Understanding the "Abrahamic Covenant" is key!

[Steve Owen]

Hello Matthew,
In reply to my post:-

There indeed is the rub. The fact is that the WCF knows nothing of a Covenant or Council of Redemption. It was added later in the SSK by (I believe) only two of the Westminster Divines.

You wrote:-

I am unsure why you would say that only 2 believed the CoR. That is grossly inaccurate.

I did not say that only two of the Westminster Divines believed in the CoR. I said that it is not found in the WCF proper, but only in the Sum of Saving Knowledge which, as I understand it, was not written by all the Divines but only by two of them. Certainly the SSK is not in my copy of the Westminster Confession. Whether others of the Divines 'believed' it, I cannot say. I only know that they did not put it in the WCF which I understand to be your standard of orthodoxy.

I also know that Turretine does not mention the CoR by name, though I note that you claim to find it in embryo in his works. Personally, I do not find a need to conjure up another covenant which is not named in the Bible. If the WCF can do without it, surely you can too? I would suggest that you turn your attention to the Covenants of Promise which are at least mentioned in the Bible (Eph 2:12 ). I have brought them up several times, but no one seems to want to talk about them.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Personally, I do not find a need to conjure up another covenant which is not named in the Bible. If the WCF can do without it, surely you can too?

Martin, although we all of course agree that it is not mentioned by that name in Scripture any more than the "Trinity" is mentioned by that name - yet as Matt pointed out in his book on Covenant Theology, what the term is used to describe is in fact specifically referred to in Scripture, namely as the "counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13).

With regard to its presence in the WCF, Fred Greco explained it succinctly and well in a previous thread:

Originally posted by fredtgreco
That is because the Confession does not take a hard and fast distinction between the Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Redemption. It instead views the Covenant of Grace from two perspectives: visible/temporal and invisible/eternal.

There is no real substantive difference.

Originally posted by fredtgreco
It's really simple, and this is true of all Westminster Calvinists:

Either
1. There is a Covenant of Grace and a Covenant of Redemption, with the former including both elect and reprobate, and the latter only the elect. This was the position of Rutherford and others.

OR

2. There is only a Covenant of Grace, with two aspects to the covenant, one external (including both elect and reprobate) and internal (including only the elect). This was the position of Thomas Boston and others.

There is no other position consistent with the Confession.

Personally, I do not have much need or desire to use the term "Covenant of Redemption," as I have found the internal/external distinction in the Covenant of Grace to be much more effective in getting what we are really talking about across to people. But attempting to biblically critique the aspects of Covenant Theology for which paedobaptists are arguing by saying, "The Covenant of Redemption isn't in Scripture, or even the WCF" truly does no more to what we are arguing for than a Jehovah's Witness pointing out that there is no use of the term "Trinity" in Scripture.

This very issue was also discussed fairly recently here.

 

[Steve Owen]

Hello Chris,

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Personally, I do not find a need to conjure up another covenant which is not named in the Bible. If the WCF can do without it, surely you can too?

Martin, although we all of course agree that it is not mentioned by that name in Scripture any more than the "Trinity" is mentioned by that name - yet as Matt pointed out in his book on Covenant Theology, what the term is used to describe is in fact specifically referred to in Scripture, namely as the "counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13).

I think one needs to be very careful about using the 'Trinity' argument. The Doctrine of the Trinity, like all other doctrines, is as true as Scripture makes it, and no further. In fact we all agree that the Bible teaches that there is one God in three Persons and it is a helpful shorthand to refer to it as the 'Trinity.' However, using the terms Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Redemption is very confusing, because these terms are not universally agreed. For example, I can agree wholeheartedly with the Larger Catechism Q.31, but it is most unhelpful to be told, "Ah! That's not the CoG, that's the CoR!" when the Catechism itself clearly is speaking of the CoG.

In fact, of course, I deny that there is any Covenant made in eternity which has reference to the non-elect. Our Lord Himself makes it clear that the promises to children in the O.T. refer not to physical offspring, but to spiritual. John 6:45. 'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.' As one would expect, our Lord's words are reiterated by Paul (Rom 2:28-29; 4:11-12; Gal 3:7 etc).

yet as Matt pointed out in his book on Covenant Theology, what the term is used to describe is in fact specifically referred to in Scripture, namely as the "counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13).

If you and/or Matthew are suggesting that there can be a 'Council' or 'Covenant' of Peace between the Lord and the non-elect, you are mistaken, because, '"There is no peace," says my God, "For the wicked"' (Isaiah 57:21 ).

Personally, I do not have much need or desire to use the term "Covenant of Redemption," as I have found the internal/external distinction in the Covenant of Grace to be much more effective in getting what we are really talking about across to people.

I'm sure that you will find that your approach is more helpful, though that does not mean that I agree with it.

