Witsius and CoG

[mshingler]

Since reading "The Distinctives of Baptist Covenant Theology," I've been taking another look at my understanding of covenant theology and its bearing on the issue of baptism. I'm currently reading Witsius' "Economy of the Covenants" to try and have a better understanding of the paedobaptist view of the covenants. I have a couple of questions arising out of this:

Witsius writes: "The covenant of grace is a compact, or agreement, between God and the elect sinner; God on his part declaring his free good-will concerning eternal salvation, and every thing relative thereto, freely to be given to those in covenant, by and for the mediator Christ..."
Now, I have a ways to go in the book, but just reading this, I think it's a statement any confessional reformed baptist would affirm. The covenant of grace is made between Christ and the elect sinner, and salvation, with all attendant blessings, is given freely to those who are in covenant. So, I'm wondering exactly how this is seen as consistent with having non-elect people "in covenant". I am aware of the paedobaptist distinction between the substance and administration of the covenant. Maybe what I'm not getting clear is exactly how these are differentiated or related. It seems to me that the above statement implies that all who are in covenant are also elect. What am I missing here?

Secondly, would you say that the new covenant is the covenant of grace? If not - if there's a distinction to be made - how does it differ from the covenant of grace? Not sure if I'm even wording that correctly.

 

[Peairtach]

How do we know who the elect are? The secret things belong to God.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[jwright82]

No non elect people are in covenant with God. This is where ecclesiology comes in. The church is a mixed bag for both views of baptism. Visibly the church can baptize both babies and adults who turn out not to be elect and therefore not in the CoG. We proclaim people to be in covenant with God in church until they give evidence otherwise.

 

[mshingler]

No non elect people are in covenant with God. This is where ecclesiology comes in. The church is a mixed bag for both views of baptism. Visibly the church can baptize both babies and adults who turn out not to be elect and therefore not in the CoG. We proclaim people to be in covenant with God in church until they give evidence otherwise.

Just to clarify, you're saying that, when you baptize someone (infant or otherwise) who turns out to be non-elect, that person never really was truly in the covenant of grace? If I'm understanding that right, I can see how it fits the passage from Witsius - that the CoG is made between God and the elect (which excludes the non-elect). However, in my mind, it raises the further question as to why we would/should "proclaim people to be in covenant" when we have no idea if they really are, in any sense, in the covenant or not.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

From the paedobaptist point of view, your final question might as well be asked of Abraham or one of the later Israelites in covenant. On our side, we do not agree that under previous administrations--any more than now--there were people fully in-covenant with God who were not participants of both substance and administration.

Paul's statements at the end of Rom.2 about who really is a Jew (in Old Covenant parlance) are eternal verities, not some new way of looking at things.

Hope this is helpful.

 

[Peairtach]

Man, i.e. kirk sessions are quite incapable of absolutely infallibly identifying the regenerate. In Presbyterian interpretation of biblical church polity, the Lord wants us to baptise adults into discipleship in the church and into the covenant of grace on a simple uncontradicted profession of faith, together with their children and admit baptised persons to the Lord's Supper on an accredited profession of faith. Not all those who are in the outward administration of the Visible Church and CoG (yet) possess faith, and are in the life of the CoG and the Invisible Church. Some may never come to true faith.

Sessions aren't to pretend that they can look on the heart like God and infallibly tell who are regenerate and hence elect. They must seek to judge with wisdom, as best they can, from what they know about the adult being presented for baptism or the Lord's Supper.

A covenant like marriage also has these internal and external aspects. Someone can be truly married to their spouse but not love him. Another person can have true love for someone and their hearts be knit together but they have not yet covenanted legally and visibly in marriage. One aspect of the marriage covenant doesn't " trump" the other.


Sent from my HTC Wildfire using Tapatalk 2

 

[mshingler]

Would you agree that all Israelites (those not cutting themselves off by presumptuous sin against the covenant) were "in covenant" with God in some sense, even if not fully in covenant? If so, would you say they were, in that sense, in the CoG (externally, administratively or whatever)? Likewise, today, if someone in the visible church is unregenerate, would you say they are, in some sense, in the CoG? On the other hand, is it more accurate to your view to say that the unregenerate church member is in the "new covenant" (which is administration) but not the CoG (which is the reality or substance)? Sorry if it seems like a lot of questions at once. Just trying to get my head around this perspective and how it relates to one particular understanding of the covenants.

 

[PaulMc]

Would you agree that all Israelites (those not cutting themselves off by presumptuous sin against the covenant) were "in covenant" with God in some sense, even if not fully in covenant? If so, would you say they were, in that sense, in the CoG (externally, administratively or whatever)? Likewise, today, if someone in the visible church is unregenerate, would you say they are, in some sense, in the CoG?

I would say "yes" in answer to these questions.

Puritan Thomas Blake's Covenant of God is very helpful here.

