# Was Esau in The Covenant?



## holyfool33 (Mar 10, 2008)

If the children of believers are considered presumptively regenerate where does Esau fit into this scheme? Seeing that he sold His birth right for a mess of potage.


----------



## Gloria (Mar 10, 2008)

holyfool33 said:


> If the children of believers are *considered presumptively regenerate *where does Esau fit into this scheme? Seeing that he sold His birth right for a mess of potage.



They are?


----------



## sastark (Mar 10, 2008)

Gloria said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> > If the children of believers are *considered presumptively regenerate *where does Esau fit into this scheme? Seeing that he sold His birth right for a mess of potage.
> ...



That's what Aaron is presuming!


----------



## holyfool33 (Mar 10, 2008)

Gloria said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> > If the children of believers are *considered presumptively regenerate *where does Esau fit into this scheme? Seeing that he sold His birth right for a mess of potage.
> ...



I was asking for a view from someone who believed in presumptive regeneration or how someone would answer that hypothetically I wasn't stating definitively that the children of believers where presumptively regenerate..


----------



## holyfool33 (Mar 10, 2008)

sastark said:


> Gloria said:
> 
> 
> > holyfool33 said:
> ...



O.k for argument's sake let's say the children of believers are presuemd regenerate answer my question then what about Esau was he part of The Covenant?


----------



## sastark (Mar 10, 2008)

holyfool33 said:


> sastark said:
> 
> 
> > Gloria said:
> ...



Although I don't like to get involved in these debates, I suppose I owe you an answer, since I made the joke.

In my opinion, the question to ask is not "Was Esau part of The Covenant?" but rather, "Which Covenant was Esau a part of?" Was he a member of the elect? I do not believe so. Does this mean Isaac was wrong to circumcise him? No.

I'll leave any further discussion to those who are more learned than myself.


----------



## MW (Mar 10, 2008)

Yes, he was externally in covenant, and even received divine blessings in consequence thereof; but that inclusion in and of itself doesn't require the reader to presume anything concerning his inward or eternal state.


----------



## Romans922 (Mar 10, 2008)

Esau was part of the covenant community. Is he not a descendant of Abraham and Isaac?

But he obviously did not receive the promises of the covenant because he did not receive it in faith (Rom. 9 is the easiest to understand).


----------



## holyfool33 (Mar 10, 2008)

Romans922 said:


> But he obviously did not receive the promises of the covenant because he did not receive it in faith (Rom. 9 is the easiest to understand).



But he was if he was in the covenant and didn't receive the blessings is that not contradictory? Or is it like a church has members but not all the members are not the elect of God or something to that effect? Excuse my ignorance I have never studied Covenant Theolgy my Pastor who was formally a Dispensationalist then a Covenant proponent and is now New Covenant Theolgy. Views CT as an ossified relic so I am not upon the concepts does anybody have any suggestions for good Starter materials on Covenant Theolgy? because I need to study more and I don't really know a whole lot all I know about Covenant Theolgy is Sabitarianism but this is  I just dont really know anything I was a Dispensationalist and know I am just kind of in Intellectual free fall because I have no real trust of NCT


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 10, 2008)

He had no part in the Eternal Covenant as Ishmael didn't have any part of it as revealed in Genesis 17. He did have part in the Abrahamic Covenant as it pertained to Abraham's posterity.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 10, 2008)

Aaron,
You will get two different answers here--from the Reformed side, and the Reformed Baptist side.

The Ref. Bapt. (if I may speak for some of them) will often say that Abraham actually has two covenants--one a gracious covenant, made only with him, taken up again in the New Covenant (Eternal Cov), the other a wholly secular set of promises tied to the promised land and the genetic stock of Messiah. They argue for all-and-nothing: that Esau is only a party to a set of secular promises, of which circumcision is a covenant-sign.

