# The New Covenant Clearly Replaced the Mosaic Covenant, Not the Abrahamic.



## Scholten

Paedo-baptist Statement​There is considerable scriptural evidence that the new covenant replaced the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic.
In Jeremiah 31 God promises a new covenant and in verse 32 he says it will not be like the covenant he made him with their fathers when he took them by the hand out of the land of Egypt. This is clearly a reference to the covenant made with Moses on Mount Sinai.

_Concerning the Response Below_: Dr. Welty’s comments get at a critical aspect of the new covenant. I agree with him wholeheartedly that under the Abrahamic covenant all did not have the law written on their hearts or know the Lord or have their sins forgiven. What is Dr. Welty implying in this quote? Is he implying that because “each of the contrasts Jeremiah asserts here between the New and the Mosaic Covenants, is also a contrast between the New and the Abrahamic” that therefore just as the new covenant replaced the Mosaic therefore it also replaces the Abrahamic? But that does not logically follow. The Abrahamic covenant and the Mosaic covenant are still two distinct covenants. Just because one is ended it does not follow that the other is ended. 

Baptist Response​The following quote is taken from “A Critical Evaluation of Paedobaptism” by Greg Welty: 

Paedobaptists may claim that baptists are failing to recognize that the contrast which Jeremiah is drawing here is between the New Covenant and the Mosaic (Old) Covenant, not between the New Covenant and the covenant as originally administered to Abraham. Since paedobaptists justify infant baptism with reference to the Abrahamic (not Mosaic) Covenant, the fact that Jeremiah speaks of the New Covenant as different from the Mosaic is of no relevance for the question of infant baptism. This point is well taken--the Mosaic Covenant was indeed added to the Abrahamic promises, not repealing or replacing them but furthering their ultimate purpose (Galatians 3:17-19). But reflection upon the realities of the Abrahamic Covenant will reveal that each of the contrasts Jeremiah asserts here between the New and the Mosaic Covenants, is also a contrast between the New and the Abrahamic! Under the Abrahamic Covenant, all did not have the law written on their hearts, or know the Lord, or have their sins forgiven. Covenant children such as Ishmael and Esau, who lived under the Abrahamic but not the Mosaic Covenant, bear eloquent testimony to this fact.

Which do you agree with? Is there an error in either of the arguments?

The last post in this series can be found at:
http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/4-d...covenant-did-not-annul-abrahamic-coven-70699/

You are also welcome to go to the following link to engage in a discussion on baptism:

http://dialogos-studies.com/Dialogos/baptism/infant_baptism.htm

Herb


----------



## jogri17

Not sure if I get whether the mosaic covenant was a part of the cov of grace or a republication of the covenant of works. I know reformed folk have different views on that.


----------



## Scholten

jogri17 said:


> Not sure if I get whether the mosaic covenant was a part of the cov of grace or a republication of the covenant of works. I know reformed folk have different views on that.



Working out the specifics there could well shed light on these covenants and be helpful as far as the discussion on baptism is concerned.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

There are not two or three (or more) Covenants but one Covenant of Grace. It is not proper to speak of "replacing" as if one completely different Covenant replaces another but, rather, to see the CoG as being in Christ from the Fall of Adam to the present with an increasing unfolding and revealing of that Covenant in history. When we neglect the organic unity of the various dispensations then we will tend to forget that salvation to sinners in every age has been found in Christ.



> III. Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him, that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> 
> V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.
> 
> VI. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.


----------



## Weston Stoler

The covenant of Abraham is still in affect through the covenant of Moses, through the covenant of David, and through the covenant of grace. It still applies. I don't actually see where your argument holds weight? The covenants don't cancel each other out but ratify.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scholten said:


> There is considerable scriptural evidence that the new covenant replaced the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic.



It doesn't replace it. The promises of the Abrahamic and Mosaic are fulfilled in Christ as I understand it. The substance of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenant is the same. They are administrations of the one Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Scholten

Weston Stoler said:


> The covenant of Abraham is still in affect through the covenant of Moses, through the covenant of David, and through the covenant of grace. It still applies. I don't actually see where your argument holds weight? The covenants don't cancel each other out but ratify.



Thanks for this comment. How do we know from Scripture that the Abrahamic covenant is still in affect through the covenant of Moses, David and the covenant of grace?

---------- Post added at 10:47 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:45 PM ----------




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is considerable scriptural evidence that the new covenant replaced the Mosaic covenant, not the Abrahamic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't replace it. The promises of the Abrahamic and Mosaic are fulfilled in Christ as I understand it. The substance of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenant is the same. They are administrations of the one Covenant of Grace.
Click to expand...


How is the substance of the Abrahamic covenant the same as the substance of the Mosaic covenant? The Mosaic covenant is no longer valid, correct?
Thanks!


----------



## Weston Stoler

Their is no biblical evidence for a basic dis-continuity.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let me ask how it is different and how they look different? We have type and antitype, but what else is there? Is not Christ and His grace the substance of them? I am working this out also.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

As I'm still looking into it, I think it's important to note that baptists believe in a totally radical change with the New Covenant. The reality is that all the covenants in scripture are administrations of the one, eternal covenant, the Covenant of Grace. I think Calvin puts it into perspective well:



> For this is the order and economy which God observed in dispensing the covenant of his mercy, that as the course of time accelerated the time of its full exhibition, he illustrated it from day to day with additional revelations. Therefore, in the beginning, when the first promise was given to Adam, it was like the kindling of some feeble sparks. Subsequent accessions caused a considerable enlargement of the light, which continued to increase more and more, and diffused its splendour through a wide extent, till at length, every cloud being dissipated, Christ, the Sun of righteousness, completely illuminated the whole world(Inst. II, x, 20, Eng. tr. by John Allen)


----------



## JP Wallace

Andrew P.C. said:


> As I'm still looking into it, I think it's important to note that baptists believe in a totally radical change with the New Covenant. The reality is that all the covenants in scripture are administrations of the one, eternal covenant, the Covenant of Grace. I think Calvin puts it into perspective well:



Andrew I known what you mean (I think!) but it's not strictly accurate, as you will see from the quote below the 1689 Confession actually speaks of one Covenant of Grace founded on the Eternal Covenant of Redemption which is progressively revealed.

*Baptist Confession of Faith 1689 Chapter 8
*2. Moreover Man having brought himself 119under the curse of the Law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace wherein he freely offereth unto Sinners, 120Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved; and 121promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal Life, his holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
3. This Covenant is revealed in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the 122seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, untill the full 123discovery thereof was compleated in the new Testament; and it is founded in that 124Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were 125saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.


----------



## Todd King

I could, literally, write a book explaining this, but will try to keep it brief without oversimplifying.

In the garden, God made a covenant with man, which was essentially that man was to love the Lord his God with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength, or die. When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. _(Covenant of Works)_

God later singled out Abraham and made a covenant with him which was extended to only a certain race of people _(in order to provide a new and better way through which man might be redeemed)_. What is often called the Mosaic covenant is actually not a new covenant, but is God's iteration that the original covenant still applies to those who are part of this new covenant with Abraham. In the Mosaic covenant, God does get a little more specific in pointing out exactly what the original covenant entails, but it is still the original covenant. God is letting the Israelites know that even though they are under a new covenant, they are still bound by the original covenant as they are part of mankind. The so-called Davidic covenant is just a reiteration of the various aspects of the Abrahamic covenant- specifically the clauses regarding perpetual Kingship, innumerable children, and a promised land. _(Covenant of Grace)_

The new covenant essentially goes backwards in that it extends the Abrahamic covenant to all of mankind. Christ is the perpetual King, the new heaven and new earth are the promised land, and the adoption of saints into the family is innumerable children.

So, we can see that there was originally one covenant that applied to all mankind _(CoW)_, a new covenant that was made with just a select people which was later extended to all mankind _(CoG)_. Therefore, all mankind is still bound to the original covenant, but can now be included in the other covenant. I could go into much greater detail, but I hope that this is enough to answer the question and to help with your understanding.


----------



## Weston Stoler

Todd King said:


> I could, literally, write a book explaining this, but will try to keep it brief without oversimplifying.
> 
> In the garden, God made a covenant with man, which was essentially that man was to love the Lord his God with all of his heart, soul, mind and strength, or die. When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. _(Covenant of Works)_
> 
> God later singled out Abraham and made a covenant with him which was extended to only a certain race of people _(in order to provide a new and better way through which man might be redeemed)_. What is often called the Mosaic covenant is actually not a new covenant, but is God's iteration that the original covenant still applies to those who are part of this new covenant with Abraham. In the Mosaic covenant, God does get a little more specific in pointing out exactly what the original covenant entails, but it is still the original covenant. God is letting the Israelites know that even though they are under a new covenant, they are still bound by the original covenant as they are part of mankind. The so-called Davidic covenant is just a reiteration of the various aspects of the Abrahamic covenant- specifically the clauses regarding perpetual Kingship, innumerable children, and a promised land. _(Covenant of Grace)_
> 
> The new covenant essentially goes backwards in that it extends the Abrahamic covenant to all of mankind. Christ is the perpetual King, the new heaven and new earth are the promised land, and the adoption of saints into the family is innumerable children.
> 
> So, we can see that there was originally one covenant that applied to all mankind _(CoW)_, a new covenant that was made with just a select people which was later extended to all mankind _(CoG)_. Therefore, all mankind is still bound to the original covenant, but can now be included in the other covenant. I could go into much greater detail, but I hope that this is enough to answer the question and to help with your understanding.



I would like more explanation on how killing man immediately would have given Satan a win?


----------



## Todd King

Weston Stoler said:


> I would like more explanation on how killing man immediately would have given Satan a win?



Satan was jealous of man and his relationship with God. Man was ugly, weak, powerless while Satan was beautiful, intelligent, strong. He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's. Knowing that God cannot lie, he saw that when God made the covenant with man, that if he could get man to violate that covenant, that God would have to kill the man. However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect. So, when man violated his part of this contract, then he did immediately die on a spiritual level, but God provided a way that he could continue to live physically while God effected his will through mankind over the generations through his Son.

Let me try to explain this a little better. Just as in the Abrahamic covenant, where God walked between the pieces, thus signifying that if the contract (that's what a covenant is) was broken, that he would have to pay for it with his life. (In this instance, it was and he did- the life of Jesus who is God). In the original covenant though, God secured his end of the covenant with his life, and man's end was secured with man's life. So, Satan knew that if man violated the covenant and was killed that he had victory through subverting God's will and would exalt himself that way. The other possibility in his eyes was that God would violate the covenant by not killing man- in which case he would have to destroy himself- thus leaving Satan as the most powerful being. So, either way, he figured to come out the winner.


----------



## Weston Stoler

Todd King said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like more explanation on how killing man immediately would have given Satan a win?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan was jealous of man and his relationship with God. Man was ugly, weak, powerless while Satan was beautiful, intelligent, strong. He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's. Knowing that God cannot lie, he saw that when God made the covenant with man, that if he could get man to violate that covenant, that God would have to kill the man. However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect. So, when man violated his part of this contract, then he did immediately die on a spiritual level, but God provided a way that he could continue to live physically while God effected his will through mankind over the generations through his Son.
Click to expand...


Thanks ^-^


----------



## Scholten

Todd King said:


> The new covenant essentially goes backwards in that it extends the Abrahamic covenant to all of mankind. Christ is the perpetual King, the new heaven and new earth are the promised land, and the adoption of saints into the family is innumerable children.


I have been running into some difficulties getting my arms around the new covenant as referred to in Jer. 31 and the Abrahamic covenant. Todd, according to this quote above do you see the new covenant as in some sense the Abrahamic covenant more fully revealed? I personally believe many of our Baptist brothers are correct when they interpret the new covenant as consisting only of believers. 
Thanks


----------



## Andrew P.C.

I actually have the publication from Greg Welty and a few other publications from his colleagues. One of them is Earl M Blackburn. He wrote a short little booklet called "Covenant Theology (A Reformed Baptist Overview)". In there he writes many troubling things regarding a baptists interpretation of Covenant Theology, but here are a few things I'd like to quote just to point out that the baptist understanding has false premises.



> Just before God promised His ancient prophet a New Covenant, He made a declaration of a Change in administration of the Covenant of Grace. The change has to do with God's manner in dealing with children. Notice exactly the wording of this proverb, one that was common in ancient Israel: "The fathers have eaten sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge." In the past, this passage tells us, God dealt with children according to the status and actions of their fathers. If a father was a member of the covenant, so were the children. If a father was obedient or transgressed, the children also were blessed or suffered punishment. Jeremiah 31:29-30 teaches that it would not be that way in the New Covenant. As the prophet states in verse 30, "But each one shall die for his own iniquity; every man who eats the sour grapes, his teeth shale be set on edge." This unmistakably instructs us that each person will be dealt with individually, whether his father is a believer or not, or whether his father has sinned or not. The standing of the father before God will have absolutely no bearing on the place of the child in covenant dealings. The implications of this is far-reaching: A child would not automatically be included in the covenant by birth or baptism, or simply because his father is a covenant member.[Note: by the same token, if a child is a member of a visible church in the New Covenant days and his father is excommunicated, the child is not cast out along with the father.]



