Is the New Covenant equal to the Covenant of Grace?

[Pergamum]

Does NC=CoG?

Should we use the term CoG if it is not found in Scripture? Why not just use the term New Covenant?

When did the CoG start? Promising something is different than actually starting something, right? A promise of the NC in Gen 3:15 is not the same as the beginning of the CoG is it?

 

[Stephen L Smith]

1689 Baptist Confession 7:3
This covenant is revealed in the gospel. It was revealed first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation through the seed of the woman.5 After that, it was revealed step by step until the full revelation of it was completed in the New Testament.6 This covenant is based on the eternal covenant transaction between the Father and the Son concerning the redemption of the elect.7 Only through the grace of this covenant have those saved from among the descendants of fallen Adam obtained life and blessed immortality. Humanity is now utterly incapable of being accepted by God on the same terms on which Adam was accepted in his state of innocence.8

5 Genesis 3:15.
6 Hebrews 1:1.
7 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2;
8 Hebrews 11:6, 13; Romans 4:1, 2ff.; Acts 4:12; John 8:56.

Note the link here between the covenant and Gen 3:15

 

[Pergamum]

Promised doesn't mean enacted, right?

 

[Ed Walsh]

Does NC=CoG?

Didn’t the Puritans make the point that The New Covenant is a subset of the Covenant of Grace? And both are a result for the Covenant of Redemption between God the Father and the Son Jesus Christ

The Westminster Confession of Faith Chapter 7

II. The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.

III. 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: whereby he freely offereth 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.

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel*: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the Old Testament.
*[The New Covenant]

Q. 92. What is a sacrament?
A. A sacrament is a holy ordinance instituted by Christ; wherein, by sensible signs, Christ, and the benefits of the new covenant, are represented, sealed, and applied to believers.

In other words, - The New Covenant is part of the Covenant of Grace, but the COG is larger in scope than the NC going back to, as you mentioned, Gen. 3:15

 

[JTB.SDG]

According to the Westminster Confession, the one single Covenant of Grace is administered in two dispensations (no pun intended): first, under the old covenant, second under the new covenant. So both the old and new covenants make up the Covenant of Grace, but in the words of the Confession, they are administered differently. IE, the old covenant was the gospel but the gospel through promises, pictures and types (Canaan, the sacrifices, Passover, etc), while the new covenant is the same "substance or essence" but is given loosed of all its old covenant types and shadows. The old covenant includes the Gen.3:15 promise, Noah, Abraham, Moses, and David; they all were part of the Covenant of Grace but in all of these manifestations they were "clothed" with the earthly, revealed less clearly, contained additional parts that would later pass away (OT ceremonial laws likened to the external fuel tank that drops off the space shuttel when it's no longer needed), etc etc. We could say the old covenant was Christ and the gospel promises fore-shadowed, the new covenant is those same things fulfilled. The old covenant was Christ and the gospel promised; the new covenant is the salvation wrought through Christ actually performed.

 

[Steve Curtis]

Pergs,

If the NC was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)

 

[Timotheos]

Pergs,

If the NC was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)

How could the NC be enacted when the mediator had not come and his blood had not been shed? Did you mean to say the CoG?

OT believers partook of the NC/CoG retroactively in the same way that the blood of Jesus applies to elect sinners whose sins were passed over (Rom. 3:24–26).

 

[Andrew P.C.]

This is a distinction between many of our baptist brethren and Presbyterian/reformed.

 

[Timotheos]

Does NC=CoG?

Should we use the term CoG if it is not found in Scripture? Why not just use the term New Covenant?

When did the CoG start? Promising something is different than actually starting something, right? A promise of the NC in Gen 3:15 is not the same as the beginning of the CoG is it?

Obviously, this is where Baptist federalism and Presbyterian federalism will disagree. Both agree that the NC is the CoG (to what extent may differ). But where the difference lies is what is NOT the CoG, i.e. the Old Covenant and even Abrahamic Covenant.

 

[Steve Curtis]

How could the NC be enacted when the mediator had not come and his blood had not been shed? Did you mean to say the CoG?

Yes, I meant to say CoG.
So, my question was meant to be, "If the CoG was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)

Either they participated in the CoG or they did not. If they did, then the CoG predated the Incarnation.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

Both agree that the NC is the CoG

I'm not sure id agree with this. The distinction is that baptists seem to say the NC IS the CoG, whereas classic reformed covenant theology says the NC is OF the CoG (I.e an administration).

 

[Timotheos]

I'm not sure id agree with this. The distinction is that baptists seem to say the NC IS the CoG, whereas classic reformed covenant theology says the NC is OF the CoG (I.e an administration).

No disrespect, but if you had quoted me fully, that would have assuaged your complaint. I said, "Both agree that the NC is the CoG (to what extent may differ)." Your clarification was the extent to which I was referring, namely the administration.

 

[Timotheos]

Yes, I meant to say CoG.
So, my question was meant to be, "If the CoG was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)

Either they participated in the CoG or they did not. If they did, then the CoG predated the Incarnation.

I suppose you didn't read the rest of my post? I said, "OT believers partook of the NC/CoG retroactively in the same way that the blood of Jesus applies to elect sinners whose sins were passed over (Rom. 3:24–26)."

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Partaking retroactively is something someone does who is living in the present, but entering (as it were) a past event.

Part of this confusion is lack of precision in terms. Timotheos, kainos' question is still on the table. He asks "what is the covenant the OT believer is in." You seem to indicate that there is a prospective engagement of them with the benefits of the NC, which benefits are retrojected to previously living saints. But that still does not answer to what covenant those persons were living in during their time in the world, if it is not the CoG active and in operation/administration.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

No disrespect, but if you had quoted me fully, that would have assuaged your complaint. I said, "Both agree that the NC is the CoG (to what extent may differ)." Your clarification was the extent to which I was referring, namely the administration.

You still seem to not understand what I'm saying. Using the word "is" as in "the NC is the CoG" equivocates the two covenants as one. Saying that the NC is of or an administration of (which baptists deny) makes the NC one of other covenants under the over arching CoG.

 

[TylerRay]

As others are handling the more important question, I'll just throw in an answer to this one:

Should we use the term CoG if it is not found in Scripture?

The implication is that our theological vocabulary should conform to Scriptural vocabulary. This approach has always led to obscurity and left the door open for heresy. Consider such important theological terms as Trinity or Omnipresence. Such language reflects an interpretation of the Scriptures, rather than a bare reading. This works to clarify the truth on the one hand, and to clarify heresy on the other hand. Think of terms like annihilationism. Theological vocabulary distinct from Scriptural vocabulary allows us to give names to both orthodoxy and heterodoxy.

 

[Herald]

Promised doesn't mean enacted, right?

Or not enacted fully; this is the "now and not yet" aspect of the New Covenant. We are partakers of Christ (through the Spirit), but we are not yet in His presence in the eternal state. One day we will be (1 Cor. 13:12).

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Promising something is different than actually starting something, right?

This depends on who you are. If you are a human being, these are probably different, though they could overlap.

If you are a human trying to define God's intention and will, this gets trickier, because you have to decide (and define) whether you are going to try and describe things in some linear fashion, or you are going to try and describe things from an eternal perspective (non-chronological).

From God's perspective, the question is not humanly relevant, because promising and starting are the same thing. (To me, this is part of the crux of the misunderstanding of covenant theology).

 

[Pergamum]

They were save

Pergs,

If the NC was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)

OT believers are saved by the Covenant of Grace, too.

A promise of a coming covenant is not the same as the actual enacting of such a covenant, right?

 

[Pergamum]

Yes, I meant to say CoG.
So, my question was meant to be, "If the CoG was only promised in Gen 3 but not enacted until the NT, what covenant were the OT believers partakers of? The covenant of _______ ? (if not grace, then what?)

Either they participated in the CoG or they did not. If they did, then the CoG predated the Incarnation.

So you would say that the OT believers participated in the CoG even though the CoG was not yet enacted? That is what I believe now.