Traditional Reformed theology makes no such distinction in the covenant itself. The distinction we make is "internal-external" to *one* covenant. Hence, a person (whether OT or NT Israel, that is the _church _under either age) is brought visibly into the "outward administration" of the covenant of grace. "In this respect," as the West. Conf. puts it, he is IN the covenant--whether by faith or not. However, those who have no faith exercised in the covenant are not participators in the _substance_ of that covenant--which has all to do with Christ, and the benefits of his salvation. The typical (visible) elements are designed to point to internal truths--which, nevertheless, fail to manifest in those who are not elect.

This is what we (T-R) find in the case of Esau, as with so many other faithless Israelites in Scripture, as well as seen in our own experience. Church members, who none-the-less depart from us. Why? Because they never were truly of us, they did not have the grace of regeneration, they did not have Faith in God.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Aaron,
> You will get two different answers here--from the Reformed side, and the Reformed Baptist side.
> 
> The Ref. Bapt. (if I may speak for some of them) will often say that Abraham actually has two covenants--one a gracious covenant, made only with him, taken up again in the New Covenant (Eternal Cov), the other a wholly secular set of promises tied to the promised land and the genetic stock of Messiah. They argue for all-and-nothing: that Esau is only a party to a set of secular promises, of which circumcision is a covenant-sign.
> ...



Well that is not exactly correct. I hope someday you would read Nehemiah Coxe. 

The Eternal Covenant doesn't just jump from Abraham to the New Covenant. It is also the Covenant of Grace which is made up for the Elect. It is present in other Covenants also. Only the Elect are members of the Covenant of Grace. And yes I do know some Presbyterian's who do believe this also. 

I don't understand your all-and-nothing position that you seem to be describing. I really do urge you to pick up Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ so you can see what a framer of the 2nd LBCF did believe. I am not so sure you do understand the Reformed Baptist (Particular Baptist) position Bruce. We hold more to an understanding of John Owen's understanding of the Covenants of Grace and Works. Read the reviews to the link I give below.

Read the book is a good challenging read. Also if any of you are interested read the reviews. Amazon.com: Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ: Nehemiah Coxe,John Owen: Books


----------



## holyfool33 (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> , those who have no faith exercised in the covenant are not participators in the _substance_ of that covenant--which has all to do with Christ, and the benefits of his salvation.




Well is the faith given by God are these unbelievers just passive in a covenant there in but wont accept anyway. Also how does one "participate" in the covenant? I m sure this is all pretty basic but I don't know really anything about Covenant Theolgy.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

Randy,
Did Esau receive the sign _of the covenant of grace,_ i.e. circumcision? If no, then here is the "all or nothing" you seem to insist upon. You do not say Esau had any part of the administration of the CoG.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do not think you agree that he did, as our side confesses. Do you not adhere, then, to *two *covenants made with Abraham? Have you not said here in this forum that Esau was a full party to the "land covenant", a kind of symbolical national-identity compact that served as a kind of "message-to-the-world" regarding the coming Messiah?

I, along with mainstream CTs, do not agree with that bifurcation of covenant intent. We agree that the CoG was made "with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed" (WLC 31). Which CoG is trans-temporal, trans-covenantal with respect to the "differently administered" eras of that covenant, externally speaking. So, even Moses is but one administration of the one CoG, though it may have _accidents_ that echo the first Works Covenant administration.

I have read a more-or-less sympathetic review of Cox' work in the BoT magazine, when the book was first republished


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

holyfool33 said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> > those who have no faith exercised in the covenant are not participators in the _substance_ of that covenant--which has all to do with Christ, and the benefits of his salvation.
> ...


The only faith that matters is saving faith, not a temporary faith, and it must be given from God.

Unbelievers are within, but not by faith, and so only inside in an outward, ultimately worthless sense--worthless except for the incurrence of greater condemnation, for having neglected so great salvation, so abundant evidences of God's saving mercy put on display before them. The book Hebrews is replete with warnings to such as come this close, only to turn back.

The Israelites entered covenant at Sinai, and having sworn on their life, immediately broke the covenant at the base of the Mount, with their calf. They were participating in covenant _outwardly_, yes even _actively_, and yet not inwardly. Their judgment was all the more richly deserved for having been mere lip-service.


----------



## Barnpreacher (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> So, even Moses is but one administration of the one CoG, though it may have _accidents_ that echo the first Works Covenant administration.



