Old covenant saints in the NC/covenant of grace

[No Other Name]

The Bible knows no such thing as an unadministered covenant. Salvation without means is essentially hyper-Calvinism, not biblical Calvinism.

You really presume our position is that the OC is unadministered? You really think that we believe the covenantal elements of Sinai are just trappings of a grand showpiece and simply incidental to salvation for OT saints?

You ALSO see this, over and above the promise. What provides for this?

Provides for what? The promise? God and His faithful Word provides both promise and surety. Sacrifice reveals the heart (to us and themselves) of the one who has regenerate faith (Abel) or not (Cain). But somehow I do not think I am answering what you meant to ask.

What CONDITIONS does this impose on man?

"Do this and live". The same conditions from the CofW in the Garden. The Fall did not erase this moral requirement for eternal life like an Etch-a-Sketch. I know you know this and agree. I am just unsure why you think we do not.

And if you have a PROMISE and a CONDITION, how do you not have a COVENANT? A covenant consists of 2 parties and 2 parts -- a promise and a condition.

Oh I thin I get it. Unlike other 1689 federalists I am not quite as certain that Gen. 3:15 is not a covenant like they are. I see Gen. 3:15 as a promise and a system of sacrifice initiated for the first iteration of shadow leading to full reality. I hope my position becomes more clear in further replies.

You have nothing to historically manifest the main focus of the Bible's own progression from PROMISE to FULFILMENT. You only have a futuristic salvation to come with no MEANS for embracing it.

Maybe you are talking to them not me. I will presume you did not know I lean toward a branching away from Mr. Adams et al on this Gen. 3:15 point and let it lay.

In the view of Westminster the reality was present in the shadow.

Yeah I gathered.

The shadow has a reality of what is to come (a thing not seen) but the "once and for all" atonement has not in fact happened yet in the OC, else why would the command not include one and only one sacrifice if the "once and for all" atonement was really fully present in the shadow?

Why would Christ need to fulfill the ceremonial sacrificial system if the system itself has the full reality of regeneration for those who have the grace given to believe unto eternal life?

We know that sacrificial obedience gives nothing unless it is linked to a heart truly repentant, full of saving faith, made new by the Potter who has fashioned this human vessel for mercy. And what is the object of faith for the one who believes? Is it not faith in the One who has come from eternity but has not come yet in flesh but will assuredly come?

This is not hyper-Calvinism by the way (unfair accusation). When any OT saint, regenerated by the Spirit and full of saving faith in the Messiah yet to come, commits a sin and runs to offer the burnt offering per Leviticus, that is a real linking to the bringing about of the obedience of faith (Rom. 1, 16).

The OC reality that faith without works is dead. That repentance evidences salvation as well continuing faithful obedience to Torah for feeding the poor and supporting the widows and orphans et al.

The "shadow" referenced indeed both 1) has substance from the reality of the object casting said shadow and 2) the shadow evidences what is not seen directly. Do not cast our definition of the shadow as some kind of "a hologram" or an "illusion" or a "mirage". You are being a bit uncharitable to our position.

It is the very real covering from "the sun, the light, the holy burning" of God's wrath: the reality of just Who it is that covers over the OT saints is hidden and unseen by them but a very real and existent object of faith that saves those in the OC who a) look towards the One who is the Coming King and Coming Priest and b) cry out for mercy and salvation from eternal death believing that He is and that He is faithful to answer.

This is why Christ keeps affirming that he teaches so that the Scriptures can now be fully known where before they were partially - even mostly - known. It is why the NT is even a new special revelation that was fully necessary and required for knowledge unto salvation. The NT is not redundant or superfluous.

Now, unlike you do to us (calling us hyper-Calvinists and not Biblical), I am not saying that you believe the NT is redundant or the Incarnation and the death and resurrection and ascension are superfluous. I know you do not believe such things at all.

They believed in the reality and the shadow gave TESTIMONY of their faith.

I agree.

This is what Hebrews 11 actually teaches: Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. For by it the elders obtained a good report. Abel obtained WITNESS that he was righteous.

Amen.

FROM the beginning, not simply BEFORE. He was covenantally present with His people.

I agree.

God is not only transcendent, but IMMANENT.

And again: Amen.

He sets apart physical things that He has created to make them holy signs and seals of His covenant, so that His people may be assured they are believing in actual realities that exist.

Yeah, not only physical but SPIRITUAL. This is pulling at a thread that is a lot longer than needed for right now. I will affirm most heartily to the fact that "His people may be assured they are believing in actual realities that exist": Amen!

All of His people in the OC with the physical things (sacrifices, circumcision, Torah, etc) and the NC (with repentance and active decreasing in sin, baptism and the Lord's Table - as effectual physical and spiritual means to love Him and obeying His commandments).

 

[MW]

Now, unlike you do to us (calling us hyper-Calvinists and not Biblical), I am not saying that you believe the NT is redundant or the Incarnation and the death and resurrection and ascension are superfluous. I know you do not believe such things at all.

Go back and read what I wrote. I gave a definition of a hyper-Calvinist. I didn't call anyone a hyper-Calvinist. There is a big difference. Please don't take an objective statement and personalise it.

As for your actual position, since you distance yourself from a position I am directly opposing, I cannot understand your statements in relation to mine. So unless you come out and clarify what your actual position is, I have no idea how to respond to you.

 

[No Other Name]

Go back and read what I wrote. I gave a definition of a hyper-Calvinist. I didn't call anyone a hyper-Calvinist. There is a big difference. Please don't take an objective statement and personalise it.

As for your actual position, since you distance yourself from a position I am directly opposing, I cannot understand your statements in relation to mine. So unless you come out and clarify what your actual position is, I have no idea how to respond to you.

Got ya

When you said "salvation without means" with Jim, I had mistakenly read: "justification without means". That is on me, not you

My position is basically the same as Brandon's (minor inclusion of Gen. 3:15 as a covenant aside). I agree with this with minor clarifications that come to mind per our discussed context added in red:

"Does regeneration come from the Old Covenant? Is it a promised blessing of the Old Covenant? No. In this way, (and only in this way eg, regeneration) "spiritual things" do not come from the Old Covenant (ie 2 Cor 3, etc). They come from the New Covenant (Heb 8, etc).

"Spiritual things are not wholly separate from the Old Covenant though. When an OT saint offers sacrifice, he is assured that "God is near to him when he prays to him" (Deut. 4:7). Being renewed in mind, he reads that he will be blessed when he reads and keeps the Word with direct linking to keeping the Word in the context of his OC duties and responsibilities. Blessed when he keeps his heart as he fulfills the OC duties (multiple Psalms and Proverbs)"

Did the Old Covenant serve a purpose and play a role in bringing about conviction of sin? Yes. Does that mean that the law is of faith (Gal 3:12)? No. Does it mean that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are the same covenant? No. Note: When it is claimed that the Old Covenant is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, it is not simply a claim that the Old Covenant played some kind of subservient role in bringing awareness or conviction. It means that the Old Covenant and the New Covenant are both the same covenant (the Covenant of Grace), promising the same blessings. Heb 8 is clear that the promises are different and they are different covenants."

I am pretty sure Brandon would agree with my additions that I included for your clarification, and if not, he is free to comment and correct me where I am missing something. God bless you.

 

[MW]

"Does regeneration come from the Old Covenant? Is it a promised blessing of the Old Covenant? No. In this way, (and only in this way eg, regeneration) "spiritual things" do not come from the Old Covenant (ie 2 Cor 3, etc). They come from the New Covenant (Heb 8, etc).

Regeneration comes by the Spirit; but the Spirit uses means. 1 Peter 1, the incorruptible Word. If there is no "new covenant" yet, how do these means come through the new covenant? You seem to be spiritualising the covenant itself. At the point you do this you remove the means. It is better to see the historical covenants as administering the benefits that are ultimately finalised in the new covenant. Then the OT believers are saved in the same way that we are -- through historical, concrete means which assure them of their personal interest in Christ. As in Adam all die, even so IN Christ shall all be made alive. As the covenant of works is historically identifiable, so the covenant of grace must be historically identifiable. Otherwise these things end up being mystical concepts.

 

[No Other Name]

Regeneration comes by the Spirit; but the Spirit uses means. 1 Peter 1, the incorruptible Word.

I agree.

If there is no "new covenant" yet, how do these means come through the new covenant? You seem to be spiritualising the covenant itself. At the point you do this you remove the means

No we don't. We do not remove the means by which the Spirit regenerates. There has never been a time in history when man did not have the incorruptible Word by which the Spirit illuminates our minds and our hearts. There has never been a time in history when the faith counted to OT saints for righteousness could not be evidenced by works in obeying conditions of a covenantal relationship with their LORD and God.

Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. The law no longer condemns and the glory of God's redemption can be contemplated - no matter what era one lives in or no matter if the New Covenant is only partially revealed in the Adamic epoch or Noahic or Sinaitic or Davidic - and even in our day and age.

 

[MW]

I agree.



No we don't. We do not remove the means by which the Spirit regenerates. There has never been a time in history when man did have the incorruptible Word by which the Spirit illuminates our minds and our hearts. There has never been a time in history when the faith counted to OT saints for righteousness could not be evidenced by works in obeying conditions of a covenantal relationship with their LORD and God.

But that word is the covenantal Word. I fail to see how you are helping to add any clarity. If these believers had a covenant interest in Christ it is the covenantal Word that gave it to them.

Whenever anyone turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. The law no longer condemns and the glory of God's redemption can be contemplated - no matter what era one lives in or no matter if the New Covenant is only partially revealed in the Adamic epoch or Sinaitic or Davidic - and even in our day and age.

This has to do with the letter and the spirit. The veil can only be taken away because there is a reality in it which is obscured by fixating on the letter and obscuring the spirit. This is not a dichotomy between two covenants but two "ministrations."

 

[No Other Name]

But that word is the covenantal Word.

Of course. And that covenantal Word does not give full revelation until the closing of the John's vision on Patmos.

Now moving back in time, then it follows that the Word as Abel and Enoch and Noah have is not as full as the Word that Moses and Joshua and Samuel have which is not as full as the Word that Isaiah and Jeremiah have is not as full as the Word that Daniel has which is not as full as Ezra and Nehemiah and Malachi have etc.

Yet in each case, the Word is full enough for the Spirit to bring them to life and saving faith in Christ and a new true desire to fulfill covenantal duties with their hearts (in spirit now and not the letter as before their justification by grace). These duties are directly linked as effectual means for salvation - growth in holiness born of God and good works not they have something to boast but that evidences the work of Christ within them all.

These covenantal duties will be very different for each depending on their time period. But the C of G is the same: that saving faith in Christ that is counted to them for righteousness and born of the Spirit within their hearts and minds and souls.

 

[MW]

Of course. And that covenantal Word does not give full revelation until the closing of the John's vision on Patmos.

To be progressive it must be the same. If it not a full edition of the same thing, it is something that runs parallel, for which the Scriptures provide no evidence.

Now moving back in time, then it follows that the Word as Abel and Enoch and Noah have is not as full as the Word that Moses and Joshua and Samuel have which is not as full as the Word that Isaiah and Jeremiah have is not as full as the Word that Daniel has which is not as full as Ezra and Nehemiah and Malachi have etc.

So the covenant made with these people is the covenant of grace, only it is not as fully revealed. I have nothing to object to this but this is a different proposition to what has been presented by others. The others have claimed things like the following: "as a promise pointing forward to the institution of the CoG/NC and not an actual covenant." There has been a dichotomy between the covenant itself and its formal institution. You seem to allow the covenant is presently instituted with the need for further development.

Yet in each case, the Word is full enough for the Spirit to bring them to life and saving faith in Christ and a new true desire to fulfill covenantal duties with their hearts (in spirit now and not the letter as before their justification by grace). These duties are directly linked as effectual means for salvation - growth in holiness born of God and good works not they have something to boast but that evidences the work of Christ within them all.

In each case -- do you mean all believers of the Old Testament as well as the New? This is just the Westminsterian position. You won't receive any argument from me.

These covenantal duties will be very different for each depending on their time period. But the C of G is the same: that saving faith in Christ that is counted to them for righteousness and born of the Spirit within their hearts and minds and souls.

The covenant of grace is the same. No doubt about it -- this is the confessional position.

 

[No Other Name]

The others have claimed things like the following: "as a promise pointing forward to the institution of the CoG/NC and not an actual covenant." There has been a dichotomy between the covenant itself and its formal institution. You seem to allow the covenant is presently instituted with the need for further development.

I do not think anyone has claimed "as a promise pointing forward to the institution of the NC and not an actual covenant" as if the NC is not effectual or not actualized in a way that precludes any OT saints having faith counted to them for righteousness.

And I do not want to mislead you. I do not affirm that the NC is "presently instituted with the need for further development" from the context of the OT saint before the Incarnation.

Christ is the federal head of the NC and is the chief and only mediator thereof. The C of G is the covering for all believers before His atoning work on the Cross is completed in history. The link between faith and historical event exists - simply reverse of our link to the event as it is in our past.

To be precise and using the language published rather than what you imagine is being said:

" ... when we identify the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant alone, we do not exclude those who lived before the establishment of the New Covenant - notably Abraham - from "the grace of this covenant." Nor do we believe that they waited to receive this grace until the death of Christ. In sum, this New Covenant of Grace was extant and effectual under the Old Testament, so as the church was saved by virtue thereof." - from Brandon's website.

(2LBCF 8.6):

"Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head;34 and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,35 being the same yesterday, and today and forever.36"

---

34 1 Cor. 4:10; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 1:10–11
35 Rev. 13:8
36 Heb. 13:8


"Christ promised the Father he would fulfill his work in the Covenant of Redemption, thus securing the redemption of the elect. Thus it was a guaranteed certainty that the OT saints could 'take to the bank."

As we both know, the eternal framework transcends and represents far more closely the earthly framework we can see and experience directly through the senses.

So if anyone in the OT days would say "What redemption? Where? Are we redeemed by these never-ending sacrifices the law constantly demands day after day year after year?? No! What's the point? If he didn't come to save Israel when the Assyrians came, it is proof enough to me that he will never come!"

Any OT saint must need look to the eternal perspective and hold faith in the substance of a thing not seen and that faith is not illusory nor ineffectual even if it is simultaneously true that Christ has not been born yet!

His promises have always tied into a historical link (you are right) but that historical link is both past and future: past to the promises of God beginning in Gen. 3:15 and becoming increasingly more specific and fuller over time until the future actual Incarnation and Atonement.

Grace that justifies does not come to an OT saint *from offering sacrifices* as prescribed in Torah. Offering sacrifices evidences in that moment the faith already born by grace within the heart to and for the OT saint's own personal spiritual benefit and others around him as well.

"In other words, the New Covenant was effectual prior to the death of Christ as an "advance" on it's formal establishment in the future (similar to the way a person can receive a cash advance on their paycheck prior to payday)."

"1) [The} legal effectiveness [of the NC] as a covenant is entirely rooted in the death of Christ.

2) Because the "establishment" of the New Covenant refers also to its being reduced into a fixed state of a law or ordinance - to its being made visible. That which before had no visible, outward worship, proper and peculiar unto it, was then made the only rule and instrument of worship unto the whole church. When the New Covenant was given out only in the way of a promise (Gen 3:15, etc), it did not introduce a worship and privileges expressive of it (the NC). [sic. - I agree Gen. 3:15 did not introduce NC worship and privileges, yet I lean against this particular view as Gen. 3:15 being only promise and not establishing worship at all. I see a promise and an establishment of a system of worship that signifies a covenantal system- call it the Adamic covenant - whereby it is now at that time right and proper to build an altar and sacrifice unto YHWH the covenant LORD. Abel's offering is evidence of this. In terms of the NC economy of 1689 federalism, this would be the first promissory note where an OT saint whose saving faith is drawn on that note as payment for remission of sins by the work of Christ both from eternity and still yet to come - Brad]

That which before lay hid in promises, in many things obscure, the principal mysteries of it being a secret hid in God himself, was then brought to light, and that covenant which had invisibly, in the way of a promise, put forth its efficacy under types and shadows, was then solemnly sealed, ratified, and confirmed, in the death and resurrection of Christ. All the obedience required in it, all the worship appointed by it, all the privileges exhibited in it, and the grace administered with them, were all given for a statute, law, and ordinance unto the church. [Yes, whereby the obedience serves only as effectual means for growth in holiness and sanctification and not for justification as Paul affirms in Romans 4 referencing the case of Abraham specifically - Brad]

The basic idea of the Covenant of Grace revealed and "in effect" prior to its legal establishment (where it is given ordinances of worship) is articulated by Louis Berkhof:

'The first revelation of the covenant is found in the protevangel, Gen. 3:15. Some deny that this has any reference to the covenant; and it certainly does not refer to any formal establishment of a covenant... Up to the time of Abraham there was no formal establishment of the covenant of grace. While Gen. 3:15 already contains the elements of this covenant, it does not record a formal transaction by which the covenant was established. It does not even speak explicitly of a covenant. The establishment of the covenant with Abraham marked the beginning of an institutional Church.'

We would simply say that the New Covenant, not the Abrahamic Covenant, was the formal establishment of the Covenant of Grace."

[I agree with the last sentence. And the promissory note (or the pre-systems established before the New and Better system of worship post-Christ. Those pre-systems starting in Gen. 3:15 and continuing to Abraham and Sinai and all days leading to the Incarnation) - the promise of that coming covenant where worship will be free of old ceremony under that Better Priest, that Better Prophet, that Better King, and the Chief and Only Mediator is incredible.

These preliminary systems were the means by which the OT saints could have faith counted unto them for righteousness in a very real and efficacious manner that - by faith in Christ - changes their entire lives and their entire perspective on Torah and law and the Prophets (ref. Psalm 119 for one example).

There is no grace in the ceremonies to justify anyone living in the days of the OT. There is no grace in the ceremonies to save in any way once the NC is established, and once that NC is established, the OC is ceremonially abrogated and taken away by the last sacrifice needed and the land-specific precepts expired with Israel (save their general equity that stands eternally) and their moral nature which is never abrogated, but that obligation to the moral law even more strengthened in the New, not less so. - Brad]

 

[John The Baptist]

These preliminary systems were the means by which the OT saints could have faith counted unto them for righteousness in a very real and efficacious manner that - by faith in Christ - changes their entire lives and their entire perspective on Torah and law and the Prophets (ref. Psalm 119 for one example).

There is no grace in the ceremonies to justify anyone living in the days of the OT. There is no grace in the ceremonies to save in any way once the NC is established, and once that NC is established, the OC is ceremonially abrogated and taken away by the last sacrifice needed and the land-specific precepts expired with Israel (save their general equity that stands eternally) and their moral nature which is never abrogated, but that obligation to the moral law even more strengthened in the New, not less so. - Brad]

To me, this seems to be the same perspective as WCF. Please Reverend Winzer let me know if I’m wrong.

I think the critique is that unless you have a CoG that includes all the administrations, there is are no means that connect them to Christ. To have the CoG be exclusively the NC, the statement “These preliminary systems were the means by which the OT saints could have faith counted unto them for righteousness in a very real and efficacious manner” doesn’t make sense, from the WCF point of view, because mere “promise” is not enough of a connection for the means ti efficacious.

Seems to me, and my uneducated opinion, that many of statements you specifically are making would be acceptable to WCF but then you avoid the 1 covenant many admins that seems inevitable.

Just some thoughts. Thanks for the conversation so far

 

[No Other Name]

I think the critique is that unless you have a CoG that includes all the administrations, there is are no means that connect them to Christ. To have the CoG be exclusively the NC, the statement “These preliminary systems were the means by which the OT saints could have faith counted unto them for righteousness in a very real and efficacious manner” doesn’t make sense, from the WCF point of view, because mere “promise” is not enough of a connection for the means ti efficacious.

The CoG - in our view - does not become established on Earth until Christ but in eternity has been/ always was/ and is even now: retroactively working in and on the elect in the days of the OT as Christ uses timing at his pleasure to come and redeem but does not need time or any specific era for the NC to be efficacious. (Indeed he needs nothing).

And the previous systems as means by which the OT saints could have faith counted unto them for righteousness in a very real and efficacious manner may not make sense to you or WCF, but that is not my concern (no offense intended). What is most concerning is that the view is fairly represented and reducing the 1689 federalism to a "mere promise" undermines what is actually believed. A cash advance or a promissory note with attached value in hand is not a "mere promise" when it is signed by the Lord. Is he a man that he should lie? He promises that everyone who calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved - BC or AD is irrelevant.

I am aware that some of this is affirmed strongly by WCF and I am aware that some try to shrug off 1689 federalism as somehow "less than". But I am now getting to the point where if I am replied to again, I will start asking specifically directed questions as to how the CoG is "more real" or "more efficacious" by somehow having the NC established in Abraham (viz. Berkhof) or Gen. 3:15 or whenever any WCF adherent says it was established rather than established in the coming of the Christ. If you want to take a whack at it yourself, feel free.

 

[MarrowMan]

Might I humbly suggest that perhaps a discussion of "administration/ministration" is in order? I think definition here might help move things along.

 

[No Other Name]

Might I humbly suggest that perhaps a discussion of "administration/ministration" is in order? I think definition here might help move things along.

Very wise. Definitions should always be foundational and/or ignoring that or unintentionally being loose with terms is a weakness of mine, I confess.

 

[TheInquirer]

Our Confessions agree on the point of divine condescension -- "which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant." That is what the Bible itself presents to us. This is how God's people are blessed in Him. It is important to follow the Bible, not man's imagination. The Bible knows no such thing as an unadministered covenant. Salvation without means is essentially hyper-Calvinism, not biblical Calvinism.

Our confession puts the emphasis on the New Covenant as the means by which salvation is given. Your system requires an additional "umbrella" covenant - the Covenant of Grace instituted in Gen. 3:15 - as somehow necessary to facilitate (or administer) the grace of the New Covenant. Our confession says that the New Covenant is revealed by further steps in what comes before and mentions nothing of a Covenant of Grace present in Gen. 3:15.

"It is important to follow the Bible, not man's imagination."

My goal is to understand the Bible without adding man's imagination and that is our point of contention - whose system actually adds to Scripture. At this point, I believe it is yours and I will continue to believe that unless persuaded by Scripture itself and not repeated appeals to your own select historical theology.

And if you have a PROMISE and a CONDITION, how do you not have a COVENANT? A covenant consists of 2 parties and 2 parts -- a promise and a condition.

I have never actually seen Reformed authors agree on the definition of a covenant - I think I have come across at least 3 among Reform theologians and they all differ. This obviously is your definition but is it the standard definition adopted by theologians even in your own tradition? Are there places in Scripture where God makes a promise and imposes a condition on a party and there is not an actual covenant?

What exactly is the condition that God is imposing in Gen. 3:15? Who is God speaking to in Gen 3:15 - is it not Satan? How do the other sanctions levied against the man and woman in Gen 3:16-19 fit within your understanding of the Covenant of Grace? I don't see grace here, I see punishment for violating the covenant of works.

To pick out one verse, Gen. 3:15, from this entire context and make a massive, overarching historical covenant out of it, seems like a massive stretch to me. I don't see the Bible referring back to this event repeatedly as the institution of such a massive covenant. The Bible repeatedly points to the New Covenant as the Covenant by which the grace of salvation flows.

 

[paranymph]

It might help if we bring in the covenant of redemption here (in which we agree with WCF). Salvation comes by this covenant. The covenant of grace is made with Christ and all his elect in him (WLC 31). We would agree that OT saints are being saved by the covenant of grace.

The question is, whence comes the efficacy of the historical covenants? Is the Abrahamic covenant, e.g., a saving covenant as such? Or is it salvific in what Abraham is looking forward to? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." What was he believing about God? That God would keep his promises and bring the Offspring who would save.

 

[MW]

Our confession puts the emphasis on the New Covenant as the means by which salvation is given. Your system requires an additional "umbrella" covenant - the Covenant of Grace instituted in Gen. 3:15 - as somehow necessary to facilitate (or administer) the grace of the New Covenant. Our confession says that the New Covenant is revealed by further steps in what comes before and mentions nothing of a Covenant of Grace present in Gen. 3:15.

God condescends. He does so by covenant. Where is the condescension by which these people of God might have blessedness and fruition of God? It is not there. You have a covenant in the future. You have a promise of a covenant, but no covenant. So how are they blessed, exactly?

My goal is to understand the Bible without adding man's imagination and that is our point of contention - whose system actually adds to Scripture. At this point, I believe it is yours and I will continue to believe that unless persuaded by Scripture itself and not repeated appeals to your own select historical theology.

You have added "the promise of a covenant." Instead of this the Bible plainly and repeatedly draws us back to the covenants. Rom. 9:4; Eph. 2:12. Real, existing things.

I have never actually seen Reformed authors agree on the definition of a covenant - I think I have come across at least 3 among Reform theologians and they all differ. This obviously is your definition but is it the standard definition adopted by theologians even in your own tradition? Are there places in Scripture where God makes a promise and imposes a condition on a party and there is not an actual covenant?

It is an agreement. They agree!

What exactly is the condition that God is imposing in Gen. 3:15? Who is God speaking to in Gen 3:15 - is it not Satan? How do the other sanctions levied against the man and woman in Gen 3:16-19 fit within your understanding of the Covenant of Grace? I don't see grace here, I see punishment for violating the covenant of works.

God is speaking to Satan in the hearing of Adam and Eve, and humanity through the "seed of the woman." The promise is Satan’s defeat and the salvation of God’s people through the Messiah. Later, God "establishes" his covenant with Noah. The covenant is already present and in operation. Hence the genealogy of chapter 5.

Unlike the covenant of works, where obedience was the condition for life, the covenant of grace is unilateral; God Himself ensures its fulfilment. However, the condition in the gracious sense of the term is faith in the promised Seed, as Adam calls his wife "Eve," and enmity against Satan. So we see the ongoing struggle of the seeds throughout Genesis.

The curses are both the consequences of breaking the covenant of works and the mitigation of death to ensure the administration of the covenant of grace.

To pick out one verse, Gen. 3:15, from this entire context and make a massive, overarching historical covenant out of it, seems like a massive stretch to me. I don't see the Bible referring back to this event repeatedly as the institution of such a massive covenant. The Bible repeatedly points to the New Covenant as the Covenant by which the grace of salvation flows.

The overarching happens in the Bible itself. The book of Revelation tells us what happened to the old serpent.

 

[MW]

I do not think anyone has claimed "as a promise pointing forward to the institution of the NC and not an actual covenant" as if the NC is not effectual or not actualized in a way that precludes any OT saints having faith counted to them for righteousness.

I gave you an exact quote from a person advocating the other position.

And I do not want to mislead you. I do not affirm that the NC is "presently instituted with the need for further development" from the context of the OT saint before the Incarnation.

It is impossible for me to understand what you affirm at this stage. You seem to be walking both sides of a barbed wife fence, which must be very painful.

Christ is the federal head of the NC and is the chief and only mediator thereof. The C of G is the covering for all believers before His atoning work on the Cross is completed in history. The link between faith and historical event exists - simply reverse of our link to the event as it is in our past.

If you have the covenant of grace instituted and administered in the OT, this is Westminsterian. I do not understand why you affirm this and then question it.

To be precise and using the language published rather than what you imagine is being said:

I did not imagine it. I copied and pasted the quote of the person I was interacting with before you became involved.

" ... when we identify the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant alone,

You have to ask yourself how you square this with your belief in the covenant of grace being administered to believers under the OT. At this point I have no idea what you are attempting to say. You have me utterly confused.

 

[No Other Name]

You have me utterly confused.

You have yourself utterly confused. I have laid out my position for quite a few paragraphs now. Part of which you affirm (even with a smile emoji once!), part of which you dismiss with one liners that does not help (e.g. "To be progressive it must be the same. If it not a full edition of the same thing, it is something that runs parallel, for which the Scriptures provide no evidence.")

My position is not bizarre or out there or novel. It is 1689 federalism with one minor exception (Gen. 3:15 is part of the OC as a system of worship) that does not amount to anything detrimental to the core of that covenant theology.

The fact that you do not choose to go through my clarifying statements as you just have done is an interesting choice by you, but not terribly surprising. This is usually how these dialogues go. But don't act like I am being offish and mysterious and riding a fence because I haven't been clear.

I am not claiming that I am always clear, rather, it is easy to dismiss your claim when you have ignored / continue to ignore now blocks of explanatory text with no questions or objections or anything else of that nature.

If you ever do want to actually engage with the position itself at what I believe is the nexus of our departure in views, it would be the eternal and non-linear ways for the application of the CoG for a God who transcends time and for whom past, present, and future has no distinction, while simultaneously God links the CoG to an historical event (Incarnation, Atonement, et al) that definitively occurs within space and time for the elect to whom cannot imagine the non-existence of past, present, and future..

 

[MW]

You have yourself utterly confused. I have laid out my position for quite a few paragraphs now. Part of which you affirm (even with a smile emoji once!), part of which you dismiss with one liners that does not help (e.g. "To be progressive it must be the same. If it not a full edition of the same thing, it is something that runs parallel, for which the Scriptures provide no evidence.")

I have quoted one of the people defending this "1689" view and you alleged I imagined it. When I bring this to your attention I hear nothing in return. Why don't you attempt to address the statement that you call a "one-liner," since that expresses the point over which I am confused? Do I need to write multiple lines in order for you to take my statement seriously? How do you assume the position of others claiming the "1689" view when they maintain that Gen 3:15 is the "promise of a covenant," not a covenant itself? How does that accord with your assertion that there is "progress" of the covenant of grace moving through to the new covenant? This is where I am bewildered. Rather than tell me I have confused myself why don't you attempt to actually answer the issue I have expressed confusion over?

 

[No Other Name]

@MW this is kind of getting sad now. Please disengage from combat mode and talk with me.

When I said:

To be precise and using the language published rather than what you imagine is being said:

I was referring to what you said about me which I deny as being my position. To wit:

There has been a dichotomy between the covenant itself and its formal institution. You seem to allow the covenant is presently instituted with the need for further development.

And that is when I said that I do not want to mislead you. I do not believe the NC is "presently instituted" in the lives of the OT saints before the coming of Christ on Earth, rather their faith in the coming establishment is saving faith that they cannot see because they did not live when Christ came - just like our saving faith in what we cannot see (John 20:29) because we also did not live when Christ came.

Then I went into my explanations with quotes from Mr. Adams, the 1689 and offset these in bold font to highlight my own thinking and explanations.

Why don't you attempt to address the statement that you call a "one-liner," since that expresses the point over which I am confused?

I have done so already. The NC is not "unadministered" re: OT saints in our view since Christ has indeed come and has indeed defeated reigning sin in all the elect - in lives of those in the past, present and also future elect that have not been born yet - neither of the Spirit nor even of the flesh as their parents have yet to even meet yet.

Your insistence that the covenantal Word must be the same to be progressive is agreed and not disputed in this view. The Word is the same yesterday, today and forever. No one argues that a previous covenantal dispensation (e.g., Adamic and the altar system) was different in substance, rather simply the substance was the same only revealed more clearly (Sinai for example - in its substance - gives much more detail as to the substance of the shadow that is Christ to come yet hidden) until the full revelation and the final terms of the NC are fully revealed to all those who believe (the full NT).

When I say you confuse yourself, I mean precisely that these ideas are already fully present in my posts and have not been thoroughly questioned by you in detail.

Or these details have not been quoted by you and then said "It seems here that you think X". Not to the extent that you seem to need it to be.

My only point in saying that you have confused yourself is that you have enough info already posted by me to clarify any confusion you might still have.

Are you still confused? Have you read anything that still makes you think I am riding a fence between WCF and 1689? Do you perceive an internal inconsistency that you wish to point out?

Or are we nearing a place where we simply shake hands and agree to disagree?

I any case, you are a brother in the Lord, and I have always been personally better off knowing you and engaging with you than I would have if I had never known you existed, so it is with zero irony or sarcasm when I say I thank God for your posts debating me. I genuinely do.

 

[MarrowMan]

@MW this is kind of getting sad now. Please disengage from combat mode and talk with me.

When I said:


I was referring to what you said about me which I deny as being my position. To wit:


And that is when I said that I do not want to mislead you. I do not believe the NC is "presently instituted" in the lives of the OT saints before the coming of Christ on Earth. Then I went into my explanations with quotes from Mr. Adams, the 1689 and offset these in bold font to highlight my own thinking and explanations.


I have done so already. The NC is not "unadministered" re: OT saints in our view since Christ has indeed come and has indeed defeated reigning sin in all the elect - in lives of those in the past, present and also future elect that have not been born yet - neither of the Spirit nor even of the flesh as their parents have yet to even meet yet.

Your insistence that the covenantal Word must be the same to be progressive is agreed and not disputed in this view. The Word is the same yesterday, today and forever. No one argues that a previous covenantal dispensation (e.g., Adamic and the altar system) was different in substance, rather simply the substance was the same only revealed more clearly (Sinai for example - in its substance - gives much more detail as to the substance of the shadow that is Christ to come yet hidden) until the full revelation and the final terms of the NC are fully revealed to all those who believe (the full NT).

When I say you confuse yourself, I mean precisely that these ideas are already fully present in my posts and have not been thoroughly questioned by you in detail.

Or these details have not been quoted by you and then said "It seems here that you think X". Not to the extent that you seem to need it to be.

My only point in saying that you have confused yourself is that you have enough info already posted by me to clarify any confusion you might still have.

Are you still confused? Have you read anything that still makes you think I am riding a fence between WCF and 1689? Do you perceive an internal inconsistency that you wish to point out?

Or are we nearing a place where we simply shake hands and agree to disagree?

I any case, you are a brother in the Lord, and I have always been personally better off knowing you and engaging with you than I would have if I had never known you existed, so it is with zero irony or sarcasm when I say I thank God for your posts debating me. I genuinely do.

To be honest, I like Matthew am not particularly clear as to what your specific point of departure from the WCF is. If you could explain very specifically like I’m an elementary school aged child, that would be helpful. I’ll go back and read to see what I’m missing, but if you could simply point out what aspect of the WCF you disagree with is that would help me track better.

 

[John Nyberg]

Not to pile on, but it seems evident from this thread that 1689 federalism needs some reformulation or simplification. Westinster covenant theology really shines due to simplicity. In fact, a plain reading of the 1689 seems to so fully agree with "one covenant different administrations" that the federalist almost need an entirely new confession.

LBCF1689 7.3
This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;
and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

This has been an interesting conversation, to be sure, but the federalist postion remains unconvincing.

 

[No Other Name]

I’ll go back and read to see what I’m missing,

Please do and ask away. I debated when I saw this whether to formulate or just say read the FAQ on 1689 federalism website. I have prayerfully decided on the former. As Feynman said about quantum physics, if ya can't explain in basic simple terms what it is and means, then you do not really understand it. I take that to heart about something far more significant to our lives: covenant theology.

 

[No Other Name]

This has been an interesting conversation, to be sure, but the federalist postion remains unconvincing.

In fairness, this thread was originally asking how the NC is administered to the OT saints granting 1689 federalism.

The answers to the OP were given and these initial replies served their purpose. They were not intended to convince the OP or anyone else that the 1689 position is correct vs. the WCF position. The thread took that different turn but no one delved much into the WCF vs. the initial replies - just tried to pull at threads within the 1689 position. Are you sure you are not mistaking the fact that WCF seems simpler because WCF has not been "in the dock" in the same manner as 1689 has?

That being said, I will work on a re-formulation that gets to the heart and basic idea as I do agree with all that is most indicative of an intelligible and rational position. If 1689 federalism is any bit less than intelligible or rational within the bounds established by Scripture, then what would I want to do with any of it? Nothing at all.

 

[MarrowMan]

In fairness, this thread was originally asking how the NC is administered to the OT saints granting 1689 federalism.

The answers to the OP were given and these initial replies served their purpose. They were not intended to convince the OP or anyone else that the 1689 position is correct vs. the WCF position. The thread took that different turn but no one delved much into the WCF vs. the initial replies - just tried to pull at threads within the 1689 position. Are you sure you are not mistaking the fact that WCF seems simpler because WCF has not been "in the dock" in the same manner as 1689 has?

That being said, I will work on a re-formulation that gets to the heart and basic idea as I do agree with all that is most indicative of an intelligible and rational position. If 1689 federalism is any bit less than intelligible or rational within the bounds established by Scripture, then what would I want to do with any of it? Nothing at all.

I think that both a definition of what is meant by “administered” and a very simple, specific explanation of the key/fundamental point of departure would serve to answer the OP. I’m not interested in debating the point. I’ve had my fill of that over the years .

 

[paranymph]

Not to pile on, but it seems evident from this thread that 1689 federalism needs some reformulation or simplification. Westinster covenant theology really shines due to simplicity. In fact, a plain reading of the 1689 seems to so fully agree with "one covenant different administrations" that the federalist almost need an entirely new confession.

LBCF1689 7.3
This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;
and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

This has been an interesting conversation, to be sure, but the federalist postion remains unconvincing.

Paragraph 7.3 was written to be intentionally ambiguous. The Confession makes room for the "1 substance, 2 admin" view, but one would be adding/reading into what is in the Confession. The paragraph does lead toward what's now called "1689 Federalism" but you only know that if you know what Nehemiah Coxe has written on the subject. In other words, if you know Coxe, you know what the Confession means when it uses the word "revealed. . . by farther steps." But here also, the full picture of "1689 Federalism" is read into this paragraph.

 

[No Other Name]

I think that both a definition of what is meant by “administered” and a very simple, specific explanation of the key/fundamental point of departure would serve to answer the OP. I’m not interested in debating the point. I’ve had my fill of that over the years .

Ok, well keeping it basic and simple and not dodging the question, while also giving you the benefit of the doubt in that all my posts beforehand have indeed been unintentionally difficult to parse what I mean, here goes:

The OP's question is legitimate and a very good question. It is a question encouraged by me in Sunday school dealing with 1689.

f the NC is the covenant of grace, then how was it being administered to the Old Testament saints when it hadn’t been inaugurated yet.

Again, a very fair question.

Before I write a mini-essay, TLDR = [it is administered by faith same way as always. The exact benefits of His coming have to extend backwards to all the elect prior to His coming, but that does not mean they are any less saints or have less of a promise than we do before we repent or before we begin killing bosom sins.]

Let us first go to LBCF 7.3 (as @John Nyberg suggests):

This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman,5 and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament;6 and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect;7 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.8

---

5 Gen. 3:15
6 Heb. 1:1
7 2 Tim. 1:9; Titus 1:2
8 Heb. 11;6,13; Rom. 4:1–2; Acts 4:12; John 8:56

(bolded for emphasis. I will explain after I discuss 8.6. I am building a case here.)

This is actually a significant altering of the WCF at this point: briefer yet more comprehensive. 7.3 serves as a redemptive-historical overview of the covenantal purpose of God in the gospel. WCF 7.5 begins its formulation at Sinai, here 1689 begins at Gen. 3:15 and sees the covenantal development start at this point.

In 7.3a, we see that the covenant under consideration begins its historical revelation after the fall, as recorded in Gen. 3:15. In 7.3b, the covenant depends on the Covenant of Redemption. In 7.3c, we have the definition of the "covenant of works" even though the phrase itself is not used. Any saving act of God is grace and necessarily so due to man's fall. After the fall, man is utterly incapable of acceptance with God on the terms Adam enjoyed before the fall. Only by grace can man be redeemed. While the relationship between Adam and God is covenantal in terms, the focus is squarely on the period of time after the fall and God's method of saving man after the fall.

Keeping in mind, that Chapter 7 is titled: "Of God's Covenant" (singular, not plural), we know certainly that the covenant specified is the New Covenant established by Christ and efficacious for all the elect.

Before we move on to 8.6, a definition of Covenant:

"The notion of a Covenant adds assurance to the promise, as it implies a special bond of favor and friendship which belongs to the Federal-Interest and Relation. ... The kind and benefit of which Relation is determined by the Covenant itself, the Nature, Promises, and End thereof. ... if the covenant be of works, ... [it] must be by doing the things required in it, even by fulfilling its condition in a perfect obedience to the Law of it, and suitable hereunto, the reward is ... But if it be a Covenant of free and sovereign Grace, ... [it] is an humble receiving or hearty believing of those gratuitous Promises on which the covenant is established; and accordingly, the Reward or Covenant Blessing is, immediately and eminently for Grace." (Coxe, Discourses on the Covenant, p. 9)

Now let us go to LBCF 8.6:

Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ until after His incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein He was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent's head;34 and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world,35 being the same yesterday, and today and forever.36

---

34 1 Cor. 4:10; Heb. 4:2; 1 Pet. 1:10–11
35 Rev. 13:8
36 Heb. 13:8

"In 7.3, we read that the grace of the covenant is the only means by which Adam's children are saved obtaining life and a blessed immortality. Here in 8.6, that assertion is linked directly to the redeeming work of Christ, affirming that His work is retrospective, applied to the elect that lived before the time of the Incarnation. All who are saved receive forgiveness and life in the same way." (Renihan, To the Judicious and Impartial Reader p. 235)

1) The Historical Reality of Christ's Work

He paid "the price of redemption" (8.6) This focuses the work of Christ on the cross as the accomplishment of redemption by the atoning sacrifice offered in history - in space and time.

2) Elements of Historia Salutis

In God's purpose the "virtue, efficacy, and benefit" (8.6) of this work were "communicated to the elect" from "the beginning of the world" by means of revelation in promises and types (shadows) as well as the sacrificial system (effectual means of salvation by sanctifying the OT saints. Their justification was by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone).

"Salvation for those who lived before the cross was by prospective faith, looking forward to the time of fulfillment. The final clause, "being the same yesterday, today and forever", (Heb. 13:8) hearkens back to teh doctrine of divine immutability (2.1). Because God does not change, His promise is as good as its accomplishment, it is assured, and for that reason, believers confidently rest certain that all will come to pass exactly as revealed." (Ibid, pp. 235-36)

He then goes on to quote:

"From 1689 General Assembly:

Q. Whether Believers were not actually reconciled to God, actually justified and adopted when Christ died?

A. That the Reconciliation, Justification, and Adoption of Believers are infallibly secured by the gracious purpose of God and merit of Jesus Christ. Yet none can be said to be actually reconciled, justified or adopted, until they are really implanted into Jesus Christ by Faith; and so by virtue of this their Union with him, have these Fundamental Benefits actually conveyed unto them. And this we conceive is fully evidenced, because the Scriptures attribute all these benefits to Faith, as the instrumental cause of them. (Rom. 3:25; 5:11; 5:1; Gal. 3:26)."

I hope this helps clarify what is meant and helps the OP and all those who were curious along with the OP.

 

[No Other Name]

Re-reading this thread in light of John's comments re: the 1689 position being "unconvincing", it seems clear to me that - for some here - the entire position of "2 covenants" is being assessed by only looking at one specific reply to one specific question that arises a bit downstream as a consequence of the position.

It would be very myopic if anyone would read the answers to the OP's question and say to oneself: "Huh, well, that's no reason to suppose there are 2 covenants instead of 1 with 2 administrations". That would be quite silly.

The differences between the 2 covenants (and whether or not these differences can be resolved in such a way as there is only one covenant) is its own topic (and would involve lots of John Owen).

 

[MW]

I have done so already. The NC is not "unadministered" re: OT saints in our view since Christ has indeed come and has indeed defeated reigning sin in all the elect - in lives of those in the past, present and also future elect that have not been born yet - neither of the Spirit nor even of the flesh as their parents have yet to even meet yet.

What does this mean -- not unadministered? If two negatives make a positive then this means it was administered. Then when I add your affirmation of "progress" of the covenanted word, this leaves us with a progressive administration leading up to the actual new covenant. I fail to see how this differs from Westminster. But then you say that the covenant of grace is not "instituted." How is it administered and not instituted? How do OT saints lay hold of it for their salvation if it is not actually made with them? And what are those covenants that are made with them, which they relied upon for their salvation?

Your insistence that the covenantal Word must be the same to be progressive is agreed and not disputed in this view. The Word is the same yesterday, today and forever. No one argues that a previous covenantal dispensation (e.g., Adamic and the altar system) was different in substance

Again, bewildering! How do you have a covenantal dispensation of a covenant that is not "instituted?"

, rather simply the substance was the same only revealed more clearly (Sinai for example - in its substance - gives much more detail as to the substance of the shadow that is Christ to come yet hidden) until the full revelation and the final terms of the NC are fully revealed to all those who believe (the full NT).

Again, exactly what Westminster teaches. If you want to be clear you will need to show how this differs from Westminster and still maintains what is supposed to be distinctive to the "1689."

Are you still confused? Have you read anything that still makes you think I am riding a fence between WCF and 1689? Do you perceive an internal inconsistency that you wish to point out?

Yes, just as confused. This issue comes down to one simple question -- How? How do the "elders" of the OT (Heb. 11:2) receive witness that they are righteous? Doesn't that witness come from the covenant of grace made with them? If not, how?

 

[TheInquirer]

It might help if we bring in the covenant of redemption here (in which we agree with WCF). Salvation comes by this covenant. The covenant of grace is made with Christ and all his elect in him (WLC 31). We would agree that OT saints are being saved by the covenant of grace.

The question is, whence comes the efficacy of the historical covenants? Is the Abrahamic covenant, e.g., a saving covenant as such? Or is it salvific in what Abraham is looking forward to? "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness." What was he believing about God? That God would keep his promises and bring the Offspring who would save.

That is a helpful addition to the discussion and I agree with this though one would have to clarify what is being referred to by the Covenant of Grace - is it the eternal decree (Covenant of Redemption) or the fulfillment in time at the cross?

Personally, I don’t see how a Covenant of Grace instituted in Gen. 3:15 solves the issue of Christ’s future death being retroactively applied before it occurs in history. Faith is always the key element in God bestowing grace to man. Faith is a response of trust to God’s spoken promises and a confidence in the veracity of God’s character in being truthful to His promises and having the sovereign power to carry them out in time. Isn’t “faith” the primary “means” God conveys the grace of salvation?

Perhaps paranymph cut to the heart of the issue with his comment on “efficacy” but maybe that is best for another thread.