That there are Participants in the CoG in the OT. OT believers participated in the Covenant of Grace such that it can be said that the Covenant of Grace was effective immediately after the Fall.

Can it still be said that the CoG did not happen until Christ even if OT believers participate in it before it is enacted? It's enacting was with Christ, but can it be said that OT believers were saved by the promises of the Cov of Grace or by the actual Cov of Grace itself, and if they are saved (even retroactively) by the Covenant of Grace in the OT, then this means that the Cov of Grace was active and a reality in the OT as well, right?

 

[Timotheos]

You still seem to not understand what I'm saying. Using the word "is" as in "the NC is the CoG" equivocates the two covenants as one. Saying that the NC is of or an administration of (which baptists deny) makes the NC one of other covenants under the over arching CoG.

I will strive to be more precise in my language. I certainly understand the Paedobaptist view of 1 substance of the CoG administered differently under the OC and the NC. I was not trying to say your view equates the NC w/ the CoG, thus my remark about the extent that the NC is the CoG.

 

[Timotheos]

Partaking retroactively is something someone does who is living in the present, but entering (as it were) a past event.

Part of this confusion is lack of precision in terms. Timotheos, kainos' question is still on the table. He asks "what is the covenant the OT believer is in." You seem to indicate that there is a prospective engagement of them with the benefits of the NC, which benefits are retrojected to previously living saints. But that still does not answer to what covenant those persons were living in during their time in the world, if it is not the CoG active and in operation/administration.

This is where my precision lacks in theology. My field is Biblical Studies. I should have said (?) that the NC/CoG applies retroactively upon the OT saints.

The question is a good one. I want to say a covenant of works wherein the gospel is revealed. It is not THE covenant of works (perfect obedience leading to eternal life as in Eden) but a covenant of works wherein the promise of the CoG was revealed (Gen. 3:15, 12:3, etc.) and thus faith in the promise for justification while the works aspect was to guarantee the physical seed life in the physical promises. Beyond the promise of the CoG was also the typological signs imbedded in the signs and seals and sacrifices. This corresponds with our confession LBC 7:3...

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; and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect; and it is alone by the grace of this covenant that all the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and blessed immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency.

 

[greenbaggins]

Tim, I am curious about your formulation here. If the CoG applies retroactively to the OT saints, then how would you explain language such as that of Galatians 3 ("those who are of faith are the children of Abraham") which seems to apply the Abrahamic covenant prospectively, rather than the NC retroactively? Then, in the same chapter, there is also the language of the seed of Abraham being Christ Himself, which also points in the direction of Christ being the sum and substance of the Abrahamic covenant.

 

[Timotheos]

Tim, I am curious about your formulation here. If the CoG applies retroactively to the OT saints, then how would you explain language such as that of Galatians 3 ("those who are of faith are the children of Abraham") which seems to apply the Abrahamic covenant prospectively, rather than the NC retroactively? Then, in the same chapter, there is also the language of the seed of Abraham being Christ Himself, which also points in the direction of Christ being the sum and substance of the Abrahamic covenant.

Let's start w/ the basis that in 1689 federalism, the Abr. Cov. is not of the CoG but reveals it via promise. Also note that dual nature of the Abr Cov: physical seed (OC) and spiritual seed (NC), thus the allegory of Gal. 4 and the 2 covenants related to the Abr Cov. That said, the Abr Cov reveals through promise the spiritual seed and the typological realities in which they will enjoy via the NC and its mediator of the NC and THE seed of Abraham--Jesus. So I am the seed of Abraham due to my union with Jesus THE seed of Abraham. I enjoy the promises made in the Abr Cov that find fulfillment in the NC/CoG. The CoG is revealed in the Abr Cov and concluded in the NC (borrow from 17th century PBs). So what is being applied prospectively is the promises God made in the Abr. Cov. which is only fulfilled and made possible via Jesus and the NC, not the Abr. Cov. itself. Thus the sign of circumcision which passed to the Mos. Cov. is abrogated. This then relates to the OP's question.

So here is what is going in in 17th century Particular Baptists federal theology. Reformed Covenant Theology had variations within it, especially concerning the Mosaic Covenant. PB simply continued to reform that same thought process of the Mosaic Cov, seeing the connection between the Mos. Cov. and Abr. Cov., and moved the same issues of matter and form back to the Abr. Cov. (credit to Sam Renihan for showing me this)

 

[greenbaggins]

Tim, thanks for this. Two questions: Galatians 4 is speaking of the Abrahamic covenant in relation to the Mosaic covenant (or perhaps a distortion of the Mosaic, in some Reformed formulations), correct? On what exegetical basis do you hold that it is talking about a dual nature of the Abrahamic with no seeming reference to the Mosaic? Paul explicity says "Sinai," after all.

Secondly, as I read the NT, it seems to me that both the physical and spiritual aspects of the promise find fulfillment in Christ (even the land promise!), such that both physical and spiritual promises come to believers. I am not convinced that "promise" somehow equals "absent." Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day. Paul says in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified by faith in Christ Jesus. It seems more logical, then, to posit an organic unfolding covenant, in which salvation is always present, even if it has a more shadowy aspect in OT iterations.

 

[Dachaser]

Does NC=CoG?

Should we use the term CoG if it is not found in Scripture? Why not just use the term New Covenant?

When did the CoG start? Promising something is different than actually starting something, right? A promise of the NC in Gen 3:15 is not the same as the beginning of the CoG is it?

There is One Covenant of Grace in the Bible, in the sense that any and all sinners have been saved by the Cross of Christ and His resurrection, bu that the New Covenant of Grace was ushered in at time of Christ, and that the church came in at Pentecost, as that would be the Baptist understanding on this question.

 

[Timotheos]

Tim, thanks for this. Two questions: Galatians 4 is speaking of the Abrahamic covenant in relation to the Mosaic covenant (or perhaps a distortion of the Mosaic, in some Reformed formulations), correct? On what exegetical basis do you hold that it is talking about a dual nature of the Abrahamic with no seeming reference to the Mosaic? Paul explicity says "Sinai," after all.

As I read the allegory, the 2 women represent 2 different covenants related to Abraham (Gal. 4:24a, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants."). We see then that the 2 covenants allegorized are not then the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) and the Mosaic Covenant (MC). The 2 covenants organically relate to Abraham. Sarah allegorically represents the NC and the Jerusalem above (4:26, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.") which relates to the AC via the spiritual promises. Hagar represents the physical/typological aspects from the OC (Gal. 4:24b, "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.") which relates the AC via physical seed and land and so on, circumcision being one obvious organic relationship between the AC and OC.

Secondly, as I read the NT, it seems to me that both the physical and spiritual aspects of the promise find fulfillment in Christ (even the land promise!), such that both physical and spiritual promises come to believers. I am not convinced that "promise" somehow equals "absent." Jesus said that Abraham rejoiced to see His day. Paul says in Romans 4 that Abraham was justified by faith in Christ Jesus. It seems more logical, then, to posit an organic unfolding covenant, in which salvation is always present, even if it has a more shadowy aspect in OT iterations.

Would you not say that the physical nature of the land promised to Abraham was fulfilled either in Joshua's time or Solomon's time (or both)? The land is typologically forecasting Jesus (part of my ThM thesis was how the vomiting in Rev. 3 was an allusion from Lev. 18 & 20 of the Promised Land vomiting thus making the PL a type of Jesus) and New Creation.

As far as the promised/absent issue, I am not sure to what you are referring. But I would agree that salvation is always present. But where we would disagree is that while all justified are in the CoG, we are disagreeing as to when the CoG was active in the saving. Abraham and every other elect OT saint was a part of the CoG, but they only participate in the CoG in a retroactive sense, namely they believe in the promises revealing a CoG, and the benefits of the CoG are retroactively assigned to them prior to it being instituted by Jesus in the NC. I know I have repeated myself, so I'm not sure what you are driving at w/ Rom. 4. In the same way that justification by faith and union with Christ happened to Abraham before the incarnation and cross-work of Jesus, yet it applied to him retroactively, we would use the same logic for the CoG.

