Would this be an accurate take on how Reformed Baptists and Presbyterians View CT?

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, if there was a formal administration of the Covenant of Grace between Adam and Abraham, what form did it actually take? What were / was the sign(s) / seal(s) of this historic covenant?

I've never heard a paedobaptist claim that there was a formal administration of the CoG between Adam and Abraham before, so this concept it new to me.

(Clarification: I understand that the substance of the CoG was in place and enjoyed by God's elect in all ages since the fall. All Reformed Covenantalists agree on this, whether they be Continental Reformed, Presbyterian, or Baptist. My question is solely about the "outward administration".)

Considering I think that the primary purpose of Genesis 4-11 is to lead up to the AC and it covers 2000 years of history in eight chapters, I’m personally cautious to try to harvest this section of the Bible too much either way for the covenant/baptism debate.

Though, outward administration of the CG is certainly there. Abel offered a worthy sacrifice and Cain did not, which shows there was some knowledge of right and wrong in the worship of God. We also know Noah was a preacher of righteousness, thus there was some kindle of teaching/preaching office employed. Enoch had a prophetic office. There were clean/unclean distinctions (though granted, this could still have just been based off biological classifications distinct to that time). And depending on the view you take, the sons of God marrying the daughters of man indicated at one point the godly were clearly distinguished from the wicked, which argues some form of a church, or people consecrated to God. It’d be strange if there were not.

If anything, it’d be very strange for God to have no outward ordinances (ie. Outward administration of CG) at that time as means of grace for the people. Even in New Testament times when the outpouring of the Spirit is the greatest it’s ever been, we still have an outward administration of the CG through baptism, preaching, Lord’s Table, singing, etc. Certainly it would be there too.

And in light of the fuzzy nature of that time period, I’m open to correction on my analysis of the facts provided.
 
Last edited:
Harley said:
Abel offered a worthy sacrifice and Cain did not
That slipped my mind in my most recent post. That certainly would indicate a system of ordinances observed by the earliest generations.
 
Perhaps we need to express the points to be made with a greater degree of clarity.

Patrick, I note (post 29) your use of the word, "formal," and that's probably something to attend. The CoG is in effect starting right away, and that in some sense the sacrifices of worship express a distinct kind of formality. You cannot have "informal" worship in any sense, unless there is formal worship that is instituted by God. And that can't exist unless there is a mediator (or exactly, a Mediator; and see Heb.5:1-5). And that is strong evidence of the fact of covenant reality undergirding.

There is a "formal" quality to the covenant with Abraham, inasmuch as the Lord conducts an oath ceremony along with it; but Gen.15 is not the beginning of the covenant, nor does it wait until Gen.17 and the sign. The covenant is in effect as soon as the promise is plainly expressed, which is Gen.12. But even so, it is earlier still, as we're told the promise predates the departure of the clan (including Terah, Gen.11:27).

I have used the analogy of a birth. Conception occurs at Gen.3:15, labor pangs begin with Abram's introduction, birth is the formal expression (and the sign is given fifteen years later). But as parents know, the baby is greatly impacting the lives of mother & father long before the birth itself.

Likewise, the CoG is conceptually active as soon as it is needful, immediately after the fall. Otherwise, there is no meaningful, embodied relationship man has with God. The proof, again, is in the fact of authorized worship by sacrifice. No covenant, no sacrifice.
 
Along with all covenantalists, I understand all of the covenants after the fall, including all OT covenants and the New Covenant, as administrations of the Covenant of Grace. The only covenant which doesn't fall under this category is the Covenant of Works that God made with Adam in the Garden before the Fall.
Except that Reformed Baptists would not tend to see the Mosaic One of being under the umbrella of the COG, as that was more under reward for obedience to keeping the provisions of God. <ore of being a Covenant of works than a direct application of the COG.
 
Perhaps we need to express the points to be made with a greater degree of clarity.

Patrick, I note (post 29) your use of the word, "formal," and that's probably something to attend. The CoG is in effect starting right away, and that in some sense the sacrifices of worship express a distinct kind of formality. You cannot have "informal" worship in any sense, unless there is formal worship that is instituted by God. And that can't exist unless there is a mediator (or exactly, a Mediator; and see Heb.5:1-5). And that is strong evidence of the fact of covenant reality undergirding.

There is a "formal" quality to the covenant with Abraham, inasmuch as the Lord conducts an oath ceremony along with it; but Gen.15 is not the beginning of the covenant, nor does it wait until Gen.17 and the sign. The covenant is in effect as soon as the promise is plainly expressed, which is Gen.12. But even so, it is earlier still, as we're told the promise predates the departure of the clan (including Terah, Gen.11:27).

I have used the analogy of a birth. Conception occurs at Gen.3:15, labor pangs begin with Abram's introduction, birth is the formal expression (and the sign is given fifteen years later). But as parents know, the baby is greatly impacting the lives of mother & father long before the birth itself.

Likewise, the CoG is conceptually active as soon as it is needful, immediately after the fall. Otherwise, there is no meaningful, embodied relationship man has with God. The proof, again, is in the fact of authorized worship by sacrifice. No covenant, no sacrifice.
The New Covenant though was of a quality in some way superior to and superseding all prior ones, as it was the new relationship between God and Man that was not made possible until the coming of Jesus, death, and His resurrection, as the full atonement for sins.
 
Except that Reformed Baptists would not tend to see the Mosaic One of being under the umbrella of the COG, as that was more under reward for obedience to keeping the provisions of God. <ore of being a Covenant of works than a direct application of the COG.
If anyone holds that man was justified by works under the Mosaic covenant, he does not hold to Reformed theology. Reformed (and Scriptural) theology teaches that a man can only be justified through a covenant of grace, Christ being the mediator of that covenant.
 
Last edited:
If anyone holds that man was justified by works under the Mosaic covenant, he does not hold to Reformed theology. Reformed (and Scriptural) theology teaches that a man can only be justified through a covenant of grace, Christ being the mediator of that covenant.
Yes, but the Mosaic Covenant was not the same as the CoG , correct?
 
The Mosaic One was not administering though the CoG in my understanding, as it was more of being obedient to the commands of God in order to secure physical/financial blessings of being in the promised land now. The spiritual blessings found in the CoG would be unconditional and eternal. but those under the Mosaic were temporal and conditional.
 
The big difference though would be just some were saved under that administration, while all under/in the NC are now redeemed.

You make a lopsided distinction where the NT does not, that being that not everyone in th church are true believers. Your trx is flawed. Count the number of times in the NT, the writers are all giving warnings and gospel calls, even to the converted.
 
You make a lopsided distinction where the NT does not, that being that not everyone in th church are true believers. Your trx is flawed. Count the number of times in the NT, the writers are all giving warnings and gospel calls, even to the converted.
I am not saying that all in the local church are saved, but the NT scriptures do indicate that only those who have been saved are included under the new Covenant between God and Us now.
 
I have found the same treatment of the Presbyterian view from the 1689 baptists (of today). It is made to be far too simplistic and that creates a strawman argument. So here is an example from the 1689 federalism website that does this:

Comparison_WCF+.jpg

Do not the paedobaptistic formulations of Covenant Theology hold that the historic Abrahamic, Mosiac, David, and New Covenants are all administrations of the one Covenant of Grace? Is this an error?

I didn’t know Reformed Baptists don’t view it that way. How could it work otherwise?
 
I thought that some RB see the Mosaic Covenant as being a Covenant of works, so would be more of physical, not spiritual blessings?
 
I thought that some RB see the Mosaic Covenant as being a Covenant of works, so would be more of physical, not spiritual blessings?
Following certain Presbyterian theologians, some RBs view the Mosaic Covenant as, in part, a republication of the pre-fall Covenant of Works, superadded to the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace..
 
Following certain Presbyterian theologians, some RBs view the Mosaic Covenant as, in part, a republication of the pre-fall Covenant of Works, superadded to the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace..
Would that view be with orthodoxy then?
 
Meredith Kline, Scott Clark, and Michael Horton, for starters.
I know for a fact that Scott Clark understands the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

The only relevant question is: What else might the Mosaic Covenant do besides? Does "this law" (WCF 19.2) correspond to the "law, as a covenant of works" in WCF 19.1? If so, then we recognize that the moral law that continues "to be perfect rule of righteousness" (WCF 19:2) is exactly the same in substance as the original covenant of works.

What else could a later expression be, then, other than a form of "reexpression" or "republication" of that which existed from the start? And if someone were to treat this law--not as it should be regarded in light of the fall and the introduction of the covenant of grace, but--as a means of justification before God, then they have taken a "lesson" of the covenant-described-as-"Law" and made it the telos.

We can understand how such a false attitude toward the law would naturally come to pass, given the overwhelming presence and weight of externals with which the Sinai covenant was freighted. But, not every generation of the Old Covenant nation of Israel had the same misunderstanding to the degree that it was present (and how!) by the days of Pharisee dominance.

Yet, there is an undeniable pedagogical point to the exhausting demands of the Mosaic legislation: "The letter kills," 2Cor.3:6. That's the covenant of works. And that, so far from being contrary to the Westminster Confession, is just what WCF 19.6 teaches has been true all along: that for true believers (including those under the Old Covenant), "not under the law, as a covenant of works, yet it is of great use to them," etc.

I recommend not impugning the published positions and reputations of men without attending to the precision of their formulae.
 
I know for a fact that Scott Clark understands the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

The only relevant question is: What else might the Mosaic Covenant do besides? Does "this law" (WCF 19.2) correspond to the "law, as a covenant of works" in WCF 19.1? If so, then we recognize that the moral law that continues "to be perfect rule of righteousness" (WCF 19:2) is exactly the same in substance as the original covenant of works.

What else could a later expression be, then, other than a form of "reexpression" or "republication" of that which existed from the start? And if someone were to treat this law--not as it should be regarded in light of the fall and the introduction of the covenant of grace, but--as a means of justification before God, then they have taken a "lesson" of the covenant described as "Law" and made it the telos.

We can understand how such a false attitude toward the law would naturally come to pass, given the overwhelming presence and weight of externals with which the Sinai covenant was freighted. But, not every generation of the Old Covenant nation of Israel had the same misunderstanding to the degree that it was present (and how!) by the days of Pharisee dominance.

Yet, there is an undeniable pedagogical point to the exhausting demands of the Mosaic legislation: "The letter kills," 2Cor.3:6. That's the covenant of works. And that, so far from being contrary to the Westminster Confession, is just what WCF 19.6 teaches has been true all along: that for true believers (including those under the Old Covenant), "not under the law, as a covenant of works, yet it is of great use to them," etc.

I recommend not impugning the published positions and reputations of men without attending to the precision of their formulae.
What about Mr Kline and Horton though?
Is this an area where Reformed Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists would tend to see a clear distinction being made between those 2 groups on how to view the Mosaic Covenant?
 
I know for a fact that Scott Clark understands the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace.

The only relevant question is: What else might the Mosaic Covenant do besides? Does "this law" (WCF 19.2) correspond to the "law, as a covenant of works" in WCF 19.1? If so, then we recognize that the moral law that continues "to be perfect rule of righteousness" (WCF 19:2) is exactly the same in substance as the original covenant of works.

What else could a later expression be, then, other than a form of "reexpression" or "republication" of that which existed from the start? And if someone were to treat this law--not as it should be regarded in light of the fall and the introduction of the covenant of grace, but--as a means of justification before God, then they have taken a "lesson" of the law and made it the telos.

We can understand how such a false attitude toward the law would naturally come to pass, given the overwhelming presence and weight of externals with which the Sinai covenant was freighted. But, not every generation of the Old Covenant nation of Israel had the same misunderstanding to the degree that it was present (and how!) by the days of Pharisee dominance.

Yet, there is an undeniable pedagogical point to the exhausting demands of the Mosaic legislation: "The letter kills," 2Cor.3:6. That's the covenant of works. And that, so far from being contrary to the Westminster Confession, is just what WCF 19.6 teaches has been true all along: that for true believers (including those under the Old Covenant), "not under the law, as a covenant of works, yet it is of great use to them," etc.

I recommend not impugning the published positions and reputations of men without attending to the precision of their formulae.

Rev. Buchanan,

I agree entirely. Please note my earlier post:
Following certain Presbyterian theologians, some RBs view the Mosaic Covenant as, in part, a republication of the pre-fall Covenant of Works, superadded to the outward administration of the Covenant of Grace.
 
What is your understanding of how these two men handle the matter? What have they written or stated publicly that leads you to your understanding?
My understanding of Dr Kline views would be that he saw the Mosaic Covenant as basically redoing the Covenant of Works established with Adam to the nation of israel, as that by them confirming to the law would inherit the promised blessings of God. This was an conditional one though, as how much one kept the Law would be how much God would bless His people.
I do not Know Dr Horton view though, as i thought that he was well regarded as a Reformed theologian for today.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top