Those who have been saved by the grace of God would answer yes to both of those questions.1. Is the person elect?
2. Is he in the Covenant?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Those who have been saved by the grace of God would answer yes to both of those questions.1. Is the person elect?
2. Is he in the Covenant?
Those who have been saved by the grace of God would answer yes to both of those questions.
Those in the NC relationship with God are the elect of God, and also part of the Church/Body/Bride of Christ.Is covenant membership in the church identical to the elect?
Jacob, I would re-word your question into this statement, "The Elect of all ages are members of the New Covenant." This applies to the those elect who have yet to brought into the fold or to be born. In the latter sense I am writing retroactively.Is covenant membership in the church identical to the elect?
Jacob, I would re-word your question into this statement, "The Elect of all ages are members of the New Covenant." This applies to the those elect who have yet to brought into the fold or to be born. In the latter sense I am writing retroactively.
Well, it depends on when you ask me that question. Two weeks ago I would have answered your question with an emphatic "Yes!". When Brandon started posting his various threads on 1689 Federalism I read them with a healthy dose of skepticism. The majority Reformed Baptist position has been "one covenant [Covenant of Grace], two administrations". Now I am not so sure. I confess that there is, indeed, a Covenant of Grace, but the question I am wrestling with is whether the Covenant of Grace is one and the same with the New Covenant. Another way of asking the questions is, "Is the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace?". You are going to have to give me some time in order to give you a fair answer.Fair enough. Do you see the New Covenant as a subset of the Covenant of Grace?
Bill,
I have discussed this w/ Brandon and that is my position as well. There are vague differences, but I hold to one C of G/NC mentality. I have posted this in the past and it wasn't received well. I believe Westminster understood it as such also:
Forgive me for beating this dead horse if u have read this already:
http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/
I use to hold to a theological position somewhat similar to the Orthodox Presbyterian Professor named Meredith Kline and somewhat that of John Owen concerning the Mosaic Covenant.
5). This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration if it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Corinthians 3:9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.
John Owen
Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8
pp. 85.86 Goold
I will leave that for you to decide if you hold to the view that the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant are one in the same, and whether the view you hold to puts you in tension with your belief in paedobaptism.
Watching. Still have a lot to be answered. Both sides. Actually all three sides. I see all three claiming Owen. Owen is an enigma. Prior Posts reveal that. I have heard Owen was a good defense. Not by me. The New Covenant looks and acts a lot like the Church and the Old Covenant to me. Antinomianism and Dispensationalism have confused a lot of this in my estimation.
And believe me Dispensationalism can't always be defined in Classical terms. DARBY is Hyper. Not sure how we would classify Johnny Mac Now Days. I quit following it. Progressive(question Mark). This is historical. I understand that. But ..... It is still what it is.
Scott, that is why I used the word "whether".Bill,
I see no tension....
Bill,Scott,
In 2013 I purchased Pascal Denault's book, "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology". It did not challenge me then the way it is challenging me now. In chapter 2 Denault compares Presbyterian covenant theology with Particular Baptist covenant theology (distinct from 20th Century Reformed Baptist covenant theology). Pascal makes the point that the Presbyterian doctrine of succession is dependent on the "one covenant, two administrations" view of the Covenant of Grace. In other words, paedobaptism falls if the Covenant of Grace is viewed any other way. As a Presbyterian, I will leave that for you to decide if you hold to the view that the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant are one in the same, and whether the view you hold to puts you in tension with your belief in paedobaptism.
As I understand Pascal Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos they do not suggest that the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament, but rather it was a promise of the New Covenant. Since the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Pentecost, there were no New Covenant members until that time. Of course, that creates a conundrum for the Particular Baptist (i.e. 1689 Federalism) view. Into what covenant where pre-New Covenant saints a part of? For me that is the pivotal question on which my acceptance/rejection of Particular Baptist covenant theology hinges. I am working on an answer to that question, and I pray God will give me peace about the answer. If I were to guess, the men I mentioned earlier in this paragraph will say that pre-New Covenant believers are saved into the promise of the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant. The substance of their salvation is still the finished work of Christ on their behalf.
What are the vague differences you mentioned?
Perg,Bill,
You say, "As I understand Pascal Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos they do not suggest that the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament, but rather it was a promise of the New Covenant."
But that is precisely why I am suspicious of it...because they say the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. Am I reading them correctly? A promise is not the thing promised. So they DENY that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT.
But, OT believers participated in its reality. Such that the Covenant of Grace was effective and active even in the OT, and there were Covenant of Grace participants even in the OT.
Those who were saved before Christ were saved because of an oath; those who were saved after Him were saved because of a covenant.
To have the Covenant of Grace "revealed" and "promised" but not "enacted" seems to be a distinction without a difference if all parties agree that OT believers participated actively in the Covenant of Grace. I appears that Presbyterians could also say this. If there were active believers in the OT, then the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT (unless we posit some other mode of salvation for them). I am failing to see what is so distinctive about Baptist Covenant Theology.
