1689 and the Covenant

Status
Not open for further replies.

Prufrock

Arbitrary Moderation
I have a baptist friend who has been talking with me about baptism, and I'd like some clarification from the baptists on the board regarding the intention of the 1689 confession and its wording in ch. 7.

Despite all the changes from the WCF's corresponding structure, I'm struck by the substantial similarity between the two. Specifically here, in it's "new" section:

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.

Though the WCF's wording has been thrown out, it seems the substance still stands; the New Testament, along with all salvific activity prior thereunto, belongs to the single covenant of grace: the language of "and afterwards by farther steps" seems to at least include the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances, thereby indicating an external administration of the covenant of grace which includes the unregenerate not simply de facto, but also de jure.

I have more questions, but I want to make sure this is a true reading of the confession's language before moving on. So, baptists, is this on track so far?

Thanks, I'd really appreciate your help: I want to make sure I understand the reformed baptist argument as well as I can, but I just can't get past what seem to be "incongruities" to me, and I'd like them to be worked out.
 
Here is an article written by my friend Pastor Stefan Lindblad that might help. It's mostly a defense of confessionalism, but touches on the RB view of covenants, which is similar to that of those holding to the WCF. The primary difference, of course, is applying covenantal practice in the OT to the present (as in baptism). Nevertheless, I think the typical RB would consider himself to have a covenant theology.

Unashamedly Confessional | The Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies

I'm not quite following the de jure/de facto issue, but that's probably because I'm tired.
 
Thanks so far, guys. I've read lots of books, lectures, articles, etc. I'm mostly right now looking for someone here (an actual baptist) to give a confessional reading, so I can observe your method and thought process. I want to figure out what really makes you tick, as it were, and why some things I frequently hear or read don't seem to jive with how I read the confession. I'm sure I'm either reading the confession wrong, or misunderstanding where you all are coming from.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 03:46:35 EST-----

So, do you confirm that the above is said by the 1689 confession, or are things that need to be cleared up in there before I can ask subsequent questions rightly.
 
We hold to one Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Works. If you want to get a good understanding of the Confessional Baptist you really need to read Nehemiah Coxe's Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. He was one of the framers of the 1677 (1689).

I have discussed this issue many times here. Just do a search on the Abrahamic or Mosaic Covenants or the Covenant of Works under the user name PuritanCovenanter.

We hold that there is one and not two Covenant's of Grace. Some covenants administer both the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works. The New Covenant is purely the Covenant of Grace which is promised to Adam, Eve, Abraham, Moses, and David fulfilled. I would ask Dr. Bob Gonzales if this sounds correct. I will have him look at your question.
 
Randy,

Thank you. I've actually read Coxe (incidentally, on account of your recommendation a while ago -- it was quite useful: thanks for the recommendation). I've also tried to read almost every thread on the topic here on the board.

While I may be desiring too simple an answer, I just want as simple an answer as possible to this question from you guys -- does the 1689 LBC 7.3 imply an external administration of the Cov of Grace (even if temporally prior to the formal inauguration of the New Testament) which includes (not just de facto) those to whom God's salvific grace is not granted?

(This is the first step of my questions: I just want to be sure of each step before I try building)

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 04:15:16 EST-----

I just want to add, Randy, that after reading many of these threads in which you have participated, I want to say thank you and express my appreciation for your patience, gentleness and frequent great clarity in presenting the credo-baptist position
 
I don't believe (as many Presbyterian's do) that the non elect were ever members of the Covenant of Grace. If I am correct, they may be members of Covenants administered by the Covenant of Grace such as the the Abrahamic, or Mosaic, but they were never members of the CofG itself. I have read some Presbyterian's who believe that only the elect were and are the only members of the Covenant of Grace. You might want to ask a Presbyterian for clarification on this. Not all are in agreement here.

We differ on what administers and to whom. Some Paedo's believe that the Abrahamic and Mosaic are purely administrations of the Covenant of Grace. I believe that the Abrahamic and Mosaic administer the Covenant of Grace and Works side by side.

Does that make things even muddier?
 
Randy,

I just want to add, Randy, that after reading many of these threads in which you have participated, I want to say thank you and express my appreciation for your patience, gentleness and frequent great clarity in presenting the credo-baptist position

Thanks for your gracious comment.
 
How do you "exegete" the language, Randy, of 7.3? The language seems to imply to me that those Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances, according to the drafters of the confession, belong to the further revelation of the Covenant of Grace. This seems to be the simplest reading of this, regardless of the relationship by which one wishes to relate this all to the CoW. If these ordinances do pertain, though externally, to the Covenant of Grace, doesn't this imply, confessionally speaking, that even those non-elect who are a part of the Abrahamic or Mosaic covenants, are also at least externally a part of the administration of the Cov. of Grace? I don't see a way around this reading of the confession.

-----Added 3/18/2009 at 04:26:52 EST-----

(If it helps in this conversation for you to know where the most fundamental outlines "Presbyterian notion of the covenant" are coming from, the greatest influences on my understanding are probably Ball, Roberts, Blake and Witsius.)
 
I am running out of time here but I will look at Waldron's exposition of the 1689 and look at your question a bit more closely later tonight. Chapter 7 in the LBCF is lacking in some substance compared to the WCF In my humble opinion. Especially concerning the Covenant of Works. Understanding what Nehemiah Coxe taught and knowing of his influence upon the document, I would have to consider it in his light but I could be incorrect. I will look at it more intently after Nine O'Clock. Don't know if I will be able to respond quickly to your question because I want to do some reading. I appreciate your question. Thanks.
 
Reformed Baptists, the 1689, and Covenant Theology

Paul,

Thanks for the stimulating though somewhat broad question. What's the intention behind the 1689's portrayal of covenant theology in 7.3? To cite that paragraph again:
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.
My training is in biblical theology not in historical theology. I think, however, that Randy's brief reading is probably correct. The early Particular Baptists apparently agreed in substance with the Paedo-Baptist theology of a single overarching "covenant of grace," which was progressively revealed and administered through temporal covenants. They also, apparently, affirmed a covenant of works and a (inter-Trinitarian) covenant of redemption.

I believe that Adam was created as a covenantal being. Hence, I see the covenant of works and man's creation as God's image as terminus a quo. Consequently, I don't see the covenant of works as a superadditum. I have no problem using the terminology "covenant of grace" or "covenant of redemption," but I usually think of "covenants" as being related to the administration of God's kingdom on earth and, therefore, as historical. I prefer to view what is called "the covenant of grace" as the gospel or the redemptive promise, which was first revealed in Genesis 3:15. This gospel or promise is then revealed progressively through a succession of historical covenants, including the Abrahamic, Mosaic, and New Covenants. I think this is what Paul has in view when he speaks of "the covenants of the promise" (Eph. 2:12), which, btw, must include the Mosaic covenant. Accordingly, the gospel or ordo salutis is most clearly revealed in the New Covenant and most fully realized in the visible New Covenant community. Perfect realization of the ordo salutis in the visible covenant community, however, awaits the eschaton.

My :2cents:
 
Dr. Gonzales,

Thank your for your response. I will admit to being a little wary of the Covenant of Works and man creatus ad imaginem dei being necessarily connected by nature, but fortunately (from what I can gather) this will not cause any great impediment (unless I have read your post incorrectly).

To make sure I'm with you so far: as you read the confession, you agree that what is frequently called the Covenant of Grace (though, I realize, you don't prefer this term) has, at least externally, included de jure, certain reprobate. Is this correct? (I recall reading a thread based upon John 1 where you touched upon this issue) I realize that you personally would prefer to view the covenant more historically as opposed to an "atemporal concept," but would you agree that, in the language which the LBC would use, those certain reprobates were (externally) in the Covenant of Grace (and not merely de facto)?

I realize there is more to your post than this, but I want to work through it as slowly as you are willing so that I don't miss anything.
 
but would you agree that, in the language which the LBC would use, those certain reprobates were (externally) in the Covenant of Grace (and not merely de facto)?

I'll chime in here even though I'm of out of my league. The distinction you describe is sort of foreign to my ears and thinking. I'd say pretty clearly that the LBCF does not contemplate reprobates being in the Covenant of Grace at any time.

As you've noted and others have said, the LBCF describes an over-arching covenant, and it is with regard to the elect. Highlighting the portion you quoted:

. . . and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;

This is probably where you might find a bright line distinction between the paedo view as compared to the RB view.

I dare say that the RB view tends to look at it from present to past. By that I mean that we are fully accepting of the truth that God ordains who are (or in our time frame, apparently are) among the elect. We don't know who they are, but by faith and prudence we consider those who have professed faith to be so.

That's where the "tilt" comes in paedo/credo debates, in my opinion. I can see why the paedo believes what he does, and how, by beginning with a unified covenantal scheme, he feels bound to follow through on the truth as he understands it. Nevertheless, viewing it from the other end, from the perspective of the covenant being more fully revealed, I personally have trouble seeing the covenant in quite the same way as the paedo.
 
Dr. Gonzales,

Thank your for your response. I will admit to being a little wary of the Covenant of Works and man creatus ad imaginem dei being necessarily connected by nature, but fortunately (from what I can gather) this will not cause any great impediment (unless I have read your post incorrectly).

I think the majority of Reformed theologians and commentators view the covenant of works as a superadditum. In my mind, that view doesn't jive with the exegetical or theological data of the Genesis account. Moreover, it creates problems for a consistent view of a covenant of works and minimizes the importance of prelapsarian eschatology. But that's probably a topic for another post.

To make sure I'm with you so far: as you read the confession, you agree that what is frequently called the Covenant of Grace (though, I realize, you don't prefer this term) has, at least externally, included de jure, certain reprobate. Is this correct? (I recall reading a thread based upon John 1 where you touched upon this issue) I realize that you personally would prefer to view the covenant more historically as opposed to an "atemporal concept," but would you agree that, in the language which the LBC would use, those certain reprobates were (externally) in the Covenant of Grace (and not merely de facto)?

I realize there is more to your post than this, but I want to work through it as slowly as you are willing so that I don't miss anything.

I don't agree that what I view as the covenant of grace, namely, the gospel or the promise (Genesis 3:15) includes de jure the reprobate--not even externally. Cain and Esau, for example, were excluded from the promise since they were the seed of the Serpent.

Whether the framers of the LBCF did or did not is a different matter. I think some of them identify the "covenant of grace" with the New Covenant. Accordingly, they would argue that reprobates may be part of that covenant de facto but do not belong there de jure. God only confers the legal right to membership within God's visible covenant family on those who "receive" Jesus Christ (John 1:12) thus ending blood-ties as a de jure ground for inclusion within the covenant community (John 1:13). It is for this reason that Reformed Baptists restrict baptism (the NC initiation rite) to those who profess faith in Jesus, excluding the children of believers.

Hope this helps.
 
I'll quickly give a simplified adumbration of where my questions are going for as long as you are willing to stay with me (but remember, I'm still on the first step).

1.) The LBC (note, I'm leaving our scriptural interpretation out as this point: just the confession) seems to clearly imply that the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances pertained to the Covenant of Grace; obviously, not internally, so at least externally. The Covenant of Grace, then, according to the LBC, has an external administration which included a.) children of covenant members, and b.) even those who will not internally or ultimately receive the benefits of the covenant. [This is my thesis concerning the LBC's wording -- it has yet to be validated.]

2.) Extrapolation from the various testaments (which the LBC does say are a part of the Cov. of Grace) implies that this external administration of the Cov. of Grace, in general, involves by command the infant seed of covenant members.

3.) If we consider these all to be various administrations of a single Covenant of Grace and not as separate entities from which we extrapolate the concept of a single overarching covenant , and the New Testament is also a part of this same Covenant, then can we say that the Covenant under this administration ceases to have reference to the seed? (This, of course, is where the argument will start to get messy; and where, I think, reformed baptist and "normal baptist" views may start to come into conflict)

4.) If 3, then it seems there ceases to be any actual connection between the Covenant of Grace under its NT administration and the Church. (Again, this will be a messy point).

5.) Baptism, then, would have nothing to do with being a covenant seal or sign, but merely a sign of the church (the church being a subset of the New Testament administration -- those of this administration who are actually regenerate).

Obviously, this will be a long process, and this is highly oversimplified. This is just so you see where I'm going, and what I'm trying to reconcile with how I read the LBC. I realize there are some big leaps in the above presentation; thus will be smoothed out later.
 
Last edited:
Vic,

I read "founded on" in such in such a way that it does not have to mean "identical in scope with." I'll jump back on this thread later this evening to explain further why I read it like that.

Dr. Gonzales, likewise, I'll be able to respond to your post later this evening. Thanks!
 
I'll quickly give a simplified adumbration of where my questions are going for as long as you are willing to stay with me (but remember, I'm still on the first step).

1.) The LBC (note, I'm leaving our scriptural interpretation out as this point: just the confession) seems to clearly imply that the Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances pertained to the Covenant of Grace; obviously, not internally, so at least externally. The Covenant of Grace, then, according to the LBC, has an external administration which included a.) children of covenant members, and b.) even those who will not internally or ultimately receive the benefits of the covenant. [This is my thesis concerning the LBC's wording -- it has yet to be validated.]

2.) Extrapolation from the various testaments (which the LBC does say are a part of the Cov. of Grace) implies that this external administration of the Cov. of Grace, in general, involves by command the infant seed of covenant members.

I may be in over my head here as well. I hope I am not misreading your question.

The RB believes the Abrahamic and Mosaic etc were 'typical' and 'preparatory'. Therefore any administrations were also 'typical' and 'preparatory'.

3.) If we consider these all to be various administrations of a single Covenant of Grace and not as separate entities from which we extrapolate the concept of a single overarching covenant , and the New Testament is also a part of this same Covenant, then can we say that the Covenant under this administration ceases to have reference to the seed? (This, of course, is where the argument will start to get messy; and where, I think, reformed baptist and "normal baptist" views may start to come into conflict)

The RB defines terms by starting with the NT and looking back, not the other way around. "The full discovery thereof was completed in the NT." (LBC 7:3) The RB denies that the CoG/Promise ever had any reference to the seed except what is 'typical' or 'preparatory'.

5.) Baptism, then, would have nothing to do with being a covenant seal or sign, but merely a sign of the church (the church being a subset of the New Testament administration -- those of this administration who are actually regenerate).

The RB denies that baptism is a 'seal'. The RB does not necessarily think of baptism as a sign of 'the church' but of (1) fellowship with Christ; (2) engrafting into Christ; (3) remission of sins; (4) walking in newness of life. (LBC 29:1)
 
From all of your answers, I'm still hung up on my first question, then, regarding 7.3's reading.

For instance, Ken: let's just both assume your "preparatory and typical" position briefly. Even calling the Abrahamic or Mosaic ordinances preparatory and typical, I still can't get past that 7.3's wording assigns these as "farther steps" by which the "covenant is revealed," finally culminating in the New Testament (so 7.3). Doesn't the confession say that these things belong to the Covenant of Grace which is "founded on the eternal covenant transaction," though not identical with it? Obviously these "farther steps" were given to more than simply those effectively called, and that by right and command.

I don't see how these "farther steps" don't, according to ch.7, belong to the Cov. of Grace, as they are included in the chain of revelation in 7.3 that runs from the promise to Adam through the New Testament: surely, both of these belong essentially to the Cov. of Grace, and if these "farther steps" are a part of that chain, it seems a logical injustice to remove them from the same Covenant. All of this heavily implies to me that the confession is considering an external administration of the covenant of grace which includes all those under the Mosaic and Abrahamic ordinances. (If someone is commanded to use certain ordinances, be instructed and guided, prepared and readied by them, what else can we say than that they are are under the care or the administration of these things?)

We can call them "preparatory and typical," but then what are they if not pertinent to the CoG? They don't belong to the covenant of works, for they are included by 7.3 as "farther steps" in revealing the covenant of grace; are these revelations of God's covenant which exist outside of it? What, then, would they be? But if they are a part of the Covenant of Grace, with what other choice are we left than that the CoG may be described by an external administration which includes those commanded to submit to its ordinances (those "farther steps")?

I'm sorry if this lack clarity. I will revisit it tomorrow.
 
Waldron on chapter 28, Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: "Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and the 'covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church" (Exposition, 338).

I think paedobaptists can only properly understand the Baptist view of "covenants" and "baptism" when they step away from their own integrated view and realise that there cannot be any kind of relationship between them in antipaedobaptist thought.
 
Waldron on chapter 28, Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: "Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and the 'covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church" (Exposition, 338).

I think paedobaptists can only properly understand the Baptist view of "covenants" and "baptism" when they step away from their own integrated view and realise that there cannot be any kind of relationship between them in antipaedobaptist thought.

That's hard. Perhaps it's not as arduous a task as I think it would be, but that paradigm shift seems huge. But, that quote is helpful, and it seems to confirm one of the things with which I'm wrestling: the relationship between baptism and the Covenant in the LBC.
 
Waldron on chapter 28, Of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: "Paragraph 1 of the Westminster Confession has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and the 'covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church" (Exposition, 338).

I think paedobaptists can only properly understand the Baptist view of "covenants" and "baptism" when they step away from their own integrated view and realise that there cannot be any kind of relationship between them in antipaedobaptist thought.

I don't think you are fully representing Waldrons' view. (Unless I am missing something in the conversation.) Here is the full paragraph:

Paragraph 1 of the WC has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the sacraments and 'the covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church. The effort to define the relationship between the symbol and the reality symbolized contained in paragraph 2 of the Westminster Confession and the statement in paragraph 3 concerning the efficacy of the sacraments are also absent. Also eliminated is the effort in paragraph 5 to define the relationship between the OT sacraments and those of the NT. Much of this material contained in the WC is good and helpful, or at least touches on issues that need treatment. It has probably been omitted either because it is covered in chapters 29 and 30 of the Baptist Confession or because it seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors.

I don't think Waldron is saying that because the material was dropped it is not necessarily true, or useful.
 
It has probably been omitted either because it is covered in chapters 29 and 30 of the Baptist Confession or because it seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors.

Chapter 29, Of Baptism, does not associate the ordinance of baptism with the covenant concept; this rules out the possibility that it was omitted because it is covered in chapter 29, which only leaves the reason that it "seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors."
 
[Moderator Note: Moved at Prufrock's request to enable paedo-baptists to reply. Be warned, however, that the tone of all posts (excepting this note) will be irenic or they will disappear without warning.]

To me it seems possible to be convinced that all Biblical covenants are made with "you and your seed"; to acknowledge that children are included the administration of the covenant of grace, and are rightly seen as part of the church; to recognize this as a point of unity between Old and New Testaments, as embraced by the covenant of grace: and yet still think that infant baptisms are somewhat irregular, though not invalid, because to those points there must be added a certain correspondence between circumcision and baptism and a certain relationship between sacrament and covenant. If those links are not demonstrated, acceptance of paedo-baptism still involves something of a leap, even in the absence of other disagreements. Although if the nature of the link between baptism and discipleship could be stated explicitly and defended exegetically that might go a long way.
 
It has probably been omitted either because it is covered in chapters 29 and 30 of the Baptist Confession or because it seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors.

Chapter 29, Of Baptism, does not associate the ordinance of baptism with the covenant concept; this rules out the possibility that it was omitted because it is covered in chapter 29, which only leaves the reason that it "seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors."

That does not change the fact that Waldron admits that much of the material that has been omitted is, "good and helpful, or at least touches on issues that need treatment." Perhaps an historian could shed more light on this.

I am not sure what you mean be 'associate'. 29:1 says that Baptism is a 'sign'.
 
So, is this thread about the over arching Covenant of Grace or the ordinances relationship to it? Is it about whether or not the Covenant of Grace administers the other Covenants (ie. the Abrahamic, Mosaic, etc.) or is it about the ties between the sacraments (or ordinances) between the Covenants as they are viewed by the Particular Baptist framers of the 1689? I just want some clarification. If so, we need to address what is being questioned here. The 1689 was written with some wiggle room (as I would call it) for differing parties. Generalities were made in the 1689 Confession as they were in the Westminster Confession to allow for different understandings. For example it is debated whether or not the Westminster was purely supra or infralapsarian. There were parties on both sides. I recently read an article on Samuel Rutherford's Supralapsarianism that seemed to acknowledge this in the Confessional Presbyterian vl. IV by Dr. Guy Richards. The same goes with the generalities of the 1689 and the Covenant of Works. It is noticeably lacking in quantity (and quality in my opinion) in the 1689 to allow for a more diverse understanding of the doctrine.

Now concerning the Sacraments. Dr. Waldron has a good paragraph to read on page 338. He also discusses the differences between the word sacrament and ordinance. He has no problem with the word ordinance as long as a salvific nature is not attached to its meaning as in the Roman Catholic understanding of the word.

Other aspects of the Westminster treatment of the sacraments which have been eliminated are as follows. Paragraph 1 of the WC has been dropped. It taught that there is a relationship between the the sacraments and 'the covenant of grace' and also between the sacraments and the church. The effort to define the relationship between the symbol and the reality symbolized contained in paragraph 2 of the WC and the statement in paragraph 3 concerning the efficacy of the sacraments are also absent. Also eliminated is the effort in paragraph 5 to define the relationship between the Old Testament sacraments and those of the New Testament. Much of this material contained in the WC is good and helpful, or at least touches on issues that need treatment. It has probably been omitted either because it is covered in chapters 29 and 30 of the Baptist Confession or because it seemed unnecessary in light of the Baptist convictions of the authors.

I would personally like to find out where this thread is leading. What is being questioned? Prufrock (Paul).... Do you want to discuss the Baptist understanding concerning the relationship between the sacraments and the Covenant of Grace or the understanding of with whom the Covenant of Grace includes?

Thanks,
Randy
 
One more thing. If we get back to the first question about 7.3. I believe we are discussing the Covenant of Redemption it this phrase.
and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect
And this would only include the elect.
 
Randy,

Without appearing too ambiguous, I would like to say it's about both. There is a big mental disconnect for me in that 7.3 refers to what it seems can only be the revelations of the Abrahamic and Mosaic covenants as "farther steps" by which "the covenant is revealed in the gospel."

Thus, this first step I'm trying to wrap my mind around is summarized:
1. These ordinances (farther steps) reveal the gospel; this is their purpose.
2. Even if they are typological, their substance then is still the substance of Christ and the Covenant of Grace.
3. These are the means by which the gospel and covenant were revealed, and the means by which men were brought thereunto and guided therein.

How, then, can it be said that these Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances are anything but an administration of the Covenant of Grace? And, as these (the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations) contained externally by command certain who were surely reprobates, then does it not follow that we can say there is an external administration of the Covenant which includes, de jure, certain reprobates? Perhaps I'm too obtuse, but I just can't see how the gospel/covenant can be administered by something without that thing being called an administration thereof.

-----Added 3/19/2009 at 01:11:02 EST-----

One more thing. If we get back to the first question about 7.3. I believe we are discussing the Covenant of Redemption it this phrase.
and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect
And this would only include the elect.

Absolutely: founded upon, but I don't think this has to mean "coextensive with."
 
How, then, can it be said that these Abrahamic and Mosaic ordinances are anything but an administration of the Covenant of Grace? And, as these (the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations) contained externally by command certain who were surely reprobates, then does it not follow that we can say there is an external administration of the Covenant which includes, de jure, certain reprobates? Perhaps I'm too obtuse, but I just can't see how the gospel/covenant can be administered by something without that thing being called an administration thereof.

Paul, I really wish I could have more time to address your questions, because I think you are identifying one of the big difficulties in the typical credo/paedo discussion. As Matthew rightly pointed out, there is a big difference in thinking at the beginning.

Here is a more specific difficulty I have with your line of reasoning: I see you using the term "external administration" in a way that I don't follow. Let me see if I can set it out.

1. Abrahamic Administration: external administration? Well, sure, if that means God stated plainly that the children of Abraham should be circumcized. Agreed. But what were the promises? Abraham would be father of many nations, God would be a God unto the and "thy seed," and the land of Canaan would be an everlasting possession.

2. Mosaic Administration: Certainly external in the sense of God giving Moses the law and specific promises and curses, externally administrated in the sense of God separating out for himself a people who were to be an example to the world, preserve his Word, etc.

So I agree with external administration in this sense, but I stumble on the idea that the Covenant of Grace must be applied to all people in exactly the same manner as it may have been understood by men at the time. To my benighted Baptist mind, it is putting the cart before the horse. I see the Covenant of Grace fully revealed now, founded upon the inter-trinitarian counsel before creation, and gradually revealed in types and shadows, but always reflecting the truth of the eternal Covenant of Grace that God will and does redeem his people.

For instance, in Gal. 3:16 and so forth, Paul says the promise was to Abraham's seed (singular). Paul identifies this seed with Christ. That bit of latter revelation explains something that may not have been completely clear to Abraham: that the covenant signified by circumcision was to secure a promise of one man as redeemer, Christ Jesus.

Similarly with the Mosaic, we see how the law was given to demonstrate through types and shadows the necessity of the sacrifice of that one seed, Christ. (Gal. 3:19 and elsewhere).

My point in bringing this up is that, by looking back from the standpoint of later revelation, we now see that the temporal covenants themselves were preparatory, acting to point to Christ and to preserve a physical line of descent to the one of promise.

So, when you ask why the Covenant of Grace should not be administered in the same fashion as the Abrahamic covenant, it creates the disconnect I experience: I'd view it as saying that the Abrahamic covenant was administered in a way to reflect how the Covenant of Grace is administered, not the other way around. And, according to God's wisdom and timing, he revealed it in such a way as was necessary for that time to demonstrate both the promise and the importance of holiness and separateness.

Perhaps I've muddied this up too much. As I've said, I'd really like to be able to take the time to zero in on this, but I can't right now.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top