Bruce,

What do you mean when you say "accidents?" Do you see the Mosaic administration the same way as Horton writes about in _God of Promise_?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 11, 2008)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Randy,
> Did Esau receive the sign _of the covenant of grace,_ i.e. circumcision? If no, then here is the "all or nothing" you seem to insist upon. You do not say Esau had any part of the administration of the CoG.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong here, but I do not think you agree that he did, as our side confesses. Do you not adhere, then, to *two *covenants made with Abraham? Have you not said here in this forum that Esau was a full party to the "land covenant", a kind of symbolical national-identity compact that served as a kind of "message-to-the-world" regarding the coming Messiah?
> ...



What is the sign of the Covenant of Grace? I am not sure you can say that the Covenant of Circumcision (and that is what Stephen calls it) is the sign of the Covenant of Grace. There were clearly men who were members of the Covenant of Grace who were not a member of Abrahams family. And they didn't receive the sign. 

Do me a favor Bruce... To understand our position a little better pick up the book. I am still working this out. But I do believe the administering (and that is my word) Covenants administer more than just one. You can call them _accidents_ if you want. That would be the way your system handles it.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

I have not read Horton's book. I can only go from what I have heard.

I don't think he would see his position (which relies much on Meredith Kline's researches) as coming apart from the historic CT position, but rather building upon it. However, he has been criticized by our own Matthew Winzer as driving too-great a wedge between Sinai and the CoG.

If one makes too much of these "comparative" distinctions between secular covenant arrangements, identifying Moses' as the suzerain type *over against* the gracious royal grant type, using this distinction to "drive the train" so to speak, then this new Klinean version of CT will, ultimately separate from standard CT.

Better, I say, to understand Moses' first of all as another CoG administration, extension of the "royal grant" (to use Kline's language), having an "overlay" of the legal promise-curse, CoW flavor. After all, MOST of that covenant has to do not with land and civil justice, but with the religion of atonement and grace under types and shadows.

Make too much of the CoW-suzerain aspect, and you will end up making those things substantive, instead of accidental to the core reality.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 11, 2008)

Is not the Mosaic called a minstry of death and condemnation in 2 Corinthians 3.

(Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.

I see a definite difference here between the CofG and the condemnation of the Mosaic.

The Mosaic also posseses a portion of the CofG in that it points to Christ by shadows and there is grace in thier promises.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What is the sign of the Covenant of Grace? *I am not sure you can say that the Covenant of Circumcision* (and that is what Stephen calls it) *is the sign of the Covenant of Grace*. There were clearly men who were members of the Covenant of Grace who were not a member of Abrahams family. And they didn't receive the sign.


The bolded part, I did that.

And that is crux. We have ALWAYS said that, and that was rejected then, as it is today, by those who reject Esau's inclusion, Ishmael's inclusion, and Absolom, and Judas, and countless others who were circumcised, and "in that respect within the covenant."

That others were included in the CoG, putting faith in Messiah to come, who were not within the Covenant Community is hardly an effectual argument to us against the sign being what we avow it was (Rom 4:11). Thousands of them WERE, whether Uriah the Hittite, Ittai the Gittite--you name the convert who was "brought in" all the way, and he had to be circumcised.


> Do me a favor Bruce... To understand our position a little better pick up the book. I am still working this out. But I do believe the administering (and that is my word) Covenants administer *more than just one*. You can call them _accidents_ if you want. That would be the way your system handles it.


Here you concede the very point at issue. I don't understand what problem you have with me saying it. I don't agree that we are just arguing essentially semantic matters, saying the same thing with different terminology. If we were, then there would have long ago been a concession by the Baptists that infants received the OT "sign of the CoG," which would be a major (giant?) step towards justifying the same procedure in the NT, or resolving our respective interpretation of certain NT passages, even if we continued disagreement on the implications.

Peace.


----------



## Mayflower (Mar 11, 2008)

holyfool33 said:


> If the children of believers are considered presumptively regenerate where does Esau fit into this scheme? Seeing that he sold His birth right for a mess of potage.




