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

[Steve Paynter]

I am still in the process of grappling with the diversity of different covenant theologies, so please excuse this question if it is a little naïve. It isn't meant to be critical of anyone either ... I am simply seeking understanding.

My understanding is that there are at 3 broadly distinguishable takes on the "covenant of grace" in Reformed thought.

1). One-covenant of grace, in two dispensations - the Old (Mosaic? or Abrahamic-Mosaic?) covenant, and the New ... as stated in the WCF.

2). A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.

3). One covenant of grace, established either post-Fall or with Abraham, and elaborated or renewed in the New covenant, where the Mosaic covenant
is not part of the covenant of grace, as it was a "republication" of the covenant of works, and was not salvific, but concerned with national / temporal blessings for Israel. ... this, if I understand it correctly, is the John Owen - Meredith Kline - Michael Horton position.

I guess my questions are multiple.
a) what subtleties am I missing?
b) are there other positions I am missing?
c) how do the advocates of "3" square it with the "one-covenant, two dispensations" phraseology of the WCF? Or don't they?

PS. Sorry about the spelling mistake in the title of this thread ... apparently I can't edit it.

 

[Christopher88]

Bumping this thread, because I would an answer my self.

 

[MW]

My understanding is that there are at 3 broadly distinguishable takes on the "covenant of grace" in Reformed thought.

There is only one reformed understanding and it is that which is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy, or in the light of a variety of dispensational frameworks. I prefer to leave it to "Baptist" theologians to struggle with those issues. Owen's view was mainly that of Westminster. The Kline-Horton position, as far as I know, still "claims" affinity with Westminster. At the least, they teach the continuity of the Abrahamic promise, which would make them sympathetic to Westminster's emphasis on continuity even if other elements of their system introduce discontinuity and challenge the Westminsterian view.

 

[Herald]

I prefer to leave it to "Baptist" theologians to struggle with those issues.

And I am glad that many of us are struggling with these issues. Covenant Theology is an under developed area of study in Baptist circles. As more Baptist scholars continue their research in Covenant Theology, I am hoping it will lead to furthering the dialog at the local church level.

 

[VictorBravo]

What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy

I, for one, certainly follow what Matthew describes.

A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.

That view seems strange to me. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBCF speaks of a covenant progressively revealed. I presume it means "established" because it was first revealed in Genesis Chapter 3.

 

[Brock Organ]

My understanding is that there are at 3 broadly distinguishable takes on the "covenant of grace" in Reformed thought.

There is only one reformed understanding and it is that which is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith.

Hi Rev Winzer,

Herman Hoeksema, for example, seems to offer a reputable and alternative "reformed" position regarding the nature of the Covenant of Works:

… First of all, there is the chief objection that this doctrine (The Covenant of Works) finds no support in Scripture. We do read of the probationary command, prohibiting man to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, and of the penalty of death threatened in the case of disobedience. But nowhere do we find any proof in Scripture for the contention that God gave to Adam the promise of eternal life if he should obey that particular commandment of God. It is true, of course, that Adam would not have suffered the death penalty if he had obeyed. But this is quite different from saying that he would have attained to glory and immortality. This cannot be deduced or inferred from the penalty of death that was threatened. Adam might have lived everlastingly in his earthly state. He might have continued to eat of the tree of life and live forever; but everlasting earthly life is not the same as what Scripture means by eternal life. And that Adam would have attained to this higher level of heavenly glory, that there would have come a time in his life when he would have been translated, the Scriptures nowhere suggest. Besides, this giving of the probationary command and this threat of the penalty of death are no covenant or agreement, constitute no transaction between God and Adam…. In vain does one look in the Word of God for support of this theory of a covenant of works.

… it is quite impossible that man should merit a special reward with God. Obedience to God is an obligation. It certainly has its reward, for God is just and rewards the good with good. But obedience has its reward in itself: to obey the Lord our God is life and joy. Sin is misery and death. Life and joy there are in obedience. To keep the commandments of God and to serve Him is a privilege. But the covenant of works teaches that Adam could merit something more, something special, by obeying the command of the Lord.

Regards!

 

[MW]

Herman Hoeksema, for example, seems to offer a reputable and alternative "reformed" position regarding the nature of the Covenant of Works:

As with John Murray, "covenant" has been redefined, and this simply leaves no room for a covenant of works per se. But when they come to teach the imputation of Adam's sin they are thrown back upon the two-Adam construct of New Testament teaching, which is nothing other than traditional federal theology in its all simplicity. So the concept is there even if the name has been abandoned. And as for the name, "covenant of works," even Westminster adopts it as something "commonly called" such in dogmatic theology; not because it is itself exhaustive of biblical teaching.

At any rate, Hoeksema, as with Murray, affirmed the Wesminster doctrine of one "covenant of grace," which is the specific point raised by the OP.

 

[Brock Organ]

Herman Hoeksema, for example, seems to offer a reputable and alternative "reformed" position regarding the nature of the Covenant of Works:

As with John Murray, "covenant" has been redefined, and this simply leaves no room for a covenant of works per se. But when they come to teach the imputation of Adam's sin they are thrown back upon the two-Adam construct of New Testament teaching, which is nothing other than traditional federal theology in its all simplicity. So the concept is there even if the name has been abandoned.

Thanks for your response, Rev. Winzer, though I believe the critique is a bit deeper than simply abandoning a name; Dr. Greg Nichols summarizes Hoeksema's critique in this way:

Every Reformed theologian has not adopted this traditional conception of God's relationship with Adam. Some critique the covenant of works idea. Therefore, I present this critique. Herman Hoeksema, for example, argues against the covenant of works in Reformed Dogmatics, pgs. 214-226. In fairness to Hoeksema, I must add that he clearly regards the relationship between God and Adam as covenantal. His contention is that the covenant of works doctrine fails to define that covenant relationship biblically.
a. Hoeksema argues that Scripture does not mandate this speculative reasoning. The fact that God warned Adam that he would die if he disobeyed does not necessarily imply a promise to Adam that, after a period of obedience, his life would become a heavenly life or that his soul would become impeccable. All it necessarily implies is that if Adam did not disobey, then Adam would not die, but rather, would always continue to live on earth in paradise. On this issue Hoeksema clearly makes a cogent observation.
b. Hoeksema argues that no mere man could ever merit any special reward from God. When Adam had done all, all that he could have said was, "I am an unprofitable servant." Adam could not have merited by obedience anything more than what he already had.
c. Hoeksema argues that the promise of eternal life is simply "inconceivable." He says that we cannot even conceive of God conferring heavenly life upon Adam without doing violence to the whole intention of the created order.
d. Hoeksema argues that the covenant of works would make the covenant relation incidental to Adam's life with God. He says a covenant relationship is never incidental. He asserts that covenant always defines the very heart of a creature's relationship to his God.
e. Hoeksema argues that the idea is unworthy of God's sovereignty and wisdom. Although some truth is found in all his other arguments, this goes too far and uses too much heat.

Regards!

 

[Brock Organ]

At any rate, Hoeksema, as with Murray, affirmed the Wesminster doctrine of one "covenant of grace," which is the specific point raised by the OP.

Thanks, Rev. Winzer, I think the Hoeksema response would indicate another permutation in addition to Steve's original point 1:

1). One-covenant of grace, in two dispensations - the Old (Mosaic? or Abrahamic-Mosaic?) covenant, and the New ... as stated in the WCF.

Best Regards!

 

[Herald]

What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy

I, for one, certainly follow what Matthew describes.

A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.

That view seems strange to me. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBCF speaks of a covenant progressively revealed. I presume it means "established" because it was first revealed in Genesis Chapter 3.

Vic,

I think Denault's view of the Covenant of Grace needs to speak for itself:

By rejecting the notion of a covenant of grace under two administrations, the Baptists were in fact rejecting only half of this concept; they accepted, as we have previously seen, the notion of one single Covenant of Grace in both testaments, but they refused the idea of two administrations. For the Baptists, there was only one Covenant of Grace which was revealed from the Fall in a progressive way until its full revelation and conclusion in the New Covenant. This model is clearly expressed in Chapter 7 paragraph 3 of the Confession of 1689: "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 father steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament."

Upon first impression, this definition does not seem to be radically different from that of paedobaptists since they also recognized the progressive revelation of the Covenant of Grace. However, in studying Baptist theology in its historical context, it becomes evident that this definition of the Covenant of Grace had a meaning that was very specific and fundamentally different from the paedobaptist understanding.

The first particularity is found in the difference between the notion of administration and that of revelation. The Baptists believed that before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was not formally given, but only announced and promised (revealed). This distinction is fundamental to the federalism of the 1689. Nehemiah Coxe, the protagonist of this confession of faith, firmly maintains the distinction between the revelation and the administration:

"It must also be noted that although the Covenant of Grace was revealed this far to Adam, yet we see in all this there was no formal and express covenant transaction with him. Even less was the Covenant of Grace established with him as a public person or representative of any kind. But as he obtained interest for himself alone by his own faith in the grace of God revealed in this way, so must those of his posterity that are saved."

This specification is highly significant and plays a determining role in Baptist federalism. For Coxe, the Covenant of Grace was not concluded when God revealed it to Adam. John Owen explains why the Covenant of Grace could not be considered a formal covenant before the establishment of the New Covenant, but was confined to the stage of promise:

"It lacked its solemn confirmation and establishment, by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged to it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a covenant or a testament, as our apostle proves, Heb. 9:15-23. For neither, as he shows in that place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. To that end the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant."

The distinction between the revelation and the administration of the Covenant of Grace finds its whole meaning when the second element of Baptist federalism is added to it, that is to say, the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant. If the Westminster federalism can be summarized in "one covenant under two administrations," that of the 1689 would be "one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant" (The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, Pascal Denault, p. 61-63).

 

[MW]

Thanks for your response, Rev. Winzer, though I believe the critique is a bit deeper than simply abandoning a name; Dr. Greg Nichols summarizes Hoeksema's critique in this way:

This critique simply assumes parallel terms and concepts and does not reveal what Hoeksema was trying to do, which, in a word, was to remove the idea of conditionality. He was working with a different covenant framework, one that emphasised the eternal aspect of the covenant of grace and de-emphasised historical contingencies. There was not a simpliciter rejection of the covenant of works but a complete reformulation of the system of covenant theology in terms of a bond of friendship. See David Engelsma's evaluation here: http://www.prca.org/prtj/nov2006.pdf.

We come at concepts by terms. One must define terms carefully. Hoeksema rejected human merit as well as the idea of a covenant of works; the Westminster divines rejected human merit but accepted the terminology of the covenant of works. It is obvious that the term, covenant of works, admits of more than one interpretation, especially where "merit" is concerned. One should carefully analyse what concepts are specifically being denied when a theologian rejects a term.

 

[Steve Paynter]

What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy

I, for one, certainly follow what Matthew describes.

A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.

That view seems strange to me. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBCF speaks of a covenant progressively revealed. I presume it means "established" because it was first revealed in Genesis Chapter 3.

I understand that there are Reformed Baptists who adopt the WCF position of "one covenant of grace with two administrations". Samuel Waldron, I believe, in his commentary on the 1689 adopts this reading. However, as another post in this thread has shown, Denault, returning to the writings of 17th century Particular Baptists, such as

• John Spiilsbury (1598-1668), "A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme", 1643.
• Henry Lawrence (1600-1664), "Of Baptism", 1646.
• Thomas Patient (?-1666). "The Doctrine of Baptism and the Distinction of the Covenants", 1654.
• John Bunyan (1628-1688), "The Doctrine of Law and Grace Unfolded", 1659
• Edward Hutchinson (?-?), "A Treatise Concerning the Covenant and Baptism", 1676.
• Nehemiah Coxe (?-1688), "A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with Men before the Law", 1681.
• Benjamin Keach (1640-1704),"The Display of Glorious Grace, or The Covenant of Peace Opened", 1689.
• Benjamin Keach (1640-1704), "The Everlasting Covenant", 1693.


argues that the 1689 means "progressively revealed" as opposed to "established" - as a close reading of the 1689 shows. In other words, this was the distinguishing feature of early Reformed Baptist covenant theology.

So, presumably, for Reformed Baptists who adopt the WCF understanding of "one covenant, two administrations", there are other areas of disagreement with the WCF understanding of the covenant of grace ... presumably, something to do with the parallels or aspects of continuity between the two administrations, and especially the circumcision = baptism parallel.

 

[Steve Paynter]

At any rate, Hoeksema, as with Murray, affirmed the Wesminster doctrine of one "covenant of grace," which is the specific point raised by the OP.

Thanks, Rev. Winzer, I think the Hoeksema response would indicate another permutation in addition to Steve's original point 1:

1). One-covenant of grace, in two dispensations - the Old (Mosaic? or Abrahamic-Mosaic?) covenant, and the New ... as stated in the WCF.

Best Regards!

