# What's "NEW" about the New Covenant?



## steadfast7

I really need to flesh out covenant theology. Thanks in advance for your assistance!

If salvation has always been the same through all ages, and a covenant of grace provided since the beginning that leads to a circumcision of heart (renewing of heart), and the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, then what is "NEW" about the New Covenant?


----------



## Herald

Dennis,



> *Jeremiah 31:31-34 * 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."



First, it is important to note that the New Covenant is not like the previous covenant; the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is defined by its difference to the previous covenant. Even though the Old Covenant pointed to a new and better covenant from its inception, it was not built strictly on grace. It required and allowed for obedience both from true spiritual children of Abraham and physical descendants only. In that regard the covenant was able to be broken through acts of disobedience (v. 32). 

The New Covenant will be unlike the Old Covenant in that it is made with a) only the spiritual seed of Abraham b) it is an unbreakable covenant; by God or man. 

The New Covenant has a "now and not yet" administration. Christians are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and as such they are members of the New Covenant. Unfortunately sin still abides, so the full manifestation of the New Covenant will not be realized until the eternal state. 

Paul writes about the uniqueness of the New Covenant:



> *2 Corinthians 3:5-6* 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, _*not of the letter but of the Spirit*_; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (*emphasis mine*).


----------



## rbcbob

*Newness of the New Covenant*

Heb. 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; *because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them*, says the LORD.
10 "*For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days*, says the LORD: *I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people*.
11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying,`Know the LORD,' *for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.*
12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

*The covenantees are new*- they all know the Lord, whereas the Sinai Covenant included a mixed multitude.

*The work of the Guarantor is new*. The Lord Himself assures that every member will comply with the particulars of the covenant.


----------



## steadfast7

Thanks Bill. Now, when you say, 


Herald said:


> Even though the Old Covenant pointed to a new and better covenant from its inception, it was not built strictly on grace.


... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?

This discontinuity between the old and new has always been my reading of the covenants, but is this still a Covenantally Reformed view?


----------



## Herald

steadfast7 said:


> Thanks Bill. Now, when you say,
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Even though the Old Covenant pointed to a new and better covenant from its inception, it was not built strictly on grace.
> 
> 
> 
> ... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?
> 
> This discontinuity between the old and new has always been my reading of the covenants, but is this still a Covenantally Reformed view?
Click to expand...


Dennis, 

Well *chuckle* it depends on who you're asking to define what is Reformed. I will say that it is the majority covenantal view among Baptists. I don't want to be accused of gutting grace/redemption out of the Old Covenant; it's there in that the Old Covenant points forward, albeit requires, a better covenant. 

By the way, this is why I believe the baptism debate fails on both sides when arguing over the ordinance itself. The issue is solved if we better understand the nature of the New Covenant.


----------



## steadfast7

Agreed Bill. Good thoughts. 

How do you Presbyterians understand the newness of the New Covenant, then?


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> ... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?



I don't think you will find this "new covenant" teaching in the antipaedobaptist revision of Westminster-Savoy. Quite the opposite, following Westminsterian theology the antipaedobaptist revision continues to maintain the offer of the gospel is an administration of the covenant of grace, in which there are some only outwardly called, in which there continues to be temporary believers, and also chastisements and temporal judgements for true believers. On the subject of Christ the Mediator and justification it is maintained that salvation is the same for Old and New Testament believers alike. As there is no revision of Westminster-Savoy on these subjects there is no basis for alleging there is a distinct "Reformed antipaedobaptist" position as over against a Reformed paedobaptist position.


----------



## steadfast7

Interesting, Rev. Winzer. If this is so, then both the Presbyterian and Baptistic historic Reformed would agree that the new-ness is only in the administration of the same covenant of grace. It still puzzles me what would be new about it. When the administration moved from the Abrahamic to the Mosaic, it was never called a new covenant. How I am understanding the covenants is that it is the progressive revealing of the same thing, only the image becomes sharper through time. If one grants the analogy, when a sapling becomes a young tree, is it considered "new"?


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> It still puzzles me what would be new about it.



According to both Confessions, concerning the law of God, the difference is in ceremonials, on the understanding that morals ever remain the same.

With the benefit of the Larger Catechism, "more fulness, evidence and efficacy, to all nations" marks the administration of the covenant under the New Testament. So there is a freshness even with respect to substantials even though there is not a complete newness.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> With the benefit of the Larger Catechism, "more fulness, evidence and efficacy, to all nations" marks the administration of the covenant under the New Testament. So there is a freshness even with respect to substantials even though there is not a complete newness.



But the covenant of grace was open to those gentiles, even nations, who believed and repented. Is newness, then, only a matter of degree?


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> But the covenant of grace was open to those gentiles, even nations, who believed and repented. Is newness, then, only a matter of degree?



The Gentiles were required to be subservient to Israel under the old administration. That which is revealed in the New is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs of the household of God, Eph. 2, 3; hence the freedom from Israel's ceremonies decreed by the Council of Jerusalem.

Yes; substantials, morals, are the same in kind, different in degree. Ceremonials have changed.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> 
> With the benefit of the Larger Catechism, "more fulness, evidence and efficacy, to all nations" marks the administration of the covenant under the New Testament. So there is a freshness even with respect to substantials even though there is not a complete newness.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the covenant of grace was open to those gentiles, even nations, who believed and repented. Is newness, then, only a matter of degree?
Click to expand...


Remember Dennis that Israel was the Pedagogical Church as it is mentioned in Galatians. One had to adhere to a nationality of Israel in the Covenant. If they didn't they were considered cut off. I think you are forgetting the scriptures that we discussed earlier in Ephesians 2. The Kingdom has now a focus on the whole world as it calls all men together under Christ's Kingship. 



> (Eph 2:11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;
> 
> (Eph 2:12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:18) For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:
> 
> 
> (Eph 2:22) In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.



No it isn't only a matter of degree as has been mentioned in other threads you have participated in. The Newness also has to do with how the Covenant of grace is administered. If you want to note that it is only a matter of degree so be it. It is New because Christ has come. That is no small degree. The Promises and Shadows have been fulfilled. We have gone from shadow to reality. We have gone from type to anti-type. We have gone from yearly sacrifices (the old way) to one Sacrifice for all sin past, present, and future. If you want to say that is a matter of degree then I don't know how to tell you what newness is. It was new that our mediation before God by way of the Levitical priesthood has been done away and we now have a better Priest, Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour. That is different and new. 

Remember this?



> Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.
> 
> Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.


----------



## toddpedlar

Agree completely, Pastor Winzer - and I think you've put the case nicely. I do think also, if I might interject, that the testamentary aspect of the New Covenant should be mentioned as well. The New Covenant is also New because it explicitly involves the testament of one who has died (namely Christ) - this testamentary aspect is one that the Old Covenant did not, nay, could not have, as Christ was not yet come in flesh. Now that He has come, lived and died, this other aspect/usage of the Greek word diatheke comes into clear view. This is, indeed, a 'newness' to the New Covenant.


----------



## steadfast7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Israel was the Pedagogical Church as it is mentioned in Galatians. One had to adhere to a nationality of Israel in the Covenant. If they didn't they were considered cut off. I think you are forgetting the scriptures that we discussed earlier in Ephesians 2. The Kingdom has now a focus on the whole world as it calls all men together under Christ's Kingship.


 But I've found covenant theology quick to point out that the Gentile church is grafted into Israel's paradigm except for that which is fulfilled in Christ or nationally significant. What is actually different in the administration, may I ask? Gentiles are still inducted with a covenant sign, they are subservient to the same moral law, their covenant status functions federally, a mixed church membership still exists, blessings and curses remain, and being cut off from the covenant community is still possible.

Can I get some details on this concept of administration?

thanks.

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------

The Baptist interpretation of a newly constituted regenerate membership is significant enough, in my judgment, to warrant the term "new."


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> What is actually different in the administration, may I ask? Gentiles are still inducted with a covenant sign, they are subservient to the same moral law, their covenant status functions federally, a mixed church membership still exists, blessings and curses remain, and being cut off from the covenant community is still possible.



We could enumerate all day. Let's take two -- circumcision and passover. It is clear that there was something here too hard to be borne, Acts 15. Christ's yoke is easier, Matt. 11. Circumcision made Moses a bloody man. Christ's blood is shed for the remission of sins. Baptism therefore signifies the effect, the washing. Much easier. Again, passover involved bloody sacrifice. Again, Christ's blood purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. The Lord's supper does not include the typical element of blood-shedding, but only the nourishing sign of feeding on Christ's body and blood. Again, much easier. And so we could go through all the ordinances. No central place of worship. No mediating priesthood. No incense or instruments, etc. All is easy in comparison.


----------



## steadfast7

Although these administrations are significant changes, I still read differences in degree - the main one being degree of ease. I think if we were to list them all (a worthy exercise perhaps), we would probably find that administrations under the old covenant are prefigurations or types of what is fulfilled in Christ (sufficient gospel during that administration, of course). Christ's coming supplies the substance to figures like circumcision, passover, temple worship, etc. But baptism and the Lord's Supper are more like reformulations of ordinances that maintain a lot of the same imagery and substance. The New Covenant speaks of it being "_not like_" the covenant had with the forefathers. Is the force of this "not like" appreciated in the scheme presented?


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> Although these administrations are significant changes, I still read differences in degree - the main one being degree of ease. I think if we were to list them all (a worthy exercise perhaps), we would probably find that administrations under the old covenant are prefigurations or types of what is fulfilled in Christ (sufficient gospel during that administration, of course). Christ's coming supplies the substance to figures like circumcision, passover, temple worship, etc. But baptism and the Lord's Supper are more like reformulations of ordinances that maintain a lot of the same imagery and substance. The New Covenant speaks of it being "_not like_" the covenant had with the forefathers. Is the force of this "not like" appreciated in the scheme presented?



A type requires a correspondence or "likeness" to the Antitype. You are admitting the Old Testament ordinances were types, but then you suggest that there should be something "not like" them in the New Testament. Hebrews uses the word "better," "superior," which is a comparative, but you seem to require something that is altogether different and beyond comparison.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Although these administrations are significant changes, I still read differences in degree - the main one being degree of ease. I think if we were to list them all (a worthy exercise perhaps), we would probably find that administrations under the old covenant are prefigurations or types of what is fulfilled in Christ (sufficient gospel during that administration, of course). Christ's coming supplies the substance to figures like circumcision, passover, temple worship, etc. But baptism and the Lord's Supper are more like reformulations of ordinances that maintain a lot of the same imagery and substance. The New Covenant speaks of it being "_not like_" the covenant had with the forefathers. Is the force of this "not like" appreciated in the scheme presented?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A type requires a correspondence or "likeness" to the Antitype. You are admitting the Old Testament ordinances were types, but then you suggest that there should be something "not like" them in the New Testament. Hebrews uses the word "better," "superior," which is a comparative, but you seem to require something that is altogether different and beyond comparison.
Click to expand...


Point noted. The superlatives do suggest comparison. Does not the wording of the New Covenant suggest some break from the past? It lists a number of things that suggest regeneration: the law written on minds and hearts, a new heart given, a knowledge of the Lord, forgiveness of sins. This is no doubt attested in Old Covenant religion. Those saved by the CoG enjoyed these benefits fully in Christ, so there's nothing new on that level. I can see how a new administration of the ordinances demonstrate a difference, but the language is still very strong. Is it not possible that the prophet is speaking of other aspects, for example, the membership of the NC (only the regenerate)?


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> Is it not possible that the prophet is speaking of other aspects, for example, the membership of the NC (only the regenerate)?



This was discussed on the previous thread. No, it's not possible. Heb 8-10 utilises the promise of Jeremiah for the purpose of showing a change in the priesthood -- a point of objective administration. The idea of "regenerate only membership" would subjectivise the covenant and destroy the objective, redemptive-historical argument of the text. And the warning which comes at the end of that section in chap. 10, with regard to what would happen if the Hebrews did not hold fast the profession of their faith, would make no sense.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dennis,
I think you need to take some time to pray about and meditate on this. I believe your questions have all been answered quite well in the last few threads we have discussed this. You might want to revisit the past thread where we discussed this quite a bit. 

I will give you some of the pertinent posts here. Take some time and think about this before you start repeating the questions. It seems we are just going in circles. It is getting a bit tiring answering the same questions over and over the past few threads. 



PuritanCovenanter said:


> Herb,
> 
> There is the inward and outward administration of the Covenant of Grace. God is gracious and there are benefits for both the regenerate and unregenerate in that Covenant inclusion. The inward and outward aspects of the Covenant are something that need to be pursued maybe.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/content/circumcision-baptism-compared-60/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Rom 9:3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
> 
> (Rom 9:4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
> 
> 
> (Rom 9:5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you can deny that the Abrahamic is an administration of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Pastor Jerrold H. Lewis discusses this on the PB a bit. Here is his post from a while back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/unbelievers-new-covenant-34859/#post432492*
> Presbyterian Federal Holiness
> *
> 
> By Rev. J Lewis
> Lacombe Free Reformed Church
> 
> Under the Old Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant was largely a physical covenant with a spiritual remnant imbibing in promises and blessings. Under the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant is not primarily physical with a spiritual component, but primarily spiritual with a physical component (Hodge 130). Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 are very descriptive as to the nature of the New Covenant in contrast with the _status quo_,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obviously there was a change of administration in the New Covenant as well as a change of emphasis. The Covenant of Grace today is so overtly spiritual, one can almost speak of it _exclusively in ethereal terms_. Indeed the Westminster Confession of Faith does so by insisting that the Covenant of Grace is made with the* elect only* (Chapter 7; LC 30, 31, 32). Yet the Westminster Standards also speak of a secondary and subordinate sense of the Covenant of Grace that is objective and physical. 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)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Some have contended that the Westminster Larger Catechism holds within itself a tension regarding with whom the Covenant of Grace is made (Baldwin). It is argued that in Larger Catechism Q & A 31, the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only, while Q & A 166 teaches that the Covenant of Grace is made with the members of the Visible Church. One can see the apparent contradiction.
> 
> But is this a valid criticism and a real tension? Or is it the case that the Larger Catechism is speaking about _two different aspects_ of the Covenant of Grace, one spiritual and unbreakable, the other conditional and breakable? To answer this question we may turn to one of the greatest of all Westminster Divines, Samuel Rutherford.
> 
> *Samuel Rutherford*
> 
> In his monumental and rarely read book _The Covenant of Life Opened_ (1654), Rutherford discuses the Covenant of Grace in two important ways. First he insists that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect in Christ, and that the Covenant is manifestly to be understood in such term (94). After establishing this indisputable fact Rutherford opens up the Covenant in a twofold way, first in _abstracto_ by visible profession, in which the covenant is "professed, visible, and conditional," and then in _concreto_, where the covenant is, "internal, real, and absolute"(94). It is for this reason Rutherford finds no tension in the Larger Catechism and has no problem saying that the unregenerate, _in one way_, are in the Covenant of Grace:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is no inconvenient [sic] that the Reprobate in the Visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises, of a new heart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly and externally, and the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God.(94)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By _in abstracto_ Rutherford means, " formally, in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners", in which contains only "the will of precept". Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only._ This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace_; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenantal (94).
> 
> Under the marginal heading, How visible professors are really within the Covenant, & not really within it, Rutherford Writes,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The adverb (really) relates to the real fruit of the fulfilled covenant, and so such as are only externally within the Covenant, are not really within the Covenant, for God never directed, nor intended to bestow the blessing Covenanted, nor grace to perform the condition of the Covenant upon them. But they are really Covenanted and engaged by their confessed profession to fulfill the Covenant. And as the commands and threatenings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externally in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the promises of the Covenant imposes an engagement and obligation on such to believe the promise, but some times, we say the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the reprobate within the Visible Church, because God intends and decrees to, and for them, neither the blessing promised, nor the saving grace to fulfill the condition to believe. (92)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In this way says Rutherford, "all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace" (94). It is in this same way Rutherford can speak of a Federal Holiness that allows for Larger Catechism 166 to remain non-contradictory with Larger Catechism 31. Federal holiness is not necessarily a saving holiness but a setting apart by covenant promise. Rutherford is very clear that true holiness while set in the context of a federal promise, is truly predicated upon God's secret decree. Observe:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But as touching real holiness, it is not derived from a believing father, or to make the son a believer, Scripture and experience say the contrair. Nor is internal and effectual confederacie with God, that, by which one is a son of promise. 1. For no man is chosen to life in his father, because the father is chosen. A chosen father may have a reprobate son. 2. Election to life is not of nations, or houses, or societies, but of single person. (85)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Needless to say, Rutherford believes that _mere_ Federal Holiness is no true holiness unless regeneration has taken place. Yes, there is a _physical aspect_ to the Covenant of Grace which has blessings and cursing; however, for it to carry any lasting benefit, it must be a personal work wrought by the effectual converting power of the Holy Spirit in _a one-to-one correlation_ between election and regeneration.
> 
> *James Bannerman*
> 
> Likewise, another great Presbyterian who wrote extensively on the nature of the Church (and the Covenant) also found no tension in the Westminster Standard's regarding the Covenant of Grace. In his two volume work, The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, taught an important contrast between the members of the Church visible and invisible. "The Church invisible stands, with respect to its members, in an inward and spiritual relationship to Christ, whereas the Church visible stands to Him in outward relationship only" (Bannerman 29).
> 
> The visible/invisible distinction according to Bannerman cannot go unnoticed. Observe how he uses visible Church and external covenant synonymously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The external relationship in which the members of the visible Church stand to Christ, as having been brought into a Church state from out of the world, has been often spoken of by theologians under the name of an _external covenant_ or _federal relationship_. Whatever name may be given to it, there is no doubt there is a real and important relationship into which the members of the visible Church have entered... (30)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Later he reinforces this same idea when he states, "This relation of the mere formal professor and member of the visible Church to Christ may be called an _external covenant _and an _outward federal union_, or not. But under whatever name, it in important to bear in mind that there is such a relationship involving both real responsibilities and real privileges. (Emphasis mine)(32)
> 
> Bannerman is equally clear as Rutherford insisting the true, vital, saving, unbreakable nature of the Covenant of Grace as it stands in eternity, is made with the elect alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In so far as the Church invisible is concerned, the truth of this statement will be admitted by all. There can be no difference of opinion on this point. The proper party with whom the covenant of grace is made, and to whom its promises and privileged belongs is the invisible Church of real believers. It is this Church for whom Christ died. (30-31)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He goes on to say, "The case is all together different for with the visible Church. It stands not in an inward and saving relationship to Christ, but in an outward relationship only, involving no more than the promise and enjoyment of outward privileges" (31).
> 
> In this regard, to suggest that the Covenant of Grace has a works component upon its entry is to misunderstand its function entirely. Every good Presbyterian will agree that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from any works of the law. This _federal and outward separation_ that is called "sanctified" and "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14, "broken off branches" in John 15;1-8, and "unwise virgins" in Matthew 25, is meant to convey how God sets aside certain people to be objects of physical, covenantal blessings. These outward blessings (which are not saving), such as hearing the Word preached, observing or participating in the sacraments, and involvement in the fellowship of the covenant community, are the means by which God brings the unregenerate soul within earshot of the call of the Gospel; inviting all to come from darkness to light, from the temporal covenant into the Everlasting Covenant. Bannerman says, "To the external privileges of that visible society even sinners are invited,- not that they may rest there, but that they may go on to the invisible and spiritual society within." The visible covenant blessings are meant to cause the sinner to "seek for something higher and more blessed" (33).
> 
> The spiritual blessings and promises of the Covenant of Grace must be the dominant theme in all federalist teaching and preaching. Bannerman reminds us that in the separation between Rome and Protestantism the visible/invisible Church distinction, "...lies at the very foundation of the controversy between them. The strong desire and tenancy with Popish controversialists is to deny the existence of the invisible Church; or when they are not bold enough to do that, at least to give the decided precedence to the Church visible"(37).
> 
> This should be avoided at all costs. The invisible Church is the true Church, it is the "glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:27).
> 
> *Conclusion*
> 
> When we speak of Federal Holiness it should always be in light of its goal- a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Elect One. To simply think of Church members as being in confederacy with Christ by baptism and profession is to forget the most vital portion of the equation. Indeed many today are so emphasizing the mere federal element of the Covenant of Grace they are(practically speaking), omitting the weightier matters of the Covenant.
> 
> Inward union is the only true union with Christ. Any substitution of Church-ism in place of the internal operation of the Spirit is to supplant the roll of the Visible Church and turn the gospel on its head. We must be diligent in both our understanding and application of every aspect of Christ's Church and of His gracious covenant.
> 
> Bannerman's conclusion is a good one:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [N]othing but a clear discernment of the principles that connect and yet distinguish the Church invisible from the Church visible, and a right application of these to explain the statements of the Word of God on the point, will save us from mistakes fraught with the most ruinous consequences both in doctrine and practice. (40)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bibliography
> 
> 1. Baldwin, Bill. Several Quick Arguments That The Covenant of Works is Not Gracious. <http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/several_quick.html#note3> 2002.
> 
> 3. Hodge, Archibald. Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.
> 
> 2.Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened. Edinburgh: 1654.
> 
> 3. Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1960.
> 
> 4. Westminster Divines. Westminster Larger Catechism. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...





armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the new covenant is part of covenant of grace then the new covenant must contain reprobates, correct? How are we to hold to this teaching when Jer. says the members of the new covenant will all know the Lord;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If taken in this way the passage from Jeremiah would also do away with teaching elders. If read in the light of its fulfilment and exposition in Hebrews 8-10, however, it is clear that the difference is not between "not knowing the Lord" in the old covenant and "knowing the Lord" in the new covenant. The difference is in the medium by which the Lord is known. Under the Old Testament it was mediated through priests. Priests sacrificed on behalf of the people and taught them to know the Lord. As Heb 8-10 explains, the sacrifice of Christ has done away with mediating priests. The Lord is known in Christ. Hence the need to hold fast the confession of Christ.
Click to expand...




armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Jer. and Heb. say they shall all know me, that strikes me as being quantitative in nature - not some, not many but ALL. This is different than _how_ we come to know the Lord.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The idea of an internalised covenant is irrelevant to the point of a change of priesthood. If internalisation does away with priesthood it also does away with all ministry, including the teaching ministry. That can't be the use that is made of Jeremiah in Heb. 8-10, which is seeking to establish that the Aaronic priesthood has been superseded by Christ. Heb 5 had also acknowledged the place of "teachers" under the new covenant. The point about the law being written in the heart is in opposition to the tablets of stone on which "the law as a covenant" was given to the people. That law-covenant was established in sacrificial blood which required the function of a mediating priest. See Ps. 40:6-8, quoted in Hebrews 10, for the reality of the law written in the heart as preferable to sacrifices and offerings. What was preferred under the old covenant has become an exclusive arrangement under the new.
Click to expand...






armourbearer said:


> Scholten said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am trying to get my arms around is whether or not all members of the new covenant are elect and only the elect. How does the above address that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "internalisation" argument is used by its advocates to imply a regenerate covenant membership. "Regenerate" and "elect" are functionally equivalent in this approach since only the elect are regenerated and have the law written on the heart. As noted, however, "internalisation" does not establish the point of Heb 8-10. It is not a subjective and individual experience but an objective reality in redemptive history which is the point of the passage. There is a change of priesthood because there is a change of covenant. The change cannot be from the external to the internal but must be an external change which alters the ceremonial aspect of the old covenant because it is fulfilled, abrogated, and superseded by Christ. In (Westminster) confessional terms, the administration has changed.
Click to expand...




PuritanCovenanter said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The figures and types of the OT come to its realization in the new covenant, which is in Christ's blood. This blood sprinkles the elect and does so perfectly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There does seem to be some form of sanctification in the Covenant of Christ's blood that takes place in Hebrews 10:29 for those who end up apostatizing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heb 10:29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? KJV
> 
> (Heb 10:29) How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? ESV
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is it not possible that the prophet is speaking of other aspects, for example, the membership of the NC (only the regenerate)?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This was discussed on the previous thread. No, it's not possible. Heb 8-10 utilises the promise of Jeremiah for the purpose of showing a change in the priesthood -- a point of objective administration. The idea of "regenerate only membership" would subjectivise the covenant and destroy the objective, redemptive-historical argument of the text. And the warning which comes at the end of that section in chap. 10, with regard to what would happen if the Hebrews did not hold fast the profession of their faith, would make no sense.
Click to expand...


I've been trying to percolate over this concept of a charge of subjectivising the covenant. Honestly, I think the terminology just needs to be presented to me in simpler terms. However, allow me to interact with what I think you're saying. I don't think that the change in objective priesthood needs to dominate the discussion. Look at what the writer of Hebrews says RIGHT before he cites Jeremiah. He says, "For he finds fault with _THEM_ when he says:" ... and he goes on to quote the New Covenant. His concern IS subjective at its inception, it seems to me. It is about people. It is about the people to whom the NC applies, at least in my reading. The problem that he views is that God's people are an unregenerate people who do not know the Lord. But, in the New Covenant, this will not be so. God makes sure of it by his own atoning blood. 

And, the argument about the need for teachers in the New Covenant ... there is a very real sense in which there is no need to admonish a regenerate person that they ought to know the Lord. The last thing on my mind is to encourage you, Randy, or Rev. Winzer, that you ought to know the Lord. This is not on my evangelistic priority list. And I happen to think that this is an outworking of the New Covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> The last thing on my mind is to encourage you, Randy, or Rev. Winzer, that you ought to know the Lord.



I have had people in my life who have told me during certain times that they were worried for my soul and that they were concerned for my eternal state. It was very appropriate. And this has been years after my conversion. Backsliding is a very real concern for us. Many people have made confessions and been baptized confessing Christ with their mouth and yet have not been regenerate. The call for the Church is to keep that in the forefront. We are to be consistent in this call to Know the Lord. The reality of knowing the Lord is also an eschatological thing. That is why St. Paul challenges others in 2 Corinthians 13:5 and why the warning passages are written. The encouragement to know the Lord is a very real. 

Dennis, please do what I asked. Take some time to pray and consider the whole and what has been said. 

Also consider the way this is spoken of. It also is in conjection with Jeremiah 31 I believe. 



> (Jer 32:37) Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:
> 
> (Jer 32:38) And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:
> 
> 
> (Jer 32:39) And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, *for the good of them, and of their children after them*:
> 
> 
> (Jer 32:40) *And I will make an everlasting covenant with them*, *that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.*
> 
> 
> (Jer 32:41) Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul.
> 
> 
> (Jer 32:42) For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.
> 
> 
> (Jer 32:43) And fields shall be bought in this land, whereof ye say, It is desolate without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans.
> 
> 
> (Jer 32:44) Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe evidences, and seal them, and take witnesses in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the mountains, and in the cities of the valley, and in the cities of the south: for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the LORD.


----------



## Pilgrim

Dennis,

Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.


----------



## toddpedlar

steadfast7 said:


> And, the argument about the need for teachers in the New Covenant ... there is a very real sense in which there is no need to admonish a regenerate person that they ought to know the Lord. The last thing on my mind is to encourage you, Randy, or Rev. Winzer, that you ought to know the Lord. This is not on my evangelistic priority list. And I happen to think that this is an outworking of the New Covenant.



When was there a time when it was necessary to admonish a regenerate person to know the Lord?


----------



## Herald

Herald said:


> I will say that it is the majority covenantal view among Baptists. I don't want to be accused of gutting grace/redemption out of the Old Covenant; it's there in that the Old Covenant points forward, albeit requires, a better covenant.



Allow me to quote Micah and Samuel Renihan, who drill down more in detail on the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace. Thanks go to Chris Poe for linking the article in which this quote comes from:



> One of the most distinctive features of this covenant was that God immutably promised to bring about these blessings apart from any merit on Abraham's part, and for that reason the Covenant of Circumcision can rightly be called _a_ covenant of grace. But can it rightly be called an administration of _the _Covenant of Grace? If the Covenant of Grace is the accomplishing of the Covenant of Redemption in history, the retro-active application of the New Covenant, then what do national promises have to do with Christ's redeeming and gathering of the elect? It must be noted that although all the Abrahamic promises typologically reveal the New Covenant, in their substance and essence they are distinct from it. Abraham knew that Canaan was not heaven.



The above quote does appear to be the majority view among Reformed Baptists today.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Pilgrim said:


> Dennis,
> 
> Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.



Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> then what do national promises have to do with Christ's redeeming and gathering of the elect?



I think they have a lot to do with Christ redeeming and gathering the Elect. Those National Promises reflect how God works and has his dealings with the Church in the Wilderness and in the Land. It is about the pedigogical way God raised the Church in the Old Testament and it reflects how He deals with the Church as a whole. It isn't a works paradigm. It is a relational paradigm of grace and how God deals with His Church. And it looks like that is the way he deals with the New Covenant Church also. He will remove the candlestick and He will bring down the hammer so to speak. There are plenty of passages that indicate this. It is a grace that He does this. And in 1 Corinthians 10 he says that we should consider it. For they should be remembered as examples. What a grace.


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."
Click to expand...


Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> I don't think that the change in objective priesthood needs to dominate the discussion. Look at what the writer of Hebrews says RIGHT before he cites Jeremiah. He says, "For he finds fault with _THEM_ when he says:" ... and he goes on to quote the New Covenant.



Please look at what the writer has said from the beginning of chapter 8 leading up to the verse you have quoted. The section is entirely taken up with the priesthood. Go through the various contrasts in chapter 9. What is the point of concern? The ordinances as they relate to the priesthood. The objective work of Christ in His once offering up of Himself as a sacrifice is made the contrast. Look, again, at what is said before and after the quotation in chapter 10: "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." The issue pertains to the priesthood which makes atonement for sin. According to Hebrews, "I will remember their sin no more" means there is no continual sacrifices made for sins. Then look at the warning which closes this section of the Epistle: "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." The point is, There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins under the old covenant administration. From beginning to end the only use that is made of the passage from Jeremiah is the objective, redemptive-historical significance that it has with respect to the change of priesthood.

I am sorry that you feel no need to exhort your brethren, Dennis. That sounds hyper-Calvinist to me. God uses means to work in His people's lives. While we are in chapter 10 of Hebrews perhaps you could take some time to meditate on the chain of exhortations in verses 19-25. It is obvious that the writer did not regard the passage from Jeremiah as if it did away with the need of teaching.


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> then what do national promises have to do with Christ's redeeming and gathering of the elect?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think they have a lot to do with Christ redeeming and gathering the Elect. Those National Promises reflect how God works and has his dealings with the Church in the Wilderness and in the Land. It is about the pedigogical way God raised the Church in the Old Testament and it reflects how He deals with the Church as a whole. It isn't a works paradigm. It is a relational paradigm of grace and how God deals with His Church. And it looks like that is the way he deals with the New Covenant Church also. He will remove the candlestick and He will bring down the hammer so to speak. There are plenty of passages that indicate this. It is a grace that He does this. And in 1 Corinthians 10 he says that we should consider it. For they should be remembered as examples. What a grace.
Click to expand...


Randy, respectfully, you are articulating the typographical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant. The point is that no one is called into covenant with God based on national, or "physical" promises.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.



Both are tainted by Kline. Kline, and WSCal look more Baptistic concerning their views of the Mosaic in my estimation. Let me explain a little more. I believe that they both hold to a works paradigm for earning something such as staying in the land. If that is true then the Lord has a Works paradigm concerning His Church in the New Covenant also in my estimation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> The point is that no one is called into covenant with God based on national, or "physical" promises.



I am not so sure about this Bill. The Church is physical. We are called a holy nation. There are promises of blessing and (cursing if you will). Jesus Himself had some pretty stern warnings starting in Revelation chapter 2 and those were physical entities.


----------



## Pilgrim

Herald said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.
Click to expand...


It appears to me that on the first page they stipulate their substantial agreement with Kline. 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the IRBS students, as I understand it, take the bulk of their classes from WSCAL professors and then add some Baptist specific classes from the IRBS profs.


----------



## Herald

Pilgrim said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pilgrim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dennis,
> 
> Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears to me that on the first page they stipulate their substantial agreement with Kline.
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the IRBS students, as I understand it, take the bulk of their classes from WSCAL professors and then add some Baptist specific classes from the IRBS profs.
Click to expand...


I have to plead ignorance on Kline.


----------



## Pilgrim

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are tainted by Kline. Kline, and WSCal looks more Baptistic concerning their views of the Mosaic in my estimation. Let me explain a little more. I believe that they both hold to a works paradigm for earning something such as staying in the land. If that is true then the Lord has a Works paradigm concerning His Church in the New Covenant also in my estimation.
Click to expand...


Was the Mosaic Covenant conditional or unconditional? Wasn't Israel put out of the land because they broke the covenant? If that is true, then why would it be wrong to say that it contained a works principle? It wasn't works regarding salvation, but it was conditional regarding possession of the land. In contrast, the New Covenant is an everlasting covenant that cannot be broken. Even if one takes the paedobaptist line (as articulated by Dr. Pratt in his article on the New Covenant and Infant Baptism) everyone agrees that it cannot be revoked or abrogated (or a divorce) as occurred with the Mosaic. Saying that the Mosaic contains a works principle (while not being a COW as a whole) doesn't necessitate adopting Kline's teaching. The 1689 was adopted some time prior to Kline stepping onto the stage.  And that strain of thought didn't originate in 1689 or 1677. 

Most of the Calvinistic Baptists that I am familiar with who strongly identify with Kline couldn't subscribe to the 1689 without crossing some fingers or taking major exceptions. (You should recall one who is a great admirer of Kline and Vos who doesn't post on the RB List anymore because he's NCT.) But I am not that familiar with Renihan and the IRBS. I know some confessional RB's who identify more with the likes of Frame.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

My problem Chris is where they call it a republication of the Covenant of Works and what they mean by that. I think that is where the problem lies. That means something. I do believe the Law is given in the Old. It is the same Law that was used in the Covenant of Works but it isn't used the same way as it was in the Covenant of Works. And I have had correspondence that says it is. I do not believe it is the same thing. It isn't something that is earned as it would have been with Adam. It isn't something that is owed by debt as St. Paul mentions in Romans. The Church's relationship in both testaments is fully based upon a grace principle that is relational.


----------



## Peairtach

*Dennis*


> But the covenant of grace was open to those gentiles, even nations, who believed and repented. Is newness, then, only a matter of degree?



The Gentiles had to submit themselves to the full panoply of Israel's pedagogical Old Covenant legislation including the ceremonials and "theonomy" if they wished to enjoy the full benefits of living under the Old Covenant. Otherwise they were second class believers, known as Gentile God-fearers. 

That wall is broken down under the New Covenant.



> remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world.But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility (Eph 2:12-14, ESV)



When a Gentile was engrafted into the Old Covenant people of God, his children were included. There is no indication of any change, now that the wall of partition between Jews and Gentile God-fearers has been broken down.

---------- Post added at 11:45 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:28 PM ----------




Pilgrim said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Herald said:
> 
> 
> 
> Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both are tainted by Kline. Kline, and WSCal looks more Baptistic concerning their views of the Mosaic in my estimation. Let me explain a little more. I believe that they both hold to a works paradigm for earning something such as staying in the land. If that is true then the Lord has a Works paradigm concerning His Church in the New Covenant also in my estimation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was the Mosaic Covenant conditional or unconditional? Wasn't Israel put out of the land because they broke the covenant? If that is true, then why would it be wrong to say that it contained a works principle? It wasn't works regarding salvation, but it was conditional regarding possession of the land. In contrast, the New Covenant is an everlasting covenant that cannot be broken. Even if one takes the paedobaptist line (as articulated by Dr. Pratt in his article on the New Covenant and Infant Baptism) everyone agrees that it cannot be revoked or abrogated (or a divorce) as occurred with the Mosaic. Saying that the Mosaic contains a works principle (while not being a COW as a whole) doesn't necessitate adopting Kline's teaching. The 1689 was adopted some time prior to Kline stepping onto the stage.  And that strain of thought didn't originate in 1689 or 1677.
> 
> Most of the Calvinistic Baptists that I am familiar with who strongly identify with Kline couldn't subscribe to the 1689 without crossing some fingers or taking major exceptions. (You should recall one who is a great admirer of Kline and Vos who doesn't post on the RB List anymore because he's NCT.) But I am not that familiar with Renihan and the IRBS. I know some confessional RB's who identify more with the likes of Frame.
Click to expand...


There are conditional aspects to the New Covenant arrangement, although it is true that it will not be finally dispensed with, as was the Old Covenant.

The maintenance of a place in the Land (and prosperity in the Land) was a gracious reward from God for good works produced by faith as a result of God's grace. God still offers gracious rewards to His people for their good works.

Being sinners saved by grace, our good works don't intrinsically merit anything, but God deigns to reward them, in His grace to us.

It's impossible to see how any supposed RoCoW could have operated as a true RoCoW, since the Israelites were sinners unlike Adam. It would be wrong of God to try to encourage them to save themselves in any sense.

The moral law may have been presented _hypothetically_ as CoW in order to drive them to the grace that was presented in the ceremonial-sacrificial aspects of the law. But that is not a RoCoW, but a gracious part of the Mosaic Administration of the CoG.


----------



## MW

The antipaedobaptist revision of Westminster-Savoy teaches conditions of the covenant. 7.2 says, "Moreover, as man had brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace. *In this covenant* He freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, *requiring from them* faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give to all who are appointed to eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe." See also 15.2, "God has mercifully provided in the covenant of grace that when believers sin and fall they shall be renewed *through repentance* to salvation." Further, 16.6, "He looks upon them in His Son, and is pleased to accept and reward that which is *sincere*, although it is accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections." Finally, 19.6, 7, the uses of the law for those who are regenerate are in no way contrary to the grace of the gospel: "Although true believers are not under the law *as a covenant of works*, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is *of great use to them* as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to *walk accordingly*. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to *greater conviction of sin*, *greater humility and greater hatred of their sin*. They will also gain a clearer sight of *their need of Christ* and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to *restrain their corruptions*, because of the way in which it *forbids sin*. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and *what troubles may be expected in this life* because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's *approval of obedience*, and *what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed*, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace."

There is no basis for the appeal which is being made to this Confession as if it sets forth ANOTHER Reformed soteriology. It doesn't. If you call yourself "Reformed" -- paedobaptist or antipaedobaptist -- you are bound to acknowledge the teaching of both Confessions that there are conditions in the administration of the covenant of grace even under the New Testament.


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> My problem Chris is where they call it a republication of the Covenant of Works and what they mean by that. I think that is where the problem lies. That means something. I do believe the Law is given in the Old. It is the same Law that was used in the Covenant of Works but it isn't used the same way as it was in the Covenant of Works. And I have had correspondence that says it is. I do not believe it is the same thing. It isn't something that is earned as it would have been with Adam. It isn't something that is owed by debt as St. Paul mentions in Romans. The Church's relationship in both testaments is fully based upon a grace principle that is relational.



Randy,

I don't know much about Kline, so I am hesitant to comment on his theology. 

I like what Micah and Samuel Renihan have to say when they talk about the retro-aspect of the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace is seen in the Old Testament covenants, although it is sometimes opaque in nature. Faith was still required to be saved (Gen. 15:6); but it's not salvation that I'm referring to here. The physical promises of the Abrahamic Covenant had inherent limitations. Unless one is prone towards dispensationalism the promises to national Israel are fulfilled in the Church. The New Covenant can look back and see glimpses of what was promised. That is undeniable. The finger prints of grace are all over the Old Testament. But the New Covenant is new; even radically so. I'm not going to delve deeper into it than that because I'm not seeking to have this morph into a baptism discussion.


----------



## Herald

armourbearer said:


> If you call yourself "Reformed" -- paedobaptist or antipaedobaptist -- you are bound to acknowledge the teaching of both Confessions that there are conditions in the administration of the covenant of grace even under the New Testament.



Matthew,

I'm not sure we were in any form of disagreement on this point, but I am happy to concur that that are conditions contained in the New Covenant. Of course, as a Baptist, I would add that only the elect can meet these conditions; and that not of their own efforts, but through the work of grace in the hearts.


----------



## steadfast7

I'm very much a novice on the essence of Mosaic theology, much-less how Kline understands it, but it seems to me that even IF it was fully an outworking of the CoG in theory, isn't it the whole point of the New Testament that it didn't work - that the people failed to live up to it?



Peairtach said:


> There are conditional aspects to the New Covenant arrangement, although it is true that it will not be finally dispensed with, as was the Old Covenant.



I don't see how this can be true if one takes the wording of the NC seriously. "They will ALL know me, from the least to the greatest." How could there be a dropping out of its members? The Presbyterian understanding is that the NC has only been inaugurated at the cross, but will reach its final and pure membership in the end. Now, there is a mixed membership, conditional aspects, and an outward administration, but eventually the membership will be weeded out like a Navy Seals selection course. 



armourbearer said:


> From beginning to end the only use that is made of the passage from Jeremiah is the objective, redemptive-historical significance that it has with respect to the change of priesthood.



How can one separate the objective redemptive-historical priesthood from the _people _to whom the Priest is ministering? The group that is receiving the ministry of Christ is by no means a non-issue when considering these matters. What indication is there in this epistle that those who receive the ministry of this High Priest can become finally rejected and lost? Are the warning passages really for that purpose of describing what it will be like to fall out of the New Covenant? See what the writer says in Heb 6 after his stern warning about falling away:

9 Though we speak in this way, yet in your case, beloved, _we feel sure of better things—things that belong to salvation._ 10For God is not unjust so as to overlook your work and the love that you have shown for his name in serving the saints, as you still do. 11 *And we desire each one of you to show the same earnestness to have the full assurance of hope until the end, 12 so that you may not be sluggish, but imitators of those who through faith and patience inherit the promises.*

The warning passages are directed at non-regenerate pretenders who have come into the church but have no place in the New Covenant.

---------- Post added at 07:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:44 AM ----------




Herald said:


> I like what Micah and Samuel Renihan have to say when they talk about the retro-aspect of the New Covenant.


 I haven't read the article, but this was sort of what I was getting at with my comment in another thread about union with Christ being retro-actively applied to Old Testament saints. That concept didn't go over very well on the thread. Perhaps I first need to get my PhD before making those suggestions!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> I'm very much a novice on the essence of Mosaic theology, much-less how Kline understands it, but it seems to me that even IF it was fully an outworking of the CoG in theory, isn't it the whole point of the New Testament that it didn't work - that the people failed to live up to it?



That question is exactly why I posted this most recent blog Dennis. They didn't see the Covenant correctly and tried to establish their own understanding of it. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/


----------



## MW

Herald said:


> Of course, as a Baptist, I would add that only the elect can meet these conditions; and that not of their own efforts, but through the work of grace in the hearts.



There are plenty of "Baptists" who don't see it this way, so being a "Baptist" does not guarantee this view of the subject. Being "Reformed" does, and all who are "Reformed" should regard the fulfilment of the conditions of the covenant as the work grace -- hence the name, covenant of grace.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> I don't see how this can be true if one takes the wording of the NC seriously. "They will ALL know me, from the least to the greatest." How could there be a dropping out of its members? The Presbyterian understanding is that the NC has only been inaugurated at the cross, but will reach its final and pure membership in the end. Now, there is a mixed membership, conditional aspects, and an outward administration, but eventually the membership will be weeded out like a Navy Seals selection course.



This is so distorted Dennis that I think you need to study a lot more and get to know the Presbyterian position before you make such claims. It is nothing like a Navy Seals selection course where one earns their way into an organism by their ability and power. This is so not true. And the conditionality of the Covenants or Covenant of grace from our side is not about justification.

Dennis, I really suggest you ask questions instead of make false accusations and parallels that simply are not true. I asked you to go away and prayerfully study. I really suggest you do this. And I mean do it for a few weeks at least. I would suggest longer actually. My theology hasn't developed over night and yours won't either. Take a step back. Listen and quit making false parallels and assumptions.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

steadfast7 said:


> The warning passages are directed at non-regenerate pretenders who have come into the church but have no place in the New Covenant.



I don't believe you are correct. That makes no sense at all. He is writing to the Church. And it is in the vein of 2 Corinthians 13:5 that we are all to examine ourselves. All of us are to make our election and calling sure as St. Peter noted.


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> How can one separate the objective redemptive-historical priesthood from the _people _to whom the Priest is ministering?



You were making the separation by rejecting the objectivity of Hebrews 8-10 with reference to the change of priesthood. I was showing the objective context. If you view the people within this context you will see that the application of the "new covenant" can't possibly be in the direction of an inward work ensuring a regenerate covenant membership. The parallel is between the two priesthoods and their effect on the people, not between the two kinds of people. In the former you have priests who could not once and for all sacrifice for the remission of sins. In the latter Christ has once and for all sacrificed for the remission of sins. The people, in both instances, are sinners. It is because they are sinners that they need a priest to sacrifice for them. If one makes the contrast to consist in the subjective state of the people one is effectively saying that the people of the new covenant don't need ANY priest because they perfectly keep the law of God written in their hearts. This would deny the gospel altogether. The very fact that the writer exhorts them to hold fast their confession of Jesus as their great high priest indicates that they are still sinners who depend upon His atoning sacrifice. The law of God is not so written in their hearts that they no longer have sin which requires atonement.



steadfast7 said:


> The group that is receiving the ministry of Christ is by no means a non-issue when considering these matters. What indication is there in this epistle that those who receive the ministry of this High Priest can become finally rejected and lost? Are the warning passages really for that purpose of describing what it will be like to fall out of the New Covenant?



They are Hebrews being tempted to return to the ordinances of the Old Testament. The warnings are fitted to show them the fact that there is no divine refuge in Old Testament ordinances now that Jesus has come. The warning which ensues the teaching of the new covenant frames the threatening in such a way as to include the covenantal nature of God's curse. 10:29, "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." Again, it only makes sense if the objective nature of the covenant is understood. If you insist on making Hebrews 8-10 something subjective which only applies to the elect you would be bound to maintain that the elect could profane the blood of the covenant, which denies one of the fundamental points of Calvinism. Taking it objectively, as a point of administration, no such problem is encountered.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## steadfast7

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Dennis, I really suggest you ask questions instead of make false accusations and parallels that simply are not true. I asked you to go away and prayerfully study. I really suggest you do this. And I mean do it for a few weeks at least. I would suggest longer actually. My theology hasn't developed over night and yours won't either. Take a step back. Listen and quit making false parallels and assumptions.



Randy, I appreciate your suggestion, and you're right I do need to spend some time with primary source material. If you are speaking as a moderator, then just let me have it.  I do enjoy and get a lot out of these communal interactions. I hope I'm not wasting the time of the PB seniors but that these discussions are helpful for more than just me. I will try to ask more clarifying questions. thanks!



armourbearer said:


> The warning which ensues the teaching of the new covenant frames the threatening in such a way as to include the covenantal nature of God's curse. 10:29, "who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing." Again, it only makes sense if the objective nature of the covenant is understood. If you insist on making Hebrews 8-10 something subjective which only applies to the elect you would be bound to maintain that the elect could profane the blood of the covenant, which denies one of the fundamental points of Calvinism.



One should appreciate the figurative language of Hebrews. An elect person (or anyone else for that matter) could not "profane the blood of the covenant" anymore than a person can "crucify _again _the Son of God and hold him up to contempt" (6:6). Are not these statements figures of speech, meant to convey how terrible it is to drop back into Judaism from Christ? An unregenerate person could never profane blood that was never spilled for him. He cannot offend a covenant of which he was never a member. Isn't it more problematic for someone to suggest that sanctifying blood and a gracious Spirit can be removed and undone from a covenant member? This is likewise very un-Calvinistic.

Consider again, what always follows the word of warning in chapter 10: assurance that the preceding is NOT the case for the church to which he is writing.
...It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
32 _*But*_ recall the former days when, after you were enlightened, you endured a hard struggle with sufferings, 33 sometimes being publicly exposed to reproach and affliction, and sometimes being partners with those so treated. 34 For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one. 35 Therefore do not throw away your confidence, which has a great reward. 36 For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised.

