"Faith was not the condition of the Mosaic Covenant"?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Clerk
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.

Fair enough. Do you see the New Covenant as a subset of the Covenant of Grace?
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
Fair enough. Do you see the New Covenant as a subset of the Covenant of Grace?
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.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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/

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?
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
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.
 
Last edited:

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

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
 

Scott Bushey

Puritanboard Commissioner
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.

Bill,
I see no tension....
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.

Randy, Dispensationalism requires a certain eschatological view (pre-wrath rapture, and two returns of Christ come to mind). I see Particular Baptist covenant theology as more of a ecclesiological and soteriological issue.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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?
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.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.
Perg,

I may have written rashly about the Old Testament manifestation of the Covenant of Grace in my reply to Scott. Here is what Denault writes about the Covenant of Grace in his book "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology":

"By rejecting the notion of a covenant of grace under two administrations, the Baptists were, in fact, rejecting only half of this concept: they accepted, as we have previously seen, the notion of one single Covenant of Grace in both testaments, but they refused the idea of the two administrations. For the Baptists, there was only one Covenant of Grace which was revealed from the Fall in a progressive way until its full revelation and conclusion in the New Covenant. This model is clearly expressed in Chapter 7 paragraph 3 of the Confession of 1689: "This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament."

Denault recognizes that on face value there does not seem to be much difference between the paedobaptist view of the of the Covenant of Grace and the Baptist view, in that the Covenant is progressively revealed until the time of the New Covenant. However, he goes on to write that the Baptist understanding of the Covenant of Grace "had a meaning that was very specific and fundamentally different from the paedobaptist". Denault writes:

"The first particularity is found in the difference between the notion of administration and that of revelation. The Baptists believed that before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was not formally given, but only announced and promised (revealed)."

He then quotes Nehemiah Coxe:

"It must also be noted that although the Covenant of Grace was revealed this far to Adam, yet we see in all this there was no formal and express covenant transaction with him. Even less was the Covenant of Grace established with him as a public person or representative of any kind. But as he obtained interest for himself alone by his own faith in the grace God revealed in this way, so must those of his posterity that are saved."

Denault continues:

"This specification is highly significant and plays a determining role in Baptist federalism. For Coxe, the Covenant of Grace was not concluded when God revealed it to Adam. John Owen explains why the Covenant of Grace could not be considered a formal covenant before the establishment of the New Covenant, but was confined to the stage of a promise:"

Owen...

"It lacked its solemn confirmation and establishment, by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged to it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a covenant or a testament, as our apostle proves, Heb. 9:15-23. For neither, as he shows in the place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. To that end the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant."

Denault concludes this section:

"The distinction between the revelation and the administration of the Covenant of Grace finds its whole meaning when the second element of Baptist federalism is added to it, that is to say, the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant. If the Westminster federalism can be summarized in "one covenant under two administrations," that of the 1689 would be "one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant."

This is a bit different than just saying Baptist federalism rejects the notion that there was no Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
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.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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."
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
Those who were saved before Christ were saved because of an oath; those who were saved after Him were saved because of a covenant.

OK, but is it confessional?

LBC Chapter 7

Paragraph 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace...

Paragraph 3. This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.

I think the difference plays out in how both sides view Old Testament saints and covenant membership. Denaut makes the point that the Presbyterian doctrine of succession depends on their more concrete view of the Covenant of Grace being announced in Genesis 3:15. Presbyterian and Baptist ecclesiology plays an integral role in this whole topic. Who are real members of the Covenant of Grace? Presbyterians include their baptized children, whereas Baptists do not. I do see a difference in how Particular Baptists viewed Covenant Theology than the way Reformed Baptists of the late 20th century view it. Chapter 7.3 of our confession does make the point that, "This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament." So, prima facia, it seems that the framers of the 1689 LBC saw a progressive nature of the Covenant of Grace.
 

kainos01

Puritan Board Senior
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?
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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?

Steve, I have an early day in front of customers this morning, so I do not have time for a more thorough reply. I will say that I am not sure Old Testament saints were "stranded". I am also not sure why there is a problem with a promise of a Covenant of Grace or its progressive nature in the Old Testament. Ultimately all believers are in the Covenant of Grace as members of the New Covenant. I will address more this evening when I get home. If it seems as though it is occupying a lot of time recently, it is. It is a topic that interests me greatly, and once I get interested in a topic I tend to hound it to death.

SDG!
 

Andrew P.C.

Puritan Board Junior
"17 And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: but God gave it to Abraham by promise." (Gal. 3)

I cannot fathom how this could be referring to a future covenant.

1) "God gave it to Abraham". Galatians 3 in particular demonstrates that Abraham was in possession of this promise.

2) Hebrews also reminds us that the OT saints were in possession of this promise by faith (just as Abraham in Romans 4)

3) The NC wasn't administered until after Christ appeared. ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood..." Luke 22)

The problem I see here is that baptists are saying the NC is the promised covenant. To quote from one of Bill's posts, he quotes Keach: "Those who were saved before Christ were saved because of an oath; those who were saved after Him were saved because of a covenant". This cannot be true if what scripture tells us is correct. Those "who were saved before Christ" were in possession of Christ. The covenant was already established. This is Paul's argument in Galatians 3.

"that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ...God gave it to Abraham by promise".

It seems that there might be a misunderstanding of what is a covenant. WCF 7.3 says: "Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." We also see this "promised" wording in 7.2 of the covenant of works: "life was promised". How can one say that God, condescending to us, promising life, is not a covenant? I'm not sure, unless there is a redefinition of the term "covenant".

Either the OT saints were in possession of Christ by faith or they were not. Either they were saved, or they were not. "for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).
 

KMK

Administrator
Staff member
and afterwards by farther steps,

These words refer to the revelation of the CoG, correct? That is the way I have always understood them.

So, prima facia, it seems that the framers of the 1689 LBC saw a progressive nature of the Covenant of Grace.

But, it sounds like you are saying that these words refer to the nature of the CoG.
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.

Ken,

That is not what I am trying to communicate. The argument from the 1689 side states that the CoG was promised in Gen. 3:15, and progressively revealed throughout OT history, and finally ratified at Christ's death and resurrection. They make the case that the CoG and the NC are one in the same. So, why not buy into the Presbyterian view of "one covenant and two administrations"? Because Baptists do not accept the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants as defining the CoG by admission of unregenerate persons into the covenant. They also see a difference in the covenant signs. Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant that was not given on the basis of faith, whereas baptism is a sign intended only for believers and on the basis of faith. I'll get into this more later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

PuritanCovenanter

Moderator
Staff member
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
I think that the basic question on this would be "How new is the NC really?"
 

Herald

Administrator
Staff member
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.

No. The eternal and everlasting covenant is the New Covenant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
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.
 

Dachaser

Puritan Board Doctor
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."
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top