covenant of grace, covenant of promise

[timfost]

I've been reading in the Westminster Larger Catechism and am wondering if there is a difference between the "covenant of grace" (31) and the "covenant of promise" (166)?

Thanks in advance!

 

[Contra_Mundum]

No, same basic reference. The latter terminology is a direct link to Eph.2:12; with Gal.3:17, Heb.8:6.

 

[timfost]

Wonderful. Next question: In the WLC 31, if the covenant is made with Christ and the elect, how do non-elect covenant children fit in?

(I'm asking this question primarily to Westminster/Heidelberg adherents, not Baptist adherents. Thanks in advance for understanding.)

 

[Peairtach]

Wonderful. Next question: In the WLC 31, if the covenant is made with Christ and the elect, how do non-elect covenant children fit in?

(I'm asking this question primarily to Westminster/Heidelberg adherents, not Baptist adherents. Thanks in advance for understanding.)

None of us knows infallibly who the elect/regenerate are, although we are taught that we can know our own true calling and hence election.

Therefore the covenant can't be administered by kirk sessions discerning who is elect ( or more properly regenerate because you could be elect but as yet unregenerate), but according to a credible profession of faith by adults and according to the birth into the covenant administration of those professing adults' children.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Wonderful. Next question: In the WLC 31, if the covenant is made with Christ and the elect, how do non-elect covenant children fit in?

(I'm asking this question primarily to Westminster/Heidelberg adherents, not Baptist adherents. Thanks in advance for understanding.)

We distinguish between possessing the "substance" of covenant inclusion, and being party to (earthly) "administration" of the covenant. The former is governed by election, invisible, and administered exclusively by the Holy Spirit (the true Vicar of Christ). The latter is governed by external judgment, is visible, and administered by the church.

It is desirable for all persons, and only those persons, to be party to BOTH substance and administration. We are not in heaven yet, and do not have divine omniscience; therefore we function in the church exclusively according to divine warrant. The inevitable result of our human limitations are some who possess the substance are excluded from the particular blessings that accompany earthly, churchly administration; and some who only (ever) are party to the external administration of the covenant through the church are included, though they are reprobate in fact.

Being a member within the covenant ONLY by oath, and not by heart, is an evil and tragic occasion. The claim made is FALSE, but not MEANINGLESS. Heb.12:25, "See that you do not refuse Him who speaks. For if they did not escape who refused Him who spoke on earth, much more shall we not escape if we turn away from Him who speaks from heaven."

 

[timfost]

Wonderful answer. Thank you.

So is the difference between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption simply with whom the covenant is made (the former between the Father and the church, the second with the Father and the Son)?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

The intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption (CoR) is only perceptible to us refracted through the lens of the covenant of grace (CoG). We see, as children might, the Father and the Son covenanting with each other (Is.49) in self-referential love and perfect satisfaction with one another. And then we come to know that the subject of their designs is our redemption, our enjoyment of God forever in the midst of that universe of love.

The CoG is just that expression of the eternal mind of God which is finally directed toward particular human beneficiaries. Because it must come to us through the Person of Christ, it is said to first be made with him.

 

[Peairtach]

Wonderful answer. Thank you.

So is the difference between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption simply with whom the covenant is made (the former between the Father and the church, the second with the Father and the Son)?

Although they are interlocking the Covenant of Redemption ("Pactum Salutis" ) and Covenant of Grace can be distinguished from each other. In the Covenant of Redemption, the Son is in covenant with the Father to fulfil His will as the last Adam on behalf of the elect on the principle of works, by fulfilling the law perfectly for them and making a perfect atonement for their sin.

In the Covenant of Grace the parties are God and the Church through the mediatorship of Christ, which covenant being administered by fallible men in history includes non-elect persons professing and the children of professing people, some of whom are non-elect. This covenant is graciously administered by Christ, the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace, because He has done all that is necessary for His true Israel's - i.e. the Church's - salvation.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[user2022no1]

Covenant of Grace

Wonderful answer. Thank you.

So is the difference between the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption simply with whom the covenant is made (the former between the Father and the church, the second with the Father and the Son)?

Hi Tim,

I would say, per Question 31 of the Westminster Larger Catechism, and also in light of Question 57, that the Covenant of Grace is made with Christ, and, in him, with the elect or the invisible church as defined in Question 64, specifically- though it is, of course, administered within the visible church (per Question 63).

Carolann

Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer 31:

Q. With whom was the covenant of grace made?

A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed

Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer 57:

Q. What benefits hath Christ procured by his mediation?

A. Christ, by his mediation, hath procured redemption, with all other benefits of the covenant of grace.

Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer 64:

Q. 64. What is the invisible church?

A. The invisible church is the whole number of the elect, that have been, are, or shall be gathered into one under Christ the head.

Westminster Larger Catechism, Question and Answer 63:

Q. What are the special privileges of the visible church?

A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God’s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.

Westminster Larger Catechism

 

[timfost]

Bruce, Richard and Carolann,

Thanks for your replies. I really appreciate it.

I was reading Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology over the weekend. He made a really interesting point that I think is helpful. I'm still studying it, but for the salke of this conversation I would like to use his argument. Of course, I would encourage anyone to read it to make sure I didn't misinterpret it. (Systematic Theology, bk. 3, ch. 2 section 3)

The thrust of his argument is that since Christ is the Mediator of the covenant of grace (Hebrew. 8:6), the covenant of grace is not rightly said to include Christ as one of the parties since He is the Mediator between the two parties. Hodge concludes that the WLC mixed both the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption since it was the covenant of redemption that was actually made with Christ.

I'm not at all suggesting that WLC is incorrect in the main point, but perhaps it is more of a synthesis rather than a concise definition of the covenant of grace itself.

Further, what initially confused me about WLC 31 is it seemed to suggest a covenant of grace relationship with the elect in eternity. Certainly this is true concerning the covenant of redemption, but the covenant of grace occurs in time as does our justification, correct? If indeed WLC 31 is a synthesis of these two covenants, that would resolve my confusion in the wording of the Q&A.

Thoughts?

 

[Contra_Mundum]

What you call "synthesis" is more or less what I expressed in post #7. The CoG and the Mediator is our connection with the CoR, that unmediated covenant within the Godhead. Granted a window into the heavenlies, we are confined to a view that only the CoG makes possible. So all that God is favorably toward us comes to us through the CoG, specifically through our Mediator 1Cor.1:30. It is for this reason the Stds. speak of the covenant as being made "with" him.

Hodge, in 2.2, is making the finer point and separating "parties" to the covenant. The CoR is not directly referenced in the Stds. (but see the Sum of Saving Knowledge). All the emphasis is put upon Christ FOR US in the Stds. This we confess.

You find the same confessional analysis in Th.Boston, a great 17th/18th C. covenant theologian and Scottish Presbyterian. Christ isn't strictly, exactly, "properly" a party in the CoG, but its Mediator; but he is most definitely a party to the CoR. And there's no "space" to be found between Christ as party in the one place, and in the second place as Mediator toward us; which more than justifies the Divines' simplified choice of expression.

As for the follow-on question, consider Eph. 1:4, "...he hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world." This expression needs to be connected in some meaningful way with the CoG, however one gets there.

 

[Peairtach]

Bruce, Richard and Carolann,

Thanks for your replies. I really appreciate it.

I was reading Charles Hodge's Systematic Theology over the weekend. He made a really interesting point that I think is helpful. I'm still studying it, but for the salke of this conversation I would like to use his argument. Of course, I would encourage anyone to read it to make sure I didn't misinterpret it. (Systematic Theology, bk. 3, ch. 2 section 3)

The thrust of his argument is that since Christ is the Mediator of the covenant of grace (Hebrew. 8:6), the covenant of grace is not rightly said to include Christ as one of the parties since He is the Mediator between the two parties. Hodge concludes that the WLC mixed both the covenant of grace and the covenant of redemption since it was the covenant of redemption that was actually made with Christ.

I'm not at all suggesting that WLC is incorrect in the main point, but perhaps it is more of a synthesis rather than a concise definition of the covenant of grace itself.

Further, what initially confused me about WLC 31 is it seemed to suggest a covenant of grace relationship with the elect in eternity. Certainly this is true concerning the covenant of redemption, but the covenant of grace occurs in time as does our justification, correct? If indeed WLC 31 is a synthesis of these two covenants, that would resolve my confusion in the wording of the Q&A.

Thoughts?

"Covenant of Redemption" and "Covenant of Grace" are very useful and very true systematic theological terms bringing a lot of Scriptural data regarding God's covenant relations with His Son, and with His people through His Son, together.

Some Reformed theologians prefer to deal with everything as one system called the Covenant of Grace, whereas others prefer to deal with everything in two related systems called the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace.

Where covenant theology is discussed in systematic theologies or other books about the covenants, the writer often justifies his choice of approach. There may often be little substantial disagreement about covenant theology between a theologian who follows one of the rubrics rather than another.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[MW]

Thoughts?

What appears to be two covenants in theory are actually one covenant in operation. If the covenant of grace were distinct it would mean that the "conditions" functioned as the working cause of the promised benefits. This would make the gospel a "new law" (neonomianism) with faith, repentance, obedience and perseverance serving as the believer's claim to the benefit of salvation. Where redemption and grace are regarded as one covenant, as in the Catechism and the Marrow, the merit of Christ underwrites the conditions to the elect, thus making the promises unconditional in nature with the conditions serving as bequeathed gifts. The older writers who advocated a covenant of redemption usually made this particular qualification so as to guard against the idea of working conditions in the covenant of grace.

 

[timfost]

Thoughts?

What appears to be two covenants in theory are actually one covenant in operation. If the covenant of grace were distinct it would mean that the "conditions" functioned as the working cause of the promised benefits. This would make the gospel a "new law" (neonomianism) with faith, repentance, obedience and perseverance serving as the believer's claim to the benefit of salvation. Where redemption and grace are regarded as one covenant, as in the Catechism and the Marrow, the merit of Christ underwrites the conditions to the elect, thus making the promises unconditional in nature with the conditions serving as bequeathed gifts. The older writers who advocated a covenant of redemption usually made this particular qualification so as to guard against the idea of working conditions in the covenant of grace.

This may be an ignorant question, but can't we say that faith (a gift from God as its author) is the instrumental means which God uses to actually redeem the elect and work out the plan of redemption? Certainly we are not redeemed prior to faith, correct? What is the proper place for faith in this conversation?

 

[MW]

This may be an ignorant question, but can't we say that faith (a gift from God as its author) is the instrumental means which God uses to actually redeem the elect and work out the plan of redemption? Certainly we are not redeemed prior to faith, correct? What is the proper place for faith in this conversation?

Not ignorant at all. It is vital to understand the covenantal basis on which God grants faith to a sinner. The sinner deserves condemnation; faith is a gift. For a judge to grant a gift to a condemned sinner would pervert justice. (It would be similar to a judge telling a criminal how to present his case so as to be declared innocent from his crime.) Faith itself is merited by the righteousness of Christ and given on that righteous basis by God, 2 Peter 1:1.

Believers were promised to Christ before the foundation of the world, John 17. They are His purchase, and their very believing in Him is His reward, Isa. 53. So, as noted previously, the merits of Christ underwrite the condition of faith so as to make it a bequeathed gift.