What's "NEW" about the New Covenant?

Status
Not open for further replies.

steadfast7

Puritan Board Junior
I really need to flesh out covenant theology. Thanks in advance for your assistance!

If salvation has always been the same through all ages, and a covenant of grace provided since the beginning that leads to a circumcision of heart (renewing of heart), and the Mosaic covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace, then what is "NEW" about the New Covenant?
 
Dennis,

Jeremiah 31:31-34 31 "Behold, days are coming," declares the LORD, "when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah, 32 not like the covenant which I made with their fathers in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt, My covenant which they broke, although I was a husband to them," declares the LORD. 33 "But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days," declares the LORD, "I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 34 "They will not teach again, each man his neighbor and each man his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they will all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them," declares the LORD, "for I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more."

First, it is important to note that the New Covenant is not like the previous covenant; the Old Covenant. The New Covenant is defined by its difference to the previous covenant. Even though the Old Covenant pointed to a new and better covenant from its inception, it was not built strictly on grace. It required and allowed for obedience both from true spiritual children of Abraham and physical descendants only. In that regard the covenant was able to be broken through acts of disobedience (v. 32).

The New Covenant will be unlike the Old Covenant in that it is made with a) only the spiritual seed of Abraham b) it is an unbreakable covenant; by God or man.

The New Covenant has a "now and not yet" administration. Christians are the spiritual seed of Abraham, and as such they are members of the New Covenant. Unfortunately sin still abides, so the full manifestation of the New Covenant will not be realized until the eternal state.

Paul writes about the uniqueness of the New Covenant:

2 Corinthians 3:5-6 5 Not that we are adequate in ourselves to consider anything as coming from ourselves, but our adequacy is from God, 6 who also made us adequate as servants of a new covenant, not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life (emphasis mine).
 
Newness of the New Covenant

Heb. 8:8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the LORD, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah--
9 "not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the LORD.
10 "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.
11 "None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying,`Know the LORD,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them.
12 "For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more."
13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

The covenantees are new- they all know the Lord, whereas the Sinai Covenant included a mixed multitude.

The work of the Guarantor is new. The Lord Himself assures that every member will comply with the particulars of the covenant.
 
Thanks Bill. Now, when you say,
Even though the Old Covenant pointed to a new and better covenant from its inception, it was not built strictly on grace.
... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?

This discontinuity between the old and new has always been my reading of the covenants, but is this still a Covenantally Reformed view?
 
Thanks Bill. Now, when you say,
Even though the Old Covenant pointed to a new and better covenant from its inception, it was not built strictly on grace.
... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?

This discontinuity between the old and new has always been my reading of the covenants, but is this still a Covenantally Reformed view?

Dennis,

Well *chuckle* it depends on who you're asking to define what is Reformed. I will say that it is the majority covenantal view among Baptists. I don't want to be accused of gutting grace/redemption out of the Old Covenant; it's there in that the Old Covenant points forward, albeit requires, a better covenant.

By the way, this is why I believe the baptism debate fails on both sides when arguing over the ordinance itself. The issue is solved if we better understand the nature of the New Covenant.
 
Agreed Bill. Good thoughts.

How do you Presbyterians understand the newness of the New Covenant, then?
 
... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?

I don't think you will find this "new covenant" teaching in the antipaedobaptist revision of Westminster-Savoy. Quite the opposite, following Westminsterian theology the antipaedobaptist revision continues to maintain the offer of the gospel is an administration of the covenant of grace, in which there are some only outwardly called, in which there continues to be temporary believers, and also chastisements and temporal judgements for true believers. On the subject of Christ the Mediator and justification it is maintained that salvation is the same for Old and New Testament believers alike. As there is no revision of Westminster-Savoy on these subjects there is no basis for alleging there is a distinct "Reformed antipaedobaptist" position as over against a Reformed paedobaptist position.
 
Interesting, Rev. Winzer. If this is so, then both the Presbyterian and Baptistic historic Reformed would agree that the new-ness is only in the administration of the same covenant of grace. It still puzzles me what would be new about it. When the administration moved from the Abrahamic to the Mosaic, it was never called a new covenant. How I am understanding the covenants is that it is the progressive revealing of the same thing, only the image becomes sharper through time. If one grants the analogy, when a sapling becomes a young tree, is it considered "new"?
 
It still puzzles me what would be new about it.

According to both Confessions, concerning the law of God, the difference is in ceremonials, on the understanding that morals ever remain the same.

With the benefit of the Larger Catechism, "more fulness, evidence and efficacy, to all nations" marks the administration of the covenant under the New Testament. So there is a freshness even with respect to substantials even though there is not a complete newness.
 
With the benefit of the Larger Catechism, "more fulness, evidence and efficacy, to all nations" marks the administration of the covenant under the New Testament. So there is a freshness even with respect to substantials even though there is not a complete newness.

But the covenant of grace was open to those gentiles, even nations, who believed and repented. Is newness, then, only a matter of degree?
 
But the covenant of grace was open to those gentiles, even nations, who believed and repented. Is newness, then, only a matter of degree?

The Gentiles were required to be subservient to Israel under the old administration. That which is revealed in the New is that the Gentiles are fellow heirs of the household of God, Eph. 2, 3; hence the freedom from Israel's ceremonies decreed by the Council of Jerusalem.

Yes; substantials, morals, are the same in kind, different in degree. Ceremonials have changed.
 
With the benefit of the Larger Catechism, "more fulness, evidence and efficacy, to all nations" marks the administration of the covenant under the New Testament. So there is a freshness even with respect to substantials even though there is not a complete newness.

But the covenant of grace was open to those gentiles, even nations, who believed and repented. Is newness, then, only a matter of degree?

Remember Dennis that Israel was the Pedagogical Church as it is mentioned in Galatians. One had to adhere to a nationality of Israel in the Covenant. If they didn't they were considered cut off. I think you are forgetting the scriptures that we discussed earlier in Ephesians 2. The Kingdom has now a focus on the whole world as it calls all men together under Christ's Kingship.

(Eph 2:11) Wherefore remember, that ye being in time past Gentiles in the flesh, who are called Uncircumcision by that which is called the Circumcision in the flesh made by hands;

(Eph 2:12) That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:


(Eph 2:13) But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.


(Eph 2:14) For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;


(Eph 2:15) Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace;


(Eph 2:16) And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:


(Eph 2:17) And came and preached peace to you which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.


(Eph 2:18) For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father.


(Eph 2:19) Now therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners, but fellowcitizens with the saints, and of the household of God;


(Eph 2:20) And are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ himself being the chief corner stone;


(Eph 2:21) In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy temple in the Lord:


(Eph 2:22) In whom ye also are builded together for an habitation of God through the Spirit.

No it isn't only a matter of degree as has been mentioned in other threads you have participated in. The Newness also has to do with how the Covenant of grace is administered. If you want to note that it is only a matter of degree so be it. It is New because Christ has come. That is no small degree. The Promises and Shadows have been fulfilled. We have gone from shadow to reality. We have gone from type to anti-type. We have gone from yearly sacrifices (the old way) to one Sacrifice for all sin past, present, and future. If you want to say that is a matter of degree then I don't know how to tell you what newness is. It was new that our mediation before God by way of the Levitical priesthood has been done away and we now have a better Priest, Christ Jesus our Lord and Saviour. That is different and new.

Remember this?

Let's look at what is said to be new. Is forgiveness of sin a new concept? No. But the text says "I will remember their sins no more." What is meant? Hebrews 8-10 tells us that it refers to sacrifice for sin. God will not require a yearly remembrance of sin by means of an annual sacrifice. So clearly the substance of the covenant has not changed. Forgiveness of sin was as much a reality of the old covenant as it is for the new. But the administration of the covenant has changed. Now we do not require a yearly sacrifice.

Let's look at another aspect of the description -- teaching. What is the point of reference? Is it all teaching? That cannot be the case, because the NT specifically speaks of teachers as one of the ascension gifts Christ has poured out upon His church. So when the text says that a man will no longer teach his neighbour, the point of reference cannot be to teaching per se, but must refer to a specific aspect of teaching, namely, the mediatorial function of the priesthood. Men could not come directly into the presence of God under the old covenant, but were dependent upon the ministry of priests to offer sacrifices and prayers on their behalf, and to teach them the significance of the sacrifices. As Hebrews 10 explains, all may now come boldly into the Holiest of all by means of the one sacrifice of our great High Priest, without the use of priestly intermediaries. All believers are priests unto God. So we note that coming into the presence of God was as much a reality for old covenant believers as for new covenant believers. The substance has not changed. What has changed is the administration of the covenant.
 
Agree completely, Pastor Winzer - and I think you've put the case nicely. I do think also, if I might interject, that the testamentary aspect of the New Covenant should be mentioned as well. The New Covenant is also New because it explicitly involves the testament of one who has died (namely Christ) - this testamentary aspect is one that the Old Covenant did not, nay, could not have, as Christ was not yet come in flesh. Now that He has come, lived and died, this other aspect/usage of the Greek word diatheke comes into clear view. This is, indeed, a 'newness' to the New Covenant.
 
