they came to understand what they wrote. From some of my research a lot of the things being hashed out today were hashed out and there is an ignorance concerning what was hashed out already. I am finding some modern writers will not look at what the Divines of the Assembly or other Confessional Standards said concerning the topics we are debating today. It seems to me the phrase nothing new under the sun is very applicable as theological issues have been weighed in the balance. In the forum rules under Confessional Requirements the last sentence reads, "Those who seek to modify, depart from, change or disprove the doctrines found in the Confessions will bear the burden of proof to support their claim." 

I am seeing there is a lack of knowledge concerning what these gentlemen wrote and why they wrote the things they did in their writings during the period. When one looks at the minutes or commentaries on subjects that these men wrote we can see they clearly thought through much of what is even being propagated today concerning the various Covenantal views. We just need to read and find the resources maybe. The views that have been mentioned above were considered and noted to be minority views and rejected by my understanding having read the writings of Rutherford and Burgess. Maybe it would be a good thing to read why a two Covenants of Grace doctrine was refuted and not considered to be Reformed instead of just saying or implying was counted among the teachings of that period when it was thoroughly rejected by the Reformed Church. Remember, the Westminster Assembly had members who were Erastian, Congregationalist, and Presbyterian. There were some awesome men from all sides involved in the discussion.

I would heartily recommend "A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life" by Beeke and Jones chapters 16-18 concerning the Covenant of Grace, the Mosaic Covenant, and John Owen's view on the matter. At the same time I would recommend Rutherford, Burgess, and others who expressed their views strongly on the matter. Then the matter can be known a bit more. Having been a Baptist for many years I am familiar with much of their thought and discussion. There is also a lot of new light coming to the front to help understand their positions. But the new stuff isn't really revealing anything new in my understanding. Sometimes it seems to muddy the waters because the whole of what someone wrote is not considered. Owen for instance. Some of them hold to the view that John Owen held to concerning the Covenant of Grace. 




> _It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5._
> _Vindiciae Evangelicae Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38._







> _The first are of three sorts:— First, Of life temporal, as it was an instrument of their government; and eternal with God, _*as the promise or covenant of grace was exemplified or represented therein, Leviticus 18:5; Ezekiel 20:11; Romans 10:5; Galatians 3:12. Secondly, Of a spiritual Redeemer, Savior, Deliverer, really to effect what the ordinances of institution did represent, so to save them eternally, to be exhibited in the fullness of time, as we have at large already proved. Thirdly, There are given out with the law various promises of intervenient and mixed mercies, to be enjoyed in earthly things in this world, that had their immediate respect unto the mercy of the land of Canaan, representing spiritual grace,annexed to the then present administration of the covenant of grace. Some of these concerned the collation of good things, others the preventing of or delivery from evil; both expressed in great variety.
> 
> p. 657 (Volume 17)*


*

*There is some peculiarity in Owen but He does not deny the One Covenant of Grace. I hope I am not muddying up the waters here.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

PuritanCovenanter said:


> There is some peculiarity in Owen but He does not deny the One Covenant of Grace



Neither does the 1689 Baptist confession


----------



## Steve Paynter

armourbearer said:


> As for Owen, he affirmed an unified covenant of grace. As noted earlier in the thread, even the Kline/Horton understanding seeks to stand within the mainstream of reformed thought. Obviously authors like to explain themselves and express nuances so as to clarify their use of terms; but their clarifications should not be used by readers to move them from their stated position.



I think you are affirming that Owen held the Mosaic covenant to be an administration of the covenant of grace. What you actually said, is that he held "an unified covenant of grace".
This is weaker than the first, for the Particular Baptists (even on Denault's reading of the 1689) would also affirmed a "unified covenant of grace" - God's salvation purposes were coherent and single across salvation-history.

The 1689 BCF in chapter 7 reads: 



> This covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.



Owen - even if his understanding is understood as being identical with the 1689 confession - as Nehemiah Coxe did back in the day, and as Denault does today - would still be able to affirm "an unified covenant of grace".

I can respect the position that restricts "Reformed" to the WCF teaching about the covenant of grace being one covenant with two administrations. However, one of the consequences of that is that some will have to be counted as outside the Reformed camp, who otherwise have close affinity with the Reformed camp, and who may self-identify as being Reformed. Owen in his commentary on Hebrews distinguishes the Mosaic covenant from the covenant of grace. Horton calls the Mosaic covenant a law-covenant, and distinguishes it from "royal grant" covenants, like the Abrahamic. Yes, they both have a unified covenant of grace ... uniting the New with the Abrahamic, but distinguishing this from the Mosaic covenant. Their positions are a long way from dispensationalism, where God is understood to save in different ways at different times. These minority views were held by those within the broadly defined "Reformed" community prior to the WCF, but if the WCF is to be used to draw the boundaries of what is Reformed proper, then their positions must be called non-Reformed (as Randy was prepared to do with regards to Owen earlier in this thread). Of course, labelling a position as non-Reformed leaves open the question as to whether or not it is biblical.


----------



## MW

One can make too much of an author's qualifications and extend them to a point where they become a position in and of themselves. Owen still has an administration of the covenant of grace in the OT, and this administration extends outwardly to non-elect people. According to the newer understanding of the "Baptist" confession, there is no administration of the covenant of grace until the full manifestation of it in the New Testament, and it extends only to the elect. It is evident that these are two entirely different systems of thought.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Hi Randy, thank you for your post.



PuritanCovenanter said:


> It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5._Vindiciae Evangelicae Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38._



I agree that this does seem to cohere with the WCF. When I read it first, I thought it was open to more than one reading. However, the word "legal" probably rules out the idea that it was the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace, rather than the Mosaic, that Owen had in mind. Does the wider context make this even more clear?

What point were you making quoting Owen's age? That it was a relatively early work of his? Or a relatively late, mature work?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Petty France said:
> 
> 
> 
> The issue is that the Particular Baptists do not affirm the unity of the covenant of grace in substance with the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic covenants. But that is not a uniquely Particular Baptist move (e.g. Petto and Owen on the Mosaic covenant).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And it is hard to find their view propagated by their contemporaries and not rejected by many who would recognize their view to look more like the Lutheran view. The Mosaic is necessarily a dispensation that is superadded. Thus the reality of the term dispensational.
Click to expand...


One more thing. I didn't necessarily agree with the above quote. I was just speaking about Petto's and Owen's view of the Mosaic. Their views concerning the Abrahamic, and Davidic were of Grace. They held to the view also concerning the sign and seal of the Covenants to include children of families that were considered to be in the Covenant of Grace. By necessity the Promise extends from the Abrahamic through the Mosaic as Promise. 

There is something here that I picked up on that I hadn't noticed so much in the past when it was discussed. I noticed some categorical terms earlier concerning Owen's view on the Covenants. I believe they were speaking about context. I believe Exegetica, Dogmatic, and Biblical were the terms. Rev. Winzer or Rich can you help us to learn what it means to think in these categories and why that is important?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Steve Paynter said:


> What point were you making quoting Owen's age? That it was a relatively early work of his? Or a relatively late, mature work?



Steve my understanding comes from a discussion I was having some time back with a Reformed Baptist Elder. Owen is a Genius when it comes to Theology and matters of the Gospel and sanctification. But he confuses me on other issues and seems to be inconsistent. That is why the Reformed Baptist love him so much. They believe if he was consistent he would have been a Reformed Baptist or at least an anti-padobaptist such at John Tombe. The quote you read was from my inquirie with this Elder and I was wondering when the work was done. Was it during the time he wrote Hebrews or after? As it really doesn't seem to matter since after reading the intro to the Hebrews Commentary some pertinant quotes seem to show a side of Owen that many don't see. Reading Owen in context or in the scope of his broader thought is difficult. You have to read a lot. LOL I will leave you with a portion from that Reformed Baptist Elder's discussion and reference to me. 



> The thing that boggles my mind reading these discussions nowadays is how little people understand what Owen is saying. If you want to understand what he says on Hebrews Chapter 8, you need to go to Vol. 17 and read his Preface, Introductory materials, exercitations, etc.
> 
> Early on here he describes the project: how the Apostle was showing the harmony of law and gospel:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The work of the apostle, in these chapters, is to show the harmony between the law and the gospel, their different ends and uses; to take off all seeming repugnancy and contradiction between them; to declare the same grace, truth, and faithfulness of God in them both, notwithstanding their inconsistent institutions of divine worship: nay, he makes it evident not only that there is a harmony between them, but also an utter impossibility that either of them should be true or proceed from God without the other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p. 43-44, Vol 17, Goold Ages Software edition
> 
> Speaking of the deficiencies of the Law, he uses the word "administration":
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are carnal things, and could by no means effect the great, spiritual, glorious, and eternal ends which God had designed, proposed, and promised, in that covenant unto whose administration they were annexed until “the time of reformation” should come.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Id. p. 653
> 
> And on p. 654-655 Owen gives several ways of looking at the law, including what he calls the "repetition of the law of nature" (note, *not* "natural law"--a distinction moderns don't understand) or covenant of works:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To represent this distinctly, we may observe that the law falls under a threefold consideration; — first, As it was a repetition and expression of the law of nature, and the covenant of works established thereon; secondly, As it had a new end and design put upon the administration of it, to direct the church unto the use and benefit of the promise given of old to Adam, and renewed unto Abraham four hundred and thirty years before; thirdly, As it was the instrument of the rule and government of the church and people of Israel with respect unto the covenant made with them in and about the land of Canaan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The point is, Owen has a very broad and nuanced view of intertwining of the Law and Gospel, and anybody who only reads his commentary on Chapter 8 (or whatever) without keeping all these things in mind, cannot possibly speak for Owen's view.
Click to expand...


I hope this helps some.


----------



## Steve Paynter

armourbearer said:


> One can make too much of an author's qualifications and extend them to a point where they become a position in and of themselves. Owen still has an administration of the covenant of grace in the OT, and this administration extends outwardly to non-elect people. According to the newer understanding of the "Baptist" confession, there is no administration of the covenant of grace until the full manifestation of it in the New Testament, and it extends only to the elect. It is evident that these are two entirely different systems of thought.



Yes, I agree 100% with this. There seems** to be clear blue-water between Owen and the Baptists, although (probably) both agreed about the Mosaic covenant not being an administration of the covenant of grace. Similarly, there is clear blue-water between the 1689 Baptists and the later dispensationalism that understands God to save differently in different epochs. It is by no means inaccurate to say that the 1689 Baptists held to a single covenant of grace that captured the unity of God's saving purposes across salvation history. The fact that the WCF also says this (as well as more) means that there are important shared familial characteristics between Particular Baptists and the WCF, in spite of
the well understood differences - which when it comes to the nature of the church, and who is a member of the covenant of grace, can run quite deep, and it can be said, as you have above: "It is evident that these are two entirely different systems of thought."

** I say "seems" as I have not studied Owen as carefully on his views of the Abrahamic covenant as I plan to, and if these discussions on PB teach us anything, it is that we need to keep on going back to the sources for ourselves, and not rely on the interpretations of others. However, for the present, and given that Owen never became a Baptist, this seems a reasonable conclusion.


----------



## Steve Paynter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Reading Owen in context or in the scope of his broader thought is difficult. You have to read a lot. LOL



And on that the whole PB was agreed!!!

Thanks for your quotes ... I will have to start reading a lot; so far I have read very little Owen ... just his Glory of Christ, and his "Death of Death", and bits of his 
Hebrews commentary.


