Why isn't it sufficient to say that there are two ways of being in the one covenant of grace?

Jacob and Esau were really in the covenant of grace but they were in the covenant of grace in two distinct ways. Both participated in the administration of the covenant of grace but only Jacob was united to Christ. Only Jacob had an internal/inward/spiritual union with Christ (Rom 2:28).

Esau belongs to Hebrews 6 and Heb 10. He tasted of the powers of the age to come but, being a reprobate in the covenant community, he "spurned the Son of God and profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified and has outraged the Spirit of grace."

We ought to affirm the reality of membership in the covenant of grace but we ought also to distinguish clearly between the two ways of relating to the one covenant of grace. To speak of "covenantal union" is misleading because it confuses two categories: administration of the covenant of grace" and the "substance of the covenant of grace." Union is a term that we use to describe one of the benefits of the covenant of grace: union with Christ. So, we're equivocating on an essential Reformed doctrine: union with Christ. It has the same problems as speaking of "covenantal election," and the like.

I won't repeat the rest of the arguments that you can find in the CPJ essay and the booklet from Reformed Fellowship.

rsc

__________________
R. Scott Clark, D.Phil
Professor of Church History and Historical Theology

"For Christ, His Gospel, and His Church"
Associate Pastor
Oceanside URC
The Heidelblog