# Is Christ the Head of the Covenant of Grace?



## discipulo (Apr 10, 2009)

_Is Christ the Head of the Covenant of Grace?_

This a Chapter Title ipsis verbis in Van Genderen and Velema’s Concise Reformed Dogmatics page 555

These authors see some problems arising from stating Christ as the Head of the Covenant of Grace, namely a too close identity between Election and Covenant, so between those who are In Christ and those who are in the Covenant.

Only the Covenant of Redemption relates and applies perfectly to Election.

So Christ being _the Mediator, the Head of all those chosen _Canons of Dordt 1:7, must be considered the Mediator of the Covenant but the Head of only the Elect.

This, according to the authors, is being both Confessionally and Theologically correct.

But as in Romans 5 Adam is not only the Head of the human race, but also the Federal Head of the Covenant of Works that was, and continues to be trespassed by all who are in Adam as covenant breakers - Hosea 6:7. 

Is not Christ then, revealed in Romans 5, because of God's gracious condescension, as the Head of the Covenant of Grace?

How did the Westminster Assembly understood this matter?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 10, 2009)

In the Westminster Standards, no reference is made to Christ as Head unless it respects "church (8:1; 25:6; 30:1; LC52), "elect" (25:1; LC64, cf. LC83; LC66), "saints" (26:1); and "the just" (LC87). LC53 makes reference to "our" head, which is a faith-reference, i.e. to those who believe the Christian doctrine.

One other relevant statement I can think of is _Question 31:_ With whom was the covenant of grace made?
_Answer:_ The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

The language of the Confession speaks here in respect to the CoR (not named, but see the _Sum of Saving Knowledge_), in which believers have an interest through the CoG. The CoR considered in itself is a purely divine pact. The earthly expression, relating to the elect, is that CoG. We apprehend the CoR viewed "heavenward" through the Person of Christ and our covenant with him (CoG), hence it is said to be Christ here as one party along with the Father.

We speak of the administration of covenant as having two sides, substance and external. So, outward claimants on Christ's headship are indistinguishable from one another, in the absence of discipline (also an imperfect exercise). But he is only properly the Head of those who are substantive members of the covenant.


----------



## Peairtach (Apr 20, 2009)

In a similar manner Christ is the head of the church visible as well as the church invisible. This does not mean that all members of the church visible have a life-giving relationship with Christ, but many are in a legal relationship and enjoy common grace benefits.

The analogy of the vine and the branches in John's Gospel also comes to mind. Some/many of the branches are in the vine, but not drinking of the sap and producing fruit.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 20, 2009)

This is one of those questions that shows what some of us see as an inconsistency ,or defect in the understanding an explanation of the covenant.
Who are the members of it and who are not. 
Also the twisting around of the language of the CoR / CoG illustrates the problem.
Sometimes covenant theologians express the truth of those savingly united to Christ as being members in both Covenants.
But then they feel the pressure to jump back and forth in an effort to give account of those who ultimately perish as having been in a non saving version of the covenant? In another thread the suggestion is made that there is no difference in the ministry of the Holy Spirit now/indwelling and sealing, then in the OC .? ?
While both groups must give account of those who fall away, you have to be honest and admit to the difficulty of dealing with language that seems to say that both things are true at the same time.
People cannot be saved and lost at the same time.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 20, 2009)

Anthony,
Who is your argument with? I find your post a little incoherent, and not dealing with any actual statements by anyone or in any creed.

How hard is it to understand the difference between being a member in a *real *sense, and being a member in only a *superficial *sense?

Don't you have essentially the same issues to deal with, despite the fact that as a baptist you deny a current "visible administration" of the Covenant of Grace? You have people in your fellowships that first give indications they are saved, and are received as such. And later you discipline them. Were you being "inconsistent" in treating them as though Christ were their head before they were disfellowshipped?

If this is an "inconsistency," it is ancient, since it goes back to Abraham's day. We have to talk about spiritual realities while we're dealing with flesh and blood people, in this world, before the eschaton.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 21, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Anthony,
> Who is your argument with? I find your post a little incoherent, and not dealing with any actual statements by anyone or in any creed.
> 
> How hard is it to understand the difference between being a member in a *real *sense, and being a member in only a *superficial *sense?
> ...



Bruce,
Yes we do have the same people to deal with as I alluded to in my post when I said this;


> While both groups must give account of those who fall away, you have to be honest and admit to the difficulty of dealing with language that seems to say that both things are true at the same time


 In your first post you said this:


> One other relevant statement I can think of is Question 31: With whom was the covenant of grace made?
> Answer: The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.


 This is a very clear statement. This is an accurate statement.
But in going on in your defence of this position you give the same explanation that is offered up ; you then say the following-


> The language of the Confession speaks here in respect to the CoR (not named, but


 The answer said the covenant of grace,not the covenant of redemption. I understand that some see a large distinction here as you then go on to allude to when you explain;


> in which believers have an interest through the CoG. The CoR considered in itself is a purely divine pact. The earthly expression, relating to the elect, is that CoG.


 Again this statement as it stands is a good statement-* in which believer's* have an interest through the covenant of grace.

The covenant of Redemption*considered in itself is a purely divine pact.*
Yes it is, nevertheless it is the elect only who are given to the Son by the Father. This number of people and the people themselves are eternally fixed and secure.
But if you allow the answer to question 31 to stand as it is written it would properly reflect this reality. Because you believe that the NC is breakable, you cannot allow for the answer to stand as it is but have to make a division between the CoR/ CoG allowing for unsaved individuals to be in some way included in the NC.language. Then all of the apostasy verses can fit in very nicely,and all of the teaching about the children of believers can be worked in using the language of outward administration. I get it. I see how this system gives an answer for all the poeple groups- the elect,children , apostates,heathen.
It gets back to some fundemental issues. Unbelieving Israelites failed to enter in,and in fact were unable to enter in by , unbelief,seeking by their own works , lacking faith,etc. Only the elect remnant attained. 
The NC provides a remedy for this in that it begins with an internal work of the Spirit, not with an external sign pointing to that internal work as in the OC. You see Romans 6 , and Col,2 speaking of water baptism pointing to Spirit baptism. If you see Rom6 and Col2 as Spirit baptism being spoken of followed by water baptism it becomes very clear and not incoherent.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 21, 2009)

Gotta luv ya, Anthony. And that's a fairly smooth synopsis of the two divergent views, though I might quibble here or there with your terms. Nicely done.

Of course I only think the NC is "breakable" in the same basic sense that the OC was "breakable," namely by those who only had access to the external administration. No one who has ever been in full covenant with God through Christ (OT or NT) has ever been in danger of finally "breaking" free of the love of God.

On your team, some posit 2 covenants with Abraham--one temporal and one eternal--entirely distinct from one another! Now who's being confusing?


----------



## MW (Apr 21, 2009)

discipulo said:


> How did the Westminster Assembly understood this matter?



According to the Larger Catechism, Christ is the Head of the covenant of grace as it was compacted from eternity (answer 31), and the Mediator of the covenant as it is administered in time (answers 32-36). This second, temporal aspect should suffice to alleviate any fears the authors might have that the Westminster view conflates election and covenant. And, if I might add a recommendation of the position, it serves to unite election and covenant in a way that the three covenant model sometimes fail to achieve because of the sharp dichotomy that is made between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace.


----------



## Iconoclast (Apr 22, 2009)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Gotta luv ya, Anthony. And that's a fairly smooth synopsis of the two divergent views, though I might quibble here or there with your terms. Nicely done.
> 
> Of course I only think the NC is "breakable" in the same basic sense that the OC was "breakable," namely by those who only had access to the external administration. No one who has ever been in full covenant with God through Christ (OT or NT) has ever been in danger of finally "breaking" free of the love of God.
> 
> On your team, some posit 2 covenants with Abraham--one temporal and one eternal--entirely distinct from one another! Now who's being confusing?



Bruce,
Thank you for your response. Sometimes my posts are not as clear as I would like them to be. In part I attribute it to the fact that I get to listen to many sermons on this topic [ I have even listened to a couple of your sermons on covenants]. Lately I have found some of the sermons by David Silversides helpful also.
On Genesis 17 Pastor Silversides clearly states that the promises are only found IN Christ. This allows me to calm down to some extent in that I am confident that there is substantial agreement on many aspects of this doctrine.
Sometimes however as I listen to the sermons from the padeo brethren I still hear things that just seem to miss a solid scriptural base that I am looking for.
I carry some of those thoughts with me when I read some PB threads. So when I post, sometime I am more reacting to a few of the sermons I have just recently listend to in part ,rather than the OP. 
I will work on this and try to give more of a reference to my questions and comments.


----------