----------



## PatrickTMcWilliams

armourbearer said:


> PatrickTMcWilliams said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reverend Winzer, why do you always place quotation marks around "Baptist"? You speak of the "Baptist" confession and the "Baptist" catechism, "Baptist" circles inhabited by "Baptists," etc. It would seem you do not believe it is the proper word. What word would you prefer?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A person who is called a "Baptist" because he immerses or only baptises those who personally profess faith is not a true Baptist according to the way the Bible is interpreted by paedobaptists. To concede the name is to give up the debate. The quotation marks indicate that the term itself requires further clarification.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought. "Reformed Baptists" are neither Reformed nor Baptist. What term would you prefer? I'm not sure about the other "Baptists" here, but I'd prefer if you were straightforward in your terminology rather than politely acquiescing to our errant labels.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm conversant with Grant Osbourne's view of the Hermeneutic spiral and it is a good way of looking at the interplay between Systematics, Historical, Biblical, and exegetical theology but you still have a problem in determining how "wide" you want your options to be. Since you don't want any Confessions to be the boundary then why do you start with three options in the OP? Surely there are hundreds once the boundary of what "Reformed" means is taken down altogether. To many Lutherans, Reformed includes not only John Calvin but the theology of Joel Osteen and faith healers. Barth considered himself Reformed as well.



Well, if the net is cast too wide, the worst I will do is waste my time considering a position that I will subsequently discard. I agree that there may be other needs for the use of the word "Reformed" which need more careful delineation. For me, if I should pick up, a Calvinist dispensational view, it would not be the end of the world. Indeed, in Christian charity, I should from time to time pay attention to what my fellow evangelicals are convinced the Bible teaches, just as part of checking my tradition and assumptions.




Semper Fidelis said:


> Everyone believes they are rejecting non-Biblical doctrines. May a person who still affirms all five points of the Remonstrants correctly call themselves "Reformed"? The issue is not whether the Remonstrants were repudiated by Scripture but that Dordt "confessed" as a _Church_ what the Scripture taught. To say that the Remonstrants were repudiated not by a Confession but the Scriptures is to deny that Dordt confessed what the Scriptures taught. Every time you write or say something about the Scriptures you are individually confessing what the Scriptures teach. Is it proper for a person to interrupt your preaching or teaching at every turn and remind you that what you just said about the Scriptures is not the Scriptures themselves and that they can't be expected for your sound exposition to "take the place of Scripture"? Confession is, in the end, inevitable.
> 
> Nobody within the Reformed tradition claims that the Confessions replace the Scriptures. They are seen as a standard exposition of the Scriptures - not _my_ standard exposition but _our_ Church's standard exposition. Theology is not an endeavor where the individual stands apart from the Church but the Church confesses together as it is built up by those who are given the gifts and office to handle soundly the Word of Truth (Eph 4). I'll never understand why so many people find the idea strange that the Church could arrive at unanimity about what the Scriptures principally teach and write it down for posterity. The same people often don't find it strange that they can _individually_ interpret the Scriptures. It's when that individual autonomy runs aground of the Church that I find the default response is not the rejection of all confession but the confession that disagrees with _my own_.



I agree that confession is inevitable, and I recognise the value of confessing in line with a historical confessional document. However, there are two questions. The first is how one becomes convinced that a particular confessional document is sound with respect to Scripture; and the second is how one encourages others to come to confess in line with a particular confessional document. Both of these questions requires one to come to the Scriptures and test the confessional document in question. I invite you to reconsider your above statements, but as you do, having in mind the 1689 BCF (which I assume you do not subscribe to), rather than the WCF (which I assume you do.) However, standard the 1689 is as exposition of Scripture ... it is not yours ... and you will not subscribe to it, because you find it lacking with regard to Scripture.





Semper Fidelis said:


> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am trying to learn to be a New Testament scholar. I want to be one who is sophisticated and informed in matters of systematic and historical theology. I want to operate within broadly defined Reformed orthodoxy, but I dare not slavishly follow Reformed confessions without asking the question as to whether they are the best fit at each point with Scripture (or even more, with the particular portion of Scripture that I am studying at the time.) That would be failing in my job as a New Testament scholar. I need to understand the positions which didn't make it into the confessions.
> 
> 
> 
> It's interesting to me how you use the term "sophisticated" a number of times. I think my concern may be summed up in something that a minister friend of mine once said about the person who kept saying to him: This is how _I_ interpret the Scriptures. He gently rebuked him to remind him that _we_ confess the Scriptures together. The Reformed Confessions arise out of a couple of convictions that they are not only understandable by the use of regular means but also that the Scriptures themselves teach the notion that gifts are given to men to arrive at the unity of the faith. Taken together, the Church should expect that the Spirit can lead men to come to an understanding of the Scriptures, to agree upon what it teaches, and in turn hold each other accountable and grow together in that understanding. The Reformed Church was obviously protesting against a kind of theology that only starts talking to itself with no reference to the Scriptures but they still maintained the Scriptural idea that we ought to be able to confess truths together. It is the hallmark of the Reformation (and not its detriment) that they've publicly confessed what the Scriptures teach. It is the Radicals, like the Romanists, who don't want to ever define what the Scriptures teach because it doesn't fit their system to be bound by the written Word.
> 
> It is not safe to either be one who blindly accepts Church authority above the Scriptures or to think that one is somehow an island of "sophisticated" Biblical scholarship that can function apart from the ongoing life of the Church. The Word creates the Church and it creates a Church that confesses the Word. I would urge you to consider the danger of the position of scholarship that believes it does not need to be anchored in the Church or that the hermeneutical spiral is a continual reinvention of the faith "...once for all delivered to the Saints". It is my experience that those who are most faithful to the work of theology for and in conversation with the Church grounded in the Scriptures are those who are extremely "liberal" in their understanding of modern notions and the spirit of the age and know how to "re-form" that faith once for all delivered to the Saints that a new generation may confess anew that faith.
Click to expand...


Firstly, thank you for the kind, gentle and wise rebuke/warning. I hope I don't deserve it; and if I ever do, that it will check me.

I accept that my use of the word "sophisticated" might give the impression that I want to be a novel biblical interpreter that dazzles everyone with my wit, wisdom and new insights. However, that is not what I meant. I have read too much biblical interpretation (especially by New Perspective advocates) which has been naïve and ignorant with regard to systematic theology, and some application of their new readings to historical positions have been so arrogant as to almost be laughable. I see the need for "informed nuance" in dealing with theological and historical issues in biblical interpretation. I meant no more by "sophisticated" than being "accurate, informed, and not conflating issues that ought not to be conflated - historically accurate and faithful to the (Reformed) churches historical orthodox position."

I have every desire to function in support of the ongoing life of the church, and no desire to be heretical, or "constantly" or needlessly "reinventing the faith". However, a couple of points. Firstly, as I understand it, being faithful to the historic faith of the church is an important part of supporting the church. Secondly, re-grounding the faith in Scripture is sometimes necessary, and part of helping the church maintain its historic faith. 

Part of the job of a biblical scholar is to pay attention to the language and concepts which are used in the portion of Scripture that one is currently studying. This will not necessarily be the language or concepts used by systematicians and confession writers. The biblical scholar may suggest alternative concepts and terminology to the systematicians - but whether the systematic theologians and the church at large, accepts such changes is a bigger question, and (thankfully) is not in the power of the biblical scholar to determine.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Steve Paynter said:


> For me, if I should pick up, a Calvinist dispensational view, it would not be the end of the world. Indeed, in Christian charity, I should from time to time pay attention to what my fellow evangelicals are convinced the Bible teaches, just as part of checking my tradition and assumptions.


Just to be clear, I'm not trying to put some boundary around the word "Reformed" so as to simply avoid investigating other viewpoints. My larger point is the usability of the term. If it can mean everything then it doesn't really exist as a useful description of anything in particular. You might have started the thread by asking "How many understandings of the Covenant of Grace are there?" and this thread would have been pretty wide. Even when we use the term Reformed Baptist today, we tend to remember that it's a relatively recent phenomenon because the term Reformed has been historically associated with a certain Covenant theology. As you can see from the thread, it creates some qualifications as people are using different sets of definitions. By the very nature of the initial question, it did not jump to anyone's mind here to include the views of Finney or Barth even though both began within a body that came out of the Reformed tradition. We're able to exclude them from consideration for "Reformed understanding" not because we don't desire to investigate their views but, having investigated them, we can make important _distinctions_ which is necessary when examining things. 

In the end, we all have to begin with the notion that we're Christians based first on some basic definition of orthodoxy. We exclude Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses and Muslims even though they have some place for Christ in their theology. From there we make further distinctions to help understand the various visible Churches that confess a Christian orthodoxy. Even in your signature, we know you belong to a Baptist Church and, furthermore, that you subscribe to a Confession that distinguishes your beliefs from others who use the same term. Baptist helps us know that, in shorthand, your Church holds to a certain ecclesiology and your confessional subscription further delineates other aspects of your theology. These shorthand terms help us to know what you believe so you don't have to constantly re-introduce all that you hold to when you begin a discussion with someone. I also know you're in Bristol, England so I know a little bit about where you come from and so through various forms of classification it helps narrow down discussion.

This is a long way of giving explanation as to why we even retain the term. Though society increasingly believes that words have no meaning, I think we need to maintain the value that words point to ideas so that we can arrive at understanding.

Thank you for your irenic reply and I hope I have explained my intent in trying to keep the terminology a bit tighter. We need to be liberal in our understanding of things but liberality does not mean that we simply abandon the meaning of terms simply to prove to others that we are liberal in our thinking about things.



Steve Paynter said:


> I agree that confession is inevitable, and I recognise the value of confessing in line with a historical confessional document. However, there are two questions. The first is how one becomes convinced that a particular confessional document is sound with respect to Scripture; and the second is how one encourages others to come to confess in line with a particular confessional document. Both of these questions requires one to come to the Scriptures and test the confessional document in question. I invite you to reconsider your above statements, but as you do, having in mind the 1689 BCF (which I assume you do not subscribe to), rather than the WCF (which I assume you do.) However, standard the 1689 is as exposition of Scripture ... it is not yours ... and you will not subscribe to it, because you find it lacking with regard to Scripture.


I confess the WCF because I'm in a Church where we confess the Scriptures together in such a way. I don't arrive at truth by an autonomous differentiation of facts in themselves, placing the Creator and His Word as one of many facts to differentiate and arrive at autonomous conclusions. Rather, it was the Reformed Church and through its ministry of the Word that preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to me and the Spirit used the means of that preaching to convert me and bring me into His visible kingdom. My knowledge is one of thinking God's thoughts after Him analogically through the Word and the light of nature. The Word creates the Church and its gifts by which I am preached to, prayed for/with, encouraged, and built up. Mine is not a faith by which the Word drops out of heaven and then I decide, randomly, the people who I'll affiliate with simply by my autonomous decision that there are a group of people I mostly agree with. I'm called into communion by the Word into a body that confesses the Scriptures together and is built up by it. 

Had my circumstances been different, I might have been converted under the ministry of a Baptist congregation and my study in that body of believers may have been different and I might be convinced of different things by that ministry. Nevertheless, given the community I find myself within, I find my conscience convinced by the Word of God that the truths I confess together with the Church to be His Word. I grew up Roman Catholic so I roundly reject its teachings as soul-destroying. I continue to engage in regular dialog and friendship with many outside my communion and put my confession in contact with many divergent voices. But, even as my understanding grows, I have submitted myself (as the Scriptures command) to a visible communion and I am blessed to have my understanding challenged and sharpened by those who have been called by God to my growth in grace. Having studied the Scriptures for years now, I find this view of the Church and discipleship to be Biblical and the notion that we arrive at truth independently or a spirit of distrusting the value of the communion of Saints as a means to my sanctification to be a modern but un-Biblical notion.


----------



## MW

PatrickTMcWilliams said:


> but I'd prefer if you were straightforward in your terminology rather than politely acquiescing to our errant labels.



I thought I explained there is no acquiescing. When discussing the issue itself I always use antipaedobaptist. But when I am in a discussion with people who use these terms as identifiers they must be taken up in some sense.


----------



## MW

Steve Paynter said:


> It is by no means inaccurate to say that the 1689 Baptists held to a single covenant of grace that captured the unity of God's saving purposes across salvation history.



It should be clarified that this "1689 Baptist" unified "covenant of grace" is only in the plan of God and is not historically realised until the new covenant. When the Reformed speak of an unified covenant of grace they mean one that is historically realised across both Testaments. It is evident that "1689 Baptists" do not mean this and clearly depart from the consent of Reformed theologians (including Owen, et al) on that point. In conclusion, therefore, it is fair to state that the "1689 Baptist" view is not the Reformed view of the covenant of grace.


----------



## Petty France

Yes, there is a difference between the two. I believe what Steve was getting at was avoiding the appearance that Baptists affirm two covenants of grace, which they do not, thus defending the 'unity' of the covenant of grace. But that the covenant of grace is distinct in substance from the OT covenants is certainly a self-conscious departure.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Semper Fidelis said:


> I confess the WCF because I'm in a Church where we confess the Scriptures together in such a way. I don't arrive at truth by an autonomous differentiation of facts in themselves, placing the Creator and His Word as one of many facts to differentiate and arrive at autonomous conclusions. Rather, it was the Reformed Church and through its ministry of the Word that preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to me and the Spirit used the means of that preaching to convert me and bring me into His visible kingdom. My knowledge is one of thinking God's thoughts after Him analogically through the Word and the light of nature. The Word creates the Church and its gifts by which I am preached to, prayed for/with, encouraged, and built up. Mine is not a faith by which the Word drops out of heaven and then I decide, randomly, the people who I'll affiliate with simply by my autonomous decision that there are a group of people I mostly agree with. I'm called into communion by the Word into a body that confesses the Scriptures together and is built up by it.
> 
> Had my circumstances been different, I might have been converted under the ministry of a Baptist congregation and my study in that body of believers may have been different and I might be convinced of different things by that ministry. Nevertheless, given the community I find myself within, I find my conscience convinced by the Word of God that the truths I confess together with the Church to be His Word. I grew up Roman Catholic so I roundly reject its teachings as soul-destroying. I continue to engage in regular dialog and friendship with many outside my communion and put my confession in contact with many divergent voices. But, even as my understanding grows, I have submitted myself (as the Scriptures command) to a visible communion and I am blessed to have my understanding challenged and sharpened by those who have been called by God to my growth in grace. Having studied the Scriptures for years now, I find this view of the Church and discipleship to be Biblical and the notion that we arrive at truth independently or a spirit of distrusting the value of the communion of Saints as a means to my sanctification to be a modern but un-Biblical notion.



No wonder we don't agree on the role of the biblical scholar. I must admit that I am slightly awed by this position. I don't move in Reformed circles very much (Presbyterians are almost impossible to find in England, and although I worship at my wife's old Presbyterian church when we visit her parents in Wales, my outside assessment is that it is barely evangelical, let alone confessional), so I haven't encountered anyone who takes this stance before.

I find your position a slightly worrying one. Do you think people converted under, say, a Wesleyan minister, should remain Wesleyan? Or should they assess their tradition against the Scriptures and adapt their practices and theology accordingly? More importantly, is an entailment of your position a kind of relativism: the truth one ought to find in Scripture should be determined by the circumstances of one's conversion? 

Also, I wonder whether there is much point in engaging in theological discourse. You are so bound by your confession that you are not open to being shown that it might not be right. Doesn't this (functionally at least) make your confession a secondary Scripture? 

I wonder what you think of Christians like John Owen, who, I understand, upon reading the arguments of someone called Cotton, changed his ecclesiology from Presbyterian to Congregational?

Sorry, I am not trying to be confrontational. I am just stunned, and trying to think through what I think about such enthusiastic confessionalism.


----------



## Steve Paynter

Petty France said:


> Yes, there is a difference between the two. I believe what Steve was getting at was avoiding the appearance that Baptists affirm two covenants of grace, which they do not, thus defending the 'unity' of the covenant of grace. But that the covenant of grace is distinct in substance from the OT covenants is certainly a self-conscious departure.



Yep, what he said!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Steve Paynter said:


> No wonder we don't agree on the role of the biblical scholar. I must admit that I am slightly awed by this position. I don't move in Reformed circles very much (Presbyterians are almost impossible to find in England, and although I worship at my wife's old Presbyterian church when we visit her parents in Wales, my outside assessment is that it is barely evangelical, let alone confessional), so I haven't encountered anyone who takes this stance before.
> 
> I find your position a slightly worrying one. Do you think people converted under, say, a Wesleyan minister, should remain Wesleyan? Or should they assess their tradition against the Scriptures and adapt their practices and theology accordingly? More importantly, is an entailment of your position a kind of relativism: the truth one ought to find in Scripture should be determined by the circumstances of one's conversion?
> 
> Also, I wonder whether there is much point in engaging in theological discourse. You are so bound by your confession that you are not open to being shown that it might not be right. Doesn't this (functionally at least) make your confession a secondary Scripture?
> 
> I wonder what you think of Christians like John Owen, who, I understand, upon reading the arguments of someone called Cotton, changed his ecclesiology from Presbyterian to Congregational?
> 
> Sorry, I am not trying to be confrontational. I am just stunned, and trying to think through what I think about such enthusiastic confessionalism.


What I'm trying to articulate is very difficult to articulate. On the one hand, I affirmed (if you read me carefully) that my conscience is bound by the Word. Yet, there is also the truth, from the Scriptures, that I'm not simply a "lone ranger" interpreting the Bible. Neither am I called into the faith as simply an individual but I am called into a local Church. Ephesians 4 clearly articulates the life of the Body and the gifts that God gives to the Church to upbuild that body so it cannot ever rightly be understood that Christian growth and understanding operates apart from the context of the Churches ministry through its offices.

You say I'm not able to grow but, again, you're not reading me carefully. I already noted I came out of Roman Catholicism so I clearly had (and have) and ability to be taught by the Word. I also am not stating that my participation in a Church body makes me immune from being in a Church that does not properly teach the Word of Truth. Taken with what I've already noted, other portions of Scripture make it clear that ministers depart from the faith as do whole Churches and so I return to the notion that my conscience is bound by the Word of God and I may have to leave a communion to find a communion that rightly teaches the Word.

That said, I don't place the idea of my conscience being bound by the Word of God in _competition_ with the notion that I may find a communion where faithful men are ordained (per Eph 4) for my sanctification. I believe, in my conscience, I have found a Church where the Lord has raised men up to function per Eph 4 albeit imperfectly. Indwelling sin causes many blind spots in me and so I need faithful elders who will be a check to me even as I'm a check to them. We strive together to encourage one another, rebuke, exhort, etc because it's not an individual effort. I also don't always arrive at sound conclusions on first glance and so the community of faithful men, along with the blessings of faithful teachers that have come before, check me from rushing headlong into error.

I could go on and on about the deceitfulness of the heart and why I believe that the Scriptures clearly paint a picture of the Lord using many means privately and corporately but the aim is the upbuilding and sanctification of the Church and my basic orientation is not as an _individual_ but a supporting element - an instrument in the hands of the Redeemer toward the sanctification of His Bride.

What I'm trying to avoid as I mention Baptists, is being so prideful as to assert that, if I was converted in a Baptist Church, that I would be so wise as to see what I now clearly believe to be several clear errors in their Scriptural understanding. Even though I read through the Bible regularly and study extensively, the goal of the "unity of the faith" is a pressing Scriptural concern that makes jumping ship quickly very difficult. The person who doesn't care in the least about the Church may find it easy to stay "above the fray" but the person who remains "above the fray" may know the Scriptures but in such a way as they have no impact on him.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't see problems in my own flock but that's the nature of the Church. It's imperfect but Christ calls us to it nonetheless and a schismatic spirit, in my view, is to deny the faith altogether.

As for my notes about analogical reasoning as opposed to the idea of interpreting undifferentiated facts, if you haven't studied the way the Reformed note the manner in which we arrive at the Truth as being dependent upon the Creator then I suggest further study in that area. One of the things we always need to keep in mind is that, although we're called to learn, it is not as if our strength of insight is what characterizes us as children of God. Christ, in thanking the Father about His disciples, does not thank Him for helping Him find people that could arrive at sound conclusions because they properly used their autonomous reason to arrive at sound conclusions, but He thanks the Father for revealing the Kingdom to little children and hiding it from the wise of this world (Matt 11:25-26). At the end of the day, I thank God that He revealed the Son to me. I think an approach to God that does not begin with knowledge as Revelation from the Creator, taken to its full conclusion, will hear no voice but its own.


----------



## MW

Petty France said:


> Yes, there is a difference between the two. I believe what Steve was getting at was avoiding the appearance that Baptists affirm two covenants of grace, which they do not, thus defending the 'unity' of the covenant of grace. But that the covenant of grace is distinct in substance from the OT covenants is certainly a self-conscious departure.



If the OT covenants are substantially different to the covenant of grace then the OT covenants function as historically realised covenants substantially different to the historically realised covenant of grace in the new covenant, which is nothing other than dispensationalism. The nature of the dispensationalism is altered to suit the idea that a covenant can be something other than historically realised, but it is dispensationalism nonetheless.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Paynter

armourbearer said:


> Petty France said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, there is a difference between the two. I believe what Steve was getting at was avoiding the appearance that Baptists affirm two covenants of grace, which they do not, thus defending the 'unity' of the covenant of grace. But that the covenant of grace is distinct in substance from the OT covenants is certainly a self-conscious departure.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the OT covenants are substantially different to the covenant of grace then the OT covenants function as historically realised covenants substantially different to the historically realised covenant of grace in the new covenant, which is nothing other than dispensationalism. The nature of the dispensationalism is altered to suit the idea that a covenant can be something other than historically realised, but it is dispensationalism nonetheless.
Click to expand...


The difference between dispensationalism (as dispensationalists would understand the term) and the 1689 Baptist understanding of the covenant of Moses is that the Baptists, along with Owen and Petto and others, did not understand the Mosaic covenant to be directly salvific. Dispensationalism in contrast sees the Old Covenant as a different way of being saved. The 1689 BCF understands people throughout time being saved by the revealed (and subsequently to be established) covenant of grace ... in other words, through faith in Christ. The Particular Baptists had an "extension theology" (through the New Covenant, the (elect) Gentiles are added to the people of God), and they did not keep Israel and Church separate, which is the distinguishing mark of dispensationalism.

Of course, the word "dispensationalism" can be defined in different ways, but given the long standing disagreements between dispensationalists and covenant theologians of all kinds, it is not helpful to use it to label a version of covenant theology which you do not agree with. It seems to me that we have come in this thread to a clear and agreed understanding of the ways in which the 1689 and WCF differ and agree on this subject. I am not sure the "dispensational" label adds any light to the matter.