In another thread, I was asking the same question Bill seems to be struggling with: what covenant were the OT saints really in? If not the CoG, then ?? And, as Pergamum has said, a promise is not the thing promised. So, the OT saints couldn't have been in the "promise" of a covenant, they had to be in some kind of covenantal relationship with God.
I haven't read much of the material being discussed on these threads (as I am happily content with the consistency of the Presbyterian view of the covenants after spending years as a Baptist), but it seems as if the authors are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They understand that the CoG has to be operational in the OT, else those saints are left stranded only in a promise (and while a promise of God is sure, it is surely not the same thing as the thing that He promised!); yet their ecclesiology (soteriology?) demands that the Church begin at Pentecost with a clean sweep from the sacramental past and new signs that mean new things.
To say, as one author above did, that the CoG was "revealed" at the Fall and "executed" at the Cross is fine (I would agree with that). But to say that it becomes "effective" whenever someone is joined to Christ by faith is where the author's position comes unraveled. I would agree with that statement, of course, as a Presbyterian; for a Baptist to say that, however, he has to answer the OP in the negative. If the CoG was "effective" when OT saints were joined to Christ, then it was operational (a la Westminsterian theology, because we believe that they were, in fact, joined to Christ by faith). To maintain the distinction that these authors wish to maintain, however, they must put those "joined to Christ by faith" solely in the NC and leave OT saints out in the cold - either not joined to Christ (which they surely wouldn't say) or not joined to Him by faith. The authors cited posit no other qualifiers (that I can see) than those two as determinative for inclusion in the CoG: 1) being joined to Christ; and 2) being joined to Him by faith.
In the end, their theology does not allow the OT saints to be in the CoG. So, we come full circle. If the OT saints were not in the CoG, what covenant were they in? And, most significantly, if it wasn't gracious, what was it?
and afterwards by farther steps,
So, prima facia, it seems that the framers of the 1689 LBC saw a progressive nature of the Covenant of Grace.
These words refer to the revelation of the CoG, correct? That is the way I have always understood them.
But, it sounds like you are saying that these words refer to the nature of the CoG.
I think that the basic question on this would be "How new is the NC really?"Well, it depends on when you ask me that question. Two weeks ago I would have answered your question with an emphatic "Yes!". When Brandon started posting his various threads on 1689 Federalism I read them with a healthy dose of skepticism. The majority Reformed Baptist position has been "one covenant [Covenant of Grace], two administrations". Now I am not so sure. I confess that there is, indeed, a Covenant of Grace, but the question I am wrestling with is whether the Covenant of Grace is one and the same with the New Covenant. Another way of asking the questions is, "Is the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace?". You are going to have to give me some time in order to give you a fair answer.
Is there more than one Everlasting Covenant(question mark)
(Gen 17:7) And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee.
(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish my covenant with him for an everlasting covenant, and with his seed after him.
(Heb 13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant,
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.
My understanding is that they would support the CoG being active in the OC, but that in their mind, the CoG is not exactly the NC, as OT saints saved same way under grace as we are, but the NT church is a new thing instituted at that time.Bill,
You say, "As I understand Pascal Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos they do not suggest that the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament, but rather it was a promise of the New Covenant."
But that is precisely why I am suspicious of it...because they say the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. Am I reading them correctly? A promise is not the thing promised. So they DENY that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT.
But, OT believers participated in its reality. Such that the Covenant of Grace was effective and active even in the OT, and there were Covenant of Grace participants even in the OT.
God was saving all of those under the OC by the grace of Calvary, by granting "credit" towards them. But the fullness of the CoG awaited the coming of Messiah and the Holy spirit at Pentecost is how I understand then saying here. There was/is something really new in the NC when it fully was ushered in by Jesus Christ.Perg,
Here is what has bothered me most. I quote from a previous post in this thread:
"Since the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Pentecost, there were no New Covenant members until that time. Of course, that creates a conundrum for the Particular Baptist (i.e. 1689 Federalism) view. Into what covenant were pre-New Covenant saints a part of? For me, that is the pivotal question of which my acceptance/rejection of Particular Baptist covenant theology hinges. I am working on an answer to that question, and I pray God will give me peace about the answer."
Here is how Denault answers my question:
"Benjamin Keach, one of the main Baptist theologians of the second half of the seventeenth century, ratifies this view of the Covenant of Grace when he describes its four sequences: 1. It was first decreed in past eternity, 2. It was secondly revealed to man after the fall of Adam and Eve, 3. It was executed and confirmed by Christ in His death and resurrection, 4. It becomes effective for its members when are joined to Christ through faith. The particularity of this ordo salutis is the distinction between the revelation and the execution of the Covenant of Grace. Those who were saved before Christ were saved because of an oath; those who were saved after Him were saved because of a covenant."
But it is said to have been established here.No. The eternal and everlasting covenant is the New Covenant.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro