# Covenant Theology; defined



## Robin (Apr 20, 2005)

Here is the Reformed position on Covenant:

1.The God of the Bible relates to his creatures covenantally from eternity (pactum salutis), in creation (covenant of works), in providence (covenant of preservation) and in redemption (covenant of grace). 

2.Hosea 6.7 ("like Adam") confirms the consciousness of the Biblical authors of a prelapsarian covenant of works. 

3.The Apostle Paul presupposes the existence of a prelapsarian covenant of works in passages such as Romans 2.13 and 4.4). 

4.The excommunication from the Tree of Life (Genesis 3.22-24) confirms the probationary nature of the covenant of works. 

5.There were multiple signs and seals of the covenant of works including the creational sabbath, the tree of the knowledge of good and evil and the tree of life. 

6.The first Gospel promise in Genesis 3.15 announces the covenant of grace, i.e. redemption of the elect by the Mediator. 

7.The covenant of grace is the progressive historical account of the administration of the Gospel in the history of redemption. 

8.The first Noahic covenant (Genesis 6.17-19) was particular and an administration of the covenant of grace. 

9.The second Noahic covenant (Genesis 9.8-17) was a universal non-soteric covenant promising the restraint of judgment until the last day.

10.The Abrahamic covenant is a renewal of the postlapsarian covenant/promise made to Adam (Genesis 3.15; 17). 

11.In the history of redemption, the covenant of grace was renewed in Abraham such that he is the father of all who believe (Remans 4.11; John 8.56). 

12.The Abrahamic covenant is logically as well as historically prior to the Mosaic. 

13.The Mosaic covenant was not renewed under Christ, but the Abrahamic covenant was. 

14.The land promise made to Abraham (Genesis 15.18; Exodus 6.4; Judges 2.1) was typical of the coming blessings of the New Covenant (Genesis 2:4; Galatians 3.14; Hebrews 8) and the final state (Hebrews 11.10). 

15.All those justified under Moses were justified by grace alone, through faith alone in Christ alone. 

16.With regard to the land promise, the Mosaic covenant was, mutandis, a republication of the Adamic covenant of works. 

17.With regard to justification and salvation, the Mosaic covenant was an administration of the covenant of grace. 

18.The Israelites were given the land and kept it by grace but were expelled for failure to keep a temporary, typical covenant of works (Genesis 12.7; Exodus 6.4; Deuteronomy 29.19-29; 2 Kings 17.6-7; Ezekiel 17).

Excerpted from Dr. Scott Clark's thesis "Covenant Theology" :

http://public.csusm.edu/guests/rsclark/CovTheses.htm


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 20, 2005)

You can be legally obligated to and exist within a covenant and its stipulations without (a) receiving the promised benefits of that covenant arrangement and (b) having knowledge of being obligate to keep that covenant's stipulations. Unbelievers are called "covenantbreakers" in Romans 1. We are all born into this world as breakers of the Covenant of Works/Life through Adam's sin. How many pagans do you know who are aware of their covenant breaking status? If you deny that they have broken a covenant (perfect obedience to the law of God), then you deny original sin.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 21, 2005)

> Ok, let's back WAY up. . .
> 
> 1) What is your definition of a "covenant"?



2) Why do you believe that a person's covenant with God cannot be broken? 

3) And if it cannot be broken, then why does God bother to include so many warnings to covenant breakers? If all covenant members are covenant keepers, then why bother putting so many warnings in the Bible?

4) In the entire Bible, where do you see anything that says the Covenant is for God's "special elect only" ?

Your brother in Christ,
Joseph [/quote]



The covenant is the eternal relationship of friendship between God and His elect people in Christ Jesus. This covenant cannot be broken. It is eternal, and it is an everlasting covenant. the covenant is throughout strictly God's covenant, in no sense dependent upon you and me for its maintenance or its existence, then you can understand, too, that the covenant is absolutely unbreakable, and can understand also why it is unbreakable.

The old covenant was not a (nor part of a) covenant of grace at all. It was a conditional covenant of condemnation imposed on a nation of rebels. It promised life to all who obeyed it but brought death to all who sought to be justified by it. This was true, not because of a deficiency in the law covenant, but because of the sinful inability of those who were under it. The new covenant, on the other hand, is a gracious covenant, confirmed in Christ, for all believers.

One can only become a child of The New covenant through faith in Christ. Neither Baptism nor circumcision apart from faith in Him who justifies the ungodly, places sinners in [spiritual] covenant relationship with God. 


#2) I never said that mans cov with God cannot be broken. This is clearly seen in the OT. God intended the old covenant to have a condemning and killing effect. It could only grant life to those who kept it perfectly. Since sinful rebels would not and could not obey it perfectly, it effectively revealed that it was absolutely impossible for sinners to obtain justification through personal law-keeping. By contrast, God intended for the new covenant to justify and give life. 

Hence the NC cannot be broken because it was ratified within our triune God. It was not made with man. The New covenant is a universal covenant made with the Blood of Christ to redeem His elect only from every tribe and language and people and nation.

Ethnic Israel never was, nor is she now, a nation of "God's people" in the new covenant sense. Clearly, Paul never (at least after his conversion) viewed natural Israel in that way. This fact would preclude the possibility that he was, in Gal 6:16, asserting the equal participation of unbelieving Jews with believing Gentiles in the new messianic salvation in Christ. If ethnic Jews enjoyed the "peace and mercy of those who walk in line with the new covenant standard," they participate in this blessing not as "Israelites" but as believers in Christ. 

Our Larger Catechism is quite define on this: "The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed". 


Let me post some thoughts from the Body of Divinity.


2.) All your temporal mercies are fruits of the covenant. Wicked men have mercies by Providence, not by virtue of a covenant; with God´s leave, not with his love. But such as are in covenant have their mercies sweetened with God´s love, and they swim to them in the blood of Christ. As Naaman said to Gehazi, 'Take two talents,´ 2 Kings 5: z3, so says God to such as are in covenant, take two talents, take health, and take Christ with it; take riches, and take my love with them; take the venison, and take the blessing with it: take two talents.


(5.) If thou art in covenant once, then for ever in covenant. The text calls it an 'everlasting covenant.' Such as are in covenant are elected; and God's electing love is unchangeable. 'I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them; but I will put my fear in their heart, that they shall not depart from me.' Jer 32: 40. God will so love the saints that he will not forsake them; and the saints shall so fear God that they shall not forsake him. It is a covenant of eternity. It must be so; for whom is this covenant made with? Is it not with believers? and have not they coalition and union with Christ? Christ is the head, they are the body. Eph 1: 22, 23. This is a near union, much like that union between God the Father and Christ. 'As thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.´ John 17: 2I. Now, the union between Christ and the saints being so inseparable, it can never be dissolved, or the covenant made void; so that you may die with comfort.

Now From Bunyan

[THE NEW COVENANT FREE AND UNCHANGEABLE BECAUSE MADE WITH Christ.]

That it comes by way of covenant, contract, or bargain, though not personally with us, be pleased to consider these Scriptures, where it is said, "I have made a covenant with My Chosen: I have sworn unto David [The word David in this place signifieth Christ, as also in these Scriptures"”(Eze 34:23,24; 37:24,25).] My servant" (Psa 89:3). "And as for Thee also, by the blood of Thy covenant," speaking of Christ, "I have sent forth Thy prisoners out of the pit wherein is no water," (Zech 9:9-11). Again; "Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money" (Isa 52:3). Blessed be the Lord," therefore, saith Zacharias, "for He hath visited and" also "redeemed His people, and hath raised up an horn of salvation for us in the house of His servant David; as He spake by the mouth of His holy Prophets, which have been since the world began; that we should be saved from our enemies, and from the hands of all that hate us; to perform the mercy promised to our fathers, and to remember His holy covenant," or bargain (Luke 1:68-72). 


Second. This covenant, I say, was made with One, not with many, and also confirmed in the conditions of it with One, not with several. First, that the covenant was made with One (Gal 3:16). "Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ" (Verse 17). "And this, I say, that the covenant that was confirmed before of God, in Christ," etc. The covenant was made with the Seed of Abraham; not the seeds, but the Seed, which is the Lord Jesus Christ, our Head and Undertaker in the things concerning the covenant.

Third. The condition was made with One, and also accomplished by Him alone, and not by several; yet in the nature, and for the everlasting deliverance of many; even by one man Jesus Christ, as it is clear from Romans 5:15-17, etc., and in Zechariah 9:11, the Lord saith to Christ, "And as for Thee""”mark, "As for Thee also, by the blood of Thy covenant," or as for Thee whose covenant was by blood; that is, the condition of the covenant was, that Thou shouldst spill Thy blood; which having been done in the account of God, saith He, I according to My condition have let go the prisoners, or sent them "out of the pit wherein is no water." Those Scriptures in Galatians 3:16,17 that are above cited, are notably to our purpose; Verse 16 saith it was made with Christ, Verse 17 saith it was also confirmed in or with God in Him. Pray read with understanding. "Now," saith Paul, "the promises were not made unto seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy Seed, which is Christ." . . . . "The law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect." Not that the covenant was made with Abraham and Christ together, as two persons that were the undertakers of the same; the promise was made with, or to, Abraham afterwards; but the covenant with Christ before.


http://acacia.pair.com/Acacia.John.Bunyan/Sermons.Allegories/Doctrine.Law.Grace/Part.Two.10.html


Read the rest of it. Even though I do not make a distinction between redemption and grace as Bunyan does, this article is excellent.

ONLY BELIEVERS ARE PART OF THE COVENANT JOSEPH!!!!

1 Peter 2:10

1 sam 17:36 

Psalm 89


These warnings you speak of are answered by many more learned than me. You seem to deny preserverance of the Saints. The contrast is between those who "draw back" (or "withdrawal") from the Gospel message and "them that believe to the saving of the soul." So it's not salvation they are drawing back from but the message to be believed. 

This passage is not speaking of a believer who falls away, but rather someone who may claim to be a believer, but truly is not. Anyone who apostatizes is proving they never had genuine faith to begin with (1 John 2:19).

ROMANS 11:19-23. Consider the context: Paul is not addressing the subject of personal salvation. He is addressing the matter of the Jews and their place in the program of God. Paul is speaking in a general sense of Gentiles and of the Jewish nation. Today God has turned temporarily from the Jews and is calling a people for His name from among the Gentile nations. The day will come when God will again turn to the Jewish nation to fulfill His promises to them. Verses 24-26 make this plain. Paul is speaking in a general sense, not in a personal sense. A careful reading of this chapter illustrates this.


1 CORINTHIANS 9:27. The context here is not Paul´s salvation, but his Christian service. Paul was concerned that he would be castaway in the sense that he would be put on a shelf in this life or that his service would be rejected or disapproved at the judgment seat of Christ. The same Greek word is translated "œrejected." Paul was not afraid that he would be lost. In the same epistle he taught that Christ preserves the believer (1:7-9). What he feared was falling short of God´s high calling for his life. The context makes this plain. He is talking about running a race and winning a prize. To confuse this passage with salvation is to misunderstand the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Salvation is not a reward for faithful service. The Bible plainly states that salvation is by grace, and grace is the free, unmerited mercy of God (Eph. 2:8-9). Anything that is merited or rewarded, is not grace (Romans 11:6). On the other hand, after we are saved by the marvelous grace of God, we are called to serve Jesus Christ. We are created in Christ Jesus "œunto good works" (Eph. 2:10). If a Christian is lazy and carnal, he will be chastened by the Lord (Heb. 12:6-8), and if he does not respond, God will take him home (Rom. 8:13; 1 Cor. 11:30; 1 John 5:16).


HEBREWS 10:26-29. The willful sin in verse 26 refers not to sin in general, but to one particular sin which is described in the rest of the passage. The Bible plainly teaches us that Christians do sin after they are saved (1 John 1:8-10; 2:1-2). There is no sinless perfection in the Christian life. Our perfection and righteousness is in Jesus Christ positionally (1 Cor. 1:30; 2 Cor. 5:21). The sin for which there is no forgiveness is the sin of "œcounting the blood of the covenant an unholy thing." This means to deny that salvation is by Christ´s blood and grace alone. In the immediate context to which the book of Hebrews was addressed, it refers to the Jews who professed confidence in Christ; but, because of pressure and persecution, returned to their dead religion and thus gave up confidence in Christ. False religion, both then and now, attempts either to replace Christ´s salvation with a manmade system, or to add to Christ´s salvation a manmade system. Catholicism is an example of the latter. It preaches Christ, but it intermingles its own sacraments and priesthood and sainthood with the grace of Christ. This is a false gospel which robs Christ of His glory as the sole Saviour and Mediator. If Christ is not Saviour wholly and exclusively, He is not Saviour at all. If grace is intermingled in any sense with works, the Gospel is perverted, and there is no salvation in a perverted gospel (Rom. 11:6; Gal. 1:6-9).