 

[JP Wallace]

Would you agree that all Israelites (those not cutting themselves off by presumptuous sin against the covenant) were "in covenant" with God in some sense, even if not fully in covenant? If so, would you say they were, in that sense, in the CoG (externally, administratively or whatever)? Likewise, today, if someone in the visible church is unregenerate, would you say they are, in some sense, in the CoG?

I would say "yes" in answer to these questions.

Puritan Thomas Blake's Covenant of God is very helpful here.

I also would say yes - an important verse or two that are helpful here are Hebrews 10:26-29

[26] For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, [27] but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries. [28] Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. [29] How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace?

There is a place for discussion, as you note, as to what the relationship of such a person is to the Covenant of Grace, but it seems rather impossible for there not to be a covenant relationship described here in some sense. It begs the question 'How is it possible to profane the blood of the covenant by which one has been sanctified if in fact the person is completely and totally outside of the adminstration or scope of the covenant?'

 

[mshingler]

Thanks for all the replies. I think that, even as a baptist, my understanding of covenant theology is closer to paedobaptist views, in some respects anyway. I guess reading some of the recent stuff on 1689 federalism has confirmed that to me more. After reading Denault's book, I had to think, "This isn't, basically, what I believe about the covenants, even though I end up with the same position on baptism." So, I'm trying to refine and clarify my thoughts on the covenants as well as baptism in relation to that. When I was teaching on covenants a while back, I basically said that no one of the historical covenants was exactly the covenant of grace, in itself, but that the covenant of grace was in or behind each one, so that when God established covenant with Abraham (for example) the fuller substance of the eternal covenant of grace was found in or behind the form of specific blessings promised Abraham.
Is this similar to what you would mean by substance vs. administration?

 

[mshingler]

I meant to start this thread in the paedo-baptism answers forum.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Would you agree that all Israelites (those not cutting themselves off by presumptuous sin against the covenant) were "in covenant" with God in some sense, even if not fully in covenant?

Yes, they were formally in covenant. The administration of the covenant is not some light thing that is disconnected with reality. People sometimes carelessly use language like "really in covenant" when they are specially referring to the internal/substance aspect, or to both aspects. But that "real" language is a partial denigration of the significance of the church (OT/NT) as an institution in this world for the administration of God's covenant with man.

If so, would you say they were, in that sense, in the CoG (externally, administratively or whatever)?

Because the term "CoG" is a pan-administrative description, we want to be clear what we mean when we agree that covenant members in one earthly era or another were participants in the CoG.

In Gen.17, for example, at that time to be in Abraham's covenant was to be in the CoG. The first is wholly identified with the latter, but in a temporally bounded aspect. We do not wish to speak as if Abraham and others merely experience in a typological fashion, at a lower level, what on a heavenly/overarching level he/they may ascend into spiritually. No, the CoG reaches all the way down to touch the earth; it IS the Abrahamic covenant. In the classic-covenant-theology read of Redemptive History, we say the same of Moses/Old and Christ/New covenants in their respective eras. They ARE the CoG being described especially in terms of the administration.

At the same time, we can conceptualize the CoG purely or ideally. Here's the WLC Q&A 31:

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

This Q&A is expressing the view of the CoG as it comes down to us from heaven. In fuller description, Christ's covenant with his Father (and the Spirit, Triune fellowship) is the eternal Covenant of Redemption, to which the elect are drawn into covenant "in him" which is the CoG. Here is the CoG solely in elect terms, which is to say in complete terms, substantively and administratively. All our fellowship with God is in the CoG.

Because we may conceptualize the CoG purely, we also sometimes describe Abraham's covenant purely, or the New covenant purely; even the Mosaic covenant purely (although there were considerable temporary/accommodated measures incorporated in it). Ideally, all the participants should be complete partakers of God's grace, body and soul. Sadly--as we know too well--much participation takes place that is nothing more than body.

Likewise, today, if someone in the visible church is unregenerate, would you say they are, in some sense, in the CoG?

Yes, because the CoG comes all the way down, even in the New covenant. If they are nonelect/reprobate, the fullness of the CoG is not and never will incorporate them. Their obstinacy while in the church is "coals of fire" heaped upon their heads. They are formally, but not thoroughly, in the covenant--the FedVis is deeply confused about Reformed/Covenant theology at this point.

On the other hand, the elect-though-unregenerated are under the greatest advantages for the transformation of their state. Every last person in the church (not a thoroughgoing hypocrite) is earnest for his outer man to come into conformity with his inner man; as much eager for his desires to be brought into conformity with his external obedience. Our faith and practice (practice and faith) are meant to be single; and it is the work of Holy Spirit with the Word to bring about this change to the benefit of all.

On the other hand, is it more accurate to your view to say that the unregenerate church member is in the "new covenant" (which is administration) but not the CoG (which is the reality or substance)?

