ralphmnj
Puritan Board Freshman
I have been recently studying reformed covenant theology (as opposed to Baptist covenant theology) and came to understand that:
1. The Covenant of Works is seen in the covenant made with Adam and with Moses at Sinai. It is a covenant reliant upon obedience of man to the laws and commands of God. For most of the OT, this is specific to Israel (in terms of the Mosaic covenant). The Mosaic Covenant was a temporary covenant of types and shadows finding its fulfillment in Christ's perfect obedience. God's mercy shown to Israel throughout its history in Israel's disobedience was not consistent with the Mosaic Covenant but was actually given for the sake of the covenant made with Abraham (that the promise may be realized with the coming of Christ from the Jews).
2. The Covenant of Grace is seen in the covenant made with Adam and Eve ("the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent"), the covenant of Noah, the covenant of David, but most significantly the covenant with Abraham. This Abrahamic covenant was actually the Covenant of Grace in it's first administration (the second being the New Covenant found in the NT). It is an everlasting covenant through which those who believe in Christ (either his promise looking forward or his work looking backward) are justified through faith alone. Though the Abrahamic covenant included temporal fulfillment in the possession of land, it finds its ultimate fulfillment in the possession of the new heavens and the new earth.
In this regard, it has been my understanding, that the "Old Covenant" contrasted with the "New Covenant" in Jeremiah 31 and the NT is contrasting the New Covenant (or second administration of the Covenant of Grace) with the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant. In other words, it would be improper to consider the Abrahamic Covenant as being included as the "Old Covenant."
That was how I understood everything until I started reading Denault's "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" where he seems to say paedobaptists believe the term "Old Covenant" lumps together the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. For example he says,
"Since the paedobaptists saw the Old Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace in harmony with the New Covenant, according to them the opposition between the law and grace did not mean an opposition between the Old and the New Covenants, but rather an opposition between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace."
According to my understanding, a paedobaptist would agree in saying there exists an opposition between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace (which Denault allows) but they would also say that this opposition is exactly what it means to have opposition between the Old and the New Covenants (which Denault does not allow).
Either I haven't understood the reformed positions in covenant theology up to this point or Denault is confusing the reformed position.
Are there any paedobaptists who can shed light on this issue? I am studying my positions on all this and I don't want to continue reading a Baptist "counter-argument" if either I don't understand the true paedobaptist position or the author doesn't. Or at least, I'd like some clarity on which it is so I can be aware as I continue.
Sorry for the long post!
1. The Covenant of Works is seen in the covenant made with Adam and with Moses at Sinai. It is a covenant reliant upon obedience of man to the laws and commands of God. For most of the OT, this is specific to Israel (in terms of the Mosaic covenant). The Mosaic Covenant was a temporary covenant of types and shadows finding its fulfillment in Christ's perfect obedience. God's mercy shown to Israel throughout its history in Israel's disobedience was not consistent with the Mosaic Covenant but was actually given for the sake of the covenant made with Abraham (that the promise may be realized with the coming of Christ from the Jews).
2. The Covenant of Grace is seen in the covenant made with Adam and Eve ("the seed of the woman will crush the head of the serpent"), the covenant of Noah, the covenant of David, but most significantly the covenant with Abraham. This Abrahamic covenant was actually the Covenant of Grace in it's first administration (the second being the New Covenant found in the NT). It is an everlasting covenant through which those who believe in Christ (either his promise looking forward or his work looking backward) are justified through faith alone. Though the Abrahamic covenant included temporal fulfillment in the possession of land, it finds its ultimate fulfillment in the possession of the new heavens and the new earth.
In this regard, it has been my understanding, that the "Old Covenant" contrasted with the "New Covenant" in Jeremiah 31 and the NT is contrasting the New Covenant (or second administration of the Covenant of Grace) with the Mosaic Covenant and not the Abrahamic Covenant. In other words, it would be improper to consider the Abrahamic Covenant as being included as the "Old Covenant."
That was how I understood everything until I started reading Denault's "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology" where he seems to say paedobaptists believe the term "Old Covenant" lumps together the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. For example he says,
"Since the paedobaptists saw the Old Covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace in harmony with the New Covenant, according to them the opposition between the law and grace did not mean an opposition between the Old and the New Covenants, but rather an opposition between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace."
According to my understanding, a paedobaptist would agree in saying there exists an opposition between the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace (which Denault allows) but they would also say that this opposition is exactly what it means to have opposition between the Old and the New Covenants (which Denault does not allow).
Either I haven't understood the reformed positions in covenant theology up to this point or Denault is confusing the reformed position.
Are there any paedobaptists who can shed light on this issue? I am studying my positions on all this and I don't want to continue reading a Baptist "counter-argument" if either I don't understand the true paedobaptist position or the author doesn't. Or at least, I'd like some clarity on which it is so I can be aware as I continue.
Sorry for the long post!