Joseph


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I didn't mean FAVOR, I meant Matt 22:1-15. We still disagree that unregenerate people can be in covenant as defined by WCF (see above). The Covenant of Redemption (the one you are talking about) I agree, it is salvific, unregenerates are NOT IN.
> 
> I am just using the WCF terminology.
> ...



I do not make a distinction between of COG and COR.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 21, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> I do not make a distinction between of COG and COR.



What Covenant, made between the Father and Son, called for Christ to fulfill the requirements of the Covenant of Works on behalf of the elect?

What Covenant do we receive the benefits of, spiritually, through eternal salvation?


----------



## Robin (Apr 21, 2005)

The Covenant of Grace (foedus gratiae) 

*General* 
When we speak in covenantal terms we should always specify to which covenant we refer. 

The pactum salutis is distinct from and the basis of the covenant of grace. 

It is a grievous theological error to confuse the covenant of works with the covenant of grace. 

*Election* 

The term covenant of grace can be used broadly and narrowly. When used broadly, it refers to everyone who is baptized into the Christ confessing covenant community. When used narrowly, it refers to those who have received the double benefit of Christ: justification and sanctification. 

Used in the broader sense, the covenant of grace is not synonymous with election so that all the elect are in the covenant of grace, but not all in the covenant of grace are elect. 

Used in the narrow sense, the covenant of grace refers only to the elect. 

There is a just and necessary distinction to be made between those who are in the covenant broadly (externally) and those who are in the covenant both broadly and narrowly (internally). 

The internal/external distinction is a corollary of the distinction between the church considered visibly and invisibly. 

The Gospel is not a promise of election but of a gracious and sovereign salvation from sin which salvation is received through faith alone. 

*Justification* 

There are two chief benefits of the covenant of grace: justification and sanctification of which justification has logical priority. 

The sole ground of justification is the fulfillment of the condition of the covenant of works by Christ in his active and passive obedience. 

The sole object of justifying faith is Christ the Surety of the covenant of redemption for us, and the fulfillment of the covenant of works for us, and the Mediator of the covenant of grace to us. 

The sole instrument of justification and condition of the covenant of grace is a passive, extraspective, receptive faith which trusts in Christ´s keeping of the covenant of works. 

Only believers receive the chief benefits of the covenant. 

In Reformed theology the covenant of grace is a Gospel covenant having precisely the same terms and conditions as the Gospel. 
Justifying faith may be said to be the only proper condition or instrument of the covenant of grace. 

The covenant of grace was inaugurated post-lapsum and is to be distinguished sharply from the covenant of works. 

The covenant of grace is *monopleural* in origin and *dipleural* in administration, i.e. the Gospel offer is unconditional in origin but the reception of its benefits is conditioned upon justifying faith which is itself only God's free gift to the elect. 

Monocovenantalism or refusal to distinguish between the covenants of works and grace implies a confusion of Law and Gospel. 

The slogan "in by grace, stay in by works," is nothing less than the Galatian heresy condemned by the Apostle Paul. 




> It is unnecessary to juxtapose the legal and relational aspects of covenant theology. In all three covenants, personal relations are premised upon just legal relations.



Another excerpt from Dr. Scott Clark

Robin

[Edited on 4-22-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 21, 2005)

Robin, 

Great stuff!



> The sole instrument of justification and condition of the covenant of grace is a passive, extraspective, receptive faith which trusts in Christ´s keeping of the covenant of works.



Ahhh the sweetness of the Gospel! It never fails but to completely fill the heart, soul and mind.

In Christ Alone,

Larry


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 21, 2005)




----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 21, 2005)




----------



## smallbeans (Apr 22, 2005)

> The sole instrument of justification and condition of the covenant of grace is a passive, extraspective, receptive faith which trusts in Christ´s keeping of the covenant of works.



