# On Two Conceptions of the CoG



## Tom77 (Jan 20, 2006)

Greetings, it's been awhile since I've posted, but I wanted to pose a couple of questions about the two conceptions of the covenant of grace in historic covenant theology. Rutherford vs. Boston.

First of all, a brief sketch. 

A. Some (like Boston, Keach) held that the covenant of grace was made among the members of the Trinity with the elect internally related to it and the non elect externally related to it. There were two aspects of application in the covenant of grace. The CoG applied saving grace to the elect, and external, associative, community "grace" to the non elect in the covenant community.

B. Others (like Rutherford, Turretin) held that the covenant of grace was between the Triune God and the visible covenant people with the elect being in the "communion of life" aspect of the covenant of grace and the whole covenant body (elect and non elect) being under the "purely legal" aspect of the covenant of grace. So, there were two aspects within the covenant between God and His covenant people. This construction distinguishes between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, but ties the saving effects of the covenant of redemption (the righteousness of Christ) tightly to those who are in the "communion of life" aspect of the covenant of grace, such that the CoR is what produces regeneration, conversion, justification, sanctification, and perseverance in the elect.

These two work out to be basically the same among the orthodox, but whether one embraces one or the other does seem to affect how one's covenant system hangs together as a whole, and various other nuances. So, I have some questions. They are primarily for those of you who have studied this so that you could enlighten me and/or point me to sources that might, but they are for everyone else as well, since nothing but good can come from a wholesome discussion of covenant theology. 

1. How do the two different versions relate to the "conditionality" of the covenant of grace? I know that those who held position A argued that there are no conditions or obligations on any human beings in the covenant of grace, since the Triune God, esp Christ, has fulfilled them all. Faith and love are blessings, rather than conditions (or obligations?). But, then how would position A explain the conditional/imperative language of Scripture, "If you believe, then you will be saved, etc.?" "Believe and you will be saved!" If faith isn't a condition/obligation of the covenant of grace, is it the condition of some other covenant, say, the Abrahamic covenant, or the New Covenant, etc., on the terms of position A? 

2. How did those who held to position A understand the relationship among (1) the covenant of grace and the biblical historical covenants, and the relationship among (2) the biblical historical covenants themselves? Here is why I'm asking. Do you think the answer to (1) might be something like: the same way position B understands the relationship between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace? That is, I wonder whether advocates of position A would have argued that the biblical historical covenants have "communion of life" aspect and a "purely legal" aspect, and were partly (basically) unconditional and partly conditional, in terms of the means to the ends. And, do you think the answer to (2) might be something like: they were distinct covenants, and were not all actually a single expanding covenant, variously administered. Perhaps this is why, historically, Baptists usually adopted position A rather than B (though Baptists can adopt B). Position A would also seem to make lots of room for the view that not all of the biblical historical covenants were fundamentally gracious, but some (Mosaic covenant, especially) was actually a republication of the covenant of works, since the historical covenants are not all substantively one covenant of grace, but are distinct, though related, historical covenants. (?)

3. Do you think there is any truth in the suggestion by some of the advocates of position A that position B has a tendency to lead to Neonomianism?

4. Finally, do you think there is any truth to the suggestion that position A has antinomian tendencies, since it sees no conditions (obligations) in the covenant of grace whatsoever?

So, I suppose what I'm asking is that though there is clearly substantive agreement between the orthodox on position A and B, aren't there are also some significant implications in terms of how one structures the overall covenantal framework, depending on whether one adopts position A or B?


----------



## Tom77 (Jan 20, 2006)

By the way, I'm undecided between A and B.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 20, 2006)

Tom! Hi! How have you been! (Is this thread simply a way of gather research for a PhD seminar?)


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 20, 2006)

I think the thread entitled WLC Q.31 and Covenant Theology will be of some help to you. Fred and Matt (and others) have explained the distinction between the two views very well.

Also the article Presbyterian Federal Holiness by PB memeber Jerrold H. Lewis was helpful to me when asking the same questions.


----------



## Tom77 (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I think the thread entitled WLC Q.31 and Covenant Theology will be of some help to you. Fred and Matt (and others) have explained the distinction between the two views very well.
> 
> Also the article Presbyterian Federal Holiness by PB memeber Jerrold H. Lewis was helpful to me when asking the same questions.



Thanks, I've read that thread and article! How would you answer the questions specifically posed above?

Tom

[Edited on 1-20-2006 by Tom77]


----------



## Tom77 (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by SolaScriptura_
> Tom! Hi! How have you been! (Is this thread simply a way of gather research for a PhD seminar?)



How's it going Ben! Sadly, no. I only wish I were taking a seminar in which this was the topic.


----------



## SolaScriptura (Jan 20, 2006)

> _Originally posted by Tom77_
> How's it going Ben! Sadly, no. I only wish I were taking a seminar in which this was the topic.



Well.... it is not too late to transfer to Westminster!


----------