If you want to insist on the "dispensational" label, an interesting question for the Puritan Board, given that it accepts subscribers to the 1689, is whether it would want to say that it now accepts "dispensationalists".


----------



## Steve Paynter

Hi Rich,

Given your qualifications to your previous stated position, I am now left wondering whether we actually disagree at all, and are just expressing ourselves differently. 

On a practical level, as an academic in a small local church, there is the problem of finding others who will engage with one at the necessary technical level to in anyway act as a meaningful check or even sounding board to try out one's readings on. And even if you find someone who can and is prepared to engage with you at the necessary level of detail, that is still only one other Christian voice. This is where one's fellow academics (including one's supervisor, if one is a PhD student), and the academics whose works one are interacting with, become one's peers, and it is they who critique and check your work. The degree with which a student is required to function within a particular tradition is in large measure down to the student's desire to function within that tradition. My position is that the student is overwhelmingly more likely do work which is of benefit to the church is he or she stays within the bounds of the historical faith - and particularly within the Western, Protestant, Evangelical, 1689/WCF tradition. One way I can help myself to do that ... is to engage with others via the internet - hence my posts here.

Personally, I expect to continue to function within the 1689/WCF tradition, because I have found this tradition to be biblically faithful. I refer to it as the same tradition for various reasons, but primarily because I am still in the process of checking which variant of covenant theology I find most biblical. I cannot in good faith if - just like you ... my conscience is to be bound to the Word of God ... pre-decide which of these sub-divisions I want to belong too, and strive to keep my reading of the Bible in line with it. If I were to, given my background, it would be the 1689 ... and presumably you think committing myself to that covenant theology would be a mistake. 

I am open to the (mere) possibility that the 1689/WCF might be wrong; but the burden of proof heavily lies with deviant readings. This ... as I understand it ... is also the stance that the PB takes on the subject.

Perhaps I should be more explicit and name names. My role models for biblical scholarship are people like D.A. Carson, David Wenham (my supervisor), and F.F. Bruce (David's supervisor, back in the day). These are biblical scholars whose careful biblical studies have supported traditional readings of the Scriptures, and whose work has blessed the church at large because of that. I will never be in their class; but they embody what I aspire to achieve and the methodology for achieving it.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Steve Paynter said:


> My role models for biblical scholarship are people like D.A. Carson,



Just as a side note here Steve, it seems that D. A. Carson himself had some critique concerning the Law from a Reformed Baptist Scholar Greg Welty. Dr. Carson was looking a bit more dispensational and leaning more towards New Covenant Theology ideology concerning law. You can read Dr. Welty's paper here.
Response to D. A. Carson

Papers by Greg Welty


----------



## Steve Paynter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> My role models for biblical scholarship are people like D.A. Carson,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just as a side note here Steve, it seems that D. A. Carson himself had some critique concerning the Law from a Reformed Baptist Scholar Greg Welty. Dr. Carson was looking a bit more dispensational and leaning more towards New Covenant Theology ideology concerning law. You can read Dr. Welty's paper here.
> Response to D. A. Carson
> 
> Papers by Greg Welty
Click to expand...


Thanks for these links. I am working my way through Dr. Welty's paper on Don Carson, and will work through his other papers on NCT - a topic I know very little about.


----------



## MW

Steve Paynter said:


> the Baptists, along with Owen and Petto and others



I thought we already agreed that Owen et al were in a different category because they teach the covenant of grace was substantially established in Old Testament covenants. Whatever happens with the Mosaic is interesting but irrelevant to this main point of difference. "The Baptists" should not be put in the same category if they disallow there was no historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams

armourbearer said:


> I thought we already agreed that Owen et al were in a different category because they teach the covenant of grace was substantially established in Old Testament covenants. Whatever happens with the Mosaic is interesting but irrelevant to this main point of difference. "The Baptists" should not be put in the same category if they disallow there was no historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament.


-


> When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though it were not before in existence and effect, before the introduction of that which is promised here. For it was always the same, substantially, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and effectiveness, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation to the church, from the first entrance of sin.
> 
> But for two reasons, it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect to any other things, *nor was it called a covenant under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it to Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but this covenant with Abraham was with respect to other things*, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely, under the old testament, the covenant of grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture,
> 
> -Owen's Exposition of Hebrews 8:6


----------



## MW

brandonadams said:


> When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace *absolutely*,
Click to expand...


The reader will need to refer back to the comments on Hebrews 7 to see what Owen means by the term "absolutely." When he speaks "absolutely" he outrightly affirms the Westminsterian doctrine. As the Larger Catechism explains, the covenant of grace is made with Christ, and in Him with all the elect as His seed. There is no other covenant Head but Christ. That Westminster teaches it is a clear indication that there is no inherent contradiction between this affirmation by Owen and those others in which Owen teaches the covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament covenants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Steve Paynter

armourbearer said:


> Steve Paynter said:
> 
> 
> 
> the Baptists, along with Owen and Petto and others
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we already agreed that Owen et al were in a different category because they teach the covenant of grace was substantially established in Old Testament covenants. Whatever happens with the Mosaic is interesting but irrelevant to this main point of difference. "The Baptists" should not be put in the same category if they disallow there was no historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament.
Click to expand...


I believe (currently on very little study) that Owen is in a different category than the Particular Baptists because of the question of the establishment of the covenant of grace prior to the new. However, I was only putting them in the same category with regards to the Mosaic covenant. My full sentence read: 



> ... the 1689 Baptist understanding of the covenant of Moses is that the Baptists, along with Owen and Petto and others, did not understand the Mosaic covenant to be directly salvific.



I agree with you that the establishment or otherwise of the covenant of grace prior to the New is an important point of difference between Particular Baptists and Owen et al.. My point is not that they have identical covenant theologies, but rather that on the matter of the Mosaic covenant, where there is continuity with Owen et al, there is clear blue water between the Particular Baptists and Dispensationalists.


----------



## Steve Paynter

brandonadams said:


> When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though it were not before in existence and effect, before the introduction of that which is promised here. For it was always the same, substantially, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and effectiveness, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation to the church, from the first entrance of sin.
> 
> But for two reasons, it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect to any other things, *nor was it called a covenant under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it to Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but this covenant with Abraham was with respect to other things*, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely, under the old testament, the covenant of grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture,
> 
> -Owen's Exposition of Hebrews 8:6
Click to expand...


Brandon, 

That is a really fascinating quotation from Owen. From it, it is rather difficult to understand exactly where Owen fitted in. The first sentence seems to argue that the covenant of grace was "in existence and effect". If this is taken to mean "established" this is not the Particular Baptist position. However, at the end of the paragraph Owen glosses it as "the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ", which is the Particular Baptist understanding of the covenant of grace prior to the establishment of the New covenant in the blood of Jesus, and hence "in existence and effect" might be the Particular Baptist position. However, the phrase "promise of the grace in and by Jesus Christ" is not clear, as it is totally compatible with other paedobaptist positions ... including the WCF position!

In the second paragraph Owen distinguishes the covenant of grace from the Abrahamic covenant, and any biblical covenant in the Old Testament. Again this is compatible with the Particular Baptist position, but is probably also compatible with the other paedobaptist covenant theologies, for generally "Reformed" (in the broad sense that includes Owen and Petto, as well as the WCF) covenant theologians have not identified the covenant of grace with a specific biblical covenant. The last sentence ... which seems to clarify what Owen means by "absolutely" in this discussion, argues that prior to New, "the covenant of grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture". This is exactly the Denault reading of the 1689 BCF position.

Perhaps in other posts I have been too quick to assume that Owen's position was similar to Horton's, and firmly in the paedobaptist camp. It remains the case, however that Owen did not become a Baptist, and the presumption must be that there was something in his covenant theology that prevented him from making that step, and not mere inconsistency of practice.


----------



## brandonadams

> The reader will need to refer back to the comments on Hebrews 7 to see what Owen means by the term "absolutely."


---


> Obs. II. It is of great concernment unto us what covenant we do belong unto, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representative in our name. — There were never absolutely any more than two covenants; wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned.
> 
> The first was the covenant of works, made with Adam, and with all in him. And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed unto us, as if we had done it, Romans 5:12. The other is that of grace, made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lie the life and hope of our souls, — that what Christ did as the head of that covenant, as ourrepresentative, is all imputed unto us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance unto us, than to know whether of these covenants we belong unto. We are also some way concerned in them by whom the one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed unto us; for before we make our own personal, voluntary choice, we are by the law of our nature, and of the covenant itself, enclosed in the same condition with our progenitors as to their covenant-state. And thence it is, that in the severest temporal judgments, children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet ofttimes partake of the punishment they have deserved; being esteemed in some manner to have done what they did, so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings, on the other hand, are they partakers of who are included in the covenant of those parents who are interested in the covenant of grace; for such parents succeed in the room of Abraham, every one of them.
> 
> And what Abraham did, as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity, whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place; and therefore they had the seal of the covenant given unto them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace hath not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so to be.
> 
> Owen, Hebrews 7:10





> Our own translation fully expresseth the original in all the parts of it, only it determines the sense of verse 19, by the insertion of that word, “did.” f16 Ver. 18, 19. — For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God. 1. The subject spoken of is the “command .” 2. Described by the time of its giving; it “went before.” 3. Hereof it is affirmed, that it is “disannulled.” And, 4 . The reason thereof is adjoined, from a twofold property or adjunct of it in particular: for, (1.) It was “weak;” (2.) It was “unprofitable.” 5. As unto its deficiency from its general end; “it made nothing perfect.” 6. Illustrated by that which took its work upon itself, and effected it thoroughly; “the hope brought in, by which we draw nigh unto God.”\parFIRST, The ejntolh> , or “command,” is of as large a signification, verse 18, as no>mov , “the law,” in verse 19; for the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions. For the apostle having already proved that the priesthood was to be abolished, he proceeds on that ground and from thence to prove that the whole law was also to be in like manner abolished and removed.
> 
> And indeed it was of such a nature and constitution, that pull one pin out of the fabric, and the whole must fall unto the ground; for the sanction of it being, that “he was cursed who continued not in all things written in the law to do them,” the change of any one thing must needs overthrow the whole law. How much more must it do so, if that be changed, removed, or taken away, which was not only a material part of it, but the very hinge whereon the whole observance of it did depend and turn!
> 
> And the whole of this system of laws is called ejntolh> , a “command,” because it consisted ejn do>gmasi , in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11,12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered. SECONDLY, This commandment is described by the time of its giving: it is proa>gousa, it “went before;” that is, before the gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely; for our apostle shows and proves, that as to the promise, whereby the grace of the new covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the gospel, it was given four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. Wherefore, the precedency of the law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the apostle proves the cessation of the priesthood, and consequently of the law itself; for the command was given before that testimony, and so went before it.
> 
> But it rather respects the actual introduction of a new priest, in the accomplishment of this promise; for hereon the whole change and alteration in the law and worship pleaded for by our apostle did ensue.
> 
> Owen, Hebrews 7:18,19





