# CoR = Election?



## S. Spence (Jan 23, 2007)

Hi,

As a former dispensationalist who's trying to get things straight in his head with regards to the Covenant, Church and baptism, I was wondering what you folks would make of this.

Would it be fair to say that the Covenant of Redemption is an intra-Trinitarian covenant in which the Father promises to appoint His son, Jesus to give His life as a substitute for mankind (the elect). And Jesus agrees to do so. (I’m not sure where the Holy Spirit fits into all this.) However even though this is covenant within the Godhead, the idea of an elect people is at its centre. Therefore would it to be correct to say that the CoR is equivalent in some sense with election.

The reason why I ask this is that I know that Reformed Baptists are keen to say that the CoG is synonymous with election, whereas Presbyterians suggest that the CoG includes both believers and unbelievers. These differing views have immense impact on other doctrines such as the Church and the sacraments, which I'm trying to clarify for myself.

Any comments would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## wsw201 (Jan 23, 2007)

It's "inter" trinitarian versus "intra" trinitarian. Its a covenant between the Godhead versus within the Godhead. If you look at the LBCF it explains the CoR.


----------



## Davidius (Jan 23, 2007)

I read Shaw's commentary on chapter XII of the WCF last night and he said that nobody really believes in a separate CoR anymore, and that if they do, it's described pretty much as the same thing as the CoG, as its planning before time instead of its administration during time. Of course, that was written a while ago and I haven't read tons of literature on the covenants so I'm not sure how accurate that is.


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 23, 2007)

wsw201 said:


> It's "inter" trinitarian versus "intra" trinitarian. Its a covenant between the Godhead versus within the Godhead. If you look at the LBCF it explains the CoR.


 
Actually...."inter" trinitarian would be an agreement between two trinities. I believe "intra" (within the) trinitarian is correct.


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I read Shaw's commentary on chapter XII of the WCF last night and he said that nobody really believes in a separate CoR anymore, and that if they do, it's described pretty much as the same thing as the CoG, as its planning before time instead of its administration during time. Of course, that was written a while ago



I'll say! It was published first in 1845. 

Of course when I first heard that Robert Shaw wrote a commentary on the WCF, I thought to myself, "what is a conductor doing writing a commentary on the WCF?"


----------



## toddpedlar (Jan 23, 2007)

CarolinaCalvinist said:


> I read Shaw's commentary on chapter XII of the WCF last night and he said that nobody really believes in a separate CoR anymore, and that if they do, it's described pretty much as the same thing as the CoG, as its planning before time instead of its administration during time.



As noted in my more jocular post, Shaw's commentary is over 150 years old - I don't know what the situation was in his day, but I suspect that things haven't changed that much. The main reason for splitting the CoR and CoG is that the parties involved are different, and the promises are different. As has been noted, the CoR is always (I think) presented as an intratrinitarian covenant, which has the CoG in view.


----------



## Scott Bushey (Jan 24, 2007)

Wayne and Jeff,
I don't have the time this morning to look at the WCF; could either of you post the portion of the WCF supporting either premise so I can look at it later while I'm on break?

Thanks,


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 24, 2007)

Scott Bushey said:


> Wayne and Jeff,
> I don't have the time this morning to look at the WCF; could either of you post the portion of the WCF supporting either premise so I can look at it later while I'm on break?
> 
> Thanks,


 
Scott,

At least to my feable recollection, the WCF doesn't specify "inter" or "intra", but it is more of an english language thing. This is from The Columbia Guide to Standard American English:



> _Inter-_ means “between, among, shared among two or more,” and the like: _interplanetary travel, interfaith ceremonies, intercity buses. Intra-_ means “within, inside, during”: _intracity school competition, intrastate transportation, intrauterine devices._ Check your dictionary for hyphenation of words beginning with these prefixes; most but not all such high-frequency words are not hyphenated.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 24, 2007)

Hi Folks,

Sorry for causing all the confusion over intra or inter.  

Apart from that is my basic premise that the CoR has more to do with election than the CoG correct or not?

I believe it's pretty clear that there are those in the OT who were certainly in Abrahamic covenant and not elect. 

Do we then take it, that it was possible to be in the Abrahamic Covenant whilst not being in the CoG, or simply that the CoG includes the elect and non-elect?


----------



## Arch2k (Jan 24, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> Apart from that is my basic premise that the CoR has more to do with election than the CoG correct or not?
> 
> I believe it's pretty clear that there are those in the OT who were certainly in Abrahamic covenant and not elect.
> 
> Do we then take it, that it was possible to be in the Abrahamic Covenant whilst not being in the CoG, or simply that the CoG includes the elect and non-elect?


 
I think you are right on here. Think visible church (CoG) vs. invisible church (CoR).


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 25, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> the Covenant of Redemption



There is no such thing. A. A. Hodge stated in his Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith:

"For the sake of simplicity, some Calvinist theologians have set forth the divine method of human redemption as embraced in two covenants The first, styled the "covenant of redemption," formed in eternity between the Father and Christ as principal, providing for the salvation of the elect; the second, styled the "covenant of grace," wherein life is offered to all men on the condition of faith, and secured to the elect through the agency of Him who, as "surety of the new covenant," insures the fulfillment of the condition in their case. 

"Our Standards say nothing of two covenants. They do not mention the covenant of redemption as distinct from the covenant of grace. But evidently the several passages which treat of this subject (Conf. Faith, ch. 7., s. 3; L. Cat., q. 31; S. Cat., q. 20) assume that there is but one covenant, contracted by Christ in behalf of the elect with God in eternity, and administered by him to the elect in the offers and ordinances of the gospel and in the gracious influences of his Spirit. The Larger Catechism in the place referred to teaches how the covenant of grace was contracted with Christ for his people. The Confession of Faith in these sections teaches how that same covenant is administered by Christ to his people. "


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 25, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> Hi Folks,
> 
> Sorry for causing all the confusion over intra or inter.
> 
> ...




They way to view the Abrahamic Covenants etc are to see them as but various administrations of the CoG. Thomas Boston I am sure held to this as did John Gill and others.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 25, 2007)

Personally Richard I see good Biblical evidence for the CoR (Psalm 110 or John 17) but I realise that there are those in the Reformed school of thought who do not agree. 

From what you've said Richard it sounds as if you view the CoG as changing depending what administration it is seen in.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 25, 2007)

S. Spence said:


> Personally Richard I see good Biblical evidence for the CoR (Psalm 110 or John 17) but I realise that there are those in the Reformed school of thought who do not agree.



Have you read Herman Hoeksema's chapter in _Reformed Dogmatics_ vol 1 on the covenant? I found it most helpful.



S. Spence said:


> From what you've said Richard it sounds as if you view the CoG as changing depending what administration it is seen in.



The CoG at its very core is a relation of friendship between the Triune God, as Sovereign-Friend, and his chosen people in Christ Jesus, as servant-friends.

But I think that how this is administered does change:
*1. *http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_4/book4_01.htm
*2.* http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_4/book4_02.htm
*3. *http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_4/book4_03.htm
*4.* http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_4/book4_04.htm
*5.* http://www.pbministries.org/books/gill/Doctrinal_Divinity/Book_4/book4_05.htm


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 25, 2007)

No such thing as the Covenant of Redemption?!

Then what is that "will of the Father" that Jesus comes to do?

And if you desire to see the Covenant agreement itself, begin reading in Isaiah 49, and then do not miss the stipulations of the bargain, Is. 53: the Servant shall do thus and such, and Jehovah will do thus and such.

Check out Thomas Goodwin's Works, vol. 5, _Of Christ the Mediator_.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 25, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Then what is that "will of the Father" that Jesus comes to do?



The same as you make out however the covenant was between the Triune God and Christ _not_ between God the Son and God the Father.

I would agree with Thomas Boston in teaching "The Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace are not two distinct covenants, but one and the same covenant...".

Now I can see the merits of seeing a covenant between God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost (as Gill teaches " have considered the covenant of grace in a former part of this work, as it was a compact in eternity, between the three divine persons, Father, Son, and Spirit; in which each person agreed to take his part in the economy of man’s salvation") but I find the 'mainstream' presentation lacking in its view of the co-equality of the Godhead. Hoeksema explores this in _Reformed Dogmatics_ volume 1.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Jan 25, 2007)

Contra_Mundum said:


> No such thing as the Covenant of Redemption?!
> 
> Then what is that "will of the Father" that Jesus comes to do?
> 
> ...



 

Also I really profited from reading Wilhelmus a Brakel on the Covenant of Redemption. 

And here is what another Hodge had to say.

And here is study of John Owen's view of the Covenant of Redemption by our Webmaster.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 25, 2007)

VirginiaHuguenot said:


> And here is what another Hodge had to say.



An interesting read but Hoeksema answers this easily.



VirginiaHuguenot said:


> And here is study of John Owen's view of the Covenant of Redemption by our Webmaster.



An interesting read.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jan 25, 2007)

I declare myself unreservedly to be a devoted reader of Th. Boston. And I think it clear from what he wrote that he mainly disagreed with the way "many divines do *express themselves*" on the subject; i.e. the substance of what he writes is not substantially different from those who prefer to _express_ the eternal aspect of the intertrinitarian agreement to redeem sinners as a Covenant of Redemption, with distinct characteristics. I daresay, the CoG is the CoR _as administered_ to men.

For with Christ, the agreement has nothing directly to do with Grace at all, for Christ stands in need of no Grace, nor even of condescension--for he has life in himself. But with the elect, with men, it has everything to do with Grace, and nothing but Grace. Thus, from within the godhead Grace is put forth for a purpose, but Christ will be the Mediator of that Grace, not its recipient.

I have described the two as "broader" (CoR) and "narrower" (CoG). The CoG belongs to the CoR, being integral, yea central, to it. When the one covenant is viewed along its length, from within it, on the standpoint of earth back up to heaven, the entire view is colored with the haze of Grace, with Christ at the focal point, for that is what the Covenant is to men.

When viewed however, from the standpoint of eternity, the CoR is clearly more than just the CoG. For the CoR includes the intentions of God to first establish the CoW, which the Mediator will ultimately fulfill for the elect on their behalf--both its stipulations and its penalties. But the CoW is utterly distinct from the CoG! The CoG lies "dormant", hidden, until the effects of the CoW have been manifested.

So, what are we to make of the those eternal purposes that include the CoW? They are not within the covenant agreement? Surely they are! And what of the purposes of _judgment_ outside the CoG, which have been committed to the same Son who redeemed the elect? To be the Judge of the ungodly and disbelieving is part of the Covenant reward to the Son. But I tell you, that is no part of the CoG to the elect! But it surely did belong to the fulfillment of the CoR. Not only so, but what of those purposes which do not terminate upon the objects of either glory or damnation, but which bring glory to the Father? Purposes that may have only an ancillary, or related connection to the CoG?

The CoR is as an object of great beauty in heaven. And our only access to it is through the CoG. Hence, in the sense Boston speaks of, there are only two covenants--that of Works and Grace. But the CoG is simply that part of the CoR that includes "in him all the elect." So, as far as men are concerned, there is only one way of viewing the CoR, namely through the Mediator, Jesus Christ. One is only able to appreciate the CoR if he is instated in the CoG.


----------



## AV1611 (Jan 26, 2007)

You will get no _major_ objection from to that.


----------



## S. Spence (Jan 26, 2007)

I agree.

The CoR deals with how the CoW and the CoG relate to one another. 

After Adam broke the covenant in the garden, the only way we could have a relationship with God was through the CoG. However in order for that to happen Christ had to fulfill the CoW. 
Therefore when Christ agreed to save His people from their sins in the CoR, through the CoG, He was agreeing to fulfill the CoW on our behalf.


----------



## non dignus (Jan 26, 2007)

Thanks Bruce!

That hit the spot.

(as usual)


----------

