Oversimplification of CT differences

[HisRobes4Mine]

At risk of oversimplification, is it fair to say that the primary difference between Reformed Baptist CT and Presbyterian CT is that the Presbyterians see all covenants as primarily spiritual in nature versus the RB see only the new covenant is primarily spiritual?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Why would not Reformed Baptists see all covenants as "spiritual in nature". It is worth comparing ch 7 of the WCF with ch 7 of the 1689 Confession.

Chapter 7:1 is similar to the Westminster Confession and establishes the importance of Reformed Covenant Theology. Note the creator-creature distinction. God in His great mercy condescends to save His people.

7:2 emphasises the importance of the Triune God in the work of salvation. The Father elects. Salvation is through the death and resurrection of Christ. The Holy Spirit makes the elect ‘willing and able to believe.’

7:3 shows the covenant in a distinctive historic-redemptive thrust. The covenant is first revealed in the gospel promise in Gen 3:15. The terms ‘step by step’ means these truths are given throughout the Old Testament ‘until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament.’ The foundation of the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of Redemption where the three members of the Trinity compacted together to save a people and seal that salvation until eternity.

It is worth comparing this with the thrust of the WCF. It is my view that the 1689 Confession emphasises the true relationship between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

There are differences. And, there are differences between the way various cohorts of our Baptist relations understand those differences. RScottClark is making a recent go at explicating this three-branched distinction here:
https://heidelblog.net/2018/02/engaging-with-1689-1/

You can see even from the comments section of the blog that within the RB camp ways to distinguish themselves from the Reformed differ from one side or the other.

What makes things hard is that people end up disputing over terms. But, we're trying to use the language in the Confessions, used in history; and instead of asserting that "everyone means the same thing here," and then trying to explain the distinctions in terms of some failure to be consistent--we define terms so that we can see that we aren't using them the same way starting right off.

 

[Dachaser]

At risk of oversimplification, is it fair to say that the primary difference between Reformed Baptist CT and Presbyterian CT is that the Presbyterians see all covenants as primarily spiritual in nature versus the RB see only the new covenant is primarily spiritual?

To myself, the 2 biggest issues involved seem to be in defining just how new is the New Covenant, and just who would be included under it?

 

[HisRobes4Mine]

Why would not Reformed Baptists see all covenants as "spiritual in nature". It is worth comparing ch 7 of the WCF with ch 7 of the 1689 Confession.

Chapter 7:1 is similar to the Westminster Confession and establishes the importance of Reformed Covenant Theology. Note the creator-creature distinction. God in His great mercy condescends to save His people.

7:2 emphasises the importance of the Triune God in the work of salvation. The Father elects. Salvation is through the death and resurrection of Christ. The Holy Spirit makes the elect ‘willing and able to believe.’

7:3 shows the covenant in a distinctive historic-redemptive thrust. The covenant is first revealed in the gospel promise in Gen 3:15. The terms ‘step by step’ means these truths are given throughout the Old Testament ‘until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament.’ The foundation of the Covenant of Grace is the Covenant of Redemption where the three members of the Trinity compacted together to save a people and seal that salvation until eternity.

It is worth comparing this with the thrust of the WCF. It is my view that the 1689 Confession emphasises the true relationship between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace.

I’m not trying to argue that RB’s don’t believe in a spiritual substance. I guess my question ultimately is this. Can you have the substance before the inauguration of the Covenant? Does that make sense?

 

[HisRobes4Mine]

To myself, the 2 biggest issues involved seem to be in defining just how new is the New Covenant, and just who would be included under it?

Also wrestling with those questions myself. What resources were helpful to you in your study?

 

[HisRobes4Mine]

There are differences. And, there are differences between the way various cohorts of our Baptist relations understand those differences. RScottClark is making a recent go at explicating this three-branched distinction here:
https://heidelblog.net/2018/02/engaging-with-1689-1/

You can see even from the comments section of the blog that within the RB camp ways to distinguish themselves from the Reformed differ from one side or the other.

What makes things hard is that people end up disputing over terms. But, we're trying to use the language in the Confessions, used in history; and instead of asserting that "everyone means the same thing here," and then trying to explain the distinctions in terms of some failure to be consistent--we define terms so that we can see that we aren't using them the same way starting right off.

Thanks for the recommendation, I was reading through it late last night. The comments were helpful and I definitely have a lot of questions I need to work through. I’d agree with you though, defining terms is necessary.

 

[Dachaser]

Also wrestling with those questions myself. What resources were helpful to you in your study?

I am coming to this from the perspective of a Baptist, so would recommend for a good primer book:
Phillip D. R. Griffiths’ book Covenant Theology: A Reformed Baptist Perspective.
http://themelios.thegospelcoalition...amic-covenant-in-reformed-baptist-perspective

 

[Brad Mason]

I’m not trying to argue that RB’s don’t believe in a spiritual substance. I guess my question ultimately is this. Can you have the substance before the inauguration of the Covenant? Does that make sense?

Hello!

I have been trying to work through this very subject in a series on how Christ was administered in the Old Testament. If you are interested, it starts here:

https://www.heartandmouth.org/2017/05/23/Christ-administered-old-testament-introduction/

Let me know your thoughts if you get around to it.

 

[Stephen L Smith]

Can you have the substance before the inauguration of the Covenant? Does that make sense?

Still a little unsure of what you are getting at. I would argue technically, the inauguration of the Covenant is the Covenant of Redemption - Eg, 1689 Confession 7:3 This covenant is revealed in the gospel. It was revealed first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation through the seed of the woman. After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament. This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect. Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Brad (and welcome to PB!),

I follow your blog, Heart & Mouth, and much appreciate it. Something that occurs to me with respect to the "substance" of what the faith of the OT saints cleaved to / stood upon: the presence of God accompanying His word—in promises, types, depictions (cf Isa 53), etc—even as it is with us in the NT era. For us, when we are regenerated, it is usually on this wise:

...God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4:6).​

But it is always the case, whether in OT or NT times, and whatever the particular means God uses, that the Holy Spirit moves upon the heart of the elect to reveal God's presence, making the saint alive to Him, aware of Him, in love, and godly fear. In the OT we can see this in the dialogue between Moses and the LORD:

And Moses said unto the LORD, See, thou sayest unto me, Bring up this people: and thou hast not let me know whom thou wilt send with me. Yet thou hast said, I know thee by name, and thou hast also found grace in my sight. Now therefore, I pray thee, if I have found grace in thy sight, shew me now thy way, that I may know thee, that I may find grace in thy sight: and consider that this nation is thy people. And he said, My presence shall go with thee, and I will give thee rest. And he said unto him, If thy presence go not with me, carry us not up hence. For wherein shall it be known here that I and thy people have found grace in thy sight? is it not in that thou goest with us? so shall we be separated, I and thy people, from all the people that are upon the face of the earth. And the LORD said unto Moses, I will do this thing also that thou hast spoken: for thou hast found grace in my sight, and I know thee by name. (Exod 33:12-17) [emphasis added]​

This is not merely Him dwelling in the visible pillars of cloud and fire (Exod 13:21), but His presence manifested to them, as it is written,

The LORD is nigh unto all them that call upon him,
to all that call upon him in truth (Ps 145:18)

Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto thy name:
the upright shall dwell in thy presence (Ps 140:13)​

He enabled them to have a living, spiritual faith in Him, such as we see written of in Hebrews 11:1: "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Or, as Alexander Nisbet put it,

". . . it [is] the nature of true faith to make the thing it closes with spiritually present to the soul." –Alexander Nisbet, Commentary on 1st & 2nd Peter (Banner of Truth), p. 25.​