This question is about the nature of the New Covenant as opposed to the Old Covenant:
Is it better to speak of 2 different administrations of the one covenant of grace, or of two different covenants?
These two testaments or covenants are compared with one another and are opposed to one another in passages such as II Corinthians 3:6-9; Galatians 4:24-26; Hebrews 7:22; 9:15-20.
I have been reading John Owen’s exposition on Hebrews 8:6-13 and he seems to say that these are two covenants and not two administrations of the one covenant of Grace. What do you think of Owen’s on Hebrews? Does Owens radically differ from other covenant theologians of his time? Sinclair Fergusan in John Owen on the Christian Life, calls Owens’ position a “mediating position” (page 28).
How does this impact our view of the Covenant of Works versus the Covenant of Grace?
Does that mean that there was no grace in the law?
Or that the Mosaic administration was not an administration of the Covenant of Grace, but a republication and a return to the Covenant of Works?
Was the Mosaic Administration a covenant of works or part of the covenant of grace, it seems to have traits of both and some of the reformed seem to address this administration differently (i.e., there doesn’t seem to be monolithic uniformity on how to speak about Sinai).
Sinclair Fergusan (page 30 in his same book on John Owen) says:
So, was Sinai part of the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace?
Or a separate national covenant not fitting into either of the two?
This would make John Owen to be opposed to (if he were alive) the book often used in seminaries as a basic text in covenant theology, O Palmer Robertson’s Christ of the Covenants, right? Christ of the Covenants lists the Mosaic Covenant as one of the many administrations of the covenant of grace (if I remember correctly).
Was it as if God republished the Covenant of Works such that the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace runs side by side under Moses? A reminder added due to transgressions to keep God’s people as a schoolmaster until Christ?
Finally, the nature of the New Covenant is that it is unbreakable. If God has a covenant people, therefore, then they cannot be lost or else this would break the covenant, right? But, if the children of believers are part of God’s covenant people even now, this means that either the covenant can be broken, or else 100% of these children are saved? Is my reasoning sound, and where are my errors?
P.s. I am writing as a Reformed Baptist and ask these questions because some Calvy Baptists, influenced by Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel and Ernest Reisenger, are advocating “New Covenant Theology” which is anti-sabbatarian and also states that in Matthew 5 (“But I say unto you…”) that Jesus is actually teaching differently or abrogating Moses rather than merely correcting Pharisaic distortions of Moses. The last time I checked, Jesus and Moses would have agreed about the moral law of God.
Is it better to speak of 2 different administrations of the one covenant of grace, or of two different covenants?
These two testaments or covenants are compared with one another and are opposed to one another in passages such as II Corinthians 3:6-9; Galatians 4:24-26; Hebrews 7:22; 9:15-20.
I have been reading John Owen’s exposition on Hebrews 8:6-13 and he seems to say that these are two covenants and not two administrations of the one covenant of Grace. What do you think of Owen’s on Hebrews? Does Owens radically differ from other covenant theologians of his time? Sinclair Fergusan in John Owen on the Christian Life, calls Owens’ position a “mediating position” (page 28).
How does this impact our view of the Covenant of Works versus the Covenant of Grace?
Does that mean that there was no grace in the law?
Or that the Mosaic administration was not an administration of the Covenant of Grace, but a republication and a return to the Covenant of Works?
Was the Mosaic Administration a covenant of works or part of the covenant of grace, it seems to have traits of both and some of the reformed seem to address this administration differently (i.e., there doesn’t seem to be monolithic uniformity on how to speak about Sinai).
Sinclair Fergusan (page 30 in his same book on John Owen) says:
“Sinai should not be thought of as a covenant of works; but Sinai does involve a renewal of the principles which partly constituted the covenant of works. On the other hand, the Sinai covenant cannot be thought of as the covenant of grace. His [Owen’s] conclusion then is that the Sinaitic covenant revised the commands, sanctions and promises of the covenant of works, and that when the apostle Paul disputes about works or law-righteousness it is the renovation of the Edenic covenant in the Sinaitic covenant he has in mind. Sinai therefore is a ‘particular, temporary covenant…and not a mere dispensation of the covenant of grace.”
So, was Sinai part of the Covenant of Works or the Covenant of Grace?
Or a separate national covenant not fitting into either of the two?
This would make John Owen to be opposed to (if he were alive) the book often used in seminaries as a basic text in covenant theology, O Palmer Robertson’s Christ of the Covenants, right? Christ of the Covenants lists the Mosaic Covenant as one of the many administrations of the covenant of grace (if I remember correctly).
Was it as if God republished the Covenant of Works such that the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Grace runs side by side under Moses? A reminder added due to transgressions to keep God’s people as a schoolmaster until Christ?
Finally, the nature of the New Covenant is that it is unbreakable. If God has a covenant people, therefore, then they cannot be lost or else this would break the covenant, right? But, if the children of believers are part of God’s covenant people even now, this means that either the covenant can be broken, or else 100% of these children are saved? Is my reasoning sound, and where are my errors?
P.s. I am writing as a Reformed Baptist and ask these questions because some Calvy Baptists, influenced by Tom Wells, Fred Zaspel and Ernest Reisenger, are advocating “New Covenant Theology” which is anti-sabbatarian and also states that in Matthew 5 (“But I say unto you…”) that Jesus is actually teaching differently or abrogating Moses rather than merely correcting Pharisaic distortions of Moses. The last time I checked, Jesus and Moses would have agreed about the moral law of God.