I wonder if this should be qualified - after all, faith is the sole instrument of justification from the perpsective of man, God-ward. But what about from the perspective of God man-ward? This is something I've been thinking about lately. It seems like the idea of this kind of affirmation is to be sure that we're not bringing human works into the salvation equation. That all is from God and received by faith alone. So it wouldn't seem to compromise monergism if we were to ask questions about the instruments God uses to give us faith and that God uses to allow our faith to receive his gifts. Right? Anyway, just thinking out loud. 

Any suggestions as to instruments of justification from the perpsective of God man-ward? I wonder if means of grace are in this boat?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 22, 2005)

Wouldn't the sole means of justification be the righteousness of Christ?


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wouldn't the sole means of justification be the righteousness of Christ?




YES>>>>>>


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...




Gabriel, for starters I believe it is erroneous to leave out the Holy SPirit in ANY Covenant. Why the reformers did this, I have no idea. And I have read many that have done this. 

Also, I do not believe we can seperate the Covenants in the passive vs active obedience of Christ. 


Joseph


----------



## Larry Hughes (Apr 22, 2005)

Jonathan,

The legal reason of justification in God´s sight is Christ alone, He alone satisfies all sin debt and all righteousness. The legal reason of justification in our sight is Christ alone, His satisfaction is to what we look and believe and trust and rest in. His is perfect and His alone can cause and strengthen faith. Faith its self is defined and gains its very existence from this "œlooking" to Christ alone. It is entirely passive. True saving faith never even notices its self. Once we in essence speak of or glance away from Christ alone in any way (looking at faith its self, works, etc"¦) we are no longer speaking of saving faith. Faith, true faith, is absolutely self-emptying and toward another (Christ). It is unnatural to our fallen nature in every way. This is why the Gospel, the pure Gospel, must be declared not only to unbelievers but the believer as well "“ for refreshment and strengthening.

Faith, and I think I understand this correct, is the condition necessary for the CoG. Yet it is not a meritorious work condition, but rather a gracious "œstate of being", if you will, bestowed upon the true believer. It is a necessary condition of existence that is necessary in order to receive that which it beholds and trusts and thereby is justified purely by the righteousness of another. Apart from this condition of faith one will not "œlook to" Christ, nor see Him whereby one is justified. This the Holy Spirit graciously gives the dead in sin person and thus they are reborn.

Regarding the reformers and the role of the Holy Spirit. It is the Holy Spirit´s work to testify to Christ alone. As J I Packer once said, "œIf one is at a place where the Spirit is not testifying entirely to Jesus Christ, then one can be certain of one thing, the Holy Spirit is not there." (ldh "“ paraphrase from memory). Thus, the reformers singular extreme focus upon Christ´s work and true justification by Christ crucified whereby faith is created and sustained would be signatory of the work of the Holy Spirit Who does not testify to Himself but to Jesus Christ "“ the glory of God. Had they emphasized the Holy Spirit as in the way Pentecostals or similar do, then that would have been proof that it was not the Holy Spirit working at all. The question to always answer is, "œWhere are the eyes of your soul being pointed? To put it another way; if one´s mind, heart and soul are being fixed upon Christ´s work, as in the Gospel, during a teaching, preaching, etc"¦then that is a good sign that the Holy Spirit is working and testifying. If the mind is focused upon the "œSpirits" work, the Work of the Spirit Himself, then likely one has something else going on. Jesus said the Spirit´s work was secretive.

To put a sharper edge on it: To stop at the signs in Acts as the Pentecostal and charismatic types do is to miss everything and stop short at the signs and attesting miracles in and of themselves, rather than to what they point to "“ Christ. We are too easily bedazzled at the signs and thus think we have arrived at the reality when we have only beheld the sign pointing to the greater reality. These Calvin might call "œgiddy spirits". The charismatic version of this in a more earthly reality analogy would be this: If in driving to our destination, Disneyland, with my family we pass a SIGN that reads, "œDisneyland 200 Miles Ahead", we stop at the road side, get out and run up to the SIGN, jump up and down, cheer, cry, dance and say at the SIGN, "œWe have arrived at our destiny, whooooooaaaa yea!". We would indeed be rather foolish since the SIGN pointing to the reality is not the reality itself. Thus, we can see the danger of charismatic thought stopping short at the SIGNS themselves and glorying in the SIGNS alone.