But attempting to biblically critique the aspects of Covenant Theology for which paedobaptists are arguing by saying, "The Covenant of Redemption isn't in Scripture, or even the WCF" truly does no more to what we are arguing for than a Jehovah's Witness pointing out that there is no use of the term "Trinity" in Scripture.

As I said, be very careful how you use this argument. It could be used to justify the most awful, unbiblical heresy. I know it can be helpful, but we need to be exceedingly careful about inventing terms that cannot be found in the word of God. I can go with a CoW and a CoG because I can find the concept clearly in the Scriptures (Rom 5:12ff etc), but a CoR is a step too far!

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Martin, I'll let others explain, but your post is the empitome of "I have no idea what Covenant Theology teaches." Honestly.

No on ever said that God has an eternal counsel with the non-elect called the Counsel of Peace. (?????) I'd first find out WHAT Covenant Theology teaches before trying to piece together what you THINK Covenant Theology teaches. It would help all around. If you read "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology" there is no way you would say what you said in this last post. Not only would Covenant Theologians not agree with your assessment, but they would be upset that you are posing false information as if you knew what you were talking about. If you ask me to explain, I'd direct you to actually read slowly ASOCT instead of skimming it.

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Martin, I'll let others explain, but your post is the empitome of "I have no idea what Covenant Theology teaches." Honestly.

No on ever said that God has an eternal counsel with the non-elect called the Counsel of Peace. (?????) I'd first find out WHAT Covenant Theology teaches before trying to piece together what you THINK Covenant Theology teaches. It would help all around. If you read "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology" there is no way you would say what you said in this last post. Not only would Covenant Theologians not agree with your assessment, but they would be upset that you are posing false information as if you knew what you were talking about. If you ask me to explain, I'd direct you to actually read slowly ASOCT instead of skimming it.

Matthew,
I was replying to what Chris wrote, and prefaced my remarks with the word 'If'. If you actualy read the post instead of getting in a tizzy and firing off ad homs, it would be beneficial.

I have read your Simple Overview and critiqued it at some length on a previous thread as you well know.
http://www.puritanboard.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=13984&page=1

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 1-5-2006 by Martin Marprelate]

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

Originally posted by C. Matthew McMahon
Martin, I'll let others explain, but your post is the empitome of "I have no idea what Covenant Theology teaches." Honestly.

No on ever said that God has an eternal counsel with the non-elect called the Counsel of Peace. (?????) I'd first find out WHAT Covenant Theology teaches before trying to piece together what you THINK Covenant Theology teaches. It would help all around. If you read "A Simple Overview of Covenant Theology" there is no way you would say what you said in this last post. Not only would Covenant Theologians not agree with your assessment, but they would be upset that you are posing false information as if you knew what you were talking about. If you ask me to explain, I'd direct you to actually read slowly ASOCT instead of skimming it.

Matthew,
I was replying to what Chris wrote, and prefaced my remarks with the word 'If'. If you actualy read the post instead of getting in a tizzy and firing off ad homs, it would be beneficial.

I have read your Simple Overview and critiqued it at some length on a previous thread as you well know.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

.......you and/or Matthew are suggesting

martin,
Even if you were replying to Chris, you included Dr. McMahon in the response; to which he responded.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I think one needs to be very careful about using the 'Trinity' argument. The Doctrine of the Trinity, like all other doctrines, is as true as Scripture makes it, and no further. In fact we all agree that the Bible teaches that there is one God in three Persons and it is a helpful shorthand to refer to it as the 'Trinity.' However, using the terms Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Redemption is very confusing, because these terms are not universally agreed.

I agree we must certainly be careful in making sure it does not become a meaningless mantra or sorts, and that it is not used to justify any random doctrine that pops up. But not everyone who calls themselves "Christians" agrees on the Trinity - and even though you and I both agree they are not in fact Christians if they truly understand and believe what they are claiming, they are there nonetheless. My sole point is simply that universal agreement on a term not mentioned verbatim in Scripture, even by all truly orthodox believers, is not required for the term to truly represent a biblical concept - otherwise we could not even use any specific terms to refer to either of the five points!

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
For example, I can agree wholeheartedly with the Larger Catechism Q.31, but it is most unhelpful to be told, "Ah! That's not the CoG, that's the CoR!" when the Catechism itself clearly is speaking of the CoG.

Again, here is one example of the fact that the Assembly ultimately adopted the view of Boston rather than Rutherford for the language of the Confession - namely referring only to the Covenant of Grace, but with an internal and external aspect respectively, rather than referring to a Covenant of Redemption and a Covenant of Grace respectively. And like Scripture, the Confession was written to be read as a whole, every part in light of every other part - and in doing so, those two different aspects of the Covenant of Grace come out just as definitely as if the Covenant of Grace/Covenant of Redemption language had been used.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
In fact, of course, I deny that there is any Covenant made in eternity which has reference to the non-elect. Our Lord Himself makes it clear that the promises to children in the O.T. refer not to physical offspring, but to spiritual.

