How many "Reformed" understandings of the covenant of grace are there?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Reverend Winzer, why do you always place quotation marks around "Baptist"? You speak of the "Baptist" confession and the "Baptist" catechism, "Baptist" circles inhabited by "Baptists," etc. It would seem you do not believe it is the proper word. What word would you prefer?

A person who is called a "Baptist" because he immerses or only baptises those who personally profess faith is not a true Baptist according to the way the Bible is interpreted by paedobaptists. To concede the name is to give up the debate. The quotation marks indicate that the term itself requires further clarification.

That's what I thought. "Reformed Baptists" are neither Reformed nor Baptist. What term would you prefer? I'm not sure about the other "Baptists" here, but I'd prefer if you were straightforward in your terminology rather than politely acquiescing to our errant labels.
 
I'm conversant with Grant Osbourne's view of the Hermeneutic spiral and it is a good way of looking at the interplay between Systematics, Historical, Biblical, and exegetical theology but you still have a problem in determining how "wide" you want your options to be. Since you don't want any Confessions to be the boundary then why do you start with three options in the OP? Surely there are hundreds once the boundary of what "Reformed" means is taken down altogether. To many Lutherans, Reformed includes not only John Calvin but the theology of Joel Osteen and faith healers. Barth considered himself Reformed as well.

Well, if the net is cast too wide, the worst I will do is waste my time considering a position that I will subsequently discard. I agree that there may be other needs for the use of the word "Reformed" which need more careful delineation. For me, if I should pick up, a Calvinist dispensational view, it would not be the end of the world. Indeed, in Christian charity, I should from time to time pay attention to what my fellow evangelicals are convinced the Bible teaches, just as part of checking my tradition and assumptions.


Everyone believes they are rejecting non-Biblical doctrines. May a person who still affirms all five points of the Remonstrants correctly call themselves "Reformed"? The issue is not whether the Remonstrants were repudiated by Scripture but that Dordt "confessed" as a Church what the Scripture taught. To say that the Remonstrants were repudiated not by a Confession but the Scriptures is to deny that Dordt confessed what the Scriptures taught. Every time you write or say something about the Scriptures you are individually confessing what the Scriptures teach. Is it proper for a person to interrupt your preaching or teaching at every turn and remind you that what you just said about the Scriptures is not the Scriptures themselves and that they can't be expected for your sound exposition to "take the place of Scripture"? Confession is, in the end, inevitable.

Nobody within the Reformed tradition claims that the Confessions replace the Scriptures. They are seen as a standard exposition of the Scriptures - not my standard exposition but our Church's standard exposition. Theology is not an endeavor where the individual stands apart from the Church but the Church confesses together as it is built up by those who are given the gifts and office to handle soundly the Word of Truth (Eph 4). I'll never understand why so many people find the idea strange that the Church could arrive at unanimity about what the Scriptures principally teach and write it down for posterity. The same people often don't find it strange that they can individually interpret the Scriptures. It's when that individual autonomy runs aground of the Church that I find the default response is not the rejection of all confession but the confession that disagrees with my own.

I agree that confession is inevitable, and I recognise the value of confessing in line with a historical confessional document. However, there are two questions. The first is how one becomes convinced that a particular confessional document is sound with respect to Scripture; and the second is how one encourages others to come to confess in line with a particular confessional document. Both of these questions requires one to come to the Scriptures and test the confessional document in question. I invite you to reconsider your above statements, but as you do, having in mind the 1689 BCF (which I assume you do not subscribe to), rather than the WCF (which I assume you do.) However, standard the 1689 is as exposition of Scripture ... it is not yours ... and you will not subscribe to it, because you find it lacking with regard to Scripture.



I am trying to learn to be a New Testament scholar. I want to be one who is sophisticated and informed in matters of systematic and historical theology. I want to operate within broadly defined Reformed orthodoxy, but I dare not slavishly follow Reformed confessions without asking the question as to whether they are the best fit at each point with Scripture (or even more, with the particular portion of Scripture that I am studying at the time.) That would be failing in my job as a New Testament scholar. I need to understand the positions which didn't make it into the confessions.
It's interesting to me how you use the term "sophisticated" a number of times. I think my concern may be summed up in something that a minister friend of mine once said about the person who kept saying to him: This is how I interpret the Scriptures. He gently rebuked him to remind him that we confess the Scriptures together. The Reformed Confessions arise out of a couple of convictions that they are not only understandable by the use of regular means but also that the Scriptures themselves teach the notion that gifts are given to men to arrive at the unity of the faith. Taken together, the Church should expect that the Spirit can lead men to come to an understanding of the Scriptures, to agree upon what it teaches, and in turn hold each other accountable and grow together in that understanding. The Reformed Church was obviously protesting against a kind of theology that only starts talking to itself with no reference to the Scriptures but they still maintained the Scriptural idea that we ought to be able to confess truths together. It is the hallmark of the Reformation (and not its detriment) that they've publicly confessed what the Scriptures teach. It is the Radicals, like the Romanists, who don't want to ever define what the Scriptures teach because it doesn't fit their system to be bound by the written Word.

It is not safe to either be one who blindly accepts Church authority above the Scriptures or to think that one is somehow an island of "sophisticated" Biblical scholarship that can function apart from the ongoing life of the Church. The Word creates the Church and it creates a Church that confesses the Word. I would urge you to consider the danger of the position of scholarship that believes it does not need to be anchored in the Church or that the hermeneutical spiral is a continual reinvention of the faith "...once for all delivered to the Saints". It is my experience that those who are most faithful to the work of theology for and in conversation with the Church grounded in the Scriptures are those who are extremely "liberal" in their understanding of modern notions and the spirit of the age and know how to "re-form" that faith once for all delivered to the Saints that a new generation may confess anew that faith.

Firstly, thank you for the kind, gentle and wise rebuke/warning. I hope I don't deserve it; and if I ever do, that it will check me.

I accept that my use of the word "sophisticated" might give the impression that I want to be a novel biblical interpreter that dazzles everyone with my wit, wisdom and new insights. However, that is not what I meant. I have read too much biblical interpretation (especially by New Perspective advocates) which has been naïve and ignorant with regard to systematic theology, and some application of their new readings to historical positions have been so arrogant as to almost be laughable. I see the need for "informed nuance" in dealing with theological and historical issues in biblical interpretation. I meant no more by "sophisticated" than being "accurate, informed, and not conflating issues that ought not to be conflated - historically accurate and faithful to the (Reformed) churches historical orthodox position."

I have every desire to function in support of the ongoing life of the church, and no desire to be heretical, or "constantly" or needlessly "reinventing the faith". However, a couple of points. Firstly, as I understand it, being faithful to the historic faith of the church is an important part of supporting the church. Secondly, re-grounding the faith in Scripture is sometimes necessary, and part of helping the church maintain its historic faith.

Part of the job of a biblical scholar is to pay attention to the language and concepts which are used in the portion of Scripture that one is currently studying. This will not necessarily be the language or concepts used by systematicians and confession writers. The biblical scholar may suggest alternative concepts and terminology to the systematicians - but whether the systematic theologians and the church at large, accepts such changes is a bigger question, and (thankfully) is not in the power of the biblical scholar to determine.
 
For me, if I should pick up, a Calvinist dispensational view, it would not be the end of the world. Indeed, in Christian charity, I should from time to time pay attention to what my fellow evangelicals are convinced the Bible teaches, just as part of checking my tradition and assumptions.
Just to be clear, I'm not trying to put some boundary around the word "Reformed" so as to simply avoid investigating other viewpoints. My larger point is the usability of the term. If it can mean everything then it doesn't really exist as a useful description of anything in particular. You might have started the thread by asking "How many understandings of the Covenant of Grace are there?" and this thread would have been pretty wide. Even when we use the term Reformed Baptist today, we tend to remember that it's a relatively recent phenomenon because the term Reformed has been historically associated with a certain Covenant theology. As you can see from the thread, it creates some qualifications as people are using different sets of definitions. By the very nature of the initial question, it did not jump to anyone's mind here to include the views of Finney or Barth even though both began within a body that came out of the Reformed tradition. We're able to exclude them from consideration for "Reformed understanding" not because we don't desire to investigate their views but, having investigated them, we can make important distinctions which is necessary when examining things.

In the end, we all have to begin with the notion that we're Christians based first on some basic definition of orthodoxy. We exclude Mormons and Jehova's Witnesses and Muslims even though they have some place for Christ in their theology. From there we make further distinctions to help understand the various visible Churches that confess a Christian orthodoxy. Even in your signature, we know you belong to a Baptist Church and, furthermore, that you subscribe to a Confession that distinguishes your beliefs from others who use the same term. Baptist helps us know that, in shorthand, your Church holds to a certain ecclesiology and your confessional subscription further delineates other aspects of your theology. These shorthand terms help us to know what you believe so you don't have to constantly re-introduce all that you hold to when you begin a discussion with someone. I also know you're in Bristol, England so I know a little bit about where you come from and so through various forms of classification it helps narrow down discussion.

This is a long way of giving explanation as to why we even retain the term. Though society increasingly believes that words have no meaning, I think we need to maintain the value that words point to ideas so that we can arrive at understanding.

Thank you for your irenic reply and I hope I have explained my intent in trying to keep the terminology a bit tighter. We need to be liberal in our understanding of things but liberality does not mean that we simply abandon the meaning of terms simply to prove to others that we are liberal in our thinking about things.

I agree that confession is inevitable, and I recognise the value of confessing in line with a historical confessional document. However, there are two questions. The first is how one becomes convinced that a particular confessional document is sound with respect to Scripture; and the second is how one encourages others to come to confess in line with a particular confessional document. Both of these questions requires one to come to the Scriptures and test the confessional document in question. I invite you to reconsider your above statements, but as you do, having in mind the 1689 BCF (which I assume you do not subscribe to), rather than the WCF (which I assume you do.) However, standard the 1689 is as exposition of Scripture ... it is not yours ... and you will not subscribe to it, because you find it lacking with regard to Scripture.
I confess the WCF because I'm in a Church where we confess the Scriptures together in such a way. I don't arrive at truth by an autonomous differentiation of facts in themselves, placing the Creator and His Word as one of many facts to differentiate and arrive at autonomous conclusions. Rather, it was the Reformed Church and through its ministry of the Word that preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to me and the Spirit used the means of that preaching to convert me and bring me into His visible kingdom. My knowledge is one of thinking God's thoughts after Him analogically through the Word and the light of nature. The Word creates the Church and its gifts by which I am preached to, prayed for/with, encouraged, and built up. Mine is not a faith by which the Word drops out of heaven and then I decide, randomly, the people who I'll affiliate with simply by my autonomous decision that there are a group of people I mostly agree with. I'm called into communion by the Word into a body that confesses the Scriptures together and is built up by it.

Had my circumstances been different, I might have been converted under the ministry of a Baptist congregation and my study in that body of believers may have been different and I might be convinced of different things by that ministry. Nevertheless, given the community I find myself within, I find my conscience convinced by the Word of God that the truths I confess together with the Church to be His Word. I grew up Roman Catholic so I roundly reject its teachings as soul-destroying. I continue to engage in regular dialog and friendship with many outside my communion and put my confession in contact with many divergent voices. But, even as my understanding grows, I have submitted myself (as the Scriptures command) to a visible communion and I am blessed to have my understanding challenged and sharpened by those who have been called by God to my growth in grace. Having studied the Scriptures for years now, I find this view of the Church and discipleship to be Biblical and the notion that we arrive at truth independently or a spirit of distrusting the value of the communion of Saints as a means to my sanctification to be a modern but un-Biblical notion.
 
but I'd prefer if you were straightforward in your terminology rather than politely acquiescing to our errant labels.

I thought I explained there is no acquiescing. When discussing the issue itself I always use antipaedobaptist. But when I am in a discussion with people who use these terms as identifiers they must be taken up in some sense.
 
It is by no means inaccurate to say that the 1689 Baptists held to a single covenant of grace that captured the unity of God's saving purposes across salvation history.

It should be clarified that this "1689 Baptist" unified "covenant of grace" is only in the plan of God and is not historically realised until the new covenant. When the Reformed speak of an unified covenant of grace they mean one that is historically realised across both Testaments. It is evident that "1689 Baptists" do not mean this and clearly depart from the consent of Reformed theologians (including Owen, et al) on that point. In conclusion, therefore, it is fair to state that the "1689 Baptist" view is not the Reformed view of the covenant of grace.
 
Yes, there is a difference between the two. I believe what Steve was getting at was avoiding the appearance that Baptists affirm two covenants of grace, which they do not, thus defending the 'unity' of the covenant of grace. But that the covenant of grace is distinct in substance from the OT covenants is certainly a self-conscious departure.
 
I confess the WCF because I'm in a Church where we confess the Scriptures together in such a way. I don't arrive at truth by an autonomous differentiation of facts in themselves, placing the Creator and His Word as one of many facts to differentiate and arrive at autonomous conclusions. Rather, it was the Reformed Church and through its ministry of the Word that preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ to me and the Spirit used the means of that preaching to convert me and bring me into His visible kingdom. My knowledge is one of thinking God's thoughts after Him analogically through the Word and the light of nature. The Word creates the Church and its gifts by which I am preached to, prayed for/with, encouraged, and built up. Mine is not a faith by which the Word drops out of heaven and then I decide, randomly, the people who I'll affiliate with simply by my autonomous decision that there are a group of people I mostly agree with. I'm called into communion by the Word into a body that confesses the Scriptures together and is built up by it.

Had my circumstances been different, I might have been converted under the ministry of a Baptist congregation and my study in that body of believers may have been different and I might be convinced of different things by that ministry. Nevertheless, given the community I find myself within, I find my conscience convinced by the Word of God that the truths I confess together with the Church to be His Word. I grew up Roman Catholic so I roundly reject its teachings as soul-destroying. I continue to engage in regular dialog and friendship with many outside my communion and put my confession in contact with many divergent voices. But, even as my understanding grows, I have submitted myself (as the Scriptures command) to a visible communion and I am blessed to have my understanding challenged and sharpened by those who have been called by God to my growth in grace. Having studied the Scriptures for years now, I find this view of the Church and discipleship to be Biblical and the notion that we arrive at truth independently or a spirit of distrusting the value of the communion of Saints as a means to my sanctification to be a modern but un-Biblical notion.

No wonder we don't agree on the role of the biblical scholar. I must admit that I am slightly awed by this position. I don't move in Reformed circles very much (Presbyterians are almost impossible to find in England, and although I worship at my wife's old Presbyterian church when we visit her parents in Wales, my outside assessment is that it is barely evangelical, let alone confessional), so I haven't encountered anyone who takes this stance before.

I find your position a slightly worrying one. Do you think people converted under, say, a Wesleyan minister, should remain Wesleyan? Or should they assess their tradition against the Scriptures and adapt their practices and theology accordingly? More importantly, is an entailment of your position a kind of relativism: the truth one ought to find in Scripture should be determined by the circumstances of one's conversion?

Also, I wonder whether there is much point in engaging in theological discourse. You are so bound by your confession that you are not open to being shown that it might not be right. Doesn't this (functionally at least) make your confession a secondary Scripture?

I wonder what you think of Christians like John Owen, who, I understand, upon reading the arguments of someone called Cotton, changed his ecclesiology from Presbyterian to Congregational?

Sorry, I am not trying to be confrontational. I am just stunned, and trying to think through what I think about such enthusiastic confessionalism.
 
Yes, there is a difference between the two. I believe what Steve was getting at was avoiding the appearance that Baptists affirm two covenants of grace, which they do not, thus defending the 'unity' of the covenant of grace. But that the covenant of grace is distinct in substance from the OT covenants is certainly a self-conscious departure.

Yep, what he said!
 
No wonder we don't agree on the role of the biblical scholar. I must admit that I am slightly awed by this position. I don't move in Reformed circles very much (Presbyterians are almost impossible to find in England, and although I worship at my wife's old Presbyterian church when we visit her parents in Wales, my outside assessment is that it is barely evangelical, let alone confessional), so I haven't encountered anyone who takes this stance before.

I find your position a slightly worrying one. Do you think people converted under, say, a Wesleyan minister, should remain Wesleyan? Or should they assess their tradition against the Scriptures and adapt their practices and theology accordingly? More importantly, is an entailment of your position a kind of relativism: the truth one ought to find in Scripture should be determined by the circumstances of one's conversion?

Also, I wonder whether there is much point in engaging in theological discourse. You are so bound by your confession that you are not open to being shown that it might not be right. Doesn't this (functionally at least) make your confession a secondary Scripture?

I wonder what you think of Christians like John Owen, who, I understand, upon reading the arguments of someone called Cotton, changed his ecclesiology from Presbyterian to Congregational?

Sorry, I am not trying to be confrontational. I am just stunned, and trying to think through what I think about such enthusiastic confessionalism.
What I'm trying to articulate is very difficult to articulate. On the one hand, I affirmed (if you read me carefully) that my conscience is bound by the Word. Yet, there is also the truth, from the Scriptures, that I'm not simply a "lone ranger" interpreting the Bible. Neither am I called into the faith as simply an individual but I am called into a local Church. Ephesians 4 clearly articulates the life of the Body and the gifts that God gives to the Church to upbuild that body so it cannot ever rightly be understood that Christian growth and understanding operates apart from the context of the Churches ministry through its offices.

You say I'm not able to grow but, again, you're not reading me carefully. I already noted I came out of Roman Catholicism so I clearly had (and have) and ability to be taught by the Word. I also am not stating that my participation in a Church body makes me immune from being in a Church that does not properly teach the Word of Truth. Taken with what I've already noted, other portions of Scripture make it clear that ministers depart from the faith as do whole Churches and so I return to the notion that my conscience is bound by the Word of God and I may have to leave a communion to find a communion that rightly teaches the Word.

That said, I don't place the idea of my conscience being bound by the Word of God in competition with the notion that I may find a communion where faithful men are ordained (per Eph 4) for my sanctification. I believe, in my conscience, I have found a Church where the Lord has raised men up to function per Eph 4 albeit imperfectly. Indwelling sin causes many blind spots in me and so I need faithful elders who will be a check to me even as I'm a check to them. We strive together to encourage one another, rebuke, exhort, etc because it's not an individual effort. I also don't always arrive at sound conclusions on first glance and so the community of faithful men, along with the blessings of faithful teachers that have come before, check me from rushing headlong into error.

I could go on and on about the deceitfulness of the heart and why I believe that the Scriptures clearly paint a picture of the Lord using many means privately and corporately but the aim is the upbuilding and sanctification of the Church and my basic orientation is not as an individual but a supporting element - an instrument in the hands of the Redeemer toward the sanctification of His Bride.

What I'm trying to avoid as I mention Baptists, is being so prideful as to assert that, if I was converted in a Baptist Church, that I would be so wise as to see what I now clearly believe to be several clear errors in their Scriptural understanding. Even though I read through the Bible regularly and study extensively, the goal of the "unity of the faith" is a pressing Scriptural concern that makes jumping ship quickly very difficult. The person who doesn't care in the least about the Church may find it easy to stay "above the fray" but the person who remains "above the fray" may know the Scriptures but in such a way as they have no impact on him.

I don't want to leave you with the impression that I don't see problems in my own flock but that's the nature of the Church. It's imperfect but Christ calls us to it nonetheless and a schismatic spirit, in my view, is to deny the faith altogether.

As for my notes about analogical reasoning as opposed to the idea of interpreting undifferentiated facts, if you haven't studied the way the Reformed note the manner in which we arrive at the Truth as being dependent upon the Creator then I suggest further study in that area. One of the things we always need to keep in mind is that, although we're called to learn, it is not as if our strength of insight is what characterizes us as children of God. Christ, in thanking the Father about His disciples, does not thank Him for helping Him find people that could arrive at sound conclusions because they properly used their autonomous reason to arrive at sound conclusions, but He thanks the Father for revealing the Kingdom to little children and hiding it from the wise of this world (Matt 11:25-26). At the end of the day, I thank God that He revealed the Son to me. I think an approach to God that does not begin with knowledge as Revelation from the Creator, taken to its full conclusion, will hear no voice but its own.
 
Yes, there is a difference between the two. I believe what Steve was getting at was avoiding the appearance that Baptists affirm two covenants of grace, which they do not, thus defending the 'unity' of the covenant of grace. But that the covenant of grace is distinct in substance from the OT covenants is certainly a self-conscious departure.

If the OT covenants are substantially different to the covenant of grace then the OT covenants function as historically realised covenants substantially different to the historically realised covenant of grace in the new covenant, which is nothing other than dispensationalism. The nature of the dispensationalism is altered to suit the idea that a covenant can be something other than historically realised, but it is dispensationalism nonetheless.
 
Yes, there is a difference between the two. I believe what Steve was getting at was avoiding the appearance that Baptists affirm two covenants of grace, which they do not, thus defending the 'unity' of the covenant of grace. But that the covenant of grace is distinct in substance from the OT covenants is certainly a self-conscious departure.

If the OT covenants are substantially different to the covenant of grace then the OT covenants function as historically realised covenants substantially different to the historically realised covenant of grace in the new covenant, which is nothing other than dispensationalism. The nature of the dispensationalism is altered to suit the idea that a covenant can be something other than historically realised, but it is dispensationalism nonetheless.

The difference between dispensationalism (as dispensationalists would understand the term) and the 1689 Baptist understanding of the covenant of Moses is that the Baptists, along with Owen and Petto and others, did not understand the Mosaic covenant to be directly salvific. Dispensationalism in contrast sees the Old Covenant as a different way of being saved. The 1689 BCF understands people throughout time being saved by the revealed (and subsequently to be established) covenant of grace ... in other words, through faith in Christ. The Particular Baptists had an "extension theology" (through the New Covenant, the (elect) Gentiles are added to the people of God), and they did not keep Israel and Church separate, which is the distinguishing mark of dispensationalism.

Of course, the word "dispensationalism" can be defined in different ways, but given the long standing disagreements between dispensationalists and covenant theologians of all kinds, it is not helpful to use it to label a version of covenant theology which you do not agree with. It seems to me that we have come in this thread to a clear and agreed understanding of the ways in which the 1689 and WCF differ and agree on this subject. I am not sure the "dispensational" label adds any light to the matter.

If you want to insist on the "dispensational" label, an interesting question for the Puritan Board, given that it accepts subscribers to the 1689, is whether it would want to say that it now accepts "dispensationalists".
 
Hi Rich,

Given your qualifications to your previous stated position, I am now left wondering whether we actually disagree at all, and are just expressing ourselves differently.

On a practical level, as an academic in a small local church, there is the problem of finding others who will engage with one at the necessary technical level to in anyway act as a meaningful check or even sounding board to try out one's readings on. And even if you find someone who can and is prepared to engage with you at the necessary level of detail, that is still only one other Christian voice. This is where one's fellow academics (including one's supervisor, if one is a PhD student), and the academics whose works one are interacting with, become one's peers, and it is they who critique and check your work. The degree with which a student is required to function within a particular tradition is in large measure down to the student's desire to function within that tradition. My position is that the student is overwhelmingly more likely do work which is of benefit to the church is he or she stays within the bounds of the historical faith - and particularly within the Western, Protestant, Evangelical, 1689/WCF tradition. One way I can help myself to do that ... is to engage with others via the internet - hence my posts here.

Personally, I expect to continue to function within the 1689/WCF tradition, because I have found this tradition to be biblically faithful. I refer to it as the same tradition for various reasons, but primarily because I am still in the process of checking which variant of covenant theology I find most biblical. I cannot in good faith if - just like you ... my conscience is to be bound to the Word of God ... pre-decide which of these sub-divisions I want to belong too, and strive to keep my reading of the Bible in line with it. If I were to, given my background, it would be the 1689 ... and presumably you think committing myself to that covenant theology would be a mistake.

I am open to the (mere) possibility that the 1689/WCF might be wrong; but the burden of proof heavily lies with deviant readings. This ... as I understand it ... is also the stance that the PB takes on the subject.

Perhaps I should be more explicit and name names. My role models for biblical scholarship are people like D.A. Carson, David Wenham (my supervisor), and F.F. Bruce (David's supervisor, back in the day). These are biblical scholars whose careful biblical studies have supported traditional readings of the Scriptures, and whose work has blessed the church at large because of that. I will never be in their class; but they embody what I aspire to achieve and the methodology for achieving it.
 
Last edited:
My role models for biblical scholarship are people like D.A. Carson,

Just as a side note here Steve, it seems that D. A. Carson himself had some critique concerning the Law from a Reformed Baptist Scholar Greg Welty. Dr. Carson was looking a bit more dispensational and leaning more towards New Covenant Theology ideology concerning law. You can read Dr. Welty's paper here.
Response to D. A. Carson

Papers by Greg Welty
 
My role models for biblical scholarship are people like D.A. Carson,

Just as a side note here Steve, it seems that D. A. Carson himself had some critique concerning the Law from a Reformed Baptist Scholar Greg Welty. Dr. Carson was looking a bit more dispensational and leaning more towards New Covenant Theology ideology concerning law. You can read Dr. Welty's paper here.
Response to D. A. Carson

Papers by Greg Welty

Thanks for these links. I am working my way through Dr. Welty's paper on Don Carson, and will work through his other papers on NCT - a topic I know very little about.
 
the Baptists, along with Owen and Petto and others

I thought we already agreed that Owen et al were in a different category because they teach the covenant of grace was substantially established in Old Testament covenants. Whatever happens with the Mosaic is interesting but irrelevant to this main point of difference. "The Baptists" should not be put in the same category if they disallow there was no historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament.
 
I thought we already agreed that Owen et al were in a different category because they teach the covenant of grace was substantially established in Old Testament covenants. Whatever happens with the Mosaic is interesting but irrelevant to this main point of difference. "The Baptists" should not be put in the same category if they disallow there was no historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament.
-
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's Exposition of Hebrews 8:6
 
When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely,

The reader will need to refer back to the comments on Hebrews 7 to see what Owen means by the term "absolutely." When he speaks "absolutely" he outrightly affirms the Westminsterian doctrine. As the Larger Catechism explains, the covenant of grace is made with Christ, and in Him with all the elect as His seed. There is no other covenant Head but Christ. That Westminster teaches it is a clear indication that there is no inherent contradiction between this affirmation by Owen and those others in which Owen teaches the covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament covenants.
 
the Baptists, along with Owen and Petto and others

I thought we already agreed that Owen et al were in a different category because they teach the covenant of grace was substantially established in Old Testament covenants. Whatever happens with the Mosaic is interesting but irrelevant to this main point of difference. "The Baptists" should not be put in the same category if they disallow there was no historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament.

I believe (currently on very little study) that Owen is in a different category than the Particular Baptists because of the question of the establishment of the covenant of grace prior to the new. However, I was only putting them in the same category with regards to the Mosaic covenant. My full sentence read:

... the 1689 Baptist understanding of the covenant of Moses is that the Baptists, along with Owen and Petto and others, did not understand the Mosaic covenant to be directly salvific.

I agree with you that the establishment or otherwise of the covenant of grace prior to the New is an important point of difference between Particular Baptists and Owen et al.. My point is not that they have identical covenant theologies, but rather that on the matter of the Mosaic covenant, where there is continuity with Owen et al, there is clear blue water between the Particular Baptists and Dispensationalists.
 
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's Exposition of Hebrews 8:6

Brandon,

That is a really fascinating quotation from Owen. From it, it is rather difficult to understand exactly where Owen fitted in. The first sentence seems to argue that the covenant of grace was "in existence and effect". If this is taken to mean "established" this is not the Particular Baptist position. However, at the end of the paragraph Owen glosses it as "the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ", which is the Particular Baptist understanding of the covenant of grace prior to the establishment of the New covenant in the blood of Jesus, and hence "in existence and effect" might be the Particular Baptist position. However, the phrase "promise of the grace in and by Jesus Christ" is not clear, as it is totally compatible with other paedobaptist positions ... including the WCF position!

In the second paragraph Owen distinguishes the covenant of grace from the Abrahamic covenant, and any biblical covenant in the Old Testament. Again this is compatible with the Particular Baptist position, but is probably also compatible with the other paedobaptist covenant theologies, for generally "Reformed" (in the broad sense that includes Owen and Petto, as well as the WCF) covenant theologians have not identified the covenant of grace with a specific biblical covenant. The last sentence ... which seems to clarify what Owen means by "absolutely" in this discussion, argues that prior to New, "the covenant of grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture". This is exactly the Denault reading of the 1689 BCF position.

Perhaps in other posts I have been too quick to assume that Owen's position was similar to Horton's, and firmly in the paedobaptist camp. It remains the case, however that Owen did not become a Baptist, and the presumption must be that there was something in his covenant theology that prevented him from making that step, and not mere inconsistency of practice.
 
The reader will need to refer back to the comments on Hebrews 7 to see what Owen means by the term "absolutely."
---
Obs. II. It is of great concernment unto us what covenant we do belong unto, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representative in our name. — There were never absolutely any more than two covenants; wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned.

The first was the covenant of works, made with Adam, and with all in him. And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed unto us, as if we had done it, Romans 5:12. The other is that of grace, made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lie the life and hope of our souls, — that what Christ did as the head of that covenant, as ourrepresentative, is all imputed unto us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance unto us, than to know whether of these covenants we belong unto. We are also some way concerned in them by whom the one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed unto us; for before we make our own personal, voluntary choice, we are by the law of our nature, and of the covenant itself, enclosed in the same condition with our progenitors as to their covenant-state. And thence it is, that in the severest temporal judgments, children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet ofttimes partake of the punishment they have deserved; being esteemed in some manner to have done what they did, so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings, on the other hand, are they partakers of who are included in the covenant of those parents who are interested in the covenant of grace; for such parents succeed in the room of Abraham, every one of them.

And what Abraham did, as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity, whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place; and therefore they had the seal of the covenant given unto them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace hath not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so to be.

Owen, Hebrews 7:10

Our own translation fully expresseth the original in all the parts of it, only it determines the sense of verse 19, by the insertion of that word, “did.” f16 Ver. 18, 19. — For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God. 1. The subject spoken of is the “command .” 2. Described by the time of its giving; it “went before.” 3. Hereof it is affirmed, that it is “disannulled.” And, 4 . The reason thereof is adjoined, from a twofold property or adjunct of it in particular: for, (1.) It was “weak;” (2.) It was “unprofitable.” 5. As unto its deficiency from its general end; “it made nothing perfect.” 6. Illustrated by that which took its work upon itself, and effected it thoroughly; “the hope brought in, by which we draw nigh unto God.”\parFIRST, The ejntolh> , or “command,” is of as large a signification, verse 18, as no>mov , “the law,” in verse 19; for the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions. For the apostle having already proved that the priesthood was to be abolished, he proceeds on that ground and from thence to prove that the whole law was also to be in like manner abolished and removed.

And indeed it was of such a nature and constitution, that pull one pin out of the fabric, and the whole must fall unto the ground; for the sanction of it being, that “he was cursed who continued not in all things written in the law to do them,” the change of any one thing must needs overthrow the whole law. How much more must it do so, if that be changed, removed, or taken away, which was not only a material part of it, but the very hinge whereon the whole observance of it did depend and turn!

And the whole of this system of laws is called ejntolh> , a “command,” because it consisted ejn do>gmasi , in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11,12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered. SECONDLY, This commandment is described by the time of its giving: it is proa>gousa, it “went before;” that is, before the gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely; for our apostle shows and proves, that as to the promise, whereby the grace of the new covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the gospel, it was given four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. Wherefore, the precedency of the law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the apostle proves the cessation of the priesthood, and consequently of the law itself; for the command was given before that testimony, and so went before it.

But it rather respects the actual introduction of a new priest, in the accomplishment of this promise; for hereon the whole change and alteration in the law and worship pleaded for by our apostle did ensue.

Owen, Hebrews 7:18,19

And unto this purpose we must first consider that opinion of some, that the whole end of the mediation of Christ was only to procure the new covenant: although at first view it be irreconcilable unto the nature and notion of a surety; for a surety is not the procurer of that whereof he is the surety, but only the undertaker for its accomplishment. But we must more distinctly consider this assertion, and in what sense Christ may be said to procure the new covenant by his death and mediation. And to this end we must observe, that the new covenant may be considered divers ways, in various respects: — [1.] In the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits in the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of an eternal decree, yet is it distinguished from the decree of election, which first and properly respects the subjects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared; for this respects the preparation only of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their communication. It is true, this purpose, or counsel of God’s will, is not called the covenant of grace, which is the express declared exemplification of it. The covenant of grace, I say, is only the declaration of this counsel of God’s will, accompanied with the means and power of its accomplishment, and the prescription of the ways whereby we are to be interested in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the inquiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the first thing that ought to come under consideration; for nothing can be the procuring cause of this covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it, — of this idea of it in the mind of God. But this is nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ; and so to ascribe it, is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or be procured by, any thing that is external and temporal. And besides, it is expressly assigned unto absolute love and grace: see Ephesians 1:4-6, with all those places where the love of God is assigned as the sole cause of the designation of Christ unto his office, and the sending of him. [2.] It may be considered with respect unto the federal transactions between the Father and Son concerning the accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large in my exercitations. Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the Scripture: but it is that wherein it had its establishment, as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and by it were all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual unto the glory of the wisdom, grace, righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause but that which was the cause of this covenant of the mediator, or of God the Father with the Son as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is nowhere ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding. Who can conceive that Christ, by his death, should procure the agreement between God and him that he should die? [3.] With respect unto the declaration of it. This you may call God’s making or establishing of it with us, if you please; though making of the covenant in the Scripture is applied only unto its execution or actual application unto persons. But this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glow, is most usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold: — 1st. In the way of a singular and absolute promise; as it was first declared unto and thereby established with Adam, and afterwards with Abraham.

This is the declaration of the purpose of God, or the free determination of his will as to his dealing with sinners, on the supposition of the fall and the forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and will of God were the only cause, Hebrews 8:8. And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for he himself, and all that he was to do for us, were the substance of that promise wherein this declaration of God’s grace and purpose was made, or of this covenant of grace, which was introduced and established in the room of that which was broken and disannulled, as unto the ends and benefits of a covenant. The substance of the first promise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised, directly respected and expressed the giving of him for the recovery of mankind from sin and misery, by his death, Genesis 3:15.

Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his mediation, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant itself, then was not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.

2dly. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part whereon we are made partakers of it.

Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of the death of Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign wisdom and grace of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only-begotten Son to die, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that all that believe might not perish, but have life everlasting. But yet it is granted, that the constitution of these terms of the covenant doth respect the federal transactions between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God’s grace; and so, although their constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of making the new covenant, in any sense, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as it is everywhere expressed in the Scripture.

Owen, Hebrews 7:22
 
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for the quotations from John Owen. .... He never is the easiest to read, is he?

Given that you didn't provide any commentary, I will comment on what I see in each of the quotations.

The reader will need to refer back to the comments on Hebrews 7 to see what Owen means by the term "absolutely."
---
Obs. II. It is of great concernment unto us what covenant we do belong unto, as being esteemed to do therein what is done by our representative in our name. — There were never absolutely any more than two covenants; wherein all persons indefinitely are concerned.

The first was the covenant of works, made with Adam, and with all in him. And what he did as the head of that covenant, as our representative therein, is imputed unto us, as if we had done it, Romans 5:12. The other is that of grace, made originally with Christ, and through him with all the elect. And here lie the life and hope of our souls, — that what Christ did as the head of that covenant, as ourrepresentative, is all imputed unto us for righteousness and salvation. And certainly there is nothing of more importance unto us, than to know whether of these covenants we belong unto. We are also some way concerned in them by whom the one or the other of these covenant-states is conveyed unto us; for before we make our own personal, voluntary choice, we are by the law of our nature, and of the covenant itself, enclosed in the same condition with our progenitors as to their covenant-state. And thence it is, that in the severest temporal judgments, children not guilty of the actual transgression of their parents, not having sinned after the similitude of them, by imitation, do yet ofttimes partake of the punishment they have deserved; being esteemed in some manner to have done what they did, so far as they were included in the same covenant with them. And many blessings, on the other hand, are they partakers of who are included in the covenant of those parents who are interested in the covenant of grace; for such parents succeed in the room of Abraham, every one of them.

And what Abraham did, as to the administration of the covenant intrusted with him, his posterity, whose representative he was therein, are said to have done in him, as Levi is in this place; and therefore they had the seal of the covenant given unto them in their infancy. And an alteration in this dispensation of grace hath not yet been proved by any, or scarce attempted so to be.

Owen, Hebrews 7:10

I am not clear that "absolutely" is a particularly technical term for Owen ... but I might be misunderstanding his usage. Here "absolutely" seems to be able to be glossed by "really" ... or even omitted entirely. I guess by going on to talk about the Abrahamic covenant, Owen's use of "absolutely" here subsumes the Abrahamic into either the covenant of works or of grace - and presumably he meant the covenant of grace. But that raises a question about the Mosaic covenant, given that later Owen distinguishes it from the covenant of grace. I guess I don't follow Owen's thought at all here.

When the quotation goes on to talk about Abraham being a "representative" I am a little uneasy. I know Adam and Christ function as federal heads, but I am not sure every covenant is made with a representative. Certainly, I am unsure Abraham is a federal head of a covenant. Perhaps again I am misunderstanding Owen - it certainly seems possible! Furthermore, Owen might go on to maintain that children who are in their covenant head are welcomed into the covenant of grace, and that no-one has overturned this. However, again, Owen can hardly be said to be clear here.



Our own translation fully expresseth the original in all the parts of it, only it determines the sense of verse 19, by the insertion of that word, “did.” f16 Ver. 18, 19. — For there is verily a disannulling of the commandment going before, for the weakness and unprofitableness thereof. For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God. 1. The subject spoken of is the “command .” 2. Described by the time of its giving; it “went before.” 3. Hereof it is affirmed, that it is “disannulled.” And, 4 . The reason thereof is adjoined, from a twofold property or adjunct of it in particular: for, (1.) It was “weak;” (2.) It was “unprofitable.” 5. As unto its deficiency from its general end; “it made nothing perfect.” 6. Illustrated by that which took its work upon itself, and effected it thoroughly; “the hope brought in, by which we draw nigh unto God.”\parFIRST, The ejntolh> , or “command,” is of as large a signification, verse 18, as no>mov , “the law,” in verse 19; for the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions. For the apostle having already proved that the priesthood was to be abolished, he proceeds on that ground and from thence to prove that the whole law was also to be in like manner abolished and removed.

And indeed it was of such a nature and constitution, that pull one pin out of the fabric, and the whole must fall unto the ground; for the sanction of it being, that “he was cursed who continued not in all things written in the law to do them,” the change of any one thing must needs overthrow the whole law. How much more must it do so, if that be changed, removed, or taken away, which was not only a material part of it, but the very hinge whereon the whole observance of it did depend and turn!

And the whole of this system of laws is called ejntolh> , a “command,” because it consisted ejn do>gmasi , in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11,12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered. SECONDLY, This commandment is described by the time of its giving: it is proa>gousa, it “went before;” that is, before the gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely; for our apostle shows and proves, that as to the promise, whereby the grace of the new covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the gospel, it was given four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. Wherefore, the precedency of the law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the apostle proves the cessation of the priesthood, and consequently of the law itself; for the command was given before that testimony, and so went before it.

But it rather respects the actual introduction of a new priest, in the accomplishment of this promise; for hereon the whole change and alteration in the law and worship pleaded for by our apostle did ensue.

Owen, Hebrews 7:18,19

Here Owen seems to be arguing for the abolishment and removal of the whole Mosaic law ... moral as well as ceremonial. (Is he here arguing a kind of NCT?)

Here his use of the word "absolutely" is used to deny the fact that the "Old covenant" came before the earliest promise of the gospel. Again it does not seem to be a technical phrase, and could be glossed by "completely" I think.



And unto this purpose we must first consider that opinion of some, that the whole end of the mediation of Christ was only to procure the new covenant: although at first view it be irreconcilable unto the nature and notion of a surety; for a surety is not the procurer of that whereof he is the surety, but only the undertaker for its accomplishment. But we must more distinctly consider this assertion, and in what sense Christ may be said to procure the new covenant by his death and mediation. And to this end we must observe, that the new covenant may be considered divers ways, in various respects: — [1.] In the designation and preparation of its terms and benefits in the counsel of God. And this, although it have the nature of an eternal decree, yet is it distinguished from the decree of election, which first and properly respects the subjects or persons for whom grace and glory are prepared; for this respects the preparation only of that grace and glory, as to the way and manner of their communication. It is true, this purpose, or counsel of God’s will, is not called the covenant of grace, which is the express declared exemplification of it. The covenant of grace, I say, is only the declaration of this counsel of God’s will, accompanied with the means and power of its accomplishment, and the prescription of the ways whereby we are to be interested in it, and made partakers of the benefits of it. But in the inquiry after the procuring cause of the new covenant, it is the first thing that ought to come under consideration; for nothing can be the procuring cause of this covenant which is not so of this spring and fountain of it, — of this idea of it in the mind of God. But this is nowhere in the Scripture affirmed to be the effect of the death or mediation of Christ; and so to ascribe it, is to overthrow the whole freedom of eternal grace and love. Neither can any thing that is absolutely eternal, as is this decree and counsel of God, be the effect of, or be procured by, any thing that is external and temporal. And besides, it is expressly assigned unto absolute love and grace: see Ephesians 1:4-6, with all those places where the love of God is assigned as the sole cause of the designation of Christ unto his office, and the sending of him. [2.] It may be considered with respect unto the federal transactions between the Father and Son concerning the accomplishment of this counsel of his will. What these were, wherein they did consist, I have declared at large in my exercitations. Neither do I call this the covenant of grace absolutely, nor is it so called in the Scripture: but it is that wherein it had its establishment, as unto all the ways, means, and ends of its accomplishment; and by it were all things so disposed, as that it might be effectual unto the glory of the wisdom, grace, righteousness, and power of God. Wherefore the covenant of grace could not be procured by any means or cause but that which was the cause of this covenant of the mediator, or of God the Father with the Son as undertaking the work of mediation. And as this is nowhere ascribed unto the death of Christ in the Scripture, so to assert it is contrary unto all spiritual reason and understanding. Who can conceive that Christ, by his death, should procure the agreement between God and him that he should die? [3.] With respect unto the declaration of it. This you may call God’s making or establishing of it with us, if you please; though making of the covenant in the Scripture is applied only unto its execution or actual application unto persons. But this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glow, is most usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold: — 1st. In the way of a singular and absolute promise; as it was first declared unto and thereby established with Adam, and afterwards with Abraham.

This is the declaration of the purpose of God, or the free determination of his will as to his dealing with sinners, on the supposition of the fall and the forfeiture of their first covenant state. Hereof the grace and will of God were the only cause, Hebrews 8:8. And the death of Christ could not be the means of its procurement; for he himself, and all that he was to do for us, were the substance of that promise wherein this declaration of God’s grace and purpose was made, or of this covenant of grace, which was introduced and established in the room of that which was broken and disannulled, as unto the ends and benefits of a covenant. The substance of the first promise, wherein the whole covenant of grace was virtually comprised, directly respected and expressed the giving of him for the recovery of mankind from sin and misery, by his death, Genesis 3:15.

Wherefore if he, and all the benefits of his mediation, his death and all the effects of it, be contained in the promise of the covenant, that is, in the covenant itself, then was not his death the procuring cause of that covenant, nor do we owe it thereunto.

2dly. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part whereon we are made partakers of it.

Nor is the constitution of these terms an effect of the death of Christ, or procured thereby. It is a mere effect of the sovereign wisdom and grace of God. The things themselves as bestowed on us, communicated unto us, wrought in us by grace, are all of them effects of the death of Christ; but the constitution of them to be the terms and conditions of the covenant is an act of mere sovereign wisdom and grace. God so loved the world as to send his only-begotten Son to die, not that faith and repentance might be the means of salvation, but that all his elect might believe, and that all that believe might not perish, but have life everlasting. But yet it is granted, that the constitution of these terms of the covenant doth respect the federal transactions between the Father and the Son, wherein they were ordered to the praise of the glory of God’s grace; and so, although their constitution was not the procurement of his death, yet without respect unto it, it had not been. Wherefore the sole cause of making the new covenant, in any sense, was the same with that of giving Christ himself to be our mediator, namely, the purpose, counsel, goodness, grace, and love of God, as it is everywhere expressed in the Scripture.

Owen, Hebrews 7:22

Again there are a few uses of absolutely in this quotation, but none of them seem to be technical uses.


The bits I bolded, however, did talk address a point which arose earlier in this thread ... namely whether Owen followed the 1689 understanding of the covenant of grace not being established until the New was established ... the answer is clear: he did not. He is therefore much closer to say Michael Horton's position that he is to the 1689, and Denault's attempt to claim him for the Particular Baptist position notwithstanding, there is a clear distinction between Owen and the Particular Baptists.

This is good ... because nice as it would be to claim Owen for the Baptist cause ... it could only be a fearful inconsistent Owen that could be claimed. I'd rather have him, consistent and insightful (even if not Baptist), as a great "Reformed-in-a-broad-sense" Puritan.
 
Last edited:
However, I was only putting them in the same category with regards to the Mosaic covenant.

The Mosaic itself is affected by whether or not there is an historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament. For the Reformed who affirm the Mosaic is not a covenant of grace there is at least the qualification that it was given in subordination to the covenant of grace. Where a system teaches there is no historically realised covenant of grace in the Old Testament the Mosaic itself will be radically different.
 
this declaration of the grace of God, and the provision in the covenant of the mediator for the making of it effectual unto his glory, is most usually called the covenant of grace. And this is twofold: — 1st. In the way of a singular and absolute promise; as it was first declared unto and thereby established with Adam, and afterwards with Abraham...

2dly. In the additional prescription of the way and means whereby it is the will of God that we shall enter into a covenant state with him, or be interested in the benefits of it. This being virtually comprised in the absolute promise, is expressed in other places by the way of the conditions required on our part. This is not the covenant, but the constitution of the terms on our part whereon we are made partakers of it.

Owen is arguing that the covenant could not have been the effect of the death of Christ because the death of Christ and its benefits were the provision of the covenant. As the above quoted portion demonstrates, the covenant of grace is substantially operative under the Old Testament. Whatever readers choose to do with his careful explanations and qualifications it is illegitimate to fairly interpret him as teaching anything other than a substantial unity of the covenant of grace in both Testaments.
 
The bits I bolded, however, did talk address a point which arose earlier in this thread ... namely whether Owen followed the 1689 understanding of the covenant of grace not being established until the New was established ... the answer is clear: he did not.
---
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, themeaning 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 the administration of the (absolute )covenant of grace made by the introduction of the law. But Paul 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.

Wherefore he considers ithe new covenantt 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. The new covenant 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 of grace 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 superinduced 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 (for that time) consistent with a form of worship, rites and ceremonies, (and those composed into a yoke of bondage) which did not belong to it. They belonged to the (old) covenant of the Law. 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 , made this alteration.

-Owen, Hebrews 8:6
 
If one's goal is to attain an understanding of Owen's covenant position*, forward progress, no matter the strength or subtlety of your mental gymnastics, will be crippled so long as the intellectual wrestling takes place within the narrow confines of his commentary on the eighth chapter of Hebrews. It is the equivalent of trying to learn the definition of "antidisestablishmentarianism" by only reading the definitions of "anti-" and "establish" over and over again. The problem is made worse by attempting to read Owen through the lens of current discussions and debates. While we sit and debate Owen's stance on matters with which Owen, quite frankly, wasn't concerned, he might be standing ahead assuming the form of Whitman, saying "missing me one place search another, I stop somewhere waiting for you." The simple fact is, he's already ahead of you just waiting for you to catch up to him.

After reading through the whole of Owen, I was faced with the inescapable conclusion - all these discussions get him completely wrong. Not only that, but he's probably more thoroughly in keeping with the Westminster Confession than most people who are arguing about what to do with Owen's embarrassingly wide departure from the confession. The reason for the mental disconnect, I would suggest, lies with the fact that Owen is thinking of the historical manifestation of salvation within the framework of a term I never see brought into the discussion: the "church-state." The discussion board nature severely limits what can reasonably be posted, so I will be highly selective and limit commentary, hoping the selection and arrangement of quotations can allow enough of Owen to shine through to make his thought a bit more clear.

To begin, consider the following passage from his The True Nature of a Gospel Church, roughly contemporaneous to material normally discussed from his commentary:
Thus under the old testament, when God would take the posterity of Abraham into a new, peculiar church-state, he did it by a solemn covenant. Herein, as he prescribed all the duties of his worship to them, and made them many blessed promises of his presence, with powers and privileges innumerable, so the people solemnly covenanted and engaged with him that they would do and observe all that he had commanded them; whereby they coalesced into that church-state which abode unto the time of reformation. This covenant is at large declared, Exodus 24: for the covenant which God made there with the people, and they with him, was not the covenant of grace under a legal dispensation, for that was established unto the seed of Abraham four hundred years before, in the promise with the seal of circumcision; nor was it the covenant of works under a gospel dispensation, for God never renewed that covenant under any consideration whatever; but it was a peculiar covenant which God then made with them, and had not made with their fathers, Deuteronomy 5:2,3, whereby they were raised and erected into a church-state, wherein they were intrusted with all the privileges and enjoined all the duties which God had annexed thereunto. This covenant was the sole formal cause of their church-state, which they are charged so often to have broken, and which they so often solemnly renewed unto God. (Ch. 2, paragraph 18**, bold emphasis mine)​
Note that "the Abrahamic Covenant" is referred to here as the legal administration of the covenant of grace. The Sinai covenant is the taking of the people who are under this legal administration of the covenant of grace and formally enacting a particular and specific church-state which will govern them. It is not something contrary to the Abrahamic covenant, but rather a "particularization" of it: accordingly, Owen can elsewhere (Exercitation 21, paragraph 7) that the promises of the Sinai covenant are "annexed to the then present administration of the covenant of grace."

These "annexed promises," this formal enacting of a specific church-state, is also sometimes referred to by Owen as an "administration" of the covenant. For example, in Exercitation 19 (paragraph 34), he writes:
That which God, on the other hand, requires of them is, that they keep his covenant, Exodus 19:5. Now, this covenant of God with them had a double expression; - first, In the giving of it unto Abraham, and its confirmation by the sign of circumcision. But this is not that which is here especially intended; for it was the administration of the covenant, wherein the whole people became the peculiar treasure and inheritance of God upon a new account, which is respected.​
This passage is important for understanding Owen's framework. This language of the Sinai Covenant "administering" the covenant (under its "legal" or "Abrahamic" dispensation) situates Owen with the mainstream of Westminster theology, and accounts for his ability to write things such as the following without contradiction:
After the fall he entered into another covenant with mankind, which, from the principle, nature and ends of it, is commonly called the covenant of grace. This, under several forms of external administration, hath continued ever since in force, and shall do so to the consummation of all things.(Exercitation 28, paragraph 2)​
This helps to contextualize what he means, for example, when he states in the tenth chapter of his Christologia:
All the promises that God gave afterwards [that is, after the promise to Adam] unto the church under the Old Testament, before and after giving the law — all the covenants that he entered into with particular persons, or the whole congregation of believers — were all of them declarations and confirmations of the first promise, or the way of salvation by the mediation of his Son, becoming the seed of the woman, to break the head of the serpent, and to work out the deliverance of mankind.[/indent]

Throughout his Hebrews commentary, Owen argues that the purpose of the covenant at Sinai was to formally establish a visible church-state (with all its terms and obedience) with his covenanted people so as to preserve a separate people who hold forth visible tokens and signs of the coming Messiah and what he will enact when he comes. Thus it is, as he says, "not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace", though it did administer the legal dispensation of the covenant, but a "particular, temporary covenant." This doesn't change the fact that, by its very nature as a covenant "whereby that people walked with God," it administered the terms of the covenant of grace.

With this basic framework in mind, I wish to present material on two related topics: 1.) Owen's conception of what "the Law" referred to in its Sinaitic context; and 2.) In what way the Sinai Covenant was inadequate, and how this relates to his discussion of the word "established," as pertains to the New Covenant.

For the first, the rule was (plainly) the Moral Law. But Owen does not mean by "The Law" the law considered nakedly. For example, in his Christologia (ch. 11), he states: "Howbeit, as the Church of Israel, as such, was not obliged unto obedience unto the moral law absolutely considered, but as it was given unto them peculiarly in the hand of a mediator." Also, in the fourteenth chapter of his Doctrine of Justification:
That this law, this rule of obedience, as it was ordained of God to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham, unto whose administration it was adapted, and which its introduction on Sinai did not disannul, was accompanied with a power and efficacy enabling unto obedience. The law itself, as merely receptive and commanding, administered no power or ability unto those that were under its authority to yield obedience unto it; no more do the mere commands of the gospel. Moreover, under the Old Testament it enforced obedience on the minds and consciences of men by the manner of its first delivery, and the severity of its sanction, so as to fill them with fear and bondage; and was, besides, accompanied with such burdensome rules of outward worship, as made it a heavy yoke unto the people. But as it was God’s doctrine, teaching, instruction in all acceptable obedience unto himself, and was adapted unto the covenant of Abraham, it was accompanied with an administration of effectual grace, procuring and promoting obedience in the church. And the law is not to be looked on as separated from those aids unto obedience which God administered under the Old Testament; whose effects are therefore ascribed unto the law itself See Psalm 1,19,119.​
Finally, note that in Exercitation 21, he again writes that the Law or the rule of the Covenant was "the law" considered in itself, but the law "accommodated" to (the legal dispensation of) the covenant of grace:
In that it [the law] had a dispensation added unto the commands of obedience, and interpretation, kat' epeikeian, by condescension, given by God himself, as to the perfection of its observance and manner of its performance in reference unto this new end. It required not absolutely perfect obedience, but perfectness of heart, integrity, and uprightness, in them that obeyed.​
This is pure Burroughs, pure Boston. In short, pure, plain-vanilla Westminster understanding of the law as accommodated to the covenant of grace. So long as "law" is understood to mean "command" and "gospel," "promise," Owen will be unintelligible. He as to be understood in his own, Westminster context wherein the covenant of grace itself contains commands and even threatenings which "are annexed to the dispensation of the covenant of grace, as an instituted means to reader it effectual, and to accomplish the ends of it" (Hebrews, ch. 4, vv.1-2, emphasis original).

As to the second topic, I direct the reader first back to the opening quotation from The True Nature of the Gospel Church. With that in mind, I wish to offer two further passages from his Hebrews commentary. Much of the confusion regarding Owen's understanding, I think, results from his comparisons of what "The Law" and "The New Covenant" respectively accomplish/ed. His repeated statements that "The Law" or "Sinai" could not perfect the people cause readers to believe Owen is saying something far different from what he intends. Let's let Owen set the record straight:
Now, it is not the rest of heaven that, in this antithesis between the law and the gospel, is opposed hereunto, but the rest that believers have in Christ, with that church-state and worship which by him, as the great prophet of the church, in answer unto Moses, was erected, and into the possession whereof he powerfully leads them, as did Joshua the people of old into the rest of Canaan. (Ch. 4, vv.1-2 - the whole section ought to be read; emphasis original)​
Further, from chapter 9:
He doth not in this place compare together and oppose the future state of glory which we shall have by Christ with and unto the state of the church in this world under the old testament....But he compares the present state of the church, the privileges, advantages, and grace which it enjoyed by the priesthood of Christ, with what it had by the Aaronical priesthood; for the fundamental principle which he confirms is, that the teleiosin, or present "perfection" of the church, is the effect of the priesthood of Christ.​
And finally, see especially his comments on ch. 7 v.11, where he details at length how the ability to perfect which is denied to "The Law" is not the "perfection" or "salvation" of the individual, but to the perfection of the "church-state." It is in this context that Owen's famous discussion of the word "established" in chapter 8 is to be understood. It is only when the blood of the covenant has been shed that the testamentary grant can truly be enacted; and, accordingly, it is only then that the substance of the covenant can become the sole "rule" of the covenant and the church "perfected" or brought into its full, covenant church-state.

I realize the discussion board format is inadequate to advance these ideas in a truly meaningful or useful way - what I have presented is far too long for a discussion board, but far too short and "ad hoc" to interact meaningfully on the topic. But I hope that it can help at least point readers to the context in which they should be reading Owen. If one reads portions of Owen, the "baby Owen" created thereby will, indeed, diverge from the Westminster tradition; if one reads all of Owen, I think they will find he instead illuminates much of the tradition and exposes us to the current blind spots in our own self-understanding.

I think Matthew Winzer's comments on the material which others have quoted in this thread need to be considered carefully. He is fairly and correctly placing Owen within his proper tradition.

I do apologize for not being able to stick around and discuss this further - but participating in the board is not currently practical. Nevertheless, I saw this discussion a few days ago, and wanted to at least be able to offer a suggestion for direction, and then allow those better qualified to make what they will of it.

*Please, if anything in this post duplicates material presented in the recent paper or monograph referenced earlier in the thread, accept my deepest apologies. I will delete this post so as not to give people a substitute for someone's published research. I have not been able to keep up on the literature.

**I've tried to adopt a "generic" reference system for this post so people with various editions of his work can easily locate the texts in question.
 
Thank you very much for this Paul. I appreciate the sharpening.

The problem is made worse by attempting to read Owen through the lens of current discussions and debates. While we sit and debate Owen's stance on matters with which Owen, quite frankly, wasn't concerned...

That notion (which is often supposed in this discourse) that the old covenant and the new differ in substance and not only in the manner of their administration, certainly requires a larger and more particular handling to free it from those prejudices and difficulties that have been cast on it by many worthy persons who are otherwise minded. Accordingly, I designed to give a further account of it in a discourse of the covenant made with Israel in the wilderness and the state of the church under the law. But when I had finished this and provided some materials also for what was to follow, I found my labor for the clearing and asserting of that point happily prevented by the coming out of Dr. Owen’s third volume on Hebrews. There it is discussed at length and the objections that seem to lie against it are fully answered, especially in the exposition of the eighth chapter. I now refer my reader there for satisfaction about it which he will find commensurate to what might be expected from so great and learned a person.
-Nehemiah Coxe, 1681

----
...accordingly, Owen can elsewhere (Exercitation 21, paragraph 7) that the promises of the Sinai covenant are "annexed to the then present administration of the covenant of grace."

These "annexed promises," this formal enacting of a specific church-state, is also sometimes referred to by Owen as an "administration" of the covenant. For example, in Exercitation 19 (paragraph 34), he writes:
That which God, on the other hand, requires of them is, that they keep his covenant, Exodus 19:5. Now, this covenant of God with them had a double expression; - first, In the giving of it unto Abraham, and its confirmation by the sign of circumcision. But this is not that which is here especially intended; for it was the administration of the covenant, wherein the whole people became the peculiar treasure and inheritance of God upon a new account, which is respected.​

That which God, on the other hand, requires of them is, that they keep his covenant, Exodus 19:5. Now, this covenant of God with them had a double expression; - first, In the giving of it unto Abraham, and its confirmation by the sign of circumcision. But this is not that which is here (v5: Now therefore, if you will indeed obey my voice and keep my covenant, you shall be my treasured possession among all peoples, for all the earth is mine) especially intended; for it was the administration of the covenant, wherein the whole people became the peculiar treasure and inheritance of God upon a new account, which is respected. NOW THIS COVENANT WAS NOT YET MADE, nor was it ratified until the dedication of the altar, when it was sprinkled with the blood of the covenant.
(bold & capital emphasis mine)
---
This passage is important for understanding Owen's framework. This language of the Sinai Covenant "administering" the covenant (under its "legal" or "Abrahamic" dispensation) situates Owen with the mainstream of Westminster theology, and accounts for his ability to write things such as the following without contradiction:
After the fall he entered into another covenant with mankind, which, from the principle, nature and ends of it, is commonly called the covenant of grace. This, under several forms of external administration, hath continued ever since in force, and shall do so to the consummation of all things.(Exercitation 28, paragraph 2)​

by “the covenant of grace,” we ofttimes understand no more but the way of life, grace, mercy, and salvation by Christ; yet by “the new covenant,” we intend its actual establishment in the death of Christ, with that blessed way of worship which by it is settled in the church...
...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...

...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 [not covenant]; 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.
There was no interruption of the administration of the (absolute) (ie an effectual promise, not a formal covenant) covenant of grace made by the introduction of the law. But Paul 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.

-Owen's Exposition of Hebrews 8:6
emphasis & [ ] mine

----

This helps to contextualize what he means, for example, when he states in the tenth chapter of his Christologia:

All the promises that God gave afterwards [that is, after the promise to Adam] unto the church under the Old Testament, before and after giving the law — all the covenants that he entered into with particular persons, or the whole congregation of believers — were all of them declarations and confirmations of the first promise, or the way of salvation by the mediation of his Son, becoming the seed of the woman, to break the head of the serpent, and to work out the deliverance of mankind.[/indent]

??

LBCF 7.3._____ This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.
----
...Thus it is, as he says, "not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace"...

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. And whereas the essence and the substance of the covenant consists in these things, they are not to be said to be under another covenant, but only a different administration of it....
...4. These things being observed, we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant.

----

With this basic framework in mind, I wish to present material on two related topics: 1.) Owen's conception of what "the Law" referred to in its Sinaitic context; and 2.) In what way the Sinai Covenant was inadequate, and how this relates to his discussion of the word "established," as pertains to the New Covenant.

For the first, the rule was (plainly) the Moral Law. But Owen does not mean by "The Law" the law considered nakedly. For example, in his Christologia (ch. 11), he states: "Howbeit, as the Church of Israel, as such, was not obliged unto obedience unto the moral law absolutely considered, but as it was given unto them peculiarly in the hand of a mediator."
:up:
RBTR I.2 John Owen and NCT
----
Also, in the fourteenth chapter of his Doctrine of Justification:
That this law, this rule of obedience, as it was ordained of God to be the instrument of his rule of the church, and by virtue of the covenant made with Abraham, unto whose administration it was adapted, and which its introduction on Sinai did not disannul, was accompanied with a power and efficacy enabling unto obedience...But as it was God’s doctrine, teaching, instruction in all acceptable obedience unto himself, and was adapted unto the covenant of Abraham, it was accompanied with an administration of effectual grace, procuring and promoting obedience in the church...​
:up:
...no man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect... this new covenant of grace was extant and effectual under the old testament, so as the church was saved by virtue of it, and the mediation of Christ in that respect...from the giving of the first promise none was ever justified or saved buy by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ, the mediator of it... by the covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation to the covenant of grace, none was ever eternally saved... If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were 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 covenant... 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.
----

Finally, note that in Exercitation 21, he again writes that the Law or the rule of the Covenant was "the law" considered in itself, but the law "accommodated" to (the legal dispensation of) the covenant of grace:
In that it [the law] had a dispensation added unto the commands of obedience, and interpretation...​

3. Now, in the administration of the law, the church was thus far brought under the obligation of these promises and threatenings of life and death eternal, so far interested in the one and made obnoxious unto the other, as that if they used not the law according to the new dispensation of it, wherein it was put into a subserviency unto the promise, as Gal iii. 19-24...
4. Secondly, The law had, in this administration of it, a new end, and not and design put upon it, and that in three things:
(1) That it was made directive and instructive unto another end, and not merely preceptive, as at the beginning. The authoritative institutions that in it were superadded to the moral commands of the covenant of works, did all of them direct and teach the church to look for righteousness and salvation, the original ends of the first covenant, in another and by another way; as the apostle at large disputes in this Epistle, and declares positively, Gal iii, throughout.
(2) In that it had a dispensation [of law] added unto the commands of obedience [found in original covenant of works]...
Exercitation 21
----
This is pure Burroughs, pure Boston. In short, pure, plain-vanilla Westminster understanding of the law as accommodated to the covenant of grace.

The judgment of most reformed divines is... they are not to be said to be under another covenant, but only a different administration of it.... we may consider that the Scripture doth plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way, as what is spoken can hardly be accommodated unto a twofold administration of the same covenant.

----
His repeated statements that "The Law" or "Sinai" could not perfect the people cause readers to believe Owen is saying something far different from what he intends. Let's let Owen set the record straight:
Now, it is not the rest of heaven that, in this antithesis between the law and the gospel, is opposed hereunto, but the rest that believers have in Christ, with that church-state and worship which by him, as the great prophet of the church, in answer unto Moses, was erected, and into the possession whereof he powerfully leads them, as did Joshua the people of old into the rest of Canaan. (Ch. 4, vv.1-2 - the whole section ought to be read; emphasis original)​

Expositors generally grant that it is the rest of glory which is here intended. This is the ultimate rest which is promised unto believers under the gospel... But I must take the liberty to dissent from this supposition, and that upon the reasons following :

First, The "rest" here proposed is peculiar to the gospel and the times thereof, and contradistinct unto that which was proposed unto the people under the economy of Moses; for whereas it is said that the people in the wilderness failed and came short of entering into rest, the rest promised unto them, the apostle proves from the psalmist that there is another rest, contradistinct unto that, proposed under the gospel. And this cannot be the eternal rest of glory, because those under the old testament had the promise there of no less than we have under the gospel; for with respect there unto doth our apostle in the next verse affirm that " the gospel was preached unto them, as it is unto us," no less truly, though less clearly and evidently...2. This, therefore, cannot be that other rest which is provided under the gospel, in opposition to that proposed under the law, or to the people in the wilderness.

Secondly, The apostle plainly carrieth on in his whole discourse an antithesis consisting of many parts. The principal subject of it is the two people, that in the wilderness, and those Hebrews to whom the gospel was now preached. Concerning them he manageth his opposition as to the promises made unto them, the things promised, and the means or persons whereby they were to be made partakers of them, namely, Moses and Joshua on the one hand, and Jesus Christ on the other. Look, then, what was the rest of God which they of old entered not into, and that which is now proposed must bear its part in the antithesis against it, and hold proportion with it. Now that rest, as we have proved, whereinto they entered not, was the quiet, settled state of God s solemn worship in the land of Canaan, or a peaceable church-state for the worship of God in
the land and place chosen out for that purpose.

Now, it is not the rest of heaven that, in this antithesis between the law and the gospel, is opposed hereunto, but the rest that believers have in Christ, with that church-state and worship which by him, as the great prophet of the church, in answer unto Moses, was erected, and into the possession whereof he powerfully leads them, as did Joshua the people of old into the rest of Canaan...

...Fourthly, Christ and the gospel were promised of old to the people as a means and state of rest; and in answer unto those promises they are here actually proposed unto their enjoyment. See Isa. xi. 1-10, xxviii. 12; Ps. Ixxii. 7, 8, etc.; Isa, ix. 6, 7, ii. 2-4;
Gen. v. 29 ; Matt, xi 28 ; Isa. IxvL ; Luke i. 70-75.

Hebrews 4:1-2

For the law made nothing perfect; but the bringing in of a better hope, by which we draw nigh unto God. 1. The subject spoken of is the “command"… The ejntolh> , or “command,” is of as large a signification, verse 18, as no>mov , “the law,” in verse 19; for the same thing is intended in both the words. It is not, therefore, the peculiar command for the institution of the legal priesthood that is intended, but the whole system of Mosaical institutions… And the whole of this system of laws is called ejntolh> , a “command,” because it consisted ejn do>gmasi , in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11,12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered.

SECONDLY, This commandment is described by the time of its giving: it is proa>gousa, it “went before;” that is, before the gospel as now preached and dispensed. It did not do so absolutely; for our apostle shows and proves, that as to the promise, whereby the grace of the new covenant was exhibited, and which contained the substance and essence of the gospel, it was given four hundred and thirty years before the giving of the law, Galatians 3:17. Wherefore, the precedency of the law here expressed may respect the testimony produced out of David, whereby the apostle proves the cessation of the priesthood, and consequently of the law itself; for the command was given before that testimony, and so went before it.

-Hebrews 7:18-19


----
And finally, see especially his comments on ch. 7 v.11, where he details at length how the ability to perfect which is denied to "The Law" is not the "perfection" or "salvation" of the individual, but to the perfection of the "church-state." It is in this context that Owen's famous discussion of the word "established" in chapter 8 is to be understood. It is only when the blood of the covenant has been shed that the testamentary grant can truly be enacted; and, accordingly, it is only then that the substance of the covenant can become the sole "rule" of the covenant and the church "perfected" or brought into its full, covenant church-state.
:up: :down:
Wherefore the apostle had no need to prove that it was not attainable by the Levitical priesthood, nor to reflect upon it for that reason, seeing it is not attainable by any other way or means whatever. We must therefore diligently inquire into the true notion of this telei>wsiv , or “perfection,” which will guide the remaining interpretation of the words. And concerning it we may observe in general,— First, That it is the effect, or end, or necessary consequent of a priesthood.

This supposition is the foundation of the whole argument of the apostle.

Now the office and work may be considered two ways: 1. With respect unto God, who is the first immediate object of all the proper acts of that office. 2. With respect unto the church, which is the subject of all the fruits and benefits of its administration.

If we take it in the first way, then the expiation of sin is intended in this word; for this was the great act and duty of the priesthood towards God, namely, to make expiation of sin, or atonement for it by sacrifice. And if we take the word in this sense, the apostle’s assertion is most true; for this perfection was never attainable by the Levitical priesthood. It could expiate sin and make atonement only typically, and by way of representation; really and effectually, as to all the ends of spiritual reconciliation unto God and the pardon of sin, they could not do it. For “it was not possible,” as our apostle observes, “that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins,” Hebrews 10:4; which he also proves in his ensuing discourse at large. But I do not know that this word is anywhere used in this sense, nor doth it include any such signification.

And whereas God is the immediate object of that sacerdotal energy whereby sin is expiated, it is the church that is here said to be perfected; so that expiation of sin cannot be intended thereby, though it be supposed threin. Besides, the apostle doth not here understand sacrifices only, by which alone atonement was made, but all other administrations of the Levitical priesthood whatever....

...To this end he brought in “everlasting righteousness,” Daniel 9:24, — µymil;[O qd,x, , not a temporary righteousness, suited unto the µl;[O, the “age” of the church under the old covenant, which is often said to be everlasting, in a limited sense; but that which was for all ages , — to make the church blessed unto eternity. So is he “ofGod made unto us righteousness,’’ 1 Corinthians 1:30.
This is the foundation of the gospel telei>wsiv , or “perfection;” and it was procured for us by the Lord Christ offering up himself in sacrifice, as our great high priest. For “we have redemption through his blood,” even “the forgiveness of sins,” Ephesians 1:7; God having “set him forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins,” Romans 3:25.
And this he is in opposition unto whatever the law could effect, taking away that condemnation which issued from a conjunction of sin and the law: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh, that the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us,” Romans 8:3,4.
The end of the law in the first place, was to be a means and instrument of righteousness unto those to whom it was given. But after the entrance of sin it became weak, and utterly insufficient unto any such purpose; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” Wherefore Christ is become “the end of the law for righteousness, to every one that believeth,” Romans 10:4.
And by whomsoever this is denied, namely, that Christ is our righteousness, — which he cannot be but by the imputation of his righteousness unto us, — they do virtually overthrow the very foundation of that state of perfection which God designed to bring his church unto.
This the Levitical priesthood could not effect, for the reason given in the words following, “For under it the people received the law.” It could do no more but what the law could do; but that could not make us righteous, because it was “weak through the flesh;” and by the deeds of the law no man can be justified.
It may be said, that believers had this righteousness under the Levitical priesthood, or they could not have had a “good report through faith,” namely, this testimony, “That they pleased God.” Ans. (1.) Our apostle doth not deny it, yea, he proves at large, by manifold instances, Hebrews 11, that they had it; only he denies that they had it by virtue of the Levitical priesthood, or any duties of the law. He speaks not of the thing itself, with respect unto the persons of believers under the old testament, but of the cause and means of it. What they had of this kind was by virtue of another priesthood, which therefore was to be introduced; and the other, which could not effect it, was therefore to be removed. He denies not perfection unto persons under the Levitical priesthood, but denies that they were made partakers of it thereby.
-Hebrews 7:11

...no man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect... this new covenant of grace was extant and effectual under the old testament, so as the church was saved by virtue of it, and the mediation of Christ in that respect...from the giving of the first promise none was ever justified or saved buy by the new covenant, and Jesus Christ, the mediator of it... by the covenant of Sinai, as properly so called, separated from its figurative relation to the covenant of grace, none was ever eternally saved... If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were 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
-Hebrews 8:6
 
Last edited:
I'll admit that having read the Owen quotations carefully I am this close (indicates a very small gap) to throwing in the towel and giving up on understanding Owen. It is only the fact that I know he is a careful thinker, and will repay the struggle to understand him, that I am even still trying to bother. I think I need the above quotations unpacked in little bit for me.

My head is spinning (metaphorically) from trying to understand Owen ... and literally ... I am off work with dizziness at the moment. It doesn't help!
 
One thing we might all want to keep in mind is that there is no need to fight over who gets Owen. The Particular Baptists, and we their confessional children, viewed reformed paedobapist federal theology as an inconsistent system. We would consider the WCF to be the standard expression of that system. But among reformed paedobaptist authors, there are some who express that which we would consider to be more consistent with accurate federal theology. And it is those pieces that we highlight and put together. So whether Owen resolved those pieces into a system that is in line with the WCF really isn't a concern of ours (though I appreciate that it's being argued with source data). If we claim that Owen's federal theology was identical to the Baptists, without any distinctions, then critique and interaction is rightfully on its way. But if we say that a particular aspect of Owen's federal theology more consistently aligns with how we put federal theology together, and that we hold it to be inconsistent with WCF federal theology, that's simply a theological disagreement, not a battle over Owen himself.

In other words, we view Owen as being more consistent in his overall inconsistency on this point.

Side note: I mean nothing insulting to the WCF and those who confess it in my comments. If we, and our Particular Baptist forebears, thought reformed paedobaptist federal theology were consistent, LBCF 7 would be WCF 7.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top