# WLC Q.31 and Covenant Theology



## Arch2k (Apr 20, 2005)

I am having a hard time reconciling Question 31 with the Covenant of Grace. It seems like this would be under the Covenant of Redemption - Federal Headship of Christ to the elect only, not the visible church.

Anybody have any thoughts?




> WLC
> 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.[114]
> ...


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 20, 2005)

That is because the Confession does not take a hard and fast distinction between the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Redemption. It instead views the Covenant of Grace from two perspectives: visible/temporal and invisible/eternal.

There is no real substantive difference.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> I am having a hard time reconciling Question 31 with the Covenant of Grace. It seems like this would be under the Covenant of Redemption - Federal Headship of Christ to the elect only, not the visible church.
> 
> Anybody have any thoughts?
> ...



Jeff, this can be discussed in the other thread. This is exactly what I am saying. There is no essential difference. WHy the distinction is made I have no clue. 

The ONLY idea I can come up with is that children became the main focus to be included because of baptism, but I may be wrong. 

There is always a little "romish" superstition in all of us. But this to me creates a false sense of security for those who attend the outward ordinances and are never born again.

I still see it in my church. "Why do you want to baptise your child?"

Well because we do not want them in hell., and this "makes" them part of the community, but perhaps not the Community of the covenant.

There is No way these cov's were made with the reprobate in mind. This kills the blood of Christ. Which ratifies the covs....



[Edited on 4-23-2005 by The Lamb]

[Edited on 4-23-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## JOwen (Apr 23, 2005)

I have an article that was recently published in The Outlook and the Banner of Sovereign Grace Truth (Beeke's mag) dealing with this exact topic. You can read it on my blog at http://www.freewebs.com/knowhim/Federal.htm

Kind regards,

Jerrold Lewis


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 23, 2005)

Jerrold,

That is exactly what I was looking for! I thought it was a very well presented arguement. That clarified something I have been wrestling with for some time now.

Thank you very much


----------



## JOwen (Apr 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> Jerrold,
> 
> That is exactly what I was looking for! I thought it was a very well presented arguement. That clarified something I have been wrestling with for some time now.
> ...




My pleasure


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 23, 2005)

The CoR and CoG are not the same. Westminster did not make them out to be the same. That is why chapter *3* is on PREDESTINATION (i.e. the CoR) and chapter *7* is about the Christ the Mediator and the CoG. Also, you will want to check the commentary on the WCf (The Sum of Saving Knowledge) and will see it very plainly stated that the CoR and CoG are different. Or, you could also read the writings of any fo the Westminster Puritans and see the same thing.


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> The CoR and CoG are not the same. Westminster did not make them out to be the same. That is why chapter *3* is on PREDESTINATION (i.e. the CoR) and chapter *7* is about the Christ the Mediator and the CoG. Also, you will want to check the commentary on the WCf (The Sum of Saving Knowledge) and will see it very plainly stated that the CoR and CoG are different. Or, you could also read the writings of any fo the Westminster Puritans and see the same thing.



I still do not see the difference in the confessions Matthew. ANd again this does not explain the difference between the two.

This still does not answer their error of leaving the Holy Spirit out of any covenant. 

Perhaps they "missed" it.

In the other thread there is laid out the scriptural premise of their being no essential difference.

Neither were made with man, neither include the reprobate. If 100 puritan writers said that they do include the repreobate, then they are all wrong. And as you can see WLC 31 is CLEAR.


Joseph


----------



## JOwen (Apr 23, 2005)

> Neither were made with man, neither include the reprobate. If 100 puritan writers said that they do include the reprobate, then they are all wrong. And as you can see WLC 31 is CLEAR.
> 
> 
> Joseph



The CoG has an internal/external aspect to it. If you look at Larger Catechism Q & A 166 says,

Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?

A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, _are in that respect within the covenant_, and to be baptized. (Emphasis mine)(Westminster Larger Catechism, 256)

The external aspect of the CoG refer to the "sanctified" and "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14, "broken off branches" in John 15;1-8, and "unwise virgins" in Matthew 25. There is a breakable aspect to the outward administration of the CoG. "Not all Israel is of Israel". Israel according to the flesh, but not spiritual Israel.

Kind regards,

Jerrold lewis


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JOwen_
> 
> 
> > Neither were made with man, neither include the reprobate. If 100 puritan writers said that they do include the reprobate, then they are all wrong. And as you can see WLC 31 is CLEAR.
> ...




Where is this internal vs external difference mentioned in scripture? And again, does God see it that way? I have yet to find a shred of evidence that a covenant made within the Godhead, can be broken by a party that is not included. Does it say "covenant" or Covenant of Grace in 166?

I would have no problem saying those who attend the outward ordinances are part of the covenant community, but I still do not see this as a guarantee. 


It must be reiterated that the covenant of grace does not include all mankind, but only God's covenant people. The extension of the atonement, as to its objects, is no wider than its intention in the covenant of grace/ redemption.

William, Symington. On The Atonement And Intercession of Jesus Christ, pp. 257-258 writes:


The blood of Christ was not shed by accident, it was not poured out at random or on a venture. No: he laid down his life by covenant. The terms of the covenant must therefore define the designed extent of the objects of his death. If all mankind are included in the covenant,-if the Surety of the covenant, as is admitted, are only a given specified number of the human family, then must the atonement of the Mediator be restricted to them. There seems no evading this inference. To give the designed objects of the Saviour's atonement a greater extension than the covenant of grace is to nullify its character as the stipulated condition of the covenant, and to render nugatory and unavailing the consolatory address by which the heart of many an awkward sinner has been soothed, 'Behold the blood of the covenant.


the covenant pertains to His sheep, or elect, and none other, and that God's infallible purpose cannot fail. In this covenant, God's people are being gathered into one: "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (Jhn. 10:16) Day by day, God is saving His people, seeking out His sheep, adding to the church and carrying them home to glory. In this we can see something of His covenant purpose in Christ.


In most emphatic terms we are told that "the good shepherd giveth his life for the sheep." (Jhn. 10:11) To His enemies, Jesus said, "Ye believe not because ye are not of my sheep. My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand. My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father's hand." (Jhn. 10:26-29)

In the above quoted verses, we find that some were not of Christ's sheep. It is for the sheep that the Shepherd dies. It is the sheep that were given unto Christ by the father. It is the sheep that He keeps, and to them He gives eternal life. It is for the sheep that the blood of the eternal covenant was shed:

Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, make you perfect in every good work to do his will. (Heb. 13:20-21)



William Romaine is one of the few that I can find who includes the whole Triune Godhead.

First, the nature of the divine covenant, which is not only the unchangeable will of the eternal Three, but is also Their agreement, confirmed by oath, concerning the heirs of promise.

The Father loved them as His children, freely, with an everlasting love. He chose them, and gave them to His Son. He engaged to keep them by His power, through faith unto salvation.

The Son accepted them, and wrote all their names in His book (not one of them therefore can be lost); He undertook to be made man, and to live and die for them; to rise from the dead, to ascend, and to intercede for them; and He sitteth as King-Mediator upon the throne, till every one of them be brought to glory. 

The Holy Spirit covenanted to carry into execution the purposes of the Father's love, and to apply the blessings of the Son's salvation. He undertook to quicken the heirs of promise, to call them effectually, to guide, to strengthen, to sanctify, and to comfort them; yea, He is not to leave them, till the number of the elect be perfected. Therefore, He abides with them for ever.

In this covenant the eternal Three have undertaken for every heir of promise "” to do all for him, and all in him, for the means and for the end, so that not one of them can perish; for faithfulness to the covenant is one of the highest honours of the Godhead: "œI am Jehovah, your Alehim, which keepeth covenant; I will ever be mindful of My covenant. My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that has gone out of My mouth." What strong consolation is there in these words! Study them, O my soul, that by them thy faith may be established, and they may do thee good, like a medicine.

D M L J:

I must add this, that what really happened in that eternal Council was that God drew up a great covenant called the covenant of grace or the covenant of redemption.

This is in order to teach us that all the blessings that come to us come in and through the Lord Jesus Christ, and as a part of that covenant that was made between the three blessed Persons before the foundation of the world

Pious Nicodemus no doubt thought himself a member of the covenant community and hoped to be vindicated on "˜the last day´. Nevertheless, he was told by Jesus of the necessity for a radical change that would bring him to the end of himself, and that only through faith in the sacrificial death of the Son of God is there eternal life (John 3:1-15)


----------



## JOwen (Apr 23, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by JOwen_
> ...


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 23, 2005)

> This still does not answer their error of leaving the Holy Spirit out of any covenant.



They didn't. Why would you think they did??

Read any of the Westminster writings and you will see a theology of the Holy Spirit that is unequalled, even in Witsius.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> 
> 
> > This still does not answer their error of leaving the Holy Spirit out of any covenant.
> ...


 The Westminster theology, including the covenants is full of the Holy Spirit. Joseph I don't know where you are getting that idea at all.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Apr 24, 2005)

All this is saying is that the spiritual union and eternal salvation promised in the CoG is only realized in those "in Christ", the elect, despite the promise still being to their children and the obligation of saving faith to receive eternal salvation. Being in the CoG doesn't = salvation unless you are "in Christ", which is guaranteed and secure in the CoR.


----------



## fredtgreco (Apr 24, 2005)

It's really simple, and this is true of all Westminster Calvinists:

Either
1. There is a Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Redemption, with the former including both elect and reprobate, and the latter only the elect. This was the position of Rutherford and others.

OR

2. There is only a Covenant of Grace, with two aspects to the covenant, one external (including both elect and reprobate) and internal (including only the elect). This was the position of Thomas Boston and others.

There is no other position consistent with the Confession.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 24, 2005)

I would also add that those Westminster Divines who held to the single covenant of grace view also made a distinction between Christ's role in that covenant as the head designated with special responsibilites by the Father, and the elect as the recipients of the blessings that the Head secured for them. Which really is just the same view as the CoG/CoR with different words.

[Edited on 4-24-2005 by puritansailor]


----------



## The Lamb (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It's really simple, and this is true of all Westminster Calvinists:
> 
> Either
> ...




Regardless if consistent with the confession Fred. I quoted 3 people above who appear to disagree with this statement.


William, Symington:

the covenant pertains to His sheep, or elect, and none other, and that God's infallible purpose cannot fail. In this covenant, God's people are being gathered into one: "There shall be one fold and one shepherd." (Jhn. 10:16) Day by day, God is saving His people, seeking out His sheep, adding to the church and carrying them home to glory. In this we can see something of His covenant purpose in Christ.

William Romaine :

First, the nature of the divine covenant, which is not only the unchangeable will of the eternal Three, but is also Their agreement, confirmed by oath, concerning the heirs of promise.

Are the reprobate heirs of promise?


Again, I am not using the confession as the bar. But as pointed out by Jeff.

WLC # 31 is very clear what they believed. There is no mention of the covenant made with man. There is no mention of the covenant made including the reprobate.

Unless I am missing it.


Patrick: Again I am only mentioning the definition of the covenant by many reformers. Is the role of the Holy Spirit mentioned? Not in WLC # 31 Only the Father and Son are mentioned. Where is the Holy Spirit? Was He present when the Covenant was made?


The covenant is God's because He conceives it, He promises it, He establishes it, He maintains it, and He perfects it. He alone does all this. He does this without the help of Abraham, of Israel, or of the church. Again and again, God says, "I will establish My covenant." When Jerusalem has broken the covenant with her abominable idolatries so that no other judgment can be expected than that God solemnly declares the covenant null and void, God amazingly says, "Nevertheless I will remember My covenant with thee . . . and I will establish unto thee an everlasting covenant" (Ezek. 16:60). Never does God say, "Let you and Me make our covenant." Never does Scripture teach that the covenant depends for its fulfillment upon sinful man. 



Although all our children are in the sphere of the covenant and therefore receive the sign of the covenant and are reared as covenant members, the covenant of God, the relationship of friendship in Jesus Christ, is established with the elect children only. The promise of the covenant is for the elect only. The promise does not depend upon the faith of the person, but the promise itself works the faith by which the individual receives the grace of the covenant in every child to whom God makes the promise. It is the elect among our physical offspring who constitute our true children, even as the seed of Abraham was not all his physical descendants, but only Christ and those who are Christ's according to election (cf. Gal. 3:7,16,29). 


J. H. Heidegger expresses the Reformed view: 

As for the adults, outward baptism does not seal inward grace for all of them, but for those alone who bear in their hearts a faith the reverse of feigned and confess it in words. Nor yet for the children of believing parents one and all, but only for the elect is baptism the sign of regeneration and universal spiritual grace. Although it is right and godly in the case of individual children of the kind to have good hopes of the judgment in love, in the case of them all it is not so (Reformed Dogmatics, London, 1950, pp. 622, 623). 



Westminster Confession holds the promise of the covenant of grace to be particular and unconditional: ". . . promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe" (7.3). In the chapter on baptism this Presbyterian creed teaches that the grace promised in baptism is strictly controlled by God's eternal predestination: 

... the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time (28.6) 

The Canons of Dordt restrict the promise of the gospel and the sacraments to believers (III, IV /8). Since faith is the gift of God to the elect (III, IV, 14; 1/9), the promise is for the elect. It cannot, therefore, fail (V/8). 

Westminster Confession holds the promise of the covenant of grace to be particular and unconditional: ". . . promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe" (7.3). In the chapter on baptism this Presbyterian creed teaches that the grace promised in baptism is strictly controlled by God's eternal predestination: 

... the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time (28.6) 

The Canons of Dordt restrict the promise of the gospel and the sacraments to believers (III, IV /8). Since faith is the gift of God to the elect (III, IV, 14; 1/9), the promise is for the elect. It cannot, therefore, fail (V/8). 

Westminster Confession holds the promise of the covenant of grace to be particular and unconditional: ". . . promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe" (7.3). In the chapter on baptism this Presbyterian creed teaches that the grace promised in baptism is strictly controlled by God's eternal predestination: 

... the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants) as that grace belongeth unto, according to the counsel of God's own will, in His appointed time (28.6) 

The Canons of Dordt restrict the promise of the gospel and the sacraments to believers (III, IV /8). Since faith is the gift of God to the elect (III, IV, 14; 1/9), the promise is for the elect. It cannot, therefore, fail (V/8). 

Joseph


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> It's really simple, and this is true of all Westminster Calvinists:
> 
> Either
> ...



*Right on the money.* One is simply a "division" of explaining the other. Both mean the same thing.


----------



## Puritan Sailor (Apr 24, 2005)

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Patrick: Again I am only mentioning the definition of the covenant by many reformers. Is the role of the Holy Spirit mentioned? Not in WLC # 31 Only the Father and Son are mentioned. Where is the Holy Spirit? Was He present when the Covenant was made?



Of course He was present. He's omnipresent. Obviously, He was present and knew His duties, and performed them infallibly, or else none of us would have the benefits of our salvation applied to us. You need to read the rest of the Confession, which is basically an exposition of the work of the Spirit applying the benefits of Christ, as "Christ's Spirit." The Spirit was part of Christ's reward granted to Christ for His obedience and hence the Spirit operates under the direct guidance of Christ and the plan coordinated with the Father, to apply the benefits of redemption to the elect and gather them in. The Spirit's mandate and role was determined by the covenant made with the Father and Son, and the fact that He actually does it shows His active,, wholehearted, and volunary participation in the covenant. You must understand the Confession's position in the wider context. Historically the Divines were focusing on the grounds of salvation in Christ alone in their formulating the covenant here. But as the rest of the Confession shows, there is no neglect of the Spirit's role at all.


----------



## Arch2k (Apr 24, 2005)

Thank you very much everyone. This has clarified so much in my mind.


----------