I would agree with these statements as they refer to the internal aspect of the Covenant of Grace (or the Covenant of Redemption). But I would also say that to stop there is an over-simplification biblically - for we all agree that the non-elect have no place or promises in the invisible Church. But to automatically conclude that the visible Church is the exact same story simply does not follow.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
John 6:45. 'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.' As one would expect, our Lord's words are reiterated by Paul (Rom 2:28-29; 4:11-12; Gal 3:7 etc).

This is an excellent example of how there are different senses or aspects of the same phrase, and how such phrases are used in different ways (often without explicit qualification) just as much by Scripture as by the Confession.

Here we are told that "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to [Christ]." But you and I would both surely agree that every person, elect and reprobate alike, has heard from and learned of God and of His character and Law through general revelation. Yet we both equally agree that that is not the kind of "hearing" this passage is referring to, but that it is only referring to those who hear and learn from God via special revelation.

But this passage does not explicitly clarify that it is referring to that kind of hearing, and not the learning of general revelation. In fact, on first glance it may seem to be referring to both, since it explicitly refers simply to "everyone who has heard and learned." So why do you and I believe that it is only referring to hearing and learning through special revelation, and excludes general revelation? Because of our systematic theology, coming from viewing this verse in light of the whole of Scripture and every other verse. So it is with the mention of the Covenant of Grace in the Confession. It does not distinguish between the internal and external aspects any more explicitly than Jesus distinguished between special and general revelation in His statement - yet that Confessional distinction (which is at heart equivalent to the distinction between the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace) is clearly seen when each reference is viewed in light of the theology of the Confession as a whole.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

yet as Matt pointed out in his book on Covenant Theology, what the term is used to describe is in fact specifically referred to in Scripture, namely as the "counsel of peace" (Zechariah 6:13).

If you and/or Matthew are suggesting that there can be a 'Council' or 'Covenant' of Peace between the Lord and the non-elect, you are mistaken, because, '"There is no peace," says my God, "For the wicked"' (Isaiah 57:21 ).

As Matt pointed out above, this is truly a very basic misunderstanding of what we are claiming. For as he explained in his book, and as I tried to make clear in my previous post, the essence of the "counsel of peace" corresponds to what we call the Covenant of Redemption (or the internal aspect of the Covenant of Grace), not the Covenant of Grace (or the external aspect of the Covenant of Grace) - for the counsel of peace in Zechariah 6 speaks of a counsel between the Father and the Son with specific reference to the Son as the "priest," as we know that His work as our high priest is concerned with His redemption on the Cross, which is solely for the elect; hence our understanding of the eternal pact between the Father and the Son being concerned with the elect alone, and thus it being an invisible (or internal, or eternal) one in nature, not having reference as such to the visible (or external, or temporal) Church.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate

But attempting to biblically critique the aspects of Covenant Theology for which paedobaptists are arguing by saying, "The Covenant of Redemption isn't in Scripture, or even the WCF" truly does no more to what we are arguing for than a Jehovah's Witness pointing out that there is no use of the term "Trinity" in Scripture.

As I said, be very careful how you use this argument. It could be used to justify the most awful, unbiblical heresy. I know it can be helpful, but we need to be exceedingly careful about inventing terms that cannot be found in the word of God.

Agreed.

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
I can go with a CoW and a CoG because I can find the concept clearly in the Scriptures (Rom 5:12ff etc), but a CoR is a step too far!

Do you believe in the counsel of peace from Zechariah 6 being in essence what I described it as above, referring to a pact in eternity past between the Father and the Son with specific reference to the Son's priestly role?

Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
Grace & Peace,

Martin

Same to you, brother.

 

[Steve Owen]

Hello Chris,

[quote}
Originally posted by Martin Marprelate
For example, I can agree wholeheartedly with the Larger Catechism Q.31, but it is most unhelpful to be told, "Ah! That's not the CoG, that's the CoR!" when the Catechism itself clearly is speaking of the CoG.

Again, here is one example of the fact that the Assembly ultimately adopted the view of Boston rather than Rutherford for the language of the Confession - namely referring only to the Covenant of Grace, but with an internal and external aspect respectively, rather than referring to a Covenant of Redemption and a Covenant of Grace respectively. And like Scripture, the Confession was written to be read as a whole, every part in light of every other part - and in doing so, those two different aspects of the Covenant of Grace come out just as definitely as if the Covenant of Grace/Covenant of Redemption language had been used. [/quote]

When I speak of the Covenant of Grace, I speak of it as it is found in the BCF 1689. 7:2-3. This is also how the WCF Larger Catechism speaks of it in Q31.

Q.31. With whom was the Covenant of Grace made?
Ans. The Covenant of Grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in Him with all the elect as His seed.