Final example: The sign of the raising of Lazarus from the dead is a great thing to our eyes. The raising of the dead is indeed beyond our ability and comprehension. Yet, that in and of itself, that raising of Lazarus was not the reality itself. Nor was the naked power to do so, as we today think of "œpower". God certainly has the raw power to raise the dead, but can He do so without justice? No. Take your foot off of the end of Genesis chapter two through 3:15 and you will "œget lost in the woods". Remember that death from this life is one of the greatest signs that we are sinners under just judgment and wrath, that´s the reason for death. Jesus as God the Son certainly had the creative power to raise the dead, but the point of the sign (one of the last before Christ´s own crucifixion and why He said, "œI AM the resurrection"¦he who believes in Me shall live even though he dies.") was that Jesus not only had raw power to do so (Lazarus will die again and not be raised until Christ returns) "“ He was justified in doing so since HE would pay the price for sin and fulfill all righteousness for His people, thus reversing the death sentence. THIS is what the sign was pointing to "“ The Gospel/Good News!

Ldh

PS: I didn´t mean to side track this posting, just hopefully answer some questions. Please continue on this excellent posting/topic.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 22, 2005)

Good post Larry. I agree with you, especially with the points on saving faith and the condition of the COG.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 22, 2005)

> I do not make a distinction between of COG and COR.



This is the same fundamental error of the Federal Visionists (one of them).


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > I do not make a distinction between of COG and COR.
> ...



Thank you for pointing that out Matthew. We need more labels in our world.

What I mean is: There is no distinction between the two in regards to who is in and who is out.

If you still "think" This is error, then I am comfortable knowing that and believing that.

One cannot be in the COG without being in the COR. It is impossible. And vice versa.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 22, 2005)

Joseph 
The more I read and pray, the more I realize that what you may be saying is so incorrect.

My position is as follows.

1) THere is no difference between the COG and COR

By separating the Covenant of Grace in this respect that you hold that it was made also with the non-elect, namely with Abraham´s natural seed, and thus with all who are baptized, you present a doctrine of the covenant that entirely destroys the covenant.

This new view of the covenant says that the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are two essentially different covenants; that the Covenant of Grace can be broken, and that those who are in the covenant from birth can fall out of it, since it is only an offer of salvation, of which salvation the covenant makes us partakers, if it is accepted by faith.

How is it possible that any Reformed theologian can speak of the covenant of grace in such a general sense, stating that it is established with Abraham and his natural seed, and therefore also with Ishmael, and under the New Testament dispensation with the believers and their natural children! God´s Word, however, teaches emphatically that they are children of Abraham who are children of the promise, as Isaac was. "œAnd if ye be Christ´s, then ye are Abraham´s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3:29)

Ishmael is emphatically excluded, for the Lord says: "œBut My covenant will I establish with Isaac." (Gen. 17:21) So it is far from correct to say that the covenant was made with Abraham´s natural´ seed.

How is it possible to declare that also to the non-elect the benefits of the covenant are granted by God! Then God would give Himself and "œall blessings for time and eternity" to reprobates. Such an unbiblical statement must then be made to sound right by making a distinction between granting and imparting. Without that impartation God´s grant has no power. What a powerless Divine grant! And that impartation takes place when that "œmember of the covenant" accepts the covenant by faith. If he does not do so, he is lost because of his unbelief. What a sophism! In the next chapter we shall show that the Covenant of Grace was made with the elect as all the Reformed of old have taught, and not with the natural seed of the "œbelievers." The Covenant of Grace is an actual covenant, not merely a proffer of Christ and His saving benefits; it imparts Christ to each member of the covenant. When God grants Himself to a lost child of Adam, that is only in Christ, and of such strength that it in fact makes the condemnable sinner by free grace a partaker of that which he needs for his eternal salvation. This granting cannot be separated from the impartation.

Moreover, Christ is the Surety of the covenant, Who gave His life as a ransom for those who are in the covenant. Therefore, if the Covenant of Grace were also made with the non-elect, Christ would also have become a Surety for them, and would have shed His blood for reprobates. To state this is to count the blood of Christ an unholy thing. 

remaining in the covenant is also only a matter of grace; it is never in the power of the believer himself, and therefore it is a promise, not a condition of the covenant.

