Why does Limited Atonement Matter?

[MW]

To say "unbelievers" refuse to accept the covenant misses the point that the covenant promise is only made to "believers." There is no promise to save those who do not believe. The gospel finds unbelievers condemned already, and where the gospel is not believed it leaves its hearers in the same state in which it found them -- under the condemnation of the law.

There are two covenants as there are two Adams. Every man is either condemned under the first Adam or saved under the second Adam.

 

[timfost]

To say "unbelievers" refuse to accept the covenant misses the point that the covenant promise is only made to "believers." There is no promise to save those who do not believe. The gospel finds unbelievers condemned already, and where the gospel is not believed it leaves its hearers in the same state in which it found them -- under the condemnation of the law.

God does not promise salvation to unbelievers, though promises that if they would believe He would forgive them. Even though they cannot repent and believe, He has not spoken deceitfully. His eternal purpose and promise to grant salvation to the elect remains certain and unchanged because He grants that belief. Am I contradicting Calvin?

Therefore, he does not will his death, in so far as he wills repentance. But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though the external word only renders, those who hear its and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us therefore hold the doctrine of the prophet, that God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; that the godly may feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to pardon them; and that the wicked may feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God. The mercy of God, therefore will ever be ready to meet the penitent; but all the prophets, and apostles, and Ezekiel himself, clearly tell us who they are to whom repentance is given. (Institutes 3.24.15)

 

[MW]

God does not promise salvation to unbelievers, though promises that if they would believe He would forgive them. Even though they cannot repent and believe, He has not spoken deceitfully.

He has not spoken deceitfully because He has not promised anything outside of the terms in which He has determined to bestow what is promised. The word "would," as you have expressed it, is not indicative. It expresses something hypothetical. One should not draw a real conclusion from an hypothetical condition.

Am I contradicting Calvin?

Calvin says, "in so far as he wills repentance." That is, the means and the end are joined together. We should not sever the end (salvation) from the means (repentance) in the revealed will of God. Both must be held together. The promise does not extend any further than the terms in which God has declared He will fulfil the promise. To extend the promise further would be deceitful.

 

[timfost]

It seems that a hypothetical only creates a problem when we try to reconcile everything with the decree.

 

[MW]

It seems that a hypothetical only creates a problem when we try to reconcile everything with the decree.

Hypotheticals function in the case of one who is under varying conditions and contingencies. In the case of man, who bears an accountability to the Lawgiver and Providential Governor of all things, there is no difficulty conceiving of hypotheticals. When the attempt is made to apply these to God, however, they leave the impression that He is a variable being who is under the control of something greater than Himself, and this conflicts with the basic revelation of God as the great I AM; the Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. To conceive of a God in whom there is shadow of turning would be destructive to faith.

 

[OneOfHisElect]

If this person you are speaking of claims to only be a 4 point Calvinist then he is no Calvinist at all. You must accept all 5 points. If one is left out then the other 4 will logically break down.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

On the CoR in the Puritans:

A chapter on the covenant of redemption in relation to the theology of the Westminster Assembly may seem out of place, since the term is not used in the Confession or Catechisms.5 However, a number of reasons justify including this chapter. In the first place, the Savoy Confession adds eight words—“according to a covenant made between them both”—to Westminster Confession 8.1 in an attempt to clarify and highlight the nature of salvation in explicitly covenantal terms. Additionally, the basic teaching of the covenant of redemption can be located in several places in the Westminster Confession though not in explicit terms. Indeed, the Scottish divine David Dickson, in his commentary on the Westminster Confession, “had no difficulty finding the doctrine there.”6 Dickson speaks of the covenant of redemption as the basis for the temporal covenant of grace: “for the accomplishment of this Covenant of Redemption, and making the Elect partakers of the benefits thereof in the Covenant of Grace, Christ Jesus was clad with the threefold Office of Prophet, Priest, and King.”7 John Brown of Haddington (1722–1787) takes a different approach, however, in his exposition of the Westminster Shorter Catechism (Q. 20). He asks, “Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?” He answers in the affirmative, though recognizing that some divines distinguish between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace.8 Brown seems to be arguing in a similar manner to Edmund Calamy (1600–1666), who suggested that the Father made the covenant of grace with Christ “from all eternity.”9 Calamy’s position, which is consistent with the teaching of the Westminster documents, maintains that the covenant of grace was not an afterthought of God in response to the fall but rather “was made with Jesus Christ from all eternity, being a contract or plot of God the Father with God the Son from all eternity as mediator for the salvation of the Elect.”10 Many Reformed theologians in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries agreed with Calamy’s position. However, toward the middle of the seventeenth century, a number of divines, including some of the more prominent Westminster theologians, did distinguish between the eternal covenant of redemption and the temporal covenant of grace.11

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 238). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

Whatever view one takes on the matter, the question of the relation between the eternal and the temporal requires elaboration. This issue will be addressed in more detail in a subsequent chapter on the conditions of the covenant, but for now, a number of observations on the relationship between the covenants of redemption and grace will provide a useful link between this chapter and the next.
The Reformed orthodox typically held to the threefold distinction of God’s immanent, transient, and applicatory acts.124 Thomas Goodwin describes these acts in the following manner:

1. Immanent in God towards us, as his Eternal Love set and past upon us; out of which he chose us, and designed this and all Blessings to us.
2. Transient, in Christ done for us; in all he did or suffered representing of us, and in our stead.
3. Applicatory, wrought in us, and upon us, in the endowing us with all those Blessings by the Spirit: As Calling, Justification, Sanctification, Glorification.125


Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 253). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

Therefore, whatever is said to have been ordained “in Christ” has particular reference to the covenant of redemption. However, that which is wrought “through Christ” has reference to the temporal covenant of grace as the context in which Christ performs His work.

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 253). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

But although differences exist, Gillespie makes reference to eight similarities. The covenants of redemption and grace agree in the following ways: (1) pure grace gave rise to both covenants (Eph. 1:9; 2 Tim. 1:9); (2) both covenants aim to redeem sinners (Titus 1:2; 2 Cor. 5:19); (3) Christ is the main instrument of action (Eph. 1:7; Col. 1:20); (4) God elects in both covenants; in the first He elects Christ (Ps. 89:3), and in the second He elects sinners for salvation in Christ; (5) both covenants manifest the same attributes (mercy, justice, love, etc.) of God; (6) both covenants profit the elect; and both covenants honor God; (7) in both covenants, Christ exchanges places with His people (2 Cor. 5:21); and (8) both covenants are free, gracious, and everlasting.135

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 254). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

Given the similarities enumerated by Gillespie, one can well understand why many Reformed theologians simply spoke of the covenant of grace having both eternal and temporal administrations. However, Gillespie manages to find nine differences between the two covenants in order to prove his point that they are distinct but not separate.136 They differ in the following ways: (1) though both covenants had their rise in the grace of God, the covenant of redemption sprang from grace in both parties, God and Christ, whereas in the covenant of grace only one side (God’s) acted out of grace (1 John 4:10, 19); (2) although both are everlasting covenants, only the covenant of redemption is eternal; the covenant of grace is concluded in time (Titus 1:2–3); (3) the parties differ in both covenants; the covenant of redemption concerns God and Christ, and the covenant of grace concerns the triune God and lost sinners; (4) the covenant of redemption is an equal covenant, whereas the covenant of grace is an unequal covenant; moreover, that which was required of Christ far exceeds that which is required of God’s elect; (5) there is no mediator in the covenant of redemption (Prov. 8:22–23), but in the covenant of grace, Christ acts as Mediator on behalf of the elect (1 Tim. 2:5); (6) the promises of the covenant of grace, for example, a new heart, cannot be promised to Christ; in the same way, Christ was promised a name above every name (Phil. 2:9), which was not promised to His people; (7) Christ was not threatened in the covenant of redemption since, as the God-man, He could not sin, but believers are threatened in the covenant of grace (Heb. 2:3; 1 Cor. 16:22); (8) the conditions in each covenant differ; Christ was required to become flesh and lay down His life (Heb. 10:5–7); His people are required to believe in Christ, repent of their sins, and work out their salvation with fear and trembling (Acts 16:31; Phil. 2:12);137 and (9) the covenant of redemption did not require man’s consent to be elected in Christ; however, the covenant of grace requires consent from those elected in eternity for the blessings of the covenant to be applied to them (John 6:37; Rev. 22:17, 20).138 As a result, for Gillespie, notwithstanding the similarities between the two covenants, the differences need to be taken into account. Having said that, they are “conjoined together by a five-fold connection.”139

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 254–255). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

OK, having taken that up, let's return to Hodge. I agree with Matthew that I don't like Hodge's specific language that someone is "rejecting the Covenant" but your assumption that the Westminster Confession somehow "synthesizes" the CoG and CoR is not accurate. The Puritans understood this distinction. I think the three ways that God acts (immanent, transient, and applicatory) are helpful here to help you see what's going on here. Remember, that the "participants" within the CoG which is made with all the elect in Christ are the elect themselves.

At best, when we are speaking of those who reject the Gospel they are participants in the external administration of the CoG but are not within the CoG. One might say they have spurned what they have tasted but they have never been within its bounds for they are still in Adam. If I assume that Hodge is not completely going off the reservation (since he doesn't claim to be departing from Reformed orthodoxy) then we can understand Hodge as saying that a person who rejects the Gospel has rejected the external administration of the CoG and, in that sense, has rejected the Covenant.

BUT, and this is important, there are conditions to interest that are solely within the CoG. They are promises and inheritances that we receive as gifts that allow us to open up our hands to their reception in the CoG. That is not the same thing as what the unsaved reject. That is very important that we understand this. The rejection of a call to sinners is not the equal and opposite of the "condition to interest" of saving faith.

 

[timfost]

It seems that a hypothetical only creates a problem when we try to reconcile everything with the decree.

Hypotheticals function in the case of one who is under varying conditions and contingencies. In the case of man, who bears an accountability to the Lawgiver and Providential Governor of all things, there is no difficulty conceiving of hypotheticals. When the attempt is made to apply these to God, however, they leave the impression that He is a variable being who is under the control of something greater than Himself, and this conflicts with the basic revelation of God as the great I AM; the Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come. He that cometh to God must believe that He is, and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. To conceive of a God in whom there is shadow of turning would be destructive to faith.

From the passages below, I'm not sure if God is averse to hypotheticals:

Oh, that My people would listen to Me,
That Israel would walk in My ways!
I would soon subdue their enemies,
And turn My hand against their adversaries.
The haters of the Lord would pretend submission to Him,
But their fate would endure forever.
He would have fed them also with the finest of wheat;
And with honey from the rock I would have satisfied you. (Psalm 81:13-16)

And Samuel said to Saul, “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the commandment of the Lord your God, which He commanded you. For now the Lord would have established your kingdom over Israel forever. But now your kingdom shall not continue. The Lord has sought for Himself a man after His own heart, and the Lord has commanded him to be commander over His people, because you have not kept what the Lord commanded you.” (1 Sam. 13:13-14)

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, the one who kills the prophets and stones those who are sent to her! How often I wanted to gather your children together, as a hen gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing! (Matt. 23:37)

I agree with you that hypotheticals have no place in God's decree. But the verses I quoted above at least prove that hypotheticals are referenced by God. Can I explain the mind of God? No, I just seek to believe what He reveals. It seems that if we think we have God "figured out" in this regard, we have to neglect what He says about Himself or reduce Him to be more like man. I am bound by my conscience and His Word to do neither.

 

[timfost]

Rich,

Thank you! That information is really helpful (and I really need to get that book!). I don't think that Hodge was trying to remove himself from orthodoxy on this point, although I think he does recognize a difficulty in the wording of the WLC. I've spent a lot of time reading and trying to understand Hodge's position on this, and I firmly believe that he does not mean to say that one can be outside of the CoR and yet receive the blessings and promises in the CoG. But since the CoG works out in time, there seems to be a reference to all since "it is the bounden duty of all who hear the Gospel to savingly trust in Christ, otherwise their rejection of Him would be no sin" (A.W. Pink). Even if we want to call it an "external administration," there would be no external administration apart from the CoG. Therefore the CoG has reference to all, though the CoR does not. In other words, those who reject the gospel do not reject the conditions in the CoR but the condition of the CoG. Since the WLC says that Christ is both Mediator and party in the CoG, I don't know what to call it besides a synthesis of the two.

Does that mean that the WLC is wrong? I would rather say that it is imprecise on this issue.

On a related note-- I know I've been playing hardball. Your research and references have been tremendously helpful. I want to be clear on these issues and your thoughts and quotes have been extremely helpful.

Sometimes my wife asks me if there is a practical application to the doctrines that I study. Coming from a background in hyper-Calvinism, I've found that understanding Christ's work and speaking about it in a biblical context with biblical language has taken away huge distractions when speaking with those of an Arminian persuasion. Over the last couple summers I've spoken with a young man at length about the design of Christ's satisfaction. Removing unbiblical speculations has placed the emphasis on the actual differences and assumptions themselves, clearing the path for me to give an account of the hope that's in me.

I've contemplated this part of the conclusion to Dort often:

Finally, this Synod exhorts all their brethren in the gospel of Christ to conduct themselves piously and religiously in handling this doctrine, both in the universities and churches; to direct it, as well in discourse as in writing, to the glory of the Divine name, to holiness of life, and to the consolation of afflicted souls; to regulate, by the Scripture, according to the analogy of faith, not only their sentiments, but also their language, and to abstain from all those phrases which exceed the limits necessary to be observed in ascertaining the genuine sense of the Holy Scriptures, and may furnish insolent sophists with a just pretext for violently assailing, or even vilifying, the doctrine of the Reformed Churches.

What was very attractive about Hodge's outlook on this issue is that it seemed to be much more easily reconciled to the wording of scripture. I'm not sure if we're completely in agreement, but it seems that we would mostly agree.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Even if we want to call it an "external administration," there would be no external administration apart from the CoG. Therefore the CoG has reference to all, though the CoR does not. In other words, those who reject the gospel do not reject the conditions in the CoR but the condition of the CoG. Since the WLC says that Christ is both Mediator and party in the CoG, I don't know what to call it besides a synthesis of the two.

It seems we have covered this already and showed how Pink was quoting Puritans even when he spoke of conditions.

With respect to the parties of the Covenant of Grace, of course Christ is a party, He is the "Mediator". That is a party of the Covenant of Grace. The parties of the Covenant of Grace are the Triune God and elect sinners. Christ is the Mediator as the second person of the Trinity and functions in the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King as the Mediator of the CoG. The whole point of the CoG is that Christ fulfills all righteousness. As far as what is left of the nature of the CoG itself is not in the fulfillment of some sort of added "condition" to fulfill it but the antecedent reception of the benefits unconditionally Promised to the elect in that Covenant. This is called the "condition to interest" where the sinner receives by an empty hand what Christ has procured.

To consider further the connection between the CoR and the CoG:

First, these covenants bear such a “near and strict conjunction” that they cannot be separated; indeed, the covenant of grace fails to exist apart from the covenant of redemption, which amounts to “an inseparable connection.”140 Second, “an infallible connection” exists between the two covenants, “whereby one thing doth necessarily and certainly follow upon another.”141 In other words, “nothing is … transacted in time, which was not from eternity concluded in the counsel of God’s Will.”142 Third, the two covenants are joined by “an Insuperable connection,” that is to say, the covenant of redemption has such power and efficacy that nothing can thwart the outcome of the covenant of grace (John 17:2; Matt. 16:18).143 Samuel Rutherford makes a similar point by noting that the covenant of redemption is the “cause of the stability and firmness of the Covenant of Grace.”144 Fourth, Gillespie argues that the covenants of redemption and grace are joined together by a “secret and hidden connection.”145 Gillespie means to suggest that the covenant of redemption was “hid in God’s breast … kept close betwixt God and Christ” and then revealed to believers who, unlike carnal minds, can understand the great mysteries of God’s salvation in Christ.146 Finally, the two covenants are joined together by a “beautiful connection.”147 All that was plotted in the counsels between the Father and the Son are in the history of redemption beautifully executed. There is an organic cause and effect between the two covenants; that which was deliberated in eternity is performed by Christ in temporal history.148 This section on the relationship between the two covenants helps to explain the final clause in Westminster Confession 8.1, which reads, “[God] did from all eternity, give a people to be [Christ’s] seed, and to be by him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified.”

Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (p. 255). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.

Thus, we cannot say: "Well, all of that decree stuff is related to the CoR but the CoG works itself out in time so it's for all." The two are inseparably connected. The CoG is a working out in time of things promised but that does not mean that, because it is "in time", that parties are considered to be part of the CoG that were not promised to the Son by the Father. Thus, when we think about saving faith, it is something that is exercised in time by the application of Christ's work of redemption in time (planned in eternity) but we understand that the reason that saving faith is exercised is because it what promised that it would be the case for those who trust in Christ and lay hold of Him as their inheritance. Otherwise, it almost makes the parties who are actually in the CoG to be sort of accidents of history. The elect don't just happen to be those who exercise saving faith but it is precisely because God knew us by name in eternity that we are parties in the CoG and receive the evangelical graces by which we lay hold of an eternal inheritance. That first act of our historical entry into Christ in his benefits is the empty hand of faith receiving our eternal inheritance.

 

[timfost]

Thus, we cannot say: "Well, all of that decree stuff is related to the CoR but the CoG works itself out in time so it's for all." The two are inseparably connected. The CoG is a working out in time of things promised but that does not mean that, because it is "in time", that parties are considered to be part of the CoG that were not promised to the Son by the Father. Thus, when we think about saving faith, it is something that is exercised in time by the application of Christ's work of redemption in time (planned in eternity) but we understand that the reason that saving faith is exercised is because it what promised that it would be the case for those who trust in Christ and lay hold of Him as their inheritance. Otherwise, it almost makes the parties who are actually in the CoG to be sort of accidents of history. The elect don't just happen to be those who exercise saving faith but it is precisely because God knew us by name in eternity that we are parties in the CoG and receive the evangelical graces by which we lay hold of an eternal inheritance. That first act of our historical entry into Christ in his benefits is the empty hand of faith receiving our eternal inheritance.

Agreed!

 

[MW]

From the passages below, I'm not sure if God is averse to hypotheticals:

As you seem willing to listen to Calvin, please consult his comments on the Psalm. The fact God speaks after the manner of men does not mean we should conceive of Him as a man.

 

[Afterthought]

In case his explanation turns out to be useful (although it repeats much that has already been quoted in this thread by, e.g., Thomas Boston), Robert Shaw on the use of "condition" language for faith http://www.reformed.org/documents/shaw/:

"In entering upon the exposition of this section, it is proper to remark, that, at the period when our Confession was framed, it was generally held by the most eminent divines, that there are two covenants connected with the salvation of men, which they called the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace; the former made with Christ from everlasting, the latter made with sinners in time; the righteousness of Christ being the condition of the former, and faith the condition of the latter covenant. This distinction, we conceive, has no foundation in the Sacred Scriptures, and it has long since been abandoned by all evangelical divines. The first Adam is said to have been a figure of Christ, who is called the second Adam. Now, there was not one covenant made with Adam, the condition of which he was to perform, and another made with his posterity, the condition of which they were to fulfil; but one covenant included both him and them. It was made with him as their representative, and with them as represented in and by him. In like manner, one covenant includes Christ and his spiritual seed. The Scriptures, accordingly, everywhere speak of it as one covenant, and the blood of Christ is repeatedly called "the blood of the covenant," not of the covenants, as we may presume it would have been called, if it had been the condition of a covenant of redemption and the foundation of a covenant of grace.—Heb. x. 29, xiii. 20. By the blood of the same covenant Christ made satisfaction, and we obtain deliverance.—Zech. ix. 11. We hold, therefore, that there is only one covenant for the salvation of fallen men, and that this covenant was made with Christ before the foundation of the world. The Scriptures, indeed, frequently speak of God making a covenant with believers, but this language admits of an easy explication, in consistency with the unity of the covenant. "The covenant of grace," says a judicious writer, "was made with Christ in a strict and proper sense, as he was the party-contractor in it, and undertook to fulfil the condition of it. It is made with believers in an improper sense, when they are taken into the bond of it, and come actually to enjoy the benefit of it. How it is made with them may be learned from the words of the apostle,—Acts xiii. 34: "I will give you the sure mercies of David,' which is a kind of paraphrase upon that passage,—Is. lv. 3: "I will make an everlasting covenant with you, even the sure mercies of David.' God makes the covenant with them, not by requiring anything of them in order to entitle them or lay a foundation for their claim to the blessings of it, but by making these over to them as a free gift, and putting them in possession of them, as far as their present state will admit, by a faith of his own operation."

The supposition of two covenants for the salvation of mankind sinners, is encumbered with various difficulties. One is obvious. In every proper covenant, there are two essential parts—a conditionary and a promissory. If, therefore, there be a covenant made with sinners, different from the covenant made with Christ, it must have a condition which they themselves must perform. But though our old divines called faith the condition of the covenant made with sinners, they did not assign any merit to faith, but simply precedence. "The truth is," as Dr Dick has remarked, "that what these divines call the covenant of grace, is merely the administration of what they call the covenant of redemption, for the purpose of communicating its blessings to those for whom they were intended; and cannot be properly considered as a covenant, because it is not suspended upon a proper condition." The Westminster Assembly, in this section, appear to describe what was then usually designated the covenant of grace, as distinguished from the covenant of redemption. But, though they viewed the covenant under a twofold consideration, as made with the Surety from everlasting, and as made with sinners in time, they certainly regarded it as one and the same covenant. "The covenant of grace," say they, "was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.""



"That God "requires of sinners faith in Christ that they may be saved," admits of no dispute. The part assigned to faith, however, has been much controverted. Many excellent divines, in consequence of the distinction which they made between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, were led to speak of faith as the condition of the latter covenant. But the term, as used by them, signifies not a meritorious or procuring cause, but simply something which goes before, and without which the other cannot be obtained. They consider faith merely as a condition of order or connection, as it has been styled, and as an instrument or means of obtaining an interest in the salvation offered in the gospel. This is very different from the meaning attached to the term by Arminians and Neonomians, who represent faith as a condition on the fulfilment of which the promise is suspended.. The Westminster Assembly elsewhere affirm, that God requires of sinners faith in Christ, "as the condition to interest them in him." But this is very different from affirming that faith is the condition of the covenant of grace. That faith is indispensably necessary as the instrument by which we are savingly interested in Christ, and personally instated in the covenant, is a most important truth, and this is all that is intended by the Westminster Divines. They seem to have used the term condition as synonymous with instrument; for, while in one place they speak of faith as the condition to interest sinners in the Mediator, in other places they affirm, that "faith is the alone instrument of justification," and teach, that "faith justifies a sinner in the sight of God, only as it is an instrument by which he receiveth and applieth Christ and his righteousness." As the word condition is ambiguous, apt to be misunderstood, and is frequently employed in an unsound and dangerous sense, it is now disused by evangelical divines."

 

[MW]

Thus, we cannot say: "Well, all of that decree stuff is related to the CoR but the CoG works itself out in time so it's for all." The two are inseparably connected.

It is interesting you say this, Rich, because historically, it was owing to this tendency to separate redemption and grace, and the creation of working conditions to be fulfilled by men in the covenant of grace, that theologians abandoned the idea they are two different covenants. It was seen that the simpler language of the Confession and Catechisms in relation to a single covenant of grace avoids speculation and removes the problems connected with making redemption a distinct covenant on its own.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Thus, we cannot say: "Well, all of that decree stuff is related to the CoR but the CoG works itself out in time so it's for all." The two are inseparably connected.

It is interesting you say this, Rich, because historically, it was owing to this tendency to separate redemption and grace, and the creation of working conditions to be fulfilled by men in the covenant of grace, that theologians abandoned the idea they are two different covenants. It was seen that the simpler language of the Confession and Catechisms in relation to a single covenant of grace avoids speculation and removes the problems connected with making redemption a distinct covenant on its own.

Given the qualifications that are made by Gillespie I can understand why some would say that the styling of these Covenants as separate covenants is functionally irrelevant. The main thing that seems to differ between them is the fact that the "CoR" is an immanent act but the transient and applicatory "working out" come by a different name. Once we understand immanent, transient, and applicatory acts of the Triune God then how we name the Covenant seems more for the purposes of giving shorthand to what we understand. I think the bottom line is simply conceiving that the "parties" in God's immanent act differs from the parties in the transient and applicatory acts doesn't allow us to "change the scope" of the immanent act simply because it occurs in time.