(The end note in the quote is still his. Also, this took forever to type.... pheeww.)

He also writes:


> The administration of the New Covenant would not be in the manner and practice of the Old. Here is biblical discontinuity.





> In the New Covenant, God irrevocably promises several things to each of its members that He did not promise to each member of the former administrations: 1) to write His law on the mind and heart of each; 2) to be his God and make him part of God's people; 3) that every single one, from the greatest to the least, shall savingly know God. [Note: "know" is not a theoretical knowledge taught or catechized by a teacher, but is an experiential knowledge spiritually given. Contrast this with 1 Cor 2:14.] 4) that He would be merciful to all their unrighteousnesses; 5) that their sins and lawless deeds He will remember no more. [Note: While these things were possessed by some members of the Old Testament administrations of the Covenant of Grace, they were not possessed by every legitimate member as they are in the New covenant.]



(All quotations from Earl M. Blackburn's booklet and is part of the Reformed Baptist Publications)

I think this truly shows a radical change and misinterpretation of scripture.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Todd King said:


> When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. (Covenant of Works)



You are wrong in my estimation. Death was an immediate result. And a new Promise of Grace was instituted promptly. You are forgetting the covering of animal skins (an animal was slain on behalf of Adam and Eve which pointed to Christ) which Abel fully understood as that was also his sacrifice that pleased God. The Covenant of Works was not modified to accommodate. It was broken once for all who were under Adam.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Is the New Covenant new? How is it new? Reverend Winzer made a short comment that illumined this point. I will reference it here. 



armourbearer said:


> Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.
> 
> Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Todd King said:


> Satan was jealous of man and his relationship with God. Man was ugly, weak, powerless while Satan was beautiful, intelligent, strong. He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's. Knowing that God cannot lie, he saw that when God made the covenant with man, that if he could get man to violate that covenant, that God would have to kill the man. However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect. So, when man violated his part of this contract, then he did immediately die on a spiritual level, but God provided a way that he could continue to live physically while God effected his will through mankind over the generations through his Son.



This is fraught with so much error I don't even know where to begin. I will have to deal with it later. I have to go to the hospital and visit my Dad. 

For one thing I would like to point this out. It is pure conjecture that Satan was jealous of man and that subverting God's will would allow Satan to exalt his majesty (or throne) over Gods is just non sense. God does not rely upon his creation for an established throne nor is he tied to it in a way that it could ever dethrone him and allow a creature to be enthroned above him.


----------



## Peairtach

The New Covenant is a new administration and fresh flowering of the Abrahamic Covenant, at last expanding to encompass and incorporate all nations and fill the Earth.

*E.g.*


> Behold, my covenant is with you, and you shall be the father of a multitude of nations. No longer shall your name be called Abram, but your name shall be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations. I will make you exceedingly fruitful, and I will make you into nations, and kings shall come from you. And I will establish my covenant between me and you and your offspring after you throughout their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. (Gen 17:4-7,ESV)





> And I will give to you and to your offspring after you the land of your sojournings, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession, and I will be their God." (Gen 17:8)
> 
> For the promise to Abraham and his offspring that he would be heir of the world did not come through the law but through the righteousness of faith. (Rom 4:13)





> That is why it depends on faith, in order that the promise may rest on grace and be guaranteed to all his offspring--not only to the adherent of the law but also to the one who shares the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all, (Rom 4:16)





> But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. (Rom 11:17-18)
> 
> For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree. (Rom 11:24)





> remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace,(Eph 2:12-15)



All nations are being incorporated into the Abrahamic Covenant in its New administration, into the Abrahamic Covenantal Olive Tree, into the Israel of God, and into the Commonwealth of Israel. It's an expansive and flowering process in history agaist much opposition of Satan's minions.


----------



## toddpedlar

Todd King said:


> Weston Stoler said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like more explanation on how killing man immediately would have given Satan a win?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Satan was jealous of man and his relationship with God. Man was ugly, weak, powerless while Satan was beautiful, intelligent, strong. He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's. Knowing that God cannot lie, he saw that when God made the covenant with man, that if he could get man to violate that covenant, that God would have to kill the man. However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect. So, when man violated his part of this contract, then he did immediately die on a spiritual level, but God provided a way that he could continue to live physically while God effected his will through mankind over the generations through his Son.
> 
> Let me try to explain this a little better. Just as in the Abrahamic covenant, where God walked between the pieces, thus signifying that if the contract (that's what a covenant is) was broken, that he would have to pay for it with his life. (In this instance, it was and he did- the life of Jesus who is God). In the original covenant though, God secured his end of the covenant with his life, and man's end was secured with man's life. So, Satan knew that if man violated the covenant and was killed that he had victory through subverting God's will and would exalt himself that way. The other possibility in his eyes was that God would violate the covenant by not killing man- in which case he would have to destroy himself- thus leaving Satan as the most powerful being. So, either way, he figured to come out the winner.
Click to expand...


Let me try to understand what you're saying - I don't believe you're being very clear. 

It sounds to me as though you are denying that the pre-Fall Adamic covenant has been once for all broken by Adam and that all his progeny stand as having broken that covenant (and reap the penalty that was promised to Adam in it. It sounds as though you are arguing that the covenant of grace is merely a reformulation or modification of the original terms of the covenant prior to the Fall.

Is this the case?


----------



## Todd King

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Todd King said:
> 
> 
> 
> When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. (Covenant of Works)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are wrong in my estimation. Death was an immediate result. And a new Promise of Grace was instituted promptly. You are forgetting the covering of animal skins (an animal was slain on behalf of Adam and Eve which pointed to Christ) which Abel fully understood as that was also his sacrifice that pleased God. The Covenant of Works was not modified to accommodate. It was broken once for all who were under Adam.
Click to expand...


I've not forgotten the lamb which was slain, indeed, that was the essential for amending the covenant. I don't have time now, but will go in much greater depth this evening to help clarify. However, I would suggest that you have forgotten the defining characteristics of a covenant.

Regarding your last post addressing me, I admit that there is some conjecture, but fraught with error it is not- which I can also explain later. However, I will concede that Satan's motives we may never fully understand and may have to agree to disagree on.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Todd King said:


> amending the covenant



There is no such thing. There is no Amending the Covenant of works. You are in grave error here.


----------



## JP Wallace

Todd King said:


> but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc. This covenant was modified one final time after the flood when God added the term that man was to kill any man who killed any man. This covenant was made with all mankind. (Covenant of Works)



I would not be terribly happy with any talk of the Covenant of Works being 'modified' or 'revised', if for no other reason that it is Christ's obedience to the original Covenant of Works that constitutes our righteousness imputed to us in the Covenant of Grace. 

Romans 8:3-4 3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh, 4 that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in us who do not walk according to the flesh but according to the Spirit.

Likewise I'm not terribly happy enveloping the Noahic covenant in the Covenant of Works, because post-fall God relates to fallen many only by grace, for that reason I am not content even to consider the Mosaic Covenant as a Republication of the CoW, though it may 'contain' a republication, if you know what I mean. 

Post-fall we are lost, apart from God's grace. That's what the confessions uniformly teach,

BCF 20:1
1. The Covenant of Works being broken by Sin, and made unprofitable unto Life; God was pleased to give forth the promise of Christ, 334the Seed of the Woman, as the means of calling the Elect, and begetting in them Faith and Repentance; in this Promise, the 335Gospel, as to the substance of it, was revealed, and therein Effectual, for the Conversion and Salvation of Sinners.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Todd King said:


> He saw man as being the one thing between him and the affections of God. He also realized that if he could get rid of man, that he would ultimately subvert God's will which would allow him to exalt his throne above God's.



Concerning the first part, Satan could probably care less about the affections of God for anything or for God's affection for man. Satan is not concerned about things that might stand between himself and God's affections for him. All Satan wants is the same thing he tried to get Jesus to hand over in Matthew Chapter 4. 



> (Mat 4:8) Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
> 
> (Mat 4:9) And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.



Satan deceived Adam and Eve to make them subject to sin and death. He wanted to ascend on high himself exalting himself over God. He just wants to subject everything under Himself. Even God. 

Getting rid of mankind would in no way subvert God's will and allow Satan to exalt his (supposed throne) rule above God. I plead with you to reconsider your understanding of who God is and that he is transcendent. His creation relies upon him. He doesn't rely upon His creation.


----------



## toddpedlar

Seems, Mr. King, that you've missed the question, so I'm asking again:

Do you. as you seem to be arguing, really believe the Covenant of Grace is merely a revision of the Covenant of Works? Or, as is required by your confession (you pick - LBCF or WCF, it doesn't matter) do you believe the Covenant of Works is a broken covenant, such that all human beings whose natural head is Adam are under its curse, and having no hope of satisfying its terms? Such a covenant can not be "repaired" or "amended" - but must be replaced in toto, as it was, by the Covenant of Grace. The former covenant, headed by Adam, is gone - all have broken it. The covenant of grace, headed by our Lord and Savior, is here, and all who live live in Him, completely and utterly by grace, and not by works.


----------



## Todd King

Mr. Pedlar-

I did not miss your question, I made it clear that I would not be able to respond further until evening- I work for a living, so I cannot sit at my computer all day answering the same question over and over repeatedly. No, I am not arguing that the CoG is a mere revision of the CoW. In fact, after re-reading what I wrote several times to see if I was just articulating poorly, I can say with certainty that I made it very clear that there are two separate and distinct covenants- The Covenant of Works which all mankind is under, and the Covenant of Grace which all of the elect are under. However, the CoG has been extended, or offered, to all of mankind. Not all of mankind will accept it, therefore not all of mankind are under it. 

Since I did clearly articulate this, I am honestly not sure what the witch hunt is about, but it all seems to hinge on the idea of modifying or amending. I would love to answer this much more completely here, but it is a subject that is quite involved and will take considerable time on my part to explain fully. Therefore, I will prepare something in detail and post it as a separate post sometime in the next few days. As I said earlier, I could literally write a book on the subject, so compressing it into one or two paragraphs is obviously not practical. That was my mistake- trying to touch on such a complex idea in a short post.

Mr. Snyder-

I speculate as to the motive of Lucifer attacking man. So do you. Neither of us knows which is correct, so we will likely have to agree to disagree. I will address my conjecturing in more detail when I get the above mentioned post put together so that you will know exactly what and why I come to the speculative reasoning that I do. Nowhere, however, did I say that God could be overthrown by Satan, nor that he is dependent on his creation for his power or rule. I said that I believe that Satan thought that he could use that against God to overthrow him. Obviously he was wrong; nevertheless, he did (and still does) think that he can overthrow God, and he does have some sort of motive for his actions. My speculation, while just speculation or conjecture, is based upon what scripture reveals to us about that serpent.

All of that being said, I will not be back on here to respond to any further questions or attacks, so please be patient and I will provide detailed thoughts on the subject shortly.

Herb-

I apologize for hijacking your thread. My intent was to try to give a simple answer to a complex idea.


----------



## Weston Stoler

I think this thread has gone a bit too


----------



## Scholten

Todd King said:


> Mr. Pedlar-
> 
> . . . In fact, after re-reading what I wrote several times to see if I was just articulating poorly, I can say with certainty that I made it very clear that there are two separate and distinct covenants- The Covenant of Works which all mankind is under, and the Covenant of Grace which all of the elect are under. However, the CoG has been extended, or offered, to all of mankind. Not all of mankind will accept it, therefore not all of mankind are under it. . . .
> 
> 
> Herb-
> 
> I apologize for hijacking your thread. My intent was to try to give a simple answer to a complex idea.




As far as "hijacking" the thread - no problem at all. It as always better to find people who are interested in examining God's Word with respect to these matters rather than having a post sit idle with no responses!

I look forward to your post when you develope the above further. When you do so (or here), could you expound on the relationship of the Covenant of Grace to the Abrahamic covenant? If the CoG is to the elect, then the Abrahamic covenant can not really be part of the CoG because the Abrahamic covenant contains some unbelievers.


----------



## Peairtach

The marriage covenant contains some people that aren't _really_ husbands or wives to their spouses, yet these marriage covenants are real enough in other senses and these husbands and wives are real enough in other senses. 

Same goes for the CoG. If a person can't "get his head round that", he can't get his head round marriage.


----------



## Scholten

Peairtach said:


> The marriage covenant contains some people that aren't _really_ husbands or wives to their spouses, yet these marriage covenants are real enough in other senses and these husbands and wives are real enough in other senses.
> 
> Same goes for the CoG. If a person can't "get his head round that", he can't get his head round marriage.



Thanks, Richard. So then, if the Abrahamic covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace then the CoG is not only with the elect. Correct?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herb,

There is the inward and outward administration of the Covenant of Grace. God is gracious and there are benefits for both the regenerate and unregenerate in that Covenant inclusion. The inward and outward aspects of the Covenant are something that need to be pursued maybe. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/content/circumcision-baptism-compared-60/



> (Rom 9:3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
> 
> (Rom 9:4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
> 
> 
> (Rom 9:5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.



I don't think you can deny that the Abrahamic is an administration of the Covenant of Grace. 

Pastor Jerrold H. Lewis discusses this on the PB a bit. Here is his post from a while back. 



> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/unbelievers-new-covenant-34859/#post432492*
> Presbyterian Federal Holiness
> *
> 
> By Rev. J Lewis
> Lacombe Free Reformed Church
> 
> Under the Old Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant was largely a physical covenant with a spiritual remnant imbibing in promises and blessings. Under the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant is not primarily physical with a spiritual component, but primarily spiritual with a physical component (Hodge 130). Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 are very descriptive as to the nature of the New Covenant in contrast with the _status quo_,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously there was a change of administration in the New Covenant as well as a change of emphasis. The Covenant of Grace today is so overtly spiritual, one can almost speak of it _exclusively in ethereal terms_. Indeed the Westminster Confession of Faith does so by insisting that the Covenant of Grace is made with the* elect only* (Chapter 7; LC 30, 31, 32). Yet the Westminster Standards also speak of a secondary and subordinate sense of the Covenant of Grace that is objective and physical. Larger Catechism Q & A 166 says,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
> 
> A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, *are in that respect within the covenant*, and to be baptized. (Emphasis mine)(Westminster Larger Catechism, 256)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some have contended that the Westminster Larger Catechism holds within itself a tension regarding with whom the Covenant of Grace is made (Baldwin). It is argued that in Larger Catechism Q & A 31, the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only, while Q & A 166 teaches that the Covenant of Grace is made with the members of the Visible Church. One can see the apparent contradiction.
> 
> But is this a valid criticism and a real tension? Or is it the case that the Larger Catechism is speaking about _two different aspects_ of the Covenant of Grace, one spiritual and unbreakable, the other conditional and breakable? To answer this question we may turn to one of the greatest of all Westminster Divines, Samuel Rutherford.
> 
> *Samuel Rutherford*
> 
> In his monumental and rarely read book _The Covenant of Life Opened_ (1654), Rutherford discuses the Covenant of Grace in two important ways. First he insists that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect in Christ, and that the Covenant is manifestly to be understood in such term (94). After establishing this indisputable fact Rutherford opens up the Covenant in a twofold way, first in _abstracto_ by visible profession, in which the covenant is "professed, visible, and conditional," and then in _concreto_, where the covenant is, "internal, real, and absolute"(94). It is for this reason Rutherford finds no tension in the Larger Catechism and has no problem saying that the unregenerate, _in one way_, are in the Covenant of Grace:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is no inconvenient [sic] that the Reprobate in the Visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises, of a new heart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly and externally, and the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God.(94)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By _in abstracto_ Rutherford means, " formally, in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners", in which contains only "the will of precept". Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only._ This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace_; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenantal (94).
> 
> Under the marginal heading, How visible professors are really within the Covenant, & not really within it, Rutherford Writes,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The adverb (really) relates to the real fruit of the fulfilled covenant, and so such as are only externally within the Covenant, are not really within the Covenant, for God never directed, nor intended to bestow the blessing Covenanted, nor grace to perform the condition of the Covenant upon them. But they are really Covenanted and engaged by their confessed profession to fulfill the Covenant. And as the commands and threatenings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externally in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the promises of the Covenant imposes an engagement and obligation on such to believe the promise, but some times, we say the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the reprobate within the Visible Church, because God intends and decrees to, and for them, neither the blessing promised, nor the saving grace to fulfill the condition to believe. (92)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this way says Rutherford, "all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace" (94). It is in this same way Rutherford can speak of a Federal Holiness that allows for Larger Catechism 166 to remain non-contradictory with Larger Catechism 31. Federal holiness is not necessarily a saving holiness but a setting apart by covenant promise. Rutherford is very clear that true holiness while set in the context of a federal promise, is truly predicated upon God's secret decree. Observe:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as touching real holiness, it is not derived from a believing father, or to make the son a believer, Scripture and experience say the contrair. Nor is internal and effectual confederacie with God, that, by which one is a son of promise. 1. For no man is chosen to life in his father, because the father is chosen. A chosen father may have a reprobate son. 2. Election to life is not of nations, or houses, or societies, but of single person. (85)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Needless to say, Rutherford believes that _mere_ Federal Holiness is no true holiness unless regeneration has taken place. Yes, there is a _physical aspect_ to the Covenant of Grace which has blessings and cursing; however, for it to carry any lasting benefit, it must be a personal work wrought by the effectual converting power of the Holy Spirit in _a one-to-one correlation_ between election and regeneration.
> 
> *James Bannerman*
> 
> Likewise, another great Presbyterian who wrote extensively on the nature of the Church (and the Covenant) also found no tension in the Westminster Standard's regarding the Covenant of Grace. In his two volume work, The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, taught an important contrast between the members of the Church visible and invisible. "The Church invisible stands, with respect to its members, in an inward and spiritual relationship to Christ, whereas the Church visible stands to Him in outward relationship only" (Bannerman 29).
> 
> The visible/invisible distinction according to Bannerman cannot go unnoticed. Observe how he uses visible Church and external covenant synonymously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The external relationship in which the members of the visible Church stand to Christ, as having been brought into a Church state from out of the world, has been often spoken of by theologians under the name of an _external covenant_ or _federal relationship_. Whatever name may be given to it, there is no doubt there is a real and important relationship into which the members of the visible Church have entered... (30)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Later he reinforces this same idea when he states, "This relation of the mere formal professor and member of the visible Church to Christ may be called an _external covenant _and an _outward federal union_, or not. But under whatever name, it in important to bear in mind that there is such a relationship involving both real responsibilities and real privileges. (Emphasis mine)(32)
> 
> Bannerman is equally clear as Rutherford insisting the true, vital, saving, unbreakable nature of the Covenant of Grace as it stands in eternity, is made with the elect alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In so far as the Church invisible is concerned, the truth of this statement will be admitted by all. There can be no difference of opinion on this point. The proper party with whom the covenant of grace is made, and to whom its promises and privileged belongs is the invisible Church of real believers. It is this Church for whom Christ died. (30-31)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He goes on to say, "The case is all together different for with the visible Church. It stands not in an inward and saving relationship to Christ, but in an outward relationship only, involving no more than the promise and enjoyment of outward privileges" (31).
> 
> In this regard, to suggest that the Covenant of Grace has a works component upon its entry is to misunderstand its function entirely. Every good Presbyterian will agree that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from any works of the law. This _federal and outward separation_ that is called "sanctified" and "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14, "broken off branches" in John 15;1-8, and "unwise virgins" in Matthew 25, is meant to convey how God sets aside certain people to be objects of physical, covenantal blessings. These outward blessings (which are not saving), such as hearing the Word preached, observing or participating in the sacraments, and involvement in the fellowship of the covenant community, are the means by which God brings the unregenerate soul within earshot of the call of the Gospel; inviting all to come from darkness to light, from the temporal covenant into the Everlasting Covenant. Bannerman says, "To the external privileges of that visible society even sinners are invited,- not that they may rest there, but that they may go on to the invisible and spiritual society within." The visible covenant blessings are meant to cause the sinner to "seek for something higher and more blessed" (33).
> 
> The spiritual blessings and promises of the Covenant of Grace must be the dominant theme in all federalist teaching and preaching. Bannerman reminds us that in the separation between Rome and Protestantism the visible/invisible Church distinction, "...lies at the very foundation of the controversy between them. The strong desire and tenancy with Popish controversialists is to deny the existence of the invisible Church; or when they are not bold enough to do that, at least to give the decided precedence to the Church visible"(37).
> 
> This should be avoided at all costs. The invisible Church is the true Church, it is the "glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:27).
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> When we speak of Federal Holiness it should always be in light of its goal- a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Elect One. To simply think of Church members as being in confederacy with Christ by baptism and profession is to forget the most vital portion of the equation. Indeed many today are so emphasizing the mere federal element of the Covenant of Grace they are(practically speaking), omitting the weightier matters of the Covenant.
> 
> Inward union is the only true union with Christ. Any substitution of Church-ism in place of the internal operation of the Spirit is to supplant the roll of the Visible Church and turn the gospel on its head. We must be diligent in both our understanding and application of every aspect of Christ's Church and of His gracious covenant.
> 
> Bannerman's conclusion is a good one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [N]othing but a clear discernment of the principles that connect and yet distinguish the Church invisible from the Church visible, and a right application of these to explain the statements of the Word of God on the point, will save us from mistakes fraught with the most ruinous consequences both in doctrine and practice. (40)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bibliography
> 
> 1. Baldwin, Bill. Several Quick Arguments That The Covenant of Works is Not Gracious. <http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/several_quick.html#note3> 2002.
> 
> 3. Hodge, Archibald. Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.
> 
> 2.Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened. Edinburgh: 1654.
> 
> 3. Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1960.
> 
> 4. Westminster Divines. Westminster Larger Catechism. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995.
Click to expand...


----------



## Peairtach

> Thanks, Richard. So then, if the Abrahamic covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace then the CoG is not only with the elect. Correct?



There is a duality to the CoG. Likewise you can be in the marriage covenant in one sense and not in it in another.

We are not infallibly privy to who the elect are, although in our own case we can make our calling and election sure. Therefore it is not the elect or the regenerate elect that are admitted visibly to the CoG by baptism, but those who have a credible profession of faith are accepted for baptism and are admitted visibly to the CoG, along with their children in the case of the Presbyterian view.

See Louis Berkhof on the duality of the CoG in his _Systematic Theology_. 

Those adults and children admitted visibly to the CoG, but who are never regenerated, just prove God's faithfulness to sinners:



> Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) (Rom 3:1-5)


----------



## Scholten

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Herb,
> 
> There is the inward and outward administration of the Covenant of Grace. God is gracious and there are benefits for both the regenerate and unregenerate in that Covenant inclusion. The inward and outward aspects of the Covenant are something that need to be pursued maybe.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/content/circumcision-baptism-compared-60/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Rom 9:3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
> 
> (Rom 9:4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
> 
> 
> (Rom 9:5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can deny that the Abrahamic is an administration of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Pastor Jerrold H. Lewis discusses this on the PB a bit. Here is his post from a while back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/unbelievers-new-covenant-34859/#post432492*
> Presbyterian Federal Holiness
> *
> 
> By Rev. J Lewis
> Lacombe Free Reformed Church
> 
> Under the Old Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant was largely a physical covenant with a spiritual remnant imbibing in promises and blessings. Under the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant is not primarily physical with a spiritual component, but primarily spiritual with a physical component (Hodge 130). Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 are very descriptive as to the nature of the New Covenant in contrast with the _status quo_,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously there was a change of administration in the New Covenant as well as a change of emphasis. The Covenant of Grace today is so overtly spiritual, one can almost speak of it _exclusively in ethereal terms_. Indeed the Westminster Confession of Faith does so by insisting that the Covenant of Grace is made with the* elect only* (Chapter 7; LC 30, 31, 32). Yet the Westminster Standards also speak of a secondary and subordinate sense of the Covenant of Grace that is objective and physical. Larger Catechism Q & A 166 says,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
> 
> A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, *are in that respect within the covenant*, and to be baptized. (Emphasis mine)(Westminster Larger Catechism, 256)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some have contended that the Westminster Larger Catechism holds within itself a tension regarding with whom the Covenant of Grace is made (Baldwin). It is argued that in Larger Catechism Q & A 31, the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only, while Q & A 166 teaches that the Covenant of Grace is made with the members of the Visible Church. One can see the apparent contradiction.
> 
> But is this a valid criticism and a real tension? Or is it the case that the Larger Catechism is speaking about _two different aspects_ of the Covenant of Grace, one spiritual and unbreakable, the other conditional and breakable? To answer this question we may turn to one of the greatest of all Westminster Divines, Samuel Rutherford.
> 
> *Samuel Rutherford*
> 
> In his monumental and rarely read book _The Covenant of Life Opened_ (1654), Rutherford discuses the Covenant of Grace in two important ways. First he insists that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect in Christ, and that the Covenant is manifestly to be understood in such term (94). After establishing this indisputable fact Rutherford opens up the Covenant in a twofold way, first in _abstracto_ by visible profession, in which the covenant is "professed, visible, and conditional," and then in _concreto_, where the covenant is, "internal, real, and absolute"(94). It is for this reason Rutherford finds no tension in the Larger Catechism and has no problem saying that the unregenerate, _in one way_, are in the Covenant of Grace:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is no inconvenient [sic] that the Reprobate in the Visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises, of a new heart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly and externally, and the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God.(94)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By _in abstracto_ Rutherford means, " formally, in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners", in which contains only "the will of precept". Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only._ This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace_; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenantal (94).
> 
> Under the marginal heading, How visible professors are really within the Covenant, & not really within it, Rutherford Writes,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The adverb (really) relates to the real fruit of the fulfilled covenant, and so such as are only externally within the Covenant, are not really within the Covenant, for God never directed, nor intended to bestow the blessing Covenanted, nor grace to perform the condition of the Covenant upon them. But they are really Covenanted and engaged by their confessed profession to fulfill the Covenant. And as the commands and threatenings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externally in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the promises of the Covenant imposes an engagement and obligation on such to believe the promise, but some times, we say the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the reprobate within the Visible Church, because God intends and decrees to, and for them, neither the blessing promised, nor the saving grace to fulfill the condition to believe. (92)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this way says Rutherford, "all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace" (94). It is in this same way Rutherford can speak of a Federal Holiness that allows for Larger Catechism 166 to remain non-contradictory with Larger Catechism 31. Federal holiness is not necessarily a saving holiness but a setting apart by covenant promise. Rutherford is very clear that true holiness while set in the context of a federal promise, is truly predicated upon God's secret decree. Observe:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as touching real holiness, it is not derived from a believing father, or to make the son a believer, Scripture and experience say the contrair. Nor is internal and effectual confederacie with God, that, by which one is a son of promise. 1. For no man is chosen to life in his father, because the father is chosen. A chosen father may have a reprobate son. 2. Election to life is not of nations, or houses, or societies, but of single person. (85)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Needless to say, Rutherford believes that _mere_ Federal Holiness is no true holiness unless regeneration has taken place. Yes, there is a _physical aspect_ to the Covenant of Grace which has blessings and cursing; however, for it to carry any lasting benefit, it must be a personal work wrought by the effectual converting power of the Holy Spirit in _a one-to-one correlation_ between election and regeneration.
> 
> *James Bannerman*
> 
> Likewise, another great Presbyterian who wrote extensively on the nature of the Church (and the Covenant) also found no tension in the Westminster Standard's regarding the Covenant of Grace. In his two volume work, The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, taught an important contrast between the members of the Church visible and invisible. "The Church invisible stands, with respect to its members, in an inward and spiritual relationship to Christ, whereas the Church visible stands to Him in outward relationship only" (Bannerman 29).
> 
> The visible/invisible distinction according to Bannerman cannot go unnoticed. Observe how he uses visible Church and external covenant synonymously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The external relationship in which the members of the visible Church stand to Christ, as having been brought into a Church state from out of the world, has been often spoken of by theologians under the name of an _external covenant_ or _federal relationship_. Whatever name may be given to it, there is no doubt there is a real and important relationship into which the members of the visible Church have entered... (30)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Later he reinforces this same idea when he states, "This relation of the mere formal professor and member of the visible Church to Christ may be called an _external covenant _and an _outward federal union_, or not. But under whatever name, it in important to bear in mind that there is such a relationship involving both real responsibilities and real privileges. (Emphasis mine)(32)
> 
> Bannerman is equally clear as Rutherford insisting the true, vital, saving, unbreakable nature of the Covenant of Grace as it stands in eternity, is made with the elect alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In so far as the Church invisible is concerned, the truth of this statement will be admitted by all. There can be no difference of opinion on this point. The proper party with whom the covenant of grace is made, and to whom its promises and privileged belongs is the invisible Church of real believers. It is this Church for whom Christ died. (30-31)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He goes on to say, "The case is all together different for with the visible Church. It stands not in an inward and saving relationship to Christ, but in an outward relationship only, involving no more than the promise and enjoyment of outward privileges" (31).
> 
> In this regard, to suggest that the Covenant of Grace has a works component upon its entry is to misunderstand its function entirely. Every good Presbyterian will agree that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from any works of the law. This _federal and outward separation_ that is called "sanctified" and "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14, "broken off branches" in John 15;1-8, and "unwise virgins" in Matthew 25, is meant to convey how God sets aside certain people to be objects of physical, covenantal blessings. These outward blessings (which are not saving), such as hearing the Word preached, observing or participating in the sacraments, and involvement in the fellowship of the covenant community, are the means by which God brings the unregenerate soul within earshot of the call of the Gospel; inviting all to come from darkness to light, from the temporal covenant into the Everlasting Covenant. Bannerman says, "To the external privileges of that visible society even sinners are invited,- not that they may rest there, but that they may go on to the invisible and spiritual society within." The visible covenant blessings are meant to cause the sinner to "seek for something higher and more blessed" (33).
> 
> The spiritual blessings and promises of the Covenant of Grace must be the dominant theme in all federalist teaching and preaching. Bannerman reminds us that in the separation between Rome and Protestantism the visible/invisible Church distinction, "...lies at the very foundation of the controversy between them. The strong desire and tenancy with Popish controversialists is to deny the existence of the invisible Church; or when they are not bold enough to do that, at least to give the decided precedence to the Church visible"(37).
> 
> This should be avoided at all costs. The invisible Church is the true Church, it is the "glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:27).
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> When we speak of Federal Holiness it should always be in light of its goal- a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Elect One. To simply think of Church members as being in confederacy with Christ by baptism and profession is to forget the most vital portion of the equation. Indeed many today are so emphasizing the mere federal element of the Covenant of Grace they are(practically speaking), omitting the weightier matters of the Covenant.
> 
> Inward union is the only true union with Christ. Any substitution of Church-ism in place of the internal operation of the Spirit is to supplant the roll of the Visible Church and turn the gospel on its head. We must be diligent in both our understanding and application of every aspect of Christ's Church and of His gracious covenant.
> 
> Bannerman's conclusion is a good one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [N]othing but a clear discernment of the principles that connect and yet distinguish the Church invisible from the Church visible, and a right application of these to explain the statements of the Word of God on the point, will save us from mistakes fraught with the most ruinous consequences both in doctrine and practice. (40)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bibliography
> 
> 1. Baldwin, Bill. Several Quick Arguments That The Covenant of Works is Not Gracious. <http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/several_quick.html#note3> 2002.
> 
> 3. Hodge, Archibald. Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.
> 
> 2.Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened. Edinburgh: 1654.
> 
> 3. Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1960.
> 
> 4. Westminster Divines. Westminster Larger Catechism. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Thank you very much, Martin, for posting this. It gets right at the heart of the Reformed matter of the covenant of grace. 

I must press this matter further. The phrase "covenant of grace" is not explicitly found in Scripture. True, nor is "Trinity." So we must tread very carefully in striving to understand doctrines taught implicitly. 

When Jer. 31 says that the members of the new covenant will know the Lord etc., how are we then not to conclude that all the members of the new covenant are believers and that the members of the new covenant are distinct from the members of the Abrahamic covenant, since some of them are not elect? When we in our theology teach that the new covenant is part of the covenant of grace and the Abrahamic covenant is part of the covenant of grace, therefore we must teach that there are two types of membership in the covenant of grace. The two are an _abstracto _or visible membership in the covenant of grace and a _concreto _or internal membership in the covenant of grace. How do we know that in teaching this we have not added to the Word of God? The Scripture explicitly teaches members of the new covenant "know the Lord" and we teach that reprobates can and are members of that covenant. How does one support this kind of covenant of grace teaching from the Word of God?

---------- Post added at 06:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:09 PM ----------




Peairtach said:


> Thanks, Richard. So then, if the Abrahamic covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace then the CoG is not only with the elect. Correct?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is a duality to the CoG. Likewise you can be in the marriage covenant in one sense and not in it in another.
> 
> We are not infallibly privy to who the elect are, although in our own case we can make our calling and election sure. Therefore it is not the elect or the regenerate elect that are admitted visibly to the CoG by baptism, but those who have a credible profession of faith are accepted for baptism and are admitted visibly to the CoG, along with their children in the case of the Presbyterian view.
> 
> See Louis Berkhof on the duality of the CoG in his _Systematic Theology_.
> 
> Those adults and children admitted visibly to the CoG, but who are never regenerated, just prove God's faithfulness to sinners:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then what advantage has the Jew? Or what is the value of circumcision? Much in every way. To begin with, the Jews were entrusted with the oracles of God. What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means! Let God be true though every one were a liar, as it is written, "That you may be justified in your words, and prevail when you are judged." But if our unrighteousness serves to show the righteousness of God, what shall we say? That God is unrighteous to inflict wrath on us? (I speak in a human way.) (Rom 3:1-5)
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


OK, let's flip the original question around. (This is the same issue as the last post I just made.) If the new covenant is part of covenant of grace then the new covenant must contain reprobates, correct? How are we to hold to this teaching when Jer. says the members of the new covenant will all know the Lord; I do not know of any Scripture passage that teach there are visible and internal memberrs of the covenant of grace just like Romans 2:28-29 teaches that there are physical Jews and spiritual Jews.

It seems like we should hold that the Abrahamic covenant is distinct from the new covenant - the former contains all the elect and their children and the latter contains the elect only.


----------



## MW

Scholten said:


> If the new covenant is part of covenant of grace then the new covenant must contain reprobates, correct? How are we to hold to this teaching when Jer. says the members of the new covenant will all know the Lord;



If taken in this way the passage from Jeremiah would also do away with teaching elders. If read in the light of its fulfilment and exposition in Hebrews 8-10, however, it is clear that the difference is not between "not knowing the Lord" in the old covenant and "knowing the Lord" in the new covenant. The difference is in the medium by which the Lord is known. Under the Old Testament it was mediated through priests. Priests sacrificed on behalf of the people and taught them to know the Lord. As Heb 8-10 explains, the sacrifice of Christ has done away with mediating priests. The Lord is known in Christ. Hence the need to hold fast the confession of Christ.


----------



## Peairtach

> How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29, ESV)



There are plenty passages that show the duality of the New Covenant, as the above, just as there are plenty, often the same passages, that show the reality of the Visible and Invisible Church being different aspects of the New Testament Church. 

The person above who professed faith by baptism and the Lord's Supper, was not in a saving relationship with God, but he was in a different relationship to God than the person who didn't profess faith by baptism and the Lord's Supper. The same applied to unbelieving Israelites, as unbelieving Christians/"Christians".

Jeremiah 31 along with other passages teaches the end of the mediatorial prophetic office.



> But this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, declares the LORD: I will put my law within them, and I will write it on their hearts. And I will be their God, and they shall be my people. And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jer 31:33-34)



All those who are internally in Covenant with God, and not only externally, are prophets, priests and kings.

There isn't a special school of prophets in the New Covenant:


> And it shall come to pass afterward, that I will pour out my Spirit on all flesh; your sons and your daughters shall prophesy, your old men shall dream dreams, and your young men shall see visions. Even on the male and female servants in those days I will pour out my Spirit. (Joel 2:28)



Moses' prayer is answered in the New Covenant:


> And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." And Joshua the son of Nun, the assistant of Moses from his youth, said, "My lord Moses, stop them." But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, that the LORD would put his Spirit on them!" (Num 11:27-29)



All true believers are anointed as prophets in the New Covenant, unlike the Old:


> But the anointing that you received from him abides in you, and you have no need that anyone should teach you. But as his anointing teaches you about everything, and is true, and is no lie--just as it has taught you, abide in him. (I John 2:27)


----------



## Scholten

armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the new covenant is part of covenant of grace then the new covenant must contain reprobates, correct? How are we to hold to this teaching when Jer. says the members of the new covenant will all know the Lord;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If taken in this way the passage from Jeremiah would also do away with teaching elders. If read in the light of its fulfilment and exposition in Hebrews 8-10, however, it is clear that the difference is not between "not knowing the Lord" in the old covenant and "knowing the Lord" in the new covenant. The difference is in the medium by which the Lord is known. Under the Old Testament it was mediated through priests. Priests sacrificed on behalf of the people and taught them to know the Lord. As Heb 8-10 explains, the sacrifice of Christ has done away with mediating priests. The Lord is known in Christ. Hence the need to hold fast the confession of Christ.
Click to expand...


As far as doing away with teaching elders is concerned, these passages (Jer. and Heb.) do say:

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel
after those days, declares the Lord:
I will put my laws into their minds,
and write them on their hearts . . .

Does this teach that there will bo no need for teaching elders? It could be taken to mean that the members of this new covenant will be spiritually awake because God will write His law on their hearts. This being in contrast to many in Israel who had the Law but did not obey it. Also, it seems we could have God's law written on our hearts but still not be totally perfected, still in need of edification. Hence an on-going need for teaching elders. 

When Jer. and Heb. say they shall all know me, that strikes me as being quantitative in nature - not some, not many but ALL. This is different than _how_ we come to know the Lord.

---------- Post added at 08:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:34 PM ----------




Peairtach said:


> How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:29, ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are plenty passages that show the duality of the New Covenant, as the above, just as there are plenty, often the same passages, that show the reality of the Visible and Invisible Church being different aspects of the New Testament Church.
> 
> The person above who professed faith by baptism and the Lord's Supper, was not in a saving relationship with God, but he was in a different relationship to God than the person who didn't profess faith by baptism and the Lord's Supper. The same applied to unbelieving Israelites, as unbelieving Christians/"Christians".
Click to expand...


Boy, this is interesting. I don't mean to "hijack" this discussion in this regard, but doesn't this passage teach one can fall from grace????? It refers to "has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified" - the word for sanctified being ηγιασθη - doesn't that refer to true holiness or sanctification? As long as I read it that way I have to believe I am misunderstanding it. If that is then the case, I am probably misunderstanding how it applies to the new covenant discussion above as well. 

My apologies . . .


----------



## MW

Scholten said:


> When Jer. and Heb. say they shall all know me, that strikes me as being quantitative in nature - not some, not many but ALL. This is different than _how_ we come to know the Lord.



The idea of an internalised covenant is irrelevant to the point of a change of priesthood. If internalisation does away with priesthood it also does away with all ministry, including the teaching ministry. That can't be the use that is made of Jeremiah in Heb. 8-10, which is seeking to establish that the Aaronic priesthood has been superseded by Christ. Heb 5 had also acknowledged the place of "teachers" under the new covenant. The point about the law being written in the heart is in opposition to the tablets of stone on which "the law as a covenant" was given to the people. That law-covenant was established in sacrificial blood which required the function of a mediating priest. See Ps. 40:6-8, quoted in Hebrews 10, for the reality of the law written in the heart as preferable to sacrifices and offerings. What was preferred under the old covenant has become an exclusive arrangement under the new.


----------



## Scholten

armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Jer. and Heb. say they shall all know me, that strikes me as being quantitative in nature - not some, not many but ALL. This is different than _how_ we come to know the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of an internalised covenant is irrelevant to the point of a change of priesthood. If internalisation does away with priesthood it also does away with all ministry, including the teaching ministry. That can't be the use that is made of Jeremiah in Heb. 8-10, which is seeking to establish that the Aaronic priesthood has been superseded by Christ. Heb 5 had also acknowledged the place of "teachers" under the new covenant. The point about the law being written in the heart is in opposition to the tablets of stone on which "the law as a covenant" was given to the people. That law-covenant was established in sacrificial blood which required the function of a mediating priest. See Ps. 40:6-8, quoted in Hebrews 10, for the reality of the law written in the heart as preferable to sacrifices and offerings. What was preferred under the old covenant has become an exclusive arrangement under the new.
Click to expand...


I am not following this. Perhaps it is due to the lateness of the day (perhaps you have an advantage over me, being in Australia!) What I am trying to get my arms around is whether or not all members of the new covenant are elect and only the elect. How does the above address that?


----------



## MW

Scholten said:


> What I am trying to get my arms around is whether or not all members of the new covenant are elect and only the elect. How does the above address that?



The "internalisation" argument is used by its advocates to imply a regenerate covenant membership. "Regenerate" and "elect" are functionally equivalent in this approach since only the elect are regenerated and have the law written on the heart. As noted, however, "internalisation" does not establish the point of Heb 8-10. It is not a subjective and individual experience but an objective reality in redemptive history which is the point of the passage. There is a change of priesthood because there is a change of covenant. The change cannot be from the external to the internal but must be an external change which alters the ceremonial aspect of the old covenant because it is fulfilled, abrogated, and superseded by Christ. In (Westminster) confessional terms, the administration has changed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

armourbearer said:


> In (Westminster) confessional terms, the administration has changed.



As I quoted you earlier in this thread. This is such a good point. 



> Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.
> 
> Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.


----------



## Scholten

Rev. Winzer and Martin, having to think about these last two posts. You guys are beginning to convince this guy.


----------



## non dignus

"_No more shall every man teach *his neighbor*, and every man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they all shall know Me,* from the least of them to the greatest of them*, says the LORD_"

I was taught somewhere that Jeremiah was speaking in the context of Baal worship in Israel. The (false) prophets and priests were teaching the word of Baal in place of the word of the Lord: 

"who try to make My people forget My name by their dreams which everyone tells *his neighbor*, as their fathers forgot My name for Baal." Jer 23:27

"Therefore behold, I [am] against the prophets," says the LORD, "who steal My words every one from *his neighbor*." Jer 23:30

"Thus every one of you shall say to *his neighbor*, and every one to his brother, 'What has the LORD answered?' and, 'What has the LORD spoken? "And the oracle of the LORD you shall mention no more. For every man's word will be his oracle, for you have perverted the words of the living God, the LORD of hosts, our God. Thus you shall say to the prophet, 'What has the LORD answered you?' and, 'What has the LORD spoken?' But since you say, 'The oracle of the LORD!' therefore thus says the LORD: 'Because you say this word, "The oracle of the LORD!" and I have sent to you, saying, "Do not say, 'The oracle of the LORD!' therefore behold, I, even I, will utterly forget you and forsake you, and the city that I gave you and your fathers, and [will cast you] out of My presence. Jer 23:36-39

"*For from the least of them even unto the greatest *of them every one [is] given to covetousness ; and from the prophet even unto the priest every one dealeth falsely." Jer 6:13

No one will be teaching his neighbor blatant idolatry, is how I take this. The new covenant is better because of the gift of the Holy Spirit, given for the discernment of false teachers. The new covenant also includes the office of the keys, church discipline. Thus,

_"They shall all know me._.." because false teachers and unbelievers will be excommunicated in the new covenant. But there will still be hypocrites who give themselves out as true believers.


----------



## Scholten

Armourbearer, Puritancovenanter and Non Dignus, these posts have made me think. I have another question. In the paper Dr. Welty wrote he stated that John 6:45 also alluded to Jer. 31. So I checked it out. It turns out, interestingly, that many translations of the Bible state that this passage quotes Is. 54:13, not Jer. Now, this passage in John quotes Christ as referring to the elect, "44No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. 45It is written in the Prophets, 'And they will all be taught by God.' Everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to me— " It would seem then, that Christ, when He quotes being taught by God is linking that teaching with being called effectively by the Spirit, or salvation. A number of translations say the quote comes from Is., but a few also refer to Jer. 31 (English Standard Version and New American Standard Bible). At any rate, whether the quote comes from Is. or Jer. it would seem that linking the prophets concept of being taught by God to salvation would indicate that what is being stated in Jer. _does _ indicate that all members of the new covenant will be/are saved. I have become convinced that Heb. indicates it is the change in administration that Jer. teaches as advocated above. It seems like John 6 could be indicating that knowing God in a salvific sense is also included. 

Comments?


----------



## Peairtach

> At any rate, whether the quote comes from Is. or Jer. it would seem that linking the prophets concept of being taught by God to salvation would indicate that what is being stated in Jer. does indicate that all members of the new covenant will be/are saved.



Someone who is baptised is in some sense in the New Covenant, given that baptism is the sign and seal of entrance into the New Covenant. Do Baptists believe that baptism is the sign and seal of entrance into the New Covenant?

Similarly, someone who has been through a wedding ceremony and exchanged rings is in some sense married, even if her heart wasn't in it.


----------



## Scholten

Peairtach said:


> Someone who is baptised is in some sense in the New Covenant, *given that baptism is the sign and seal of entrance into the New Covenant.* Do Baptists believe that baptism is the sign and seal of entrance into the New Covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, it is the part I put in bold concerning baptism being the sign and seal of entrance into the New Covenant that I have a question on. From the verses such as Col. 2:11-12 I can see how baptism took the place of circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. However, I don't recall biblical material that could be used to reason it is the sign of the New Covenant. If the Abrahamic covenant exists in New Testament times independent of the New Covenant then infants would be baptized for the sake of the Abrahamic covenant. In keeping with this, what biblical basis is there for a baptized infant in some sense being part of the New Covenant?
> Thanks!
Click to expand...


----------



## MW

Scholten said:


> Comments?



I am happy to say that the reference is to Isa., but not to Jer. A topical concordance might justify a general allusion to Jer., but as a quotation exegesis will only establish Isa. as the source. Mention is not made of a new covenant in Isa. 54, but only to the unmoveable nature of the covenant of peace and its spiritual application. "All thy children" refers to the children of Israel according to the promise, as Gal. 4, quoting Isa. 54, indicates. This is in contrast to the "children of the married wife," or Israel that is solely after the flesh. All those truly in covenant are taught of the Lord; that is undeniable; but it presupposes there is another kind of "children of the covenant" who are not taught of the Lord. See also Acts 3:25, 26. Isa. 54 therefore gives credence to the external-internal covenant distinction.


----------



## steadfast7

Scholten said:


> From the verses such as Col. 2:11-12 I can see how baptism took the place of circumcision as the sign of the Abrahamic covenant. However, I don't recall biblical material that could be used to reason it is the sign of the New Covenant. If the Abrahamic covenant exists in New Testament times independent of the New Covenant then infants would be baptized for the sake of the Abrahamic covenant. In keeping with this, what biblical basis is there for a baptized infant in some sense being part of the New Covenant?



I'd like to offer my thoughts and perhaps get some feedback from my informed brethren to sharpen my thinking on this. From my understanding, the New Covenant is the culmination of the covenant of grace. It's everything that the previous covenants led up to. The figures and types of the OT come to its realization in the new covenant, which is in Christ's blood. This blood sprinkles the elect and does so perfectly. All for whom the blood is shed is saved to the uttermost and the benefits of the New Covenant become objective for him. Thus, baptism, as the sign of one's union with Christ is administered. This union is appropriated by faith. The Baptist is against paedobaptism primarily because there is neither command or example to baptize infants scripturally, but also because all that circumcision was meant to convey is subsumed and accomplished in Christ, who is THE seed of Abraham.

I'm still a little unclear as to whether Reformed Baptists view baptism as a replacement of circumcision in the SAME way as the Reformed paedobaptist does?


----------



## non dignus

> all that circumcision was meant to convey is subsumed and accomplished in Christ, who is THE seed of Abraham.



I would say that 'all that circumcision was meant to convey' will be subsumed in Christ's glorious return. We are the seed of Abraham in the Seed of Abraham, that is, the Lord is still accumulating image bearers to populate the new heavens and the new earth. 

My personal opinion is that infant inclusion is actually rooted in the command in the beginning to 'be fruitful and multiply' in order to fill the earth with the image of God. Christ is fulfilling what Adam failed to do.


----------



## Pilgrim

steadfast7 said:


> I'm still a little unclear as to whether Reformed Baptists view baptism as a replacement of circumcision in the SAME way as the Reformed paedobaptist does?



It may be a little unclear because my recollection from my reading is that some Baptists see baptism as a replacement of circumcision and some don't. But I think it's safe to say that none view baptism as being a replacement of circumcision in the SAME way as Reformed paedobaptists do (i.e. regarding the subjects) or else they'd be paedobaptists. But I doubt you meant "SAME" to refer to the latter sense. 

With regard to placing heavy emphasis on Jer. 31 and Heb 8 (the New Covenant) from my reading (which is admittedly incomplete and even sketchy with regard to certain periods) it seems to me that this is a relatively recent phenomenon in Baptist polemics. (I'd be happy to be pointed to an older source (i.e. pre-1950 and especially pre-1900 that proves otherwise.) I first heard it when sitting under a "Sovereign Grace" ministry that essentially embraced New Covenant Theology, albeit with a few modifications. Dr. Welty I understand is confessional. I've heard James White appeal to Heb. 8. But from what I've read, older Baptists tended to argue against paedobaptism (and specifically the Reformed practice) on these grounds (not an exhaustive list): 

1. _There is no explicit warrant for the practice_---Basically a RPW type argument. (Perhaps widespread Baptist rejection of the RPW in recent years has led to a virtual abandonment of this argument?) 

2. _A change in administration_--not unlike what Rev. Winzer posts in #41 except that the Baptists went further and argued that those who were to be officially considered as being (visible) church members were professing believers. "Believe and be Baptized." 

3. _Baptism is immersion_, which the paedobaptists in their day did not perform ordinarily. 

