The Covenant of Grace in Reformed Theology

[Arial]

There are three prominent views (according to my understanding) of the Covenant of Grace. Two of them are somewhat similar but not entirely. That would be the Particular Baptist view that the Covenant of Grace begins in the NT, but is not dispensationalist in its eschatological view of Revelation. That is, it does not divide redemption into two groups, Israel and the church, as dispensationalism does.

The view of Reformed Theology, also known as Covenant Theology, says the Covenant of Grace always exists and existed. This is the follow through of truly Covenant theology.

To lay the foundation, let's first look at what a covenant is with God and what grace from God is, and how they are connected.

God of course as eternal and uncaused, and is the cause of everything, is transcendent to us and all his creation. All are subject to him and his commands. He is by nature covenantal. This is seen in the relationship within the Godhead. Mutual agreement and purpose and essence. There was a covenant of redemption with the actions of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in redemption already in place before creation. We see this in the scriptures that tell us of the actions of the participants in creation. (Gen 1:1; John 1:1-3,10; Col 1:16; 1 Cor 8:6; Heb 1:2)

God relates to his creation, natural, humans, animal through covenant. Creation itself is a covenant of God. Which we will see in a moment.

At its most base level a covenant is a promise by a superior towards an inferior. The superior is bound by covenant promises and must be able to fulfill those promises. It is a relationship. There are different types of covenants. Some are bilateral, meaning there are conditions that are attached to the covenant made by the covenant maker, on both himself and those who are in the covenant The covenant maker is bound to fulfill all the promises made provided the participants meet all the demands of the covenant. In this case, either party can break the covenant, making it null and void, but for God to do that is impossible because to do so would be violating himself. The Sinai covenant was that type of covenant. The New Covenant is not that type of covenant but rather a unilateral covenant. God instigates the covenant and provides everything necessary for its promises to be kept. This is grace. A covenant with a people who in no way deserve it and cannot earn it. But does this mean it is the full covenant of grace or that it began with the NT?

We shall see in Part 2.

 

[Arial]

Covenant of Grace in Reformed Theology Part 2

Let's go back to Gen 1-3. Is the creation itself a covenant of grace?

God created the earth and everything in it before he creates mankind. What is he doing and why? He is preparing a home for us, and not only us but every living thing he creates. It is perfect to sustain life, produce, and reproduce. God gives each plant and fish and bird and beast a covenant purpose and he provides whatever is necessary to sustain life and the planet itself., and God is responsible for sustaining it. Then and now. This is a covenant relationship with creation. He creates man and names him as the curator, if you will, of the earth and all that is in it. He gives him dominion over it. God is the King, man is a vassal king over the earth, but subject in all his ways, to God. This is a covenant and it is a covenant of grace. God was under no obligation to do any of it and what Adam was about to do shows he did not deserve it. Adam broke the covenant and a lot of terrible things happened because of it. In Romans 8 we see that God subjected creation itself to futility. But still grace remains. Earth is still here and so are we. God remains faithful to his covenant to keep the world turning.

God gives nothing that is not by grace. He enters into no relationship that is not grace.

In Gen 3:15 we see God's covenantal statement of redemption when he curses the serpent and makes a promise. "The seed of the woman will crush your head, and you will bruise his heel."

The rest is history as they say, except for what is promised that has not happened yet. The restoration of all things and God again dwelling with us as he did with Adam and Eve in the Garden. There are a number of covenants made with specific persons for specific reasons---as with Noah, Abraham, and David but there is not one covenant made that does not have that Seed at the center of it. And not one covenant made that is separate from the covenant of grace. Every covenant is a part of the covenant of grace. The Sinai Covenant Law that brings condemnation is a covenant of grace. The Covenant of Grace is found in the Seed, and God temporarily passing over Israel's sin until that Seed would arrive. The Covenant of Grace is found in God entering into a covenant with mankind.

And the Seed has come, he has lived a life of perfect righteousness that is impossible for us, and laid down his life as a ransom to redeem his sheep, shedding the blood of the New Covenant. And his return is as sure as was the promised Seed, and the restoration of all of creation. But the restoration will be far better than the first, because Jesus has conquered our enemies and his, sin and death. And at just the right time, the serpent will be destroyed, that father of lies, and we will be raised different than we were from the beginning---mortal and corruptible---to immortal and incorruptible.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Particular Baptist view that the Covenant of Grace begins in the New Testament

Are you sure?

 

[Hazelelponi]

Okay, I asked my my husband and he says Jesus saves the elect of all times, he says we aren't Presbyterian because we don't like all the fancy ceremonies, we don't baptize until people are saved and we believe in full immersion and we don't let women usurp a man's place at the pulpit. (I know Presbyterians split over this, my husband doesn't know this)

So .. I think there's fewer differences. He says "we are here because of the Presbyterians (he's Appalachian American) but we don't like some of the things they do"

What category is that?

 

[Arial]

Are you sure?

It is what I have read. Is it first hand information? No. But it does not apply to all Baptist----some are dispensational but retain the doctrines of Grace (TULIP) in Calvinism. Some Baptist are not even Reformed or traditional Baptist in agreeing with the TULIP.

It has become extremely difficult to "categorize" anyone as all one thing or another, with all beliefs remaining the same within the category. So I wouldn't worry about it. We learn things from here and there, then, if we are Berean about it, check what agrees with Scripture on the subject. I don't like labels and I don't think anyone does, but they become necessary to identify where a person is coming from theologically and doctrinally. At least in general.

 

[Arial]

Okay, I asked my my husband and he says Jesus saves the elect of all times, he says we aren't Presbyterian because we don't like all the fancy ceremonies, we don't baptize until people are saved and we believe in full immersion and we don't let women usurp a man's place at the pulpit. (I know Presbyterians split over this, my husband doesn't know this)

So .. I think there's fewer differences. He says "we are here because of the Presbyterians (he's Appalachian American) but we don't like some of the things they do"

What category is that?

Personal preferences?

But how does that relate to the OP?

 

[Hazelelponi]

It is what I have read. Is it first hand information? No.

Well at least in parts of Appalachia, we are apparently just the plain cousins who don't like "fancy" and want to baptize differently.

 

[Arial]

Well at least in parts of Appalachia, we are apparently just the plain cousins who don't like "fancy" and want to baptize differently.

I added more to that post after you had already read it. Post #6.

 

[Arial]

Well at least in parts of Appalachia, we are apparently just the plain cousins who don't like "fancy" and want to baptize differently.

I have distant Appalachian relatives too, immigrants from Scotland.

 

[Hazelelponi]

Personal preferences?

But how does that relate to the OP?

Particular Baptist (primitive Baptist out here too) saying they hold a different belief on Covenant theology, they don't. The view is the same.

It's only details within the theology itself that creates any difference at all such as Baptism or who has authority to preach.

They aren't structural differences, in other words.

 

[Arial]

Well at least in parts of Appalachia, we are apparently just the plain cousins who don't like "fancy" and want to baptize differently.

I identify as Reformed which is Presbyterian, though I do not attend a Pres. church for much the same reasons you stated. I don't care for the formality. I do not believe in infant baptism but I have learned to at least understand why it is done, what it does and doesn't mean, and it is not a deal breaker with me. My preference is Reformed Baptist, though I disagree with the Covenant of Grace beginning with the NT. I will not attend any church that is dispensationalist because they state their beliefs as indisputable fact and I find them highly biblically disputable and it colors a lot of their Bible exposition and interpretation as wrong.

 

[Hazelelponi]

I identify as Reformed which is Presbyterian, though I do not attend a Pres. church for much the same reasons you stated. I don't care for the formality. I do not believe in infant baptism but I have learned to at least understand why it is done, what it does and doesn't mean, and it is not a deal breaker with me. My preference is Reformed Baptist, though I disagree with the Covenant of Grace beginning with the NT. I will not attend any church that is dispensationalist because they state their beliefs as indisputable fact and I find them highly biblically disputable and it colors a lot of their Bible exposition and interpretation as wrong.

