# Would this be an accurate take on how Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians View CT?



## Dachaser (May 12, 2018)

https://pilgrimandshire.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/covenant-theology-presbyterian-or-baptist/
I read through this article, and would appreciate if you would see this as being correct in its premise on Covenant theology as seen from the viewpoint of Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians.


----------



## Tom Hart (May 13, 2018)

I'm just here to express my confusion at the term "Presbartarian".

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 13, 2018)

Tom Hart said:


> I'm just here to express my confusion at the term "Presbartarian".


Heh. I thought that was some new way labeling Presbyterians who really like Barth.

Thread title corrected.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 13, 2018)

From a quick scan of the item, I lost interest upon seeing the author's inferences that the Covenant of Grace did not formally arrive until Abraham. If he is so confused about that matter of _covenant_ and _administrations_ of the same, I felt my time was better spent on other things.

As I only scanned the item, perhaps he teased this out a wee bit more accurately and am open to correction.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## deleteduser99 (May 13, 2018)

The central point of the blog post is to expound the 1689 Federalist view, so the Presbyterian view of the covenants only receives a passing treatment. The overview of Presbyterian covenant theology is far too simplistic to be useful in understanding the Presbyterian view, and it’s only given for the purpose of contrasting against 1689F.

It’d be more helpful to get an overview of Reformed CT from a Presbyterian.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Romans922 (May 13, 2018)

I have found the same treatment of the Presbyterian view from the 1689 baptists (of today). It is made to be far too simplistic and that creates a strawman argument. So here is an example from the 1689 federalism website that does this:


----------



## Andrew P.C. (May 13, 2018)

In a recent discussion on the Jerusalem Chamber, they spoke on the efficacy/virtue of the benefits of Christ. This discussion reminded me of the podcast. It would be beneficial to listen.

It seems that the only way to properly understand how the OT saints were partakers is through a covenant of grace. Otherwise, there really is no true explanation on how the OT saints were really saved.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## sc_q_jayce (May 14, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> I have found the same treatment of the Presbyterian view from the 1689 baptists (of today). It is made to be far too simplistic and that creates a strawman argument. So here is an example from the 1689 federalism website that does this:


What in the world! Certainly makes Presbyterians look somewhat schizophrenic.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 14, 2018)

I differ with the WCF on this point; I agree as well (though, the timing the fed baptist takes is different) that the NC _is_ the C of G; consummated at Christ's death and resurrection.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 14, 2018)

Andrew P.C. said:


> It seems that the only way to properly understand how the OT saints were partakers is through a covenant of grace. Otherwise, there really is no true explanation on how the OT saints were really saved.



All Reformed Baptists agree with this.


----------



## Dachaser (May 15, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> All Reformed Baptists agree with this.


true, as anyone who has every been saved by God is by Grace alone through faith alone, and that basis would be the Cross of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser (May 15, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> I differ with the WCF on this point; I agree as well (though, the timing the fed baptist takes is different) that the NC _is_ the C of G; consummated at Christ's death and resurrection.


Agreed, as the new Covenant in order to be ratified and put into place had to have the Messiah come, die, and be raised back up again first.


----------



## Dachaser (May 15, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> From a quick scan of the item, I lost interest upon seeing the author's inferences that the Covenant of Grace did not formally arrive until Abraham. If he is so confused about that matter of _covenant_ and _administrations_ of the same, I felt my time was better spent on other things.
> 
> As I only scanned the item, perhaps he teased this out a wee bit more accurately and am open to correction.


My understanding on this article was that the author was highlighting the differences between how reformed Baptists and Presbyterian view the concept of Covenant theology itself.


----------



## Dachaser (May 15, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> I have found the same treatment of the Presbyterian view from the 1689 baptists (of today). It is made to be far too simplistic and that creates a strawman argument. So here is an example from the 1689 federalism website that does this:


I think that it did a nice job to summarize that while both Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians affirm Covenant theology, there would still be some substantial differences between the 2 groups.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> I have found the same treatment of the Presbyterian view from the 1689 baptists (of today). It is made to be far too simplistic and that creates a strawman argument. So here is an example from the 1689 federalism website that does this:



The graphic is not intended to be a comprehensive treatise, so it's no surprise that it's going to be "simplistic".

What exactly do you find untrue or misleading, or feel should have been said but was not?


----------



## De Jager (May 15, 2018)

Based on my limited research, I am of the understanding that what we call the 'covenant of redemption', began in eternity past, when the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 'covenanted' to gather a people that would belong to God. (cf. John 6:39, & others).

The thing we call the 'covenant of grace' would be an outworking of the covenant of redemption, which no doubt was also agreed to in eternity past, but began to be applied as soon as Adam and Eve sinned, at which point their sin needed to be covered by the future death of the Messiah.

I would appreciate feedback on this post.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Romans922 (May 15, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> The graphic is not intended to be a comprehensive treatise, so it's no surprise that it's going to be "simplistic".
> 
> What exactly do you find untrue or misleading, or feel should have been said but was not?



This was alluded to above by another, but I have no issue with the baptist side. The Presbyterian side is flawed. 

It says the CoG is the Abrahamic, etc. That's wrong. By making a system simplistic to the reader is not an issue, to make it TOO simplistic is because then it is just wrong (that is the case here). CoG membership is also flawed I believe because it mischaracterizes putting "administrative (non-elect)".

If I were doing it, I suppose I'd ONLY put Substance and Administrative and leave off the elect part as that has nothing to do with it. I'm willing to hear other suggestions from my Presbyterian brethren, but generally to describe an entire hermeneutic and/or system...doing so with venn-diagram is not the best way and like in this case puts forth a straw man.





Dachaser said:


> I think that it did a nice job to summarize that while both Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians affirm Covenant theology, there would still be some substantial differences between the 2 groups.



Yes substantial differences, but the differences that are noted must be accurate or it's a waste of time.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 15, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Agreed, as the new Covenant in order to be ratified and put into place had to have the Messiah come, die, and be raised back up again first.



Your timing is different from mine. If I am not mistaken, u see this happening at the crucifixion and death at Christ; I see it consummating at that point.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2018)

De Jager said:


> Based on my limited research, I am of the understanding that what we call the 'covenant of redemption', began in eternity past, when the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit 'covenanted' to gather a people that would belong to God. (cf. John 6:39, & others).
> 
> The thing we call the 'covenant of grace' would be an outworking of the covenant of redemption, which no doubt was also agreed to in eternity past, but began to be applied as soon as Adam and Eve sinned, at which point their sin needed to be covered by the future death of the Messiah.
> 
> I would appreciate feedback on this post.



I think pretty much all of that is generally agreed upon by those who claim the moniker "Reformed".


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> This was alluded to above by another, but I have no issue with the baptist side. The Presbyterian side is flawed.
> 
> It says the CoG is the Abrahamic, etc. That's wrong. By making a system simplistic to the reader is not an issue, to make it TOO simplistic is because then it is just wrong (that is the case here). CoG membership is also flawed I believe because it mischaracterizes putting "administrative (non-elect)".
> 
> ...



I still think that you're expecting (or interpreting) the graphic to be attempting to teach more than it's intending to teach.

Do not the paedobaptistic formulations of Covenant Theology hold that the historic Abrahamic, Mosiac, David, and New Covenants are all administrations of the one Covenant of Grace? Is this an error?

Do not the paedobaptistic formulations of Covenant Theology hold that pertaining to membership of the Covenant of Grace, only the Elect / Regenerate participate in the substance of the CoG while non-Elect / non-Regenerate members of the CoG _only _participate in the outward administration?

I suppose the wording of the graphic could be improved by replacing the word "elect" with the word "regenerate", but apart from that, is it really wrong?


----------



## TylerRay (May 15, 2018)

From the article:


> What makes Reformed Baptist covenant theology different from its Paedobaptist counterpart is that we view the Covenant of Grace as being that covenant which comes through the person and work of Jesus Christ.



Larger Catechism 31:


> Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## deleteduser99 (May 15, 2018)

Far as the graph is concerned, I thought of the CG as being given at the Garden right after the Fall, and the AC onward facilitating the delivery of those promises.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2018)

Harley said:


> Far as the graph is concerned, I thought of the CG as being given at the Garden right after the Fall, and the AC onward facilitating the delivery of those promises.



We (Reformed Baptists) know that Presbyterians look at it that way, but that wasn't exactly the point of the graphic.

Am I mistaken in my belief that Presbyterians see the Covenant of Grace as not having any kind of formal, outward Administration between Adam and Abraham?


----------



## TylerRay (May 15, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> We (Reformed Baptists) know that Presbyterians look at it that way, but that wasn't exactly the point of the graphic.
> 
> Am I mistaken in my belief that Presbyterians see the Covenant of Grace as not having any kind of formal, outward Administration between Adam and Abraham?


Yes, sir. The covenant line can be traced through Seth's descendants down to Noah, then through Shem's descendants down to Abraham. All along the way, you see sacrificial ordinances being observed, although you also see apostasy. However, God always preserves a remnant.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 15, 2018)

Me said:


> Am I mistaken in my belief... ?





TylerRay said:


> No, sir.



?????

Ok... but the actual meat of your post suggests that you think I am?



You said:


> The covenant line can be traced through Seth's descendants down to Noah, then through Shem's descendants down to Abraham. All along the way, you see sacrificial ordinances being observed, although you also see apostasy. However, God always preserves a remnant.


----------



## TylerRay (May 16, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> ?????
> 
> Ok... but the actual meat of your post suggests that you think I am?


Sorry, my post should have begun with, "Yes, sir."

Corrected.


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Yes, sir. The covenant line can be traced through Seth's descendants down to Noah, then through Shem's descendants down to Abraham. All along the way, you see sacrificial ordinances being observed, although you also see apostasy. However, God always preserves a remnant.


So you see the CoG then in all of the OT Covenants God made with man? Such as with Abraham, Noah, David, Moses et all?


----------



## TylerRay (May 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> So you see the CoG then in all of the OT Covenants God made with man? Such as with Abraham, Noah, David, Moses et all?


Along with all covenantalists, I understand all of the covenants after the fall, including all OT covenants and the New Covenant, as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The only covenant which doesn't fall under this category is the Covenant of Works that God made with Adam in the Garden before the Fall.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell (May 16, 2018)

So, if there was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace between Adam and Abraham, what form did it actually take? What were / was the sign(s) / seal(s) of this historic covenant?

I've never heard a paedobaptist claim that there was a formal administration of the CoG between Adam and Abraham before, so this concept it new to me.

(Clarification: I understand that the substance of the CoG was in place and enjoyed by God's elect in all ages since the fall. All Reformed Covenantalists agree on this, whether they be Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, or Baptist. My question is solely about the "outward administration".)


----------



## TylerRay (May 16, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> So, if there was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace between Adam and Abraham, what form did it actually take? What were / was the sign(s) / seal(s) of this historic covenant?
> 
> I've never heard a paedobaptist claim that there was a formal administration of the CoG between Adam and Abraham before, so this concept it new to me.
> 
> (Clarification: I understand that the substance of the CoG was in place and enjoyed by God's elect in all ages since the fall. All Reformed Covenantalists agree on this, whether they be Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, or Baptist. My question is solely about the "outward administration".)


We aren't given information about any signs/seals of the covenant as it was given to Adam after the Fall. All we have is the promise of the Seed of the Woman, who would crush the head of the serpent. That our first parents received this promise by faith is seen in Eve's comment when she had her firstborn (about whom she was sadly mistaken): "I have gotten a man from the LORD." It is further seen in her comment about Seth: "For God, _said she_, hath appointed me another seed instead of Abel, whom Cain slew."

The only hint regarding ordinances that I see in these earliest years is about _calling upon the name of the LORD_, which was said to have characterized the revival of religion among the Sethites: "And to Seth, to him also there was born a son; and he called his name Enos: then began men to call upon the name of the LORD" (Gen. 4:26).


----------



## deleteduser99 (May 16, 2018)

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> So, if there was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace between Adam and Abraham, what form did it actually take? What were / was the sign(s) / seal(s) of this historic covenant?
> 
> I've never heard a paedobaptist claim that there was a formal administration of the CoG between Adam and Abraham before, so this concept it new to me.
> 
> (Clarification: I understand that the substance of the CoG was in place and enjoyed by God's elect in all ages since the fall. All Reformed Covenantalists agree on this, whether they be Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, or Baptist. My question is solely about the "outward administration".)



Considering I think that the primary purpose of Genesis 4-11 is to lead up to the AC and it covers 2000 years of history in eight chapters, I’m personally cautious to try to harvest this section of the Bible too much either way for the covenant/baptism debate.

Though, outward administration of the CG is certainly there. Abel offered a worthy sacrifice and Cain did not, which shows there was some knowledge of right and wrong in the worship of God. We also know Noah was a preacher of righteousness, thus there was some kindle of teaching/preaching office employed. Enoch had a prophetic office. There were clean/unclean distinctions (though granted, this could still have just been based off biological classifications distinct to that time). And depending on the view you take, the sons of God marrying the daughters of man indicated at one point the godly were clearly distinguished from the wicked, which argues some form of a church, or people consecrated to God. It’d be strange if there were not.

If anything, it’d be very strange for God to have no outward ordinances (ie. Outward administration of CG) at that time as means of grace for the people. Even in New Testament times when the outpouring of the Spirit is the greatest it’s ever been, we still have an outward administration of the CG through baptism, preaching, Lord’s Table, singing, etc. Certainly it would be there too.

And in light of the fuzzy nature of that time period, I’m open to correction on my analysis of the facts provided.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (May 16, 2018)

Harley said:


> Abel offered a worthy sacrifice and Cain did not


That slipped my mind in my most recent post. That certainly would indicate a system of ordinances observed by the earliest generations.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 16, 2018)

Perhaps we need to express the points to be made with a greater degree of clarity.

Patrick, I note (post 29) your use of the word, "formal," and that's probably something to attend. The CoG is _in effect_ starting right away, and that in some sense the sacrifices of worship express a distinct kind of formality. You cannot have "informal" worship in any sense, unless there is *formal *worship that is instituted by God. And that can't exist unless there is a mediator (or exactly, a Mediator; and see Heb.5:1-5). And that is strong evidence of the fact of covenant reality undergirding.

There is a "formal" quality to the covenant with Abraham, inasmuch as the Lord conducts an oath ceremony along with it; but Gen.15 is not the beginning of the covenant, nor does it wait until Gen.17 and the sign. The covenant is in effect as soon as the promise is plainly expressed, which is Gen.12. But even so, it is earlier still, as we're told the promise predates the departure of the clan (including Terah, Gen.11:27).

I have used the analogy of a birth. Conception occurs at Gen.3:15, labor pangs begin with Abram's introduction, birth is the formal expression (and the sign is given fifteen years later). But as parents know, the baby is greatly impacting the lives of mother & father long before the birth itself.

Likewise, the CoG is _conceptually _active as soon as it is needful, immediately after the fall. Otherwise, there is no meaningful, embodied relationship man has with God. The proof, again, is in the fact of authorized worship by sacrifice. No covenant, no sacrifice.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Along with all covenantalists, I understand all of the covenants after the fall, including all OT covenants and the New Covenant, as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The only covenant which doesn't fall under this category is the Covenant of Works that God made with Adam in the Garden before the Fall.


Except that Reformed Baptists would not tend to see the Mosaic One of being under the umbrella of the COG, as that was more under reward for obedience to keeping the provisions of God. <ore of being a Covenant of works than a direct application of the COG.


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Perhaps we need to express the points to be made with a greater degree of clarity.
> 
> Patrick, I note (post 29) your use of the word, "formal," and that's probably something to attend. The CoG is _in effect_ starting right away, and that in some sense the sacrifices of worship express a distinct kind of formality. You cannot have "informal" worship in any sense, unless there is *formal *worship that is instituted by God. And that can't exist unless there is a mediator (or exactly, a Mediator; and see Heb.5:1-5). And that is strong evidence of the fact of covenant reality undergirding.
> 
> ...


The New Covenant though was of a quality in some way superior to and superseding all prior ones, as it was the new relationship between God and Man that was not made possible until the coming of Jesus, death, and His resurrection, as the full atonement for sins.


----------



## TylerRay (May 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Except that Reformed Baptists would not tend to see the Mosaic One of being under the umbrella of the COG, as that was more under reward for obedience to keeping the provisions of God. <ore of being a Covenant of works than a direct application of the COG.


If anyone holds that man was justified by works under the Mosaic covenant, he does not hold to Reformed theology. Reformed (and Scriptural) theology teaches that a man can only be justified through a covenant of grace, Christ being the mediator of that covenant.


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> If anyone holds that man was justified by works under the Mosaic covenant, he does not hold to Reformed theology. Reformed (and Scriptural) theology teaches that a man can only be justified through a covenant of grace, Christ being the mediator of that covenant.


Yes, but the Mosaic Covenant was not the same as the CoG , correct?


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Mosaic One was not administering though the CoG in my understanding, as it was more of being obedient to the commands of God in order to secure physical/financial blessings of being in the promised land now. The spiritual blessings found in the CoG would be unconditional and eternal. but those under the Mosaic were temporal and conditional.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Mosaic One was not administering though the CoG



Were people saved by grace alone through faith alone in the Mosaic time period?


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2018)

Yes, as that would be the only method the Lord has used to save lost sinners.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Yes, as that would be the only method the Lord has used to save lost sinners.


If that is so, then the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the C of G.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 16, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> If that is so, then the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the C of G.


The big difference though would be just some were saved under that administration, while all under/in the NC are now redeemed.


----------



## Scott Bushey (May 16, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The big difference though would be just some were saved under that administration, while all under/in the NC are now redeemed.



You make a lopsided distinction where the NT does not, that being that not everyone in th church are true believers. Your trx is flawed. Count the number of times in the NT, the writers are all giving warnings and gospel calls, even to the converted.


----------



## Dachaser (May 17, 2018)

Scott Bushey said:


> You make a lopsided distinction where the NT does not, that being that not everyone in th church are true believers. Your trx is flawed. Count the number of times in the NT, the writers are all giving warnings and gospel calls, even to the converted.


I am not saying that all in the local church are saved, but the NT scriptures do indicate that only those who have been saved are included under the new Covenant between God and Us now.


----------



## brendanchatt (May 27, 2018)

Romans922 said:


> I have found the same treatment of the Presbyterian view from the 1689 baptists (of today). It is made to be far too simplistic and that creates a strawman argument. So here is an example from the 1689 federalism website that does this:





SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Do not the paedobaptistic formulations of Covenant Theology hold that the historic Abrahamic, Mosiac, David, and New Covenants are all administrations of the one Covenant of Grace? Is this an error?



I didn’t know Reformed Baptists don’t view it that way. How could it work otherwise?


----------



## Dachaser (May 29, 2018)

I thought that some RB see the Mosaic Covenant as being a Covenant of works, so would be more of physical, not spiritual blessings?


----------



## TylerRay (May 29, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> I thought that some RB see the Mosaic Covenant as being a Covenant of works, so would be more of physical, not spiritual blessings?


Following certain Presbyterian theologians, some RBs view the Mosaic Covenant as, in part, a republication of the pre-fall Covenant of Works, superadded to the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace..


----------



## Dachaser (May 29, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Following certain Presbyterian theologians, some RBs view the Mosaic Covenant as, in part, a republication of the pre-fall Covenant of Works, superadded to the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace..


Would that view be with orthodoxy then?


----------



## TylerRay (May 29, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> Would that view be with orthodoxy then?


It's an error, but it's not rank heresy.


----------



## Dachaser (May 30, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> It's an error, but it's not rank heresy.


The Westminster Confession does not support that viewpoint, so who in Presbyterian circles would have supported that view?


----------



## TylerRay (May 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> The Westminster Confession does not support that viewpoint, so who in Presbyterian circles would have supported that view?


Meredith Kline, Scott Clark, and Michael Horton, for starters.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (May 30, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Meredith Kline, Scott Clark, and Michael Horton, for starters.


I know for a fact that Scott Clark understands the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

The only relevant question is: What else might the Mosaic Covenant do besides? Does "this law" (WCF 19.2) correspond to the "law, as a covenant of works" in WCF 19.1? If so, then we recognize that the moral law that continues "to be perfect rule of righteousness" (WCF 19:2) is exactly the same in substance as the original covenant of works.

What else could a later expression be, then, other than a form of "reexpression" or "republication" of that which existed from the start? And if someone were to treat this law--not as it should be regarded in light of the fall and the introduction of the covenant of grace, but--as a means of justification before God, then they have taken a "lesson" of the covenant-described-as-"Law" and made it the _telos_.

We can understand how such a false attitude toward the law would naturally come to pass, given the overwhelming presence and weight of externals with which the Sinai covenant was freighted. But, not every generation of the Old Covenant nation of Israel had the same misunderstanding to the degree that it was present (and how!) by the days of Pharisee dominance.

Yet, there is an undeniable pedagogical point to the exhausting demands of the Mosaic legislation: "The letter kills," 2Cor.3:6. That's the covenant of works. And that, so far from being contrary to the Westminster Confession, is just what WCF 19.6 teaches has been true all along: that for true believers (including those under the Old Covenant), "not under the law, as a covenant of works, yet it is of great use to them," etc.

I recommend not impugning the published positions and reputations of men without attending to the precision of their formulae.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Dachaser (May 30, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I know for a fact that Scott Clark understands the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> The only relevant question is: What else might the Mosaic Covenant do besides? Does "this law" (WCF 19.2) correspond to the "law, as a covenant of works" in WCF 19.1? If so, then we recognize that the moral law that continues "to be perfect rule of righteousness" (WCF 19:2) is exactly the same in substance as the original covenant of works.
> 
> ...


What about Mr Kline and Horton though?
Is this an area where Reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists would tend to see a clear distinction being made between those 2 groups on how to view the Mosaic Covenant?


----------



## TylerRay (May 30, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I know for a fact that Scott Clark understands the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> The only relevant question is: What else might the Mosaic Covenant do besides? Does "this law" (WCF 19.2) correspond to the "law, as a covenant of works" in WCF 19.1? If so, then we recognize that the moral law that continues "to be perfect rule of righteousness" (WCF 19:2) is exactly the same in substance as the original covenant of works.
> 
> ...



Rev. Buchanan,

I agree entirely. Please note my earlier post:


TylerRay said:


> Following certain Presbyterian theologians, some RBs *view the Mosaic Covenant as, in part, a republication of the pre-fall Covenant of Works, superadded to the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace*.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (May 30, 2018)

Dachaser said:


> What about Mr Kline and Horton though?


What is your understanding of how these two men handle the matter? What have they written or stated publicly that leads you to your understanding?


----------



## Dachaser (May 31, 2018)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> What is your understanding of how these two men handle the matter? What have they written or stated publicly that leads you to your understanding?


My understanding of Dr Kline views would be that he saw the Mosaic Covenant as basically redoing the Covenant of Works established with Adam to the nation of israel, as that by them confirming to the law would inherit the promised blessings of God. This was an conditional one though, as how much one kept the Law would be how much God would bless His people.
I do not Know Dr Horton view though, as i thought that he was well regarded as a Reformed theologian for today.


----------

