The Covenant of Grace – a Testamentary Covenant
In identifying the meaning of the covenant of grace, the first thing that one must do is properly identify the meaning of the word covenant. The Reformed theologians of the 16th-18th century would always begin their discussion of this topic with a careful discussion of the meaning of that word. According to these theologians, the word covenant can be used for an immutable statue, promises, commands, or signs of the covenant. However, as Marck points out, “its most appropriate meaning is that of a mutual agreement” (Medulla, XVII.2).
On the other hand, the Greek word for covenant (diaktheke) can be used not only for a mutual agreement or pact but also for a testament (cf. Heb. 9:15-18). The Reformed theologians saw this Greek word as being highly appropriate for describing the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace was not merely a covenant or agreement but was also a testament. From this came the common statement that the covenant of grace is a testamentary covenant and a covenantal testament. This terminology was used at least as early as Gomarus and is commonly found in the 17th century theologians such as Turretin, Brakel, Witsius, and Marck. They also often pointed to the fact that the Hebrew word for covenant (berith) could also bear this sense of mere bequeathal or gift (cf. Gen. 9:11-13, Is. 54:9-10, Jer. 33:20-22, see also Poole, Synopsis on Heb. 9:15-18).
This covenantal/testamentary understanding of the covenant of grace can help us to understand how the covenant of grace differs from the covenant of works. In both respects, as a testament and a covenant, the covenant of grace differs from the covenant of works.
The Covenantal Aspect
The structure of the covenant of works involved perfect obedience. If Adam rendered perfect obedience to God, then he would obtain (that is, merit in virtue of the covenant) eternal life. Obedience would come first, and eternal life would follow.
In the covenant of grace, the order of obedience and life is reversed, and they have a totally different relationship to one another. In the covenant of grace, eternal life is given through accepting Jesus Christ by faith (Is. 55:1-3, Jn. 3:16, 5:24, Acts 16:31, Rom. 5:19, 6:23, etc.). The gift of eternal life is first received and then obedience flows out of it as a further gift and not as a condition for obtaining life (cf. Eph. 2:8-10). The agreement, pact, or covenant that God makes is that if someone will believe in Jesus Chrsit, they will be saved.
The covenantal structures of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace are opposed to one another as opposites. As Berhnardus De Moor writes, “These two are opposed to one another in this respect as opposite kinds and as immediate contraries, such that the affirmation of the one is inferred from the negation of the other” (Commentarius Perpetuus 3, p. 377). The covenant of works offered life on the condition of perfect and perpetual obedience and the other on the basis of Christ’s obedience apart from any of our works (Rom. 4:3-5, Rom. 5:18-19, 10:1-10, Gal. 3:10-12). Either our works obtain life (the covenant of works) or Christ's perfect work does (covenant of grace).
The Testamentary Aspect
One objection that someone might raise to this opposition of law (covenant of works) and Gospel (covenant of grace) is that both have conditions. The covenant of works said, “If you obey perfectly, then you will have life.” The covenant of grace says, “If you believe, then you will have life.” So, someone might say that while faith and obedience have different relationships to life in these statements, yet both are conditions that must be supplied.
This is where the testamentary aspect of the covenant helps us. A testament is a bequeathal that is given to heirs on the basis of the death of the testator. “And for this reason, He is the Mediator of the new covenant (testament), by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant (testament), that those who are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance” (Heb. 9:15). In the testament of grace, this bequeathal by testament secures for the heirs written in the testament that all conditions necessary will be fulfilled not only for them but in them. This means that part of the testament is that God will work faith and repentance in the elect and preserve them in it so that they will inherit eternal life. In other words, the testamentary side of the covenant of grace ensures that all the elect will get everything necessary for salvation.
This is the constant teaching of Scripture concerning the covenant of grace. I will be God to you and your descendants (Gen. 17:7, see my explanation of this passage here). I will circumcise your hearts and the hearts of your descendants (Dt. 30:6). All your children shall be taught by God (Is. 54:13, cf. Jn. 6:44-45). My Spirit shall not depart from you or from your descendants (Is. 59:21). I will put My law in their minds and hearts (Jer. 31:33-34). I will give them on heart and one way, that they may fear Me forever (Jer. 32:39). I will take out the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh and cause you to walk in My statues (Ez. 36:25-27). All of these passages in context speaking about God’s covenant of grace with His people. Consequently, we must conclude that in the covenant of grace God not merely offers salvation to His people but works faith in them that they may receive it and will not permit them to fall from that salvation.
This is the view of the Reformed confessions. You can see this in the Canons of Dort (II:7 and ROE:2-4), but it is more explicitly stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith. The covenant of grace is described as being that wherein God freely offers salvation by Jesus faith, requires faith for someone to be saved, and “promis[es] to give unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing, and able to believe” (VII:3, cf. WLC Q. 30-32). According to the theologians who wrote the WCF, making someone willing to believe is a part of the covenant of grace. The covenant of grace is not a mere offer of salvation (though it is that), but it also promises to everyone written in the testament that they will be given the ability to believe and persevere in that belief.
Conclusion
One very important conclusion that we must draw from this understanding of the covenant of grace embodied in the confessions and taught by our fathers in the Reformed faith is that the reprobate cannot be said to be part of the covenant of grace. In the proper sense of the word, the reprobate cannot be part of the covenant of grace since the covenant of grace includes not merely the offer of salvation but the guarantee that someone will actually and necessarily obtain a full and complete salvation. Anyone who is in the covenant of grace will be fully and finally saved, and so there can be no partial or temporary participation in the covenant of grace, since that would be contrary to its very terms.
However, there are some who are not a part of the covenant of grace who do have some external connection to it. The covenant of grace requires someone to believe in Jesus Christ. This has internal and external aspects. The external aspects can be imitated to a certain extent by unbelievers. Those who do not have true faith can embrace with the mouth the terms of the covenant of grace in such a way as to deceive both themselves and those around them. In time, their false profession is sometimes exposed and when they go out we say, “They went out from us, but they were not of us” (1 Jn. 2:19). If someone really belongs to the covenant of grace, then they will continue in it because perseverance is not only a duty but also a benefit of the covenant of grace.
The covenant of grace is a package deal. It includes all the benefits of salvation. You cannot have one part of it but not others. You are either in or out. But this brings great assurance to the believer. We are in a covenant of grace with God that will never be broken. “‘The mountains shall depart and the hills be removed, but My kindness shall not depart from you, nor shall My covenant of peace be removed,’ says the LORD, who has mercy on you” (Is. 54:10). In the Reformed doctrine of the covenant of grace, the full and free grace of God’s covenant is fully exemplified and honored to the praise of God and the edification of His people.
There’s Room at the Conference for You
12 hours ago

15 comments:
Wes,
Great post. I do have a question though. I think you have proven your case via the Westminster Standards regarding the COG, namely, "the reprobate cannot be said to be part of the covenant of grace." In that case, is it wrong to use language such as "non-elect covenant members?" And . . . how does paedobaptism fit into this understanding of the COG. Please understand that I'm not attempting to "ambush" you with this question, because I am an elder in the PCA. I'm simply trying to make sure that I don't fall for FV terminology that's clearly in error.
Jim Polk
www.jude3.wordpress.com
Jim,
Thanks for the questions. The problem with the phrase "non-elect covenant member" is that it is ambiguous. If we are speaking of the covenant of grace in the strict sense, then we cannot use that phrase. However, we may use it if we understand it in the external sense that I spoke about in my conclusion. The trouble is that it is often used in this discussion without any sense of this distinction. Does that make sense?
As for infant baptism, I would encourage you to read my post on the meaning of "I will be a God to you and your descendants." You can read it here:
http://johannesweslianus.blogspot.com/2007/09/question-of-infant-baptism.html
Wes,
Thanks for your response. I'm sure you already realize that my questions were prompted in part by the discussions taking place on Green Baggins - and yes, your answer makes perfect sense. The other reason is a debate I heard between James White and Greg Strawbridge on baptism. Dr. White asked Dr. Strawbridge if infants were members of the covenant. He didn't seem to commit to an answer. Maybe I misunderstood. Anyway, thanks again. I look forward to reading the article for which you provided a link.
Jim Polk
www.jude3.wordpress.com
Pleae let me know if that post clarifies the question that you have on infant baptism, or if you think I need further explanation.
Thanks,
Wes
Hi Wes,
I finally found the time to look at your post on infant baptism. I do have a question. I'm sure it's a misunderstanding on my part, but there seems to be a contradiction between a comment you make, (quoted below), and the WLC. Maybe you could help me with this?
2. Consequently, it does not mean that every single child will be part of an external covenant. Wes White
Q166: Unto whom is Baptism to be administered?
A166: Baptism is not to be administered to any that are out of the visible church, and so strangers from the covenant of promise, till they profess their faith in Christ, and obedience to him, but infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.
I'm not sure what # 166 means. Does it mean, they have an external relation to the covenant and are to be baptized? Or does it mean that in respect to their relationship to their parents they are in the covenant and so are to be baptized? Do you know where a Latin version of the WLC can be found?
As for the quote from my paper, it doesn't really affect the question, anyway. I was saying in my paper that when God says, "I will be a God to you and your descendants," He is saying that He will give them salvation (not all but in general). The promise there is not that they will all have an external relation to the covenant. That may be true, but that is not the meaning of "I will be your God..."
Thanks Wes. That helps.
Wes~
I think your point in the conclusion, that being in the covenant of grace is being one of the redeemed in Christ, is spot on, and so necessary for understanding claims about salvation in covenant with Christ.
Any broader usage of 'covenant of grace' to include those in it merely externally is a particular way of speaking that, while sometimes warranted, is only used in an improper (in the sense of untechnical) way. Biblically, those in the covenant of grace are set apart to the Father, redeemed by Christ and upheld by the Spirit--those only *externally* in are not *really* in, but are in fact 'trampling the blood of the covenant.'
I think the FV usage almost always fits the 'external' understanding, but is for them indistinguishable from the 'internal' understanding, and much confusion ensues.
I think the FV usage almost always fits the 'external' understanding, but is for them indistinguishable from the 'internal' understanding, and much confusion ensues.