I'm afraid I must be being dim this morning. I can't quite see how the Hoeksema quotation impinges on the covenant of grace question.

I'm itching to critique the Hoeksema position of the covenant of works, but I am manfully resisting, as I don't want to derail my own thread!!

With regard to my position 1, what is the official line on the "old dispensation" of the covenant of grace, when was it established? a) when the proto-gospel was given to Adam?
b) when the Abrahamic covenant was made, or renewed with Isaac and Jacob; or c) when the Mosaic covenant was made?

It sort of ties into the 1689 Denault reading: do the paedobaptists also recognise a "revealed/promised" phase, before being "established"? Or, is the first revealing, also the establishment of the covenant of grace?

Part of the problem with answering, I think, is the fact that the "covenant of grace" is a theologically constructed doctrine, rather than one read off the surface of the text of the Bible.

 

[Steve Paynter]

My understanding is that there are at 3 broadly distinguishable takes on the "covenant of grace" in Reformed thought.

There is only one reformed understanding and it is that which is taught in the Westminster Confession of Faith. What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy, or in the light of a variety of dispensational frameworks. I prefer to leave it to "Baptist" theologians to struggle with those issues. Owen's view was mainly that of Westminster. The Kline-Horton position, as far as I know, still "claims" affinity with Westminster. At the least, they teach the continuity of the Abrahamic promise, which would make them sympathetic to Westminster's emphasis on continuity even if other elements of their system introduce discontinuity and challenge the Westminsterian view.

I am not sure that you are right about Owen. Ferry, in his paper in "The Law is not of Faith", clearly has him making a sharp distinction between the Mosaic covenant and the
covenant of grace. This is also the Reformed Baptist reading of Owen ... from the time of Nehemiah Coxe, but continued on 'til today. Having said that, Owen is credited with having
a big impact on the Savoy Declaration of Faith, and that follows the WCF line on the covenants.

Yes, my understanding is that the Kline-Horton position "claims affinity" with the WCF, although I am not quite sure how that works.

I think you are right, that it is all about the Abrahamic promise/covenant. It seems to me that there is a fairly close match between the 1689/Denault understanding of the
covenant of grace and the Owen/Kline/Horton position ... at least in as far as both schools see the Mosaic covenant as not a part of the covenant of grace. The difference between them it seems to me, lies in whether the Abrahmaic covenant is seen as establishing the covenant of grace, and hence establishing a parallel between circumcision and baptism (Horton), or the Abrahamic promise merely being a revelation of the not yet established covenant of grace, which won't be established until Christ (1689/Denault), and hence denying a circumcision-baptism parallel.

Is anyone aware of another Reformed position on the covenant of grace? What about the debates about the conditionality or unconditionality of the covenant of grace? Do those debates, which I currently know very little about, introduce other options?

 

[jason d]

What is taught in the 1689 Confession can be understood in the light of Westminster/Savoy

I, for one, certainly follow what Matthew describes.

A progressively revealed (but not yet established covenant) from post-Fall Adam to Christ, and then the New / covenant of grace established by Christ's blood ... i.e. the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith view, as recently spelt out by Pascal Denault.

That view seems strange to me. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBCF speaks of a covenant progressively revealed. I presume it means "established" because it was first revealed in Genesis Chapter 3.

For a good book and podcast on the 1689 view, check out: Pascal Denault | The Confessing Baptist

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Well, as you guys probably know.... Rich Barcellos and I are good friends and he holds to a solid good position of Reformed Baptist Theology. I held to a Reformed Baptist position for 30 years and it seemed very close to many Presbyterians that I use to debate the issue with. I still have a lot of Reformed Baptist arguments on my PB blog, I won't remove them, for the edification of our RB brothers.


I like many Reformed Baptists held to the position that there was an element of the Covenant of Works that progressively was inherent in slowly being eliminated through the progressive Covenants and as the One Covenant of Grace was progressively being revealed until it met it full fruition in the New Covenant.


I no longer hold to that position and the explanation is kind of long so I made a blog concerning the topic at the following link. Maybe there will be portions of it that will be helpful for you to understand my understanding as the Westminster Chapter 7.5.6 became very important for me in understanding this. There are some in the Reformed camp that hold to a position concerning Republication of the Law that diverge from the Westminsterian position.


The Mosaic Covenant, same in substance as the New? | RPCNA Covenanter


I find Murray and Hoeksema confusing and always have but find that Murray still holds to the framework of bicovenantal Federal Framework. I read Hoeksema's Reformed Dogmatics too long ago to have the memory required to really understand him. But I do hold that the substance of the Old and New Covenants to be of the same substance as being both administrations of the Covenant of Grace as the Westminster Confession states. The Mosaic Covenant is not a mixed Covenant of Works and Grace as some are teaching it or as I understand their various teachings concerning the Old Covenant. I have blogged quite a bit about that subject.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

do the paedobaptists also recognise a "revealed/promised" phase, before being "established"? Or, is the first revealing, also the establishment of the covenant of grace?

Since this thread has elements of a technical discussion, I'm going to "redefine" the question above, and return (as Rev.Winzer did above) to a technical definition of the adjective "reformed." ** It doesn't do justice to the issue to identify this question as one that turns on a commitment to paedobaptism. That this is a genuine crux is further demonstrated by the latter statement, "the "covenant of grace" is a theologically constructed doctrine, rather than one read off the surface of the text of the Bible."

Well, the latter is just what is central here. In it we touch on the real difference between Reformed and Baptist understandings, and how that intersects with what is called Covenant-Theology. The fundamental issue is hermeneutical; we differ on how the Bible is to be read. The Reformed will never consent to that latter statement. We read the Covenant of Grace plainly revealed in the text of Scripture. I refuse to concede any impropriety in 1) finding the substance of covenant though a particular term is lacking; or 2) applying the breadth of understanding supplied by fuller revelation to the terse remnants of earlier revelation.

So the technically proper question is: Do the reformed recognize a "revealed/promise" phase, before being "established"?

And the answer is: No, not in the classic expression of CT. We wouldn't deny that "promise" characterizes the quality of the covenant prior to the Mediator's entrance in the flesh. But the relationship is strictly that of promise-to-fulfillment, rather than promise-to-establishment. Today, there remains aspects of fulfillment yet to come (e.g. glorification, new heavens/earth). It is undeniable that future conditions will be radically different from the present, and those will call for covenant-expressions suitable to the final state. But we don't say that our covenant is not yet established, simply because Christ has arrived, but we have not.

There is some manner of giving/establishment in Gen.3:15. There is a special formality in the covenant-expression to Abraham, Gen.12,15,&17. The promissory (gracious) and unilateral nature of the covenant is just what Paul appeals to in Gal. against the strength of a later covenant-expression (Moses/Sinai/Old) that contained so much more character of Law--although, grace very obviously was found at the core, in a right understanding of the sacrificial system.

Regardless of how Sinai is construed in relation to the overall picture, God's covenant with man is in the Mediator from the beginning. This Mediator is not even absent from the scene throughout the OT, even from Genesis, as the repeated theophanies are interpreted in light of the Person of the Son. The covenant is made from the beginning with believers, the paradigmatic case being Abraham--and all believers are reckoned the seed of Abraham by faith.






** "Reformed" should be used technically in the thread, to describe what the Reformed confessions consistently taught on all the major points of doctrine and practice. I'm willing to admit that the 20th century bequeathed to us historically an elastic definition of the term, that expands to include the calvinistic/particular Baptist, while at the same time contracting to exclude (!) as definitive one of the MARKS of the church, which was clearly confessed as integral to the system up to that point. I appreciate how the Baptists created their own confession, that mirrors the Reformed confession 80% of the time. But we have to acknowledge that the Baptist's understood themselves in 1644 or 1689 that they were diverging from the consensus of a century and a half--a consensus still maintained down to the present day among those not at the margin of the Reformed tradition. I will still use the name "Reformed-Baptist" out of grace and politeness, granting someone's predilection to self-gloss.

 

[Peairtach]

The unity of the Covenant of Grace is the teaching of Scripture, not a theological construct, anymore than the Holy Trinity is a theological construct. For instance the Apostle talks about the "covenants" (plural) of "the promise" (singular); one in essence, plural in administration.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

In Dabney's Systematics he consistently posits a two "schools" in his lectures on the Reformed view of the Covenant of Grace.

1) Westminster/Dabney view

2) Cocceius-School (the way Dabney describes this looks very much like the republication view of many at WSC)

 

[py3ak]

Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

Cocceius' idea of a gradual abrogation of the covenant of works doesn't make the cut as "Reformed" in that it wasn't included in any of the Reformed confessions.

That is about as concise of a statement that one can make.