Israel was the Pedagogical Church as it is mentioned in Galatians. One had to adhere to a nationality of Israel in the Covenant. If they didn't they were considered cut off. I think you are forgetting the scriptures that we discussed earlier in Ephesians 2. The Kingdom has now a focus on the whole world as it calls all men together under Christ's Kingship.
But I've found covenant theology quick to point out that the Gentile church is grafted into Israel's paradigm except for that which is fulfilled in Christ or nationally significant. What is actually different in the administration, may I ask? Gentiles are still inducted with a covenant sign, they are subservient to the same moral law, their covenant status functions federally, a mixed church membership still exists, blessings and curses remain, and being cut off from the covenant community is still possible.

Can I get some details on this concept of administration?

thanks.

---------- Post added at 11:08 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:06 AM ----------

The Baptist interpretation of a newly constituted regenerate membership is significant enough, in my judgment, to warrant the term "new."
 
What is actually different in the administration, may I ask? Gentiles are still inducted with a covenant sign, they are subservient to the same moral law, their covenant status functions federally, a mixed church membership still exists, blessings and curses remain, and being cut off from the covenant community is still possible.

We could enumerate all day. Let's take two -- circumcision and passover. It is clear that there was something here too hard to be borne, Acts 15. Christ's yoke is easier, Matt. 11. Circumcision made Moses a bloody man. Christ's blood is shed for the remission of sins. Baptism therefore signifies the effect, the washing. Much easier. Again, passover involved bloody sacrifice. Again, Christ's blood purges the conscience from dead works to serve the living God. The Lord's supper does not include the typical element of blood-shedding, but only the nourishing sign of feeding on Christ's body and blood. Again, much easier. And so we could go through all the ordinances. No central place of worship. No mediating priesthood. No incense or instruments, etc. All is easy in comparison.
 
Although these administrations are significant changes, I still read differences in degree - the main one being degree of ease. I think if we were to list them all (a worthy exercise perhaps), we would probably find that administrations under the old covenant are prefigurations or types of what is fulfilled in Christ (sufficient gospel during that administration, of course). Christ's coming supplies the substance to figures like circumcision, passover, temple worship, etc. But baptism and the Lord's Supper are more like reformulations of ordinances that maintain a lot of the same imagery and substance. The New Covenant speaks of it being "not like" the covenant had with the forefathers. Is the force of this "not like" appreciated in the scheme presented?
 
Although these administrations are significant changes, I still read differences in degree - the main one being degree of ease. I think if we were to list them all (a worthy exercise perhaps), we would probably find that administrations under the old covenant are prefigurations or types of what is fulfilled in Christ (sufficient gospel during that administration, of course). Christ's coming supplies the substance to figures like circumcision, passover, temple worship, etc. But baptism and the Lord's Supper are more like reformulations of ordinances that maintain a lot of the same imagery and substance. The New Covenant speaks of it being "not like" the covenant had with the forefathers. Is the force of this "not like" appreciated in the scheme presented?

A type requires a correspondence or "likeness" to the Antitype. You are admitting the Old Testament ordinances were types, but then you suggest that there should be something "not like" them in the New Testament. Hebrews uses the word "better," "superior," which is a comparative, but you seem to require something that is altogether different and beyond comparison.
 
Although these administrations are significant changes, I still read differences in degree - the main one being degree of ease. I think if we were to list them all (a worthy exercise perhaps), we would probably find that administrations under the old covenant are prefigurations or types of what is fulfilled in Christ (sufficient gospel during that administration, of course). Christ's coming supplies the substance to figures like circumcision, passover, temple worship, etc. But baptism and the Lord's Supper are more like reformulations of ordinances that maintain a lot of the same imagery and substance. The New Covenant speaks of it being "not like" the covenant had with the forefathers. Is the force of this "not like" appreciated in the scheme presented?

A type requires a correspondence or "likeness" to the Antitype. You are admitting the Old Testament ordinances were types, but then you suggest that there should be something "not like" them in the New Testament. Hebrews uses the word "better," "superior," which is a comparative, but you seem to require something that is altogether different and beyond comparison.

Point noted. The superlatives do suggest comparison. Does not the wording of the New Covenant suggest some break from the past? It lists a number of things that suggest regeneration: the law written on minds and hearts, a new heart given, a knowledge of the Lord, forgiveness of sins. This is no doubt attested in Old Covenant religion. Those saved by the CoG enjoyed these benefits fully in Christ, so there's nothing new on that level. I can see how a new administration of the ordinances demonstrate a difference, but the language is still very strong. Is it not possible that the prophet is speaking of other aspects, for example, the membership of the NC (only the regenerate)?
 
Last edited:
Is it not possible that the prophet is speaking of other aspects, for example, the membership of the NC (only the regenerate)?

This was discussed on the previous thread. No, it's not possible. Heb 8-10 utilises the promise of Jeremiah for the purpose of showing a change in the priesthood -- a point of objective administration. The idea of "regenerate only membership" would subjectivise the covenant and destroy the objective, redemptive-historical argument of the text. And the warning which comes at the end of that section in chap. 10, with regard to what would happen if the Hebrews did not hold fast the profession of their faith, would make no sense.
 
Dennis,
I think you need to take some time to pray about and meditate on this. I believe your questions have all been answered quite well in the last few threads we have discussed this. You might want to revisit the past thread where we discussed this quite a bit.

I will give you some of the pertinent posts here. Take some time and think about this before you start repeating the questions. It seems we are just going in circles. It is getting a bit tiring answering the same questions over and over the past few threads.

Herb,

There is the inward and outward administration of the Covenant of Grace. God is gracious and there are benefits for both the regenerate and unregenerate in that Covenant inclusion. The inward and outward aspects of the Covenant are something that need to be pursued maybe.
http://www.puritanboard.com/content/circumcision-baptism-compared-60/

(Rom 9:3) For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

(Rom 9:4) Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;


(Rom 9:5) Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

I don't think you can deny that the Abrahamic is an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

Pastor Jerrold H. Lewis discusses this on the PB a bit. Here is his post from a while back.

http://www.puritanboard.com/f31/unbelievers-new-covenant-34859/#post432492
Presbyterian Federal Holiness


By Rev. J Lewis
Lacombe Free Reformed Church

Under the Old Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant was largely a physical covenant with a spiritual remnant imbibing in promises and blessings. Under the New Testament administration of the Covenant of Grace, the covenant is not primarily physical with a spiritual component, but primarily spiritual with a physical component (Hodge 130). Hebrews 8 and Jeremiah 31 are very descriptive as to the nature of the New Covenant in contrast with the status quo,

Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more. (Jeremiah 31:31-34)
Obviously there was a change of administration in the New Covenant as well as a change of emphasis. The Covenant of Grace today is so overtly spiritual, one can almost speak of it exclusively in ethereal terms. Indeed the Westminster Confession of Faith does so by insisting that the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only (Chapter 7; LC 30, 31, 32). Yet the Westminster Standards also speak of a secondary and subordinate sense of the Covenant of Grace that is objective and physical. Larger Catechism Q & A 166 says,

Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?

A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized. (Emphasis mine)(Westminster Larger Catechism, 256)

Some have contended that the Westminster Larger Catechism holds within itself a tension regarding with whom the Covenant of Grace is made (Baldwin). It is argued that in Larger Catechism Q & A 31, the Covenant of Grace is made with the elect only, while Q & A 166 teaches that the Covenant of Grace is made with the members of the Visible Church. One can see the apparent contradiction.

But is this a valid criticism and a real tension? Or is it the case that the Larger Catechism is speaking about two different aspects of the Covenant of Grace, one spiritual and unbreakable, the other conditional and breakable? To answer this question we may turn to one of the greatest of all Westminster Divines, Samuel Rutherford.

Samuel Rutherford

In his monumental and rarely read book The Covenant of Life Opened (1654), Rutherford discuses the Covenant of Grace in two important ways. First he insists that the Covenant of Grace is only made with the elect in Christ, and that the Covenant is manifestly to be understood in such term (94). After establishing this indisputable fact Rutherford opens up the Covenant in a twofold way, first in abstracto by visible profession, in which the covenant is "professed, visible, and conditional," and then in concreto, where the covenant is, "internal, real, and absolute"(94). It is for this reason Rutherford finds no tension in the Larger Catechism and has no problem saying that the unregenerate, in one way, are in the Covenant of Grace:

It is no inconvenient [sic] that the Reprobate in the Visible Church, be so under the Covenant of Grace, as some promises are made to them, and some promised to them conditionally, and some reserved special promises, of a new heart, and of perseverance belong not to them. For all the promises belong not the same way, to the parties visibly and externally, and the parties internally and personally in Covenant with God.(94)
By in abstracto Rutherford means, " formally, in the letter as a simple way of saving sinners", in which contains only "the will of precept". Rutherford argues for a external and breakable Covenant that is made by baptism and profession only. This is not the true spiritual, real, and unbreakable Covenant of Grace; it is a temporary perceptive membership that is not savingly covenantal (94).

Under the marginal heading, How visible professors are really within the Covenant, & not really within it, Rutherford Writes,

The adverb (really) relates to the real fruit of the fulfilled covenant, and so such as are only externally within the Covenant, are not really within the Covenant, for God never directed, nor intended to bestow the blessing Covenanted, nor grace to perform the condition of the Covenant upon them. But they are really Covenanted and engaged by their confessed profession to fulfill the Covenant. And as the commands and threatenings of the Covenant of Grace lay on a real obligation, upon such as are only externally in Covenant, either to obey or suffer, so the promises of the Covenant imposes an engagement and obligation on such to believe the promise, but some times, we say the promises of the Covenant of Grace are not really made to the reprobate within the Visible Church, because God intends and decrees to, and for them, neither the blessing promised, nor the saving grace to fulfill the condition to believe. (92)

In this way says Rutherford, "all within the Visible Church are in the Covenant of Grace" (94). It is in this same way Rutherford can speak of a Federal Holiness that allows for Larger Catechism 166 to remain non-contradictory with Larger Catechism 31. Federal holiness is not necessarily a saving holiness but a setting apart by covenant promise. Rutherford is very clear that true holiness while set in the context of a federal promise, is truly predicated upon God's secret decree. Observe:

But as touching real holiness, it is not derived from a believing father, or to make the son a believer, Scripture and experience say the contrair. Nor is internal and effectual confederacie with God, that, by which one is a son of promise. 1. For no man is chosen to life in his father, because the father is chosen. A chosen father may have a reprobate son. 2. Election to life is not of nations, or houses, or societies, but of single person. (85)

Needless to say, Rutherford believes that mere Federal Holiness is no true holiness unless regeneration has taken place. Yes, there is a physical aspect to the Covenant of Grace which has blessings and cursing; however, for it to carry any lasting benefit, it must be a personal work wrought by the effectual converting power of the Holy Spirit in a one-to-one correlation between election and regeneration.

James Bannerman

Likewise, another great Presbyterian who wrote extensively on the nature of the Church (and the Covenant) also found no tension in the Westminster Standard's regarding the Covenant of Grace. In his two volume work, The Church of Christ, James Bannerman, taught an important contrast between the members of the Church visible and invisible. "The Church invisible stands, with respect to its members, in an inward and spiritual relationship to Christ, whereas the Church visible stands to Him in outward relationship only" (Bannerman 29).

The visible/invisible distinction according to Bannerman cannot go unnoticed. Observe how he uses visible Church and external covenant synonymously.

The external relationship in which the members of the visible Church stand to Christ, as having been brought into a Church state from out of the world, has been often spoken of by theologians under the name of an external covenant or federal relationship. Whatever name may be given to it, there is no doubt there is a real and important relationship into which the members of the visible Church have entered... (30)
Later he reinforces this same idea when he states, "This relation of the mere formal professor and member of the visible Church to Christ may be called an external covenant and an outward federal union, or not. But under whatever name, it in important to bear in mind that there is such a relationship involving both real responsibilities and real privileges. (Emphasis mine)(32)

Bannerman is equally clear as Rutherford insisting the true, vital, saving, unbreakable nature of the Covenant of Grace as it stands in eternity, is made with the elect alone.

In so far as the Church invisible is concerned, the truth of this statement will be admitted by all. There can be no difference of opinion on this point. The proper party with whom the covenant of grace is made, and to whom its promises and privileged belongs is the invisible Church of real believers. It is this Church for whom Christ died. (30-31)
He goes on to say, "The case is all together different for with the visible Church. It stands not in an inward and saving relationship to Christ, but in an outward relationship only, involving no more than the promise and enjoyment of outward privileges" (31).

In this regard, to suggest that the Covenant of Grace has a works component upon its entry is to misunderstand its function entirely. Every good Presbyterian will agree that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from any works of the law. This federal and outward separation that is called "sanctified" and "holy" in 1 Corinthians 7:14, "broken off branches" in John 15;1-8, and "unwise virgins" in Matthew 25, is meant to convey how God sets aside certain people to be objects of physical, covenantal blessings. These outward blessings (which are not saving), such as hearing the Word preached, observing or participating in the sacraments, and involvement in the fellowship of the covenant community, are the means by which God brings the unregenerate soul within earshot of the call of the Gospel; inviting all to come from darkness to light, from the temporal covenant into the Everlasting Covenant. Bannerman says, "To the external privileges of that visible society even sinners are invited,- not that they may rest there, but that they may go on to the invisible and spiritual society within." The visible covenant blessings are meant to cause the sinner to "seek for something higher and more blessed" (33).

The spiritual blessings and promises of the Covenant of Grace must be the dominant theme in all federalist teaching and preaching. Bannerman reminds us that in the separation between Rome and Protestantism the visible/invisible Church distinction, "...lies at the very foundation of the controversy between them. The strong desire and tenancy with Popish controversialists is to deny the existence of the invisible Church; or when they are not bold enough to do that, at least to give the decided precedence to the Church visible"(37).

This should be avoided at all costs. The invisible Church is the true Church, it is the "glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish" (Eph 5:27).

Conclusion

When we speak of Federal Holiness it should always be in light of its goal- a saving relationship with Jesus Christ, the Elect One. To simply think of Church members as being in confederacy with Christ by baptism and profession is to forget the most vital portion of the equation. Indeed many today are so emphasizing the mere federal element of the Covenant of Grace they are(practically speaking), omitting the weightier matters of the Covenant.

Inward union is the only true union with Christ. Any substitution of Church-ism in place of the internal operation of the Spirit is to supplant the roll of the Visible Church and turn the gospel on its head. We must be diligent in both our understanding and application of every aspect of Christ's Church and of His gracious covenant.

Bannerman's conclusion is a good one:

[N]othing but a clear discernment of the principles that connect and yet distinguish the Church invisible from the Church visible, and a right application of these to explain the statements of the Word of God on the point, will save us from mistakes fraught with the most ruinous consequences both in doctrine and practice. (40)



Bibliography

1. Baldwin, Bill. Several Quick Arguments That The Covenant of Works is Not Gracious. <http://www.upper-register.com/ct_gospel/several_quick.html#note3> 2002.

3. Hodge, Archibald. Commentary on the Westminster Confession of Faith. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1965.

2.Rutherford, Samuel. The Covenant of Life Opened. Edinburgh: 1654.

3. Bannerman, James. The Church of Christ. London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1960.

4. Westminster Divines. Westminster Larger Catechism. Glasgow: Free Presbyterian Publications, 1995.


If the new covenant is part of covenant of grace then the new covenant must contain reprobates, correct? How are we to hold to this teaching when Jer. says the members of the new covenant will all know the Lord;

If taken in this way the passage from Jeremiah would also do away with teaching elders. If read in the light of its fulfilment and exposition in Hebrews 8-10, however, it is clear that the difference is not between "not knowing the Lord" in the old covenant and "knowing the Lord" in the new covenant. The difference is in the medium by which the Lord is known. Under the Old Testament it was mediated through priests. Priests sacrificed on behalf of the people and taught them to know the Lord. As Heb 8-10 explains, the sacrifice of Christ has done away with mediating priests. The Lord is known in Christ. Hence the need to hold fast the confession of Christ.

When Jer. and Heb. say they shall all know me, that strikes me as being quantitative in nature - not some, not many but ALL. This is different than how we come to know the Lord.

The idea of an internalised covenant is irrelevant to the point of a change of priesthood. If internalisation does away with priesthood it also does away with all ministry, including the teaching ministry. That can't be the use that is made of Jeremiah in Heb. 8-10, which is seeking to establish that the Aaronic priesthood has been superseded by Christ. Heb 5 had also acknowledged the place of "teachers" under the new covenant. The point about the law being written in the heart is in opposition to the tablets of stone on which "the law as a covenant" was given to the people. That law-covenant was established in sacrificial blood which required the function of a mediating priest. See Ps. 40:6-8, quoted in Hebrews 10, for the reality of the law written in the heart as preferable to sacrifices and offerings. What was preferred under the old covenant has become an exclusive arrangement under the new.



What I am trying to get my arms around is whether or not all members of the new covenant are elect and only the elect. How does the above address that?

The "internalisation" argument is used by its advocates to imply a regenerate covenant membership. "Regenerate" and "elect" are functionally equivalent in this approach since only the elect are regenerated and have the law written on the heart. As noted, however, "internalisation" does not establish the point of Heb 8-10. It is not a subjective and individual experience but an objective reality in redemptive history which is the point of the passage. There is a change of priesthood because there is a change of covenant. The change cannot be from the external to the internal but must be an external change which alters the ceremonial aspect of the old covenant because it is fulfilled, abrogated, and superseded by Christ. In (Westminster) confessional terms, the administration has changed.

The figures and types of the OT come to its realization in the new covenant, which is in Christ's blood. This blood sprinkles the elect and does so perfectly.

There does seem to be some form of sanctification in the Covenant of Christ's blood that takes place in Hebrews 10:29 for those who end up apostatizing.

(Heb 10:29) Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace? KJV

(Heb 10:29) How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? ESV
 
Last edited:
Is it not possible that the prophet is speaking of other aspects, for example, the membership of the NC (only the regenerate)?

This was discussed on the previous thread. No, it's not possible. Heb 8-10 utilises the promise of Jeremiah for the purpose of showing a change in the priesthood -- a point of objective administration. The idea of "regenerate only membership" would subjectivise the covenant and destroy the objective, redemptive-historical argument of the text. And the warning which comes at the end of that section in chap. 10, with regard to what would happen if the Hebrews did not hold fast the profession of their faith, would make no sense.

I've been trying to percolate over this concept of a charge of subjectivising the covenant. Honestly, I think the terminology just needs to be presented to me in simpler terms. However, allow me to interact with what I think you're saying. I don't think that the change in objective priesthood needs to dominate the discussion. Look at what the writer of Hebrews says RIGHT before he cites Jeremiah. He says, "For he finds fault with THEM when he says:" ... and he goes on to quote the New Covenant. His concern IS subjective at its inception, it seems to me. It is about people. It is about the people to whom the NC applies, at least in my reading. The problem that he views is that God's people are an unregenerate people who do not know the Lord. But, in the New Covenant, this will not be so. God makes sure of it by his own atoning blood.

And, the argument about the need for teachers in the New Covenant ... there is a very real sense in which there is no need to admonish a regenerate person that they ought to know the Lord. The last thing on my mind is to encourage you, Randy, or Rev. Winzer, that you ought to know the Lord. This is not on my evangelistic priority list. And I happen to think that this is an outworking of the New Covenant.
 
The last thing on my mind is to encourage you, Randy, or Rev. Winzer, that you ought to know the Lord.

I have had people in my life who have told me during certain times that they were worried for my soul and that they were concerned for my eternal state. It was very appropriate. And this has been years after my conversion. Backsliding is a very real concern for us. Many people have made confessions and been baptized confessing Christ with their mouth and yet have not been regenerate. The call for the Church is to keep that in the forefront. We are to be consistent in this call to Know the Lord. The reality of knowing the Lord is also an eschatological thing. That is why St. Paul challenges others in 2 Corinthians 13:5 and why the warning passages are written. The encouragement to know the Lord is a very real.

Dennis, please do what I asked. Take some time to pray and consider the whole and what has been said.

Also consider the way this is spoken of. It also is in conjection with Jeremiah 31 I believe.

(Jer 32:37) Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath; and I will bring them again unto this place, and I will cause them to dwell safely:

(Jer 32:38) And they shall be my people, and I will be their God:


(Jer 32:39) And I will give them one heart, and one way, that they may fear me for ever, for the good of them, and of their children after them:


(Jer 32:40) And I will make an everlasting covenant with them, that I will not turn away from them, to do them good; but I will put my fear in their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.


(Jer 32:41) Yea, I will rejoice over them to do them good, and I will plant them in this land assuredly with my whole heart and with my whole soul.


(Jer 32:42) For thus saith the LORD; Like as I have brought all this great evil upon this people, so will I bring upon them all the good that I have promised them.


(Jer 32:43) And fields shall be bought in this land, whereof ye say, It is desolate without man or beast; it is given into the hand of the Chaldeans.


(Jer 32:44) Men shall buy fields for money, and subscribe evidences, and seal them, and take witnesses in the land of Benjamin, and in the places about Jerusalem, and in the cities of Judah, and in the cities of the mountains, and in the cities of the valley, and in the cities of the south: for I will cause their captivity to return, saith the LORD.
 
Last edited:
And, the argument about the need for teachers in the New Covenant ... there is a very real sense in which there is no need to admonish a regenerate person that they ought to know the Lord. The last thing on my mind is to encourage you, Randy, or Rev. Winzer, that you ought to know the Lord. This is not on my evangelistic priority list. And I happen to think that this is an outworking of the New Covenant.

When was there a time when it was necessary to admonish a regenerate person to know the Lord?
 
I will say that it is the majority covenantal view among Baptists. I don't want to be accused of gutting grace/redemption out of the Old Covenant; it's there in that the Old Covenant points forward, albeit requires, a better covenant.

