# Question for the Baptist: Is the C.O.G. only the New Covenant?



## Matthew1344 (Sep 11, 2016)

I got this diagram off 1689federalist.com

I am on the 20th century reformed baptist side. I did not know that before i saw this diagram. I thought a 1689er was a 20 century reformed baptist guy. On the website, one man says something along the lines of...

*"20th century reformed baptist guys differ than paedo guys in the sacraments, but learn their covenant theology from them. But, the 20th C.R.B. have to see that those two systems do not fit. You can't have a Presbyterian covenant theology and not their way of sacraments. Their sacraments are different because they see the covenants different. And our sacrament is the way it is because it makes since of the way we see the covenant. To like their way of covenants and not their sacraments is inconsistent. And vice verse, to like baptist sacrament but not out way of seeing the covenants is incosisntant." *

Not i used more words than him, but this is what he was getting at. *This was pretty shocking to me*. I never heard this before. But he was right. i did learn my cov theology from edwards and hodge. So i decided i needed to go further in my understanding of my understanding of the covenants and the sacraments, and this time i wanted to look at baptist guys, *but i knew of zero*(my own fault). Just spurgeon, but i don't think he is the best exegete ha. love his gospel illustrations and his way of making simple the difficult, but many times i just see the text to be way off his point. Not all the time, but more than enough to go to him to learn how to connect the covenants. So besides him, i didn't know of anyone. In the videos, i heard them reference coxe, and pascal. I will be buying those guys books tomorrow. But after that i do not know of anyone to look at. 

Currently i am stuck in two worlds. 
-I like augustine "The old is what is in the new concealed, and the New is whats in the old revealed." It only makes sense to me that the covs build on top of each other. Same in substance. Each covenant revealing more and more of Gen 3:15. 
-I think the baptist understanding of the administration of baptism lines up with the NT the best. I have heard many debates of white and others, and i think his exegesis is better. 

*So, i am stuck between two worlds i guess.*

2 sets of questions...
1) What do baptist mean only the NC is the COG? IF that is true the what are all the old covenants? Are the all C.O.W.? And if so what does that mean?
2) "C.O.G.= One Substance under multiple Administrations" is only under the 20th century baptists. Do 1689 guys not believe this? If not then what other substance than the seed (Christ) crushing the serpent(satan) is there?


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 12, 2016)

The Covenant with Abraham is still being worked out under the NT administration. E.g. Galatians 3:17.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Matthew1344 (Sep 12, 2016)

Peairtach said:


> The Covenant with Abraham is still being worked out under the NT administration. E.g. Galatians 3:17.
> Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


Can you explain your answer a little more? Sorry, it is all new. Did you quote this to say that the promises stack on top of the other, not replacing the other?


----------



## Matthew1344 (Sep 12, 2016)

> For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
> 
> To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
> 
> ...



The fist sentence in red seems to say that the covs don't replace the others, but then the second text in red seems to be saying that the new cov replaces the other. 

Sorry in advance if this is a beginners question. I am just new to the cov theology mindset.


----------



## Taylor (Sep 12, 2016)

Matthew1344 said:


> 1) What do baptist mean only the NC is the COG? IF that is true the what are all the old covenants? Are the all C.O.W.? And if so what does that mean?



As someone who has recently been convinced of the paedobaptist scheme, maybe I can answer these questions. As far as I am aware, only the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace, fully "discovered" (LBCF 7.3). In the Old Covenant, which is different in substance than the New Covenant (which to me means, yes, it is all a covenant of works), the Covenant of Grace existed only in the form of a promise. But, the crucial question for me was this: How is being saved by believing the promise any different from an administration (i.e., dispensing) of the Covenant of Grace?



Matthew1344 said:


> "C.O.G.= One Substance under multiple Administrations" is only under the 20th century baptists. Do 1689 guys not believe this?



Well, it depends on which 1689 person you talk to. If you notice the center of the diagram, both positions hold to the 1689 but with different interpretations of chapter 7. However, I do believe that the 1689 Federalist position (as opposed to the 20th Century Reformed Baptist position) is a more faithful understanding of the LBCF chapter 7.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Sep 12, 2016)

I guess i don't understand the "different substance" wording. What other substance is there except for Christ redeeming people from Satan through faith in him?


----------



## zsmcd (Sep 12, 2016)

Matthew1344 said:


> I guess i don't understand the "different substance" wording. What other substance is there except for Christ redeeming people from Satan through faith in him?



I read most of those 1689 books that you probably just ordered. There are variations. Most, if not all, hold that the Mosaic was strictly a covenant of works i.e. "do this and live." There is difference in understanding in regards to the Abrahamic covenant. Some of the 1689 folks hold that the Abrahamic was too a COW, while some say a COG, and others would say both! The big difference I see, and was already pointed out, is that they understand the covenants of the OT to only be covenants of promise. John Owen, although a paedobaptist, made a distinction between a covenant and a testament, saying that the New Covenant is different in that it is a _testament_ because he identifies testaments as actually be inaugurated and sealed with blood, i.e. the atonement. So for most of these 1689 Fed guys, they understand the COG as being strictly the New Covenant because it only existed as a promise before the atonement but was actually inaugurated with Christ's atonement. Of course, as a new paedobaptist I would understand all covenants, besides the covenant with Adam, to be the one covenant of grace in multiple administrations. But this was something I struggled with for a while. Hope that helps, may god bless your studies.


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 12, 2016)

The New Testament is a new administration of the Abrahamic Covenant which replaces the Old (Mosaic) Testament, which was suitable for the childhood church ( the Westminster Confession calls it a "church under age"). In the New Testament we have reached the final administration of the Church and Abrahamic Covenant until the end of the world.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## Peairtach (Sep 12, 2016)

Matthew1344 said:


> I guess i don't understand the "different substance" wording. What other substance is there except for Christ redeeming people from Satan through faith in him?


The expression "substance" is used to point up what New Testament believers share with their OT brothers, i.e. justification by faith alone and sanctification according to the standard of the moral law. Things such as the complex ceremonial law and the judicial law as it was applied under the Mosaic period are of the temporary administration of the CoG. Presbyterians would hold that the inclusion of the children of those who profess faith is part of the substance of the CoG/Abrahamic Covenant.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk


----------



## zsmcd (Sep 12, 2016)

Matthew1344 said:


> > For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
> >
> > To give a human example, brothers: even with a man-made covenant, no one annuls it or adds to it once it has been ratified. Now the promises were made to Abraham and to his offspring. It does not say, “And to offsprings,” referring to many, but referring to one, “And to your offspring,” who is Christ. This is what I mean: the law, which came 430 years afterward, does not annul a covenant previously ratified by God, so as to make the promise void. For if the inheritance comes by the law, it no longer comes by promise; but God gave it to Abraham by a promise.
> >
> ...



I think you are right in pointing out that the first sentence in red shows the fact that God does not discard his promises and workings with man but is rather building on them, fulfilling them, expanding them, and keeping them. In the second sentence, Paul is simply showing the reason why the outward ceremonial administration of the Mosaic law is passing away. The law as given by Moses had typological purposes that are fulfilled in Christ. But for Paul, that Law did not erase the promises given to Abraham and his offspring, to be a God to them by faith. Notice, Paul doesn't call the Abrahamic covenant a guardian but the Mosaic. The promises to children and the sign and seal of circumcision were attached to the Abrahamic covenant that Paul shows is still in effect as we are Abrahams offspring. Now all you need to do is figure out what you believe concerning circumcision and baptism.  How are they different? How are the similar? And do those promises to children still belong? These are the two big differences, I believe, between the 20th century reformed Baptist and a paedobaptist.


----------



## Matthew1344 (Sep 12, 2016)

zsmcd said:


> Matthew1344 said:
> 
> 
> > > For all who rely on works of the law are under a curse; for it is written, “Cursed be everyone who does not abide by all things written in the Book of the Law, and do them.” Now it is evident that no one is justified before God by the law, for “The righteous shall live by faith.” But the law is not of faith, rather “The one who does them shall live by them.” Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us—for it is written, “Cursed is everyone who is hanged on a tree”—so that in Christ Jesus the blessing of Abraham might come to the Gentiles, so that we might receive the promised Spirit through faith.
> ...



thank you


----------



## brandonadams (Oct 7, 2016)

Matt,

Have you had a chance to read the books yet? Sounds like you have quite the work ahead of you if you have not studied covenant theology before. It is very nuanced and a very rewarding study.



> Currently i am stuck in two worlds.
> -I like augustine "The old is what is in the new concealed, and the New is whats in the old revealed." It only makes sense to me that the covs build on top of each other. Same in substance. Each covenant revealing more and more of Gen 3:15.
> -I think the baptist understanding of the administration of baptism lines up with the NT the best. I have heard many debates of white and others, and i think his exegesis is better.



1689 Federalism agrees that the covenants build on top of each other and that each one reveals more and more of Gen 3:15. However, it agrees with Augustine that the Old and New are two different, separate, distinct covenants - not the same covenant. http://www.1689federalism.com/augustine-proto-1689-federalist/



> 2 sets of questions...
> 1) What do baptist mean only the NC is the COG? IF that is true the what are all the old covenants? Are the all C.O.W.? And if so what does that mean?
> 2) "C.O.G.= One Substance under multiple Administrations" is only under the 20th century baptists. Do 1689 guys not believe this? If not then what other substance than the seed (Christ) crushing the serpent(satan) is there?



1) A covenant is defined by the parties and the terms. The Covenant of Grace is a covenant made between the Father and the Son with Christ as the head of the elect, granting faith, justification, eternal salvation and all the benefits of Christ. The Covenant of Grace is union with Christ. Thus the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. The other covenants in Scripture are each defined according to the parties and the terms. The Noahic was a covenant of common preservation made with all mankind. The Abrahamic Covenant was made with Abraham and his physical seed, promising that Christ would come from Abraham and that his offspring would be given the land of Canaan. The Mosaic Covenant governed Israel's life in the land of Canaan. It was limited to temporal blessing and curse in Canaan. All of these revealed, to varying degrees, the New Covenant while be separate from it. None of those post-fall covenants were the Adamic Covenant of Works.

2) You are getting confused over the word "substance." It is used in two different ways and Presbyterians conflate those different ways. 1689 Federalism affirms that Christ is the substance of the shadows of the Old Covenant. But "substance" in covenant theology has another meaning. It is used in an Aristotelian sense to mean "essence." When someone says the Old and New are one in substance, they are saying the Old and the New are the same covenant. 1689 Federalism rejects that idea as unbiblical. 1689 Federalism affirms that Christ is the substance of Old Covenant shadows, but notes that it does not therefore logically follow that the Old and New are the same covenant. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/09/29/substanceaccidents-substanceshadows/ (Taylor, this link should answer your question about "dispensing" and "administering" grace)


----------