> And unto this purpose we must first consider that opinion of some, that the whole end of the mediation of Christ was only to procure the new covenant: although at first view it be irreconcilable unto the nature and notion of a surety; for a surety is not the procurer of that whereof he is the surety, but only the undertaker for its accomplishment. But we must more distinctly consider this assertion, and in what sense Christ may be said to procure the new covenant by his death and mediation. And to this end we must observe, that the new covenant may be considered divers ways, in various respects: — [1.] In the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits in the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of an eternal decree, yet is it distinguished from the decree of election, which first and properly respects the subjects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared; for this respects the preparation only of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their communication. It is true, this purpose, or counsel of God’s will, is not called the covenant of grace, which is the express declared exemplification of it. The covenant of grace, I say, is only the declaration of this counsel of God’s will, accompanied with the means and power of its accomplishment, and the prescription of the ways whereby we are to be interested in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the inquiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the first thing that ought to come under consideration; for nothing can be the procuring cause of this covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it, — of this idea of it in the mind of God. But this is nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ; and so to ascribe it, is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or be procured by, any thing that is external and temporal. And besides, it is expressly assigned unto absolute love and grace: see Ephesians 1:4-6, with all those places where the love of God is assigned as the sole cause of the designation of Christ unto his office, and the sending of him. [2.] It may be considered with respect unto the federal transactions between the Father and Son concerning the accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large in my exercitations. Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the Scripture: but it is that wherein it had its establishment, as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and by it were all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual unto the glory of the wisdom, grace, righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause but that which was the cause of this covenant of the mediator, or of God the Father with the Son as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is nowhere ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding. Who can conceive that Christ, by his death, should procure the agreement between God and him that he should die? [3.] With respect unto the declaration of it. This you may call God’s making or establishing of it with us, if you please; though making of the covenant in the Scripture is applied only unto its execution or actual application unto persons. But this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glow, is most usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold: — 1st. In the way of a singular and absolute promise; as it was first declared unto and thereby established with Adam, and afterwards with Abraham.
> 
> This is the declaration of the purpose of God, or the free determination of his will as to his dealing with sinners, on the supposition of the fall and the forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and will of God were the only cause, Hebrews 8:8. And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for he himself, and all that he was to do for us, were the substance of that promise wherein this declaration of God’s grace and purpose was made, or of this covenant of grace, which was introduced and established in the room of that which was broken and disannulled, as unto the ends and benefits of a covenant. The substance of the first promise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised, directly respected and expressed the giving of him for the recovery of mankind from sin and misery, by his death, Genesis 3:15.
> 
> Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his mediation, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant itself, then was not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.
> 
> 2dly. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part whereon we are made partakers of it.
> 
> Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of the death of Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign wisdom and grace of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only-begotten Son to die, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that all that believe might not perish, but have life everlasting. But yet it is granted, that the constitution of these terms of the covenant doth respect the federal transactions between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God’s grace; and so, although their constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of making the new covenant, in any sense, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as it is everywhere expressed in the Scripture.
> 
> Owen, Hebrews 7:22


----------



## Steve Paynter

Hi Brandon,
Thanks for the quotations from John Owen. .... He never is the easiest to read, is he?

Given that you didn't provide any commentary, I will comment on what I see in each of the quotations.



brandonadams said:


> The reader will need to refer back to the comments on Hebrews 7 to see what Owen means by the term "absolutely."
> 
> 
> 
> ---
> 
> 
> 
> Obs. II. It is of great concernment unto us what covenant we do belong unto, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representative in our name. — There were never absolutely any more than two covenants; wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned.
> 
> The first was the covenant of works, made with Adam, and with all in him. And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed unto us, as if we had done it, Romans 5:12. The other is that of grace, made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lie the life and hope of our souls, — that what Christ did as the head of that covenant, as ourrepresentative, is all imputed unto us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance unto us, than to know whether of these covenants we belong unto. We are also some way concerned in them by whom the one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed unto us; for before we make our own personal, voluntary choice, we are by the law of our nature, and of the covenant itself, enclosed in the same condition with our progenitors as to their covenant-state. And thence it is, that in the severest temporal judgments, children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet ofttimes partake of the punishment they have deserved; being esteemed in some manner to have done what they did, so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings, on the other hand, are they partakers of who are included in the covenant of those parents who are interested in the covenant of grace; for such parents succeed in the room of Abraham, every one of them.
> 
> And what Abraham did, as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity, whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place; and therefore they had the seal of the covenant given unto them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace hath not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so to be.
> 
> Owen, Hebrews 7:10
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I am not clear that "absolutely" is a particularly technical term for Owen ... but I might be misunderstanding his usage. Here "absolutely" seems to be able to be glossed by "really" ... or even omitted entirely. I guess by going on to talk about the Abrahamic covenant, Owen's use of "absolutely" here subsumes the Abrahamic into either the covenant of works or of grace - and presumably he meant the covenant of grace. But that raises a question about the Mosaic covenant, given that later Owen distinguishes it from the covenant of grace. I guess I don't follow Owen's thought at all here.

When the quotation goes on to talk about Abraham being a "representative" I am a little uneasy. I know Adam and Christ function as federal heads, but I am not sure every covenant is made with a representative. Certainly, I am unsure Abraham is a federal head of a covenant. Perhaps again I am misunderstanding Owen - it certainly seems possible! Furthermore, Owen might go on to maintain that children who are in their covenant head are welcomed into the covenant of grace, and that no-one has overturned this. However, again, Owen can hardly be said to be clear here. 





brandonadams said:


> Our own translation fully expresseth the original in all the parts of it, only it determines the sense of verse 19, by the insertion of that word, “did.” f16 Ver. 18, 19. — For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God. 1. The subject spoken of is the “command .” 2. Described by the time of its giving; it “went before.” 3. Hereof it is affirmed, that it is “disannulled.” And, 4 . The reason thereof is adjoined, from a twofold property or adjunct of it in particular: for, (1.) It was “weak;” (2.) It was “unprofitable.” 5. As unto its deficiency from its general end; “it made nothing perfect.” 6. Illustrated by that which took its work upon itself, and effected it thoroughly; “the hope brought in, by which we draw nigh unto God.”\parFIRST, The ejntolh> , or “command,” is of as large a signification, verse 18, as no>mov , “the law,” in verse 19; for the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions. For the apostle having already proved that the priesthood was to be abolished, he proceeds on that ground and from thence to prove that the whole law was also to be in like manner abolished and removed.
> 
> And indeed it was of such a nature and constitution, that pull one pin out of the fabric, and the whole must fall unto the ground; for the sanction of it being, that “he was cursed who continued not in all things written in the law to do them,” the change of any one thing must needs overthrow the whole law. How much more must it do so, if that be changed, removed, or taken away, which was not only a material part of it, but the very hinge whereon the whole observance of it did depend and turn!
> 
> And the whole of this system of laws is called ejntolh> , a “command,” because it consisted ejn do>gmasi , in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11,12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered. SECONDLY, This commandment is described by the time of its giving: it is proa>gousa, it “went before;” that is, before the gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely; for our apostle shows and proves, that as to the promise, whereby the grace of the new covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the gospel, it was given four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. Wherefore, the precedency of the law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the apostle proves the cessation of the priesthood, and consequently of the law itself; for the command was given before that testimony, and so went before it.
> 
> But it rather respects the actual introduction of a new priest, in the accomplishment of this promise; for hereon the whole change and alteration in the law and worship pleaded for by our apostle did ensue.
> 
> Owen, Hebrews 7:18,19
Click to expand...


Here Owen seems to be arguing for the abolishment and removal of the whole Mosaic law ... moral as well as ceremonial. (Is he here arguing a kind of NCT?)

Here his use of the word "absolutely" is used to deny the fact that the "Old covenant" came before the earliest promise of the gospel. Again it does not seem to be a technical phrase, and could be glossed by "completely" I think.





brandonadams said:


> And unto this purpose we must first consider that opinion of some, that the whole end of the mediation of Christ was only to procure the new covenant: although at first view it be irreconcilable unto the nature and notion of a surety; for a surety is not the procurer of that whereof he is the surety, but only the undertaker for its accomplishment. But we must more distinctly consider this assertion, and in what sense Christ may be said to procure the new covenant by his death and mediation. And to this end we must observe, that the new covenant may be considered divers ways, in various respects: — [1.] In the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits in the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of an eternal decree, yet is it distinguished from the decree of election, which first and properly respects the subjects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared; for this respects the preparation only of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their communication. It is true, this purpose, or counsel of God’s will, is not called the covenant of grace, which is the express declared exemplification of it. The covenant of grace, I say, is only the declaration of this counsel of God’s will, accompanied with the means and power of its accomplishment, and the prescription of the ways whereby we are to be interested in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the inquiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the first thing that ought to come under consideration; for nothing can be the procuring cause of this covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it, — of this idea of it in the mind of God. But this is nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ; and so to ascribe it, is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or be procured by, any thing that is external and temporal. And besides, it is expressly assigned unto absolute love and grace: see Ephesians 1:4-6, with all those places where the love of God is assigned as the sole cause of the designation of Christ unto his office, and the sending of him. [2.] It may be considered with respect unto the federal transactions between the Father and Son concerning the accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large in my exercitations. Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the Scripture: but it is that wherein it had its establishment, as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and by it were all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual unto the glory of the wisdom, grace, righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause but that which was the cause of this covenant of the mediator, or of God the Father with the Son as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is nowhere ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding. Who can conceive that Christ, by his death, should procure the agreement between God and him that he should die? [3.] With respect unto the declaration of it. This you may call God’s making or establishing of it with us, if you please; though making of the covenant in the Scripture is applied only unto its execution or actual application unto persons. But this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glow, is most usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold: — 1st. In the way of a *singular and absolute promise*; as it was first declared unto and thereby *established with Adam*, and afterwards with Abraham.
> 
> This is the declaration of the purpose of God, or the free determination of his will as to his dealing with sinners, on the supposition of the fall and the forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and will of God were the only cause, Hebrews 8:8. And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for he himself, and all that he was to do for us, were the substance of that promise wherein this declaration of God’s grace and purpose was made, or of this covenant of grace, which was introduced and established in the room of that which was broken and disannulled, as unto the ends and benefits of a covenant. The substance of the first promise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised, directly respected and expressed the giving of him for the recovery of mankind from sin and misery, by his death, Genesis 3:15.
> 
> Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his mediation, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant itself, then was not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.
> 
> 2dly. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part whereon we are made partakers of it.
> 
> Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of the death of Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign wisdom and grace of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only-begotten Son to die, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that all that believe might not perish, but have life everlasting. But yet it is granted, that the constitution of these terms of the covenant doth respect the federal transactions between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God’s grace; and so, although their constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of making the new covenant, in any sense, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as it is everywhere expressed in the Scripture.
> 
> Owen, Hebrews 7:22
Click to expand...


Again there are a few uses of absolutely in this quotation, but none of them seem to be technical uses. 


The bits I bolded, however, did talk address a point which arose earlier in this thread ... namely whether Owen followed the 1689 understanding of the covenant of grace not being established until the New was established ... the answer is clear: he did not. He is therefore much closer to say Michael Horton's position that he is to the 1689, and Denault's attempt to claim him for the Particular Baptist position notwithstanding, there is a clear distinction between Owen and the Particular Baptists.

This is good ... because nice as it would be to claim Owen for the Baptist cause ... it could only be a fearful inconsistent Owen that could be claimed. I'd rather have him, consistent and insightful (even if not Baptist), as a great "Reformed-in-a-broad-sense" Puritan.


----------



## MW

Steve Paynter said:


> However, I was only putting them in the same category with regards to the Mosaic covenant.



The Mosaic itself is affected by whether or not there is an historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament. For the Reformed who affirm the Mosaic is not a covenant of grace there is at least the qualification that it was given in subordination to the covenant of grace. Where a system teaches there is no historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament the Mosaic itself will be radically different.


----------



## MW

> this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glory, is most usually called *the covenant of grace*. And this is twofold: — 1st. In the way of a singular and absolute promise; as it was first declared unto and thereby *established with Adam*, *and afterwards with Abraham*...
> 
> 2dly. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part whereon we are made partakers of it.



Owen is arguing that the covenant could not have been the effect of the death of Christ because the death of Christ and its benefits were the provision of the covenant. As the above quoted portion demonstrates, the covenant of grace is substantially operative under the Old Testament. Whatever readers choose to do with his careful explanations and qualifications it is illegitimate to fairly interpret him as teaching anything other than a substantial unity of the covenant of grace in both Testaments.


----------



## brandonadams

> The bits I bolded, however, did talk address a point which arose earlier in this thread ... namely whether Owen followed the 1689 understanding of the covenant of grace not being established until the New was established ... the answer is clear: he did not.


---


> It remains to the exposition of the words, to enquire just what the new covenant is of which our Lord Christ was the mediator. It can be no other but that we call “the covenant of grace.” It is so called in contrast to “the covenant of works,” which was the one made with us in Adam; for these two, grace and works, divide the ways of our relation to God, being diametrically opposed, and in every way inconsistent, Romans 11:6. Of this covenant the Lord Christ was the mediator from the foundation of the world, namely, from the giving of the first promise, Revelation 13:8; And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. ---for it was given on Christ’s interposition, and all the benefits of it depended on his future actual mediation. But here arises the first difficulty of the context, in two things; for, —
> 
> [1.] If this covenant of grace was made from the beginning, and if the LORD Christ was the mediator of it from the first, then where is the privilege of the gospel-state as opposed to the law, by virtue of this covenant, seeing that while under the covenant of the law, the Lord Christ was even then the mediator of that covenant of grace, which was from the beginning ?
> 
> [2.] If it is the covenant of grace which is intended (by the “new covenant”), and that is opposed to the covenant of works made with Adam, then surely the other covenant must be that covenant of works so made with Adam, which we have before disproved.
> 
> The answer is in the word here used by the apostle concerning this new covenant: nenomoqe>thtai, themeaning of which must be inquired into.
> 
> I say, therefore, that the apostle does not here consider the new covenant in its absolute sense (as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world), in the way of a promise; for as such it was consistent with that covenant made with the people in Sinai. And the apostle proves expressly that the renovation of it made to Abraham was in no way abrogated by the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
> 
> There was no interruption of the administration of the (absolute )covenant of grace made by the introduction of the law. But Paul treats of such an establishment of the new covenant as wherewith the old covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, and which therefore had to be removed out of the way.
> 
> Wherefore he considers ithe new covenantt here as it was actually completed, so as to bring along with it all the ordinances of worship which are proper under it, the dispensation of the Spirit in them, and all the spiritual privileges with which they are accompanied. The new covenant is now so brought in as to become the entire rule of the church’s faith, obedience, and worship, in all things. This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance to the church.
> 
> That which beforehad lain hidden in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hidden in God himself, was now brought to light; and that covenant of grace which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ.
> 
> It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar to it, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship for the whole church, nothing else being admitted but what belongs to it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. From here on the other (old) covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the old covenant itself, but the whole system of sacred worship by which it was administered.
> 
> This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was superinduced into the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith.
> 
> When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a form of worship and privileges expressive of it. It was therefore then (for that time) consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, (and those composed into a yoke of bondage) which did not belong to it. They belonged to the (old) covenant of the Law. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to conformed to it. Then it was established. Hence, in answer to the second difficulty, it follows that as a promise, it was opposed to the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed to that of Sinai. This legalizing of it, or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship belonging to it , made this alteration.
> 
> -Owen, Hebrews 8:6


----------



## Prufrock

If one's goal is to attain an understanding of Owen's covenant position*, forward progress, no matter the strength or subtlety of your mental gymnastics, will be crippled so long as the intellectual wrestling takes place within the narrow confines of his commentary on the eighth chapter of Hebrews. It is the equivalent of trying to learn the definition of "antidisestablishmentarianism" by only reading the definitions of "anti-" and "establish" over and over again. The problem is made worse by attempting to read Owen through the lens of current discussions and debates. While we sit and debate Owen's stance on matters with which Owen, quite frankly, wasn't concerned, he might be standing ahead assuming the form of Whitman, saying "missing me one place search another, I stop somewhere waiting for you." The simple fact is, he's already ahead of you just waiting for you to catch up to him.

After reading through the whole of Owen, I was faced with the inescapable conclusion - all these discussions get him completely wrong. Not only that, but he's probably more thoroughly in keeping with the Westminster Confession than most people who are arguing about what to do with Owen's embarrassingly wide departure from the confession. The reason for the mental disconnect, I would suggest, lies with the fact that Owen is thinking of the historical manifestation of salvation within the framework of a term I never see brought into the discussion: the "church-state." The discussion board nature severely limits what can reasonably be posted, so I will be highly selective and limit commentary, hoping the selection and arrangement of quotations can allow enough of Owen to shine through to make his thought a bit more clear.

To begin, consider the following passage from his _The True Nature of a Gospel Church_, roughly contemporaneous to material normally discussed from his commentary:
Thus *under the old testament*, when God would take the posterity of Abraham into a new, peculiar church-state, he did it by a solemn covenant. Herein, as he prescribed all the duties of his worship to them, and made them many blessed promises of his presence, with powers and privileges innumerable, so the people solemnly covenanted and engaged with him that they would do and observe all that he had commanded them; whereby they coalesced into that church-state which abode unto the time of reformation. This covenant is at large declared, Exodus 24: for the covenant which God made there with the people, and they with him, *was not the covenant of grace under a legal dispensation, for that was established unto the seed of Abraham* four hundred years before, in the promise with the seal of circumcision; nor was it the covenant of works under a gospel dispensation, for God never renewed that covenant under any consideration whatever; but it was a peculiar covenant which God then made with them, and had not made with their fathers, Deuteronomy 5:2,3, whereby they were raised and erected into a church-state, wherein they were intrusted with all the privileges and enjoined all the duties which God had annexed thereunto. *This covenant was the sole formal cause of their church-state*, which they are charged so often to have broken, and which they so often solemnly renewed unto God. (Ch. 2, paragraph 18**, bold emphasis mine)​Note that "the Abrahamic Covenant" is referred to here as the legal administration of the covenant of grace. The Sinai covenant is the taking of the people who are under this legal administration of the covenant of grace and formally enacting a particular and specific church-state which will govern them. It is not something contrary to the Abrahamic covenant, but rather a "particularization" of it: accordingly, Owen can elsewhere (Exercitation 21, paragraph 7) that the promises of the Sinai covenant are "annexed to the then present administration of the covenant of grace."

These "annexed promises," this formal enacting of a specific church-state, is also sometimes referred to by Owen as an "administration" of the covenant. For example, in Exercitation 19 (paragraph 34), he writes:
That which God, on the other hand, requires of them is, that they keep his covenant, Exodus 19:5. Now, this covenant of God with them had a double expression; - first, In the giving of it unto Abraham, and its confirmation by the sign of circumcision. But this is not that which is here especially intended; for it was the _administration of the covenant, wherein the whole people became the peculiar treasure and inheritance of God upon a new account, which is respected_.​This passage is important for understanding Owen's framework. This language of the Sinai Covenant "administering" the covenant (under its "legal" or "Abrahamic" dispensation) situates Owen with the mainstream of Westminster theology, and accounts for his ability to write things such as the following without contradiction:
After the fall he entered into another covenant with mankind, which, from the principle, nature and ends of it, is commonly called _the covenant of grace_. This, under several forms of external administration, hath continued ever since in force, and shall do so to the consummation of all things.(Exercitation 28, paragraph 2)​This helps to contextualize what he means, for example, when he states in the tenth chapter of his Christologia:
All the promises that God gave afterwards [that is, after the promise to Adam] unto the church under the Old Testament, *before and after giving the law* — all the covenants that he entered into with particular persons, or the whole congregation of believers — were all of them declarations and confirmations of the first promise, or the way of salvation by the mediation of his Son, becoming the seed of the woman, to break the head of the serpent, and to work out the deliverance of mankind.[/indent]

Throughout his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues that the purpose of the covenant at Sinai was to formally establish a visible church-state (with all its terms and obedience) with his covenanted people so as to preserve a separate people who hold forth visible tokens and signs of the coming Messiah and what he will enact when he comes. Thus it is, as he says, "not a *mere* dispensation of the covenant of grace", though it did administer the legal dispensation of the covenant, but a "particular, temporary covenant." This doesn't change the fact that, by its very nature as a covenant "whereby that people walked with God," it administered the terms of the covenant of grace.

With this basic framework in mind, I wish to present material on two related topics: 1.) Owen's conception of what "the Law" referred to in its Sinaitic context; and 2.) In what way the Sinai Covenant was inadequate, and how this relates to his discussion of the word "established," as pertains to the New Covenant.

For the first, the rule was (plainly) the Moral Law. But Owen does not mean by "The Law" the law considered nakedly. For example, in his Christologia (ch. 11), he states: "Howbeit, as the Church of Israel, as such, was not obliged unto obedience unto the moral law absolutely considered, but as it was given unto them peculiarly in the hand of a mediator." Also, in the fourteenth chapter of his Doctrine of Justification:
That this law, this rule of obedience, as it was ordained of God to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and *by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham, unto whose administration it was adapted*, and which its introduction on Sinai did not disannul, *was accompanied with a power and efficacy enabling unto obedience*. The law itself, as merely receptive and commanding, administered no power or ability unto those that were under its authority to yield obedience unto it; no more do the mere commands of the gospel. Moreover, under the Old Testament it enforced obedience on the minds and consciences of men by the manner of its first delivery, and the severity of its sanction, so as to fill them with fear and bondage; and was, besides, accompanied with such burdensome rules of outward worship, as made it a heavy yoke unto the people. But as it was God’s doctrine, teaching, instruction in all acceptable obedience unto himself, *and was adapted unto the covenant of Abraham, it was accompanied with an administration of effectual grace, procuring and promoting obedience in the church*. And the law is not to be looked on as separated from those aids unto obedience which God administered under the Old Testament; whose effects are therefore ascribed unto the law itself See Psalm 1,19,119.​Finally, note that in Exercitation 21, he again writes that the Law or the rule of the Covenant was "the law" considered in itself, but the law "accommodated" to (the legal dispensation of) the covenant of grace:
In that it [the law] had a dispensation added unto the commands of obedience, and interpretation, _kat' epeikeian_, by condescension, given by God himself, as to the perfection of its observance and manner of its performance in reference unto this new end. It required not absolutely perfect obedience, but perfectness of heart, integrity, and uprightness, in them that obeyed.​This is pure Burroughs, pure Boston. In short, pure, plain-vanilla Westminster understanding of the law as accommodated to the covenant of grace. So long as "law" is understood to mean "command" and "gospel," "promise," Owen will be unintelligible. He as to be understood in his own, Westminster context wherein the covenant of grace itself contains commands and even threatenings which "are annexed to _the dispensation of the covenant of grace_, as an instituted means to reader it effectual, and to accomplish the ends of it" (Hebrews, ch. 4, vv.1-2, emphasis original). 