Have you ever ran into anyone teaching that Grace itself begins with Christ?

I hadn't actually noticed it anywhere.

 

[Arial]

Particular Baptist (primitive Baptist out here too) saying they hold a different belief on Covenant theology, they don't. The view is the same.

It's only details within the theology itself that creates any difference at all such as Baptism or who has authority to preach.

They aren't structural differences, in other words.

If they believe the Covenant of Grace begins with the New Covenant, then they do different from Reformed (as the OP shows) and it accepts covenants but does not see all covenants as covenants of grace. However, it could just be a matter of giving things titles, and then nit picking over it.

 

[Arial]

Have you ever ran into anyone teaching that Grace itself begins with Christ

Not in so many words. But Christ has always been so it would be true. Same as saying Grace begins with God. But if it means there is no grace until the incarnation, that would be a huge misunderstanding of God and of man's relation to him.

 

[makesends]

God gives nothing that is not by grace. He enters into no relationship that is not grace.

Great OP! And thanks.

The above may be misunderstood by some to say that God doesn't have any dealings with the reprobate. I know you didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to bring that out, to stop that notion from the get-go. God certainly does deal with all people, in the common grace of restraint of their pursuit of rebellion, if not by myriad other ways.

 

[Hazelelponi]

However, it could just be a matter of giving things titles, and then nit picking over it.

Yeah, it might be.

Because it doesn't seem structural when my husband answers me, as far as someone somewhere on earth teaching that the Covenant of Grace begins with the NT, I'll just have to take word for it I guess.

But this is not what some people believe as to why they are baptizing, my husband just holds to believers baptism because of the way the Bible shows baptism to be after faith, not because he believes in a Covenantal structure that isnt reformed.

 

[makesends]

If they believe the Covenant of Grace begins with the New Covenant, then they do different from Reformed (as the OP shows) and it accepts covenants but does not see all covenants as covenants of grace. However, it could just be a matter of giving things titles, and then nit picking over it.

To me, this sounds like a mere POV question. I can agree with both, but not to the exclusion of the other.

OBVIOUSLY (I say) from the very beginning God covenanted with himself, (whether covenanted also with his creation (and man in particular) is pretty much irrelevant, I think), the whole matter from beginning to end. THAT, (to me), is the Covenant of Grace. What is called the New Covenant, then is necessarily what is communicated to man in the NT, and visible as the new way of things, but, (in my opinion), the terms of the New Covenant are spiritual, and were the only effective means by which the OT saints were saved.

 

[Arial]

To me, this sounds like a mere POV question. I can agree with both, but not to the exclusion of the other.

OBVIOUSLY (I say) from the very beginning God covenanted with himself, (whether covenanted also with his creation (and man in particular) is pretty much irrelevant, I think), the whole matter from beginning to end. THAT, (to me), is the Covenant of Grace. What is called the New Covenant, then is necessarily what is communicated to man in the NT, and visible as the new way of things, but, (in my opinion), the terms of the New Covenant are spiritual, and were the only effective means by which the OT saints were saved.

Not sure what you are saying.

 

[Arial]

Great OP! And thanks.

The above may be misunderstood by some to say that God doesn't have any dealings with the reprobate. I know you didn't mean it that way. Just wanted to bring that out, to stop that notion from the get-go. God certainly does deal with all people, in the common grace of restraint of their pursuit of rebellion, if not by myriad other ways.

Yes, common grace which is covenantal within himself. But a personal covenant relationship is what brings one from having been reprobate in our relationship with him into that special covenant love. We see that all the time in the Psalms.

 

[makesends]

Not sure what you are saying.

Maybe what I'm seeing are descriptions by more abstract thinkers (that put the Covenant of Grace at the beginning (or at the Fall of Adam)), vs the more concrete thinkers that consider God's more obvious WAYS of dealing with us having changed at the Cross (or Pentecost or whatever).

To me, the terminology results of the two different points of view, but neither is wrong.