# Two covenants of grace



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

So I am listening to the baptism debate Jen posted and Dr. Schreiner said something about CT that is confusing. 

He states that nowhere in Scripture do we see that there was only one covenant of grace.

Dr. Schreiner points out that Ishmael received grace in the first covenant, but when mentioning the new covenant in the NT Ishmael is never mentioned. Thus the two covenants may overlap, but they are not the same.

Now I know that the WCF points out that There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.


So can someone clear this up? 

Am I missing something that Dr. Schreiner is stating? You can see Dr. Schreiner's statement at the around the 31:30 mark.


----------



## Jen (Nov 22, 2008)

I spoke to him after the sessions ended this afternoon, but in rereading your post, it seems that I have misremembered your question...

I asked him to elaborate on the multiple covenants of grace, and he said that he means that the Abrahamic covenant and New Covenant are two different covenants, but both are under the heading of covenant of grace. This is, I think, the standard Baptist response... He said that Dr. Wellum's chapter in "Believer's Baptism" unpacks this idea.

Does that help at all?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

It does help, but I see the WCF's Scripture proofs pointed to a single covenant. I would be curious what his feelings on Romans 4:13-23 are. 

I have not read Dr. Wellum's book so I can't refer to it.


----------



## Jen (Nov 22, 2008)

That I don't know directly, but he did write a commentary on Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament)... I don't have it, but maybe someone around here does or you can get a hold of it somehow?

To clarify, it's actually Wellum's chapter in "Believer's Baptism", which has chapters written by multiple authors -- Dr. Schreiner is one of the editors. Someone posted a link to the PDF here once, if you search for Wellum, it should come up.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

LOL, I knew the name Schreiner sounded familiar. I have his commentary on Romans. I had to have it for my Romans class. I will look it up and let you know his feelings.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

Ok, I just read through Dr. Schreiner's commentary on the Romans passage. 

Dr. Schreiner states that Abraham is the father of both Jews and Gentiles through faith. This universal fatherhood is the promise given to Abraham in Genesis 15. This promised inheritance is secured by God's grace, it follows that it is guaranteed for all his seed. 

He also mentions how circumcision was required for the entrance into the covenant of the Jews, but now Paul states that the enjoyment of the promise is not due to keeping the law, but rather through right standing with God received through faith.



So Dr Schreiner refers to Genesis 15 as a covenant of grace. It was originally given to Abraham and all who have the same faith that Abraham had are apart of that same covenant and enjoy its promises.

This really sounds like a single covenant of grace. I am not sure what Dr. Schreiner is stating in the baptism debate by saying that nowhere in Scripture can we get the idea that there is no evidence that we have one covenant of grace. I would venture to say that Dr. Schreiner's own words on Romans contradicts his saying in the audio.

Also his commentary on Romans 11 states that the root of the olive tree is the patriachs and that the Gentiles have been grafted into that. So again it does not seem to me that Dr. Schreiner is pointing to a new covenant, but is making the point quite clearly that believing Gentiles are apart of the Abrahamic covenant.

I am off to go read Wellum now.


----------



## CovenantalBaptist (Nov 22, 2008)

Dr. Schreiner and Dr. Wellum hold to a form of New Covenant Theology. They are Calvinistic Baptists. This would be a difference between them and confessional (1689) Reformed Baptists. Confessional Reformed Baptists articulate a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace as upheld in the confession Chapter VII paragraph 2 and 3:



> II. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace,[2] wherein He freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved;[3] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.[4]
> 
> 2. Gen. 2:17; Gal. 3:10; Rom. 3:20-21
> 3. Rom. 8:3; Mark 16:15-16; John 3:16
> ...




For a critique of NCT from an RB perspective, this page will get you started

Hope that helps unravel some of these distinctions. The term Reformed Baptist is confusing as many groups claim it. This is why the distinction confessional (1689) Reformed Baptist is often applied. Churches who affliate with ARBCA and those independant churches who have loose connections with the Monteville RB church (Pastor Al Martin) would fall into this category. Others like the SBTS crowd and the Masters Seminary crowd would be NCT. In the FIRE fellowship there are both types together although I am guessing the greater majority are NCT. Confused yet?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 22, 2008)

CovenantalBaptist said:


> Dr. Schreiner and Dr. Wellum hold to a form of New Covenant Theology. They are Calvinistic Baptists. This would be a difference between them and confessional (1689) Reformed Baptists. Confessional Reformed Baptists articulate a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace as upheld in the confession Chapter VII paragraph 2 and 3:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Chris,

Thanks for your post. This can definitely be confusing. However, I think the Masters Seminary crowd would be surprised to learn that they are considered NCT since every faculty member has to subscribe to a dispensational doctrinal statement. It would be similar to saying that the GPTS crowd is Federal Vision friendly.  They may not represent old style Scofield dispensationalism, but it is dispensational nonetheless. Also, while there are some at SBTS who appear to have some NCT leanings, my guess is that it is more of a mixed bag that includes those who may subscribe to some flavor of dispensationalism and some who are essentially covenantal as well.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

It would seem that Dr. Schreiner's argument against paedo-baptism should be discarded if his main reason for not being a paedo-baptist is his belief in the NCT.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 22, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> It would seem that Dr. Schreiner's argument against paedo-baptism should be discarded if his main reason for not being a paedo-baptist is his belief in the NCT.



I think his argument should be weighed on its own merits. (I haven't listened to the argument so can't give an opinion at this point.) My understanding is that he is heavily influenced by John Piper. I remember reading on the Desiring God website a few years ago that Piper occupies sort of a middle ground between CT and NCT, not agreeing with either 100% but agreeing with some aspects of each. Also, I don't think Schreiner's views represent those of any of the NCT leaders. 

Furthermore, while it could be said that Reformed paedos reason for holding to their belief is their covenant theology, I'm not sure if any baptistic theologian's *main* reason for not being a paedo is their belief in NCT, dispensationalism, or even their conception of CT.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

But the problem is that his main argument against paedobaptism is his view on NCT. So if I disagree with his presuppositions against paedobaptism, then I should discard his arguments against paedobaptism.

I am not necessarily jumping on the paedobaptist bandwagon (I really teeter between both camps). I am just saying that I would not swing to the credo-baptist side due to his argument against paedobaptism.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 22, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> But the problem is that his main argument against paedobaptism is his view on NCT. So if I disagree with his presuppositions against paedobaptism, then I should discard his arguments against paedobaptism.
> 
> I am not necessarily jumping on the paedobaptist bandwagon (I really teeter between both camps). I am just saying that I would not swing to the credo-baptist side due to his argument against paedobaptism.



I'm not going to belabor this, but again I don't know that Schreiner's views are exactly NCT. I'm not familiar with all of the arguments of the various NCT advocates, but none of the ones I know of would refer to one covenant of grace the way that it is reported in post #2 that Dr. Schreiner did.


----------



## CovenantalBaptist (Nov 22, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Chris,
> 
> Thanks for your post. This can definitely be confusing. However, I think the Masters Seminary crowd would be surprised to learn that they are considered NCT since every faculty member has to subscribe to a dispensational doctrinal statement. It would be similar to saying that the GPTS crowd is Federal Vision friendly.  They may not represent old style Scofield dispensationalism, but it is dispensational nonetheless. Also, while there are some at SBTS who appear to have some NCT leanings, my guess is that it is more of a mixed bag that includes those who may subscribe to some flavor of dispensationalism and some who are essentially covenantal as well.



Hi Chris,

Thank you. You are correct, this was written in haste (something I have tried to avoid, this time unsuccessfully). I incorrectly conflated and confused the Masters' Seminary guys and the Progressive Dispensationalists (which are more from DTS - Dallas Theological Seminary) who would hold to a kind of "Covenant Theology Lite" and would have much in common with NCT. You are correct that the Masters' seminary guys are still classically dispensational, at least, officially. NCT is a difficult-to-define field and it encompasses many variants. 

