New Covenant and New Testament in Westminster

[Ben Chomp]

As I study the sacraments, I am pleased to discover that the Westminster Standards appears to distinguish between the new covenant and the new testament.

Here are how I would wish to understand three important terms:

New Covenant - The gracious salvation of Christ spoken about in Jeremiah 31 which includes the regeneration of the Holy Spirit and the forgiveness of sins.

Covenant of Grace - The one covenant spanning both OT and NT of which Christ is the mediator. The CoG, for me, is synonymous with the New Covenant that Jeremiah speaks of.

New Testament - The new dispensation of the CoG inaugurated by Christ wherein the shadows are stripped away and only the substance remains.

The Westminster Standards acknowledge that there are both OT and NT sacraments. OT sacraments would have included Passover and circumcision (at least). But in the shorter catechism's pithy definition of a sacrament it says this:

"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."

OT sacraments presumably also fit this definition since this is a broad definition of sacraments in general. The catechism itself implies this, as the very next question focuses more specifically on NT sacraments: "Which are the sacraments of the New Testament?"

This means that circumcision (even since the time of Abraham) represented, sealed, and applied Christ and the benefits of Jeremiah's "New Covenant" to Abraham and his descendants. So we see that the standards acknowledge that the New Covenant of Jeremiah 31 is not time specific. The "New Covenant" is really the oldest covenant of all and is the very same Covenant of Grace of whom Christ is the mediator.

 

[Scott Bushey]

The CoG, for me, is synonymous with the New Covenant that Jeremiah speaks of.

I concur (but most here will not).

https://www.semperreformanda.com/2017/04/turretin-on-the-new-covenant-and-covenant-of-grace/

https://www.semperreformanda.com/20...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/

 

[Contra_Mundum]

In my opinion, the best way to describe it is: the NC most fully expresses the CoG, presenting the covenant in its fullness, according to the finished work of Christ; whereas, in previous ages the CoG was expressed in typological form, with expectancy, according to the promise.

In other words, you have lesser expressions of the CoG than the full expression--but they are still the CoG. Signs and seals of previous administrations (to the NC admin) were designed to represent, seal, and apply the benefits of the CoG--that would be fully expressed down the road in the NC. But they were accessible prior.

So, in that sense one can take the definition of "sacrament," which has been crafted for a NC-era catechumen, and also use it for an OT saint. But we have to allow for the fact that an OT saint, hearing that definition, might be confused by the language if he were to be handed it to recite. We impose those terms on OT conditions, to read them in light of further revelation.

As one example, "Anointed One" (Christ) isn't in use early on, in Abraham's day. When finally it comes into frequent use, the subject is the priesthood. So, there's no correct assumption that the Coming Seed, going by the title Messiah, is obviously the one instituting the sacraments found in the OT, so for instance giving circumcision to Abraham. It's obvious to us, who identify the manifested Jehovah of the OT with the Word who became incarnate, but was not to them (on whom the end of the ages had not yet come).

I'm pointing out the necessity of clarifying a definition ideally suited to one group, but superimposed on another for the benefit of the first, helping them see the connection they have to the other. Until it had been translated, and the terms explained, the two groups could not share the definition.

It's also vital to distinguish between Abraham and Moses. The "Old Covenant" is specifically "the covenant [when I brought] them out of the land of Egypt," Jer.31:32. "New" is relative to the "Old," and there are elements of the Old which are obsolete. But "obsolescence" is not any way the NT characterizes the covenant with Abraham. More like "realization."