# Covenant of Redemption



## Smeagol (Oct 15, 2019)

Good Evening,

A follow-up from an old post of mine here:
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/covenant-of-grace.95926/page-2#post-1172462

Trying to dig back down into my understanding of CT, specifically relating to how many distinct covenants do we see in scripture (2 or 3). This short article summarizes my current understanding and how CT was first presented to me:

https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/worksgraceredmpt.html

Any help, have I erred?

Does the article describe the Bi-covenantal or Tri-covenantal view?


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 15, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Any help, have I erred?


Yes 


Grant Jones said:


> Good Evening,


Did you not check the clock. It is afternoon not evening  My computer says 2.50 pm Wed 16 Oct. My laptop has covenanted to tell me the correct time


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 15, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes
> 
> Did you not check the clock. It is afternoon not evening  My computer says 2.50 pm Wed 16 Oct. My laptop has covenanted to tell me the correct time


Really trying to hold back my Sméagol meme!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 15, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Really trying to hold back my Sméagol meme


I will be serious now  I have to rush to a training course so will be brief. Carl Bogue's book on Jonathan Edward's covenant theology is very helpful on the relationship between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. Here is a helpful summary of his thesis
https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/jonathan-edwards-on-the-covenant-of-grace/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 15, 2019)

Currently working through Brakel. I think A’ Brakel saw 3 distinct covenants.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 15, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I will be serious now  I have to rush to a training course so will be brief. Carl Bogue's book on Jonathan Edward's covenant theology is very helpful on the relationship between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. Here is a helpful summary of his thesis
> https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/jonathan-edwards-on-the-covenant-of-grace/


Did you agree or disagree with the linked monergism article?


----------



## JennyGeddes (Oct 16, 2019)

Can girls vote on this poll? 



Because I did.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 16, 2019)

I hold that there are only two covenants: the covenant of works and the covenant of grace. My main issue with the three covenant model is not so much the three covenants per se, though I am not convinced that there are adequate biblical grounds for three distinct covenants, but the potential for the difference between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace to be exploited in order to accommodate the view that the non-elect are properly in the covenant of grace.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Oct 16, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I will be serious now  I have to rush to a training course so will be brief. Carl Bogue's book on Jonathan Edward's covenant theology is very helpful on the relationship between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. Here is a helpful summary of his thesis
> https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/jonathan-edwards-on-the-covenant-of-grace/


This is hard, as we seem to have Covenant of Works before Fall, one of Old and New, and the New one is really New, as the CoG is NC, but also Grace and Law in OC both operating.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 16, 2019)

Sharing for information purposes only. This might be a helpful (1 hr. ) intro video to the topic at hand. It was once shared with me by a fellow PBer






I also found the video very edifying. Though I do not conclude the same way.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

-From John Brown of Haddington's _Questions and Answers_:

Q. By what means doth God deliver the elect?
A. By the covenant of grace, Zech. 9:11

Q. Might not the broken covenant of works have been renewed?
A. No; it was a covenant of friendship, and could never reconcile enemies.

Q. How is the covenant by which sinful men are delivered, called?
A. The covenant of grace, of promise, peace, of reconciliation, or redemption, and the second or new covenant.

Q. Why is it called the _covenant of grace_?
A. Because free grace moved God to make it; and all the blessings theoreof are freely bestowed upon unworthy sinners.

Q. How is God's free grace manifested in this covenant?
A. Im his freely providing and furnishing his own Son to be our Mediator, accepting his righteousness in our stead, and sending the Spirit to apply his purchase to us.

Q. Why is it called a _covenant of promise_?
A. Because it is dispensed to us in free promises.

Q. Why is it called a _covenant of peace_?
A. Because it brings about peace and reconciliation between God and rebellious sinners, 2 Cor. 5:19

Q. Why is it called a _covenant of redemption_?
A. Because thereby lost and enslaved sinners are brought back, and delivered from their bondage, Zech. 9:11

*Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal. 4:24, 30.

Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psalm 110:3
*
Q. Why is the covenant of grace called the _second _and _new _covenant?
A. Because, though it was first made, it was last executed, and is everlasting, 2 Sam. 23:5

Q. How many things are in general considered with respect to the covenant of grace?
A. Two; the making, and the administration of it.

*Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
A. Yes, Psalm 89:3

Q. Is the administration of it, which some call the covenant of grace, made with believers?
A. Yes.
*
Q. Why was the covenant of grace made from all eternity?
A. Because of God's eternal and infinite love to elect sinners, Jer. 31:3, 1 John 4:9, 10, 16, 19

Q. Who are the parties in the covenant of grace?
A. God and Christ, Psalm 89:3, Zech. 6:13

Q. Whether did God, essentially considered, or the person of the Father, make this covenant with Christ?
A. God essentially considered in the person of the Father.

Q. How prove you that the covenant of grace was made with Christ?
A. The scripture affirms it; and he is called the covenant himself, Psalm 89:3, Isaiah 42:6

*Q. What is the condition of the covenant of grace?
A. Christ's Surety-righteousness, Dan. 9:24, Rom. 5:19

Q. How prove you that Christ fulfilled the whole condition of the covenant of grace?
A. He was holy, harmless; became obedient unto death; and gave himself to be a sacrifice of a sweet-smelling savour unto God.

Q. How do you prove Christ's righteousness to be the only proper condition of the covenant of grace?
A. Because it is the only pleadable ground of the believer's title to eternal life, Rom. 5:21 and 6:23

Q. Is not faith the proper condition of this covenant?
A. No; for it can no way answer the demands of the broken law; and it is a blessing promised in the covenant of grace, Gal. 3:17, Phil. 1:29

Q. Were then these godly divines in an error, who called faith the condition of the covenant of grace?
A. No; for they only meant, that it was the instrument by which we are personally interested in that covenant, and receive the blessings of it, Acts 16:310*
(Taken from _Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism_, John Brown of Haddington, Reformation Heritage Books, 2006, PB, pp.87-98)

-From _Fisher's Catechism_:

Q. 50. Is what is called by some divines, the covenant of redemption, a distinct covenant from the covenant of grace?
A. Although Christ alone engaged from eternity to pay the price of our redemption, on which account the covenant is wholly of free grace to us; yet there is no warrant from scripture, to suppose a covenant of redemption distinct from the covenant of grace.

Q. 51. How many covenants are there for life and happiness to man in scripture reckoning?
A. They are but two in number: of which the covenant of works is one, and consequently the covenant of grace must be the other.

Q. 52. How do you prove from scripture, that there are only two covenants, of which the covenant of works is one?
A. From Gal. 4:24, where it is said -- "These are the two covenants, the one from mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage."

Q. 53. How does it appear that the one from Mount Sinai, which gendereth to bondage, is the covenant of works?
A. Because the generating of bond children, excluded from the inheritance, Gal. 4:30, is a distinguishing character of the covenant of works, which cannot agree to the covenant of grace under any dispensation of it.

Q. 54. Was then the covenant at Mount Sinai a covenant of works?
A. The covenant of works was only repeated at Mount Sinai, together with the covenant of grace; to show to all Israel, that the clearing of both the principal and penalty of the covenant of works was laid on Christ, as the condition of the covenant of grace.

Q. 55. Does the scripture make mention of the blood of any more than one covenant?
A. The scripture makes mention of the blood of the Covenant, in the singular number four several times, namely, Ex. 24:8; Zech. 9:1; Heb. 10:29 and 13:20; but nowhere speaks of the blood of the covenants, in the plural number.

Q. 56. What is the native consequence of the scripture's mentioning the blood of the covenant, in the singular number, and not the blood of the covenants in the plural number?
A. The consequence is, that the covenant, the blood of which the scripture mentions, and upon which our salvation depends, is but ONE covenant, and not TWO.

Q. 57. What is the received doctrine in our standards upon this head?

A. Our standards make no distinction between a covenant of redemption, and a covenant of grace.

Q. 58. Is the covenant of grace conditional, or absolutely free?

A. It was strictly conditional to the Surety, Isa. 49:3, but is absolutely free to the sinner, Jer. 31:33,34.

Q. 59. What is the proper condition of the covenant of grace?

A. It is Christ, as representative and surety, his fulfilling all righteousness, owing to God by his spiritual seed, in virtue of the broken covenant of works, Matt. 3:15.

(Taken from _Fisher's Catechism_, Q. 20 of the Shorter Catechism, https://reformed.org/documents/fish...reformed.org/documents/fisher/index_fish.html )

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 16, 2019)

alexandermsmith said:


> Q. How do you prove Christ's righteousness to be the only proper condition of the covenant of grace?
> A. Because it is the only pleadable ground of the believer's title to eternal life, Rom. 5:21 and 6:23
> 
> Q. Is not faith the proper condition of this covenant?
> ...



The inability to distinguish between "condition" in a proper sense and in an improper sense causes so much confusion. This explanation from John Brown of Haddington helpfully solves the conundrum.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## NaphtaliPress (Oct 16, 2019)

I know the history of the Sum of Saving Knowledge by David Dickson and James Durham (which is an unofficial traditional part of the Scottish Westminster Standards as far as the publishing of them, first appended in 1650, not long after its drafting), but what is the history of the covenant of redemption prior to that in theologians? Below, the Sum:
"... 2. The remedy provided in Jesus Christ for the elect by the covenant of Grace.

"O Israel, thou hast destroyed thyself; but in me is thine help." Hos 13.9

2a) Albeit man, having brought himself into this woeful condition, is neither able to help himself, nor willing to be helped by God out of it, but rather inclined to lie still, insensible of it, till he perish; yet God, for the glory of his rich grace, has revealed in his word a way to save sinners, that is, by faith in Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God, by virtue of, and according to the tenor of the covenant of redemption, made and agreed upon between God the Father and God the Son, in council of the Trinity, before the world began.

2b) The sum of the covenant of redemption is this: God having freely chosen to life a certain number of lost mankind, for the glory of his rich grace, did give them, before the world began, to God the Son, appointed Redeemer, that, upon condition he would humble himself so far as to assume the human nature, of a soul and a body, to personal union with his divine nature, and submit himself to the law, as surety for them, and satisfy justice for them, by giving obedience in their name, even to the suffering of the cursed death of the cross, he should ransom and redeem them all from sin and death, and purchase to them righteousness and eternal life, with all saving graces leading there to, to be effectually, by means of his own appointment, applied in due time to every one of them. This condition the Son of God (who is Jesus Christ our Lord) did accept before the world began, and in the fulness of time came into the world, was born of the Virgin Mary, subjected himself to the law, and completely paid the ransom on the cross: But by virtue of the foresaid bargain, made before the world began, he is in all ages, since the fall of Adam, still upon the work of applying actually the purchased benefits of the elect; and that he does by way of entertaining a covenant of free grace and reconciliation with them, through faith in himself; by which covenant, he makes over to every believer a right and interest to himself, and to all his blessings.

2c) For the accomplishment of this covenant of redemption, and making the elect partakers of the benefits of it in the covenant of grace, Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold office of Prophet, Priest, and King: made a Prophet, to reveal all saving knowledge to his people, and persuade them to believe and obey the same; made a Priest, to offer up himself a sacrifice once for them all, and to intercede continually with the Father, for making their persons and services acceptable to him; and made a King, to subdue them to himself, to feed and rule them by his own appointed ordinances, and to defend them from their enemies.

3. The outward means appointed to make the elect partakers of this covenant, and all the rest that are called, to be inexcusable.

"Many are called." Matt. 22.14

3a) The outward means and ordinances, for making men partakers of the covenant of grace, are so wisely dispensed, as that the elect shall be infallibly converted and saved by them; and the reprobate, among whom they are, not to be justly damned: The means are especially these four:

3a1) The word of God 3a2) The ordinances 3a3) Church 3a4) Prayer

In the word of God preached by sent messengers, the Lord makes offer of grace to all sinners, upon condition of faith in Jesus Christ; and whoever does confess their sin, accept Christ's offering, and submit themselves to his ordinances, he will have them received into the honour and privileges of the covenant of grace. By the ordinances, God will have the covenant sealed for confirming the bargain on the foresaid condition. By the Church, he will have them hedged in, and helped forward to the keeping of the covenant. And by prayer, he will have his own glorious grace, promised in the covenant, to be daily drawn forth, acknowledged, and employed. All these means are followed either really, or in profession only, according to the quality of the covenanters, as they are true or counterfeit believers.

3b) The covenant of grace, set down in the Old Testament before Christ came, and in the New since he came, is one and the same in substance, albeit different in outward administration: For the covenant in the Old Testament, being sealed with the ordinances of circumcision and the paschal lamb, did set forth Christ's death to come, and the benefits purchased by it, under the shadow of bloody sacrifices, and various ceremonies: but since Christ came, the covenant being sealed by the ordinances of baptism and the Lord's supper, does clearly hold forth Christ already crucified before our eyes, victorious over death and the grave, and gloriously ruling heaven and earth, for the good of his own people. 4. The blessings which are effectually conveyed by these means to the Lord's elect, or chosen ones.

"Many are called, but few are chosen." Matt 12.14.

4a) By those outward ordinances, as our Lord makes the reprobate inexcusable, so, by the power of his Spirit, he applies to the elect, effectually, all saving graces purchased to them in the covenant of redemption, and makes a change in their persons. In particular," etc. https://reformed.org/documents/sum/sum1.html​

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## kodos (Oct 16, 2019)

Chris (@NaphtaliPress) beat me to posting the _Sum of Saving Knowledge_.


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

I remember reading somewhere that the puritans would talk of three covenants, making the covenant of redemption a distinct covenant. You'll find this in Vincent's exposition of the Shorter Catechism, for example. Later generations (such as the Scottish divines of the 18th century like Brown and Fisher) tended to reject that three-covenant distinction in favour of just two covenants. The reason given was that in the 17th Century antinomianism was a more immediate threat to the church and the three-covenant view allowed for a condition on our part to be included in the scheme (i.e. faith). In the 18th Century legalism was a more immediate threat and so the emphasis on a condition met by us was seen as problematic.

I can easily follow that overview but I do think, theologically and biblically, the later view (two covenants) is also the correct understanding. Making the covenant of redemption a distinct covenant does not seem to fit with Scripture's description of the covenants by which God deals with Man.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 16, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Making the covenant of redemption a distinct covenant does not seem to fit with Scripture's description of the covenantsby which God deals with Man.



Don't we trinitarians need everything in 3's?

BTW the video above actually follows the historical outline you give.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## alexandermsmith (Oct 16, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Don't we trinitarians need everything in 3's?
> 
> BTW the video above actually follows the historical outline you give.



Just to clarify: I think the historical overview makes sense. But I also think it's theologically correct to hold to the two-covenant view. Just in case it seemed like I wasn't in agreement with that historical explanation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chad Hutson (Oct 16, 2019)

Whether we call it the Covenant of Redemption or Eternal Counsel of Redemption matters little to me, as long as we recognize that what happens in history was decreed in eternity. In a sea of dispensationalists, I am pleased any time I can have someone agree with me that salvation is an eternal matter (past and future). Or even that the church of Christ didn't come about as a result of God's knee-jerk reaction against the Jews' rejection of Christ as Messiah!
For me, Isaiah 53:10-12 seems to use covenant language to describe Christ's atoning death, although I am not dogmatic about it.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 16, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Did you agree or disagree with the linked monergism article?


I agreed with it. I especially appreciated how he brought in the work of the Spirit in the Covenant of Redemption. Some have emphasised the work of the Father and Son, but we must remember the Spirit plays an important role too. That Jonathan Edwards article I mentioned was also helpful here too.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 17, 2019)

I recommend reading through Matthew Winzer's contributions to this thread for a defence to the two-covenant model.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 19, 2019)

Through my own private study, I came to embrace the two-covenant model. Recently, however, it has come to my attention that many of the men for whom I have the highest regard embrace the three-covenant model, and some of them have challenged me directly on this subject. This has caused me to reevaluate my understanding.

Currently, I'm happy to suspend my judgment until I've studied the three-covenant view more fully. The two-covenant view still seems most plausible to me, but I'm open-minded.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## timfost (Oct 19, 2019)

TylerRay said:


> Through my own private study, I came to embrace the two-covenant model. Recently, however, it has come to my attention that many of the men for whom I have the highest regard embrace the three-covenant model, and some of them have challenged me directly on this subject. This has caused me to reevaluate my understanding.
> 
> Currently, I'm happy to suspend my judgment until I've studied the three-covenant view more fully. The two-covenant view still seems most plausible to me, but I'm open-minded.



Have you come across Rutherford's _A TREATISE Of the COVENANT OF GRACE? _He argues fairly extensively for the CoR. I've not read the whole thing yet, though I'm hoping to.

Charles Hodge also makes some compelling arguments for it in his ST.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Oct 19, 2019)

I believe O Palmer Robertson supports the three covenant view, but at the same time he defines a Covenant as "a bond in Blood sovereignly administered". How can the Covenant of Redemption be considered a covenant by this definition? Surely, the moment that the blood for the covenant was shed it became the covenant of Grace...

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 19, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> I believe O Palmer Robertson supports the three covenant view, but at the same time he defines a Covenant as "a bond in Blood sovereignly administered".



I do not have his book _The Christ of the Covenants_ immediately to hand, but does he not question the covenant of works in that book? The CoW would appear to be incongruous with his definition of a covenant (unless I am missing something).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Oct 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I do not have his book _The Christ of the Covenants_ immediately to hand, but does he not question the covenant of works in that book? The CoW would appear to be incongruous with his definition of a covenant (unless I am missing something).



It has been quite some time since I read it. I'm nearly certain that he supports the three covenant model. But I have a friend on FB that suggests that the reason for creating a woman from Adam's rib was to have blood for the covenant.

Reactions: Rejoicing 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 19, 2019)

RJ Spencer said:


> But I have a friend on FB that suggests that the reason for creating a woman from Adam's rib was to have blood for the covenant.



Is his name James Jordan?


----------



## RJ Spencer (Oct 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> Is his name James Jordan?



Is that an FV position? 
I would like to possibly start a new thread on Federal Vision. It doesn't seem like it's been brought up here in a while. Maybe cover Norman Shepherd a little too.


----------



## Goodcheer68 (Oct 19, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> I do not have his book _The Christ of the Covenants_ immediately to hand, but does he not question the covenant of works in that book? The CoW would appear to be incongruous with his definition of a covenant (unless I am missing something).


 He calls the COW the Covenant of Creation.

"By the very act of creating man in his own likeness and image, God established a unique relationship between himself and creation. In addition to this sovereign creation-act, God spoke to man, thus determining precisely the role of man in creation. Through this creating/speaking relationship, God established sovereignly a life-and-death bond. This original bond between God and man may be called the covenant of creation."

Robertson, O. Palmer. The Christ of the Covenants (p. 76). P&R Publishing. Kindle Edition.

Reactions: Informative 2


----------



## TylerRay (Oct 19, 2019)

timfost said:


> Have you come across Rutherford's _A TREATISE Of the COVENANT OF GRACE? _He argues fairly extensively for the CoR. I've not read the whole thing yet, though I'm hoping to.
> 
> Charles Hodge also makes some compelling arguments for it in his ST.


I have a PDF of the Rutherford work. I haven't read it yet, but it's definitely a priority.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Oct 19, 2019)

The Puritan divine, Thomas Ridgeley, has a lengthy section titled, "Distinctions as to the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace" in his Body of Divinity. I would be happy to share it if any are interested. Spoiler:_ "Yet I would rather choose to call them two great branches of the same covenant; one of which respects what Christ was to do and suffer, and the glory which he was to be afterwards possessed of; and the other, of which more immediately, respects that salvation which was to be treasured up in him, and applied by him to his elect. I cannot but think, therefore, that what is contained in this Answer, that the covenant of grace was made with Christ as the Head, and, in him, with the elect as his seed, is a very unexceptionable explanation of this doctrine."_

Ridgley, T. (1855). A Body of Divinity (Vol. 1, p. 448). New York: Robert Carter & Brothers.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Sharing for information purposes only. This might be a helpful (1 hr. ) intro video to the topic at hand. It was once shared with me by a fellow PBer
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Thanks for sharing that. Dr. Myers and I worship in the same congregation. He is a brilliant scholar and one of the most humble men you could meet.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Thanks for sharing that. Dr. Myers and I worship in the same congregation. He is a brilliant scholar and one of the most humble men you could meet.


Indeed. I love hearing someone lay out two different orthodox positions with respect and fairness to both sides, even while sharing how he himself concludes.


----------



## Regi Addictissimus (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Indeed. I love hearing someone lay out two different orthodox positions with respect and fairness to both sides, even while sharing how he himself concludes.



I have yet to watch it and probably won't have time to get to it this weekend. What is his conclusion, and what about it do you disagree?


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I have yet to watch it and probably won't have time to get to it in the foreseeable future. What is his conclusion, and what about it do you disagree?


Assuming I hear him rightly, he lands with Boston for the Bi-Covenantal view.

However, I think he also feels Tri-Covenantalism gained the majority early on because Scottish Federalism was still being developed with more clarity. Hence the Tri-Covenantal view is usually referred to as “Scottish Federalism”.

He calls the Bi-covenantal view (again think Boston) to be within Scottish covenant theology but describes it as “Evangelical Federalism”. He also said that O. Palmer Robertson held to a version of Bi-Covenantalism that was not in line with the form of Bi-Covenantalism Boston and other 18th century reformers argued for.

I am not scholarly enough to lay out my disagreement with a Professor of his caliber. I will just say that when I hear/read both positions explained along with the scriptures, the Tri-Covenantal view makes better sense to me.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> the Tri-Covenantal view makes better sense to me


Have you read Vos' classic essay on this? It is one of the best overall essays I have read on covenant theology. He argues for the Tri Covenantal view.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Have you read Vos' classic essay on this? It is one of the best overall essays I have read on covenant theology. He argues for the Tri Covenantal view.


I have not, but I don’t need convincing as I already hold the right view (Tri-Covenantalism)


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I have not, but I don’t need convincing as I already hold the right view (Tri-Covenantalism)


Read Vos' essay. It is excellent


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 19, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Read Vos' essay. It is excellent


Reading now. When are you gonna become one of those pesky Presbyterian Household Baptizers you keep reading and referencing to others?

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> When are you gonna become one of those pesky Presbyterian Household Baptizers you keep reading and referencing to others?


What makes you think I am not?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Oct 19, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Assuming I hear him rightly, he lands with Boston for the Bi-Covenantal view.
> 
> However, I think he also feels Tri-Covenantalism gained the majority early on because Scottish Federalism was still being developed with more clarity. Hence the Tri-Covenantal view is usually referred to as “Scottish Federalism”.
> 
> ...



I stand corrected, I was so sure that Robertson held to the three covenant view. Now I've got to go through my library to figure out who I had him confused with.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RJ Spencer (Oct 20, 2019)

I came into this thread so certain that the three model was correct, I voted that way in the poll. After reading through the comments my position has gone a full 180. I no longer consider the covenant of Redemption to be a covenant, although I do agree with one comment made here about the need to stress the fact that God has chosen His elect from before the foundation of the world. I'm grateful for the Puritan Board for helping me to refine my theological beliefs. Back in my cage stage days I never would've been able to admit when I was wrong, but being in fellowship with so many wiser folks has a way of removing the cage.


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 20, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> What makes you think I am not?


I was able to finish up reading the Vos essay today. I found the essay very helpful and most edifying, even though I prefer doing longer reads on actual paper. I would like to share two quotes below that I found most encouraging. I still consider my self relatively new to the entire concept of Covenant Theology ( 3 years in). Vos did a incredible job of reminding me that I often underestimate the system in seeing how it truly impacts all areas of our faith. Stephen...thank you for sharing it.

From Vos (https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/sdg/vos_covenant.html):



> According to the Lutheran, the Holy Spirit first generates faith in the sinner who temporarily still remains outside of union with Christ; then justification follows faith and only then, in turn, does the mystical union with the Mediator take place. Everything depends on this justification, which is losable, so that the believer only gets to see a little of the glory of grace and lives for the day, so to speak. The covenantal outlook is the reverse. One is first united to Christ, the Mediator of the covenant, by a mystical union, which finds its conscious recognition in faith. By this union with Christ all that is in Christ is simultaneously given. Faith embraces all this too; it not only grasps the instantaneous justification, but lays hold of Christ as Prophet, Priest, and King, as his rich and full Messiah. The deepest reason for this difference in view is none other than the fact that the reception of the full glory of the work of God's grace in the consciousness of faith is the most important thing to the Reformed believer. Therefore faith may not be confined within the limited circle of one piece of the truth and its gaze fixed on that all the time; it must have in view, freely and broadly, the whole plan of salvation. The Lutheran lives as a child who enjoys his father's smile for the moment; the Reformed believer lives as a man, in whose consciousness the eternal glory of God throws its radiance.





> That faith must also live in the church in regard to its continuation in the generations to follow. It must not be like the desert, which does not respond when blessings come upon it; rather, it must be as a watered garden, whose flowers seek the face of the sun and whose leaves unfold to catch the drops of God's rain of grace. It is evident how strongly the idea of the covenant makes itself felt here, and how it elevates itself above all idolatrous worship of the sacraments.



I hope others will find the quotes edifying on this most pleasant Lord's Day.

P.S. Stephen, have you now embraced the biblical validity of infant baptism? Your profile still shows you subscribing to the London Baptist confession. All cats aside, show yourself!


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 20, 2019)

On the subject of Jonathan Edwards, I recall when reading his _A History of the Work of Redemption_ thinking that he had essentially defined the CoR and the CoG as the same thing. 

So, far this post is the only one on my blog on this topic from that book, but it does not fully establish the case that I am making. I will have to dig out my hard copy of the book and check my notes (the problem with having multiple rows of books on shelves is that you rarely have anything to hand).


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 20, 2019)

Reformed Covenanter said:


> On the subject of Jonathan Edwards, I recall when reading his _A History of the Work of Redemption_ thinking that he had essentially defined the CoR and the CoG as the same thing.


Did you see my earlier post and link on this forum?


Stephen L Smith said:


> Carl Bogue's book on Jonathan Edward's covenant theology is very helpful on the relationship between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption. Here is a helpful summary of his thesis
> https://www.ligonier.org/learn/articles/jonathan-edwards-on-the-covenant-of-grace/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Oct 20, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> Did you see my earlier post and link on this forum?



Thanks; I will give it a read.


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 20, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> Vos did a incredible job of reminding me that I often underestimate the system in seeing how it truly impacts all areas of our faith.


Glad you enjoyed it brother. Vos is great. You might like to compare it with that Bogue link I gave on Edwards covenant theology. 


Grant Jones said:


> Stephen, have you now embraced the biblical validity of infant baptism? Your profile still shows you subscribing to the London Baptist confession.


I am still thinking through the issue. It is a struggle as there are a number of variables to the discussion. What is interesting though is that ch 7 of the 1689 Baptist clearly articulates the three covenant model.


Grant Jones said:


> All cats aside


My cat is sitting on my lap as I type this


----------



## Smeagol (Oct 20, 2019)

Stephen L Smith said:


> I am still thinking through the issue. It is a struggle as there are a number of variables to the discussion. What is interesting though is that ch 7 of the 1689 Baptist clearly articulates the three covenant model.


Indeed. I was reminded today that you and I had a similar encounter over 1 year ago! Time flys. I think your current subscription has expired
https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/covenant-of-grace.95926/page-6#post-1172771


----------



## Stephen L Smith (Oct 22, 2019)

Grant Jones said:


> I think your current subscription has expired


Expired? I have it on the automatic renewal option


----------