Which covenant ; the covenant of grace of covenant of works ?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is not the Mosaic called a minstry of death and condemnation in 2 Corinthians 3.
> 
> (Heb 8:9) Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord.
> 
> ...


You're saying it wasn't _essentially_ the CoG. You seem to be saying that if there is an "overlay" on Moses', it is the CoG that hovers close by, an umbilical "portion" that touches it. This is precisely inverse to our opinions.

Yes, Moses' was a "ministry of condemnation", because of the _*overlay*_ of law! Of the CoW! The obtrusion of externals, which served to blind the hardened to the spiritual realities. And yet it was Glorious! The New Covenant takes the legal overlay and gets rid of it. That which is "law" today is pure CoW, or it is descriptive of the H.S.'s work of _production_, _re-inscription_ in the heart.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 11, 2008)

(Rom 4:11) And he received the sign of circumcision, *a seal of the righteousness of the faith which he had *yet being uncircumcised: that he might be the father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also:


My question is, did this sign signify the same thing for everyone of his posterity?

Was the sign of circumcision a seal of the righteousness of the faith Ishmael had? I don't believe it was. This is only one aspect of the sign. There were other implications to the sign of circumcison if I remember correctly. I don't have the Coxe book. So I can't refer to it right now. I gave mine away. 

I will pursue this more later. I need to go to sleep. Please do pick up the book and read it sometime.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

What did it signify? Are you asking *objectively* or *subjectively*? The sign MAKES its own point objectively. It is a sign TO someone _subjectively_, when it is apprehended by FAITH.

Ishmael, I doubt. Esau, definitely not.

Nor do we (on this side) have any problem with other, covenant-administration-specific aspects of the different signs.

Isaac, on the other hand, certainly. He had faith. And so did Jacob. And Joseph (and the rest of the Patriarchs). And Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Caleb, Phinehas, David, etc.

I'm sure I'll get Cox' book, if only to say I got it, read it, and now can speak to it with greater clarity. Although, I do think conversation with you, and with quite a few others has given me a fair degree of comprehension into the positionS on the other side. I've got to the point where I think getting to the heart of the dispute quicker is better.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 11, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What is the sign of the Covenant of Grace? I am not sure you can say that the Covenant of Circumcision (and that is what Stephen calls it) is the sign of the Covenant of Grace. There were clearly men who were members of the Covenant of Grace who were not a member of Abrahams family. And they didn't receive the sign.



The sign of the covenant of grace was circumcision. The covenant that God made with Abraham was the covenant of grace, or more specifically, God renewed the covenant of grace adding to it the sign of circumcision. I have read Coxe's work but I would suggest you read:

*1.* This by Jonathan Edwards,
*2.* This by David Dickson.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 11, 2008)

Bruce, do you have a bibliographic reference for the some baptists who believe the way you described? I don't recall that I've ever run into that view, at least not explicitly affirmed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > What is the sign of the Covenant of Grace? I am not sure you can say that the Covenant of Circumcision (and that is what Stephen calls it) is the sign of the Covenant of Grace. There were clearly men who were members of the Covenant of Grace who were not a member of Abrahams family. And they didn't receive the sign.
> ...



That is an assumption. As I noted, there were those who were in the Covenant of Grace that were not members of Abraham's posterity or household and they didn't take on circumcision. Nehemiah Coxe proves this in his book. Go back a reread it.


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 11, 2008)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> there were those who were in the Covenant of Grace that were not members of Abraham's posterity or household and they didn't take on circumcision



Such as?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 11, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> > there were those who were in the Covenant of Grace that were not members of Abraham's posterity or household and they didn't take on circumcision
> ...



Reread the book. King Mel comes to mind right off the bat. But I am not sure that He is one mentioned by Coxe. Coxe mentions others.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 11, 2008)

py3ak said:


> Bruce, do you have a bibliographic reference for the some baptists who believe the way you described? I don't recall that I've ever run into that view, at least not explicitly affirmed.


Reuben,
Read Coxe.
Why so few espousing this today? Only among Confessional RefBapt types are you going to find any non-NCT Covenant-Theology. And there are not very many of them--that's my supposition. (There aren't many Confessional Presbyterians or Reformed either, just more of us.)

