# Main diffrence between Refomed Credo Covenant & Reformed Pedo Covenant?



## thistle93 (Dec 12, 2013)

Hi! Would the main difference between Reformed Credo Covenant theology and Reformed Pedo Covenant theology be that Reformed Credo Covenant theology sees two distinct covenants throughout Scripture (the old covenant in OT and now the new covenant with coming of Jesus) while Reformed Pedo Covenant theology see only one covenant throughout Scripture (the new covenant being a modifying continuation of the old covenant)? 


For His Glory-
Matthew


----------



## stephen2 (Dec 12, 2013)

thistle93 said:


> Hi! Would the main difference between Reformed Credo Covenant theology and Reformed Pedo Covenant theology be that Reformed Credo Covenant theology sees two distinct covenants throughout Scripture (the old covenant in OT and now the new covenant with coming of Jesus) while Reformed Pedo Covenant theology see only one covenant throughout Scripture (the new covenant being a modifying continuation of the old covenant)?



I would say that you have summarized briefly the difference between new covenant theology and covenant theology. Historically Reformed Baptists (which I was once!) have recognized one covenant of grace beginning in Genesis 3.15 and extending through to the end of Scripture, which is why historically Reformed Baptists believed that all 10 commandments were still binding on believers. When you described Reformed Credo Covenant theology it seems to me that you are actually describing something quite new and which goes by the name "new covenant theology". Others can correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## KMK (Dec 12, 2013)

WCF Chapter 7



> II. The first covenant made with man was a *covenant of works*,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]
> 
> III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the *covenant of grace*;



LBC 1689



> Chapter 7 Paragraph 1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience to 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*.1
> 1 Luke 17:10; Job 35:7,8
> 
> Paragraph 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a *covenant of grace*,
> ...



All of the Reformed agree that there is both a Covenant of Works and a Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 12, 2013)

thistle93 said:


> Hi! Would the main difference between Reformed Credo Covenant theology and Reformed Pedo Covenant theology be that Reformed Credo Covenant theology sees two distinct covenants throughout Scripture (the old covenant in OT and now the new covenant with coming of Jesus) while Reformed Pedo Covenant theology see only one covenant throughout Scripture (the new covenant being a modifying continuation of the old covenant)?
> 
> 
> For His Glory-
> Matthew



Why do Presbyterians call the NC new, when they only see it as a modification of the old? If its only a modification than its not really new right? Just curious.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 12, 2013)

It's a new covenant administration, the essence of the covenant, salvation by grace through faith in Christ, remains the same.

As has just been said, Reformed Baptists hold to this too.


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 12, 2013)

Peairtach said:


> It's a new covenant administration, the essence of the covenant, salvation by grace through faith in Christ, remains the same.
> 
> As has just been said, Reformed Baptists hold to this too.



Thanks Richard, that makes sense.


----------



## VictorBravo (Dec 12, 2013)

Tyrese said:


> Why do Presbyterians call the NC new, when they only see it as a modification of the old? If its only a modification than its not really new right? Just curious.



Another more basic reason is because Hebrews Chapter 8 through 10, discussing Jeremiah 31, calls it a new covenant.

As Ken and Richard point out, Confessional Baptists do not hold to "New Covenant Theology." The new covenant of Jeremiah is outlined clearly in Hebrews as the Gospel. It is only in that context that there is a distinction between "Old" Covenant and "New" Covenant: Gospel contrasted with the Mosaic.


----------



## JP Wallace (Dec 12, 2013)

thistle93 said:


> Hi! Would the main difference between Reformed Credo Covenant theology and Reformed Pedo Covenant theology be that Reformed Credo Covenant theology sees two distinct covenants throughout Scripture (the old covenant in OT and now the new covenant with coming of Jesus) while Reformed Pedo Covenant theology see only one covenant throughout Scripture (the new covenant being a modifying continuation of the old covenant)?



Matthew

While all the above comments are accurate (as can be seen by referring to John Gill for one) you may be touching on something that has come to light more recently.....that in a sense the New Covenant is very new since being testamented by Christ's death (a la John Owen and Nehemiah Coxe). This is not New Covenant Theology, but neither is it normal Covenant of Works/Grace Dichotomy either. This is probably what Tyrese is hinting at as well.