As I wrote above,

In fact, of course, I deny that there is any Covenant made in eternity which has reference to the non-elect. Our Lord Himself makes it clear that the promises to children in the O.T. refer not to physical offspring, but to spiritual. John 6:45. 'It is written in the prophets, "And they shall all be taught by God." Therefore everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to Me.' As one would expect, our Lord's words are reiterated by Paul (Rom 2:28-29; 4:11-12; Gal 3:7 etc).

To this you replied:-

Here we are told that "everyone who has heard and learned from the Father comes to [Christ]." But you and I would both surely agree that every person, elect and reprobate alike, has heard from and learned of God and of His character and Law through general revelation. Yet we both equally agree that that is not the kind of "hearing" this passage is referring to, but that it is only referring to those who hear and learn from God via special revelation.

Well no, actually I don't agree. In John 6:45, the emphasis is on the learning. Everybody 'hears' of God in general revelation (Psalm 19:1-4 ), but not everybody 'learns' of Him through it. Paul refers to this in Rom 1:19-20. The first step in my own conversion was actually general revelation. Obviously, one then needs the special revelation of Scripture, but our Lord is speaking of the learning, the 'Effectual Call' of God, which can come in many ways, but inevitably draws one to Christ.

I am sorry I misunderstood you about the 'Council of Peace.' You seemed to be referring to an 'external' covenant at that point. I thought it seemed a bit strange!

You continued:-

hence our understanding of the eternal pact between the Father and the Son being concerned with the elect alone, and thus it being an invisible (or internal, or eternal) one in nature, not having reference as such to the visible (or external, or temporal) Church.

As you may be aware, I believe that this is a false dichotome. A church is an assembly of Christians and it is visible. A church is the people portrayed in Acts 2:44-47 and 1Cor 1:2-9 and it must be kept pure. As it is written, 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.'

Do you believe in the counsel of peace from Zechariah 6 being in essence what I described it as above, referring to a pact in eternity past between the Father and the Son with specific reference to the Son's priestly role?

Yes, but I refer to it as the Covenant of Grace, which is where the confusion lies.

Grace & Peace,

Martin

 

[non dignus]

Forgive me if I''m being a pest,

"As it is written, 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' "

Are you saying the baby Isaac was in the external covenant???

 

[CDM]

So when you say "oh, its a new KIND of covenant," you first need to define what the non-negotiable parts of a "covenant" are, so that you have some kind of baseline from which to explain how the new covenant is NEW, but still a COVENANT.

Absolutely. Thank you for focusing on this point. Many here can benefit if we direct our energies on WHAT IS the new covenant. As a preemptive follow-up question, I'd like to ask, for clarity, how unbelievers can be part of the New Covenant administration?

 

[Steve Owen]

Originally posted by non dignus
Forgive me if I''m being a pest,

Not in the least.

"As it is written, 'Cast out the bondwoman and her son, for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the freewoman.' "

Are you saying the baby Isaac was in the external covenant???

No. Paul, not I, is saying that Isaac is in the covenant and Ishmael (the son of the bondwoman) isn't (cf. Gen 17:18-19 ). As you may have gathered, I do not accept the internal/external, visible/invisible distinctions so popular among Presbyterians.

You might like to look at the Isaiah 54 thread on the Covenant Theology forum.

Blessings,

Martin

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Originally posted by mangum

So when you say "oh, its a new KIND of covenant," you first need to define what the non-negotiable parts of a "covenant" are, so that you have some kind of baseline from which to explain how the new covenant is NEW, but still a COVENANT.

Absolutely. Thank you for focusing on this point. Many here can benefit if we direct our energies on WHAT IS the new covenant. As a preemptive follow-up question, I'd like to ask, for clarity, how unbelievers can be part of the New Covenant administration?

In the way no different from the inclusion of unbelievers in the Old Covenant administration. They experienced the external aspects, but took no real part in the spiritual. Faithless Israelites received nothing of eternal value from God. They "ate and drank judgment to themselves." Same goes for those who are attached to the New Covenant outwardly, but have no blessed experience of grace.




This isn't especially relevant to our exchange, but I was looking for a place to post it: just something attributed to Spurgeon, a good quote (kind of contextless) but well spoken, as far as it goes--

The doctrine of the covenant lies at the root of all true theology. It has been said that he who well understands the distinction between the covenant of works and the covenant of grace, is a master of diviniity. I am persuaded that most of the mistakes which men make concerning the doctrines of Scripture, are based upon fundamental errors with regard to the covenant of law and of grace.
Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Sermons on the Covenant, Wilmington, DE, Cross Publishing, 1980), 5.

(quoted in "The Covenant Idea in Irenaeus of Lyons: An Introduction and Survey," by Ligon Duncan)

[Edited on 1-6-2006 by Contra_Mundum]