 

[Steve Paynter]

do the paedobaptists also recognise a "revealed/promised" phase, before being "established"? Or, is the first revealing, also the establishment of the covenant of grace?

Since this thread has elements of a technical discussion, I'm going to "redefine" the question above, and return (as Rev.Winzer did above) to a technical definition of the adjective "reformed." ** It doesn't do justice to the issue to identify this question as one that turns on a commitment to paedobaptism.

I agree. I apologise if that is what seemed to be implied in my question. I know that arguments have been made on both sides of the Baptism question which do contend that the other side only adopt their position on the covenants because of a prior commitment to a particular stance on baptism/ecclesiology. I have always been uncomfortable with such arguments, because it "plays the man" rather than addressing the issue. It seems to me that such comments only have value in as far as they cause me to question my own heart, and my own preparedness to follow Scripture.

That this is a genuine crux is further demonstrated by the latter statement, "the "covenant of grace" is a theologically constructed doctrine, rather than one read off the surface of the text of the Bible."

Well, the latter is just what is central here. In it we touch on the real difference between Reformed and Baptist understandings, and how that intersects with what is called Covenant-Theology. The fundamental issue is hermeneutical; we differ on how the Bible is to be read. The Reformed will never consent to that latter statement. We read the Covenant of Grace plainly revealed in the text of Scripture. I refuse to concede any impropriety in 1) finding the substance of covenant though a particular term is lacking; or 2) applying the breadth of understanding supplied by fuller revelation to the terse remnants of earlier revelation.

That was a very interesting comment. I don't claim to speak for other "Reformed" Baptists - nor do I know what the "Reformed" Baptist party-line is on whether or not the covenant of grace is seen as a "theologically constructed doctrine" - maybe, however, you do, and it is something you have found common to other Baptists. I, however, do not know if this is right. My comment was much more naïve ... more a throw-away assumption, than a thought-out position or hermeneutical stance.

I am glad that you do not concede any impropriety in either of your observations. Neither do I, as a general principle. By calling it a "theologically constructed doctrine", I did not
mean to cast aspersions on its utility or veracity. I was rather thinking along the lines of your first point, that the substance of the teaching might be present, without the
particular term. I think, maybe, that I am less certain than you are that the full "substance" of the teaching is present. I think I recognise that more synthesis has taken place.

So the technically proper question is: Do the reformed recognize a "revealed/promise" phase, before being "established"?

And the answer is: No, not in the classic expression of CT. We wouldn't deny that "promise" characterizes the quality of the covenant prior to the Mediator's entrance in the flesh. But the relationship is strictly that of promise-to-fulfillment, rather than promise-to-establishment. Today, there remains aspects of fulfillment yet to come (e.g. glorification, new heavens/earth). It is undeniable that future conditions will be radically different from the present, and those will call for covenant-expressions suitable to the final state. But we don't say that our covenant is not yet established, simply because Christ has arrived, but we have not.

There is some manner of giving/establishment in Gen.3:15. There is a special formality in the covenant-expression to Abraham, Gen.12,15,&17. The promissory (gracious) and unilateral nature of the covenant is just what Paul appeals to in Gal. against the strength of a later covenant-expression (Moses/Sinai/Old) that contained so much more character of Law--although, grace very obviously was found at the core, in a right understanding of the sacrificial system.

Regardless of how Sinai is construed in relation to the overall picture, God's covenant with man is in the Mediator from the beginning. This Mediator is not even absent from the scene throughout the OT, even from Genesis, as the repeated theophanies are interpreted in light of the Person of the Son. The covenant is made from the beginning with believers, the paradigmatic case being Abraham--and all believers are reckoned the seed of Abraham by faith.

Thank you, this was most helpful, and has given me something to think about.

** "Reformed" should be used technically in the thread, to describe what the Reformed confessions consistently taught on all the major points of doctrine and practice. I'm willing to admit that the 20th century bequeathed to us historically an elastic definition of the term, that expands to include the calvinistic/particular Baptist, while at the same time contracting to exclude (!) as definitive one of the MARKS of the church, which was clearly confessed as integral to the system up to that point. I appreciate how the Baptists created their own confession, that mirrors the Reformed confession 80% of the time. But we have to acknowledge that the Baptist's understood themselves in 1644 or 1689 that they were diverging from the consensus of a century and a half--a consensus still maintained down to the present day among those not at the margin of the Reformed tradition. I will still use the name "Reformed-Baptist" out of grace and politeness, granting someone's predilection to self-gloss.

I respect this technical use, and also only use the phrase "Reformed Baptist" because it is widely used. The original "Reformed" Baptists in England called themselves "Particular
Baptists", of course, and they were keen to emphasise their distinction from General "Arminian" Baptists, and even more from the Anabaptists on the continent, with which they shared no common roots. The Particular Baptists arose from (out of) Reformed Presbyterians and Independents - probably because of a modified covenant theology (although, as discussed above, some have suggested, the commitment to Believer's Baptism came first, and the covenant theology was developed to justify it).

At time the 1689 was written (1677), many Paedobaptist Puritans, like the Particular Baptists, were suffering religious persecution, and had lost their livings in the Church of England in 1662. The 1677 (or Second London Confession) was an attempt to show as much solidarity with fellow persecuted Reformed Christians as possible. I suspect also that it was written in part because the superiority of the WCF over the first London Confession (which came out, while the Westminster assembly was still sitting) was recognised. It wasn't until 1689 after the worst of the persecution ended, that the 1677 could be openly acknowledged by over 100 Particular Baptist ministers. (My previous church I worshipped at, Cairns Road Baptist Church, Bristol, is a congregation that is a direct descendent from one of the congregations that sent their minister to be one of the people who signed the 1689 confession. The church minutes from the days of persecution are fascinating to read!)

 

[Steve Paynter]

The unity of the Covenant of Grace is the teaching of Scripture, not a theological construct, anymore than the Holy Trinity is a theological construct. For instance the Apostle talks about the "covenants" (plural) of "the promise" (singular); one in essence, plural in administration.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

It seems Richard that "theological construct" conveys a lot more negative connotations for you, than it does for me. I would say that the doctrine of the Holy Trinity - which it goes without saying on these boards, given the subscriptions we all make, I believe wholeheartedly - is "a theological construct". By this I mean that it is a doctrine that has been constructed - synthesised - out of numerous statements of Scripture - no one of which gives us our whole doctrine of the Trinity, still less uses the term. Perhaps it is the New Testament scholar in me, but distinguishing between biblical terminology and concepts and the terminology and concepts which hundreds of years later the church came to embrace as a sound synthesis of the Bible's teaching - is important.

Thank you for pointing me to the statement in Paul that you think makes the WCF one-covenant, multiple administrations, a biblical rather than a theological concept. I will reflect further on this.

I just want to apologise to everyone - my comment about the covenant of grace being a theological construct was not meant to side-track this thread, or, more importantly suggest that the covenant of grace was not true. The whole point of this thread is about me trying to clarify what people have meant when they use the phrase "covenant of grace". My summary of the thread is that the three meanings I identified are the three meanings that we might stumble upon in literature that is broadly "Reformed", even if some have argued that only the WCF position has a right to be called "Reformed".

 

[MW]

Ferry, in his paper in "The Law is not of Faith", clearly has him making a sharp distinction between the Mosaic covenant and the
covenant of grace. This is also the Reformed Baptist reading of Owen ... from the time of Nehemiah Coxe, but continued on 'til today. Having said that, Owen is credited with having a big impact on the Savoy Declaration of Faith, and that follows the WCF line on the covenants.

Ferry provides a useful introduction to taxonomical issues but he fails to properly classify some of the writers. Certainly Dickson and Boston would not have recognised their place in his chart. As for Owen, you might find the discussion on Owen's view in Beeke/Jones' Puritan Theology of some interest. It shows there were other concerns at work in his exegesis.

Like Rev. Buchanan, I am wary of any approach which thrusts the baptism issue to the fore. Reformed covenant theology is first and foremost soteriological, and that includes infant salvation. Most "reformed baptists" with whom I am better acquainted are also primarily concerned with salvation, but then again, they also accept the Waldron interpretation of the 1689 Confession.

One source worth consulting for the historical "baptist" position is Keach's Catechism. The system of Westminster is adopted, and the paedobaptist position is rejected without any reworking of covenant theology, but simply on the basis that it is not explicitly commanded. For myself, the nature of the church and of divine warrant are the primary issues relating to the subjects of baptism.

 

[Peairtach]

There is also the fact that some of the Reformed don't like to speak about "the Covenant of Redemption" or "Pactum Salutis" - between the Father, Son (and the Spirit) - as distinguished from "the Covenant of Grace", but place the covenant planned in eternity and executed in time, all under the rubric of "the Covenant of Grace".

That seems to be more of a difference of approach to the subject, rather than anything substantial, but you may come across this.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Steve Paynter,

I appreciate the fact that you are knowledgeable, moderate in speech, as much a listener as a contributor, conciliatory without being milquetoast.

Welcome to the PB. May we all imitate that gracious manner.

 

[Steve Paynter]

There is also the fact that some of the Reformed don't like to speak about "the Covenant of Redemption" or "Pactum Salutis" - between the Father, Son (and the Spirit) - as distinguished from "the Covenant of Grace", but place the covenant planned in eternity and executed in time, all under the rubric of "the Covenant of Grace".

That seems to be more of a difference of approach to the subject, rather than anything substantial, but you may come across this.

Oh, yes, thank you. I have read this in various places, but I haven't read all that widely in sixteenth and seventeenth sources yet, so I haven't come across it myself. I have just tidied it away in the corner of my brain that says, "earlier generations may not have used terms like we do", and then promptly forgotten about it.

 

[Steve Paynter]

Steve Paynter,

I appreciate the fact that you are knowledgeable, moderate in speech, as much a listener as a contributor, conciliatory without being milquetoast.

Welcome to the PB. May we all imitate that gracious manner.

Thank you for the welcome and the kind words. I will try to live up to this assessment of me!

(I had to look up "milquetoast" ... I've never heard or read it before. What a useful word! It is a little like
I once had to look up "pusillanimous" which was used by one theologian or other to describe themselves ... was it Calvin or Whitefield?)

I must say, I am loving the PB. For various reasons, I have not worshipped with other Calvinists for many decades, and it is delight to find like-minded people who care about the things I care about, and can engage with information on these precious truths.

 

[Steve Paynter]

I was thinking that this thread had come to its natural conclusion, but re-reading through it, I noticed that I hadn't replied to this very helpful comment.

Ferry, in his paper in "The Law is not of Faith", clearly has him making a sharp distinction between the Mosaic covenant and the
covenant of grace. This is also the Reformed Baptist reading of Owen ... from the time of Nehemiah Coxe, but continued on 'til today. Having said that, Owen is credited with having a big impact on the Savoy Declaration of Faith, and that follows the WCF line on the covenants.

Ferry provides a useful introduction to taxonomical issues but he fails to properly classify some of the writers. Certainly Dickson and Boston would not have recognised their place in his chart. As for Owen, you might find the discussion on Owen's view in Beeke/Jones' Puritan Theology of some interest. It shows there were other concerns at work in his exegesis.

That is a helpful comment on Ferry's paper. I do find his taxonomy useful, so it is good to know that his assigning theologians to the different positions needs checking.
Also, thank you for the pointer to Beeke/Jones book. I will read it as soon as I can get access to a copy.

Like Rev. Buchanan, I am wary of any approach which thrusts the baptism issue to the fore. Reformed covenant theology is first and foremost soteriological, and that includes infant salvation. Most "reformed baptists" with whom I am better acquainted are also primarily concerned with salvation, but then again, they also accept the Waldron interpretation of the 1689 Confession.

In a reply to the Rev. Bruce Buchanan I have apologised for apparently thrusting the baptism issue to the fore. That wasn't my intention, I was just seeking to make clear which of the positions I was talking about.

I agree by the way that covenant theology is first and foremost soteriological. That is my interest too. I am working on PhD in which I am trying to bring N.T. Wright's covenantal context for justification and the various "Reformed" (in a broad sense of the term) covenant theologies, into conversation with the author of Luke-Acts. (i.e. test them against that portion of Scripture.) One of the good things about N.T. Wright's position is that he recognises that covenant theology is the context for understanding Paul's doctrine of justification ... something that "Reformed" covenant theologians of all stripes do ... the rub, of course, is that Wright's covenant theology differs significantly from "ours". I've yet to do the
spade work to determine the "implicit" and "explicit" covenant theology in Luke-Acts.

One source worth consulting for the historical "baptist" position is Keach's Catechism. The system of Westminster is adopted, and the paedobaptist position is rejected without any reworking of covenant theology, but simply on the basis that it is not explicitly commanded. For myself, the nature of the church and of divine warrant are the primary issues relating to the subjects of baptism.

Thank you again. I recently acquired a pdf of this catechism, but have yet to read it. Your comment has pushed it up my "must read" list.