How do Presbyterians understand the sanctifying blood and work of the Holy Spirit of a covenant member who apostatizes?


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> An unregenerate person could never profane blood that was never spilled for him. He cannot offend a covenant of which he was never a member. Isn't it more problematic for someone to suggest that sanctifying blood and a gracious Spirit can be removed and undone from a covenant member? This is likewise very un-Calvinistic.



You are reading "elect" into the text and reading "unregenerate" out of the text, and then drawing conclusions as to what the text must say in order to fit your theological system. Let the text speak for itself and it is obvious that one can profane the blood of the covenant; further, that the one who can profane the blood of the covenant is one who "professes" to have an interest in that covenant. When it is all brought together it is obvious that the text addresses people who have come to participate in the external administration of the covenant but who were in danger of turning from that profession. If that is so, then "profession" gives interest in the covenant. Let the text speak for itself and you will not have to torture it to make it speak what you want it to.



steadfast7 said:


> How do Presbyterians understand the sanctifying blood and work of the Holy Spirit of a covenant member who apostatizes?



In accord with the plain and common sense of the words, that they were only externally in covenant by virtue of their profession.


----------



## steadfast7

Rev. Winzer, if it's Christ's real blood that is applied in the external administration of the covenant, then doesn't it follow that Christ's blood is ineffective to save those who are sanctified by it but apostatize?


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> Rev. Winzer, if it's Christ's real blood that is applied in the external administration of the covenant, then doesn't it follow that Christ's blood is ineffective to save those who are sanctified by it but apostatize?



Did you not read the word "profession" in the previous post? It is what the person "professes." The address to "professors" indicates that the epistle is dealing with the objective administration of the covenant. 3:1, "Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus." 4:14, "Seeing then that we have a great high priest, that is passed into the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our profession." 10:23, "Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised)." Sometimes "confidence" stands in the place of "profession." 3:6, "whose house are we, if we hold fast the confidence and the rejoicing of the hope firm unto the end." 3:14, "For we are made partakers of Christ, if we hold the beginning of our confidence stedfast unto the end." 10:35, "Cast not away therefore your confidence, which hath great recompence of reward."

I might also add, this is not distinctively Presbyterian. If antipaedobaptists would attend to their own "confession" they would find the same view of the matter. Read 10.4 and 14.3, and you will see that this is not a paedobaptist distinctive.


----------



## steadfast7

I did read that part about "profession." I'm now trying to nail down how a professor relates with the blood of the new covenant. Does a non-elect professor have an interest in Christ's actual atoning blood? 

Also, I'm not sure that the LBCF admits to an external administration of the New Covenant, but I might be wrong.


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> I did read that part about "profession." I'm now trying to nail down how a professor relates with the blood of the new covenant. Does a non-elect professor have an interest in Christ's actual atoning blood?



By profession, yes. A covenant has two parties -- God and man. God makes the covenant and man enters into it by restipulation, i.e., by avouching God to be his God. Nor is that a paedobaptist distinctive as you will find it in authors like Nehemiah Coxe (who had a hand in the Confession) and Benjamin Keach (who drew up the Catechism).



steadfast7 said:


> Also, I'm not sure that the LBCF admits to an external administration of the New Covenant, but I might be wrong.



Allow me to copy and paste the following from a previous post on this thread:

The antipaedobaptist revision of Westminster-Savoy teaches conditions of the covenant. 7.2 says, "Moreover, as man had brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace. In this covenant He freely offers to sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring from them faith in Him that they may be saved, and promising to give to all who are appointed to eternal life His Holy Spirit to make them willing and able to believe." See also 15.2, "God has mercifully provided in the covenant of grace that when believers sin and fall they shall be renewed through repentance to salvation." Further, 16.6, "He looks upon them in His Son, and is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although it is accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections." Finally, 19.6, 7, the uses of the law for those who are regenerate are in no way contrary to the grace of the gospel: "Although true believers are not under the law as a covenant of works, to be justified or condemned by it, yet it is of great use to them as well as to others, because as a rule of life it informs them of the will of God and their duty and directs and binds them to walk accordingly. It also reveals and exposes the sinful pollutions of their natures, hearts and lives, and using it for self-examination they may come to greater conviction of sin, greater humility and greater hatred of their sin. They will also gain a clearer sight of their need of Christ and the perfection of His own obedience. It is of further use to regenerate people to restrain their corruptions, because of the way in which it forbids sin. The threatenings of the law serve to show what their sins actually deserve, and what troubles may be expected in this life because of these sins even by regenerate people who are freed from the curse and undiminished rigours of the law. The promises connected with the law also show believers God's approval of obedience, and what blessings they may expect when the law is kept and obeyed, though blessing will not come to them because they have satisfied the law as a covenant of works. If a man does good and refrains from evil simply because the law encourages to the good and deters him from the evil, that is no evidence that he is under the law rather than under grace."


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> By profession, yes. A covenant has two parties -- God and man. God makes the covenant and man enters into it by restipulation, i.e., by avouching God to be his God.



There are two parties, but only one blood of the covenant. There are two parties, but the working out of the covenant will be unilateral on God's power and provision. What does the blood do? It washes, it atones, etc. How can it do that for someone who falls away and is lost? doesn't that say something of the effectiveness (or, non-effectiveness) of the blood of the covenant?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> There are two parties, but only one blood of the covenant. There are two parties, but the working out of the covenant will be unilateral on God's power and provision. What does the blood do? It washes, it atones, etc. How can it do that for someone who falls away and is lost? doesn't that say something of the effectiveness (or, non-effectiveness) of the blood of the covenant?



Only true believers have their sins washed away, but this is irrelevant to the point under discussion. Hebrews recognises the interest one has in the blood of the covenant by "profession" even where there is not "possession" of its saving benefits. On that basis it is obvious that there is an external administration of the covenant.


----------



## steadfast7

armourbearer said:


> Only true believers have their sins washed away, but this is irrelevant to the point under discussion. Hebrews recognises the interest one has in the blood of the covenant by "profession" even where there is not "possession" of its saving benefits. On that basis it is obvious that there is an external administration of the covenant.



I think I need clarity on this very slippery term "by profession." Either the blood, the real blood that Jesus walked into the Holy of Holies in heaven with, is sprinkled upon a New Covenant member or it isn't. Having an interest "by profession" makes the blood sound like a concept or some potential state (which is perhaps required for the external administration argument). Then I could see how one could profane blood as a concept or a hypothetical. Or, the writer is speaking of it figuratively, just as he spoke of someone "crucifying again the Son of God." But if we are talking literally of Christ's blood here, then we encounter the problem of how it manages to be ineffective for some of those for whom it is spilled.


----------



## Weston Stoler

I know this is a little bit late but......


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> *Thayers
> *2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God
> 2a) consecrate things to God
> 2b) dedicate people to God





> *Robertson's word Pictures*
> 
> Wherewith he was sanctified (en hōi hēgiasthē). First aorist passive indicative of hagiazō. It is an unspeakable tragedy that should warn every follower of Christ not to play with treachery to Christ (cf. Heb_6:4-8).





> *John Gill
> 
> and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing*;
> 
> or "common thing"; putting it upon a level with the blood of a bullock, or at most counting it איך דכלנש, "as that of another man"; as the Syriac version renders it; yea, reckoning it as unclean and abominable, as the blood of a very wicked man: this is aggravated by its being "the blood of the covenant"; of the covenant of grace, because that is ratified and confirmed by it, and the blessings of it come through it; and from sanctification by it: either of the person, the apostate himself, *who was sanctified or separated from others by a visible profession of religion; having given himself up to a church, to walk with it in the ordinances of the Gospel; and having submitted to baptism, and partook of the Lord's supper, and drank of the cup, "the blood of the New Testament", or "covenant"*: though he did not spiritually discern the body and blood of Christ in the ordinance, but counted the bread and wine, the symbols of them, as common things; or who professed himself, and was looked upon by others, to be truly sanctified by the Spirit, and to be justified by the blood of Christ, though he was not really so: or rather the Son of God himself is meant, who was sanctified, set apart, hallowed, and consecrated, as Aaron and his sons were sanctified by the sacrifices of slain beasts, to minister in the priest's office: so Christ, when he had offered himself, and shed his precious blood, by which the covenant of grace was ratified, by the same blood he was brought again from the dead, and declared to be the Son of God with power; and being set down at God's right hand, he ever lives to make intercession, which is the other part of his priestly office he is sanctified by his own blood to accomplish. This clause, "wherewith he was sanctified", is left out in the Alexandrian copy



I personally don't think the later half of Gill is viable in light of the whole context of the book. It is Owen's interpretation that I believe he is revealing. I believe Gill reveals his understanding in the first part. 



> *Barnes notes
> Wherewith he was sanctified* - Made holy, or set apart to the service of God. The word “sanctify” is used in both these senses. Prof. Stuart renders it, “by which expiation is made;” and many others, in accordance with this view, have supposed that it refers to the Lord Jesus. But it seems to me that it refers to the person who is here supposed to renounce the Christian religion, or to apostatize from it. The reasons for this are such as these:
> (1) it is the natural and proper meaning of the word rendered here “sanctified.” This word is commonly applied to Christians in the sense that they are made holy; see Act_20:32; Act_26:18; 1Co_1:2; Jud_1:1; compare Joh_10:36; Joh_17:17.
> (2) it is unusual to apply this word to the Saviour. It is true, indeed, that he says Joh_17:19, “for their sakes I sanctify myself,” but there is no instance in which he says that he was sanctified by his own blood. And where is there an instance in which the word is used as meaning “to make expiations?”
> (3) the supposition that it refers to one who is here spoken of as in danger of apostasy, and not of the Lord Jesus, agrees with the scope of the argument. The apostle is showing the great guilt, and the certain destruction, of one who should apostatize from the Christian religion. In doing this it was natural to speak of the dishonor which would thus be done to the means which had been used for his sanctification - the blood of the Redeemer. It would be treating it as if it were a common thing, or as if it might be disregarded like anything else which was of no value.



There are different tenses and application of separation that Christ's work does. The term Justification is used in different tenses also. Both are true. James uses the term Justification different than Paul does. 

The blood of Christ and the work of Christ are never ineffectual for what purpose he intends for it. Even Judas (who being a devil was joined to Christ's person and earthly ministry) was set apart and shared in the benefits of the company he was attached to. His work did point to Christ or he would have been found out early to be a devil by his companions. Paul makes mention of those who preach Christ for their own benefit. He sees that God still uses those people. They have an outward calling and attachment outwardly that God uses but inwardly they are defiled. There is something right about what is going on but they end up falling away. And it is founded by His providence and His work. Some of this has to do with the mediatorial dominion and reign of Christ that He purchased the right for. He has dominion of all things for the Church by his person and work. 



> (Php 1:15) Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will:
> 
> (Php 1:16) The one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds:
> 
> 
> (Php 1:17) But the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel.
> 
> 
> (Php 1:18) What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

armourbearer said:


> The people, in both instances, are sinners. It is because they are sinners that they need a priest to sacrifice for them. If one makes the contrast to consist in the subjective state of the people one is effectively saying that the people of the new covenant don't need ANY priest because they perfectly keep the law of God written in their hearts. This would deny the gospel altogether. The very fact that the writer exhorts them to hold fast their confession of Jesus as their great high priest indicates that they are still sinners who depend upon His atoning sacrifice. The law of God is not so written in their hearts that they no longer have sin which requires atonement.


I think this is the most important thing that can be said here. Hebrews is one of the most important books in the Bible because it presents a lofty theology of the atonement of Christ and brings it down to the lives of actual sinners.

One of the most helpful and dangerous concepts at the same time is the notion of election. On the one hand, it is helpful and important because men need to understand that God is sovereign to save sinners and those whom He objectively saves are saved indeed. On the other hand, this thread demonstrates how the knowledge _that_ God elects somehow overcomes our creaturely dependence upon the means He uses to administer something objective. Too many people want to remain in the area of abstraction as if their knowledge of the Covenant of Redemption is all God has said on the subject.

We're sinners. We're creatures. We don't live by the hidden things but by the things that are revealed. The distance between the Creator and creature is so great that if God did not condescend to reveal Himself we would not have knowledge of anything about Him or His intentions to us.

Let's assume for a moment that it's the intention of God to simply reveal to us that He's going to save the elect and that He's set up the New Covenant simply for the salvation of the elect. If it were left at that then there could be no objective point of contact between what the Church administers and the New Covenant itself. Baptism cannot be said, objectively, to be into the New Covenant, as far as what the Church testifies to, because they have no means to ascertain that the person is elect. This is why antipaedobaptists acknowledge that members can only objectively be said to be baptized into the local congregation. The local congregation itself cannot even be objectively be said to be part of the New Covenant for all might be false professors.

Certainly the antipaedobaptist wants to affirm that he has had the testimony of the Spirit objectively testify to his heart that he is a child of God and, consequently, is confident of his own regeneration and election. At best, though, he has objective contact with the New Covenant only with himself and cannot objectively identify anyone outside the 1 foot radius of his body that is in the New Covenant. He's reasonably (subjectively) confident that others in his local congregation are in the New Covenant but there is nothing historically present and objective beside the testimony of the Holy Spirit that allows him to know where the New Covenant is physically present in the world.

In other words, Matthew has hit on the key point when one loses track of the authors' point in the Book of Hebrews. As I've noted before, Hebrews is a long polemic about the necessity to press in and believe in Christ and connects saints in the past who were aiming at the same object. Those who shrank back were judged and, repeatedly, the author makes the point that those of us who have the nexus of redemptive history as our present possession will be judged much more harshly. Somehow, however, in the midst of this argument, the author goes on some wild tangent that the elect can't fall away as if the point of that whole excursis is to convince the Hebrews that the only people in the New Covenant are those that aren't going to need to be told to know the Lord because, if you're elect, you'll know the Lord. Who's he writing to anyway? Just those that didn't know the Lord? Are the warning passages to press in and believe even relevant to those who are elect? The theme of "knowing the Lord" dominates Hebrews.

Christ is for sinners. His objective Priesthood is for needy sinners. It's for the first-time convert who hears the Gospel for the first time and embraces Christ. He receives objective entry into a _visible_ administration of God's Kingdom here on earth where he can trust something more than his heart, which the Scriptures testify to us everyday that we should not trust. If that sinner shrinks back then Christ's Kingdom is objectively present to warn and to rebuke and to encourage to press in. He can see needy sinners in the OT who needed to press forward as well who, likewise, had objective signs that God was working in their midst and who knew where they might go to find an outpost of the Kingdom of God. If they shrink back, the Church is objectively present as Christ's ambassadors warning that they have received clear news about the excellencies of Christ and that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

We live our lives as sinners in need of grace from beginning to end. The notion that we're somehow islands of subjective possession of election with some semi-confident notion that our local congregation may or may not be part of the one true Church is completely dissonant from what the Scriptures teach as well as completely the opposite of what needy sinners need from God.


----------



## MarieP

steadfast7 said:


> ... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?



I thought there were a number of Presbyterians who argued the Mosaic wasn't an administration of the Covenant of Grace. But, most 1689 LBCF Reformed Baptists I've come across believe it was a gracious covenant. Sam Waldron argues the confession teaches it.


----------



## MW

steadfast7 said:


> I think I need clarity on this very slippery term "by profession." Either the blood, the real blood that Jesus walked into the Holy of Holies in heaven with, is sprinkled upon a New Covenant member or it isn't. Having an interest "by profession" makes the blood sound like a concept or some potential state (which is perhaps required for the external administration argument). Then I could see how one could profane blood as a concept or a hypothetical. Or, the writer is speaking of it figuratively, just as he spoke of someone "crucifying again the Son of God." But if we are talking literally of Christ's blood here, then we encounter the problem of how it manages to be ineffective for some of those for whom it is spilled.



Again, you are reading ideas into the text and abstracting problems out of what you have read into it. Now, on top of election and regeneration, you are looking for the divine intention in the giving of Jesus. This is all irrelevant to the point we are discussing. When Christ is preached in the gospel He is preached to all men indiscriminately, without any question being made as to the person's election or reprobation. Every person to whom the gospel comes has a warrant to believe on the Lord Jesus for eternal salvation. Christ is made freely available to the sinner as a sinner. Doubtless those for whom Christ died in the purpose of God will certainly and effectually come to Jesus and be washed in His blood, but that is not the point Hebrews is making. Whenever any sinner, elect or reprobate, "professes" Jesus Christ to be their great high priest, they take to themselves the promise that His blood avails to put away sin. Whether it is so in the heavenly tabernacle, in God's own view of the person, is beside the point. In the assembly of the saints on earth the "profession" is all that is needed for the person to be regarded as such. The repeated use of the words "profession" and "confidence" in Hebrews suffices to show that this is what the writer is addressing. When understood this way there can be no doubt that Hebrews teaches a visible, external administration of the covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

MarieP said:


> I thought there were a number of Presbyterians who argued the Mosaic wasn't an administration of the Covenant of Grace. But, most 1689 LBCF Reformed Baptists I've come across believe it was a gracious covenant. Sam Waldron argues the confession teaches it.



The Particular Baptist teaching is that the Mosaic Covenant is a mixture of both the Covenant of Grace and Works. It is a stand alone Covenant that ministers both on some level. Some believe it is neither but subservient to both Covenants. I believe that is John Owen's understanding per his Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8.


----------



## steadfast7

If I may offer some thoughts, with the help of a debate that Tom Schreiner and Dave VanDrunen had about baptism. I don't think that Baptists would ever deny that we congregate together as churches of Christ, and that these churches make up what we know (to the best of our ability) as the covenant community. Schreiner makes the analogy of us not knowing for sure the precise texts that make up the infallible scriptures, but we still affirm that they exist and that we live our lives reading it and abiding by it. In the same way, we may not be infallibly sure of the election of those around us, but we can be confident that it exists and can still live confessing one catholic and apostolic Church. Our ignorance of the details does not need to impede living our lives according to the big picture, and I think that is the major stumbling block to our Presbyterian brethren WRT to our view. 

Having said that, there are many instances in Acts when the apostles speak of the community around them as having received the Spirit. The Jerusalem council made their judgment based on hearsay testimony of Paul and Barnabas that the Gentiles had certainly received the Spirit. Acts 8:17 and 10:47 would be other accounts where someone other than the person testified of another's receiving of the Spirit. Of course, these were apostles, who presumably had an authoritative knowledge to judge these things aright. Also, the conversions in Acts were dramatic and evidenced with signs that confirmed them. Perhaps there is a huge break between their time and ours. My point is that the Scriptures do not leave us floundering in total ignorance of what could and should make up a covenant community of believers. Yes, the secret things belong to the Lord and we are not trying to seize that knowledge. But the scriptures do provide us with sufficient example that internal realities are not discarded, but considered.

One more helpful thing that Schreiner said is that the warning passages of Hebrews do not describe covenant members who have already fallen away and were lost. The warning passages are the means that the true believers will certainly heed to press on to commitment and faith. He cites Acts 27 as support. God had already assured Paul that he and the crew would be spared in the shipwreck, yet Paul warns them that unless the sailors stay in the boat, they will perish. The warning, then, served as the means to save the crew - the warning is always successful onto the believers. This is apparently the view of Herman Bavinck as well (says Schreiner).

As I've pointed before, if one looks at the warning passages, in almost all instances, they are immediately followed by a surge of confidence on the author's part, that the church will not be lost in the manner described by the warning. If false professors do fall away, then they were never a part of us, and yes, they will have _in a sense_ crucified the Son of God again, but not actually, as this would be impossible. I think that's a thing to be noted. It's impossible to crucify him again. Perhaps this hyperbole is meant to convey the impossibility of the covenant member to fall away? thoughts?


----------



## Peairtach

*Dennis*


> *Quote Originally Posted by Peairtach *
> 
> 
> 
> There are conditional aspects to the New Covenant arrangement, although it is true that it will not be finally dispensed with, as was the Old Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see how this can be true if one takes the wording of the NC seriously. "They will ALL know me, from the least to the greatest." How could there be a dropping out of its members? The Presbyterian understanding is that the NC has only been inaugurated at the cross, but will reach its final and pure membership in the end. Now, there is a mixed membership, conditional aspects, and an outward administration, but eventually the membership will be weeded out like a Navy Seals selection course.
Click to expand...


You're interpreting Jeremiah 31:34


> And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. (Jer 31:34, ESV)



_without reference_ to such New Testament passages as these below which show that someone can be outwardly in the New Covenant without having the internal reality of the new birth:



> Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, (Heb 2:1-3)





> Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. (Heb 3:12-14)





> For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29)





> Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. (Rev 2:5)





> Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. (Rev 3:3)



There are numerous other passages that show that there is a conditional relationship established between Christ and those who are outwardly in the New Covenant, where true faith is lacking. 

Those who are truly in the New Covenant have their eternal salvation secured, but there are still conditions associated with progress in sanctification and chastisement.


> Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. (Rev 3:19)



*
Peairtach*


> It would be wrong of God to try to encourage them to save themselves in any sense.



Someone wished an explanation of the above statement.

I mean that since the Fall, Man is a sinner, and indeed the Israelites were sinners. It would be wrong of the Lord to encourage the Israelites to seek spiritual and eternal salvation by good works without saving grace and the Mediator. It would also be wrong of the Lord to encourage the Israelites to seek to do good works in their own fallen strength/weakenness in order to remain in the Land of the Israel. The only way Israel was going to remain in the Land was if she sought salvation by grace through faith, and thus produced truly good works.

Adam didn't depend on a salvific Mediator to fulfil the CoW. Israel depended on the Mediatorial work of Christ as revealed in the ceremonial - particularly the sacrificial - law, not only for their individual eternal salvation, but also in order to live and prosper in the Land.


----------



## steadfast7

Richard, I do hear those solemn warnings and they are grave indeed. I see them as operating in the context of the church where discipline needs to be exercised - and I wish I were brought up in churches that practiced discipline. But my view of things is to take what we know and have always believed about the blood of Christ and about the indwelling Spirit (of definite atonement) and then move to its application to the New Covenant member. We both agree that the NC member is sprinkled with the blood and indwelt by the Spirit ultimately. It is apparently the view of some Presbyterians that a person can come into the covenant, be indwelt by the Spirit, and fall away, as this would be taking it to its logical end. I don't think we can conclude that from Hebrews at all. I totally believe we can become members of a Christian church made up of a mixture of people. But the _covenant_? The New Covenant, in the Baptist view, is where God's saves his people surely and definitely. The blood of Christ and the Spirit is all over the New Covenant, sealing members in. That's our view anyway. How does someone enter into an administration with the blood of Christ and fall out of favor through moral failure? In the Old Covenant the blood of bulls and goats was obviously weak to save. The newness of the NC, to my mind, is that blood of Christ is completely efficacious to save all who come under it.


----------



## toddpedlar

steadfast7 said:


> Richard, I do hear those solemn warnings and they are grave indeed. I see them as operating in the context of the church where discipline needs to be exercised - and I wish I were brought up in churches that practiced discipline. But my view of things is to take what we know and have always believed about the blood of Christ and about the indwelling Spirit (of definite atonement) and then move to its application to the New Covenant member. We both agree that the NC member is sprinkled with the blood and indwelt by the Spirit ultimately. It is apparently the view of some Presbyterians that a person can come into the covenant, be indwelt by the Spirit, and fall away, as this would be taking it to its logical end.



Can you point to anything that anyone has said or written that makes you believe this? I don't think you've heard a word that has been said. There is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit without regeneration and salvation. I'm amazed that you think anyone is saying this.


----------



## Peairtach

steadfast7 said:


> Richard, I do hear those solemn warnings and they are grave indeed. I see them as operating in the context of the church where discipline needs to be exercised - and I wish I were brought up in churches that practiced discipline. But my view of things is to take what we know and have always believed about the blood of Christ and about the indwelling Spirit (of definite atonement) and then move to its application to the New Covenant member. We both agree that the NC member is sprinkled with the blood and indwelt by the Spirit ultimately. It is apparently the view of some Presbyterians that a person can come into the covenant, be indwelt by the Spirit, and fall away, as this would be taking it to its logical end. I don't think we can conclude that from Hebrews at all. I totally believe we can become members of a Christian church made up of a mixture of people. But the _covenant_? The New Covenant, in the Baptist view, is where God's saves his people surely and definitely. The blood of Christ and the Spirit is all over the New Covenant, sealing members in. That's our view anyway. How does someone enter into an administration with the blood of Christ and fall out of favor through moral failure? In the Old Covenant the blood of bulls and goats was obviously weak to save. The newness of the NC, to my mind, is that blood of Christ is completely efficacious to save all who come under it.



You can't have church discipline for people who are in no sense in covenant with the Lord.


----------



## Pilgrim

toddpedlar said:


> steadfast7 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Richard, I do hear those solemn warnings and they are grave indeed. I see them as operating in the context of the church where discipline needs to be exercised - and I wish I were brought up in churches that practiced discipline. But my view of things is to take what we know and have always believed about the blood of Christ and about the indwelling Spirit (of definite atonement) and then move to its application to the New Covenant member. We both agree that the NC member is sprinkled with the blood and indwelt by the Spirit ultimately. It is apparently the view of some Presbyterians that a person can come into the covenant, be indwelt by the Spirit, and fall away, as this would be taking it to its logical end.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you point to anything that anyone has said or written that makes you believe this? I don't think you've heard a word that has been said. There is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit without regeneration and salvation. I'm amazed that you think anyone is saying this.
Click to expand...


Dennis,

I agree with Todd here. The reference to the "common operations of the Spirit" in the confession is not a reference to saving faith. A man can go a long way in religion and yet be unsaved. 

With the exception of the "Federal Vision" proponents (which have been condemned by every confessional Presbyterian & Reformed denomination) I don't know of anyone among those who want to claim the title Reformed who would say that non-regenerate members of the covenant (i.e. those in its outward administration vs. the inward reality of real Christians--or in other words objective vs. subjective) is regenerate in any sense. Now one may wish to say that the Presbyterian understanding here is unbiblical, impossible, ridiculous, inconsistent or whatever, but we should attempt to represent our opponents accurately. 

I don't think you're attempting to misrepresent them. But I do think that if you want to know what Presbyterians think about infant baptism and covenant theology, rather than asking all these questions here and getting answers from a number of different people, (with some of the answers perhaps not being as clear as one would like) I think you would do better to read some books like John Murray's "Christian Baptism" or the Pierre Marcel book about infant baptism. O. Palmer Robertson's "Christ of the Covenants" is a standard work on covenant theology that will be more readily accepted by a wider number of people compared to Horton. Or if you cannot obtain those easily where you are, at least look at the pertinent texts of systematic theologians on the issue. Ollder works like Calvin's Institutes, the Systematic Theologies of Charles Hodge, R.L. Dabney (just to name two) and A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" are available online, among a legion of others. Google Books has scans of the originals of just about any book you'd want prior to the early 1920's. There are tons of online articles linked on Monergism as well. 

All of the above, especially the more lengthy written treatments, are going to lay out the issue in a more systematic way than you're going to get in an online forum. Baptist materials on covenant theology have been linked and mentioned on this thread as well. I do think that reading and pondering at least one work of that kind (and maybe one classic work from each side) would help you in a shorter amount of time than asking these questions here that seem to be generating diminishing returns. 

I will say that while your posts seem to have generated more bewilderment than light among some of the brethren, at least they have not generated unnecessary heat. Often posts on this issue generate more heat than light, and that includes a number of my own!


----------



## Peairtach

*Chris*


> A man can go a long way in religion and yet be unsaved.



An unsaved Israelite was in a different position to an unsaved Philistine,etc, and an unsaved "Christian" is in a different position to an unsaved Muslim, etc.

The Church is a covenantal institution. As well as being signs and seals of who is in and is not in the CoG, baptism and the Lord's Supper are signs and seals of who is in and is not in the Church ("The Israel of God"/"The Commmonwealth of Israel"). The Church of course has visible and invisible aspects, which can only be completely known to God's mind.


----------



## brandonadams

￼


> Originally Posted by steadfast7 ￼
> ... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think you will find this "new covenant" teaching in the antipaedobaptist revision of Westminster-Savoy. Quite the opposite, following Westminsterian theology the antipaedobaptist revision continues to maintain the offer of the gospel is an administration of the covenant of grace, in which there are some only outwardly called, in which there continues to be temporary believers, and also chastisements and temporal judgements for true believers. On the subject of Christ the Mediator and justification it is maintained that salvation is the same for Old and New Testament believers alike. As there is no revision of Westminster-Savoy on these subjects there is no basis for alleging there is a distinct "Reformed antipaedobaptist" position as over against a Reformed paedobaptist position.
Click to expand...


I appreciate your input Rev. Winzer, but you're not telling the whole story. There is in fact a revision of Westminster when it comes to the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Owen explicitly rejected the WCF view and Nehemiah Coxe (the likely editor of the LBC) explicitly agreed with that rejection. As the Kerux review of explained rather well:


> "Let the reader note carefully what Owen has just told you: even though I know that my position is in disagreement with the Reformed position, and in substantial agreement with Lutheranism, I still maintain that Scripture teaches that the Mosaic covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace, but was rather a distinct covenant. This is an honest (and honorable) admission on Owen’s part that he is departing from the Reformed consensus, represented in Calvin, Bullinger, Bucanus, and a whole host of others.
> 
> Interestingly, Owen himself apparently recognized the tension between his unique view and that of the Reformed confessions of his day. As an Independent, he refused to accept the Westminster Confession of Faith, and instead had a hand in writing the Savoy Declaration. A comparative analysis of these two documents can be found below (pp. 88ff.), to which we direct the reader. Suffice it to say that the two documents have significantly different declarations regarding the historical administrations of the covenant of grace."
> 
> http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf





> "On the subject of Christ the Mediator and justification it is maintained that salvation is the same for Old and New Testament believers alike."



And yet, Owen taught that Christ was not the mediator of the Old Covenant. He said Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant and that Christ was the mediator of the New Covenant. Yes, Owen believed that "salvation is the same for Old and New Testament believers alike" because he believed that "No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect." He believe the bible taught the idea of what the Renihan paper calls a "retro-active New Covenant."



> "If this is so, then both the Presbyterian and Baptistic historic Reformed would agree that the new-ness is only in the administration of the same covenant of grace."



Dennis, that is a big "if". I would encourage you to read Owen's commentary of Hebrews 8:6-13. He argues that the Old Covenant was not an administration of the Covenant of Grace, and he lists 17 ways in which the new covenant is different from the old. You can view an outline of Owen's argument here: John Owen’s Commentary on the Old and New Covenants (Outline) « Contrast

I also highly recommend the paper that Chris recommended from Sam & Micah Renihan.



> "There is no basis for the appeal which is being made to this Confession as if it sets forth ANOTHER Reformed soteriology. It doesn't. If you call yourself "Reformed" -- paedobaptist or antipaedobaptist -- you are bound to acknowledge the teaching of both Confessions that there are conditions in the administration of the covenant of grace even under the New Testament."



Again, let's be a little more clear in what is being said. Please see here: Petto: Conditional New Covenant? « Contrast
Petto, a signer to the Savoy, says:


> "There is no such condition of the new covenant to us, as there was in the old to Israel. For, the apostle comparing them together; and, in opposition to the old, he gives the new altogether in absolute promises, and that to Israel, Heb. viii.; and, showing that the new is not according to the old, he discovers wherein the difference lay, verse 9.Because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not; saith the Lord;and, Jer. xxxi. 32. which covenant they broke, &c."





> "this was sort of what I was getting at with my comment in another thread about union with Christ being retro-actively applied to Old Testament saints. That concept didn't go over very well on the thread. Perhaps I first need to get my PhD before making those suggestions!"


Don't let them bully you into conformity with their thoughts. You don't need a PhD, you just need to read Owen, who agrees entirely with your view.