Now I still hold to the traditional if I call it that, but if you search on PB you'll find some discussions with Samuel Renihan contributing which will allow you to understand the other position, also see 1689 Federalism | The distinctive biblical theology of confessional particular baptists


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Dec 12, 2013)

The New Covenant is new in relation to the the Old, which is the Mosaic: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13).

The Abrahamic Covenant is certainly not "ready to vanish away", but rather is brought to fulfillment in the Seed of Abraham, which is Christ (Gal 3:16). Of the Abrahamic Covenant Paul said, "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" (Gal 3:17).

This Abrahamic Covenant is a manifestation of the Covenant of Grace given to humankind (in Christ, promised to Adam and Eve) in the garden after the fall. The New Covenant – also called the New Testament (Luke 22:20; Matt 26:28 AV) – has been made in the blood of the High Priest (Heb 10:19; 12:24), called also "the blood of the everlasting covenant" (Heb 13:20), of Him who was said to be "slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8).

The "Old Covenant" – the Mosaic – Paul talks of in Galatians 3, giving an understanding of its purpose to the people of God. The Abrahamic is never called the Old. The Covenant of Grace as it was administered through Abraham, was, as noted above, fulfilled / realized in Christ, and by Him its administration, including its sign and seal, was changed to meet the circumstances of the glorious salvation given the whole world in Jesus Christ.

I hope this clarifies the matter a little.


----------



## sevenzedek (Dec 12, 2013)

Jerusalem Blade said:


> The New Covenant is new in relation to the the Old, which is the Mosaic: "In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away" (Heb 8:13).
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant is certainly not "ready to vanish away", but rather is brought to fulfillment in the Seed of Abraham, which is Christ (Gal 3:16). Of the Abrahamic Covenant Paul said, "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" (Gal 3:17).
> 
> ...



This is good medicine for those who say that the Old Covenant includes Abraham as though their reasoning has all to do with the fact that he is delineated in an Old Testament book.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Dec 13, 2013)

The sign and seal of circumcision for Abraham and Moses is Old if I am not mistaken and changed in the New to baptism. The promises of God being the God of the Redeemed and the promise of forgiveness are the same between the testaments and the Covenants after the fall. The types in the Old are old and done away since they are fulfilled by the antitype making the Old fulfilled and complete in the New. The Baptists have various strains of understanding. I think in a recent post by Renihan the Younger that it was revealed to me that some Reformed and Particular Baptists believe that the Covenant of Grace is actually only promised in the Old and actually only fully active with the New Covenant. The Old is a mixed Covenant of Gracious Promise and a Covenant of Works. That even includes the Abrahamic. The New is purely the Covenant of Grace. 


The Presbyterian Confession sees the Covenant of Works as only a Prelapsarian Covenant that was broken and that all men are found dead in Adam. The Law after the fall is never offered again in the form of a Covenant of Works (not even in some sense as some would say) but as the rule of righteousness in the Covenant of Grace which is administered through various covenants as WCF 7.4,5,6 states. But those covenants are never considered to be a mixture of the Covenant of Works and Grace unlike the Reformed Baptist view. 

I hope I have helped.


----------



## JP Wallace (Dec 13, 2013)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Presbyterian Confession sees the Covenant of Works as only a Prelapsarian Covenant that was broken and that all men are found dead in Adam. The Law after the fall is never offered again in the form of a Covenant of Works (not even in some sense as some would say) but as the rule of righteousness in the Covenant of Grace which is administered through various covenants as WCF 7.4,5,6 states. But those covenants are never considered to be a mixture of the Covenant of Works and Grace unlike the Reformed Baptist view.



That's what I was referring to earlier Randy (but hadn't time to parse out). I would however change a few words in your last sentence to match up with your first paragraph (pedantic I know  ) thus; "But those covenants are never considered to be a mixture of the Covenant of Works and Grace unlike *the view many Reformed Baptists hold to.*'

This is the position espoused by the Renihans et. al in our generation, Nehemiah Coxe etc. in the 17th century, and indeed is basically John Owen's position, though he saw no application to baptism! However I for one remain to be convinced that this is a) essential to Reformed Baptist hermeneutic b) what the Confession states (or not necessarily so) and c) that this is the position all Calvinistic/Particular/Reformed Baptists have held to or hold to. Gill for one in his Body of Divinity certainly does not and holds to the normal dichotomous position i.e. that the Covenant of Works was only a pre-lapsarian covenant etc.

I was reading Wilhelmus a Brakel on the Covenant's this week (and find it hard to disagree with much) not least when he states the following rather simple but profound conclusion,

'God cannot establish a covenant of works with the impotent sinner.'

You are also correct in saying that this 'mixed' aspect included the Abrahamic covenant - thus Benjamin Keach wrote that God made two distinct covenants with Abraham, one of works and one of grace, and of course the seal of circumcision was included in the works covenant.


----------



## jwithnell (Dec 13, 2013)

> The Law after the fall is never offered again in the form of a Covenant of Works (not even in some sense as some would say)


This is an absolutely critical distinction given the language currently circulating regarding a "republication" of the covenant of works under the Mosaic covenant.


----------



## Peairtach (Dec 13, 2013)

With Republicationism, even some Presbyterians are moving back to a semi-Baptistic and. semi-Dispensational system, a bit of a "dog's breakfast" really, neither fish nor fowl. It can't be formulated coherently, hence "in some sense".

It is important to remember that there is the CoW pre-Fall, and the CoW post-Fall. Post-Fall the law of the CoW stands, and the negative sanctions, for those who never truly enter the CoG by faith. But the sanction of reward by means of works is now forever out of reach of the sinner and if the Israelites were being offered the sanction of reward in a type at Sinai, by means of works rather than grace, to that extent they were being sadly deceived about the true way to Heaven. 

As Fairbairn says, the Old, Mosaic Covenant, in a sense, had a "greater rigour" to it, in that, for instance, because of the inferior nature of the typological sacrifices, there was no such sacrifice for presumptuous sin. E.g. David had no sacrifice for his sins with Bathshebs and the killing of Uriah, and such sinners would have been encouraged when they contemplated the sacrificial system to not so much look through the typological sacrifices to Christ, but beyond the typological sacrifices to Christ. But such things do not mean that the Old Covenant was not truly an administration of the CoG or that it had an admixture of a Republication of the Pre-Fall administration of the CoW, but just that the grace was presented in a way that was suitable for the then Old Testament Church. As part of that, the Mosaic system taught the Israelites about the broken CoW, its negative sanctions, and the positive sanctions which were available in Christ and through truly entering the CoG by exercising faith. We are taught the same things in a different way in the New Testament. The Old Testament may look relatively less free and gracious to us, but it was an advance on Abraham, being appropriate for that era, and as part of God's grace to the Israelites it taught them about the now broken CoW.

As Steve pointed out, the Old Covenant or Testament, was the one established at Sinai, not the one established with Abraham as Baptists sometimes hold. The mark of the Abrahmic Covenant and its promises was circumcision, which later became the mark of entrance into the Old Covenant, and also became a test case for Pharisees and Judaisers of one's commitment to the whole law of Moses including all those provisional elements which were added at the time of Moses, from which we are set free as a lifestyle but not as regards instruction, circumcision being the initial rite of the Mosaic system.

The principle that the children of those who profess faith in the God of Abraham, the One Living and True God, are in covenant with Him, continues, along with other things, into the New Testament, it being another administration and fuller-outworking of the covenant with Abraham, our father in the faith.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Tyrese (Dec 13, 2013)

JP Wallace said:


> thistle93 said:
> 
> 
> > Hi! Would the main difference between Reformed Credo Covenant theology and Reformed Pedo Covenant theology be that Reformed Credo Covenant theology sees two distinct covenants throughout Scripture (the old covenant in OT and now the new covenant with coming of Jesus) while Reformed Pedo Covenant theology see only one covenant throughout Scripture (the new covenant being a modifying continuation of the old covenant)?
> ...



I also still hold to the traditional view as well. I still refer to Greg Nichols book on Covenant Theology which is really just a collection of his lectures at Trinity Ministerial Academy. I'm still not convinced by the new books and videos that are out.


----------



## jandrusk (Dec 13, 2013)

PT069


----------