Furthermore, being in the covenant cannot be of another nature than remaining in it. If remaining in it is by faith, then being in it must also be by faith, but this those that want to hold to the three covenants deny. If those who teach that there are three covenants would hold fast that man by nature is in a broken Covenant of Works we could allow much. But no! They say that each natural child of believing parents is already in the covenant "œfrom his birth", and therefore has a right to all the benefits of the covenant; indeed, the benefits of the covenant are already granted them. Heyns, Woelderink, Schilder, and many Christian Reformed ministers carry on the same thought, and deviate in this matter fromScripture. This system denies the Covenant of Grace in its essential power, and Christ as the representative Head of the Covenant of Grace, since He can represent only the elect; it lulls men to sleep as being covenant members that have a right to salvation, and it opens the door for a practical Arminianism which credits faith and obedience with power to keep one in the covenant. With great earnestness we must warn against this doctrine so that the congregations will not be thrust off from their firm foundation.

The Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are one in essence; they are not two essentially different covenants.

[Edited on 4-22-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wouldn't the sole means of justification be the righteousness of Christ?



No. The sole _ground_ of justification (i.e. merit) is the righteousness of Christ.

The sole _means _of justification is faith. (Hence the phrase, _sola fide_, which has reference to justification being by the sole instrument of faith.

An important distinction.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> ...



Should it not say Faith is the sole instrument of justification? According to that system, does not means = faith?


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 22, 2005)

Faith = sole instrument = sole means

Christ's righteousness = sole grounds


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Faith = sole instrument = sole means
> 
> Christ's righteousness = sole grounds



THat is what i thought is taught.

but faith is not a condition that we bring.


----------



## Robin (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Wouldn't the sole means of justification be the righteousness of Christ?



Gabe, the Righteousness of Christ is the GROUNDS.....(means - of course, is an instrument.)

This is why Clark emphasizes it....example, the Arminian, Calvary Chapel folks confuse the two -- looking at Faith as the "grounds" for justification. The predominant problem with the contemporary Arminian view is confusion on this very point. Though they would deny this...Arminians live as though faith justifies.


----------



## Robin (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> ...



No faith is not a condition we bring --- it is a condition that God gives; the Holy Spirit is in that faith (the down-payment of true faith) which unites us to Christ to receive His benefits.



R.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 22, 2005)




----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ...



This is the difficult part; faith is indeed a condition (even a _sine qua non_) of justification. But it is a condition that we are completely incapable of meeting. It is a condition that God graciously meets by giving faith to us (Eph 2:8-10)


----------



## Robin (Apr 22, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Robin_
> ...



 and 

R.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 22, 2005)

Blast! Foiled by semantics again.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 23, 2005)

Let us not digress here though fellas. And Robin. hahahahaha

The issue at hand is the Covenant. And who is it made with and who is included


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia_
> Blast! Foiled by semantics again.



Gabriel, 

Not just semantics. A substantive difference, although I believe you simply misspoke. Maybe foiled by a misstatement


----------



## nobigdeal (Apr 26, 2005)

[Edited on 5-2-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 26, 2005)

Yes, a misstatement b/c I wasn't thinking through the meanings of the words at the time I wrote. My mistake!


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 27, 2005)

Sorry, but I agree with Calvin. Faith is the condtion we bring. See his commentary on Ephesians 2:8. Faith, in and of itself, is empty, yet it is what we bring to God. Calvin says it much better, so I ask you to read him. And faith--resting and trusting--is in our natural ability, but not in our moral ability. We are faithing/believing creatures. "Faith," the act of believing, is not *given* to us by God as if we are given some new physiological faculty with which to rest and trust. No, upon regeneration, the natural ability of faithing is given the moral ability of faithing in the person and work of Christ alone, which is a necessary consequent of regeneration. So, while it is true without God's grace of regeneration we will never believe (volitionally choose to actively rest and trust in the objective persona nd work of Christ), it is our faith we bring to Him--faith and faith alone.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 27, 2005)

W.B.,
After one has spoken of faith in the sense expressed above, what has one said beside that the "condition" we bring is that we be men made in the image of God? God is the Creator--whatever we "possess" in the sense pointed out is simply that with which we have been endowed from him in the first place.

Calvin is undoubtedly correct to point out the ontological and psychological apriori that we possess a "capacity" for virtually believing in an infinite number of things, except (as lost people) all spiritual good and truth from which we are cut off.

It just doesn't seem to me that we are helped in any way by affirming that we fulfill "conditions" for salvation when the point we need to make over and over again is that we can bring nothing at all, nor meet any meritorious "conditions," or change our circumstances in any way prior to the work of God upon us.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 27, 2005)

Faith is a condition of the COG, but a condition that God fulfills. Faith is a gift. Jesus is said to the be "author and finisher of our faith." 

It is not that we do not have the capability PYSICALLY to believe, but that our desires are so set against God, that we never will. God changes our desires in regeneration.


----------



## Theological Books (Apr 27, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Contra_Mundum_
> W.B.,
> After one has spoken of faith in the sense expressed above, what has one said beside that the "condition" we bring is that we be men made in the image of God? God is the Creator--whatever we "possess" in the sense pointed out is simply that with which we have been endowed from him in the first place.



Yes, no one would doubt this, but one can say God gave the image bearer the faith that trusts in Allah in Islam, or the god of mormonism. The point is we are all faithers, or believers, by creation (God's gift). So the gift of faith we use in Christ is the same gift of faith used to trust in Allah or Joseph Smith. They simply use that same gift impropergly, but it is still that gift of God. That is the conclusion of the emphasis of "faith as a gift" in that view, in my estimation.



> Calvin is undoubtedly correct to point out the ontological and psychological apriori that we possess a "capacity" for virtually believing in an infinite number of things, except (as lost people) all spiritual good and truth from which we are cut off.



I think this is missing Calvin's point. We all have the ontological (depending on how you are using this word) and psychological (also physiological, considering the image of God being the whole of man) capacity for believing (resting and trusting) in all things, but we do not have the moral ability (as distinguished from my understanding of the use of ontological) to use faithing correctly. All lost people have the natural ability to believe in God, but not the moral ability, hence the necessity of God's grace of regeneration.



> It just doesn't seem to me that we are helped in any way by affirming that we fulfill "conditions" for salvation when the point we need to make over and over again is that we can bring nothing at all, nor meet any meritorious "conditions," or change our circumstances in any way prior to the work of God upon us.



I think is it very helpful, specifically with covenant theology and Pauline language. Paul speaks about the obedience of faith (Rom 1:5; 16:26) and the law of faith (Rom 3:27) as distinct from the prinicple of works. The covenant of works demands the works of the law, but the covenant of grace demands the obedience to the law of faith, namely trusting and resting in Christ alone. I believe it is extremely helpful, especially in the light of contemporary controversies (i.e. Federal Vision), but also a much richer and fuller representation of covenant theology and the necessity of volitional responsibility (to name a few). It is also a better way of understanding anthropology in relation to responsibility. And that is what faithing is, bringing NOTHING to do. Faith is empty. It is extraspective and emptying of one's self by trusting and resting in the work of another. I think this is very helpful.

Here's a little sketch of practical covenant theology:

The Covenant of Works (epitomized by Paul in the Mosaic Covenant)--works of the law are necessary for obeying the covenant and meriting the promise. This is Paul's "law."

The Covenant of Redemption--works of the law are necessary for obeying the covenant and meriting the promise. This is Paul's "gospel." (Christ's objective person and work--fulfillment of the COR--is the gospel.)

The Covenant of Grace (epitomized by Paul in the New Covenant)--the obedience of faith is necessary to this covenant's "law of faith," as distinguished wholly and completely from any works of the law/faithfulness/obedience/etc. in the covenant of works. This is Paul's "faith."

This magnifies the biblical concept of man's responsibility, yet fully recognizes and praises God's grace--even blantantly and predominantly more so in my opinion--of election and regeneration. This is a very helpful distinction, in my estimation, and a fuller, richer picture of covenant theology, Pauline literature, and the Christian life in obedience to the New Covenant.

So thinks I. I wish others would think so, too. I find it very helpful when discussing the issue with Arminians and Federal Vision proponents.


----------