> "I thought there were a number of Presbyterians who argued the Mosaic wasn't an administration of the Covenant of Grace. But, most 1689 LBCF Reformed Baptists I've come across believe it was a gracious covenant. Sam Waldron argues the confession teaches it."


You need to re-read Waldron's commentary. He does not actually argue that the confession teaches it. He is arguing for his personal view at that point. He notes "The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace." I emailed him to ask who articulated that view, and his response was: "See the RBAP publication Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. I think both Coxe and Owen would tend to closely relate the covenant of grace with the New Covenant as does the 1689."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> I would encourage you to read Owen's commentary of Hebrews 8:6-13. He argues that the Old Covenant was not an administration of the Covenant of Grace


Where is the evidence of this in the Savoy?


> Chapter 7
> Of God's Covenant with Man
> 
> 1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.
> 
> 2. The first covenant made with man, was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
> Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.
> 
> 3. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the dcath of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> 
> 4. Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions *in the time of the law*, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; upon the account of which various dispensations, it is called the Old and New Testament.


----------



## brandonadams

Rich,

My statement was about Owen's commentary on Hebrews, so I'm not certain why you're asking for proof from the Savoy declaration. Do you think I am misrepresenting Owen? Or do you think the Savoy does not reflect Owen's view?

Evidence of Owen's view from his commentary:


> The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new… The Lutherans, on the other side, insist on two arguments to prove that there is not a twofold administration of the same covenant, but that there are substantially distinct covenants and that this is intended in this discourse of the apostle…
> 
> …Having noted these things, we may consider that the Scripture does plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way as can hardly be accommodated by a twofold administration of the same covenant…Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than merely a twofold administration of the same covenant, to be intended. We must do so, provided always that the way of reconciliation and salvation was the same under both. But it will be said, and with great pretence of reason, for it is the sole foundation of all who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, ’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under the old covenant.
> 
> Having shown in what sense the covenant of grace is called “the new covenant,” in this distinction and opposition to the old covenant, so I shall propose several things which relate to the nature of the first covenant, which manifest it to have been a distinct covenant, and not a mere administration of the covenant of grace.
> 
> -
> 
> This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brandon,

One of your quotes stated this:


brandonadams said:


> Interestingly, Owen himself apparently recognized the tension between his unique view and that of the Reformed confessions of his day. As an Independent, he refused to accept the Westminster Confession of Faith, and instead had a hand in writing the Savoy Declaration. A comparative analysis of these two documents can be found below (pp. 88ff.), to which we direct the reader. Suffice it to say that the two documents have significantly different declarations regarding the historical administrations of the covenant of grace."


As Owen had a "significant hand" in writing the Savoy Declaration, what is the "significant difference" regarding the historical administrations of the Covenant of Grace between the WCF and the Savoy?

WCF:


> IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> 
> V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.


Savoy:


> 3. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the dcath of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> 
> 4. Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; upon the account of which various dispensations, it is called the Old and New Testament.


If anything it seems that the Savoy is more precise in saying that the Covenant of Grace - to all its spritual and saving ends - is _one and the same_.


----------



## Pilgrim

At first glance the Savoy appears to me to be saying the same thing that the LBCF does using different words. 

I recall reading a blog post by OPC minister Patrick Ramsey in which he noted that the Presbyterians and Congregationalists sometimes if not always had different conceptions of covenant theology. He contrasted the views of a Presbyterian with Jeremiah Burroughs, if I'm not mistaken. Other than that, I got nothing. I don't know to what degree Owen's views are representative of his fellow congregationalists. Was his Hebrews commentary published before or after the Savoy?

Edit:

I think it should also be noted that some New Covenant Theologians have, on the basis of quotes like what Brandon posted, attempted to claim Owen for their camp despite the fact that he remained a paedobaptist. While I have the Coxe/Owen volume on Covenant Theology, unfortunately I haven't read it. After this discussion I've got to put it at the top of my list. But this tug of war over Owen is noted in the preface by James Renihan. The quote posted by Brandon is no doubt the type of thing the NCT men seize upon. Dr. Renihan states that Coxe and Owen saw no contradiction between these expressed views and the confessions. But I will have to read them to fully understand how these ideas can be reconciled. 

Brandon, I've been meaning to ask you why you (and others) have touted Jeffrey Johnson's _Fatal Flaw_ as being a great exposition of Covenantal Baptist views. I think it's a helpful book in many ways. But it seems to me that his statement says that the Mosaic Covenant IS a Covenant of Works and not that the COW has been merely republished contradicts what I have always understood to be covenant theology. Many RB's including Waldron reject this idea and see it as an administration of the covenant of Grace. Ostensibly the Renihans would reject it too since they stipulate their agreement with Klineanism, which in my understanding doesn't ultimately teach that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works. (But I haven't read _The Law is Not of Faith _either.) I'd be very surprised to learn that Fred Malone thinks that the Mosaic is a covenant of works. That the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace ("by farther steps") also seems to be clearly taught in the LBCF. We have RB's on this board that reject that idea of the Mosaic Covenant being a covenant of works too. I do see that it has gracious provisions (which Jeffrey acknowledges in at least one place) and "works" or conditional provisions (i.e. "do this and live") but I don't see that equaling viewing it as a Covenant of Works. 

Yet we have these quotes by Owen. I will need to at least read his commentary on that part of Hebrews through, but this passage is very interesting to say the least. I'm not sure at this point that it's just a case of using terminology in a different way. 

Early on in my Christian life, I was taught by NCT people that seeing the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the COG is what makes one a covenant theologian. (In other words, one covenant, two administrations.) Unless I got it completely backwards, Jeffrey Johnson also has stated to me that his view is not fully covenantal because he rejects the Mosaic Covenant as being an administration of the covenant of Grace. (But he upholds the perpetuity of the Moral Law, which no NCT man will do and also teaches one covenant of grace, albeit the Mosaic not being an administration of it.) It looks to me like that's one foot in the CT camp and another in the NCT camp. Admittedly I am not all that knowledgeable in the various nuances and differences regarding covenant theology, particularly from the Baptist side. But given recent discussions here evidently I'm not alone among Baptists in my understanding of this issue. 

As for just what is or isn't considered confessional on the board on this particular point, well, of course that's not my call.  But if I may, I would very much like to see the Owen issue hashed out here by some of the Owen scholars, hoping of course that the discussion will generate more light than heat. 

It would also be helpful for Rich Barcellos to weigh in here if he has the time. I know he is working on planting a church in California. But he's already "weighed in" with his essay on Owen's covenant theology that was originally published in RBTR and was later republished in _Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ_. I hope to read that soon but it may be a few days if not longer.


----------



## brandonadams

Thanks for clarifying Rich. 

1. Do you agree that my quotation from Owen clearly rejects WCF 7.6?
2. Do you believe the Savoy Declaration reflects Owen's view?
3. If not, why do you believe Owen would have signed it?

In your comparison of the two confessions above, you conveniently left off the very paragraph in question (WCF 7.6). This is what Owen rejected and what the Savoy omitted.



> 6. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.



I would consider that a significant difference, though maybe you do not.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> In your comparison of the two confessions above, you conveniently left off the very paragraph in question (WCF 7.6).


I don't know what you think you are accusing me of but this is a sure way to lose your privileges here if you continue in this vein. I did not _conveniently_ leave out anything and nobody is _bullying_ people into a view. Your attitude is unbecoming.

I need to read Owen on this more carefully prior to coming to a conclusion and I'm not familiar enough with the formation of the Savoy to come to a conclusion as to why WCF 7.6 was left off. I would say that this conclusion in WCF 7.6:


> There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.


is precisely the same as:


> Although *this covenant* hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it *is one and the same*...


The prior portion of 7.6 which has to do with the number of Sacraments seems to me to be immaterial to the issue as to whether, in substance, that Savoy and WCF agree. All the WCF is stating is that there are only two Sacraments under the gospel and I don't see how the omission of this part has any bearing upon whether the WCF and Savoy agree that there is only one CoG. Perhaps the authors of the Savoy intended to communicate something by leaving out the "...fewer in number..." clause and denied that there were no Sacraments of the CoG in the OC but, again, I don't know the history.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Brandon: Do you hold to New Covenant Theology?


----------



## brandonadams

> Brandon: Do you hold to New Covenant Theology?



No I do not.



> I would say that this conclusion in WCF 7.6:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.
> 
> 
> 
> is precisely the same as:
> 
> 
> 
> Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same..
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I prefer to lean upon the understanding of the author/editors of the Savoy, rather than my own reading. Owen has argued at great length why he rejected the language of WCF 7.6. I therefore believe it would be most appropriate to understand Savoy 7.5 as saying something different than WCF 7.6


----------



## MW

First, Owen's exegesis of Hebrews is one thing and his overall covenant theology is another. An examination of all his writings will reveal that he was in perfect harmony with the Westminster-Savoy declarations on the points I have alluded to. His view of Sinai is unique and technical but I don't believe it affects his overall commitment to a single covenant of grace differently administered.

Secondly, even if Owen were at variance with what I have said, it would not affect the point that was made respecting the Westminster-Savoy declarations. They still maintain exactly what I claimed they maintain. One would be required to account for the difference between Owen and a document with which he assisted, but it would not alter the material point that the document teaches this.


----------



## Pilgrim

This appears to be entire essay to which I referred above. JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective 



> [Owen] has left the Christian Church a legacy few have equaled in volume, fewer yet in content. In saying this, however, we must also recognize that some things Owen said are difficult to understand. Some statements may even appear contradictory if he is not followed carefully and understood in light of his comprehensive thought and the Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant Scholastic world in which he wrote.




I found this list to be helpful: 



> When understood in context, with Owen’s own qualifications, and in light of his statements on related matters, and in light of the historical/theological nomenclature of his day, Owen can be understood to teach the same thing throughout the Hebrews commentary about the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. His views were somewhat standard in his day, though with their own nuances. They were neither novel nor those of NCT. Wells’ claims have been referenced throughout this discussion and proven wrong, or at least in need of crucial qualifications. What are those qualifications? Here is a suggested list of agreements between John Owen and NCT and some necessary qualifications:
> 
> 
> 
> Both Owen and NCT believe that “the first covenant” in the book of Hebrews is a reference to the Old or Mosaic Covenant.
> Both Owen and NCT believe that the Old Covenant was a distinct and temporary covenant for Israel in the land of Canaan, abolished by Christ and replaced by the New Covenant. But Owen did not believe that Christ fulfilled the terms of the Old Covenant in itself for believers; NCT, at least Reisinger, does believe this.
> Both Owen and NCT believe that the Old Covenant was not merely an administration of the covenant of grace. *But Owen believes it was not a covenant of works in itself but revived the original Adamic covenant of works; NCT, at least Reisinger, believes it was a covenant of works in itself.*
> Both Owen and NCT believe that the Bible contains a legal covenant or covenant of works. But Owen equates this covenant with the Adamic economy; NCT, at least Reisinger, equates it with the Old Covenant.
> Both Owen and NCT believe that the New Covenant is an effectual covenant, securing all of the promised blessings of it for all in the covenant.
> Both Owen and NCT believe in the abrogation of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. But Owen believes in it relatively, as it was “compacted” with the rest of the Old Covenant’s law; NCT believes in its abrogation absolutely.
> Owen believes in the multi-functional utility of the entire Decalogue; NCT does not.
> Owen believes that the New Covenant includes the perpetuity of the Sabbath and not just because the Sabbath is a creation ordinance; NCT does not. In fact, as we have seen above, Wells claims that the only difference between Owen and Reisinger (and NCT) on the Mosaic and New Covenants is Owen’s creation ordinance view of the Sabbath. This, indeed, is not the case and an oversimplification of Owen’s view.
> When Owen and NCT are examined side by side, they appear to be farther apart on these matters than a surface approach may reveal.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

brandonadams said:


> Brandon: Do you hold to New Covenant Theology?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I do not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would say that this conclusion in WCF 7.6:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> is precisely the same as:
> 
> 
> 
> Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I prefer to lean upon the understanding of the author/editors of the Savoy, rather than my own reading. Owen has argued at great length why he rejected the language of WCF 7.6. I therefore believe it would be most appropriate to understand Savoy 7.5 as saying something different than WCF 7.6
Click to expand...

Does Owen actually state somewhere that he rejects the whole of WCF 7.6 or is this your own inference? Do you agree that the Savoy and WCF state there is one Covenant of Grace?


----------



## Pilgrim

There must be some reason why WCF 7.6 was omitted from the Savoy and the LBCF. When comparing the confessions recently it was a question that came to mind when looking into the covenant theology of the LBCF. Typically material was carried over unless there was a disagreement with it or maybe because there was a division among the framers of the particular document over it. (I think this happened one or more times with the LBCF.) 

However, not having read the contemporary literature on the issue, I have no clue why it was omitted. Perhaps they just didn't like the wording and didn't feel the need to replace it with something else? Perhaps "by farther steps" was good enough for the LBCF and the statement in the Savoy in 7.4 was good enough for them with regard to a statement on covenant theology?


----------



## brandonadams

Chris, 

As to _The Fatal Flaw_, I don't want to suggest I agree with every jot and tittle of it. I think it is helpful in many ways. I would have to revisit it to be more precise in what I disagree with. 

As to the issue of whether or not the Mosaic Covenant operated on a works principle... I have more to study/consider. At the very least I agree with Owen that the Old Covenant is not the New Covenant, and they are not administrations of the same covenant. For what it's worth, Samuel Petto articulates a view very similar to Jeremy Johnson in his book _The Great Mystery of the Covenant of Grace._ 



> I'm not sure at this point that it's just a case of using terminology in a different way.



Please do read him. It is very much not simply a matter of semantics.



> Early on in my Christian life, I was taught by NCT people that seeing the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the COG is what makes one a covenant theologian. (In other words, one covenant, two administrations.) Unless I got it completely backwards, Jeffrey Johnson also has stated to me that his view is not fully covenantal because he rejects the Mosaic Covenant as being an administration of the covenant of Grace.



Obviously that comes down to how you define covenant theology. People have argued that Jonathan Edwards was a dispensationalist because he argued that the nation of Israel was a type of the church. Again, it comes down to definitions. If you choose to define covenant theology as those who see the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the COG, then you will have to say that Owen is not a covenant theologian - which means you need to come up with a new label. The more you study covenant theology, the more you will see that there are many various views of it. Patrick Ramsey's article "In Defense of Moses" does a good job of showing that there were several other views of covenant theology at the time of WCF that WCF rejected.



> But if I may, I would very much like to see the Owen issue hashed out here by some of the Owen scholars, hoping of course that the discussion will generate more light than heat.



That would be great. McMahon’s Misrepresentation of John Owen « Contrast
Iron Can’t Sharpen Iron Without Honesty « Contrast


----------



## Semper Fidelis

My larger issue is the speculation. It reminds me of those who read works by signatories of the WCF that disagree with clear portions of the WCF and conclude that, because the WCF was a "consensus document", that the individual work controls the reading of the WCF.

Assuming that Owen's view is that the OC is not an administration of the CoG there is much more work to be done then wondering why Owen would have signed the Savoy. Perhaps, like many men of _his_ day, he was willing to submit to others even if his view differed on a point.


----------



## brandonadams

> Does Owen actually state somewhere that he rejects the whole of WCF 7.6 or is this your own inference?



He doesn't quote 7.6 in full. He quotes "There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations", says it is the view of reformed divines, and then rejects it. Please see the Kerux article already referenced for a fuller treatment of this issue. I suppose I infer the rest of 7.6 as well, by its omission in Savoy - but the specific phrase regarding the Mosaic Covenant is what I am interested in.



> Do you agree that the Savoy and WCF state there is one Covenant of Grace?



Yes, as does LBC. Whether or not they interpret the Covenant of Grace in the same way is the question.



> First, Owen's exegesis of Hebrews is one thing and his overall covenant theology is another. An examination of all his writings will reveal that he was in perfect harmony with the Westminster-Savoy declarations on the points I have alluded to. His view of Sinai is unique and technical but I don't believe it affects his overall commitment to a single covenant of grace differently administered.



