# How can Baptists consider themselves "Covenant Theologians"?



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

*How can Baptists consider themselves \"Covenant Theologians\"?*

This point seems to keep popping up in discussions, so I figure it deserves a thread all to itself.

How exactly can a Baptist consider himself/herself a "Covenant Theologian"?

This question is not meant to be offensive in any way. It is a genuine question for which I do not have the answer. And it seems that a lot of other paedobaptists like me have this same question.

Here is my perspective:

Paedobaptists recognize OT/NT continuity . . . that the OT covenants were administrations of the overall Covenant of Grace, and that ALL the covenants between God and man include both the regenerate and unregenerate in covenant with God (including the covenant of works with Adam, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, etc.).

Paedobaptists recognize that 100% of OT Israelites were members of the Covenant of Grace, even though many of them were not elect.

It seems to me that baptists confuse the Covenant of Grace with the Covenant of Redemption, and fail to properly distinguish between the two. This leads to the fallacious idea that the Covenant of Grace is ONLY with the elect.

If baptists want to try to make this argument, then fine, let them do so. But in doing so, they reject Covenant Theology itself.

Why would baptists want to *say* they believe in Covenant Theology, if they really do not believe in it, and only want to redefine it altogether?

Obviously, baptists DO NOT think they are doing this. Therefore, they must have some reason for thinking that they actually DO hold to Covenant Theology.

I just don't understand how that can be.

So, baptists on this board, please explain to me how it is that you believe you hold to Covenant Theology.

Again, I am not trying to be offensive at all. I am just trying to understand where you're coming from. I was baptistic for many years, but I NEVER claimed to believe in Covenant Theology during that time. My conversion to CT went right along with my conversion to paedobaptism.

Being a "Baptist Covenant Theologian" just sounds like a contradiction in terms to me.

So please help me understand how Reformed Baptists view Covenant Theology.

Thank you!

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## Dan.... (Jul 5, 2005)

I'm not a baptist, but...

You need first to define "covenant theology". How specific of a definition are you requiring? (Not all paedo-baptists will agree on every specific detail).

If you take a broad definition (as the one found in the WCF), then most Reformed Baptists I know of will agree that:



> WCF, Chapter VII
> 
> I. The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.[1]
> 
> ...


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

Well, here is one reason:



> The London Confession of Baptist Faith, Chapter VII
> Of God's Covenant
> 
> I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He hath been pleased to express *by way of covenant.*[1]
> ...



Do you see the covenant of works, covenant of redemption, and covenant of grace, which are those foundational tenets that define covenant theology?

Here are a few problems with your presentation of your view of covenant theology. And I say "your" view because I do not want you to pretend there is one monolithic view of covenant theology in reformed orthodoxy (even among paedobaptists and presbyterians). For instance, your Westminster standards do not even mention the covenant of redemption, and, in fact, it is *YOUR* standards that confuse the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption:



> Q31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> A31: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.[1]
> 
> 1. Gal. 3:16; Rom. 5:15-21; Isa. 53:10-11



The covenant of grace, properly speaking, was not made with Christ, but, as defined by Berkhof, "That gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending *but elect* sinner" (277). Christ is not a party of the covenant of grace, but the mediator of it between the two parties: God and the elect but offending sinner. Christ was a party of the covenant of redemption. No man was, is, or will be a party of the covenant of redemption. Elect man is the object of the covenant of redemption (among others), but not a party of it. A.A. Hodge was simply being a consistent Presbyterian by conflating the COR and the COG. Baptists, however, do not do that. Also, church history (reformed orthodoxy) is definitely on the side Baptists who state only the elect are members of the COG. I refer you to Berkhof, page 273. "Reformed theologians are not unanimous... the great majority of them, however, maintain that He entered into covenant relationship with the elect or the elect sinner in Christ." Some of these men included are Olevianus, "Mastricht, Turretin, Owen, Gib, Boston, Witsius, a Marck, Francken, Brakel, Comrie, Juyper, Bavinck, Hodge, Vos, and others." If you keep reading Berkhof, he states "Reformed theologians found abundant evidence that fundamentally the covenant of grace is a covenant established with those who are in Christ" (274).

And, unfortunately, you have failed to provide the nuance as done by men such as Bavinck (or paedobaptists in general) in order to make your position tenable, which is the distinction of being "in the covenant, but not of it." Your unelect covenant membership is not the same membership of the elect. In other words, the elect are "in" the covenant of grace and are "of" the covenant of grace, but this is not the same membership as enjoyed by the non-elect or unregenerate elect. This is a distinction you must make in your view of covenant theology. However, this is not the distinction you present. And, consistently speaking, Baptists do not make this distinction, but affirm one definition of the members/parties of the COG.

I think, Joseph, your understanding of paedobaptist covenant theology (while far from being monolithic), as used to critique Baptist covenant theology, is a bit over-simplistic and anemic. And, if you pretend there is one view of covenant theology beyond the three basic covenants (works, redemption, and grace), you've got a little dose of reality coming your way. A Baptist can still be a covenant theologian and disagree with the paedobaptists in regard to other issues within covenant theology. And, the same is true between paedobaptists. Is. A.A. Hodge still a covenant theologian, even though he does not separate and distinguish the COR from the COG? What about the differing views of the Mosaic Covenant within paedobaptist covenant theology? Where do *YOU* draw the line of abandoning the label of "covenant theologian"? It seems your line is "infant baptism." However, infant baptism is not necessary to covenant theology, but an inferred (and I believe wrongly so) application of a less than biblical wholistic covenant theology.

Now, where do Baptists actually *START* disagreeing with covenant theology, Joseph? Can you please show me that?


----------



## doulosChristou (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> *Paedobaptists recognize OT/NT continuity* . . . that the OT covenants were administrations of the overall Covenant of Grace, and that ALL the covenants between God and man include both the regenerate and unregenerate in covenant with God (including the covenant of works with Adam, the Noahic covenant, the Abrahamic covenant, etc.).
> 
> *Paedobaptists recognize that 100% of OT Israelites were members of the Covenant of Grace*, even though many of them were not elect.



