14 Questions for Reformed Baptists

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I have a few questions for Reformed Baptists that I'd appreciate having answered as completely and succinctly as possible:

1. What is a covenant, as presented in Scripture?
a. When the Bible refers to the "New" Covenant in the OT, what Hebrew word is used and what is its meaning?

2. Is a covenant unconditional, conditional, or both?
a. What is unconditional or conditional about the covenant?
b. Who initiates the covenant, God or man?
c. Who fulfills the covenant obligations/stipulations, God or man?

3. Is there one, single, Covenant of Grace running throughout Scripture, starting with Adam, renewed with Abraham, Moses, and David, and fully realized in Christ Jesus?

4. What was the makeup of the covenant community in the Old Testament?

5. What is the makeup of the covenant community in the New Testament?

6. What verses in the New Testament point to a radical change in the makeup of the covenant community?

7. What is meant by Paul in 1 Cor 7:14 when he says "your children are holy" (Grk hagios, same word used for "saints" and "sanctified" or "set apart for God")?

8. What did circumcision signify in the Old Testament?

9. What does baptism signify in the New Testament?

10. Is the NT Church a separate body of believers than Old Testament Israel?

11. Are we a new tree, or grafted into the same tree along with OT believers? If it is the same tree, which verses point to a radical change in the makeup of the covenant membership and their obligations/stipulations? If it is a different tree, then Q.10 must be answered with a "Yes," without exception.

12. What were the sacraments of the OT covenant community? How do they relate to the sacraments of the NT community?

13. Does someone have to be knowledgable that they are within the covenant in order to be bound to its obligations/stipulations?

14. What is meant by Paul in Romans 1, where he calls the unbelievers who are given over to their depraved minds "covenant breakers"? Did these people know they were in covenant with God? In what manner? If they did not know they were in covenant with God, then Q.13 msut be answered with a "No," without exception.


If this needs to be moved to the main Covenant Theology forum, please do so. Thanks.

[Edited on 3-29-2005 by WrittenFromUtopia]

 

[SolaScriptura]

Are you still a student at Boyce College?
If so... you should ask your professors these questions... I'm sure they'd love to discuss this with you!
Except... when you ask them to discuss this with you make sure to tell them that you have fourteen questions for them... because that is how many you've written down!

[Edited on 3-28-2005 by SolaScriptura]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Finding a non-Dispensational or non-NC guy at that school is impossible.

 

[pastorway]

I don't have time to asnwer them all in detail but I can give a few short answers and ask a few clarifying questions for you to answer.

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia
I have a few questions for Reformed Baptists that I'd appreciate having answered as completely and succinctly as possible:

1. What is a covenant, as presented in Scripture?
a. When the Bible refers to the "New" Covenant in the OT, what Hebrew word is used and what is its meaning?

It is a new covenant, better than the old, distinct from it, a different covenant with better promises, a better sacrifice, etc. Listen to James White explain it here: The Better Covenant

2. Is a covenant unconditional, conditional, or both?
a. What is unconditional or conditional about the covenant?
b. Who initiates the covenant, God or man?
c. Who fulfills the covenant obligations/stipulations, God or man?

The New Covenant is for hte believer unconditional and cannot be broken. God initiated it and Christ fulfilled all the stipulations of it.

3. Is there one, single, Covenant of Grace running throughout Scripture, starting with Adam, renewed with Abraham, Moses, and David, and fully realized in Christ Jesus?

No. Each covenant in Scripture is named specifically and is distinct from the others. I agree with Owen when he makes it clear that the New Covenant is the Covenant of Grace. The other covenants in Scripture point to and are fulfilled in the New, but they are not all part of one over-arching covenant.

4. What was the makeup of the covenant community in the Old Testament?

Physical Israel. Anyone who was part of the nation of Israel.

5. What is the makeup of the covenant community in the New Testament?

Spiritual Israel, ie. believers only. Those who know God (John 17:3), have their sins forgiven(Heb 8-9) , and whose sins are covered by the shed blood of Christ (Luke 22:20).

6. What verses in the New Testament point to a radical change in the makeup of the covenant community?

All of them that identify who the members of the NC are.

