Covenant and Gospel Promises

[Nate]

I am looking for insight into the Reformed consensus on the relationship between the promise of the covenant of grace (e.g., Genesis 17:7) and the promise of the gospel (e.g., Romans 10:9). The juxtaposition of the promises in Acts 2:38-39 in response to the question from Peter's audience makes me lean towards the second option below, but I am also familiar with some authors who seem to equate the promises with each other.

Is there a clean distinction between the two promises?

Are the two promises somewhat distinct but intimately related?

Are the two promises identical?

Is there a lack of consensus on the absolute definitions of the two promises?

 

[yeutter]

Why do you think that their could be a clear distinction between two?

 

[Nate]

Thomas, I am not sure that there is. But, my impression is that some posit that the gospel promise extends to all, elect and reprobate alike, who hear the gospel preached. For example, if I am reading Calvin correctly:

Some object that God would be inconsistent with himself, in inviting all without distinction while he elects only a few. Thus, according to them, the universality of the promise destroys the distinction of special grace. Some moderate men speak in this way, not so much for the purpose of suppressing the truth, as to get quit of puzzling questions and curb excessive curiosity. The intention is laudable, but the design is by no means to be approved, dissimulation being at no time excusable. In those again who display their petulance, we see only a vile cavil or a disgraceful error.

Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3.22.10

While, on the other hand, the promise of the covenant of grace is exclusive to the elect. In this way, the promises would be distinct: one is universal, the other extends only to the elect.

 

[Peairtach]

that the gospel promise extends to all

It can't extend to all, since in God's providence, whether in the OT period, or NT period, some never hear it.

Of those who do hear it (and/or receive the sign which speaks of it) not all are those for whom it was intended by God to be effective in His mysterious distinguishing electing love.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.(Galatians 4:28)

 

[Nate]

that the gospel promise extends to all

It can't extend to all, since in God's providence, whether in the OT period, or NT period, some never hear it.

Of those who do hear it (and/or receive the sign which speaks of it) not all are those for whom it was intended by God to be effective in His mysterious distinguishing electing love.

Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.(Galatians 4:28)

Thanks Richard. Do you view the promises as identical then?

 

[timfost]

While, on the other hand, the promise of the covenant of grace is exclusive to the elect. In this way, the promises would be distinct: one is universal, the other extends only to the elect.

It might be beneficial to read Charles Hodge ST on the Covenant of Grace (CoG). What you seem to be getting at is covered in the distinction between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption (though there is much overlap between them for sure).

A helpful distinction, I believe, is to note that the CoG is extended to believers. Even an unbelieving elect person-- though they will certainly believe in their lifetime-- is not yet part of the CoG and therefore has not received the promises of this covenant. In this way, the CoG references all unbelievers to whom the gospel comes because it offers the covenant relationship to all sinners without exception. When the covenant relationship is rejected, it is actually rejected, and therefore the covenant promises are not extended.

 

[Peairtach]

Well viewing the first two texts you cite on their own you might not think so. But it is clear from Scripture in general that the Abrahamic Covenant involving circumcision was something salvific and not just about temporal realities. Abraham and those like him in the OT who were circumcised in heart had true faith in Jesus Christ, although they would not be able to articulate the faith in the way we can with the details we can. All that is necessary for saving faith is s sure word from the Lord that He is able and willing to save, anyway. Abraham had even more than this, e.g. the incident with Isaac; he had faith that God would provide for his salvation.

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk