# So Baptist do not believe in C.O.W.?



## Matthew1344 (Sep 10, 2016)

As far as i understand the 1689 confession, i summit to it. I looked it over before in this table http://www.proginosko.com/docs/wcf_lbcf.html . It was very helpful, and at the end, I was still on the 1689 side. 

currently I have been listening and reading cov theo from the paedo view point. 
Covenant Theology – Dr. Curt Daniel 
Overview of Covenant Theology 1-3 – Dr. Matthew McMahon SA 
Covenant Theology 1-9 – Dr. Richard Phillips 
Covenant Church – Dr. Richard Phillips
Covenant Worship 1 and 2 – Dr. Richard Phillips
Biblical Theology 1-26 – Dr. Gerard Van Groningen 
The Covenant of Redemption – Dr. Curt Daniel 
Covenant Theology 1-4 – Dr. O. Palmer Robertson 
Covenant Theology 1-5 – Dr. Michael Barrett SA 

The Doctrine of the Two Covenants – Ezekiel Hopkins
A History of the Work of Redemption – Jonathan Edwards 

Some was making sense, and some was not. I have learned that there is more to this line of thinking than i originally thought.

I was talking to my friend and he introduced me to the *www.1689federalist.com* website. They are challenging me pretty heavily. Especially the young guy, he doesn't make too many things simple. He does a great job at speaking clearly and getting his point across. The difficulty is due to my end, always having to push pause, replay the term in my head, then remember what the definition of the term is. I am trying to figure out if these guys are speaking truth about baptist theology or if i am really a baptist. 

One guy said in a video "*Many people try to learn covenant theology from paedo teachers and try to make their baptist theology fit into it, but it doesn't fit."* This is me, except i don't see why it can't fit. He also said something along the lines of *"1689 baptist are different in sacraments that WCF, but they didn't differ starting at sacramentology, they differed starting in covenant theology."*

Anyways, i say all that to ask this to my reformed Baptist brothers on here...
*1)Do you believe in a Covenant of Works before the Fall? Why or why not? 
2)And if Adam would have been with ought sin in the probationary period, would he have been given a glorified body?*


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 10, 2016)

We agree with the CoW for the same reasons as our Paedobaptist brethren do. Why? Because its scriptural.

As for the second, I am not sure how to go about answering that.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Sep 10, 2016)

arapahoepark said:


> We agree with the CoW for the same reasons as our Paedobaptist brethren do. Why? Because its scriptural.
> 
> As for the second, I am not sure how to go about answering that.


Ok! great thanks!


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (Sep 10, 2016)

The Covenant of Works is described (just not named as such)in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in Chapter Six, especially in Section 1.

1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and *gave him a righteous law*, *which had been unto life had he kept it*, *and threatened death upon the breach thereof*, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress *the law of their creation*, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Sep 10, 2016)

What are your thoughts about the view of C.O.G.? I did not know 1689 baptist believe that only the New Covenant is the COG

if you google "Comparison: 20th Century Reformed Baptists", you will see the chart.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Sep 10, 2016)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The Covenant of Works is described (just not named as such)in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in Chapter Six, especially in Section 1.
> 
> 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and *gave him a righteous law*, *which had been unto life had he kept it*, *and threatened death upon the breach thereof*, yet he did not long abide in this honour; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress *the law of their creation*, and the command given unto them, in eating the forbidden fruit, which God was pleased, according to his wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to his own glory.



I have never heard of them until about 3 days ago, but there are people called "New Covenant Baptist". i think these are the ones who reject COW. 

But i know a good friend, that is reformed in soteriology and methodology in evangelism and lords day worship, and he rejects COW. is this inconsistent?


----------



## arapahoepark (Sep 10, 2016)

Matthew1344 said:


> SeanPatrickCornell said:
> 
> 
> > The Covenant of Works is described (just not named as such)in the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith in Chapter Six, especially in Section 1.
> ...



I would say so.

Also, I would get Pascal Denault's book to explain why the New Covenant is considered the CoG. He is a tremendous help.
Also for free go to contrast2.wordpress.com for in-depth articles.


----------



## py3ak (Sep 11, 2016)

Spurgeon believed in the covenant of works:



> Remember that there was a covenant of old, which men broke; the covenant of works, “This do, and thou shalt live.” Keep such and such commands, and thou shalt be rewarded. That covenant failed because man did not keep God’s commands, and so did not earn the promised reward. We broke the terms of that contract, and it is no longer valid, except that we come under penalty for the breach of it; and that penalty is, that we are to be cast away from God’s presence, and to perish without hope, so far as that broken covenant is concerned.



C. H. Spurgeon, “Twelve Covenant Mercies,” in The Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit Sermons, vol. 39 (London: Passmore & Alabaster, 1893), 325.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 11, 2016)

You would benefit from Nehemiah Coxe's Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. http://www.rbap.net/our-books/covenant-theology-from-adam-to-Christ-by-nehemiah-coxe-and-john-owen/

Be cautious, there are various factions of Baptists. New Covenant Theology is something new in my estimation. It is not the Confessional theology of the 1689. A true Confessional Baptist does hold to a Covenant of Works. It is biblical and Confessional.

Dr. Greg Welty has some papers on New Covenant Theology on this page that you might benefit from. 
http://www.proginosko.com/welty/


----------



## MW (Sep 11, 2016)

If paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists teach the same doctrine concerning the covenant of works made with Adam why are the Savoy Confession's references to the covenant of works made with Adam omitted in the 1677/89 Confession?


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 11, 2016)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> New Covenant Theology is something new in my estimation. It is not the Confessional theology of the 1689.



Martin is right. NCT is a relatively new doctrine, and those who hold to it explicitly deny the covenant theology of the 1689 confession. Most of them hold to the 1640 confession, which was less explicit.


----------



## TylerRay (Sep 11, 2016)

MW said:


> If paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists teach the same doctrine concerning the covenant of works made with Adam why are the Savoy Confession's references to the covenant of works made with Adam omitted in the 1677/89 Confession?



To me, it looks as if they left the question open as to whether the arrangement between God and Adam can be described as a covenant. Sean Cornell quoted a section of the 1689 above which seems to affirm everything that is usually meant by "the covenant of works," but leaves out the word _covenant._


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Sep 11, 2016)

MW said:


> If paedobaptists and antipaedobaptists teach the same doctrine concerning the covenant of works made with Adam why are the Savoy Confession's references to the covenant of works made with Adam omitted in the 1677/89 Confession?


It is written differently. I never understood why. Can you illuminate us Rev. Winzer?

LBCF 


> LBCF VI and VII
> Paragraph 1. Although God created man upright and perfect, and gave him a righteous law, which had been unto life had he kept it, and threatened death upon the breach thereof,*1* yet he did not long abide in this honor; Satan using the subtlety of the serpent to subdue Eve, then by her seducing Adam, who, without any compulsion, did willfully transgress the law of their creation, and the command given to them, in eating the forbidden fruit,*2* which God was pleased, according to His wise and holy counsel to permit, having purposed to order it to His own glory.*1* Gen. 2:16,17
> *2* Gen. 3:12,13; 2 Cor. 11:3
> Paragraph 2. Our first parents, by this sin, fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and we in them whereby death came upon all:*3* all becoming dead in sin,*4* and wholly defiled in all the faculties and parts of soul and body.*5*
> ...





> WCF*Chapter VI*
> 
> *Of the Fall of Man, of Sin, and the Punishment thereof*
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Sep 11, 2016)

From what I have read it appears to be the result of identifying the covenant of works with the law as the old covenant. As Denault wrote in his work on Distinctiveness, "Contrarily to the Presbyterians, the Baptists understood the New Testament law/grace contrast as a contrast between the Old and New Covenants." The old covenant was plainly made with Israel at Mt. Sinai. This means the covenant of works as such was not plainly made with Adam, though it was in some dimmer sense revealed to Adam.


----------



## zsmcd (Sep 12, 2016)

Sounds like you are referring to the NCT and "Progressive Covenantalism" that is coming out of places like SBTS from men like Stephen Wellum. I have met Wellum and some of his PhD students who hold to these views. Their main argument is that classic covenant theology places to much of an external system on the Scripture to create ideas like the CoW and CoG. Which to me is sad reasoning coming from folks who claim to believe in and defend Particular Atonement and the Trinity...


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 7, 2016)

> From what I have read it appears to be the result of identifying the covenant of works with the law as the old covenant. As Denault wrote in his work on Distinctiveness, "Contrarily to the Presbyterians, the Baptists understood the New Testament law/grace contrast as a contrast between the Old and New Covenants." The old covenant was plainly made with Israel at Mt. Sinai. This means the covenant of works as such was not plainly made with Adam, though it was in some dimmer sense revealed to Adam.



Matthew, that is an insufficient understanding of the issue and does not follow from what Denault said. The 17th century particular baptists all affirmed the Covenant of Works was made with Adam. They also recognized that the Old Covenant operated upon a principle of works. Some agreed with Owen that it was limited to temporal life in the land of Canaan. Others (wrongly) did believe the Old Covenant was a continuation of some kind of the Adamic Covenant of Works. None of them (to my knowledge) said the Covenant of Works was not made with Adam.

I would recommend reading Richard Barcellos' "Getting the Garden Wrong" as he addresses this issue of the confession. Should be out next month I believe.


----------



## MW (Oct 7, 2016)

brandonadams said:


> The 17th century particular baptists all affirmed the Covenant of Works was made with Adam.



I haven't denied that, Brandon. The point is that some of them identify the law given on Mt. Sinai with the covenant of works. This means the earlier revelation is not as clear. So John Bunyan on the doctrine of the law and grace:



> The Covenant of Works or the law, here spoken of, is the law delivered upon Mount Sinai to Moses, in two tables of stone, in ten particular branches or heads...





> ...Now the law given on Sinai was for the more clear discovery of those sins that were before committed against it; for though the very substance of the Ten Commandments were given in the garden before they were received from Sinai, yet they lay so darkly in the heart of man, that his sins were not so clearly discovered as afterwards they were; therefore, saith the Apostle, the law was added (Gal 3:19). Or, more plainly, given on Sinai, on tables of stone, "that the offence might abound,"– that is, that it might the more clearly be made manifest and appear (Rom 5:20).



This is different from the Presbyterian view as expressed in the Westminster and Savoy Confessions.


----------

