Trying to organize the covenants

[perl2012]

I'm trying to understand how all the difference covenants relate to one another. The post by R. Scott Clark was extremely helpful, but I'd like a little more detail on the other covenants. Here's what I have so far, but I'd really appreciate any feedback.

• Covenant of Redemption - pre-temporal, intratrinatarian covenant to save
• Covenant of Works - covenant between God and Adam based on Adam's obedience
• Covenant of Grace - God's promise to save and forgive based on Christ's work (fulfilled Cov. of Works that Adam did not) through faith

Within the Covenant of Grace are different administrations:

• Noahic - promise to save him and his family
• Abrahamic - descendents, land, blessing - fulfilled literally in the OT and eschatologically in Christ
• Davidic - descendent on the throne
• New Covenant - fulfillment of the Abrahamic cov., Cov. of Works, and Cov. of Redemption; sealed by Jesus' blood

The common grace Noahic covenant, where God promises not to destroy the world again by flood seems to stand outside of the three big covenants. I guess you could argue that it supports the Cov. of Grace, since the reason for the covenant is the outworking of the Cov. of Grace.

So am I close? Thank you for your help!

 

[Peairtach]

I'm trying to understand how all the difference covenants relate to one another. The post by R. Scott Clark was extremely helpful, but I'd like a little more detail on the other covenants. Here's what I have so far, but I'd really appreciate any feedback.

• Covenant of Redemption - pre-temporal, intratrinatarian covenant to save
• Covenant of Works - covenant between God and Adam based on Adam's obedience
• Covenant of Grace - God's promise to save and forgive based on Christ's work (fulfilled Cov. of Works that Adam did not) through faith

Within the Covenant of Grace are different administrations:

• Noahic - promise to save him and his family
• Abrahamic - descendents, land, blessing - fulfilled literally in the OT and eschatologically in Christ
• Davidic - descendent on the throne
• New Covenant - fulfillment of the Abrahamic cov., Cov. of Works, and Cov. of Redemption; sealed by Jesus' blood

The common grace Noahic covenant, where God promises not to destroy the world again by flood seems to stand outside of the three big covenants. I guess you could argue that it supports the Cov. of Grace, since the reason for the covenant is the outworking of the Cov. of Grace.

So am I close? Thank you for your help!

Quite close.

Some theologians just deal with the CoR and the CoG as one Covenant between God and the elect in Christ. They'll just call the whole thing the CoG. Others like to divide them up, with the CoG being the unfolding of the CoR in history. The CoW was with all mankind in Adam.

The CoG being the CoR revealed in history by God, it is revealed progressively.

(a) Protevangelium - Genesis 3:15.
(b) Noachic Covenant.
(c) Abrahamic Covenant.
(d) Old Covenant or Testament.
(e) Davidic Covenant
(f) New Covenant or Testament.

There are really only two, or at the most three religious administrations or dispensations, and these were variously administered according to the place in which you were in the unfolding revelation of the CoG. The religious administrations were shaped and secondary to their place in the unfolding of the CoG.

E.g. The period after circumcision was introduced until Moses , was part of the Patriarchal admin, but a new phase of it. The period after the Davidic Covenant was introduced until Chris was part of the Mosaic admin, but a new phase within it.
(a) The Patriachal Administration, from Adam to Moses, in which the father of the family administered divine worship, and offered one or two types of sacrifice on behalf of himself and his people.

(b) Mosaic Administration, from Moses to Christ, with the highly sophisticated and complex "Levitical Economy".

(c) Christian Administration, to end of the world, greatly simplified and more mature.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Scott1]

Westminster Confession of Faith

Chapter VII
Of God's Covenant with Man

I. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.[1]

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works,[2] wherein life was promised to Adam; and in him to his posterity,[3] upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.[4]

III. Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second,[5] commonly called the covenant of grace; wherein He freely offers unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ; requiring of them faith in Him, that they may be saved,[6] and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.[7]

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.[8]

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the Gospel:[9] under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come;[10] which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[11] by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.[12]

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance,[13] was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper:[14] which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy,[15] to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles;[16] and is called the New Testament.[17] There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.[18]

The Westminster Confession is a marvelous, succinct summary of the doctrine of Scripture.

Basically, salvation has been since the Fall, is now, and shall be until the end of the world,
by grace through faith (in Christ's righteousness alone).

What we call "covenant of works" and "covenant of grace" are descriptors of what the Scripture says explicitly and implicitly, but without using those terms. It's like the Trinity in that way.

The covenant of grace began immediately after the Fall when God did not kill Adam physically and end His Creation, the human race, but began showing mercy mixed in with the consequence of sin by redeeming a people for Himself.

The covenant of grace, throughout the Old and New Testaments are revealed progressively through covenants made with Noah, Abraham and David. Christ becomes more revealed, though He is implicit from the very beginning.

Lately, I've come to understand the work of redemption more in terms of the work of our Triune God- Father, Son and Holy Spirit. They are all, and have been, since eternity past, involved. And that goes back to what is sometimes called, the "covenant of redemption," amongst the Godhead. The Puritans called it the "counsel of peace."

 

[perl2012]

Thanks very much -- that was extremely helpful

 

[Miss Marple]

I have heard "mono covenantal" used as a negative term. In a nutshell, what does that mean?

I have always basically seen one covenant throughout redemptive history, although it is developed and expanded; I see it as the same covenant. Am I one of these "mono-covenantalists," and if so, why is that bad?

 

[Boosterseat_91]

I have heard "mono covenantal" used as a negative term. In a nutshell, what does that mean?

I have always basically seen one covenant throughout redemptive history, although it is developed and expanded; I see it as the same covenant. Am I one of these "mono-covenantalists," and if so, why is that bad?

In a nut shell it refers to those who reject the bi-covenantal view (a covenant of works and a covenant of grace) and instead accept a mono-covenantal view by rejecting the covenant of works. This is a part of Auburn Avenue Theology (aka federal vision theology). They redefine covenant as a relationship and since Adam was created in a relationship with God, a covenant of works was unnecessary. They tell us that we who are baptized are in a relationship with God in the same way Adam was and so must persevere in obedience if we are to attain "eschatological life" or "final justification." In other words, they accept the mono-covenantal view to deny justification as a one time declarative act of God and instead say that one can only be justified if they persevere - we are saved by faith and obedience according to their view.

So no; I don't believe you hold to that...at least I hope not! lol

 

[Unoriginalname]

I have heard "mono covenantal" used as a negative term. In a nutshell, what does that mean?

There are a couple views consider "mono covenantal" including the FV. That view in a nutshell is that basically any time God interacts with humanity it is gracious, which sounds nice until you realize that means that there is substantial difference between Adams standing before the Fall and ours now if true. It is the view that there was no covenant of works, which in turn tends to downplay or drop the concept of Christ's active obedience.

 

[Scott1]

Thanks, Leah
for the succinct summary of one aspect of the error of 'federal vision' (Auburn Avenue) theology.

For some reason, that is now really making sense, the error of it.

http://www.pcahistory.org/pca/07-fvreport.pdf

PCA "Federal Vision" Study Report

Declarations

1.The view that rejects the bi-covenantal structure of Scripture as represented in the Westminster Standards (i.e., views which do not merely take issue with the terminology, but the essence of the first/second covenant framework) is contrary to those Standards.

After all, Jesus is referred to as the second Adam, (cf I Cor. 15) doing what Adam did not do, perfectly obey (covenant of works to Adam).
In so doing, our Lord merited the righteousness reward of the covenant, by obeying.
Our Lord's perfect righteousness is imputed, "reckoned" to us which satisfies God's justice and secures our salvation.
Indeed, that's why we can never lose it.

I have always basically seen one covenant throughout redemptive history, although it is developed and expanded; I see it as the same covenant. Am I one of these "mono-covenantalists," and if so, why is that bad?

The "covenant of grace" begins right after the Fall, so all but the very first part of Scripture is about that.

But something hugely important changed when Adam fell.

 

[Miss Marple]

Thank you, I think I get it.

There were two covenants. The covenant of works (Adam told not to eat of the tree, and did, and fell) and the covenant of grace (begun in Genesis 3 as God promised a Seed to destroy the serpent, and expanded with Noah, and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, and finally and most majorly, Jesus).

Correct me if I'm off. The above I suppose is a bi-covenantal view.

 

[Scott1]

Thank you, I think I get it.

There were two covenants. The covenant of works (Adam told not to eat of the tree, and did, and fell) and the covenant of grace (begun in Genesis 3 as God promised a Seed to destroy the serpent, and expanded with Noah, and Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses, and finally and most majorly, Jesus).

Correct me if I'm off. The above I suppose is a bi-covenantal view.

I think you are basically correct.

Remember, Adam's initial blessing and communion with God were dependent on him obeying God. When Adam, and all mankind with him fell, it changed everything.

Ever since, God has been working out an unfathomable plan to redeem a people. Central to that was Jesus Christ's perfect obedience, doing what Adam did not do, therefore satisfying God's justice. That perfect obedience was part of His perfect sacrifice, which included blood atonement upon the cross.

Somehow the "alien righteousness" of our Lord becomes ours, for Christ's sake, according to the plan of our Triune God from the beginning.

And almost all the Old and New Testaments are about that, progressively revealing that plan under what we describe as a "covenant of grace."

(This is but another reason that 'federal vision' is so harmful, because it is, at best, a confusion of central truth of the gospel. But that is another discussion.... )

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Hi Richard,

I'm doing a series on covenant theology on the HB.