Here's a website to a Particular Baptist site, with dozens of resources:
Old Faith Baptist Library
From their "statement of purpose:


> Some of the points these old writers maintained:
> 
> 1. A total and complete end of the Old Covenant and the establishment of the New Covenant by Jesus Christ, which contains all that is necessary for His people in their entire being. They taught there were TWO covenants, one of the law, governing works, or temporal blessings: do and live in the natural world, and the other of grace, governing spiritual blessings: do, because you live in the unseen world by union with Jesus Christ. There are not TWO ADMINISTRATIONS OF ONE COVENANT, but TWO entirely different COVENANTS.


(emphasis from the original)

What this does in practical matters is bifurcate all the lesser covenants, to one degree or another. Therefore, there is a "works" covenant with Abraham, as well as one of "grace". Of course, we disagree on that very point.


----------



## py3ak (Mar 11, 2008)

Bruce, thanks for the reading recommendations. My initial impression is that not all confessional reformed baptists would be comfortable with your summary, or with the view being summarized, though of course I am hardly an expert. But I can well imagine that there is little unanimity on (and perhaps little attention given to) this point among the Reformed Baptists. And no doubt it often happens with them, as indeed with paedo-baptists, that any argument, even a bad one, is hailed as brilliant if it seems to support the desired result.


----------



## Philip A (Mar 12, 2008)

py3ak said:


> BBut I can well imagine that there is little unanimity on (and perhaps little attention given to) this point among the Reformed Baptists.



From the time I spend in RB circles, having been involved in church planting and attending pastors conferences on both the East and the West coasts, this is certainly something that I observed.

In addition, you have to consider the effects of independency. With no Presbytery or Classis to answer to, the local leadership is the ultimate and final ecclesiastical authority in the interpretation of both scripture and the confessions. So when we ask "what is the RB view of this?", the answer is "how many different RB churches are there?"


----------



## Stephen (Mar 12, 2008)

Mayflower said:


> holyfool33 said:
> 
> 
> > If the children of believers are considered presumptively regenerate where does Esau fit into this scheme? Seeing that he sold His birth right for a mess of potage.
> ...




Sorry, but I am confused by your question? What are you asking?


----------



## Amazing Grace (Mar 12, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> > holyfool33 said:
> ...



How else can he ask it? Which covenant is being spoken about here?


----------



## AV1611 (Mar 12, 2008)

Stephen said:


> Sorry, but I am confused by your question? What are you asking?



A number of Baptists (following Gill) believe that the covenant made with Abraham was a covenant of works.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 12, 2008)

Amazing Grace said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > Mayflower said:
> ...




He did not ask, which covenant is being spoken about. He simply asked, which covenant. That is why I was asking for clarification.


----------



## Stephen (Mar 12, 2008)

AV1611 said:


> Stephen said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, but I am confused by your question? What are you asking?
> ...




Thanks, brother. I was not aware that this was Gill's position or that of Reformed Baptists. If the Abrahamic covenant was a covenant of works than that would negate the passage in Romans which states that Abraham's faith was accounted or imputed to him as righteousness. I would like to know how they understand that Abraham was under a covenant of works.


----------



## Jimmy the Greek (Mar 12, 2008)

For Gill's reasoning, and the idea of Abrahamic covenant being a covenant of works, see post #14 here: http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/john-gill-baptism-19257/


----------



## JohnTombes (Mar 14, 2008)

Stephen said:


> AV1611 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephen said:
> ...



Actually, going back to John Tombes, Antipaedobaptists argued that the Abrahamic Covenant was an historical covenant that was a mixture of CofW & CofG, with some aspects being physical for his lineal descendants and spiritual for all who believe. If My Mac had not crashed last Friday, I would have posted a part of my dissertation. If and when it is returned, I will post the section.

There are Paedobaptists who argue for a distinction between the promises and parts of the Abramic and Abrahamic Covenants. I first heard this view at RTS, Orlando from Richard Pratt. 

Mike


----------