7. What is meant by Paul in 1 Cor 7:14 when he says "your children are holy" (Grk hagios, same word used for "saints" and "sanctified" or "set apart for God")?

This has nothing to do with salvation or standing before God. It is written int he cotnext of a person coming to Christ whose spouse was not a believer. What were they to do then since they were unequally yoked? Was their marriage legitimate? Were their children legitimate? The answer is yes, the marriage was fine and so were the children.

If we use this verse by the way to defend infant baptism then we must also baptize the unbelieving spouse, since they too are holy in this context.

8. What did circumcision signify in the Old Testament?

Obedience to the covenant conditions, pointing to the need for regeneration.

9. What does baptism signify in the New Testament?

The new birth and the answer of a good conscience toward God (1 Peter 3:21).

10. Is the NT Church a separate body of believers than Old Testament Israel?

All of God's elect from all time are part of the church.

11. Are we a new tree, or grafted into the same tree along with OT believers? If it is the same tree, which verses point to a radical change in the makeup of the covenant membership and their obligations/stipulations? If it is a different tree, then Q.10 must be answered with a "Yes," without exception.

what is the tree that we are grafted into?

12. What were the sacraments of the OT covenant community? How do they relate to the sacraments of the NT community?

Feasts, Sabbaths, and Holy Days, shadows that are fulfilled and given substance in Christ. There is no connnection at all in the Scriptures between physical circumcision and water baptism.

13. Does someone have to be knowledgable that they are within the covenant in order to be bound to its obligations/stipulations?

No. Otherwise one would have to have perfect dcotrinal understanding to be saved.

14. What is meant by Paul in Romans 1, where he calls the unbelievers who are given over to their depraved minds "covenant breakers"? Did these people know they were in covenant with God? In what manner? If they did not know they were in covenant with God, then Q.13 msut be answered with a "No," without exception.

Where does he do this? Why do we assume that these people are in covenant and where in Romans 1 are they referred to as covenant breakers?


Phillip

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

It is obvious our views of Covenant Theology are radically different, so I can't really answer all of your responses. I'll briefly answer these, however:

If we use this verse by the way to defend infant baptism then we must also baptize the unbelieving spouse, since they too are holy in this context.

No doubt a clarification on the issue of "household baptisms," wherein an entire household was baptized upon the faith of the household's representative head (whether man or wife, cg. Lydia in Acts 16).

what is the tree that we are grafted into?

Israel, the olive tree:

Rom 11:17  But if some of the branches were broken off, and you, although a wild olive shoot, were grafted in among the others and now share in the nourishing root of the olive tree, 18 do not be arrogant toward the branches. If you are, remember it is not you who support the root, but the root that supports you. 19 Then you will say, "œBranches were broken off so that I might be grafted in." 20 That is true. They were broken off because of their unbelief, but you stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but stand in awe. 21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, neither will he spare you. 22 Note then the kindness and the severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God's kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off. 23 And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again. 24 For if you were cut from what is by nature a wild olive tree, and grafted, contrary to nature, into a cultivated olive tree, how much more will these, the natural branches, be grafted back into their own olive tree.

There is no connnection at all in the Scriptures between physical circumcision and water baptism.

I think you need to change your answers to Questions 8 and 9, then. You said circumcision signified "the need for regeneration" and that baptism signified "the new birth." Obviously, these are the same things in both covenants. We cannot say that baptism is a guaranteed sign of someone's regeneration or "new birth" in the New Covenant, as we cannot discern the hearts of men, nor is it within our jurisdiction to do so. So, in both cases, it is a sign of "the need for regeneration," biblically speaking, as we are not saved by works of righteousness, but the work of God's Spirit (Titus 3:5). Baptism is not subjective or an individualistic ritual, making our saving faith an object wrought in the will of man and in need or recognition. No, baptism is a sign of God's work in the hearts of men and our need for His gracious gift of salvation - just as circumcision was (Deut 30:6; Jer 4:4).

Where does he do this? Why do we assume that these people are in covenant and where in Romans 1 are they referred to as covenant breakers?

"Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful" (Rom 1:31 KJV)

The Greek word is ajsuvnqetoß, translated "covenant breakers" in the KJV. Are not all men born obligated to the covenant of works (of which all men are "covenant breakers," whether they know it or not)?

Grace and peace.

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Just to add to the covenant breaker idea, all men would also be breaking the Noahic covenant as well, since it is made with Noah and his descendents. So covenant breaker doesn't necessarily have to refer to the CoW, though the idea is certainly true.

 

[pastorway]

Quick replies:

Rom 1:31

NKJV - 31undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful;
ESV - 31foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
NASB - 31without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful;

I see no covenant here.

And as for household baptisms, in each case all members heard the gospel, then believed, and then were baptised.

All for now.
Phillip

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

I see no covenant here.

It's there in the Greek, sir. The words "untrustworthy" and "faithless" have been used in newer versions, but the general idea is someone who is responsible for meeting a demand and being faithless to meet it; i.e. a covenant breaker. (ajsuvnqetoß)

And as for household baptisms, in each case all members heard the gospel, then believed, and then were baptised.

Eisogetically speaking.

 

[pastorway]

Eisogesis???

Let me quote John MacArthur on this and give a few Scriptures to prove the point.

1. Cornelius´ house"”Acts 10. The gospel was preached by Peter, Cornelius heard it"¦it says, "They all heard the Word"¦they believed it"¦the Spirit fell"¦they were all baptized." All heard, all believed, the Spirit came on all, they were all baptized.

Acts 10
44While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God. Then Peter answered, 47"Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?" 48And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.

2. In the jailer´s house"”Acts 16 is the next one"¦Philippian jailer. Paul, you remember, gave him the gospel, it says, "All heard the gospel"¦all were baptized."

Acts 16
31So they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved, you and your household." 32Then they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all who were in his house. 33And he took them the same hour of the night and washed their stripes. And immediately he and all his family were baptized. 34Now when he had brought them into his house, he set food before them; and he rejoiced, having believed in God with all his household.

3. Chapter 18, it was in the house of Crispus, "All believed"¦all were baptized."

Acts 18
8Then Crispus, the ruler of the synagogue, believed on the Lord with all his household. And many of the Corinthians, hearing, believed and were baptized.

The other two occur in I Corinthians. The other two are the account of Lydia and Stephanas"”Lydia is in the book of Acts.

4. But, in the case of Lydia, it´s the same thing. We must understand the same thing must have occurred"”they heard, they believed, they were baptized.

5. Stephanas: They heard, they believed, they were baptized.

1 Cor 1 and 16
16Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas.

15I urge you, brethren--you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints--

I mean, it´s all basically the same pattern. They all hear the gospel, they all believe, they all receive the Spirit, they all are baptized.

The "household" then is defined"”it is defined as "those capable of hearing, understanding, believing." That´s the definition of the "household."

In Stephanas´ household, which is in I Corinthians, chapter 1, "All who were baptized," it says, "All who were baptized were devoted to the ministry of the saints." Babies can´t be devoted to the ministry of the saints. It says, "All who were baptized were helping in the spiritual work of the church." It´s impossible for infants.

In the case of Lydia, in Acts, "her heart was opened when she heard the gospel. The gospel was preached and her heart was opened," it says. So, we understood she heard the gospel, she believed"¦others must have heard the gospel, their hearts were opened, and they believed and they were baptized. By the way, to assume there were children in the house is maybe stretching it since, apparently, she had no husband. She, apparently, was a single person.

In John 4, in verse 53, it says about a nobleman"”you know, whom Jesus talked with and He healed his son"”it says about that man, "He himself believed and his whole household." They all believed. Household belief, then household baptism. Where there is no faith, there is no baptism.

So you really think this is eisogesis??

Phillip

 

[Me Died Blue]

Originally posted by WrittenFromUtopia

And as for household baptisms, in each case all members heard the gospel, then believed, and then were baptised.

Eisogetically speaking.

Actually Gabe, Phillip is right here in that many of the household baptisms do follow the textually-mentioned faith of all the household. Even so, that cannot be claimed for each case, such as that of Lydia.

 

[Me Died Blue]

Oops - you beat me to the point, Phillip!

 

[pastorway]

:bigsmile:

When MacArthur presented this material in his debate on baptism with Sproul, RC conceded that he could not overcome his arguments and therefore could not use the household passages to defend infant baptism!

Phillip

 

[Puritan Sailor]

The household baptisms alone cannot defend infant baptism. But understanding the principle of family inclusion in the administration of the covenant, to believers and their children, it would make perfect sense that infants, if they were present, would be baptized. That's why the understanding of the covenant is so important in interpreting those familial references in the NT.

 

[kceaster]

My question is, how can we look past God's design in both federal headship and the family unit?

If each member is autonomous and disconnected, why did God design families? Why would He unfold His plan of redemption based upon a federal head if there is no connection between father and son beyond mere biology.

I do not think baptists can answer the weight of these two concepts in their hermeneutic.

Why does God have a Son? Why is there familial relationship in the Trinity? Why do we need a father in the faith? Of what import are our descendants?

Family is written all over the pages of Scripture. We have to keep family in mind when we think about God and His salvation. Otherwise, His mandate to be fruitful and multiply is only biological in nature and is benign in relation to His ultimate plan.

In Christ,

KC

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Exactly, KC. The head of a household is the spiritual head of that family and is responsible for that family, spiritually, in a temporal/human sense. I wasn't using "household baptisms" to defend infant baptism, but to defend the idea of a head of a household being the example of faith and spiritual head of that house, making the children and spouse of a believing spouse covenantally holy to God, and obligated to repent and believe.

Either way, to conclude no infant baptism OR infant baptism from household baptisms in Scripture is eisogesis. To conclude that the head of a household is a spiritual head and picture of Christ being the head of the Church and so forth is good exegesis; when we go beyond that we are in error. That is why I see the correlation between 1 Cor 7:14 and the household baptisms (cg. Stephanus' household, labeled according to the spiritual/physical head of the family).

 

[pastorway]

family??? household???

But remember when Jesus said, (Matthew 10) 34"Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. 35For I have come to "set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law'; 36and "a man's enemies will be those of his own household.'

And also, (Luke 12) "49"I came to send fire on the earth, and how I wish it were already kindled! 50But I have a baptism to be baptized with, and how distressed I am till it is accomplished! 51Do you suppose that I came to give peace on earth? I tell you, not at all, but rather division. 52For from now on five in one house will be divided: three against two, and two against three. 53Father will be divided against son and son against father, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

Those verses don't seem to fit the CT system......

Phillip

 

[Puritan Sailor]

Phillip, how do you reconcile those verses with these prophecies?

Mal. 4:6 And he will turn
The hearts of the fathers to the children,
And the hearts of the children to their fathers,

Luke 1
16And he will turn many of the children of Israel to the Lord their God. 17He will also go before Him in the spirit and power of Elijah, "to turn the hearts of the fathers to the children,' and the disobedient to the wisdom of the just, to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."

Luke 1
54He has helped His servant Israel,
In remembrance of His mercy,
55As He spoke to our fathers,
To Abraham and to his seed forever."

(And if you going to say that Abraham's seed here means Christ (like Gal. 3), then you have to explain how Christ is going to minister to Himself)

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by puritansailor]

 

[kceaster]

Wow, Phillip, you really knocked those out of the park...NOT!

Jesus was quoting Scripture, as if you didn't know, and to think that He is speaking against the covenant or in some ways saying that the covenant is not able to overcome family squabbles is just not in the context. Cain slew Abel. Because of this, we think that God did not design the covenant and the family unit for glorious purposes in His saving economy?

John MacArthur says this:

Though the ultimate end of the gospel is peace with God (John 14:27; Rom. 8:6), the immediate result of the gospel is frequently conflict. Conversion to Christ can result in strained family relationships (vv. 35,36), persecution, and even martyrdom. Following Christ presupposes a willingness to endure such hardships (vv. 32,33,37-39). Though He is called "Prince of Peace" (Is. 9:6), Christ will have no one deluded into thinking that He calls believers to a life devoid of all conflict.