I feel like I am missing you objection. I'm sure it is me, not you. Apologies if I am not answering your objection.

 

[Dachaser]

As I read the allegory, the 2 women represent 2 different covenants related to Abraham (Gal. 4:24a, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants."). We see then that the 2 covenants allegorized are not then the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) and the Mosaic Covenant (MC). The 2 covenants organically relate to Abraham. Sarah allegorically represents the NC and the Jerusalem above (4:26, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.") which relates to the AC via the spiritual promises. Hagar represents the physical/typological aspects from the OC (Gal. 4:24b, "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.") which relates the AC via physical seed and land and so on, circumcision being one obvious organic relationship between the AC and OC.


Would you not say that the physical nature of the land promised to Abraham was fulfilled either in Joshua's time or Solomon's time (or both)? The land is typologically forecasting Jesus (part of my ThM thesis was how the vomiting in Rev. 3 was an allusion from Lev. 18 & 20 of the Promised Land vomiting thus making the PL a type of Jesus) and New Creation.

As far as the promised/absent issue, I am not sure to what you are referring. But I would agree that salvation is always present. But where we would disagree is that while all justified are in the CoG, we are disagreeing as to when the CoG was active in the saving. Abraham and every other elect OT saint was a part of the CoG, but they only participate in the CoG in a retroactive sense, namely they believe in the promises revealing a CoG, and the benefits of the CoG are retroactively assigned to them prior to it being instituted by Jesus in the NC. I know I have repeated myself, so I'm not sure what you are driving at w/ Rom. 4. In the same way that justification by faith and union with Christ happened to Abraham before the incarnation and cross-work of Jesus, yet it applied to him retroactively, we would use the same logic for the CoG.

I feel like I am missing you objection. I'm sure it is me, not you. Apologies if I am not answering your objection.

All of the OT saints were saved by God applying the credit from Calvary towards their sin debt acct on credit so to speak.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

As I read the allegory, the 2 women represent 2 different covenants related to Abraham (Gal. 4:24a, "Now this may be interpreted allegorically: these women are two covenants."). We see then that the 2 covenants allegorized are not then the Abrahamic Covenant (AC) and the Mosaic Covenant (MC). The 2 covenants organically relate to Abraham. Sarah allegorically represents the NC and the Jerusalem above (4:26, "But the Jerusalem above is free, and she is our mother.") which relates to the AC via the spiritual promises. Hagar represents the physical/typological aspects from the OC (Gal. 4:24b, "One is from Mount Sinai, bearing children for slavery; she is Hagar.") which relates the AC via physical seed and land and so on, circumcision being one obvious organic relationship between the AC and OC.

I/we do not see how one arrives at 2-covenants with Abraham unless one has brought it to the text.

The women are viewed as signs/allegories of two covenants. Only one of the women is regarded as legitimate and wife, that's Sarah. To extend the metaphor, she's the covenant with Abraham. Hagar is not legitimate as wife; she's not covenanted at all, but is a slave and a concubine. Hagar is then identified first with Sinai, then with the Jerusalem-below ("that now is"). Jerusalem-above is tied directly to Abraham via Sarah. Sinai is turned into a covenant of interposition, something temporary that must be removed so that the original, Wifely covenant can come into its own.

Then follows the Is.54 quote, honoring Sarah (the desolated), who ends up with more children than "she who had the man." That last bit of phrasing is a deliberate slight, making it clear that the first to bear a child does not bear a legitimate son; but only the son of the Wife is legitimate. The point being: one must belong to the Abrahamic covenant (by faith, through the true son/Son) and then he inherits all things. If all one has is Sinai, then it is as if he is at best Ishmael, and therefore is no heir. Those who presently have the Jerusalem-below think they've got the inheritance. They do not.

 

[malcolmmaxwell60]

The new covenant is a promise to all those who are in Christ Jesus. As Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord. So all of God's people in the old and new are part of the Covenant of grace

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk