# Is the Gospel true without the Eternal Covenant?



## Sonoftheday (Nov 29, 2007)

Firstly, I do not think that someone must understand the eternal covenant to present the gospel, nor does it have to be presented when presenting the Gospel, nor understood for Salvation.

The Question is; is the Eternal Covenant (the Covenant made between the Father and Son before time) necessary for the gospel to be the true Gospel?

If the Father and Son did not make a covenant to save a people then does not that make Jesus just an unwilling victim?

Just something Ive been pondering lately.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 29, 2007)

I don't think it necessarily leads to thinking of the Son as an unwilling victim, but it could (and probably has) led more often to a _subordinationism_ that presents the Son as willing but duty bound to do the Father's will.

The "Covenant of Redemption" understands the biblical data as teaching a Son who is equal with the Father entering into a perfect agreement, involving the willing obedience of the Son to the Father's design, so that the Father glorifies the Son, and the Son the Father. The subordination is strictly economic.

Since the latter appears to do better justice to the biblical God, it is certainly closer to the truth, less subject to error and perversion by Satan's deceits.


----------



## JohnOwen007 (Nov 30, 2007)

Sonoftheday said:


> Firstly, I do not think that someone must understand the eternal covenant to present the gospel, nor does it have to be presented when presenting the Gospel, nor understood for Salvation.
> 
> The Question is; is the Eternal Covenant (the Covenant made between the Father and Son before time) necessary for the gospel to be the true Gospel?
> 
> ...



I think it's one of those "milk" versus "solid food" (Heb. 5:11-14) issues. The gospel can be presented without any mention of the _pactum salutis_, just look at 1 Cor. 15:3-5 and Rom. 1:2-4, or Paul's preaching in Athens. This is the simple "milk" presentation for babies.

However, this simple presentation needs eventually to be unpacked (the "solid food" presentation). And it's in this unpacking that we begin to find some sort of transaction between the Father and the Son in eternity. Babies shouldn't be forced to stomach this, because they need milk first. However, to grow up it needs to be unpacked into solid food.

Whether the eternal Father-Son transaction is to be called a "covenant" is a debatable issue, and I wouldn't want to say that someone _had _to believe it. Scripture gives all sorts of hints, but doesn't unpack the _pactum salutis_ in elaborate detail. It's best to be quiet where Scripture is quiet. However, there is some sort of agreement between the Father and the Son and to miss this is to miss something critical about God himself: the godhead is Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a Trinity of ordered persons.

It's lack of this Trinitarian awareness, when God is simply spoken of as God, Lord, etc. indiscriminately, that I suspect leads evangelicals to speculate that Muslims may be worshipping the true God but in ignorance. Full-blooded Trinitarianism would help mitigate this immediately.

Blessings brother.


----------



## Sonoftheday (Nov 30, 2007)

Thanks both of you for your replies thier both insightful. It often helps me think through things to discuss them with others. 

subordinationism
This is how the Gospel was presented to me my entire life until I came upon the teachings of Covenant theology. I think this teaching is probably very prevelant among Dispensationalists.

pactum salutis
Ahh I learned a new word for the meat I have been eating lately. Thank you. I like knowing the fancy words, Its kinda like going to restaurant and saying I want that chicken stuff with cheese cooked in it, its so much easier to just say Cordon bleu.


----------

