No, this isn't problematic at all.
I addressed this in the first response. From the POV of Christ, the pactum salutis was a covenant of works. From the pov of the elect, for whom Christ would obey and die, the same covenant can be called a covenant of grace (as the shorter catechism does). That's why the PS is the "covenants before the covenants." See the chapter David VanDrunen and I wrote in CJPM.
rsc
Quote:
Originally Posted by py3ak  John Brown (of Haddington) in Questions and Answers on the Shorter Catechism under Q.20. Quote:
Q. Is the covenant of grace, and that of redemption, one and the same covenant?
-A. Yes; the scripture mentions only two covenants that regards man's eternal state, of which the covenant of works is one, and therefore the covenant of grace must be the other: and the blood of Christ is in scripture called the blood of the covenant, but never of the covenants, Gal iv.24.30.
Q. How do you further prove that what some call the covenant of grace made with believers, and distinct from the covenant of redemption, is no proper covenant?
-A. Because it hath no proper condition, faith being as much promised as any other blessing, Psal. cx. 3.
[And skipping a bit...]
Q. Is the making of it the same which some divines call the covenant of redemption?
-A. Yes, Psal. lxxxix. 3.
| So John Brown is definind the covenant of grace in the making as being what some call the covenant of redemption, and the administration of it what some call the covenant of grace made with believers (the next question).
Is this an idiosyncratic approach? |