Allow me to quote Micah and Samuel Renihan, who drill down more in detail on the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace. Thanks go to Chris Poe for linking the article in which this quote comes from:

One of the most distinctive features of this covenant was that God immutably promised to bring about these blessings apart from any merit on Abraham's part, and for that reason the Covenant of Circumcision can rightly be called a covenant of grace. But can it rightly be called an administration of the Covenant of Grace? If the Covenant of Grace is the accomplishing of the Covenant of Redemption in history, the retro-active application of the New Covenant, then what do national promises have to do with Christ's redeeming and gathering of the elect? It must be noted that although all the Abrahamic promises typologically reveal the New Covenant, in their substance and essence they are distinct from it. Abraham knew that Canaan was not heaven.

The above quote does appear to be the majority view among Reformed Baptists today.
 
Dennis,

Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."
 
then what do national promises have to do with Christ's redeeming and gathering of the elect?

I think they have a lot to do with Christ redeeming and gathering the Elect. Those National Promises reflect how God works and has his dealings with the Church in the Wilderness and in the Land. It is about the pedigogical way God raised the Church in the Old Testament and it reflects how He deals with the Church as a whole. It isn't a works paradigm. It is a relational paradigm of grace and how God deals with His Church. And it looks like that is the way he deals with the New Covenant Church also. He will remove the candlestick and He will bring down the hammer so to speak. There are plenty of passages that indicate this. It is a grace that He does this. And in 1 Corinthians 10 he says that we should consider it. For they should be remembered as examples. What a grace.
 
Dennis,

Here's something that might be of interest Covenant Theology I just found it this morning, so I haven't had a chance to read it yet.

Yep, It is from Westminster California alright. It smells like and looks like Klinean Theology which I have grown to disagree with. As an OPC Pastor friend of mine noted, "I believed Kline would be the next theologian appropriated for his contributions to Covenantal-Baptist theology."

Randy, I'm not sure of the cross-over between paedobaptist WSCAL and the Institute of Reformed Baptist Studies at WSCAL. In other words it doesn't automatically follow that the IRBS is "tainted" by Horton, Clark, et al.
 
I don't think that the change in objective priesthood needs to dominate the discussion. Look at what the writer of Hebrews says RIGHT before he cites Jeremiah. He says, "For he finds fault with THEM when he says:" ... and he goes on to quote the New Covenant.

Please look at what the writer has said from the beginning of chapter 8 leading up to the verse you have quoted. The section is entirely taken up with the priesthood. Go through the various contrasts in chapter 9. What is the point of concern? The ordinances as they relate to the priesthood. The objective work of Christ in His once offering up of Himself as a sacrifice is made the contrast. Look, again, at what is said before and after the quotation in chapter 10: "Now where remission of these is, there is no more offering for sin." The issue pertains to the priesthood which makes atonement for sin. According to Hebrews, "I will remember their sin no more" means there is no continual sacrifices made for sins. Then look at the warning which closes this section of the Epistle: "For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more sacrifice for sins, But a certain fearful looking for of judgment and fiery indignation, which shall devour the adversaries." The point is, There remaineth no more sacrifice for sins under the old covenant administration. From beginning to end the only use that is made of the passage from Jeremiah is the objective, redemptive-historical significance that it has with respect to the change of priesthood.

I am sorry that you feel no need to exhort your brethren, Dennis. That sounds hyper-Calvinist to me. God uses means to work in His people's lives. While we are in chapter 10 of Hebrews perhaps you could take some time to meditate on the chain of exhortations in verses 19-25. It is obvious that the writer did not regard the passage from Jeremiah as if it did away with the need of teaching.
 
then what do national promises have to do with Christ's redeeming and gathering of the elect?

I think they have a lot to do with Christ redeeming and gathering the Elect. Those National Promises reflect how God works and has his dealings with the Church in the Wilderness and in the Land. It is about the pedigogical way God raised the Church in the Old Testament and it reflects how He deals with the Church as a whole. It isn't a works paradigm. It is a relational paradigm of grace and how God deals with His Church. And it looks like that is the way he deals with the New Covenant Church also. He will remove the candlestick and He will bring down the hammer so to speak. There are plenty of passages that indicate this. It is a grace that He does this. And in 1 Corinthians 10 he says that we should consider it. For they should be remembered as examples. What a grace.

Randy, respectfully, you are articulating the typographical aspects of the Abrahamic Covenant. The point is that no one is called into covenant with God based on national, or "physical" promises.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top