As to the second topic, I direct the reader first back to the opening quotation from _The True Nature of the Gospel Church._ With that in mind, I wish to offer two further passages from his Hebrews commentary. Much of the confusion regarding Owen's understanding, I think, results from his comparisons of what "The Law" and "The New Covenant" respectively accomplish/ed. His repeated statements that "The Law" or "Sinai" could not perfect the people cause readers to believe Owen is saying something far different from what he intends. Let's let Owen set the record straight:
Now, it is not the rest of heaven that, in this antithesis between the _law_ and the _gospel_, is opposed hereunto, but the rest that believers have in Christ, with that church-state and worship which by him, as the great prophet of the church, in answer unto Moses, was erected, and into the possession whereof he powerfully leads them, as did Joshua the people of old into the rest of Canaan. (Ch. 4, vv.1-2 - the whole section ought to be read; emphasis original)​Further, from chapter 9:
He doth not in this place compare together and oppose the future state of glory which we shall have by Christ with and unto the state of the church in this world under the old testament....But he compares the present state of the church, the privileges, advantages, and grace which it enjoyed by the priesthood of Christ, with what it had by the Aaronical priesthood; for the fundamental principle which he confirms is, that the _teleiosin_, or present "perfection" of the church, is the effect of the priesthood of Christ.​And finally, see especially his comments on ch. 7 v.11, where he details at length how the ability to perfect which is denied to "The Law" is not the "perfection" or "salvation" of the individual, but to the perfection of the "church-state." It is in this context that Owen's famous discussion of the word "established" in chapter 8 is to be understood. It is only when the blood of the covenant has been shed that the testamentary grant can truly be enacted; and, accordingly, it is only then that the substance of the covenant can become the sole "rule" of the covenant and the church "perfected" or brought into its full, covenant church-state.

I realize the discussion board format is inadequate to advance these ideas in a truly meaningful or useful way - what I have presented is far too long for a discussion board, but far too short and "ad hoc" to interact meaningfully on the topic. But I hope that it can help at least point readers to the context in which they should be reading Owen. If one reads portions of Owen, the "baby Owen" created thereby will, indeed, diverge from the Westminster tradition; if one reads all of Owen, I think they will find he instead illuminates much of the tradition and exposes us to the current blind spots in our own self-understanding. 

I think Matthew Winzer's comments on the material which others have quoted in this thread need to be considered carefully. He is fairly and correctly placing Owen within his proper tradition.

I do apologize for not being able to stick around and discuss this further - but participating in the board is not currently practical. Nevertheless, I saw this discussion a few days ago, and wanted to at least be able to offer a suggestion for direction, and then allow those better qualified to make what they will of it.

*Please, if anything in this post duplicates material presented in the recent paper or monograph referenced earlier in the thread, accept my deepest apologies. I will delete this post so as not to give people a substitute for someone's published research. I have not been able to keep up on the literature.

**I've tried to adopt a "generic" reference system for this post so people with various editions of his work can easily locate the texts in question.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

That is greatly helpful Paul. Thank You So Much! It is so good to hear from you!


----------



## brandonadams

Thank you very much for this Paul. I appreciate the sharpening.



Prufrock said:


> The problem is made worse by attempting to read Owen through the lens of current discussions and debates. While we sit and debate Owen's stance on matters with which Owen, quite frankly, wasn't concerned...





> That notion (which is often supposed in this discourse) that the old covenant and the new differ in substance and not only in the manner of their administration, certainly requires a larger and more particular handling to free it from those prejudices and difficulties that have been cast on it by many worthy persons who are otherwise minded. Accordingly, I designed to give a further account of it in a discourse of the covenant made with Israel in the wilderness and the state of the church under the law. But when I had finished this and provided some materials also for what was to follow, I found my labor for the clearing and asserting of that point happily prevented by the coming out of Dr. Owen’s third volume on Hebrews. There it is discussed at length and the objections that seem to lie against it are fully answered, especially in the exposition of the eighth chapter. I now refer my reader there for satisfaction about it which he will find commensurate to what might be expected from so great and learned a person.
> -Nehemiah Coxe, 1681



----


Prufrock said:


> ...accordingly, Owen can elsewhere (Exercitation 21, paragraph 7) that the promises of the Sinai covenant are "annexed to the then present administration of the covenant of grace."
> 
> These "annexed promises," this formal enacting of a specific church-state, is also sometimes referred to by Owen as an "administration" of the covenant. For example, in Exercitation 19 (paragraph 34), he writes:
> That which God, on the other hand, requires of them is, that they keep his covenant, Exodus 19:5. Now, this covenant of God with them had a double expression; - first, In the giving of it unto Abraham, and its confirmation by the sign of circumcision. But this is not that which is here especially intended; for it was the _administration of the covenant, wherein the whole people became the peculiar treasure and inheritance of God upon a new account, which is respected_.​





> That which God, on the other hand, requires of them is, that they keep his covenant, Exodus 19:5. Now, this covenant of God with them had a double expression; - first, In the giving of it unto Abraham, and its confirmation by the sign of circumcision. But this is not that which is here (v5: Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine) especially intended; for it was the _administration of *the covenant, wherein the whole people* became the peculiar treasure and inheritance of God upon a new account, which is respected. *NOW THIS COVENANT WAS NOT YET MADE*, nor was it ratified until the dedication of the altar, when it was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant._
> (bold & capital emphasis mine)


---


Prufrock said:


> This passage is important for understanding Owen's framework. This language of the Sinai Covenant "administering" the covenant (under its "legal" or "Abrahamic" dispensation) situates Owen with the mainstream of Westminster theology, and accounts for his ability to write things such as the following without contradiction:
> After the fall he entered into another covenant with mankind, which, from the principle, nature and ends of it, is *commonly* called _the covenant of grace_. This, under several forms of external administration, hath continued ever since in force, and shall do so to the consummation of all things.(Exercitation 28, paragraph 2)​





> by “the covenant of grace,” we ofttimes understand no more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ; yet by “the new covenant,” we intend its actual establishment in the death of Christ, with that blessed way of worship which by it is settled in the church...
> ...When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though it were not before in existence and effect, before the introduction of that which is promised here. For it was always the same, substantially, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and effectiveness, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, *the Socinians only excepted*, grant that the covenant of grace, considered *absolutely*, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation to the church, from the first entrance of sin.
> 
> But for two reasons, it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect to any other things, *nor was it called a covenant under the old testament.* When God renewed the promise of it to Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but this covenant with Abraham was with respect to other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely, under the old testament, the covenant of grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture...
> 
> ...I say, therefore, that the apostle does not here consider the new covenant in its absolute sense (as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world), *in the way of a promise* _[not covenant]_; for as such it was consistent with that covenant made with the people in Sinai. And the apostle proves expressly that the renovation of it made to Abraham was in no way abrogated by the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17.
> There was no interruption of the administration of the *(absolute) (ie an effectual promise, not a formal covenant) covenant of grace made by the introduction of the law. But Paul treats of such an establishment of the new covenant as wherewith the old covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, and which therefore had to be removed out of the way.
> 
> -Owen's Exposition of Hebrews 8:6
> emphasis & [ ] mine*


*
----



Prufrock said:



This helps to contextualize what he means, for example, when he states in the tenth chapter of his Christologia:

All the promises that God gave afterwards [that is, after the promise to Adam] unto the church under the Old Testament, before and after giving the law — all the covenants that he entered into with particular persons, or the whole congregation of believers — were all of them declarations and confirmations of the first promise, or the way of salvation by the mediation of his Son, becoming the seed of the woman, to break the head of the serpent, and to work out the deliverance of mankind.[/indent]

Click to expand...


??




LBCF 7.3._____ This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

Click to expand...

----


Prufrock said:



...Thus it is, as he says, "not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace"...

Click to expand...





The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new. And whereas the essence and the substance of the covenant consists in these things, they are not to be said to be under another covenant, but only a different administration of it....
...4. These things being observed, we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant.

Click to expand...


----



Prufrock said:



With this basic framework in mind, I wish to present material on two related topics: 1.) Owen's conception of what "the Law" referred to in its Sinaitic context; and 2.) In what way the Sinai Covenant was inadequate, and how this relates to his discussion of the word "established," as pertains to the New Covenant.

For the first, the rule was (plainly) the Moral Law. But Owen does not mean by "The Law" the law considered nakedly. For example, in his Christologia (ch. 11), he states: "Howbeit, as the Church of Israel, as such, was not obliged unto obedience unto the moral law absolutely considered, but as it was given unto them peculiarly in the hand of a mediator."

Click to expand...


RBTR I.2 John Owen and NCT
----


Prufrock said:



Also, in the fourteenth chapter of his Doctrine of Justification:
That this law, this rule of obedience, as it was ordained of God to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham, unto whose administration it was adapted, and which its introduction on Sinai did not disannul, was accompanied with a power and efficacy enabling unto obedience...But as it was God’s doctrine, teaching, instruction in all acceptable obedience unto himself, and was adapted unto the covenant of Abraham, it was accompanied with an administration of effectual grace, procuring and promoting obedience in the church...​

Click to expand...





...no man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect... this new covenant of grace was extant and effectual under the old testament, so as the church was saved by virtue of it, and the mediation of Christ in that respect...from the giving of the first promise none was ever justified or saved buy by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ, the mediator of it... by the covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation to the covenant of grace, none was ever eternally saved... If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under the covenant... All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation to the church, from the first entrance of sin.

But for two reasons, it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect to any other things, nor was it called a covenant under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it to Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but this covenant with Abraham was with respect to other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely, under the old testament, the covenant of grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture.

Click to expand...

----



Prufrock said:



Finally, note that in Exercitation 21, he again writes that the Law or the rule of the Covenant was "the law" considered in itself, but the law "accommodated" to (the legal dispensation of) the covenant of grace:
In that it [the law] had a dispensation added unto the commands of obedience, and interpretation...​

Click to expand...





3. Now, in the administration of the law, the church was thus far brought under the obligation of these promises and threatenings of life and death eternal, so far interested in the one and made obnoxious unto the other, as that if they used not the law according to the new dispensation of it, wherein it was put into a subserviency unto the promise, as Gal iii. 19-24...
4. Secondly, The law had, in this administration of it, a new end, and not and design put upon it, and that in three things: 
(1) That it was made directive and instructive unto another end, and not merely preceptive, as at the beginning. The authoritative institutions that in it were superadded to the moral commands of the covenant of works, did all of them direct and teach the church to look for righteousness and salvation, the original ends of the first covenant, in another and by another way; as the apostle at large disputes in this Epistle, and declares positively, Gal iii, throughout. 
(2) In that it had a dispensation [of law] added unto the commands of obedience [found in original covenant of works]...
Exercitation 21

Click to expand...

----


Prufrock said:



This is pure Burroughs, pure Boston. In short, pure, plain-vanilla Westminster understanding of the law as accommodated to the covenant of grace.

Click to expand...





The judgment of most reformed divines is... they are not to be said to be under another covenant, but only a different administration of it.... we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant.

Click to expand...


----


Prufrock said:



His repeated statements that "The Law" or "Sinai" could not perfect the people cause readers to believe Owen is saying something far different from what he intends. Let's let Owen set the record straight:
Now, it is not the rest of heaven that, in this antithesis between the law and the gospel, is opposed hereunto, but the rest that believers have in Christ, with that church-state and worship which by him, as the great prophet of the church, in answer unto Moses, was erected, and into the possession whereof he powerfully leads them, as did Joshua the people of old into the rest of Canaan. (Ch. 4, vv.1-2 - the whole section ought to be read; emphasis original)​

Click to expand...





