Westminster and the CoG

[Poimen]

According to the Larger Catechism we read:

Q34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?

A34: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

How does this fit with the Presbyterian view that the covenant of grace is made with believers and their seed? Is this Q&A looking at the CofG from the eyes of the essence of the covenant of grace, and, if so, where does the Catechism or Confession, in your opinion, 'balance' it with the administration of the covenant of grace?

I apologize if this has been discussed before (as I am almost certain that it has) but a search turned up nothing. I would be grateful if someone could point me to an thread or article that rightly explains this point.

 

[Me Died Blue]

I would say yes, it is indeed looking at the Covenant of Grace in terms of its "essence," or its invisible or internal sense, which is simply how the Confession speaks of the Covenant of Redemption without using that term. The same thing can be seen in Question 31, and that question is discussed here, particularly in terms of the distinction you are pointing to in this thread. I think Fred's comments from that thread are especially helpful, and relevant to the current thread:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
That is because the Confession does not take a hard and fast distinction between the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Redemption. It instead views the Covenant of Grace from two perspectives: visible/temporal and invisible/eternal.

There is no real substantive difference.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
It's really simple, and this is true of all Westminster Calvinists:

Either
1. There is a Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Redemption, with the former including both elect and reprobate, and the latter only the elect. This was the position of Rutherford and others.

OR

2. There is only a Covenant of Grace, with two aspects to the covenant, one external (including both elect and reprobate) and internal (including only the elect). This was the position of Thomas Boston and others.

There is no other position consistent with the Confession.

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Daniel,

I'm not sure I would speak of the "Presbyterian" view of the covenant of grace. There isn't anything in the WCF that most of the Dutch Reformed didn't say in the same period.

Like Olevianus, Ursinus, Wollebius, and Witsius on the continent, the Westminster Divines assumed and taught a distinction between those who are in the covenant of grace only externally and those who are in the covenant of grace both externally and internally.

The key word here is "administer." Everyone to whom and with whom the covenant of grace is administered is "in" the covenant of grace, but not all are "in" in precisely the same way, i.e., not everyone in the covenant of grace has precisely the same relation to it.

Some in the covenant of grace only relate to it on the administrative level. They are "enlightened" but not regenerate; they "taste of the power of the age to come," but they do not actually become partakers of it. Instead, the ultimately "tread underfoot" the blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant.

So, while the administration of the covenant of grace is common to elect and non-elect in the visible covenant assembly, election does ultimately distinguish who enjoys what Olevianus called "the substance" of the covenant of grace i.e., its double benefit of justification and consequent sanctification.

As I understand him, and his tradiiton, this is where Schilder had difficulty. By eliminating the visible church/invisible church distinction and the "internal/external" distinction, by putting every baptized person in the covenant of grace in precisely the same way, Schilder's scheme tends, ironically, to conflate the administration of the covenant of grace with the decree. I understand that this result was exactly opposite KS' intention; he intended to virtually separate "covenant" as administration and "decree," but by obliterating the attending distinctions, he ended up conflating them just as Hoeksema did, if for different reasons. So the Schilderites think primarily (only) of administration and the Hoeksemites (!) think only of decree, but they both conflate decree and administration in their own way.

As I understand it, however, the WLC here is really discussing the diachronic, historical, administration of the covenant of grace under Moses, not exactly the distinction (as in 1 Cor 10; Heb 4,6,10) between elect and reprobate in the covenant of grace at any particular time.

Blessings,

rsc

 

[Peter]

WLC Q34 is speaking about the CoG proper and not the CoR. I could be wrong but I think Fred is mistaken. In position #2 of above, the Covenant of Redemption is between God the Father and the Son about the Elect but not with the Elect. In #2, again, the 1st aspect of the CoG is the covenant between the Father and the Son and the 2nd with the elect.

I think it is proper to say the CoG is with only the elect however the outward administration of the CoG is with all professing believers and their children.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Daniel, as far as where Question 34's reference to the invisible side of the Covenant of Grace is "balanced" with an explanation of the visible side, that is done in questions 60-63:

Q. 61. Are all they saved who hear the gospel, and live in the church?

A. All that hear the gospel, and live in the visible church, are not saved; but they only who are true members of the church invisible.

Q. 62. What is the visible church?

A. The visible church is a society made up of all such as in all ages and places of the world do profess the true religion, and of their children.