You are also correct, there are guys at SBTS who hold to a confessional RB stance and it is a mixed bag, but I believe that it is a small minority who are confessional RBs. In my opinion Schreiner's material points away from the confessional stance and this is a reason to be cautious.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 22, 2008)

CovenantalBaptist said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Chris,
> ...



NCT can definitely be nebulous. I sat under a ministry that was sort of NCT a few years ago but haven't done a ton of research into it. During the time I spent in Presbyterianism I basically paid NCT no mind at all. I've recently seen 3-4 camps or views identified within NCT. As you note it does seem to finally be having some influence with some seminary professors, although they may not have swallowed NCT whole. I listened to part of a Masters Seminary Faculty Lecture Series on NCT a while back and it was noted that unlike the usual course of events where a view is advocated in the seminaries and then eventually shows up in the pulpit, NCT is something that has been articulated by pastors and is barely represented in the academy. (I'd think that one could say similar things about dispensationalism, which was spread through the USA through various Bible conferences, the Scofield Bible and was later taught at DTS and other schools that the early fundamentalists established.)


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 22, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > But the problem is that his main argument against paedobaptism is his view on NCT. So if I disagree with his presuppositions against paedobaptism, then I should discard his arguments against paedobaptism.
> ...




Schreiner does not believe in one covenant of grace. He believes in one plan of salvation but multiple covenants.


----------



## Calvibaptist (Nov 22, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> My understanding is that he is heavily influenced by John Piper. I remember reading on the Desiring God website a few years ago that Piper occupies sort of a middle ground between CT and NCT, not agreeing with either 100% but agreeing with some aspects of each.



Here is Piper's quote from his website:



> John Piper has some things in common with each of these views, but does not classify himself within any of these three camps. He is probably the furthest away from dispensationalism, although he does agree with dispensationalism that there will be a millennium.
> 
> Many of his theological heroes have been covenant theologians (for example, many of the Puritans), and he does see some merit in the concept of a pre-fall covenant of works, but he has not taken a position on their specific conception of the covenant of grace.
> 
> In regards to his views on the Mosaic Law, he seems closer to new covenant theology than covenant theology, although once again it would not work to say that he precisely falls within that category.



Piper is definitely NOT a 1689'er, but wouldn't be accepted by the NCT camp either.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 23, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > Chaplainintraining said:
> ...



Again, I'm not that well acquainted with Schreiner's views. In post 2 of this thread, Jen asked Dr. Schreiner about the two covenants of grace language and got the following response: 



> I asked him to elaborate on the multiple covenants of grace, and he said that he means that the Abrahamic covenant and New Covenant are two different covenants, but both are under the heading of covenant of grace.



Assuming that the above accurately conveys the conversation, it points to a belief in "one covenant, two administrations," which is a common way of saying that someone is a covenant theologian. Saying that and "one plan but multiple covenants" may be a distinction without a difference in some cases. If you mean to suggest that all of the covenants i.e. Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, Noahic, are exactly the same then I suggest you go back to the drawing board because no covenant theologian believes that. What I quoted above suggests that Dr. Schreiner does believe in one covenant of grace. I was in NCT circles for several years and I don't know of any NCTer who would refer to "one covenant of grace" since their whole system is predicated on the idea that there is NOT one covenant of grace and in emphasizing discontinuity, in some cases moreso than dispensationalists do. John Zens is sometimes credited as the father of NCT with his article in the 1970's in the Baptist Reformation Review questioning whether there was one covenant of grace. Despite what Jen reported it's possible that you may be right that Schreiner does not really believe in one covenant, two administrations i.e. covenant theology but you have failed to provide any evidence to support this assertion. 

Also, if there were no difference between the Abrahamic and New Covenants as you appear to be suggesting, why is it called the New Covenant, and what is new about it?


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 23, 2008)

Calvibaptist said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> > My understanding is that he is heavily influenced by John Piper. I remember reading on the Desiring God website a few years ago that Piper occupies sort of a middle ground between CT and NCT, not agreeing with either 100% but agreeing with some aspects of each.
> ...



Calvibaptist,

Thanks for digging this up, it is exactly what I had in mind. Piper is a big favorite among at least some NCTers although they understand that he doesn't quite fall within their camp. D.A. Carson and perhaps especially Douglas Moo are other theologians who aren't exactly NCT but are highly regarded by many New Covenant Theologians.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 23, 2008)

The evidence I gave was his direct words from the audio. He states that there is one plan of salvation, but there is not a single covenant of grace. Check it out at the 31:30 mark.


I have seen the New Covenant as the newer version of the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is the difference between promised and fulfilled.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 23, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> The evidence I gave was his direct words from the audio. He states that there is one plan of salvation, but there is not a single covenant of grace. Check it out at the 31:30 mark.



This is about the third time I've questioned you on this and you continue to completely disregard the testimony of someone who was at the debate who questioned Dr. Schreiner following. Why? 



Chaplainintraining said:


> I have seen the New Covenant as the newer version of the Abrahamic Covenant. The New Covenant is the fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant. It is the difference between promised and fulfilled.



Do you find any difference in the administration of these covenants? In other words, is there any difference between them regarding who is to be considered a member of the respective covenants?


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 23, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > The evidence I gave was his direct words from the audio. He states that there is one plan of salvation, but there is not a single covenant of grace. Check it out at the 31:30 mark.
> ...



What I am saying is that the testimony does not make sense. I am not saying that the testimony is false, only stating the Dr. Schreiner is confusing. How can there be no evidence of a single covenant of grace, but right after he says there is only one covenant of grace. This seems contradictory.



As for the administration of the covenants.....I don't know. I am still learning hence the reason why I originally asked the original question. I understand the Baptist side saying the New Covenant is spiritual in nature and the Presbyterian side showing the whole visible/invisible church. I just do not know where I stand right now.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 23, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> What I am saying is that the testimony does not make sense. I am not saying that the testimony is false, only stating the Dr. Schreiner is confusing. How can there be no evidence of a single covenant of grace, but right after he says there is only one covenant of grace. This seems contradictory.



I agree that it seems to be contradictory, but it is possible that he misspoke (I've known preachers that do it fairly often) and that what he told Jen is what he really meant. I haven't read Wellum's chapter that he referred her to either so I really can't comment on it. Once I do read it I'll have a better idea of where they stand. But even Alan Conner in _Covenant Children Today,_ which was published by Reformed Baptist Academic Press (thus hardly friendly to NCT) wrote that "there is a strong element of contrast between the New Covenant and both the Mosaic and Abrahamic Covenants." If you don't have it already, Conner's book would be a good one to pick up since it is both concise and comprehensive in arguing the Reformed credo view. I think it's only $12.99 from rbap.net.



Chaplainintraining said:


> As for the administration of the covenants.....I don't know. I am still learning hence the reason why I originally asked the original question. I understand the Baptist side saying the New Covenant is spiritual in nature and the Presbyterian side showing the whole visible/invisible church. I just do not know where I stand right now.



I can identify with the predicament since it was my predicament for several years. My only advice (other than to stay on the correct side and remain Baptist)  is to not make a decision either way until you are sure in your beliefs. But being sure that you are sure can be tricky as well. Two years ago I was convinced in my Presbyterian views but switched back to a baptistic position this spring. I had thought I had really weighed the arguments before but I don't think I really did. I knew the paedo argument inside and out but there was always a doubt in the back of my mind that I had swallowed it because I wanted to join the OPC church in my area and didn't think there were any Baptist ones that were acceptable. Also, it can be easy to be influenced by what ministry opportunity may avail itself to you depending on which side you fall, whether the grass looks greener, or as in my case, if there doesn't appear to be a sound Baptist church in your area. 

Not long ago I read a series of blog posts by a Baptist pastor turned Presbyterian who changed for what appeared to me to be the flimsiest of reasons. The posts showed that he was apparently ignorant of both Presbyteran and Baptist history and practice and that his decision basically came down to frustration with the particular circle of Baptists that he had identified with and his admiration for his Presbyterian friends.


----------



## Notthemama1984 (Nov 23, 2008)

I will definitely look into getting the Conner's. I am finding that one's view of baptism stems largely from one's views on other aspect of theology (mainly the covenants). In fact, I had a PCA Chaplain tell me once that the secret to baptism was through the covenants so study them. 


I will take your advice and take it slow. I have a tendency to think that I need all the answers prior to seminary, but in reality I go seminary to learn the answers.


Oh and as for a local Reformed church influencing one's decision. There is no need to worry there. The closest reformed congregation nearest to where I am moving is a Confessional Reformed Baptist church and it is about 35 miles away (although there is one Calvinist Dispensational church about 20 miles away). The closest PCA or OPC church is even further. I found it surprising that in an area with a church on every corner that there was not at least one reformed church remotely close by.


----------



## Pilgrim (Nov 23, 2008)

Chaplainintraining said:


> I will definitely look into getting the Conner's. I am finding that one's view of baptism stems largely from one's views on other aspect of theology (mainly the covenants). In fact, I had a PCA Chaplain tell me once that the secret to baptism was through the covenants so study them.
> 
> 
> I will take your advice and take it slow. I have a tendency to think that I need all the answers prior to seminary, but in reality I go seminary to learn the answers.



The chaplain is essentially correct. A man's view of the covenants, particularly the New Covenant, is going to tell you what his view of baptism is. Studying the various texts on the covenants as well as the ones on baptism is the way to go. What I was arguing against earlier was the idea of adopting a particular flavor of theology and then basically imposing that on the text without doing the exegetical work. Agreeing for the sake of argument that Dr. Schreiner is influenced by NCT, in my opinion that doesn't mean that he has nothing profitable to contribute on the issue since not all of his answers (and perhaps few of them) have to do with whether he is NCT, CT or somewhere in between. NCT has more of an impact on one's view of the law. It also has more of an impact on whether or not you believe there is a pre-fall Covenant of Works and as we have noted, whether or not there is one covenant of grace. 

You definitely don't need all the answers prior to seminary. Who does have them all? But obviously your choice of seminary will determine what you are taught there. Having a settled position definitely helps in choosing a seminary in line with those views.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Nov 26, 2008)

To help clear up some of the baggage I would recommend some of Welty's articles. You can find them here.
Papers by Greg Welty

Concerning a Reformed or Particular Baptist's view of the covenants I would point you guys to Nehemiah Coxe's Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ to get a good understanding of the Covenants from a Credo Position. 

It can be found on this page here.
SGCB | Reformed Baptist Academic Press

There are not two Covenant's of Grace. There is one Covenant of Grace administered by various covenants. These covenants may administer the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace as does the Abrahamic and the Mosaic. In my humble opinion. 

There is an Everlasting Covenant that is mentioned in Genesis 17 which is the Covenant of Grace. There is only one. Ishmael was not a part of it even though Abraham petitioned God on his behalf.

And let me put in a plug for a school I highly recommend. Midwest Center for Theological Studies.


http://www.mctsowensboro.org/index.html


Edit for correction...
I made a mistake..... Ishmael was not a part of the Everlasting Covenant. Esau wasn't either but he was not Abraham's son whom Abraham petitioned God for Everlasting Covenant inclusion. I got a little mixed up so I needed to fix it..... It won't be the last time. My mind aint what it use to be.


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Nov 26, 2008)

Calvin (from Book II)


> CHAPTER 6.
> 
> REDEMPTION FOR MAN LOST TO BE SOUGHT IN Christ.
> 
> ...


----------



## Julio Martinez Jr (Dec 1, 2008)

Pilgrim said:


> Chaplainintraining said:
> 
> 
> > What I am saying is that the testimony does not make sense. I am not saying that the testimony is false, only stating the Dr. Schreiner is confusing. How can there be no evidence of a single covenant of grace, but right after he says there is only one covenant of grace. This seems contradictory.
> ...



Not Presbyterian anymore? That's too bad.

-----Added 12/1/2008 at 09:03:33 EST-----

I was actually a Reformed Baptist until I began to study CT. Read some Strawbridge and that little blue book by Schreiner. Heard many debates. Bahnsen's lectures on CT finally did it for me.


----------