Expositors generally grant that it is the rest of glory which is here intended. This is the ultimate rest which is promised unto believers under the gospel... But I must take the liberty to dissent from this supposition, and that upon the reasons following : 

First, The "rest" here proposed is peculiar to the gospel and the times thereof, and contradistinct unto that which was proposed unto the people under the economy of Moses; for whereas it is said that the people in the wilderness failed and came short of entering into rest, the rest promised unto them, the apostle proves from the psalmist that there is another rest, contradistinct unto that, proposed under the gospel. And this cannot be the eternal rest of glory, because those under the old testament had the promise there of no less than we have under the gospel; for with respect there unto doth our apostle in the next verse affirm that " the gospel was preached unto them, as it is unto us," no less truly, though less clearly and evidently...2. This, therefore, cannot be that other rest which is provided under the gospel, in opposition to that proposed under the law, or to the people in the wilderness. 

Secondly, The apostle plainly carrieth on in his whole discourse an antithesis consisting of many parts. The principal subject of it is the two people, that in the wilderness, and those Hebrews to whom the gospel was now preached. Concerning them he manageth his opposition as to the promises made unto them, the things promised, and the means or persons whereby they were to be made partakers of them, namely, Moses and Joshua on the one hand, and Jesus Christ on the other. Look, then, what was the rest of God which they of old entered not into, and that which is now proposed must bear its part in the antithesis against it, and hold proportion with it. Now that rest, as we have proved, whereinto they entered not, was the quiet, settled state of God s solemn worship in the land of Canaan, or a peaceable church-state for the worship of God in 
the land and place chosen out for that purpose. 

Now, it is not the rest of heaven that, in this antithesis between the law and the gospel, is opposed hereunto, but the rest that believers have in Christ, with that church-state and worship which by him, as the great prophet of the church, in answer unto Moses, was erected, and into the possession whereof he powerfully leads them, as did Joshua the people of old into the rest of Canaan...

...Fourthly, Christ and the gospel were promised of old to the people as a means and state of rest; and in answer unto those promises they are here actually proposed unto their enjoyment. See Isa. xi. 1-10, xxviii. 12; Ps. Ixxii. 7, 8, etc.; Isa, ix. 6, 7, ii. 2-4; 
Gen. v. 29 ; Matt, xi 28 ; Isa. IxvL ; Luke i. 70-75.

Hebrews 4:1-2

Click to expand...





For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God. 1. The subject spoken of is the “command"… The ejntolh> , or “command,” is of as large a signification, verse 18, as no>mov , “the law,” in verse 19; for the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions… And the whole of this system of laws is called ejntolh> , a “command,” because it consisted ejn do>gmasi , in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5.  And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11,12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.

SECONDLY, This commandment is described by the time of its giving: it is proa>gousa, it “went before;” that is, before the gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely; for our apostle shows and proves, that as to the promise, whereby the grace of the new covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the gospel, it was given four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. Wherefore, the precedency of the law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the apostle proves the cessation of the priesthood, and consequently of the law itself; for the command was given before that testimony, and so went before it.

-Hebrews 7:18-19

Click to expand...



----


Prufrock said:



And finally, see especially his comments on ch. 7 v.11, where he details at length how the ability to perfect which is denied to "The Law" is not the "perfection" or "salvation" of the individual, but to the perfection of the "church-state." It is in this context that Owen's famous discussion of the word "established" in chapter 8 is to be understood. It is only when the blood of the covenant has been shed that the testamentary grant can truly be enacted; and, accordingly, it is only then that the substance of the covenant can become the sole "rule" of the covenant and the church "perfected" or brought into its full, covenant church-state.

Click to expand...

 



Wherefore the apostle had no need to prove that it was not attainable by the Levitical priesthood, nor to reflect upon it for that reason, seeing it is not attainable by any other way or means whatever. We must therefore diligently inquire into the true notion of this telei>wsiv , or “perfection,” which will guide the remaining interpretation of the words. And concerning it we may observe in general,— First, That it is the effect, or end, or necessary consequent of a priesthood.

This supposition is the foundation of the whole argument of the apostle.

Now the office and work may be considered two ways: 1. With respect unto God, who is the first immediate object of all the proper acts of that office. 2. With respect unto the church, which is the subject of all the fruits and benefits of its administration.

If we take it in the first way, then the expiation of sin is intended in this word; for this was the great act and duty of the priesthood towards God, namely, to make expiation of sin, or atonement for it by sacrifice. And if we take the word in this sense, the apostle’s assertion is most true; for this perfection was never attainable by the Levitical priesthood. It could expiate sin and make atonement only typically, and by way of representation; really and effectually, as to all the ends of spiritual reconciliation unto God and the pardon of sin, they could not do it. For “it was not possible,” as our apostle observes, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” Hebrews 10:4; which he also proves in his ensuing discourse at large. But I do not know that this word is anywhere used in this sense, nor doth it include any such signification.

And whereas God is the immediate object of that sacerdotal energy whereby sin is expiated, it is the church that is here said to be perfected; so that expiation of sin cannot be intended thereby, though it be supposed threin. Besides, the apostle doth not here understand sacrifices only, by which alone atonement was made, but all other administrations of the Levitical priesthood whatever....

...To this end he brought in “everlasting righteousness,” Daniel 9:24, — µymil;[O qd,x, , not a temporary righteousness, suited unto the µl;[O, the “age” of the church under the old covenant, which is often said to be everlasting, in a limited sense; but that which was for all ages , — to make the church blessed unto eternity. So is he “ofGod made unto us righteousness,’’ 1 Corinthians 1:30.
This is the foundation of the gospel telei>wsiv , or “perfection;” and it was procured for us by the Lord Christ offering up himself in sacrifice, as our great high priest. For “we have redemption through his blood,” even “the forgiveness of sins,” Ephesians 1:7; God having “set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins,” Romans 3:25.
And this he is in opposition unto whatever the law could effect, taking away that condemnation which issued from a conjunction of sin and the law: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” Romans 8:3,4.
The end of the law in the first place, was to be a means and instrument of righteousness unto those to whom it was given. But after the entrance of sin it became weak, and utterly insufficient unto any such purpose; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” Wherefore Christ is become “the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth,” Romans 10:4.
And by whomsoever this is denied, namely, that Christ is our righteousness, — which he cannot be but by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, — they do virtually overthrow the very foundation of that state of perfection which God designed to bring his church unto.
This the Levitical priesthood could not effect, for the reason given in the words following, “For under it the people received the law.” It could do no more but what the law could do; but that could not make us righteous, because it was “weak through the flesh;” and by the deeds of the law no man can be justified.
It may be said, that believers had this righteousness under the Levitical priesthood, or they could not have had a “good report through faith,” namely, this testimony, “That they pleased God.” Ans. (1.) Our apostle doth not deny it, yea, he proves at large, by manifold instances, Hebrews 11, that they had it; only he denies that they had it by virtue of the Levitical priesthood, or any duties of the law. He speaks not of the thing itself, with respect unto the persons of believers under the old testament, but of the cause and means of it. What they had of this kind was by virtue of another priesthood, which therefore was to be introduced; and the other, which could not effect it, was therefore to be removed. He denies not perfection unto persons under the Levitical priesthood, but denies that they were made partakers of it thereby.
-Hebrews 7:11

Click to expand...





...no man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect... this new covenant of grace was extant and effectual under the old testament, so as the church was saved by virtue of it, and the mediation of Christ in that respect...from the giving of the first promise none was ever justified or saved buy by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ, the mediator of it... by the covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation to the covenant of grace, none was ever eternally saved... If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so
-Hebrews 8:6

Click to expand...

*


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Great to see you Prufrock!


----------



## Steve Paynter

I'll admit that having read the Owen quotations carefully I am _this close _ (indicates a very small gap) to throwing in the towel and giving up on understanding Owen. It is only the fact that I know he is a careful thinker, and will repay the struggle to understand him, that I am even still trying to bother. I think I need the above quotations unpacked in little bit for me.

My head is spinning (metaphorically) from trying to understand Owen ... and literally ... I am off work with dizziness at the moment. It doesn't help!


----------



## Petty France

One thing we might all want to keep in mind is that there is no need to fight over who gets Owen. The Particular Baptists, and we their confessional children, viewed reformed paedobapist federal theology as an inconsistent system. We would consider the WCF to be the standard expression of that system. But among reformed paedobaptist authors, there are some who express that which we would consider to be more consistent with accurate federal theology. And it is those pieces that we highlight and put together. So whether Owen resolved those pieces into a system that is in line with the WCF really isn't a concern of ours (though I appreciate that it's being argued with source data). If we claim that Owen's federal theology was identical to the Baptists, without any distinctions, then critique and interaction is rightfully on its way. But if we say that a particular aspect of Owen's federal theology more consistently aligns with how we put federal theology together, and that we hold it to be inconsistent with WCF federal theology, that's simply a theological disagreement, not a battle over Owen himself.

In other words, we view Owen as being more consistent in his overall inconsistency on this point.

Side note: I mean nothing insulting to the WCF and those who confess it in my comments. If we, and our Particular Baptist forebears, thought reformed paedobaptist federal theology were consistent, LBCF 7 would be WCF 7.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Petty France said:


> In other words, we view Owen as being more consistent in his overall inconsistency on this point.



I think it is also important to add that Owen was Independent, not Presbyterian. Therefore in a key sense he has something in common with a Reformed Baptist view of the church.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> Thank you very much for this Paul. I appreciate the sharpening.



I really don't understand your line by line reply to Prufrock. Your replies seem to be a case in point that simply interacting with Owen's Hebrews commentary provides a distorted picture of the whole. Where Paul is careful to note to the reader the difficulty of gleaning the overall understanding from quotes over a vast corpus, you simply quote Owen (and bold portions you have chosen) as if to note: "No, really, you can just quote Owen in Hebrews and understand what he thought about the CoG." If your purpose if different then I don't get it. Most puzzling to me is when you "thumbs down" Paul as if to say: "No, really Paul, you don't understand what Owen is saying and let me provide this quote from his Hebrew's commentary."

Furthermore, a quote from Nehemiah Coxe only proves to me that men could misunderstand Owen in his own day just as they do today.


Petty France said:


> One thing we might all want to keep in mind is that there is no need to fight over who gets Owen.


I don't think anyone is "fighting" over Owen so much as trying to understand what he means by the use of his terms. This thread is about the views of the CoG. I think what is happening, even within PB Federal theology, is often an appeal to the past to demonstrate that certain views of Federal theology have been within the stream of "orthodoxy" on the subject. I think Paul does a good job of demonstrating how easy it is to abuse a source when you don't take a very complex thinker's whole thought process into consideration. The same is done with Calvin all the time. In the end, we ought to appeal to Scripture but appeals to authority sometimes carry some rhetorical or evidentiary weight if they are trustworthy.

Incidentally, as brilliant as Owen is, I would obviously agree with many that he is terribly confusing. If, at the end of the day, only "scholars" can really get at your thinking on a subject (and even with that they end up disagreeing) then I don't know how ultimately useful that thinking is to those of us who have a good working knowledge of theology but that use is more toward Church life. As a quick example, I would never be able to use these arguments on the floor of Presbytery or even a Credentialing committee meeting because the discussion is so technical and the arguments are so involved that only a very small minority of people could follow the argument in a large context.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