I would greatly appreciate a reference for where this argument is fleshed out. I would expect it to take account of progress in Owen's views over the years, with his commentary on Hebrews being his most mature. In that commentary he says the Mosaic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace, and he also says the Abrahamic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace... so I'm not certain how that leaves him in perfect harmony with WCF and your own view.



> When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though it were not before in existence and effect, before the introduction of that which is promised here. For it was always the same, substantially, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and effectiveness, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation to the church, from the first entrance of sin.
> 
> But for two reasons, it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect to any other things, nor was it called a covenant under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it to Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but this covenant with Abraham was with respect to other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely, under the old testament, the covenant of grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture,
> 
> Owen on Hebrews 8:6


----------



## Semper Fidelis

This is all very interesting but I see this as being a new thread. At best, even if you have established that Owen rejects that there were administrations of the CoG in the Old Covenant, you have not shown that it is the view of the WCF or the LBCF or even the Savoy for that matter. We can start a new thread about Owen's view but you have to first establish more than a speculative connection to an actual Reformed Confession when the plain reading of even the Savoy clearly calls the time of the law an administration of the one CoG.


----------



## MW

brandonadams said:


> I would greatly appreciate a reference for where this argument is fleshed out. I would expect it to take account of progress in Owen's views over the years, with his commentary on Hebrews being his most mature. In that commentary he says the Mosaic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace, and he also says the Abrahamic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace... so I'm not certain how that leaves him in perfect harmony with WCF and your own view.



I am happy to discuss references one by one but since you have quoted the Hebrews commentary it will need to be properly understood. The reference you have provided is a fairly good example of the kind of technicality evident in Owen. Yet even here there is one covenant of grace differently administered. The very fact that he uses the word "absolutely" shows that he regards the new covenant as relatively connected with the covenant of grace which was "before in existence and effect, before the introduction of that which is promised here. For it was always the same, substantially, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, *and under the law*, of the same nature and effectiveness, unalterable, 'everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.'"

A part of the problem with our reading of Owen now is the fact that the theological disciplines are not incorporated the way they used to be and we also use different terms to the expressions which were common then. In brief, divines would speak one way dogmatically and another way exegetically. "Covenant of grace" is a dogmatic category and "new covenant" is an exegetical category. Dogmatically, the covenant of grace has promises and conditions. Exegetically, a covenant in Scripture consists only of promises. Another kind of difference is the polemical and the dogmatic. The polemical often concedes points for the sake of the argument even though that concession is not a part of the dogmatic framework of the theologian. A further difference is the traditional and exegetical. Many times a theologian will defend his tradition and categorise it as speaking broadly to an issue, but his own contribution to exegesis seeks to sharpen and narrow the tradition's understanding of particular passages. These kinds of technicalities need to be understood when examining and evaluating Owen's statements. A study of Owen must incorporate a study of his overall method.


----------



## brandonadams

> you have not shown that it is the view of the WCF



It was never my intention to show that it was the view of WCF. The only reason I brought it up is because it is a fairly obvious explanation for why Savoy omitted WCF 7.6, and as the Kerux article explains, is a good reason to believe Savoy at least allowed for views of covenant theology different from WCF.



> We can start a new thread about Owen's view but you have to first establish more than a speculative connection to an actual Reformed Confession when the plain reading of even the Savoy clearly calls the time of the law an administration of the one CoG.



I don't think the language of Savoy is necessarily contrary to anything I have quoted from Owen.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

> I don't think the language of Savoy is necessarily contrary to anything I have quoted from Owen.



Whether it is contrary to Owen is unclear but your assertion is that Owen believed that the Old Covenant was not an administration of the CoG where the Savoy clearly states that one of the administrations of the CoG includes the Law, you deny this. I will leave it to those who have read Owen and understand the technical language of the Puritans.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I quote Owen here and tell why I disagree with him in the following comments. 

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I guess I can repost it here but it is kind of redundant. 



> You can skip over the first two links and view them later. I have tried to discuss this topic before on the Puritanboard but the discussion died out.
> http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/
> 
> I was trying to get some feedback concerning this article which was published in the Westminster Theological Journal. VL. 66.2 Fall
> 
> PDF download.
> https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...S8wb55lvxHr2YNFHWc2hQFX9jR8lg=&attredirects=0
> 
> On the web.
> https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...jnuFB2QeynHcndjH9eCrCcrkOzTzg=&attredirects=0
> 
> 
> I use to hold to a position somewhat similar to Kline and somewhat that of John Owen concerning the Mosaic Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 5). This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration if it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was "the ministry of condemnation," 2 Corinthians 3:9; for "by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified." And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.
> John Owen
> Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8
> pp. 85.86 Goold
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have recently been helped in understanding the Mosaic Covenant by Scripture clarification along with the help of a Pastor Patrick Ramsey. Thank You Pastor Ramsey.
> 
> The following was a post on the Puritanboard where I discussed the works paradigm in relation to how it should be understood in my ever so humble opinion. Yeah, I know you are all laughing. I can be rather opinionated sometimes. Hopefully I am humble in those opinions. For I know not as I should know as St. Paul warns me.
> 
> I have found that I disagree with Meredith Kline and others that hold to similar postions of a works paradigm in the Mosaic Covenant. I think Patrick Ramsey does a good job in revealing what Romans 10:5 and Leviticus 18:5 say when considering the whole Counsel of God. In fact when we look at Paul's references we would think that Paul is pitting Moses against Moses and the Old Testament against the Old Testament in his New Testament writings. Especially if we just lift passages out of texts without considering other passages Paul also referenced. Paul isn't pitting the OT against the OT or Moses against Moses when we look at the fuller context for understanding.
> 
> Enjoy this short read.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5*
> Pastor Patrick Ramsey
> 
> The following is (I trust) a simple but not simplistic explanation of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.
> 
> In 9:30-10:5 Paul explained the reason the Jews did not attain righteousness even though they pursued it. They mistakenly pursued it by works (9:32). Hence, they stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33). They sought to establish their own righteousness (10:3). Ignorant of the right way to righteousness, although they should have known better, they zealously pursued life on the basis of their own obedience to the law.
> 
> In Rom. 10:5 Paul describes this wrong way of pursuing life (righteousness) from the OT, namely Leviticus 18:5 (see also Neh. 9:29; Eze. 20:11, 13, 21): “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Now the fact that Paul appeals to Moses to describe the wrong way, or if you will, the Pharisaical way of pursuing righteousness, is somewhat perplexing. As a result, this verse, along with its counterpart in Gal. 3, is quite controversial among commentators and theologians.
> 
> Here is the difficulty from three different perspectives. First, in 9:32, Paul had said that the law itself did not teach that righteousness was based on works or obedience to the law. The Jews pursued the law as _if_ it led to righteousness. The Jews, as the NT says elsewhere, misread the OT. And yet Paul seems to be saying in vs. 5 that the OT did in fact teach and exhort the people to pursue life/righteousness by keeping the law. How then can Paul (or the rest of the NT) condemn the Pharisees for seeking righteousness by works if that is what Moses told them to do?
> 
> Second, in vs. 8 Paul will quote Deut. 30 and later on he will cite Isaiah and Joel in direct contrast to Lev. 18:5 to describe the right way to find life and righteousness. So then it would seem that Paul pits Moses against Moses and the OT against the OT.
> 
> Third, the context of Lev. 18:5 doesn’t seem to support the way Paul uses it in Rom. 10:5. Moses exhorts Israel to keep God’s commandments in the context of redemption and covenant. Verses 1-3 highlight the point that Israel already belongs to God as his redeemed people. These verses are very similar to the prologue to the Ten Commandments, which teaches that salvation precedes obedience. God didn’t give Israel the law so that they might be saved. He saves them so that they might keep the law. In short, the context of Lev. 18:5 speaks against the idea that it teaches legalism or a work-based righteousness. Yet, that is how Paul is using this verse!
> 
> Now some have sought to solve this difficulty by saying that there is no actual contrast between verses 5 and 6. The “but” of vs. 6 should be translated “and.” The problem with this, however, is that it doesn’t fit the context of Paul’s argument. The apostle, beginning in 9:30 is contrasting two ways of seeking righteousness—works and faith—and this contrast clearly continues in vs. 5. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul speaks of works righteousness or righteousness based on law elsewhere (Gal. 3; Phil. 3:9) in a negative way.
> 
> So then how are we to understand what Paul is saying in vs. 5 (and in Gal. 3)? Well, Paul is citing Lev. 18:5 according to how it was understood by the Jews of his day; and no doubt how he understood it before his conversion. The Jews of Paul’s day saw obedience to the law (which included laws pertaining to the atonement of sins) as the source of life and as the basis of salvation. Keeping the law was the stairway to heaven. The way to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted by God was to observe the law. Lev. 18:5 provided biblical support for this Pharisaical position. And it is not hard to see why they would appeal to this verse since it says that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.
> 
> In Rom. 10:6ff Paul refutes this works-based righteousness position including the Jewish appeal to Lev. 18:5. Now he doesn’t do it in the way you or I might think of doing it. We might tend to respond to the Pharisee and say: “Look, you have completely misunderstood what Moses is saying in Lev. 18:5. The specific and general context of that verse indicates that your interpretation is incorrect…” Instead, Paul uses a technique that was quite common in his day. He counters their interpretation of Lev. 18:5 by citing another passage: Deut. 30:12-14. In other words, Paul is saying that Deut. 30 demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of Lev. 18:5 is incorrect. We of course sometimes use this type of argument today. For example, some people today appeal to James 2 to prove that we need to obey the law in order to be justified. One way to disprove that interpretation would be to cite Paul in Romans or Galatians. So Paul is not pitting Moses against Moses in vv. 5-6 or saying that Moses taught salvation by works. Rather the apostle is using one Mosaic passage to prove that the legalistic interpretation of another Mosaic passage is wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A statement was also made how the Mosaic should be viewed as an administration of death. I actually believe the above helps us answer this problem but I also saw this. We as fallen people tend to want to turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. Many people even do this concerning the New Covenant today when they add works to the equation of justification by faith.
> 
> In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
> (2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
> (2Co 2:16) *To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?*
> (2Co 2:17) *For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
> 
> (Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
> (Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Heb 4:2)
> For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard _it._
> (Heb 4:3)
> For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, "to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death." And how do they who consider Paul and the Church to be a savour unto death? They do it by what Paul says he doesn't do in the proceeding verse, "For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God."
> 
> On another note I would mention that some say that the Mosaic was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works. Some differentiate that works was required in order for the Israelite's to stay in and be blessed in the Land. They stayed in the Land based upon their works. Some say that this is different from the New Covenant. I am not seeing this difference. For one thing Jesus himself said in Revelation 2 that he would remove a local Church's candlestick if they didn't repent. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man who was found to be exceedingly sinful was to be delivered to Satan and excommunicated from the Church. In Galatians 6:7 we are told that we reap what we sow.
> 
> I actually see what happened to the Church in the Old Covenant to be very gracious and just a form of discipline. It was grace that chastisement happened. It was grace that brought Israel back into the Land. They were the Church that grew from dwelling in the wilderness. If it was by works then they would have never been brought back as they were. It looks quite the same to me as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. A casting out was performed. Excommunication was evident. Restoration by God's grace was confirmed. The substance of both the Old pedagogical Covenant and the New are essentially the same. Salvation, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, and sanctification for the Church is the same between both the old and new. It is all by God's Covenant of Grace. The substance seems to be the same to me.
> 
> Well, this is some of the stuff I am seeing now days. I do believe that works are important and a big part of our salvation. But I speak of salvation as a whole. Not in the respect of purely justification. There are no works considered in our justification. I do believe that our Union in Christ brings a twofold Grace of justification and sanctification. You can not separate them from our salvation. They are not dichotomized but are distinct in the process of salvation. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. This tension seems hard to process but it is summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10 and Philippians 2:12,13.
> 
> (Eph 2:8-10) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.
> 
> (Php 2:12,13)Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of _his_ good pleasure.
Click to expand...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Separate from the above, if Moses was the only mediator of the Mosaic Covenant then no one would be saved or be lead to Christ by it. Moses evidently saw it differently. He pointed to Christ as the mediator between God and man. No one else is given that ultimate privilege. We can all pray and mediate as priests before God as the New Covenant Commands. If this was not true for the Old Covenant saints also in some form then why should they pray? God had a means. He set the rules. Christ was the promise and fulfillment in both testaments and Covenants. They are the same in substance if you ask me. But I am still working on it.


----------



## Prufrock

armourbearer said:


> A part of the problem with our reading of Owen now is the fact that the theological disciplines are not incorporated the way they used to be and we also use different terms to the expressions which were common then. In brief, divines would speak one way dogmatically and another way exegetically. "Covenant of grace" is a dogmatic category and "new covenant" is an exegetical category





I hope Matthew Winzer does not mind if I expand a bit further on an important point he makes here. I place great importance on properly understand the covenant thought of Owen in particular for the very fact that he does, in fact, admit that he wants to state things differently than Calvin, Martyr and Bucanus, and because certain theological trends in the contemporary Reformed environment attempt to appropriate him as a precursor. I disagree with their assessment of Owen and find him to be operating within a fundamentally different framework, and accordingly think it important to allow the learned theologian to speak for himself.

As Matthew Winzer notes above, the exegetical nature of Owen's treatment of this topic in this context needs to be given its full weight; his emphasis on the historia salutis here is key, and must be understood within the context of his _dogmatic_ framework. His discussion in v.6 on his interpretation of the word "established" needs to be studied carefully in order to understand _what_ he hopes to do in this section. I note especially the following quotation: "_What these two covenants, in general, are, we have declared, namely, that made with the church of Israel at Mt. Sinai, and that made with us in the gospel; not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs to it._" Owen clearly picks up his "third covenant" language from Cameron and attempts to follow some basic insights he gained from him (and perhaps Cocceius' influence can, indeed, be felt - though I'm not sure to what extent), nevertheless I am not wholly convinced that - despite his acknowledged difference - the contours of his thought on this matter truly differ _that much_ from established Reformed thought beyond the semantic level. He does not contrast, in truth, the Mosaic with the covenant of Grace _a la _ Cameron as something preparatory and subservient thereunto, but rather contrasts the Mosaic with the Covenant of Grace as an historically realized reality with the fullness of its rites and rituals. I think this is key to satisfactorily understanding Owen's thought; and I _believe_, at least, when this is properly done, Owen may be allowed rightly to sit at the Reformed table on this topic. He brings differences, but I've grown more convinced that these differences are smaller than I have been led to believe in the past.

(Also, I find nothing in Owen that would lead me to believe he would not accept the seventh chapter of the WCF as the confession of his church.)


----------



## MW

Prufrock said:


> I hope Matthew Winzer does not mind if I expand a bit further on an important point he makes here.



Paul, Any insight you can bring to the discussion is always welcome. Thankyou for your very helpful analysis.


----------



## VictorBravo

When Owen spoke plainly on the subject, he seemed clear enough:



> It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5.



_Vindiciae Evangelicae_ Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38.


----------



## brandonadams

Raymond, Owen spoke very plainly and even more clearly in the quotes I have already provided, which were written 25 years after what you have quoted.

Paul:


> I think it important to allow the learned theologian to speak for himself.



I couldn't agree more - which is why I have quoted him and allowed him to do so. Forgive me, but you'll have to flesh out your argument a bit more. I don't see how it shows I have misread Owen.



> I note especially the following quotation: "What these two covenants, in general, are, we have declared, namely, that made with the church of Israel at Mt. Sinai, and that made with us in the gospel; not as absolutely the covenant of grace, but as actually established in the death of Christ, with all the worship that belongs to it."...He does not contrast, in truth, the Mosaic with the covenant of Grace a la Cameron as something preparatory and subservient thereunto, but rather contrasts the Mosaic with the Covenant of Grace as an historically realized reality with the fullness of its rites and rituals.



I don't think you have offered a satisfactory explanation of what Owen has said. Yes, Owen is clear that what he is primarily discussing at length is the covenant of grace as it has been finally established in the new covenant at Christ's death, and comparing that with the Old (Mosaic) Covenant. And so while much of the contrasts he lists and expounds upon have to do with the establishment of the covenant of grace at the time of Christ, rather than from Gen 3, he still is very clear that the Old Covenant was not "an administration of the covenant of grace" during the time of Moses. He says that the Old Covenant was not *inconsistent* with the covenant of grace until the covenant of grace was established (the new covenant), but he is very clear that *they were still separate*. The covenant of grace existed as a promise during the Old Covenant, and the ordinances of the Old Covenant helped communicate the promise. But the covenant of grace, even "absolutely" considered, was not the Old Covenant.



> It remains to the exposition of the words, to enquire just what the new covenant is of which our Lord Christ was the mediator. It can be no other but that*we call “the covenant of grace.” It is so called in contrast to “the covenant of works,” which was the one made with us in Adam; for these two, grace and works, divide the ways of our relation to God, being diametrically opposed, and in every way inconsistent,*Romans 11:6. Of this covenant the Lord Christ was the mediator from the foundation of the world, namely, from the giving of the first promise,*Revelation 13:8; And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.* ---for it was given on Christ’s interposition, and all the benefits of it depended on his future actual mediation. But here arises the first difficulty of the context, in two things; for, —
> 
> [1.] If this covenant of grace was made from the beginning, and if the LORD Christ was the mediator of it from the first, then where is the privilege of the gospel-state as opposed to the law, by virtue of this covenant, seeing that while under the covenant of the law,*the Lord Christ was even then the mediator of that covenant of grace, which was from the beginning ?
> 
> [2.] If it is the covenant of grace which is intended (by the “new covenant”), and that is opposed to the covenant of works made with Adam, then surely the other covenant must be that covenant of works so made with Adam, which we have before disproved.
> 
> The answer is in the word here used by the apostle concerning this new covenant: nenomoqe>thtai, the meaning of which must be inquired into.
> 
> I say, therefore, that the apostle does not here consider the new covenant in its absolute sense (as it was virtually administered from the foundation of the world), in the way of *a promise; for as such it was consistent with that covenant made with the people in Sinai*. And the apostle proves expressly that the renovation of it made to Abraham was in no way abrogated by the giving of the law, *Galatians 3:17. And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect.
> 
> There was no interruption of its administration made by the introduction of the law. *But he treats of such an establishment of the new covenant as wherewith the old covenant made at Sinai was absolutely inconsistent, and which therefore had to be removed out of the way.*
> 
> To that end he considers it here as it was actually completed, so as to bring along with it all the ordinances of worship which are proper under it, the dispensation of the Spirit in them, and all the spiritual privileges with which they are accompanied. It is now so brought in as to become the entire rule of the church’s faith, obedience, and worship, in all things.
> 
> This is the meaning of the word nenomoqe>thtai: “established,” say we; but it is, “reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance.” All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, are all given for a statute, law, and ordinance to the church.
> 
> That which beforehad lain hidden in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hidden in God himself, was now brought to light; and *that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows*, was now solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ.
> 
> *It had before the confirmation of a promise, which is an oath; it had now the confirmation of a covenant, which is blood. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar to it*, is now made the only rule and instrument of worship for the whole church, nothing else being admitted but what belongs to it, and is appointed by it. This the apostle intends by nenomoqe>thtai, the “legal establishment” of the new covenant, with all the ordinances of its worship. From here on the other (old) covenant was disannulled and removed; and not only the old covenant itself, but the whole system of sacred worship by which it was administered.
> 
> This was not done by the making of the covenant at first; yea, all this was added into *the covenant as given out in a promise, and was consistent therewith*.
> 
> *When the new covenant was given out only in the way of a promise, it did not introduce a form of worship and privileges expressive of it.* It was therefore then consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, (and those composed into a yoke of bondage) *which belonged not to it*. And as these, being added after its giving, did not overthrow its nature as a promise, so they were inconsistent with it when it was completed as a covenant; for then all the worship of the church was to proceed from it, and to conformed to it. Then it was established. Hence, in answer to the second difficulty, it follows that as a promise, it was opposed to the covenant of works; as a covenant, it was opposed to that of Sinai. This legalizing of it, or authoritative establishment of the new covenant, and the worship belonging to it, accomplished this alteration.





> (Also, I find nothing in Owen that would lead me to believe he would not accept the seventh chapter of the WCF as the confession of his church.)



I am honestly perplexed at how you can say this. Can you elaborate for me? He is very clear that he disagrees with WCF 7.6. Are you simply saying he would accept it as the confession of his church even though he disagreed with it and taught against it?


----------



## Prufrock

Mr. Adams,

Owen's position is complex, but careful attention to his definitions allows us to safely navigate between the Scylla of reading Owen as fully in line with the standard Reformed position of his day, and the Charybdis of placing too thick a wall between him and his contemporaries.

I am working right now, and so have neither the time nor ability to quote material for you, but please accept this as a preliminary answer - we need to recognize when Owen is speaking of "covenant" _abstractly_ and when _concretely_. This is one key place wherein the distinction surfaces which Matthew Winzer and I noted concerning exegetical and dogmatic theology. In this _exegesis_ Owen is attempting to deal seriously with the organic logic and interior progression of the epistle itself (not with broad, general dogmatic categories), in which the logic of the text speaks of two "covenants." So as not to contradict the _dogmatic_ framework within which he works (which mandates _one_ covenant of grace from the time of the promise to Adam), he feels he must _exegetically_ reject _in the context of expounding this epistle_ the dogmatic and abstract definition of covenant, and instead restrict himself to a definition which makes "Covenant" an historical event (In other words, one can see how this firm exegetical disjunction actually and ironically can help preserve the dogmatic unity of the covenant of grace). Thus, when speaking concretely and specifically in this sense, it would be nonsense to speak of "a different covenant" (i.e., the Mosaic covenant) "administering" this "covenant." As an historical reality, a "covenant" cannot be separated from its concrete administration, simply for the fact that such a covenant involves the ceremonial rule; in the abstract, however, it can have different administrations. Accordingly, when speaking in this exegetical context, the Mosaic covenant cannot be "an administration" of the Covenant of Grace, but rather it "administers the _promises_ and _comminations_ thereof." This allows Owen to do exegetical justice to the organic logic of the epistle (which requires a contrast of two different _covenants_), while maintaining his dogmatic allegience to the fact that the Mosaic _covenant_ is that whereby the _promises_, _stipulations_, and _terms_ of God's gracious dealings with mankind ("covenant") were administered in history to the Judaic church-under-age in Christ.

I love the extended passage which you quoted in your post - it speaks of the Covenant of Grace "invisibly putting forth it efficacy under types and shadows." That single sentence (which you bolded) I think is one of the best statements in Owen's commentary for explaining his thought on the matter. The Mosaic covenant administered the "stuff" of the Covenant of Grace (that is, the substance of the covenant - which, in the _dogmatic_ sense _*IS*_ the covenant) by a rigid and legal economy until the time of freedom should come wherein the "Covenant of Grace" (in its exegetical, historical sense) is established. 

As to your confusion regarding how I could state that I see no evidence that Owen's theology is in tension with WCF, all it takes is one look at a statement such as Vic quoted above.


----------



## MW

VictorBravo said:


> When Owen spoke plainly on the subject, he seemed clear enough:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is true, the administration of the covenant of grace which they lived under was dark, legal, and low, in comparison of that which we now are admitted unto since the coming of Christ in the flesh; but the covenant wherein they walked with God and that wherein we find acceptance is the same, and the justification of Abraham their father the pattern of ours, Romans 4:4, 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _Vindiciae Evangelicae_ Volume 12, p. 369, Banner of Truth edition. Circa 1654 when Owen was 38.
Click to expand...


Well noted! As far as I know there is no repudiation of this view in later writings of Owen. And as there is nothing in the Hebrews commentary which contradicts this position there is no reason to conjecture a change of mind later in life.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Originally Posted by Pilgrim
> Dennis,
> 
> Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
> Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."



Martin, I would be interested to know *specifically* where this article goes wrong in your opinion. Thanks.


----------



## brandonadams

> Owen's position is complex, but careful attention to his definitions allows us to safely navigate between the Scylla of reading Owen as fully in line with the standard Reformed position of his day, and the Charybdis of placing too thick a wall between him and his contemporaries.



So long as we keep in mind that Owen himself intentionally built that wall.



> So as not to contradict the dogmatic framework within which he works (which mandates one covenant of grace from the time of the promise to Adam), he feels he must exegetically reject in the context of expounding this epistle the dogmatic and abstract definition of covenant, and instead restrict himself to a definition which makes "Covenant" an historical event



I understand you don't have time right now, but you will need to show me where Owen says this - that he is not addressing anything dogmatically in his commentary - otherwise it's you asserting your opinion. When Owen specifically quotes the dogmatic, not exegetical, text of the WCF, and says he disagrees with it, I think you have little ground to stand on for your argument.



> Thus, when speaking concretely and specifically in this sense, it would be nonsense to speak of "a different covenant" (i.e., the Mosaic covenant) "administering" this "covenant." As an historical reality, a "covenant" cannot be separated from its concrete administration, simply for the fact that such a covenant involves the ceremonial rule; in the abstract, however, it can have different administrations.



What you have just offered is not the reason Owen offers for rejecting WCF 7.6. Owen rejects the idea that the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace because he denies it has anything to do with eternal life, not simply because it occurred in time before the new covenant.



> But it will be said, and with great pretence of reason, for it is the sole foundation of all who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, ’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under the old covenant.
> ...
> This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.





> administers the promises and comminations thereof



Can you provide the context for this quote when you have time?



> while maintaining his dogmatic allegience to the fact that the Mosaic covenant is that whereby the promises, stipulations, and terms of God's gracious dealings with mankind ("covenant") were administered in history to the Judaic church-under-age in Christ.



Again, please provide the exact quotation from Owen on this point. This is expressly denied by Owen in what I have quoted.



> The Mosaic covenant administered the "stuff" of the Covenant of Grace (that is, the substance of the covenant



Again, you are asserting what Owen expressly rejects. He says the Mosaic covenant is not of the same substance as the covenant of grace. He quotes the view you just stated _’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ _ and then rejects it.



> As to your confusion regarding how I could state that I see no evidence that Owen's theology is in tension with WCF, all it takes is one look at a statement such as Vic quoted above.



While closing your eyes when reading where Owen says his rejects it 25 years later?



> Well noted! As far as I know there is no repudiation of this view in later writings of Owen. And as there is nothing in the Hebrews commentary which contradicts this position there is no reason to conjecture a change of mind later in life.



Yes, all who were ever saved were saved by the same covenant, and it is not and never was the Old Covenant, according to Owen. _"No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect."_


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Stephen L Smith said:


> PuritanCovenanter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Pilgrim
> Dennis,
> 
> Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.
> Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Martin, I would be interested to know *specifically* where this article goes wrong in your opinion. Thanks.
Click to expand...


Stephen, just read through the posts. I specifically have a disagreement with the works paradigm in the Mosaic.

BTW, I believe Owen is irrelevant to the discussion here now as is Kline. Maybe I am wrong but I believe they both are incorrect.


----------



## MW

brandonadams said:


> Yes, all who were ever saved were saved by the same covenant, and it is not and never was the Old Covenant, according to Owen. _"No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect."_



Then there is no discrepancy with the Westminster Confession.


----------



## Pilgrim

For what it's worth D.G. Hart thinks it significant that the aforementioned parts of the WCF were omitted from the LBCF. (He doesn't mention that the LBCF does insert different language at 7.3) But it's more interesting that the LBCF, as is often the case when they differ, is closer to the Savoy here, which perhaps he didn't bother to check because who really holds to it today? Surely no one in The Gospel Coalition. But there are few if any who could subscribe to the LBCF _ex animo_ either. 



> Actually, the covenant of grace as taught in Reformed confessions like that of the OPC has no trouble recognizing differences between the Old and New Testaments. In fact, the real flattening out took place when Baptists convened in London in 1689 to revise the affirmations of the Westminster Assembly and proceeded to delete important portions of the chapter (seven) on the covenant of grace, like the following:4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.
> 5. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament.
> 6. Under the gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the new testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.​



(Otherwise, aside from not quite reading Wellum accurately in my opinion (not to mention that he probably couldn't subscribe to parts of the LBCF anyway) most of the article is about things that anyone who has been paying attention didn't already know. Who didn't know that JT was baptistic?  )

Well, I can at least agree with DGH that Reformed isn't a good word for Baptists to use, particularly without modification.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Stephen, just read through the posts. I specifically have a disagreement with the works paradigm in the Mosaic.



I was *specifically* asking about the WSC article Covenant Theology. Where does the article go wrong with reference to Kline


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Stephen, have you read anything through this thread? They hold to basically a Klinean understanding of the Mosaic Covenant. That is what I disagree with. Read through the thread.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Stephen, have you read anything through this thread? They hold to basically a Klinean understanding of the Mosaic Covenant. That is what I disagree with. Read through the thread.



Yes, many times but still confused in relation to the Renihan article. I know Micah Renihan and a close friend with his father who is professor at IRBS at WSC and taught his sons. IRBS tends to follow Owen in seeing the Mosaic covenant as a National Covenant (rather than a formal C of W or C of G). Jim Renihan teaches this strongly. Hence my question re how the Kline criticism applies to the Renihan article?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I read through the article Stephen and Kline is referenced quite a bit. It has been a few days since I read it so I can't give you specifics at this time. Kline's thought concerning the Mosaic is not where the Westminster Confession lands nor is Owen's position if I understand the distinctions correctly. They both hold to a works principle concerning the Mosaic that I do not believe is sound. Both hold to some form of republication of the Covenant of Works in the Mosaic Covenant. I fully believe that the substance of the Mosaic and New Covenant are the same. They are both fully an administration of the Covenant of Grace. We have discussed this issue quite a bit recently on the PB. Just type in Kline or republication in the search and you should be able to see what we have discussed. I hope that helps. Kline's prodigies are out at Westminster Theological Seminary California (Not to be confused with Westminster Philadelphia). So the connection fits. After all that is where Dr. Renihan teaches.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Yes, it is worth more reflection from a Reformed Baptist position. I might discuss it with Dr Renihan when he is here in New Zealand next year.


----------



## steadfast7

Just a quick recap to solidify understanding:
a presbyterian perspective: the New Covenant is new in its administration, namely, the method of entry and breadth of covenant inclusion while maintaining its earthly and temporal character.
an RB perspective: the New Covenant is new in its membership, namely, the elect, saved by grace through faith, and does not maintain an earthly or temporal character.

how's that as a summary?


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think you're focusing on the world "New" too much. God's establishment of covenants is based upon pre-existing ovenants so, as an example, when God established a covenant with Noah, it was not a completely "new" covenant. It was an administration of the Covenant of Grace begun in Gen 3. The word, _established_, is actually key to understanding that a Covenant is already in place whereas many might assume it means that something completely new with Noah has been inaugurated.

I think there is a proclivity for some to focus on the word New and "...not like the one I made..." and then assume that the main aspect of inquiry ought to be to determine points of difference between what came before as if the nature of the New Covenant can be understood primarily by where it differs. The NC is then lined up with the OC and each column draws out the differences that are discernible and the nature of the New Covenant is thought to be understood as it differs from the Old. There is little focus on the continuity and even aspects of the New Covenant are ignored because they don't fit the paradigm of "brand new" or "completely different" that many are looking for. Furthermore, even in focusing on the perceived differences, the substantial "sameness" is scarcely considered.

The Covenant of Grace is made with the elect in Christ. There's nothing "New" about the idea that the elect, in Christ, are in the CoG in the NC but the death, resurrection, and ascension of Christ are incredibly important characteristics of the New Covenant that were only shadowed for the saints of old. 

The same Seed is the object of our faith. They possessed the Gospel of a coming Seed. We possess the Gospel that looks back at redemption having been accomplished.

There are many different ways that the New Covenant is distinguishable and more excellent than previous administrations. Part of the problem is that many _begin_ with the issue of who ought to be baptized and Covenant Theology is then backed into or interests are controlled by the concern about whether a particular issue of the Covenant either confirms or challenges their view.


----------