Joseph,

When you say "paedobaptists," I think you actually mean "orthodox Presbyterians" or some other smaller group. After all, it was paedobaptists who _invented_ Dispensationalism. John Darby and the Plymouth Brethren were paedobaptists. Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodoxed, Episcopalians, Methodists, and Anglicans are all paedobaptists, but they would not hold to your particular theological constructs. There are also still some Dispensational Presbyterians out there. The ongoing practice as a whole of baptizing babies within the various denominations, churches, and even apostate churches, has more to do with traditionalism than it does with any particular theological system.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

Joseph, Baptists also see continuity between the OT/NT, or the various temporal covenants through which the covenant of grace is administered, etc. We simply see different continuity. Tell me, do you see the same continuity of theonomic covenant theologians from the OT to the NT? If you do not, then are they not covenant theologians because they see differences in the continuities? I think I know what the "line in the sand" is for you regarding continuity and discontinuity, but I want you to establish that line and prove the denial of it is a denial of covenant theology.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> For instance, your Westminster standards do not even mention the covenant of redemption, and, in fact, it is *YOUR* standards that confuse the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption:
> 
> ...




I'm sorry, but you are incorrect. The framers of the Westminster documents understood the distinction between the CoR and the CoG very well. I suggest you check out ALL the Westminster documents, in addition to the confession. 

In a post on another thread, Matt made a great comment which I don't think he would mind me including here:



> . . . do this for me, Read the Sum of Saving knowledge and then reconcile the WLC with it. The Assembly understood what they meant. Read the WHOLE CONFESSION and stop taking bits and pieces out. You are a making a common mistake that even Presbyterians make.
> 
> Without reading all 500 pages of the Confession, you will not understand the pieces.



I  what Matt said.

The WCF framers were not confused about Covenant Theology, and the confession was not written in a way that is contradictory to Covenant Theology. 



[Edited on 7-5-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

My baptist brothers,

From reading through the above posts, I see this idea come through:

"The Covenant of Grace includes _only_ the regenerate, _both_ in the Old Testament and the New Testament."

Is that a correct way of stating the central point of what Reformed Baptists believe? Or am I missing something?

Thank you for your patience,
Joseph


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> My baptist brothers,
> 
> From reading through the above posts, I see this idea come through:
> ...



Fundamentally and absolutely speaking, this is the definition of the majority of all reformed theologians, including paedobaptists. The covenant of grace, speaking fundamentally and absolutely, consists only of the church invisible (the elect--only--from all the ages). So, Baptists and Paedobaptists both assume this prior to all other things. Paedobaptists simply argue there is a "different" way of viewing the covenant of grace in time in the various administrations. We both start with the same definition of the covenant of grace absolutely, or in and of itself (i.e. the eschatological reality). From there, though, the paedobaptist must alter the absolute definition of the covenant of grace in order to make sense of the inclusion of their seed who are not necessarily elect. Or, they make exceptions to the historical, temporal covenant of grace from the absolute, eternal, eschatological covenant of grace. So, when Berkhof finally *DOES* give "his" definition of the covenant of grace on page 277, he says it consists of the elect but offending sinner in Christ. He does not include any non-elect. Tell me, is the reprobate an elect but offending sinner in Christ? You are qualifying the same covenant of grace in two different aspects, historically and eternally. Baptists simply deny the membership of the eternal is contradicted by the membership of the historical. This is why I, as a Baptist, do not say the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or New Covenants are (identity) the covenant of grace. And this is why I say, though they are administrations of the covenant of grace, they are so in a manner of relation, not identity. The covenant of grace is administered through the various temporal, historical covenants, but that which administers them is not to be equated with that which it administers. For instance, a hose is that through which I administer the substance of water to my lawn, but the hose, or that which administers the water, is not identical to the water. I apply this same analogous concept to the various temporal, historical covenants. However, because you do not do this, you qualify what you mean by covenant of grace so that it can mean one thing absolutely (eternally and eschatologically), but another thing temporally and historically. If I do not do this, am I now *NOT* adhering to covenant theology? If so, please demonstrate when and how someone "abandons" covenant theology when they adhere to the covenant of works, redemption, and grace, which, by definition, defines the tents of covenant theology.


----------



## Philip A (Jul 5, 2005)

to Paul, it is a most astute observation.

Joseph,

Honestly, in my opinion, you are in the wrong place to ask this question. I hope my baptist brethren will forgive me, but I would contend that most Baptists on this board are confused about their theology, historically speaking. I spent plenty of time being confused myself, so this is not an insult at all.

The reigning definition of Reformed Baptist on this board, and across the internet, is "Baptist who is also a Calvinist". This honestly empties the term of all meaning, and ignores the historical tie to both the 1677(89) confession and the English Particular Baptists.

As an example, look at the thread in the "Law of God" forum called "The phrase "covenant of works" isn't in the Bible". Notice how many "Reformed Baptists" deny the CoW. This cuts AGAINST everything that "Reformed Baptist" rightly means and denies a foundational truth of the system embodied in the 1689 confession.

Sorry, but I'll start sprinking babies before I deny the CoW, and I am a million miles from sprinking babies, let me tell you.

I think this is a classic example of the limitations of the use of discussion boards, blogs, and the internet in general as a means of "doing theology". I think this is why most "Reformed Baptists" are confused, and why so many Presbyterians mistake historical, confessional, Reformed Baptists as confused, Calvinistic, SBC Baptists. No one will ever understand Covenant Theology, (be it of the traditional, Presbyterian type, or the modified, Particular Baptist type), unless they get off the internet, get a good meaty book, and sit down to do the _hard work of study_.

Boards like this are good to ask clarifying questions and get pointed in the direction of those good, meaty books, but as a tool to actually do theology, it is no substitute for the real thing.

So to answer your question, Joseph, most Baptists don't understand the historical position to which they profess adherence, and so, consequently, often come across as being confused. 

/end of rant

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Philip A]


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

I do not "qualify what [ I ] mean by covenant of grace so that it can mean one thing absolutely (eternally and eschatologically), but another thing temporally and historically".

On the contrary, the Covenant of Redemption is that which only includes the elect. And the Covenant of Grace includes all the elect, PLUS a number of unregenerate people.

Korah was *every bit* as much a member of the covenant of grace as Moses was. But only Moses had a part in the covenant of redemption.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> ...



Maybe they did, but maybe not all agreed with it, hence A.A. Hodge, who denies the distinction between the two (see also Berkhof on page 276 where he addresses not all do make the distinction) can be and adhere to the WCF.

Tell me, Joseph, would you define the covenant of grace as the covenant made between the Father and the Son as the Last Adam? Or, please, simply define the covenant of grace, then define the covenant of redemption. Are the parties identical? Is the covenant of grace the same as the covenant of redemption? If not, then the Westminster standards are equivocating with the phrase "covenant of grace." The only covenant where Jesus Christ is a party is said to be the covenant of grace. That is problematic, specifically if you are going to say there is a difference between the covenant between the Father and Son and the covenant between God and elect but offending sinner.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

Philip,

Great points. I agree that many baptists are a confused mix of covenant theology and dispensationalism. 

I agree that the hard work of study is the best way to go. And I try to go there often when I can. But hey, this board is convenient, and I have gotten quite a bit of helpful info off here from time to time.

I agree that probably most "Reformed Baptists" on this board can reconcile their beliefs with Covenant Theology.

But some of you have done more study . . . I assume you, Pastor Way, and Rich Barcellos fit into this category . . . so please feel free to chime in. 

Even though I know there is no substitute for reading Witsius, I still have learned a lot of good CT info from this board.

Likewise, if there is some excellent particular baptist theology to be learned, hopefully I can at least pick a little bit of it up from some of you guys. Then maybe I can add some hundreds-of-years-old particular baptist books to my to-read list in addition to that.

Forums may be a bad place to end, but they can be a great place to start.


----------



## Philip A (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> But some of you have done more study . . . I assume you, Pastor Way, and Rich Barcellos fit into this category . . . so please feel free to chime in.



I read the books Rich tells me to read 

And yes, there is no substitute for Witsius, even for Baptists!


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> I do not "qualify what [ I ] mean by covenant of grace so that it can mean one thing absolutely (eternally and eschatologically), but another thing temporally and historically".
> 
> On the contrary, the Covenant of Redemption is that which only includes the elect. And the Covenant of Grace includes all the elect, PLUS a number of unregenerate people.
> ...



Now you are confused as to the definitions and parties of the three foundational covenants. Again, the elect are not a party in the covenant of redemption. They are an (though not the only) object of the promises of the covenant of redemption, namely that which is promised to the Son contingent upon his perfect obedience, but they are not members of it. For instance, when God made the covenant of circumcision (Acts 7:8) with Abraham, the land was not a member of the covenant, but was the object of the promises included in it. God did not covenant with Abraham and the land, but he covenanted with Abraham including objects of that promise. And, if you do not qualify the differences of the temporal, historical covenant of grace and the eternal, eschatological covenant of grace as a paedobaptist, then you are doing bad paedobaptist covenant theology, and are not doing paedobaptist covenant theology at all, actually. Please, read Berkhof on this issue. It will help clarify the issue. I'm afraid you are very confused about covenant theology and the definitions and parties of those covenants within it.

So, while it is only the elect who are the promised object (regarding the promise of the people, though other promises were made to Christ, i.e. glorified body, resurrection, sitting at the right hand of the throne, etc.), they are not a party of the covenant of redemption. And, speaking absolutely, you must say only the elect are members of the covenant of grace, unless you are going to say the covenant of grace, absolutely speaking, can be broken? This will lead into another area of great theological trouble if you do not consciously affirm the covenant of grace, as a paedobaptist, must be viewed one way historically and temporally, and another way eternally and eschatologically.

Please, do three things for me:

(1) Define the parties and promises of the covenant of works.

(2) Define the parties and promises of the covenant of redemption.

(3) Define the parties and promises of the covenant of grace.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> Are the parties identical? Is the covenant of grace the same as the covenant of redemption?



The Covenant of Redemption was made between the Father and Son.

The Covenant of Grace was made between God and fallen man.


According to the Sum of Saving Knowledge:


> II. The sum of *the covenant of redemption is this:* God having freely chosen unto life a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, unto God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature, of a soul and a body, unto personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even unto the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase unto them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading thereunto, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to the law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross: But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits unto the elect; and that he doth by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings.




Also according to the Sum of Saving Knowledge:


> *For the accomplishment of this covenant of redemption*, and making the elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the covenant of grace, Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and to persuade them to believe and obey the same; made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to intercede continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; and made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies.
> 
> HEAD III.
> The outward means appointed to make the elect partakers of this covenant, and all the rest that are called, to be inexcusable. Many are called.
> ...




Note that the Covenant of Grace is NOT identical to the Covenant of Redemption. Rather, the Covenant of Grace is "for the accomplishment of the Covenant of Redemption". The Covenant of Redemption is worked out _through_ the Covenant of Grace. They are intimately linked, but are not the same.

ONLY the elect have anything to do with the Covenant of Redemption. The CoR was made between the Father and Son. The Father gave the elect to the Son, and the Son redeemed them.

All the elect are in the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Grace is used to bring about their salvation. The CoR is worked out through the CoG.

But NOT ONLY the elect are included in the Covenant of Grace. Others are "called" as well. There are "outward means and ordinances" that make people members of the CoG. In fact, as you can see above, the infant children of believers are *explicitly* included as members of the Covenant of Grace, even though I don't think one single founder of the WCF believed that all believers' children are elect.

It is a mistake to focus on one phrase of the WCF to the complete exclusion of the SoSK, DoPW, and WLC. All the docs go together and help explain each other.

The WCF founders had no problem understanding *and accepting* the differences between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace. Hopefully the SoSK quotes above make that point evident.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> ...



Good point. I do already understand the distinction, but I was trying to speak briefly, and I ended up using poor wording.

I should have said that only the elect were _in view_ in the Covenant of Redemption . . . I agree that they were not parties to it, precisely speaking. The CoR was between the Father and Son. No disagreement there.



> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> Please, do three things for me:
> 
> (1) Define the parties and promises of the covenant of works.
> ...




(1) 
Parties: God and man
Terms: Keep God's Law perfectly. Persevere until the end.

(2)
Parties: God the Father and God the Son
Terms: I'm giving you the elect. Go redeem them. Keep the Law perfectly. Persevere until the end.

(3)
Parties: God and man
Terms: Have faith in Christ alone for salvation. Keep God's Law perfectly. Persevere until the end.

(Obviously, we would ALL be covenant breakers, except for the fact that Christ keeps the law on our behalf, and the Holy Spirit causes us to persevere. And we wouldn't even have faith in Christ alone for our salvation if it wasn't for God's saving and sustaining grace. It is IMPOSSIBLE for man to meet ANY of these conditions on his own.)

See these apropos quotes from Dr. C. Matthew McMahon, regarding John Owen's view:


> In the external administration of the Covenant of Grace, that which pertains to the New Covenant in the New Testament as well as its expression in the Old Testament, *men must meet specific requirements in order to be saved. But they cannot. God must then "œtake up both sides." * This is why the Covenant of Redemption is so important in Owen´s overall view of Covenant Theology. Jesus Christ, as Mediator, places all the responsibility, in time, under the law, on Himself, for all those for whom He will live and die. Men, then, by virtue of Christ´s work, are graciously saved and regenerated. That does not mean that only the regenerate live and move in the Covenant of Grace. Abraham and his seed are covenanted with God. But it certainly means, by Owen´s own definition, that only the elect participate in the fruits of the Covenant of Redemption.
> 
> . . . The Covenant of Redemption cannot be broken. (12:497ff) The Father and the Son have immutably fulfilled it. *The Covenant of Grace, for the elect, cannot be broken *because it logically flows from the Covenant of Redemption. *However, those "œcovenanted" with God, who are not regenerate*, something Owen contends for, *will always break the covenant *and enact the threatenings held in the sign placed upon them. (16:258ff) That does not break or distort the work of the Mediator for those whom He has been Mediator. It does, though, place all others covenanted in this way under the covenant obligations . . .
> 
> source: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahonJohnOwenRedemption.htm



The elect keep the terms because the Holy Spirit has regenerated their hearts, and because Christ fulfills the terms of the covenant for them.

The reprobate do not keep the terms. They are covenant breakers, and will receive greater judgment than the reprobate who were never in the covenant of grace.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

I'm sorry, but is the Sum of Saving Knowledge a binding document upon the Presbyterian Churches? As far as I know, David Dickson and and James Durham wrote this document, and it is not the authority of any Presbyterian Church or denomination. In other words, one must not subscribe to in order to be a faithful minister in the Presbyterian churches. Can you confirm or deny this? I'm not trying to dismiss your use of them, but, if they are not binding upon Presbyterians, or if they are not an official statement of faith, rule, practice, and order of the historical Presbyterian faith and church, then this is simply the opinion (no matter how much truth is in them) of two men who subscribed to the WCF and Catechisms. So, in truth, this is as binding upon the Presbyterian Faith as a systematic theology, a commentary, or any other statements of faith (i.e. the Heidelberg). So, while this may be a clear presentation of many truths laid out in the Westminster Confession and Catechisms, or the opinion of many men who helped form the WCF and catechisms, it is not the official position of the historical presbyterian church.



> Note that the Covenant of Grace is NOT identical to the Covenant of Redemption. Rather, the Covenant of Grace is "for the accomplishment of the Covenant of Redemption". The Covenant of Redemption is worked out _through_ the Covenant of Grace. They are intimately linked, but are not the same.



Yes, I agree with this as a Baptist.



> ONLY the elect have anything to do with the Covenant of Redemption. The CoR was made between the Father and Son. The Father gave the elect to the Son, and the Son redeemed them.



Yes, I agree with this as a Baptist.



> All the elect are in the Covenant of Grace, and the Covenant of Grace is used to bring about their salvation. The CoR is worked out through the CoG.



I agree all the elect are in the covenant of grace. However, I don't believe the COG brings about salvation, but *IS* salvation. What brings about salvation is the various ways the promises of the COG are set forth in the various, temporal, external covenants (i.e. Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New). The promises of the COG are administered through these various administrative covenants in various ways. When one lays hold of the promises of the COG in faith alone, one becomes a member of the COG. One is either condemned and a member of the Adamic covenant of works, or one is justified and redeemed and a member of the covenant of grace. One can be a member of the both COW and the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or New Covenant, or a member of both the COG and the Abrahamic, Mosaic, or New Covenant. Also, *we must say* one can be a member of the COG (through faith alone) without being a member of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. (_Case and point is the unchurched pagan on the street who, hearing the preached word, is converted as he is walking by a local pub. Also, you must concede this point regarding the unchurched pagans visiting your church. A person who is not a member of your church or any church (and therefore not an member of the COG externally), can be converted and believe, therefore becoming a member of the COG inwardly while not being a member of the COG outwardly (not yet a member of the covenant community/local church)._) The COG, or entrance into it, *IS* salvation. Tell me, is a person who is a believer (i.e. a 50 year old, non-baptized, unchurched pagan who visits your church and is converted by the means of grace of the preaching of the word), yet not a member of any church, a member of the COG? If so, how can this be if you do not make a temporal/historical and eternal/eschtological distinction on the way the COG is viewed? Are you going to say this converted man in Christ through faith alone, though not yet a member of the visible church (or the external COG), is not a member of the COG?

Entering into the COG through faith alone is salvation. When one is a member of the COG through faith alone, the work of Christ in the covenant of redemption (the obedience of the COR is the gospel, properly speaking, namely his active and passive obedience) is applied to the person. Or, speaking in logical priority, when one has the benefits of Christ applied to him, one enters into the COG. When one is engrated into Christ, or into the COG, one is saved. One can be a member of the COG outwardly (in your paedobaptistic view), but also *not* a member of the COG inwardly. This, Joseph, is the distinction about which I was speaking (the historical/temporal and the eternal/eschatological).



> But NOT ONLY the elect are included in the Covenant of Grace. Others are "called" as well. There are "outward means and ordinances" that make people members of the CoG. In fact, as you can see above, the infant children of believers are *explicitly* included as members of the Covenant of Grace, even though I don't think one single founder of the WCF believed that all believers' children are elect.



Yes, the elect are the only members of the COG, absolutely and fundamentally speaking. However, you are only defining the COG in an outward administration, rather than including the inward administration. I think what you are trying to say is people can be members of the COG outwardly, but only the elect are members of the COG inwardly; or that one can be *in* the COG, but not *of* the COG. This is viewing the covenant of grace temporally and historically as well as eternally and eschatologically. If we define the covenant of grace eternally and eschatologically, those who are members of the COG are only the elect. Do you understand this point? This is precisely that with which Berkhof notes theologians have been wrestling.

I simply deny one can be a member of the COG outwardly, yet not inwardly. I also deny the membership of the COG *IS* outward, but one who is a member of the COG will (ordinarily) be a member of the outward, external, temporal covenants found in history. One can be a member of the covenant that administers the salvific COG unto the elect alone, but I do not define the administrational covenants as the (identity) COG, because one cannot be a member of both the COG in Christ and the COW in Adam. Those are mutually exclusive. This does not mean I deny covenant theology. It means I view aspects of covenant theology differently than you, but still adhere to covenant theology. Unless you are going to make ONE definition of "covenant theology" apply to all, then you must allow for these differences within the framework of covenant theology.



> It is a mistake to focus on one phrase of the WCF to the complete exclusion of the SoSK, DoPW, and WLC. All the docs go together and help explain each other.



It is a mistake to define the covenant of grace where Jesus Christ is a member of the party. With whom is the covenant of grace made? The elect but offending sinner. With whom is the covenant of redemption made? The eternal Son. Again, I do not think the SoSK is an authoritative, binding document upon the historical Presbyterian church, though some may adopt it in local church as some adopt other works, such as the Heidelberg Catechism. In other words, to be a Presbyterian, or to adhere to the documents that define presbyterianism, one does not have to adhere to the SoSK. Therefore, I think your appeal to the SoSK (and reson for appealing to it) is moot at best.



> The WCF founders had no problem understanding *and accepting* the differences between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace. Hopefully the SoSK quotes above make that point evident.



The point evidenced by the SoSK is that two men agreed to the distinction of the COG and COR. Did other men who wrote and compiled and resided over the adoption, draughting, and writing of the Presbyterian documents agree with Dickson and Durham? Yes, they certainly did! But not all of them did, which is why the WCF is not as explicit, in my opinion. It allows for differences between men like Dickson and men like A.A. Hodge.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

> > I do not "qualify what [ I ] mean by covenant of grace so that it can mean one thing absolutely (eternally and eschatologically), but another thing temporally and historically".
> >
> > On the contrary, the Covenant of Redemption is that which only includes the elect. And the Covenant of Grace includes all the elect, PLUS a number of unregenerate people.
> >
> ...



So, with whom is the covenant of grace made, Joseph? Do you affirm the covenant of grace is made with Christ?



> > (1) Define the parties and promises of the covenant of works.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I asked for the promises, but the terms are good to have as well. But, I also think your definition is a bit too general for the topic of hand. The parties were God and Adam, with all of Adam's seed in him. In other words, we--all individuals--were a party in the COW. This is not the same as the federal headship in the COR. There isn't an identical symmetrical structure in the two federal headship covenants, though I wish there were one. There may be one, but nobody has written it to my knowledge. We, in Adam, were members (or a party) of the covenant of works. We, in Christ, are not members or a party of the COR. The promise was eternal life, and the curse was eternal death. What Adam did in covenant is immediate, since we are a party. What Christ did in covenant is mediate, since we are not a party in that covenant. This is true because the promises extended to Adam in that covenant we would receive. However, the promises extended to the eternal Son are not extended to us. In other words, the promise of an elect people for his own is not extended to us, therefore that which Christ did on our behalf is mediated through yet another (a third) covenant, or the covenant of grace. All of the promises to Adam were promises to us. All of the promises to the Son are not promises to us. This does have important bearing on federal headship, covenant membership, etc., as will probably be shown as the conversation develops.



> > (2) Define the parties and promises of the covenant of redemption.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



This is why I asked for the promises, not the terms. However, the terms are important when we related the terms of the COW in distinction with the COG and the COR, so I'm glad you expressed them without my asking. If we were a party in the COR, as we are a party in the COW, then all the promises of the COR would be ours, and we, in turn, would also receive the promise of the elect people as our own. And the term was not "redeeming them," but earning them. The people of Christ's own (the elect) was contingent upon his performance of obedience to the Father. Redeeming is the application of Christ's work in the COG, stricly speaking. We are not redeemed in the COR, but through the engrafting/membership of the COG. Christ won/earned a people of his own that they might be redeemed in the COG. I know this may sound like semantics, or splitting hairs, but I think these are crucial distinctions. So, the Father gave the Son the elect contingent upon the Son's obedience. The terms were perfect obedience (i.e. obey the Mosaic Covenant of Works), and I will give you a people of your own, or those who are members of the COG through faith alone.



> > (3) Define the parties and promises of the covenant of grace.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



It isn't merely God and man. The definition is much more strict. I'd ask you to redefine this. Is all of man in the covenant of grace? Certainly all of mankind was in the COW, so are you saying the same thing for the COG? The terms of the COG is law-keeping? Hmmm... I think you better clarify (or qualify?) this statement. Keeping God's law perfectly is the condition for Adam and Jesus Christ, but not us in the COG. And what do you mean by persevere to the end? Are you saying one must obey God's law perfectly until the end? And I do not think that which is written below answers these problems. The COG is contingent upon a life of faith and repentence alone, not keeping God's law perfectly. We are COMMANDED to keep the law perfectly as Christians, but this is not a contingency or term of our covenant of grace status. Is our obedience to the law consequent to our COG membership, susbsequent to it, or what? I think, left alone, this is problematic.



> (Obviously, we would ALL be covenant breakers, except for the fact that Christ keeps the law on our behalf, and the Holy Spirit causes us to persevere. And we wouldn't even have faith in Christ alone for our salvation if it wasn't for God's saving and sustaining grace. It is IMPOSSIBLE for man to meet ANY of these conditions on his own.)



Again, the COG does not demand we keep the law perfectly in order to be members of it, or continue to be members of it. We are not in by faith then kept by works. What Christ's work does is satisfy our breaking of the COW, and then imputes to us that which was commanded of us as a party in the COW. This is mediated through our membership in the COG through faith alone. The same terms of the COW and the COR are not the terms of the COG (i.e. keep the law perfectly). The only "law" we must keep is the "law of faith" (Rom 3:27). Man is morally unable to meet the condition of the COG, faith and repentence, but he is not naturally unable to meet the condition of the COG. Yes, God must sovereingly and actively regenerate us, but our regeneration and God's grace necessitates we do meet the condition of the COG, namely faith and repentence.

I'll post again examining the "apropos" quotes.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

Joseph, just out of curiosity, seeing what I believe as posted in our interactions (though you may not agree), are you really going to say I (as a Baptist) do not adhere to covenant theology? Are you really going to say because I do not believe children of New Covenant members (by sole virtue of being children of New Covenant members) should be baptized, that I do not adhere to covenant theology? Is the inclusion of children of New Covenant members through baptism (on the sole virtue of being children of New Covenant members) so essential to covenant theology that, to deny it, one does not adhere to covenant theology?

[Edited on 7-5-2005 by Theological Books]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

Sheesh.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Sheesh.



Tell me about.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Jul 5, 2005)

I wouldn't say someone like Philip A or others who are _truly_ covenantal are not Covenant Theologians. I would just say they don't understand baptism. :bigsmile: However, the majority of Baptists, even "Reformed" Baptists, do not adhere to orthodox Covenant Theology ... this much is simply true.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 5, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I wouldn't say someone like Philip A or others who are _truly_ covenantal are not Covenant Theologians. I would just say they don't understand baptism. :bigsmile: However, the majority of Baptists, even "Reformed" Baptists, do not adhere to orthodox Covenant Theology ... this much is simply true.



Yes, understanding baptism is a different issue.  I agree, most Baptists (most baptists do not adhere to the 2nd LBC of 1689) do not adhere to orthodox Covenant theology. Now, depending on what you mean by "reformed" (i.e. 2nd LBC of 1689), I would say the ratio is probably comparible to most PCA laymen. If you mean by "reformed" five-point Baptists who are not confessionally reformed, such as John Piper, I agree.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> Joseph, just out of curiosity, seeing what I believe as posted in our interactions (though you may not agree), are you really going to say I (as a Baptist) do not adhere to covenant theology? Are you really going to say because I do not believe children of New Covenant members (by sole virtue of being children of New Covenant members) should be baptized, that I do not adhere to covenant theology? Is the inclusion of children of New Covenant members through baptism (on the sole virtue of being children of New Covenant members) so essential to covenant theology that, to deny it, one does not adhere to covenant theology?



Hmmmm. . . . Good question. . . . Before I answer it, would you be willing to read an article? Check this out: http://www.apuritansmind.com/Baptism/McMahon-WhatDoesItMeanToBeReformed.htm

I can go ahead and tell you that we agree on a little bit more than I expected, regarding the differences between the CoR and CoG.

And yet, on the other hand, we have radically different ideas about the CoG itself. You believe that the various covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New) are not actually *part* of the CoG. Rather, you seem to believe that they merely *overlap* the CoG. You are telling me that only the elect are members of the CoG. Consequently, Ishmael, Esau, Korah, etc. could not be considered members of the CoG. That seems like a truly radical theological difference between us. (Though of course you and I would stand side by side when pouncing upon a New Covenant Theologian or Dispensationalist!)


----------



## street preacher (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> I wouldn't say someone like Philip A or others who are _truly_ covenantal are not Covenant Theologians. I would just say they don't understand baptism. :bigsmile: However, the majority of Baptists, even "Reformed" Baptists, do not adhere to orthodox Covenant Theology ... this much is simply true.



 No offence.


----------



## street preacher (Jul 6, 2005)

I believe in my own experience that when we truly believe in orthodox CT we can't help to adhere to covenantal baptism. I cannot separate them in my own mind.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Theological Books_
> ...



Joseph, I don't know if that link was one long paper/article, but I read quite a bit of it (i.e. skipping some of the wordy introductory/elaborative parts). I also read the paper from the position of the "Reformed Baptist" perspective. Needless to say, brother, I wasn't too impressed by much of what I read, sorry. Is there something you wanted to point out, specifically?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by street preacher_
> I believe in my own experience that when we truly believe in orthodox CT we can't help to adhere to covenantal baptism. I cannot separate them in my own mind.


----------



## Rich Barcellos (Jul 6, 2005)

Here is a book review of The Binding of God, Lillback, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=116 which I found interesting.

Also, not all paedobaptists teach that the OC is simply an administration of the CG. Some teach that it was subservient to the CG, not a "legal" administration of the CG.


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 6, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Rich Barcellos_
> Here is a book review of The Binding of God, Lillback, http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=116 which I found interesting.
> 
> Also, not all paedobaptists teach that the OC is simply an administration of the CG. Some teach that it was subservient to the CG, not a "legal" administration of the CG.



Thank you for the info, Rich! I appreciate it. I need to check out that article.


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 6, 2005)

> And yet, on the other hand, we have radically different ideas about the CoG itself. You believe that the various covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New) are not actually *part* of the CoG. Rather, you seem to believe that they merely *overlap* the CoG. You are telling me that only the elect are members of the CoG. Consequently, Ishmael, Esau, Korah, etc. could not be considered members of the CoG. That seems like a truly radical theological difference between us. (Though of course you and I would stand side by side when pouncing upon a New Covenant Theologian or Dispensationalist!)



I'm not sure what you mean by your assessment that I believe they "are not actually *part* of the COG. Rather, you seem to believe that they merely *overlap* the COG." Yes, that is what I am telling you, and, if we define the COG in an absolute, eternal, eschatological sense--or in its most foundational and basic form--then all agree (all of reformed orthodoxy) only the elect are in the COG. Again, the reason such paedobaptistic (and even Baptistic, as I have seen from a few) notion of "in but not of the CoG" (being members of the various adminisrations), is to consider the COG in two different aspects, temporal and eschatological. This is inseparably tied and correlated to the church visible/invisible distinction. How can one say "the holy catholic church" is both the universal invisible and universal visible church consisting of different members (elect and elect & reprobate). The invisible church is the absolute covenant of grace (the elect from all the ages). The visible church is the temporal covenant of grace (the elect and reprobate bound together in a common confession without destroying their testimony). So, one can be "in" the covenant of grace (i.e. Esau), or in the visible church (commonly denoted as the "covenant community"), but not "of" the invisible church. While I agree Esau was in the visible church, I deny the distinction of being "in" the covenant of grace, but not "of" the covenant of grace. I do this because I view the covenant of grace as the invisible church, or the inward covenant through faith alone. (Eg., From Adam to Abraham the covenant of grace existed, and people were either in it or not in it, but there was not temporal, structural medium--i.e. a visible church marked by religious ceremonies and collection of peoples.) And, while there is a connection between the visible and invisible, I do not it is one covenant with two different aspects (temporal and eternal). I see them as distinct and separate covenants through which the internal, eternal covenant of grace is administered unto the elect from all the ages. So, I do not say one was "in" but not "of" the covenant of grace. I say one was truly in, in full covenant with God (whether elect or reprobate), through these temporal, historical covenants that are distinct and separate from the one COG consisting of the elect from all the ages. In other words, the covenant of grace is more a theologemenon, or helpful theological construct (though it is necessary and valid). What I don't do is conflate the temporal covenants through which it is administered with the COG itself. By way of necessity, there is overlap, yes. The promises of the COG are imbedded and revealed in the promises of the temporal covenants. In the post-NC covenants, there was a temporal/historical dualism of antitypes and foreshadows of the eschatological reality solely revealed (apart from the temporal, historical promises such as the physical land of Canaan, the earthly kings, and the earthly people) in the NC. The NC, in this sense, is totally eschatological.

Now, I'm going to say something that might offend people, but that is not my intention. I believe Norman Shepherd is a consistent and logical paedobaptist covenantal theologian, specifically regarding his view of the Abrahamic Covenant as found in "The Call of Grace." Because of the dualistic nature of the Abrahamic Covenant (temporal/historical and eternal/eschatological), and because both aspects are identified as the covenant of grace by paedobaptistic covenant theologians, he does the natural, logical thing (in order to avoid a form of Platonic dualism, so I speculate, and to preserve an inseparable unity) and conflates the temporal/historical requirements of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants (i.e. obedience for the temporal blessings truly and genuinely promised in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants) with the eschatological promises of the COG revealed and hidden in them.

So, the Abrahamic Covenant is *ONE* covenant through which two promises are administered to all members (elect and reprobate). One of the two promises is equal to and indentified with the promises of the COG. Here you see the COG administered in types and shadows, but one cannot equate the eschatological promises administered through them with the types/signs. So, principally, the sign of baptism is not the reality of it, or the sign and the thing signified are not the same thing. There was a genuine, true promise for the physical land, kings, and peoples, as well as a genuine, true promise of the heavenly land, kings, and peoples. The requirements for each were different. The non-elect were truly in the Abrahamic Covenant, and both the promises were extended to them upon their contingency of obedience (whether obedience to the law of works or obedience to the law of faith--this is what Shepherd conflates--which is why, if the Abrahamic Covenant is equal to the COG, the covenant of grace necessitates your own personal obedience to the law as well as faith in order to maintain your membeship).

So, what do I do? I simply divorce the identity of the COG with those earthly administered, temporal covenants. (Though it isn't completely radically different. After years of studying and reading, I came across a man's work who Berkhof speaks about, specifically Thomas Blake--Page 284.) This *IS* radically different, but I think radically necessary, especially in light of the present day controversy. I'm not saying anything radically new in substance, though. I'm simple re-organizing the categories for clarity in order to fight of confusion. What I'm addressing is the paedobaptist difficulty (without consensus) regarding the "Dual Aspect of the Covenant" (see pages 284-289). You are addressing this issue, but I do not think consciously. I'm merely arguing against a legal membership that does not include a membership of communion life, but only in regard to the definition of the COG. For instance, in the NC, I do believe there are those baptized people who are legally and truly in the NC with or without true faith by virtue of their covenant (with is a promise/covenant envoked by the name of the Triune God that includes the awareness of obligation in so taking the sign and seal upon yourself). Does this mean everyone in the NC is necessarily elect or receives the promises of the NC (which promises are solely the eschatological promises of the COG, as which is not the case of the previous pre-NC covenants)? No, it doesn't. One can be truly in the NC legally (through the cultic-laws, such as baptism, which is the same for, but not restricted to circumcision in the OT administrations) and not receive the promises of that covenant if they fail to uphold those obligations they voluntarily undertook in baptism (namely a life of faith and repentance). For instance, Adam was truly in the COW prior to receiving the promises of it or performing that which was contingent upon receiving the promises. The same was true with Abraham, Moses, and Israel. I think the same can be (and must be, due to Hebrews and other key passages) said of the NC in a similar (though not identical) manner.

But, because one is a member of these various temporal, historical covenants, it does not require one define them as being "in but not of the *COG*." This is the exception I take, and this is why my CT is a bit different in terminology, but, in substance, is not radically different.


----------



## Peters (Jul 11, 2005)

*bump*


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 11, 2005)

At least upon my first reading of your post, I don't think I see any huge disagreement, mainly just different terminology.

I personally do not think of anyone as being "in but not of the CoG". I believe Korah was just as much a member of the CoG as Moses. The same goes for the apostles Judas and John.

Rather, I look at Korah and Judas as being "in the CoG, but not of the CoR". The CoR is a covenant between the Father and the Son, and as part of that covenant, the Father gives the Son the elect. So while the elect may not be "contracting parties" in the CoR, they are still very much "involved" or "affected" by it, if you will. Moses and John were among those given to the Son in the CoR. But Korah and Judas had no part in the CoR whatsoever. 

I look at the CoG as being a sort of "delivery boy" for the CoR. The salvation of the elect is worked out through the CoG. But that doesn't mean that the CoG cannot have nonelect members. It just means that those nonelect members will ultimately prove themselves apostate, because they have no part whatsoever in the CoR. 

Anyway, I'm not sure I see a huge disconnect between you and me here. . . . We both agree that there are both elect and nonelect members of the historical covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New).

Here's where I think I'm still failing to understand where you are coming from:

*Why don't you think that the children of New covenant members are automatically New covenant members themselves? *

We both know that the children of Abrahamic covenant members were automatically members of the Abrahamic covenant (cf. Genesis 17). 

If you agree that the NC contains unregenerate people, then why do you think God's M.O. has changed? Why were children automatically born into the Abrahamic covenant, but not the New covenant?


----------



## Texas Aggie (Jul 11, 2005)

W.B.,

Good discussions on this thread. Clarification between the covenants was informing (to say the least).

What were the promises of the Covenant of Grace? I must have read past this or was it answered? If not answered, what is your understanding of the CoG promises?


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 11, 2005)

> At least upon my first reading of your post, I don't think I see any huge disagreement, mainly just different terminology.



Again, it may seem to be semantics, but I'm really saying something different in substance regarding the categories of the covenants and the relation of the temporal administrations to the eternal CoG.



> I personally do not think of anyone as being "in but not of the CoG". I believe Korah was just as much a member of the CoG as Moses. The same goes for the apostles Judas and John.



Joseph, I understand this is what you're saying, but I am saying this is what you must distinguish. I think this is problematic, and I think most paedo covenant theologians have addressed this in the very manner you deny ("in but not of the covenant" as in Bavinck's language, or legal but not communion of life as in Vos' understanding).

Here is are a few questions in this line of thinking you must address: 

(1) Is the CoG breakable?

(2) How does one enter the CoG?

(3) How does one remain in the CoG?

(4) Also, how is it you posit one is in both the CoW in Adam, yet in the CoG in Christ?

I think, Joseph, you simply have not worked out your understanding of the CoG as have historical paedos. In other words, I think you are still trying to understand the CoG and non-elect. I don't think there is anything wrong with it, but I think you'll find clarification and understanding in works such as Berkhof (i.e. "Dualistic Nature of the Covenant of Grace").



> Rather, I look at Korah and Judas as being "in the CoG, but not of the CoR". The CoR is a covenant between the Father and the Son, and as part of that covenant, the Father gives the Son the elect. So while the elect may not be "contracting parties" in the CoR, they are still very much "involved" or "affected" by it, if you will. Moses and John were among those given to the Son in the CoR. But Korah and Judas had no part in the CoR whatsoever.



Interesting, but I have not come across this before.



> I look at the CoG as being a sort of "delivery boy" for the CoR. The salvation of the elect is worked out through the CoG. But that doesn't mean that the CoG cannot have nonelect members. It just means that those nonelect members will ultimately prove themselves apostate, because they have no part whatsoever in the CoR.



And, again, how does one enter the CoG? How does one break it? Can anyone and everyone break it? If so, how? If not, how?



> Anyway, I'm not sure I see a huge disconnect between you and me here. . . . We both agree that there are both elect and nonelect members of the historical covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, New).
> 
> Here's where I think I'm still failing to understand where you are coming from:
> 
> ...



Because the Abrahamic and Mosaic were typological of the substance of the NC. The inclusion of children in the Abrahamic and Mosaic was not an example of how we are to view the children in the NC, but was to show something else typologically. In other words, there is no necessary demand of the inclusion of infants of NC members biblically theologically.

[Edited on 7-11-2005 by Theological Books]


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 11, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Texas Aggie_
> W.B.,
> 
> Good discussions on this thread. Clarification between the covenants was informing (to say the least).
> ...



The promise of the CoG is the eschatological promise of redemption, in short. It is eternal life in Christ (and all that goes with it both here, temporally, and future--i.e. glorified bodies).


----------



## Peters (Jul 14, 2005)

*bump*


----------



## Steve Owen (Jul 14, 2005)

As a Baptist who holds to the 1689 Confession, I see the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants as the 'Covenants of Promise' (Eph 2:12). I wonder if anyone has read the following extract from Pink?



> God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures able to enter into covenant with their august and holy maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or to be sureties for others? The very question answers itself. What, for instance, could Noah possibly do which would ensure that the earth should never be destroyed again by a flood? These subordinate covenants were nothing more or less than the Lord's making manifest, in an especial and public manner, the grand covenant: making known something of its glorious contents, confirming their own personal interest in it, and assuring them that Christ, the great covenant Head, should be of themselves and spring from their seed.
> 
> 'This is what accounts for that singular expression which occurs so frequently in Scripture: "Behold, I establish My covenant with you and your seed [cf. Gal 3:16, 29- Martin] after you" (Gen 9:9 ). Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? Because the "conditions" were to be fulfilled and the "work" was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings upon His people.' So when David says, "He hath made with me an everlasting covenant" ("2Sam 23:5 ), he simply means that God had admitted him into an interest in the Everlasting Covenant and made him a partaker of its privileges. Hence it is that when the Apostle Paul refers to the various covenants which God made with men in Old Testament times, he styles them not "covenants of stipulations", but "covenants of promise."


A.W.Pink. 'The Divine Covenants' 

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 7-14-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Theological Books (Jul 14, 2005)

Joseph,

In a previous post you spoke of the relation between the CoG and CoR regarding the elect/reprobate membership. You said:



> I personally do not think of anyone as being "in but not of the CoG". I believe Korah was just as much a member of the CoG as Moses. The same goes for the apostles Judas and John.
> 
> Rather, I look at Korah and Judas as being "in the CoG, but not of the CoR". The CoR is a covenant between the Father and the Son, and as part of that covenant, the Father gives the Son the elect. So while the elect may not be "contracting parties" in the CoR, they are still very much "involved" or "affected" by it, if you will. Moses and John were among those given to the Son in the CoR. But Korah and Judas had no part in the CoR whatsoever.



This simply proves there isn't one monolithic view of covenant theology. What you have stated is no where mentioned in any resources I have at my disposal. Now, I could say that *YOU* are not a covenant theologian because of the way you delineate covenant membership, which isn't reflected by the majority of reformed covenant theologians.

So, to help you think about this some more, let me ask a few questions. How does one become a member of the covenant of grace? How does one maintain that membership? How was Esau a member of the CoG? How was Jacob a member of the CoG? What is the difference of membership between a believing, elect member and an unbelieving, reprobate member? How do they differ in membership? How are they identical in membership?


----------



## biblelighthouse (Jul 14, 2005)

This post is actually a reply to a post in another thread, but we had gotten so wildly off-topic, it seemed to make more sense for me to make this post here in this thread.





> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> > While you're at it, have you read Pierre Charles-Marcel's book on infant baptism? I highly recommend it.
> ...








The Biblical Doctrine of Infant Baptism






Infant Baptism in the First Four Centuries







The Origins of Infant Baptism






Children of the Promise






To A Thousand Generations


Enjoy!!!


----------

