# WLC 31 and the Covenant of Redemption



## TylerRay (Feb 6, 2018)

For those who hold a three-covenant/Covenant of Redemption view, how do you understand Larger Catechism 31 to fit into that framework?

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


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 6, 2018)

The question is being asked from the standpoint of the church, from the standpoint of human experience. We cannot view the CoR from the standpoint of a "spectator," a third-party viewpoint; nor can we even theorize upon it until after we have been engaged in the work of redemption. Our perception of the CoR comes to us through the instrument (as it were) of the CoG. 

Our whole connection to the will of God for our salvation comes through the union we experience with the Mediator. The CoG is the relationship we have with Christ. The CoG is the CoR as it relates to us. The CoR (or_ pactum salutis)_ is a description of that inter-Trinitarian consent conceived _*in abstraction from*_ the particular effects of it.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Edifying 1


----------



## timfost (Feb 6, 2018)

I have trouble with the wording in this one and prefer the wording of the WCF or WSC. I suppose we can and should understand it the way Rev. B. describes, but I cannot understand how Christ can be both a) a party in the covenant and b) the Mediator of the same covenant (i.e. between both parties). It seems at face value, this Q&A conflates the two covenants and confuses Chris's role.

Charles Hodge recognizes the same problem in his ST.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Feb 6, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The CoG is the relationship we have with Christ. The CoG is the CoR as it relates to us. The CoR (or_ pactum salutis)_ is a description of that inter-Trinitarian consent conceived _*in abstraction from*_ the particular effects of it.



Bruce took the words right out of my mouth. This is a needed distinction between these two covenants.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 6, 2018)

timfost said:


> I have trouble with the wording in this one and prefer the wording of the WCF or WSC. I suppose we can and should understand it the way Rev. B. describes, but I cannot understand how Christ can be both a) a party in the covenant and b) the Mediator of the same covenant (i.e. between both parties). It seems at face value, this Q&A conflates the two covenants and confuses Chris's role.
> 
> Charles Hodge recognizes the same problem in his ST.


The point the Standards wish to make, is that the connection we have to the will of God for our salvation is seamless. How can the (unique!) Christ, be both Mediator and party? Well, the biblical data says that in some sense he just _is, _and so we aim at language that assists us in getting our minds around the substance of the matter.

We can "fix" a potential challenge one way: by talking separately from the CoG about parties to some "CoR" (which covenant-description is never explicit in the Standards, but is found in the_ Sum of Saving Knowledge; _it is not as if there was a literal round-table discussion in eternity past, however helpful the concept is--and it is, indeed--to think of God in such an analogous way).

But it is not as if there are any_ extraneous_ concerns (nothing we know anything about) in that inter-Trinitarian covenant beside mankind's salvation. Therefore, what concerns us as individual members as it pertains to the divine concert comes through the one Person in and by whom we are united, and restored to fellowship with God.

In addition, the entirety of the_ obedience_ for the covenant which shall make us righteous and holy--hence acceptable--to God is the Surety's (another important term that gets too little attention) duty. The covenant by which we are engaged has the sole condition of faith, which is (in the nature of grace) also supplied. Certainly, the CoG is (unto us, who are its participants and beneficiaries) a most unique arrangement.

The estimable Hodge, or any other, is free to dispute of the Standards' chosen terms. But whatever adjustments should be thought necessary will only create a new set of debates about the limits of those chosen expressions. I think we're much better off finding a charitable and helpful rendering of what is given us.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 7, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> The question is being asked from the standpoint of the church, from the standpoint of human experience. We cannot view the CoR from the standpoint of a "spectator," a third-party viewpoint; nor can we even theorize upon it until after we have been engaged in the work of redemption. Our perception of the CoR comes to us through the instrument (as it were) of the CoG.
> 
> Our whole connection to the will of God for our salvation comes through the union we experience with the Mediator. The CoG is the relationship we have with Christ. The CoG is the CoR as it relates to us. The CoR (or_ pactum salutis)_ is a description of that inter-Trinitarian consent conceived _*in abstraction from*_ the particular effects of it.





Contra_Mundum said:


> The point the Standards wish to make, is that the connection we have to the will of God for our salvation is seamless. How can the (unique!) Christ, be both Mediator and party? Well, the biblical data says that in some sense he just _is, _and so we aim at language that assists us in getting our minds around the substance of the matter.
> 
> We can "fix" a potential challenge one way: by talking separately from the CoG about parties to some "CoR" (which covenant-description is never explicit in the Standards, but is found in the_ Sum of Saving Knowledge; _it is not as if there was a literal round-table discussion in eternity past, however helpful the concept is--and it is, indeed--to think of God in such an analogous way).
> 
> ...



Rev. Buchanan,

Would it be an accurate representation of your opinion to say that you do not believe in a Covenant of Redemption distinct from the Covenant of Grace, although the language _Covenant of Redemption_ can be a useful figure to describe the Counsel of Peace between the Father and the Son to redeem the elect?


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 7, 2018)

I think Hodge has some useful things to say about this. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/hodge/Chapter22.html

This Hodge is "A.A. Hodge," son of the aforementioned Charles Hodge.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Feb 7, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> Would it be an accurate representation of your opinion to say that you do not believe in a Covenant of Redemption distinct from the Covenant of *Works*, although the language _Covenant of Redemption_ can be a useful figure to describe the Counsel of Peace between the Father and the Son to redeem the elect?


I _do not believe in a Covenant of Redemption distinct from the Covenant of Works *Grace*_ in the sense that the redeemed are engaged with the divine purpose for their existence precisely at the Person of their Mediator and Surety, who is directly part of the Counsel of Peace. In that case, there is no "daylight" between the CoR and the CoG.

The CoR can be thought of as "larger than" the CoG specifically, perhaps if one thinks "logistically" or in some other way about it. And I do not think it's proper to exclude the Third Person from the divine "deliberations" (if you will). But as soon as the focus turns to the people of God's salvation, not a word can be said without reference to the CoG.

I think A.A. Hodge (link above) does a nice job parsing out different ways by which one orthodox teaching is or has been expressed.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 7, 2018)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Works Grace


Fixed.

Thank you for your input, Rev. Buchanan. I think you've gotten at the marrow of the issue.

I'm interested to hear how people who take a view more like Charles Hodge's would understand LC 31 to fit in their system.


----------



## TylerRay (Feb 7, 2018)

Doulos McKenzie said:


> I think Hodge has some useful things to say about this. http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/hodge/Chapter22.html
> 
> This Hodge is "A.A. Hodge," son of the aforementioned Charles Hodge.


I like what he has to say here; however, his (two-covenant) view is distinct from his father's (three-covenant) view.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie (Feb 7, 2018)

TylerRay said:


> I like what he has to say here; however, his (two-covenant) view is distinct from hi father's (three-covenant) view.


 
I think it makes better sense of the how we view the Biblical Covenants because it actually lets us make meaningful distinctions between them. It makes the new covenant actually new.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter (Feb 7, 2018)

Tyler,

If you have John Brown of Haddington's _A Compendious View of Natural and Revealed Religion_, he, in the same vein as Thomas Boston, rejects the notion of a Covenant of Redemption. See pages 242-43 of the edition that Christian Focus republished.

Personally, I think the idea of the CoR is useful for distinguishing between the divine persons and the outworking of the covenant of grace in history. At best, however, it is a useful extra-confessional concept. At worst, certain constructions of the three-covenant scheme _may_ be contra-confessional.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