4. _An argument from their reading of church history_--that infant baptism arose due to ideas that arose in the patristic era such as the idea that baptism was necessary for salvation (baptismal regeneration) and that infants should therefore be baptized lest they perish prior to receiving the sacrament. 

5. _Infant baptism is the handmaid to state churches_, which they of course strongly opposed. 

That's not to say that the internalization of which Rev. Winzer speaks wasn't a factor or is never mentioned. But from what I've seen it generally wasn't as prominent as it is now.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> The figures and types of the OT come to its realization in the new covenant, which is in Christ's blood. This blood sprinkles the elect and does so perfectly.



There does seem to be some form of sanctification in the Covenant of Christ's blood that takes place in Hebrews 10:29 for those who end up apostatizing. 



> (Heb 10:29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? KJV
> 
> (Heb 10:29) How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? ESV


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pilgrim said:


> 4. An argument from their reading of church history--that infant baptism arose due to ideas that arose in the patristic era such as the idea that baptism was necessary for salvation (baptismal regeneration) and that infants should therefore be baptized lest they perish prior to receiving the sacrament.
> 
> 5. Infant baptism is the handmaid to state churches, which they of course strongly opposed.



Some of these issues were discussed lately. I found this discussion rather intriguing. It seems to refute some of the things I have read and it really puts Tertillian in a light that is true compared to how some take his supposed anti-paedobaptism position. The developement of theology was also discussed in this shorter thread. Here are a few responses from the thread. 



Marrow Man said:


> As far as Tertullian goes, he was a lone voice, and his view on baptism was unorthodox. His whole reason for writing as he did (against children, not necessarily infants alone) as well as the unwed was because of the fear of post-baptismal sin. Because of teachings like this, some would be led to delay baptism until the death bed (I believe this was true of Constantine, for instance). This is not a teaching you or I would hold to, of course. An interesting question (one I do not know the answer to) is whether Tertullian would have held this position for a dying infant/child. However, he also seems to have denied original sin (admittedly, before the doctrine was hammered out by Augustine), so he may have viewed them to be "sinless" in some sense.





CharlieJ said:


> Really, though, Tertullian is of little use to modern anti-pedobaptists. His argument assumes that infant baptisms are indeed valid and efficacious baptisms.
> 
> Baptism in the early church cannot be discussed outside one of the major doctrinal disputes of the day: what to do with post-baptismal sins. The stricter side of the Church, represented by Tertullian among others, argued that there could be no repentance, or at maximum 1 repentance, for certain post-baptismal sins. Apostasy was final. This led to the widespread practice of delaying baptism, thereby decreasing a person's chance of blowing it. However, that doesn't mean they were anti-pedobaptist in the sense of thinking that baptizing infants was unbiblical or invalid. The same people who urged delay would in fact baptize their children if they were in mortal danger. Augustine, for example, was not baptized as a child, but he almost was when he became very ill one time. They waited a bit longer and he recovered.
> 
> The final resolution to this issue came with the doctrine of penance. Now that there is a way for people to get back in after post-baptismal sins, the need to delay baptism evaporates. That, plus the doctrine of baptism infusing grace, actually led to a strong push for universal infant baptism.





Marrow Man said:


> Origen (not a good example of orthodoxy) wrote in the mid 200s, "For this also it was that the church had from the Apostles a tradition to give baptism even to infants. For they to whom the divine mysteries were committed knew that there is in all persons a natural pollution of sin which must be done away by water and the Spirit." In contrast to a "lone voice," the Council of Carthage in 254 A.D. (66 voices) concluded that infants were not to be hindered from baptism. The controversy (seen in the writings of Cyprian) was not over whether paedobaptism was permissible, but whether to baptize at birth or wait until the 8th day. To the best of my knowledge, you don't have anything remotely approaching an antipaedo position like we see today.





CharlieJ said:


> There was no Systematic Theology of the Apostles available in the early church. They did not have developed doctrines of ... well, anything. They had the story of Jesus, a handful of pastoral letters, and the practices of the church. Everything after that is theological reflection. Even in the New Testament you have theological reflection. Paul understands how the gospel relates to the Gentiles better than the Jerusalem apostles do, and they have to work it out. They don't just intuitively know what to do.
> 
> That said, infant baptism is, as far as I can tell, universally recognized by the Church, even if they can't always articulate why. Even Tertullian doesn't say it's invalid, inefficacious, or a novel idea proposed by heretics. Origen, who is roughly contemporary with Tertullian, says that infant baptism was passed down by the apostles. He also speaks of it as the normal custom of the church. Now, surely he couldn't make a claim like that if it wasn't just about universal in his area, and if it hadn't been so even a generation or 2 before him. Yet, his comment about apostolic tradition may point to his inability to explain exactly why they are baptizing infants. His own explanation at times seems a bit forced, fitting awkwardly in his own theological framework. Yet, despite the difficulties, he doesn't dare deny it.
> 
> In my opinion, infant baptism was practiced quite early on, and by 200 was nearly universally understood as the norm. However, at about that time, the Novatian schism and the Montanist presence turned the theological reflection about baptism in the direction of post-baptismal sin. This turn effectively de-railed the conversation and truncated the view of baptism merely to getting rid of sin.
> 
> Gregory of Nazianzus, coming later in the East, will explain baptism not just as forgiveness of original sin (a dodgy concept in the East), but as a transferring of the child into the kingdom of God. While still more ontological than we, this concept is not so far removed from covenantal pedobaptism.
> 
> In short, pedobaptism was, for much of the early church era, a practice looking for a justification. But that's what makes the evidence for its early date so strong. They practiced it even when they weren't sure why.






http://www.puritanboard.com/f57/baptism-early-church-69573/


----------



## Scholten

armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to say that the reference is to Isa., but not to Jer. A topical concordance might justify a general allusion to Jer., but as a quotation exegesis will only establish Isa. as the source. Mention is not made of a new covenant in Isa. 54, but only to the unmoveable nature of the covenant of peace and its spiritual application. "All thy children" refers to the children of Israel according to the promise, as Gal. 4, quoting Isa. 54, indicates. This is in contrast to the "children of the married wife," or Israel that is solely after the flesh. All those truly in covenant are taught of the Lord; that is undeniable; but it presupposes there is another kind of "children of the covenant" who are not taught of the Lord. See also Acts 3:25, 26. Isa. 54 therefore gives credence to the external-internal covenant distinction.
Click to expand...


Since this was posted I have been studying it further. I have to admit, I have a bit of a problem with the language of Jer. 31 when it talks about "know the Lord" and the concept of writing the law on the heart. That sounds a lot like regeneration. I have looked up Calvin's commentaries for one. The only thing I could find on what he thought about the question of whether members of the New Covenant are all redeemed or not was a reference in his commentary on Heb. 8:11 where he writes, ". . . my answer is this , that the question here is not about persons, but that reference is made to the economical condition of the Church." He states in several places that the law written on the heart has to do with sanctification and the reference to forgiving their iniquity is clearly a reference to justification. 

I believe this follows some of your earlier comments, Rev. Winzer. Looking for comments and further input on this. Thanks!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Herb,

I think the thing that might be confusing is to decide whether there is an either/or choice here as to whether the author is speaking of realities that pertain to union with Christ. Again, I would point out, as I have elsewhere, that the author's thrust in Hebrews is to establish the superiority of Christ's Priesthood over Aaron's. This may seem an obvious point but it flows with the larger point about the excellency of Christ and the New Covenant over the Mosaic administration. It is an extended polemic against any idea that shrinking back in disbelief is an option for a believer. In fact, Hebrews 8 flows into Hebrews 9 and 10, which over and over warn of the fearfulness of falling into the hands of the living God. The argument is the lesser from the greater: our forefathers in the faith were judged by the wrath of God for shrinking back, how much more do you suppose those who shrink back will be judged. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

In other words, it's not as if the possession of spiritual realities and union with Christ are not a present and more intense state of affairs than in the past. It's not as if nothing is said about how Christ's atonement satisfies wrath to the uttermost. It's not as if there is nothing more to marvel at. The issue is this: _it is impoosible for the flow of the argument to have any force if the author is simply speaking of a theoretical set of affairs._.

Some will argue that, indeed, these warnings keep believers from shrinking back. Indeed, we would agree that these warning passages are used as means of God to keep the regenerate man from apostasizing. We would also see in the author's language a confidence that those who have true faith will not "go there".

But the author is saying more. Simply because he's trying to motivate with a confidence that men will press on does not necessitate the idea that every threat of judgment is all theoretical "make believe". It is common for leaders to speak to groups in such a way that speaks to the group at large and motivates on the basis of the "best in them". Federal Vision proponents refuse to note the idea that a group can be addressed where the author does not know the heart and so he'll refer to the visible Saints in such a way that indicates that the group possesses all the realities of union with Christ. Elsewhere it is clear that not all may possess the reality but that does not mean men should start addressing the Church lke this: "For those of you who are non-elect, you have no part in any of what I'm saying...."

Consequently, unless one ignores the common ways that the Apostles addressed congregations, it is simply not appropriate to conclude that he is making all his warnings theoretical. We would all agree that men who fall away in the terrible way that the author warns against are not "in Christ" in the sense of union, which only comes about by evangelical grace. That said, their profession of faith as well as their possession of knowledge beyond those outside the visible Kingdom places them in a place of judgment, which makes me shudder at the language which Hebrews uses to describe. We do not know the elect from the non-elect and it is our responsibility not to weaken the strength of this argument and make this all about some theoretical New Covenant which only the elect participate in and those whom we cannot know. We must listen to the author and let God be God and to heed the revelation He has given us.


----------



## Scholten

armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comments?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am happy to say that the reference is to Isa., but not to Jer. A topical concordance might justify a general allusion to Jer., but as a quotation exegesis will only establish Isa. as the source. Mention is not made of a new covenant in Isa. 54, but only to the unmoveable nature of the covenant of peace and its spiritual application. "All thy children" refers to the children of Israel according to the promise, as Gal. 4, quoting Isa. 54, indicates. This is in contrast to the "children of the married wife," or Israel that is solely after the flesh. All those truly in covenant are taught of the Lord; that is undeniable; but it presupposes there is another kind of "children of the covenant" who are not taught of the Lord. See also Acts 3:25, 26. Isa. 54 therefore gives credence to the external-internal covenant distinction.
Click to expand...


I would like to take another try at this one. Isaiah refers to the covenant of peace. Jer. speaks of the new covenant. Are these two distinct covenants? I looked up Calvin's commentaries again as a starting point. In his commentary on Is. 54:13 he writes, "The Gospel is preached indiscriminately to the elect and the reprobate; but the elect alone come to Christ, because they have been 'taught by God,' and therefore to them the Prophet undoubtedly refers." It seems like Calvin is here saying that being "taught by God" is equivalent to being elect. It would seem logical also to conclude that Calvin sees the members of the covenant of peace in Isaiah as all being elect. A little later in that section he writes, "This passage agrees with one in the Prophet Jeremiah. 'Every one shall not teach his neighbour, nor a man his brother; for all shall know me from the least even to the greatest, saith Jehovah.'" If I am correct in my understanding of Calvin, if all the members of the covenant of peace are elect and Isaiah agrees with Jeremiah, then it would seem to be a logical conclusion that the members of the new covenant of Jeremiah are all elect as well. 
When you say, Rev. Winzer, that "Isa. 54 therefore gives credence to the external-internal covenant distinction" are you saying that some of the people spoken of in Isa. 54 as being in the covenant of peace are in the external covenant, or am I taking that the wrong way? I continue to have difficulties with the idea that some members of the new covenant could be reprobates. I hope members of the Puritan Board will help me work through this matter. 
Thanks


----------



## MW

Scholten said:


> I would like to take another try at this one. Isaiah refers to the covenant of peace. Jer. speaks of the new covenant. Are these two distinct covenants? I looked up Calvin's commentaries again as a starting point. In his commentary on Is. 54:13 he writes, "The Gospel is preached indiscriminately to the elect and the reprobate; but the elect alone come to Christ, because they have been 'taught by God,' and therefore to them the Prophet undoubtedly refers." It seems like Calvin is here saying that being "taught by God" is equivalent to being elect. It would seem logical also to conclude that Calvin sees the members of the covenant of peace in Isaiah as all being elect. A little later in that section he writes, "This passage agrees with one in the Prophet Jeremiah. 'Every one shall not teach his neighbour, nor a man his brother; for all shall know me from the least even to the greatest, saith Jehovah.'" If I am correct in my understanding of Calvin, if all the members of the covenant of peace are elect and Isaiah agrees with Jeremiah, then it would seem to be a logical conclusion that the members of the new covenant of Jeremiah are all elect as well.



Calvin's covenant theology doesn't follow a systematic structure so it is not a simple matter to tie Calvin down to some of our modern categories. The best way to proceed would be to look at what Calvin says about the new covenant. Somewhere at the beginning of his discussion on the new covenant in his comments on Jeremiah he draws attention to the difference between form and substance, and specifically refers the newness of the covenant to the "form." That is all that we mean by "administration," although Calvin's statements don't fit into a strict external-internal pattern. Also, I believe when he comes to speak of the promises of the new covenant he allows for hyperbole. I will have to leave it to you to look this up as I don't have time to track down the references. Taken as a whole, Calvin's understanding of the covenant of peace is what we would refer to the internal aspect of the covenant of grace, which only applies to the elect, but the new covenant is a change in the form or administration of the covenant. 



Scholten said:


> When you say, Rev. Winzer, that "Isa. 54 therefore gives credence to the external-internal covenant distinction" are you saying that some of the people spoken of in Isa. 54 as being in the covenant of peace are in the external covenant, or am I taking that the wrong way?



I think that is a misunderstanding. In terms of Isaiah 54, I went back to the first verse, and its application in Galatians, to show two groups of people. My comments were not directly connected to the promise relating to the children being taught. The point is, there are two types of "children" spoken of in the text as a whole, which gives some credence to the idea of a dual aspect to the covenant as far as its administration is concerned.


----------



## Scholten

armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to take another try at this one. Isaiah refers to the covenant of peace. Jer. speaks of the new covenant. Are these two distinct covenants? I looked up Calvin's commentaries again as a starting point. In his commentary on Is. 54:13 he writes, "The Gospel is preached indiscriminately to the elect and the reprobate; but the elect alone come to Christ, because they have been 'taught by God,' and therefore to them the Prophet undoubtedly refers." It seems like Calvin is here saying that being "taught by God" is equivalent to being elect. It would seem logical also to conclude that Calvin sees the members of the covenant of peace in Isaiah as all being elect. A little later in that section he writes, "This passage agrees with one in the Prophet Jeremiah. 'Every one shall not teach his neighbour, nor a man his brother; for all shall know me from the least even to the greatest, saith Jehovah.'" If I am correct in my understanding of Calvin, if all the members of the covenant of peace are elect and Isaiah agrees with Jeremiah, then it would seem to be a logical conclusion that the members of the new covenant of Jeremiah are all elect as well.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calvin's covenant theology doesn't follow a systematic structure so it is not a simple matter to tie Calvin down to some of our modern categories. The best way to proceed would be to look at what Calvin says about the new covenant. Somewhere at the beginning of his discussion on the new covenant in his comments on Jeremiah he draws attention to the difference between form and substance, and specifically refers the newness of the covenant to the "form." That is all that we mean by "administration," although Calvin's statements don't fit into a strict external-internal pattern. Also, I believe when he comes to speak of the promises of the new covenant he allows for hyperbole. I will have to leave it to you to look this up as I don't have time to track down the references. Taken as a whole, Calvin's understanding of the covenant of peace is what we would refer to the internal aspect of the covenant of grace, which only applies to the elect, but the new covenant is a change in the form or administration of the covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you say, Rev. Winzer, that "Isa. 54 therefore gives credence to the external-internal covenant distinction" are you saying that some of the people spoken of in Isa. 54 as being in the covenant of peace are in the external covenant, or am I taking that the wrong way?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think that is a misunderstanding. In terms of Isaiah 54, I went back to the first verse, and its application in Galatians, to show two groups of people. My comments were not directly connected to the promise relating to the children being taught. The point is, there are two types of "children" spoken of in the text as a whole, which gives some credence to the idea of a dual aspect to the covenant as far as its administration is concerned.
Click to expand...


Thank you, Rev. Winzer. It has taken me some time but I was finally able to look up the references to form and substance that you referenced. You state in your post that Calvin is not so easy to fit into a strict external-internal pattern. Perhaps what I'm about to write is an attempt to move in that direction, however, it must be done.
Calvin's comments on the form and substance have been very helpful. Those comments start in my copy of his commentaries about 2 1/2 pages into his 123rd lecture where he comments on Jeremiah 31:31-32.
I have also referenced elements commentaries on Isaiah 54:13 in an effort to get my arms around this passage in Jeremiah and the concept of being taught by God. You have stated earlier that John 6:45 quotes the above verse from Isaiah and not Jeremiah. This brought some interesting things to light. I think the best thing is for me to simply quote a section from this commentary:

Taught by Jehovah . . . now there are two ways in which the Lord teaches us; by external preaching, and by the secret revelation of the Holy Spirit. What kind of teaching the Prophet means is explained by Christ, when he quotes this passage; and therefore we ought not to seek a better interpreter. "It is written in the prophets," says he, "all shall be taught by God. Every man who has heard and learned from the Father cometh to me." (John 6:45.) If this passage were to be understood as relating to external preaching, the conclusion which Christ draws from it would not be well-founded; for it does not follow, "The Gospel is preached, and therefore all believe." Many oppose, others openly scorn, and others are hypocrites. Those only "who have been foreordained to life" (Acts 13:48) are sincerely teachable, and are entitled to be ranked among the disciples. The Gospel is preached indiscriminately to the elect and the reprobate; but the elect alone come to Christ, because they have been "taught by God," and therefore to them the undoubtedly refers.

Two pages further where Calvin comments further on the concept of being taught by God he writes, "this passage agrees with the one in the Prophet Jeremiah. ‘Every one shall not teach his neighbor, nor a man his brother; for all shall know me from the least even to the greatest, saith Jehovah.’ (Jer. 31:34.)" Therefore this knowing God is the same as being taught by God, i.e. refers to the elect.

So what we have here then is the fact that Calvin defines "being taught by God" in Isaiah 54 as being the inner working of the Holy Spirit in the salvation of the elect. Calvin also states that this passage in Isaiah agrees with or teaches the same thing as Jeremiah 31:34. The necessary conclusion then, is that the knowing God in Jeremiah is one and the same as personal salvation for all who are in the new covenant.

And I missing something here? 

The above conclusion does not necessarily disagree with Calvin's understanding of form and substance. The substance of the Abrahamic covenant in the Old Testament and its sign, circumcision, is the same as the substance of the Abrahamic covenant which continues into the New Testament and its sign, which is now baptism. The new covenant does differ in form from the old covenant in that its revelation is so much brighter. The essence or substance of the new covenant would then be that it is a covenant made only with the elect.

Again, if I am missing something I would appreciate having that pointed out. I look forward to receiving the responses on this forum.


----------



## MW

Scholten said:


> Again, if I am missing something I would appreciate having that pointed out.



These passages "agree" with Jer. 31. In reference to the elect this is undoubtedly true. But for Calvin, this is not unique to the new covenant, for it is the same in substance with the old covenant. It is only the "form" that is new.

Calvin's Commentaries, 10:2:127: "Let us now see why he promises to the people a _new_ covenant. It being new, no doubt refers to what they call the form; and the form, or manner, regards not words only, but first Christ, then the grace of the Holy Spirit, and the whole external way of teaching. But the substance remains the same. By substance I understand the doctrine; for God in the Gospel brings forward nothing but what the Law contains. We hence see that God has so spoken from the beginning, that he has not changed, no not a syllable, with regard to the substance of the doctrine. For he has included in the Law the rule of a perfect life, and has also shown what is the way of salvation, and by types and figures led the people to Christ, so that the remission of sin is there clearly made manifest, and whatever is necessary to be known."

If this difference between form and substance is clearly kept in view I don't think Calvin can be understood as teaching that the new covenant is unique in its application to the elect. Whatever applies to the elect is the same in substance with what was applied to the elect under the old covenant.


----------



## Scholten

Calvin is clearly not easy to comprehend, especially when he deals with such doctrines as election. 



armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, if I am missing something I would appreciate having that pointed out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> These passages "agree" with Jer. 31. In reference to the elect this is undoubtedly true.
Click to expand...


So does this mean that all the members of the new covenant, like the members of the covenant of peace are all elect?



> But for Calvin, this is not unique to the new covenant, for it is the same in substance with the old covenant.



If it is not unique to the new covenant but the same with the old, does this mean that all the members of the old covenant, the Mosaic covenant, were elect? That can't be. 



> If this difference between form and substance is clearly kept in view I don't think Calvin can be understood as teaching that the new covenant is unique in its application to the elect. Whatever applies to the elect is the same in substance with what was applied to the elect under the old covenant.



I understand Calvin taught that the old and new were not different in substance. But it seems like the connections I gave in my last post (#40) force me to conclude that all the members of the new covenant are elect. I'm not sure that is correct. Rev. Winzer (and others) do you believe Calvin believed that all members of the new covenant are elect, saved?


----------



## MW

Scholten said:


> Rev. Winzer (and others) do you believe Calvin believed that all members of the new covenant are elect, saved?



As noted earlier, Calvin didn't work with the internal-external distinction. His most regular way of dealing with the relationship between elect and reprobate in the visible church was to draw attention to the fact of true and false profession. For Calvin the reprobate are not truly in the covenant, and that applies in both Old and New Testaments. So, in whatever sense Calvin rejects the membership of reprobates in the new covenant is the same sense in which he rejects their membership in the old covenant. There is no substantial difference.


----------



## steadfast7

I want to be VERY careful in interacting on this topic, but I do still have questions.  So please warn me quickly if I'm veering off into dangerous territory. If the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same in substance (covenant of grace), then would it right to say that OT saints were saved BY the Old Covenant? If so, how do we square it with Heb 10:4, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."?


----------



## Herald

steadfast7 said:


> I want to be VERY careful in interacting on this topic, but I do still have questions.  So please warn me quickly if I'm veering off into dangerous territory. If the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same in substance (covenant of grace), then would it right to say that OT saints were saved BY the Old Covenant? If so, how do we square it with Heb 10:4, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."?



Dennis, 

Hebrews 9 & 10 make it clear that the Old Covenant could not save. The grace contained in the Mosaic Covenant was linked to the cross. The Law is our tutor, or schoolmaster. The ceremonial regulations contained in the Law were fulfilled in Christ. The whole Moasic Covenant pointed towards Christ. Thus, the Old Covenant could not save. It lacked the necessary power to atone for sin once for all. It served a necessary purpose, but it was destined for obsolesence. 

sent from the wonderful world of Android.


----------



## JP Wallace

steadfast7 said:


> If the Mosaic and New Covenants are the same in substance (covenant of grace), then would it right to say that OT saints were saved BY the Old Covenant? If so, how do we square it with Heb 10:4, "For it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins."?



The saint living under the Old Covenant were no more saved BY the Old Covenant that we are saved BY the New Covenant - i.e we're not, we are saved by the grace of God expressed in the Covenant of Grace.

BCF 7

2. Moreover Man having brought himself 119under the curse of the Law by his fall, *it pleased the Lord to make a Covenant of Grace wherein* he freely offereth unto Sinners, 120Life and Salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them Faith in him, that they may be saved; and 121promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal Life, his holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.
3. *This Covenant* is *revealed* in the Gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of Salvation by the 122seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, *untill the full 123discovery thereof was compleated in the new Testament*; and it is founded in that 124Eternal Covenant transaction, that was between the Father and the Son, about the Redemption of the Elect; and it is alone by the Grace of this Covenant, that all of the posterity of fallen Adam, that ever were 125saved, did obtain life and a blessed immortality; Man being now utterly uncapable of acceptance with God upon those terms, on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks Bill and Pastor Wallace. Now is this view essentially the same as Westminster, or does our view admit of a sharper break with the Mosaic covenant as not a pure administration of the covenant of grace?


----------



## JP Wallace

Dennis

I haven't followed this whole thread so am not sure what has been covered. For me I believe the Mosaic/Old Covenant is a full (pure if you want) administration of the Covenant of Grace, it may include other elements in relation to national Israel, but it certainly is not less that an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

As far as I understand it, Westminister is the same and I would have little or no difficulty in agreeing with WCF vii:v

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.[12]

Ditto I'd agree with Westminster V:Vi's closing phrase

"......There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations."


----------



## steadfast7

So therefore, there are no differences between our concept of the covenant, but only the question of the worthy members of the covenant in its old and new administrations. ?


----------



## JP Wallace

That would be my position and I believe it is the 2nd LBCF's position.


----------



## Pilgrim Standard

Todd King said:


> However, what he did not account for was that God could modify the covenant without making it of none effect.


I have to reject the idea that God Modified the Covenant.


Todd King said:


> When man failed at that covenant, God neither killed man immediately (which would have given victory to Satan), nor did he make a new covenant, but he revised the existing covenant in which he placed some new terms of the covenant; including toil, pain, strife, etc.


This is outright denial of the Covenant of Grace. Where did you get this idea? This is extending the covenant of works far beyond its scope. I really urge you to reconsider these ideas you have put forth.


----------



## Scholten

armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rev. Winzer (and others) do you believe Calvin believed that all members of the new covenant are elect, saved?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As noted earlier, Calvin didn't work with the internal-external distinction. His most regular way of dealing with the relationship between elect and reprobate in the visible church was to draw attention to the fact of true and false profession. For Calvin the reprobate are not truly in the covenant, and that applies in both Old and New Testaments. So, in whatever sense Calvin rejects the membership of reprobates in the new covenant is the same sense in which he rejects their membership in the old covenant. There is no substantial difference.
Click to expand...


OK – now that really helps to clarify the earlier posts. Thanks. I will sincerely request your patience at this time; I am an engineer by profession and as with computers deal with all 1’s and 0’s all day long. Things are either black or white. 
It would seem like Scripture perhaps forces our hand to have to deal with the internal and external distinctions? The Rom. 2:27-28 passage refers explicitly to the outward and inward Jew. Plus it would seem to make sense that everyone who was circumcised was an outward or physical member of the Abrahamic covenant, and hence the nation of Israel but only those who have the faith of Abraham are truly his children. 
It also seems possible that the reasoning presented in post 40 above could force us to conclude that all the members of the new covenant are saved and this would then be in distinction to the Abrahamic covenant. As also mentioned there, these covenants could be unique in this regard without damaging the teaching that the form of the covenant of grace changed but not the substance. 
With each of these steps I look forward more and more to further discussion. 
Also, the additional posts here (#62-69) are good points of discussion.


----------



## steadfast7

JP Wallace said:


> For me I believe the Mosaic/Old Covenant is a full (pure if you want) administration of the Covenant of Grace, it may include other elements in relation to national Israel, but it certainly is not less that an administration of the Covenant of Grace.


 I was always under the impression that RBs and Presbyterians had essentially different views of the covenants in their essence, but you have shown me that this is not the case. Therefore, only the administration has changed, and the membership thereof. But, if the essence of the covenant always remains, then where do we find warrant that administration of the New Covenant is not to include children of believers?


----------



## JP Wallace

steadfast7 said:


> I was always under the impression that RBs and Presbyterians had essentially different views of the covenants in their essence, but you have shown me that this is not the case.



That may in fact be what many RB's do believe, but I don't and I don't thing the Confession teaches that. The different administration is warranted by specific readings of Jer 31/Heb 8 (See a host of material on PB and elsewhere).


----------



## Herald

steadfast7 said:


> But, if the essence of the covenant always remains, then where do we find warrant that administration of the New Covenant is not to include children of believers?



Dennis, the 1689 LBCF describes the Covenant of Grace this way:



> 7.3 This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.



Was the Mosaic Covenant/Old Covenant (I use the terms interchangeably) _all _of grace? Obviously there was a works component to the Mosaic Covenant. The judicial aspect of the Law makes that clear. One could be a member of the Jewish covenant community and not be a spiritual child of Abraham, since the temporal administration of the Old Covenant did not require saving faith on the part of its members. However, at heart of the Old Covenant was grace. The Old Covenant pointed forwards to Christ. The New Covenant is different. The New Covenant is made with God's elect and _only _God's elect. There was no need to point forward since Christ was now a present reality. Membership in the New Covenant requires saving faith, not a national identity.

NOTE: If you want to discuss this more I suggest starting a new thread as this will invariably alter the course of this current thread.


----------



## Scholten

steadfast7 said:


> But, if the essence of the covenant always remains, then where do we find warrant that administration of the New Covenant is not to include children of believers?



As one who holds to the Reformed faith I would like to comment that the inclusion of children of believers is based on the continuation of the Abrahamic covenant into and through New Testament times. It is not based on the new covenant as such. The Abrahamic covenant existed right alongside the Mosaic covenant in Old Testament times, in a similar fashion I believe it is separate from the new covenant during New Testament times. 

As far as starting new threads is concerned, I for one do not mind the discussion continuing here. These discussions can bounce back and forth!


----------



## steadfast7

I read the LBC as depicting the covenant as a growing plant that comes to full bloom in the New Covenant. If we are in agreement that there is only one covenant of grace then not only is the NC made with the elect, but the grace inherent the OC is likewise made with the elect. What is new then is that the NC sloughs off the national, material, and temporal aspects of the old covenant. Would this be an accurate assessment, from a baptist perspective?


----------



## Scholten

steadfast7 said:


> I read the LBC as depicting the covenant as a growing plant that comes to full bloom in the New Covenant. If we are in agreement that there is only one covenant of grace then not only is the NC made with the elect, but the grace inherent the OC is likewise made with the elect. What is new then is that the NC sloughs off the national, material, and temporal aspects of the old covenant. Would this be an accurate assessment, from a baptist perspective?



Good morning, Dennis. It is always good to hear from South Korea. In Reformed circles there are often references to THE covenant of grace, too. I have difficulties with that. I think we have to view the covenant of grace as an over-arching concept, an umbrella concept in theology. This is a major topic to get ironed out. I think it is at the very root of many of the disagreements between Baptists and paedo-baptists. I think this will help resolving the questions of whether just the elect are in the covenant of grace as well.


----------



## Peairtach

I don't see what's difficult about _Old_ Covenant and _New_ Covenant.

The _New_ Covenant replaces the _Old_ Covenant.

The Abrahamic Covenant isn't _Old_ or _New_, but is still operative.



> This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. (Gal 3:17,ESV)



The advent of Christ - 2,000 years later - doesn't annul the Abrahamic Covenant either. How could it when you look at the global promises made to Abraham? The Abrahamic Covenant comes into full bloom in the New Covenant, but apparently the children of those that are engrafted into it by profession of faith are now excluded.


----------



## Herald

steadfast7 said:


> I read the LBC as depicting the covenant as a growing plant that comes to full bloom in the New Covenant. If we are in agreement that there is only one covenant of grace then not only is the NC made with the elect, but the grace inherent the OC is likewise made with the elect. What is new then is that the NC sloughs off the national, material, and temporal aspects of the old covenant. Would this be an accurate assessment, from a baptist perspective?



Dennis, it is not improper to say that the grace contained in the Old Covenant _applies _to the elect; however the blessings of the Law (Deut. 28) applied to all covenant members regardless of whether they were elect or not. We have to be careful about making a one-to-one comparison between the Old and New Covenants. The Old Covenant pointed forward to Christ. The symbols of the Old Covenant were christologic in nature. If you want to go beyond the symbols of the Mosaic Covenant you need to look at the Abrahamic Covenant. Abraham believed God and it was credited to him as righteousness. There is the heart and soul of grace. That grace is fully realized in the New Covenant.


----------



## Scholten

Peairtach said:


> I don't see what's difficult about _Old_ Covenant and _New_ Covenant.
> 
> The _New_ Covenant replaces the _Old_ Covenant.
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant isn't _Old_ or _New_, but is still operative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. (Gal 3:17,ESV)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The advent of Christ - 2,000 years later - doesn't annul the Abrahamic Covenant either. How could it when you look at the global promises made to Abraham? The Abrahamic Covenant comes into full bloom in the New Covenant, but apparently the children of those that are engrafted into it by profession of faith are now excluded.
Click to expand...


Thanks for your comment, Richard. I agree with you with respect to the Abrahamic covenant is still in existence. However, when you say _apparently _now the children of those who profess Christ are not included – do you believe that, or is it what you are attributing to Baptists?


----------



## MW

Scholten said:


> It also seems possible that the reasoning presented in post 40 above could force us to conclude that all the members of the new covenant are saved and this would then be in distinction to the Abrahamic covenant. As also mentioned there, these covenants could be unique in this regard without damaging the teaching that the form of the covenant of grace changed but not the substance.



Are we still discussing Calvin's view? In Calvin's view, yes, the elect are the true members of the new covenant, but again, this is not unique to the new covenant.

If we are now going to venture beyond Calvin and allow for the internal-external membership distinction, but do so in accord with Calvin's "same in substance" emphasis, we must look at the membership of infants and discern whether it belongs to the form or the substance. If it belongs to the substance then it has not been changed. The same applies to the question of reprobate inclusion in the covenant community. If it belongs to the substance then it also has not been changed.

Regarding infant membership, "the moral law doth for ever bind all." Moral law is substantial and has not been changed. Infant membership is ingrained in the moral law, as is evident from commandments 2 and 5, and the apostle's application in Ephesians 6. If infant membership is moral it has not been changed. Again, according to Ephesians 2 and 3, it requires positive new revelation to alter covenant membership. New revelation specifically marked the inclusion of the Gentiles. Specific new revelation was required to excommunicate the children of believers. No such revelation has been given. Ergo, infant membership is substantial and continual. It is acknowledged by all that not all infants are elect. Therefore, not all elect are members of the new covenant.

Regarding reprobates, the parable of the wheat and tares, the apostle's admonitory parallel in 1 Corinthians 10, the warning passages of Hebrews, the oracle of judgment against apostasy in 2 Peter 2, and the letters to the seven churches, conclusively point to the fact that more than the elect are for the present regarded as members of the covenant community. This conclusion entails a mixture in the covenant community, in continuity with the same mixture evident in the "old covenant."


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> Regarding infant membership, "the moral law doth for ever bind all." Moral law is substantial and has not been changed. Infant membership is ingrained in the moral law, as is evident from commandments 2 and 5, and the apostle's application in Ephesians 6. If infant membership is moral it has not been changed.


 Rev. Winzer, is it _infant_ inclusion, or the inclusion of _children_ in general that you believe is moral? I've always wondered why the stress is always on the _infants_ of believers, as though they were a special sub-category of child..


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> Rev. Winzer, is it _infant_ inclusion, or the inclusion of _children_ in general that you believe is moral? I've always wondered why the stress is always on the _infants_ of believers, as though they were a special sub-category of child..



Infants are excluded by antipaedobaptists from the membership of the covenant. This makes it necessary for paedobaptists to vindicate their place in particular.


----------



## Peairtach

*Herb*


> Thanks for your comment, Richard. I agree with you with respect to the Abrahamic covenant is still in existence. However, when you say apparently now the children of those who profess Christ are not included – do you believe that, or is it what you are attributing to Baptists?



I'm a Presbyterian.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> Infants are excluded by antipaedobaptists from the membership of the covenant. This makes it necessary for paedobaptists to vindicate their place in particular.


 but the paedobaptist confessions predate the baptist ones, to my knowledge. And yet, infants are given the spotlight in the question of those who are worthy recipients of baptism.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> but the paedobaptist confessions predate the baptist ones,



But they don't predate the anabaptists and challenges to the teaching of scripture.


----------



## steadfast7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the paedobaptist confessions predate the baptist ones,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't predate the anabaptists and challenges to the teaching of scripture.
Click to expand...


interesting. So were the pro paedobaptism clauses inserted in response/reaction to the antipaedobaptists, or was there positive exegetical reasons?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> but the paedobaptist confessions predate the baptist ones,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they don't predate the anabaptists and challenges to the teaching of scripture.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> interesting. So were the pro paedobaptism clauses inserted in response/reaction to the antipaedobaptists, or was there positive exegetical reasons?
Click to expand...

I wouldn't truly know that off the top of my head Dennis. I do know that this issue was something that was being dealt with as the Baptist Confession of 1644 and 46 do predate the Westminster of 1647. So as far as I can tell your previous statement might be a bit out of kilter. The Westminster is predated by the Baptist Confessions of 1644 and its revision of 46. I personally am not as knowledgable on the Confessions before the Baptist Confessions of Faith and the Westminster. Do you know if the other Reformed Confessions define who the recipients of Baptism are to be. I am not familiar with the 3 forms of Unity. I have read them but have not studied them to the point where I can point to chapter and verse, so to speak. 

So the issue was very prevalent and on the map in my understanding That is why the 1644 and revision of 46 were done. The Baptist Confessions were written to show their orthodox positions as they were being misunderstood and mischaracterized as Anabaptists. And they do predate the Westminster.

I do know that it was considered a serious sin to not apply the Covenant sign and seal in the Old Testament. So I imagine it would most likely just be an outworking of sacramental theology more so than a reaction to Baptists. The sign and seal of the Old Covenant were very significant and so its application and to whom it was to be applied would be very important in the New. I would imagine it wasn't as much of a reaction to Baptist Theology as it was in defining correct sacramental theology.

To illustrate what I am saying, I believe John Tombe presented his case to John Owen concerning who the recipients of baptism should be. From what I understand Owen didn't give it much consideration or try to make a posture against him. John Owen just studied theology and how it worked out. He was friendly with Baptists and was an admirer of John Bunyan. He wasn't reactionary to Baptists. He just set out his position as the scriptures seemed declare. But other people more knowledgeable than I can probably weigh in if I am incorrect.


----------