Exactly. This is why I'm hesitant to use language such as "non-elect covenant members." When used by FV proponents, these NECM supposedly receive the same covenant benefits as elect covenant members, but on a temporary basis. I've yet to see how to fit the idea of temporary justification into the Westminster Standards.
Wes,
I enjoyed the post. They are so helpful as I continue to study C.T. I am curious how 2 Peter 2:1 might fit with the statement that all those who are truly (internally) in the CoG are elect? At face value it seems that 2 Peter 2 is speaking of those who have had the saving benefits of Christ applied to them. I would think that some would be quick to try and say that those false prophets were only externally members of the CoG or I have also heard that Peter is arguing from their point of view, that is, those who believe they have been bought.
Have you read or done any exegesis on this text?
Hope the holidays went well!
Grace,
Kyle
Machaira - What term would you use to describe reprobates who have some relation to the covenant? I'm curious not leading you.
Kyle, I did some research on this point this afternoon. I think Turretin has the best thought here. You can read it yourself in his Institutes, XIV.xiv.43. If you don't have Turretin, you should make that your top priority in book buying. In case you don't, here's the quote:
"When false prophets are said 'to deny the Lord that redeemed or bought them' (2 Pet. 2:1), he cannot mean a redemption (properly so called) from the malediction of God and from eternal death. No one is redeemed who was not given by the Father to Christ to be redeemed and who consequently will be kept by him and saved for ever as a member of his church and one of his peculiar people. Rather he means a liberation from error and idolatry by an external call of Christianity and a setting apart to the work of the ministry for which they were in a certain measure bought by Christ (as Lord), who had acquired them and made them his own by calling them into his house (as masters formerly bought servants and employed them in domestic duties). That this is the meaning of the apostle is collected from various consideration: (1) he makes mention of despotou, a word signifying a master and an owner rather than a Savior (to whom redemption properly so called belongs). (2) The word agorazein taken simply is used of any kind of deliverance and purchase. (3) The kind of redmeption here meant is that through which those bought are said 'to have escaped the corruptions that are in the world through the knowledge of God and our Savior,' by which they 'have known the way of righteousness' (vv. 20-21). This can belong to no other than a deliverance from the errors and idolatries of paganism and a calling to the truth, defecting from which through apostasy and the introduction of the most pernicious heresies, they are said to deny their Master who bought them and called them to his service.
Machaira - What term would you use to describe reprobates who have some relation to the covenant? I'm curious not leading you.
In the past I would refer to them as "false professors." I guess in the grand scheme of covenant theology that may be too simplistic.
Jim,
I think we should steer away from the term "non-elect covenant member," while it could possibly be understood in a right sense, it would seem that it easily would lend itself to the idea that there are non-elect who are actually in the covenant of grace. It would seem that it would lead someone directly toward the very problem that Brannan (Creed or Chaos) brought up.
Wes,
I agree. I love Calvin's comments on I John 2:19.
19 They went out from us He anticipates another objection, that the Church seemed to have produced these pests, and to have cherished them for a time in its bosom. For certainly it serves more to disturb the weak, when any one among us, professing the true faith, falls away, than when a thousand aliens conspire against us. He then confesses that they had gone out from the bosom of the Church; but he denies that they were ever of the Church. But the way of removing this objection is, to say, that the Church is always exposed to this evil, so that it is constrained to bear with many hypocrites who know not Christ, really, however much they may by the mouth profess his name.
By saying, They went out from us, he means that they had previously occupied a place in the Church, and were counted among the number of the godly. He, however, denies that they were of them, though they had assumed the name of believers, as chaff though mixed with wheat on the same floor cannot yet be deemed wheat.
For if they had been of us He plainly declares that those who fell away had never been members of the Church. And doubtless the seal of God, under which he keeps his own, remains sure, as Paul says, (2 Timothy 2:19.) But here arises a difficulty, for it happens that many who seemed to have embraced Christ, often fall away. To this I answer, that there are three sorts of those who profess the Gospel; there are those who feign piety, while a bad conscience reproves them within; the hypocrisy of others is more deceptive, who not only seek to disguise themselves before men, but also dazzle their own eyes, so that they seem to themselves to worship God aright; the third are those who have the living root of faith, and carry a testimony of their own adoption firmly fixed in their hearts. The two first have no stability; of the last John speaks, when he says, that it is impossible that they should be separated from the Church, for the seal which God’s Spirit engraves on their hearts cannot be obliterated; the incorruptible seed, which has struck roots, cannot be pulled up or destroyed.
He does not speak here of the constancy of men, but of God, whose election must be ratified. He does not then, without reason declare, that where the calling of God is effectual, perseverance would be certain. He, in short, means that they who fall away had never been thoroughly imbued with the knowledge of Christ, but had only a light and a transient taste of it.
That they might be made manifest He shews that trial is useful and necessary for the Church. It hence follows, on the other hand, that there is no just cause for perturbation. Since the Church is like a threshing-floor, the chaff must be blown away that the pure wheat may remain. This is what God does, when he casts out hypocrites from the Church, for he then cleanses it from refuse and filth.
Post a Comment