And the answer to this question has, I think, been addressed in the above. We don't want to talk about the New covenant as though it were "merely" administration, just as we would object to saying the same thing about the Abrahamic covenant. The Old/New divide is a "vertical," an historic marker; New is not just a "below the line" description, essentially a "horizontal," earthly/heavenly, natural/spiritual distinction.

 

[jwright82]

G

No non elect people are in covenant with God. This is where ecclesiology comes in. The church is a mixed bag for both views of baptism. Visibly the church can baptize both babies and adults who turn out not to be elect and therefore not in the CoG. We proclaim people to be in covenant with God in church until they give evidence otherwise.

Just to clarify, you're saying that, when you baptize someone (infant or otherwise) who turns out to be non-elect, that person never really was truly in the covenant of grace? If I'm understanding that right, I can see how it fits the passage from Witsius - that the CoG is made between God and the elect (which excludes the non-elect). However, in my mind, it raises the further question as to why we would/should "proclaim people to be in covenant" when we have no idea if they really are, in any sense, in the covenant or not.

Law and gospel my friend. We do what our Lord commands us whether or not we know what He does. He owes us no explanation for His ways only his promise that it is in and through the word and sacraments that He will work to build His people which takes place in His church.

 

[jwright82]

Thanks for all the replies. I think that, even as a baptist, my understanding of covenant theology is closer to paedobaptist views, in some respects anyway. I guess reading some of the recent stuff on 1689 federalism has confirmed that to me more. After reading Denault's book, I had to think, "This isn't, basically, what I believe about the covenants, even though I end up with the same position on baptism." So, I'm trying to refine and clarify my thoughts on the covenants as well as baptism in relation to that. When I was teaching on covenants a while back, I basically said that no one of the historical covenants was exactly the covenant of grace, in itself, but that the covenant of grace was in or behind each one, so that when God established covenant with Abraham (for example) the fuller substance of the eternal covenant of grace was found in or behind the form of specific blessings promised Abraham.
Is this similar to what you would mean by substance vs. administration?

Both views of baptism still agree on the same ecclesiastical truth that not all visible members of the church are in fact elect. But the church is what we are required to do. To say that non elect members are in some sense members of the CoG is I must say closer to the federal vision movement. I'm not saying that you agree with them only that some of your line questioning seems to go that direction. Study classical covenant theology and you will benefit enormously.

 

[mshingler]

Thanks for this. I've gotten most of my understanding of covenant theology from paedo writers like Berkhof and O.P. Robertson, but have not been convinced of the conclusions regarding infant baptism. As I've been learning more about the distinctive 1689 view of covenant theology, I find parts I'm uncomfortable with, particularly:
Dichotomy in the Abrahamic Covenant between the earthly/physical/temporal and the heavenly/spiritual/eternal, even to the point of finding 2 separate covenants.
The strict republicationist view of the Mosaic Covenant.

 

[mshingler]

Thanks for all the replies. I think that, even as a baptist, my understanding of covenant theology is closer to paedobaptist views, in some respects anyway. I guess reading some of the recent stuff on 1689 federalism has confirmed that to me more. After reading Denault's book, I had to think, "This isn't, basically, what I believe about the covenants, even though I end up with the same position on baptism." So, I'm trying to refine and clarify my thoughts on the covenants as well as baptism in relation to that. When I was teaching on covenants a while back, I basically said that no one of the historical covenants was exactly the covenant of grace, in itself, but that the covenant of grace was in or behind each one, so that when God established covenant with Abraham (for example) the fuller substance of the eternal covenant of grace was found in or behind the form of specific blessings promised Abraham.
Is this similar to what you would mean by substance vs. administration?

Both views of baptism still agree on the same ecclesiastical truth that not all visible members of the church are in fact elect. But the church is what we are required to do. To say that non elect members are in some sense members of the CoG is I must say closer to the federal vision movement. I'm not saying that you agree with them only that some of your line questioning seems to go that direction. Study classical covenant theology and you will benefit enormously.

I will be continuing with Witsius.

 

[jwright82]

Thanks for this. I've gotten most of my understanding of covenant theology from paedo writers like Berkhof and O.P. Robertson, but have not been convinced of the conclusions regarding infant baptism. As I've been learning more about the distinctive 1689 view of covenant theology, I find parts I'm uncomfortable with, particularly:
Dichotomy in the Abrahamic Covenant between the earthly/physical/temporal and the heavenly/spiritual/eternal, even to the point of finding 2 separate covenants.
The strict republicationist view of the Mosaic Covenant.

Yeah covenant theology can be a bit confusing. That's why I brought up ecclesiology to show how these issues relate and I hope provide an attempt at an answer. The federal vision is one erroneous way to "solve" these questions. They want to make the CoG and the church somehow identical instead of interrelated. That discussion goes beyond this thread, there is FV section for that but I felt it would be worth bringing up.