Sin causes these kinds of division, not Christ, not God. The sword of Christ is the truth that sinful, reprobate family members want to suppress in unrighteousness. What you're saying is that God converts a soul purposefully in a family so that division can take place? So that son can rise up against father? Is that what He did with Cain and Abel? Ham and Noah? In the broader context, Christ already told us that the world would hate us. If our family members are in the world, they will hate us.

This is no way undermines what God does federally in a family, nor does it take away from the fact that God's covenant works through families more often than it does not.

Nice strawman, but no cigar for you.

In Christ,

KC

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

And when Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "œZacchaeus, hurry and come down, for I must stay at your house today." 6 So he hurried and came down and received him joyfully. 7 And when they saw it, they all grumbled, "œHe has gone in to be the guest of a man who is a sinner." 8 And Zacchaeus stood and said to the Lord, "œBehold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor. And if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I restore it fourfold." 9 And Jesus said to him, "œToday salvation has come to this house, since he also is a son of Abraham. 10 For the Son of Man came to seek and to save the lost."

Covenantal blessings and the promise of salvation came to Zacchaeus' house, since he is a son of Abraham.

 

[Scott Bushey]

Originally posted by pastorway
:bigsmile:

When MacArthur presented this material in his debate on baptism with Sproul, RC conceded that he could not overcome his arguments and therefore could not use the household passages to defend infant baptism!

Phillip

As has already been said, a true CT will not argue from the idea of household baptisms (Although, J. Jeremias' treatment of it was excellent). One needs to approach CT from the beginning, not in midstream; building one idea upon the other. This is exactly how the credo errs in trying to understand the theology.

As I have mentioned to Kerry (OSX), positioning oneself by default is (in my opinion) sin; we are called to study. A position, rightfully is based upon accurate decision making. Decision making includes choice & exclussion. It is all our responsibility to God and self to study both issues rightfully and then make a choice.

Not to take from RC that which he brings to the table that is a blessing to us, but as far as covenant theology goes, he is a prime example of the state of Presbyterianism. The general consensus cannot extrapolate the scriptures defending what they believe is truth. The typical elder in the PCA is essentially polluted with the present mainstream view of the bible which is so prevalent today, erroneously programmed to see the scriptures through the lenses of credo theology.


[Edited on 3-30-2005 by Scott Bushey]

 

[BobVigneault]

Interesting thread. One Presbyterian asks questions of the minority members on the board. One reformed Baptist answers. Scads of Presbyterians pile on. But it's all good. We've never debated paedo/credo here before. Maybe something new will be learned.

 

[blhowes]

I was thinking about the verses Pastor Way gave and the responses given by Kevin and Patrick. I was just about to post some thoughts, but first I wanted to ask a question about the passage.

Mat 10:35 For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

Does "at variance" and "against" necessarily mean a negative thing?

Verse 37 says:
Mat 10:37 He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Our love for Jesus must surpass our love for our closest loved ones. It should surpass it so much that our love for our family members would appear as hate in comparison, as in:

Luk 14:26 If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

I'll stop here for now. The direction I was heading with my first train of thought was that, instead of the passage teaching that families are weakened, they are strengthened as each member loves Jesus supremely and there is a distinction between that love and the love for family members.

Do the terms "at variance" and "against" rule out this train of thoughts?

[Edited on 3-30-2005 by blhowes]

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

Q. 30. Doth God leave all mankind to perish in the estate of sin and misery?
A. God doth not leave all men to perish in the estate of sin and misery, into which they fell by the breach of the first covenant, commonly called the covenant of works; but of his mere love and mercy delivereth his elect out of it, and bringeth them into an estate of salvation by the second covenant, commonly called the covenant of grace.

Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?
A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.

Q. 32. How is the grace of God manifested in the second covenant?
A. The grace of God is manifested in the second covenant, in that he freely provideth and offereth to sinners a mediator, and life and salvation by him; and requiring faith as the condition to interest them in him, promiseth and giveth his Holy Spirit to all his elect, to work in them that faith, with all other saving graces; and to enable them unto all holy obedience, as the evidence of the truth of their faith and thankfulness to God, and as the way which he hath appointed them to salvation.

Q. 33. Was the covenant of grace always administered after one and the same manner?
A. The covenant of grace was not always administered after the same manner, but the administrations of it under the Old Testament were different from those under the New.

Q. 34. How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
A. The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the passover, and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised messiah, by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.

Q. 35. How is the covenant of grace administered under the New Testament?
A. Under the New Testament, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the same covenant of grace was and still is to be administered in the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments of baptism and the Lord´s supper; in which grace and salvation are held forth in more fullness, evidence, and efficacy, to all nations.

Q. 36. Who is the mediator of the covenant of grace?
A. The only mediator of the covenant of grace is the Lord Jesus Christ, who, being the eternal Son of God, of one substance and equal with the Father, in the fullness of time became man, and so was and continues to be God and man, in two entire distinct natures, and one person, forever.


Chapter VII. Of God's Covenant with Man.

I. The distance between God and the creature is go great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto Him as their Creator, yet they could never have any fruition of Him as their blessedness and reward, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which He has been pleased to express by way of covenant.

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; wherein He freely offers 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 eternal life His Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe.

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

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 foresignifying 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.

VI. Under the Gospel, when Christ, the substance, was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper: which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity, and less outward glory, yet, in them, it is held forth in more fullness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations.


Excerpt from the 1560 Scots Confession of Faith:

Chapter IV. Of the Revelation of the Promise.

For this we constantly believe: that God, after the fearful and horrible defection of man from his obedience, did seek Adam again, call upon him, rebuke his sin, convict him of the same, and in the end made unto him a most joyful promise: to wit, that the seed of the woman should break down the serpent's head ­ that is, he should destroy the works of the Devil. Which promise, as it was repeated and made more clear from time to time, so was it embraced with joy, and most constantly received of all the faithful, from Adam to Noah, from Noah to Abraham, from Abraham to David, and so forth to the incarnation of Christ Jesus: all (we mean the faithful fathers) under the law did see the joyful days of Christ Jesus, and did rejoice.

 

[WrittenFromUtopia]

The CoG is, first and foremost, based on God's promise alone. We find this discussed in the same manner throughout Scripture in the basic phraseology of "I will be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee" (Gen 17:7; Jer 31:33; 32:38-40; Ezek 34:23-25,30,31; 36:25-28; 37:26,27; 2 Cor 6:16-18; Heb 8:10). This one covenantal promise contains several promises within itself, such as various temporal blessings (often symbolizing spiritual ones), promise of justification and a claim to eternal life, and the promise of the Spirit of God to apply redemption and the blessings of salvation (cf. Job 19:25-27; Psa 16:11; 73:24-26; Isa 43:25; Jer 31:33,34; Ezek 36:27; Dan 12:2,3; Gal 4:5,6; Tit 3:7; Heb 11:7; Jas 2:5).

Secondly, there is also involved the response of man to God's covenant initiation. Men must truly and faithfully be involved in the covenant relationship. Men must respond to God's promise "I will be thy God" with "I will be among thy people." Men must also respond with saving faith in Jesus Christ, the promised seed of Abraham, laying hold to their justification, forgiveness of sins, adoption, and eternal life, through the power of God's Spirit alone.

There are several aspects of the CoG we must also understand. First, it is a gracious covenant, because in it God allows Christ to be our surety in our stead, doing what we could never do. Second, it is a trinitarian covenant, as all of the Godhead is involved in a special way to operate the covanental promise (John 1:16; Eph 1:1-14; 2:8; 1 Pet 1:2). Third, it is an eternal (Gen 17:19; 2 Sam 23:5; Heb 13:20) and unbreakable (Heb 9:17) covenant, as God will forever remain true to His covanental promises (however, this does not mean that man cannot or will not break the relationship in which he stands). Fourth, it is a particular and not universal covenant, seeing as how it is not to be realized in all men as universalists would believe. To those whom the gospel is preached, the blessings of the covenant are not guaranteed. Fifthly, it is the same covenant in all dispensations spiritually, though its form of administration changes.

The summary expression of the covenant is the same throughout history (both the Old and New Testaments); that is "I will be thy God" (Gen 17:7; Ex 19:5; 20:1; Deut 29:13; 2 Sam 7:14; Jer 31:33; Heb 8:10).

The Bible teaches that there is only one gospel by which men can be saved, helping us understand clearly that there is but one covenant of promise for eternal life (Gal 3:8).

Paul argues at length against Judaizers in proving that the Abrahamic promise is clearly still in place and has not changed one bit (Rom 4:9-25; Gal 3:7-9,17,18, cf. Heb 6:13-18).

The Mediator of the covenant has always been the same, and always will be the same (Heb 13:8) and there is no salvation apart from Christ (Jn 14:6; Acts 4:12). Abraham was saved by Christ just as we are (Gal 3:16-29), and we are heirs according to promise, being in Christ.

The way of salvation in the covenant has always been the same, with identical conditions all along (Gen 15:6 compared with Rom 4:11; Heb 2:4; Acts 15:11; Gal 3:6,7; Heb 11:9).

The promises to believers have remained the same (Gen 15:6; Ps 51:12; Matt 13:17; Jn 8:56).

The sacraments, although differing in form, have essentially the same signification in both dispensations (Rom 4:11; 1 Cor 5:7; Col 2:11,12).

Finally, the covenant has always been both conditional and unconditional. It is conditional because the Bible clearly teaches that entrance into the covenant is conditioned on faith (Jn 3:16,36; Rom 10:9), Scripture gives serious threats and warnings to those who would break the covenant with God (against apostasy), and finally, if there were no conditions, it would not be a covenant. God would be in covenant with Himself and man would have no part in it. It is unconditional because the very conditions in which a man can enter the covenant with Christ as their surety is based on God and the work of His Spirit alone.

We must also understand that the CoG has a dual aspect to it. Many have tried to explain this in various ways (such as an "external and internal" covenant), but the only way that it is justified in Scripture is to understand it as both a legal relationship and a communion of life. A covenant can be regarded as an agreement between two parties, with mutual conditions and stipulations, and therefore as something in the legal sphere. The covenant may exist even when nothing is done to realize its purpose, namely the condition to which it points and for which it calls as the real ideal. The parties that live under this agreement are in the covenant, since they are subject to the mutual stipulations agreed upon. In the legal sphere, everything is considered and regulated in a purely objective way.

When thinking of the covenant as an objective, legal relationship, its proper membership is believers and their children, as that is to whom the promise is made throughout Scripture (and this decree of God has never been repealed explicitly nor implicitly; in fact, the NT does much to confirm this reality).

When thinking of the covenant as a communion of life, its proper membership is the elect alone; that is, regenerate people who are given saving faith by God.

As a legal relationship, the CoG contains both professing adults and the children of believers.

For adults, they can only enter the membership of the covenant through a profession of faith. Although a profession of faith is enough to accept an adult into the CoG legally speaking, only with a saving faith (that is the gift of God) are they brought into the covenant both legally and spiritually, as a communion of life.

For the children of believers, they enter the covenant as a legal relationship through birth. This does not, in any way, guarantee that they will enjoy a communion of life with God through their covenant membership. However, it must be reasonably assumed through Scripture that the children of believers have a high probability of eventually showing fruit of saving faith within the covenant as a communion of life. This assurance is based on the promise of God. As long as children of the covenant do not prove otherwise, we are to proceed on the assumption that they are in possession of the covenant life, according to God's promise. Not all children of believers will continue in the covenant in a living way, and we must remember the words of Paul in Rom 9:6-8 that "Not all of Israel is truly Israel."

In emphasizing the significance of the covenant as a means to an end, we should not stress exclusively, nor even primarily, the demands of God and the resulting duty of man, but especially the promise of the effectual operation of the grace of God in the hearts of covenant children. If we stress the covenant responsibilities only or excessively, and fail to give due prominence to the fact that in the covenant God gives whatsoever He demands of us, in other words, that His promises cover all His requirements, we are in danger of falling into the snare of Arminianism.