# Lutherans and Covenant Theology: Continued



## brandonadams (Jan 31, 2016)

I just saw this thread, but it is closed http://www.puritanboard.com/showthread.php/88139-Lutherans-and-Mosaic-Covenant

There were some helpful answers there, but I wanted to add some more.

Owen remarks (from Hebrews 8:6 commentary):


> The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new. And whereas the essence and the substance of the covenant consists in these things, they are not to be said to be under another covenant, but only a different administration of it. But this was so different from that which is established in the gospel after the coming of Christ, that it hath the appearance and name of another covenant. And the difference between these two administrations may be reduced unto the ensuing heads: —
> 
> 1. It consisted in the way and manner of the declaration of the mystery of the love and will of God in Christ…
> 
> ...



(He then goes on to agree with the Lutherans on this point. "These things being observed, we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant... Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than a twofold administration of the same covenant merely, to be intended.")

Here is Luther:


> From the above it will at once be seen what is the right and what is the wrong use of the mass, and what is the worthy and what the unworthy preparation for it. If the mass is a promise, as has been said, then access to it is to be gained, not with any works, or powers, or merits of one’s own, but by faith alone. For where there is the Word of the promising God, there must necessarily be the faith of the accepting man. It is plain therefore, that the beginning of our salvation is a faith which clings to the Word of the promising God, who, without any effort on our part, in free and unmerited mercy takes the initiative and offers us the word of his promise. “He sent forth his word, and thus [sic] healed them,”86 not: “He accepted our work, and thus healed us.” First of all there is God’s Word. After it follows faith; after faith, love; then love does every good work, for it does no wrong, indeed, it is the fulfilling of the law [Rom. 13:10]. In no other way can man come to God or deal with him than through faith. That is to say, that the author of salvation is not man, by any works of his own, but God, through his promise; and that all things depend on, and are upheld and preserved by, the word of his power [Heb. 1:3], through which he brought us forth, to be a kind of first fruits of his creatures [Jas. 1:18].
> 
> Thus, in order to raise up Adam after the fall, God gave him this promise when he said to the serpent: “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel” [Gen. 3:15]. In this word of promise Adam, together with his descendants, was carried as it were in God’s bosom, and by faith in it he was preserved, waiting patiently for the woman who should bruise the serpent’s head, as God had promised. And in that faith and expectation he died, not knowing when or who she would be, yet never doubting that she would come. For such a promise, being the truth of God, preserves even in hell those who believe it and wait for it. After this came another promise, made to Noah—to last until the time of Abraham—when a bow was set in the clouds as a sign of the covenant [Gen. 9:12–17], by faith in which Noah and his descendants found God gracious. After that, he promised Abraham that all the nations should be blessed in his seed [Gen. 22:18]. And this is Abraham’s bosom [Luke 16:22], into which his descendants have been received. Then to Moses and the children of Israel [Deut. 18:18], especially to David [II Sam. 7:12–16], he gave the plainest premise of Christ. and thereby at last made clear what the promise to the men of old really was.
> 
> ...



As an Augustinian monk, Luther is simply echoing Augustine on this point.



> "As then the law of works, which was written on the tables of stone, and its reward, the land of promise, which the house of the carnal Israel after their liberation from Egypt received, belonged to the old testament [covenant], so the law of faith, written on the heart, and its reward, the beatific vision which the house of the spiritual Israel, when delivered from the present world, shall perceive, belong to the new testament [covenant]... I beg of you, however, carefully to observe, as far as you can, what I am endeavouring to prove with so much effort. When the prophet promised a new covenant, not according to the covenant which had been formerly made with the people of Israel when liberated from Egypt, he said nothing about a change in the sacrifices or any sacred ordinances, although such change, too, was without doubt to follow, as we see in fact that it did follow, even as the same prophetic scripture testifies in many other passages; but he simply called attention to this difference, that God would impress His laws on the mind of those who belonged to this covenant, and would write them in their hearts, (Jer 31:32-33)... These pertain to the new testament [covenant], are the children of promise, and are regenerated by God the Father and a free mother. Of this kind were all the righteous men of old, and Moses himself, the minister of the old testament, the heir of the new,—because of the faith whereby we live, of one and the same they lived, believing the incarnation, passion, and resurrection of Christ as future, which we believe as already accomplished"
> 
> -Augustine (Treatise on the Spirit and the Letter, c. 41, 42; A Treatise Against Two Letters of the Pelagians, b.3 c. 11)
> See many more quotes to this effect here: http://www.1689federalism.com/augustine-proto-1689-federalist/



I was told to take a look at Chemnitz Loci Theologici part III Locus XV to see this argued, but I don't have access to it. (If anyone finds it online, please let me know)


As far as I'm aware, Luther did not have a doctrine of an Adamic Covenant of Works:


> “Do this and thou shalt live,,” means: First have faith in Christ, and Christ will enable you to do and to live...
> 
> In this way will we correctly interpret all those passages that seem to support the righteousness of works. The Law is truly observed only through faith. Hence, every “holy,” “moral” law-worker is accursed.
> 
> ...


----------



## MW (Jan 31, 2016)

Luther spoke of two testaments.

The sense in which Owen referred to a new covenant as an entirely new covenant related to the development of revelation, not to the dogmatic categories of a covenant of works or a covenant of grace which emerge as a reflection on a completed revelation. As far as development is concerned we would be bound to say there is no covenant according to the pattern of the law after its fulfilment by Christ, for Christ Himself is the covenant which God makes with believers, and it is His own blood in which the covenant is made. The dogmatic categories of works and grace are a reflection of the completed revelation and the Christological fulfilment of the promises in terms of the two Adam construct of New Testament teaching. So far as these dogmatic categories are concerned Owen taught the covenant of grace was administered under the law.


----------

