Theological Books
Puritan Board Freshman
And yet, on the other hand, we have radically different ideas about the CoG itself. You believe that the various covenants (Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, New) are not actually *part* of the CoG. Rather, you seem to believe that they merely *overlap* the CoG. You are telling me that only the elect are members of the CoG. Consequently, Ishmael, Esau, Korah, etc. could not be considered members of the CoG. That seems like a truly radical theological difference between us. (Though of course you and I would stand side by side when pouncing upon a New Covenant Theologian or Dispensationalist!)
I'm not sure what you mean by your assessment that I believe they "are not actually *part* of the COG. Rather, you seem to believe that they merely *overlap* the COG." Yes, that is what I am telling you, and, if we define the COG in an absolute, eternal, eschatological sense--or in its most foundational and basic form--then all agree (all of reformed orthodoxy) only the elect are in the COG. Again, the reason such paedobaptistic (and even Baptistic, as I have seen from a few) notion of "in but not of the CoG" (being members of the various adminisrations), is to consider the COG in two different aspects, temporal and eschatological. This is inseparably tied and correlated to the church visible/invisible distinction. How can one say "the holy catholic church" is both the universal invisible and universal visible church consisting of different members (elect and elect & reprobate). The invisible church is the absolute covenant of grace (the elect from all the ages). The visible church is the temporal covenant of grace (the elect and reprobate bound together in a common confession without destroying their testimony). So, one can be "in" the covenant of grace (i.e. Esau), or in the visible church (commonly denoted as the "covenant community"), but not "of" the invisible church. While I agree Esau was in the visible church, I deny the distinction of being "in" the covenant of grace, but not "of" the covenant of grace. I do this because I view the covenant of grace as the invisible church, or the inward covenant through faith alone. (Eg., From Adam to Abraham the covenant of grace existed, and people were either in it or not in it, but there was not temporal, structural medium--i.e. a visible church marked by religious ceremonies and collection of peoples.) And, while there is a connection between the visible and invisible, I do not it is one covenant with two different aspects (temporal and eternal). I see them as distinct and separate covenants through which the internal, eternal covenant of grace is administered unto the elect from all the ages. So, I do not say one was "in" but not "of" the covenant of grace. I say one was truly in, in full covenant with God (whether elect or reprobate), through these temporal, historical covenants that are distinct and separate from the one COG consisting of the elect from all the ages. In other words, the covenant of grace is more a theologemenon, or helpful theological construct (though it is necessary and valid). What I don't do is conflate the temporal covenants through which it is administered with the COG itself. By way of necessity, there is overlap, yes. The promises of the COG are imbedded and revealed in the promises of the temporal covenants. In the post-NC covenants, there was a temporal/historical dualism of antitypes and foreshadows of the eschatological reality solely revealed (apart from the temporal, historical promises such as the physical land of Canaan, the earthly kings, and the earthly people) in the NC. The NC, in this sense, is totally eschatological.
Now, I'm going to say something that might offend people, but that is not my intention. I believe Norman Shepherd is a consistent and logical paedobaptist covenantal theologian, specifically regarding his view of the Abrahamic Covenant as found in "The Call of Grace." Because of the dualistic nature of the Abrahamic Covenant (temporal/historical and eternal/eschatological), and because both aspects are identified as the covenant of grace by paedobaptistic covenant theologians, he does the natural, logical thing (in order to avoid a form of Platonic dualism, so I speculate, and to preserve an inseparable unity) and conflates the temporal/historical requirements of the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants (i.e. obedience for the temporal blessings truly and genuinely promised in the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants) with the eschatological promises of the COG revealed and hidden in them.
So, the Abrahamic Covenant is *ONE* covenant through which two promises are administered to all members (elect and reprobate). One of the two promises is equal to and indentified with the promises of the COG. Here you see the COG administered in types and shadows, but one cannot equate the eschatological promises administered through them with the types/signs. So, principally, the sign of baptism is not the reality of it, or the sign and the thing signified are not the same thing. There was a genuine, true promise for the physical land, kings, and peoples, as well as a genuine, true promise of the heavenly land, kings, and peoples. The requirements for each were different. The non-elect were truly in the Abrahamic Covenant, and both the promises were extended to them upon their contingency of obedience (whether obedience to the law of works or obedience to the law of faith--this is what Shepherd conflates--which is why, if the Abrahamic Covenant is equal to the COG, the covenant of grace necessitates your own personal obedience to the law as well as faith in order to maintain your membeship).
So, what do I do? I simply divorce the identity of the COG with those earthly administered, temporal covenants. (Though it isn't completely radically different. After years of studying and reading, I came across a man's work who Berkhof speaks about, specifically Thomas Blake--Page 284.) This *IS* radically different, but I think radically necessary, especially in light of the present day controversy. I'm not saying anything radically new in substance, though. I'm simple re-organizing the categories for clarity in order to fight of confusion. What I'm addressing is the paedobaptist difficulty (without consensus) regarding the "Dual Aspect of the Covenant" (see pages 284-289). You are addressing this issue, but I do not think consciously. I'm merely arguing against a legal membership that does not include a membership of communion life, but only in regard to the definition of the COG. For instance, in the NC, I do believe there are those baptized people who are legally and truly in the NC with or without true faith by virtue of their covenant (with is a promise/covenant envoked by the name of the Triune God that includes the awareness of obligation in so taking the sign and seal upon yourself). Does this mean everyone in the NC is necessarily elect or receives the promises of the NC (which promises are solely the eschatological promises of the COG, as which is not the case of the previous pre-NC covenants)? No, it doesn't. One can be truly in the NC legally (through the cultic-laws, such as baptism, which is the same for, but not restricted to circumcision in the OT administrations) and not receive the promises of that covenant if they fail to uphold those obligations they voluntarily undertook in baptism (namely a life of faith and repentance). For instance, Adam was truly in the COW prior to receiving the promises of it or performing that which was contingent upon receiving the promises. The same was true with Abraham, Moses, and Israel. I think the same can be (and must be, due to Hebrews and other key passages) said of the NC in a similar (though not identical) manner.
But, because one is a member of these various temporal, historical covenants, it does not require one define them as being "in but not of the COG." This is the exception I take, and this is why my CT is a bit different in terminology, but, in substance, is not radically different.