Q. 63. What are the special privileges of the visible church?

A. The visible church hath the privilege of being under God´s special care and government; of being protected and preserved in all ages, notwithstanding the opposition of all enemies; and of enjoying the communion of saints, the ordinary means of salvation, and offers of grace by Christ to all the members of it in the ministry of the gospel, testifying, that whosoever believes in him shall be saved, and excluding none that will come unto him.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

As Berkhof points out, you have to think of the Covenant of Grace as being occupied legally (for example, by children of believers) and salvificly (the elect, which we cannot "see" or "number" in time). We administer the CoG according to its legal occupants, and those who are members of the CoG salvificly will be revealed at the eschaton when the wheat is separated from the weeds.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
As Berkhof points out, you have to think of the Covenant of Grace as being occupied legally (for example, by children of believers) and salvificly (the elect, which we cannot "see" or "number" in time). We administer the CoG according to its legal occupants, and those who are members of the CoG salvificly will be revealed at the eschaton when the wheat is separated from the weeds.

Well put.

 

[Poimen]

Thanks again Scott.

Yes I shouldn't have said Presbyterian but I put it that way mainly because I was discussing the WCF.

 

[Poimen]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark
Daniel,

As I understand him, and his tradiiton, this is where Schilder had difficulty. By eliminating the visible church/invisible church distinction and the "internal/external" distinction, by putting every baptized person in the covenant of grace in precisely the same way, Schilder's scheme tends, ironically, to conflate the administration of the covenant of grace with the decree. I understand that this result was exactly opposite KS' intention; he intended to virtually separate "covenant" as administration and "decree," but by obliterating the attending distinctions, he ended up conflating them just as Hoeksema did, if for different reasons. So the Schilderites think primarily (only) of administration and the Hoeksemites (!) think only of decree, but they both conflate decree and administration in their own way.

What you state here is, in my experience, quite right. When I came to seminary I held to Schilder's position in relation to distinguishing between the covenant and election but as you state his argument (which I did not wholly understand at the time) tends to destroy the very foundation he is working off of by denying those classical distinctions.

What you are saying makes alot of sense in my interaction and reading of CanRC theology. This may be why some in the CanRC, as another has pointed out, tend to be hyper-calvinistic because they end up looking through the eyes of the decree even though their theology did not intially direct them there.

I think you just hit the theological nail square on the head.

 

[Poimen]

Thanks for the references Chris.

 

[turmeric]

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Like Olevianus, Ursinus, Wollebius, and Witsius on the continent, the Westminster Divines assumed and taught a distinction between those who are in the covenant of grace only externally and those who are in the covenant of grace both externally and internally.

The key word here is "administer." Everyone to whom and with whom the covenant of grace is administered is "in" the covenant of grace, but not all are "in" in precisely the same way, i.e., not everyone in the covenant of grace has precisely the same relation to it.

Some in the covenant of grace only relate to it on the administrative level. They are "enlightened" but not regenerate; they "taste of the power of the age to come," but they do not actually become partakers of it. Instead, the ultimately "tread underfoot" the blood of Christ, the blood of the covenant.

Dr.Clark,
Is this where the FV people are getting off-track, confusing administration with substance?

 

[R. Scott Clark]

Originally posted by turmeric

Originally posted by R. Scott Clark

Like Olevianus, Ursinus, Wollebius, and Witsius on the continent, the Westminster Divines assumed and taught a distinction between those who are in the covenant of grace only externally and those who are in the covenant of grace both externally and internally.

Dr.Clark,

Is this where the FV people are getting off-track, confusing administration with substance?

Yes, I think so. In virtually every case they deny the distinction between "internal" and "external."

This leads them to teach that every baptized person is united to Christ, using Schilder's phrase, "head for head." Schilder also said "it's [the covenant of grace] all or nothing." In other words, one is either in the covenant of grace in exactly the same way as every other baptized person or one is not in the covenant of grace at all. For KS and others, there are not multiple states within the covenant of grace.

Thus I heard a minister a couple of summers ago say that in baptism every baptized person is united to Christ. This leads them to posit a bi-level covenant theology. The decree is one level, but that is virtually theoretical. The second level is the administrative level, wherein every baptized person has "covenantally" (i.e., temporarily and provisionally) all the blessings of the covenant of grace (i.e., the entire ordo salutis short of glorification). In this scheme, salvation is, as they say in Vegas, "theirs to lose." So, the second half of the sermon on baptism was on faith as obedience whereby we keep what we've been given in baptism.

One can see why the NPP is attractive to these folks. "In by grace, stay in by works/cooperating with grace." If one looks to the sidelines, one can see the Tridentine divines shouting: You go girl! That's what we said in 1547. Where have you been all these years?

It's all about holding on to what one has been given in baptism. Thus, strictly, they're not just teaching baptismal regeneration, but baptismal union with Christ (ex opere operato!) and thus baptismal salvation.

To lose the "internal/external" distinction and its corollaries, is to lose sola fide.

rsc

 

[turmeric]

Yup, RefCats!

Thanks, Dr.Clark.

 

[Scott]

Dr. Clark - thanks for your posts. They are clear and helpful.