The Covenant of Redemption

[Iconoclast]

Recently there was attempted discussion of this topic. It seemed asif some had never heard of this teaching which many understand as core teaching.
Feel free to isolate any paragraph to interact withThumbsupThumbsupThumbsup

from :Louis Berkof-

B. SCRIPTURAL DATA FOR THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
The name “counsel of peace” is derived from Zech. 6:13. Coccejus and others found in this passage a reference to an agreement between the Father and the Son. This was clearly a mistake, for the words refer to the union of the kingly and priestly offices in the Messiah. The Scriptural character of the name cannot be maintained, but this, of course, does not detract from the reality of the counsel of peace. The doctrine of this eternal counsel rests on the following Scriptural basis.

1. Scripture clearly points to the fact that the plan of redemption was included in the eternal decree or counsel of God, Eph. 1:4 ff.; 3:11; II Thess. 2:13; II Tim. 1:9; Jas. 2:5; I Pet. 1:2, etc. Now we find that in the economy of redemption there is, in a sense, a division of labor: the Father is the originator, the Son the executor, and the Holy Spirit the applier. This can only be the result of a voluntary agreement among the persons of the Trinity, so that their internal relations assume the form of a covenant life. In fact, it is exactly in the trinitarian life that we find the archetype of the historical covenants, a covenant in the proper and fullest sense of the word, the parties meeting on a footing of equality, a true suntheke.

2. There are passages of Scripture which not only point to the fact that the plan of God for the salvation of sinners was eternal, Eph. 1:4; 3:9,11, but also indicate that it was of the nature of a covenant. Christ speaks of promises made to Him before his advent, and repeatedly refers to a commission which He had received from the Father, John 5:30,43; 6:38-40; 17:4-12. And in Rom. 5:12-21 and I Cor. 15:22 He is clearly regarded as a representative head, that is, as the head of a covenant.

3. Wherever we have the essential elements of a covenant, namely, contracting parties, a promise or promises, and a condition, there we have a covenant. In Ps. 2:7-9 the parties are mentioned and a promise is indicated. The Messianic character of this passage is guaranteed by Acts 13:33; Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Again, in Ps. 40:7-9, also attested as Messianic by the New Testament (Heb. 10:5-7), the Messiah expresses His readiness to do the Father’s will in becoming a sacrifice for sin. Christ repeatedly speaks of a task which the Father has entrusted to Him, John 6:38,39; 10:18; 17:4. The statement in Luke 22:29 is particularly significant: “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me.” The verb used here is diatithemi, the word from which diatheke is derived, which means to appoint by will, testament or covenant. Moreover, in John 17:5 Christ claims a reward, and in John 17:6,9,24 (cf. also Phil. 2:9-11) He refers to His people and His future glory as a reward given Him by the Father.

4. There are two Old Testament passages which connect up the idea of the covenant immediately with the Messiah, namely, Ps. 89:3, which is based on II Sam. 7:12-14, and is proved to be a Messianic passage by Heb. 1:5; and Isa. 42:6, where the person referred to is the Servant of the Lord. The connection clearly shows that this Servant is not merely Israel. Moreover, there are passages in which the Messiah speaks of God as His God, thus using covenant language, namely, Ps. 22:1, 2, and Ps. 40:8.

Here is some of the basic ideas seen by Godly teachers.... pt 1

 

[Iconoclast]

pt2

C. THE SON IN THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
1. THE OFFICIAL POSITION OF CHRIST IN THIS COVENANT. The position of Christ in the covenant of redemption is twofold. In the first place He is Surety (Gr. egguos), a word that is used only in Heb. 7:22. The derivation of this word is uncertain, and therefore cannot aid us in establishing its meaning. But the meaning is not doubtful. A surety is one who engages to become responsible for it that the legal obligations of another will be met.

In the covenant of redemption Christ undertook to atone for the sins of His people by bearing the necessary punishment, and to meet the demands of the law for them. And by taking the place of delinquent man He became the last Adam, and is as such also the Head of the covenant, the Representative of all those whom the Father has given Him.

In the covenant of redemption, then, Christ is both Surety and Head. He took upon Himself the responsibilities of His people. He is also their Surety in the covenant of grace, which develops out of the covenant of redemption. The question has been raised, whether the suretyship of Christ in the counsel of peace was conditional or unconditional. Roman jurisprudence recognizes two kinds of suretyship, the one designated fidejussor, and the other expromissor. The former is conditional, and the latter unconditional. The former is a surety who undertakes to pay for another, provided this person does not himself render satisfaction. The burden of guilt remains on the guilty party until the time of payment. The latter, however, is a surety who takes upon himself unconditionally to pay for another, thus relieving the guilty party of his responsibility at once. Coccejus and his school maintained that in the counsel of peace Christ became a fidejussor, and that consequently Old Testament believers enjoyed no complete forgiveness of sins. From Rom. 3:25 they inferred that for those saints there was only a paresis, an overlooking of sin, and no aphesis or complete forgiveness, until Christ really made atonement for sin. Their opponents asserted, however, that Christ took upon Himself unconditionally to render satisfaction for His people, and therefore became a surety in the specific sense of an expromissor. This is the only tenable position, for: (a) Old Testament believers received full justification or forgiveness, though the knowledge of it was not as full and clear as it is in the New Testament dispensation. There was no essential difference between the status of the Old, and that of the New Testament believers, Ps. 32:1,2,5; 51:1-3, 9-11; 103:3,12; Isa. 43:25; Rom. 3:3,6-16; Gal. 3:6-9.

The position of Coccejus reminds one of that of the Roman Catholics with their Limbus Patrum. (b) Coccejus’ theory makes the work of God in making provision for the redemption of sinners dependent on the uncertain obedience of man in an entirely unwarranted way.

There is no sense in saying that Christ became a conditional surety, as if it were still possible that the sinner should pay for himself. God’s provision for the redemption of sinners is absolute. This is not the same as saying that He does not treat and address the sinner as personally guilty until he is justified by faith, for this is exactly what God does do. (c) In Rom. 3:25, the passage to which Coccejus appeals, the apostle uses the word paresis (overlooking or passing over), not because the individual believers in the Old Testament did not receive full pardon of sin, but because during the old dispensation the forgiveness of sin assumed the form of a paresis, as long as sin had not been adequately punished in Christ, and the absolute righteousness of Christ had not been revealed in the cross.

2. THE CHARACTER THIS COVENANT ASSUMED FOR CHRIST. Though the covenant of redemption is the eternal basis of the covenant of grace, and, as far as sinners are concerned, also its eternal prototype, it was for Christ a covenant of works rather than a covenant of grace. For Him the law of the original covenant applied, namely, that eternal life could only be obtained by meeting the demands of the law. As the last Adam Christ obtains eternal life for sinners in reward for faithful obedience, and not at all as an unmerited gift of grace. And what He has done as the Representative and Surety of all His people, they are no more in duty bound to do. The work has been done, the reward is merited, and believers are made partakers of the fruits of Christ’s accomplished work through grace.

3. CHRIST’S WORK IN THE COVENANT LIMITED BY THE DECREE OF ELECTION. Some have identified the covenant of redemption and election; but this is clearly a mistake. Election has reference to the selection of the persons destined to be the heirs of everlasting glory in Christ. The counsel of redemption, on the other hand, refers to the way in which and the means by which grace and glory are prepared for sinners.

Election, indeed, also has reference to Christ and reckons with Christ, for believers are said to be elected in Him. Christ Himself is, in a sense, the object of election, but in the counsel of redemption He is one of the contracting parties. The Father deals with Christ as the Surety of His people.



Logically, election precedes the counsel of redemption, because the suretyship of Christ, like His atonement, is particular. If there were no preceding election, it would necessarily be universal. Moreover, to turn this around would be equivalent to making the suretyship of Christ the ground of election, while Scripture bases election entirely on the good pleasure of God.

4. CONNECTION OF THE SACRAMENTS USED BY CHRIST WITH THE COVENANT. Christ used the sacraments of both the Old and the New Testament. It is evident, however, that they could not mean for Him what they do for believers. In His case they could be neither symbols nor seals of saving grace; nor could they be instrumental in strengthening saving faith. If we distinguish, as we are doing, between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, then the sacraments were for Christ in all probability sacraments of the former rather than of the latter. Christ took upon Himself in the covenant of redemption to meet the demands of the law. These had assumed a definite form when Christ was on earth and also included positive religious regulations. The sacraments formed a part of this law, and therefore Christ had to subject Himself to them, Matt. 3:15. At the same time they could serve as seals of the promises which the Father had given to the Son. The objection may be raised to this representation that the sacraments were indeed fit symbols and seals of the removal of sin and of the nourishment of spiritual life, but from the nature of the case could not have this meaning for Christ, who had no sin and needed no spiritual nourishment. The objection may be met, at least to a certain extent, by calling attention to the fact that Christ appeared on earth in a public and official capacity. Though He had no personal sin, and no sacrament could therefore signify and seal to Him its removal, yet He was made to be sin for His people, II Cor. 5:21, by being burdened with their guilt; and consequently the sacraments could signify the removal of this burden, according to the promise of the Father, after He had completed His atoning work. Again, though we cannot speak of Christ as exercising saving faith in the sense in which this is required of us, yet as Mediator He had to exercise faith in a wider sense by accepting the promises of the Father believingly, and by trusting the Father for their fulfilment. And the sacraments could serve as signs and seals to strengthen this faith as far as His human nature was concerned.

 

[Iconoclast]

pt3

D. REQUIREMENTS AND PROMISES IN THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION.
1. REQUIREMENTS. The Father required of the Son, who appeared in this covenant as the Surety and Head of His people, and as the last Adam, that He should make amends for the sin of Adam and of those whom the Father had given Him, and should do what Adam failed to do by keeping the law and thus securing eternal life for all His spiritual progeny. This requirement included the following particulars:

a. That He should assume human nature by being born of a woman, and thus enter into temporal relations; and that He should assume this nature with its present infirmities, though without sin, Gal. 4:4,5; Heb. 2:10,11,14,15; 4:15. It was absolutely essential that He should become one of the human race.

b. That He, who as the Son of God was superior to the law, should place Himself under the law; that He should enter, not merely into the natural, but also into the penal and federal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty for sin and to merit everlasting life for the elect, Ps. 40:8; Matt. 5:17,18; John 8:28,29; Gal. 4:4,5; Phil. 2:6-8.

c. That He, after having merited forgiveness of sins and eternal life for His own, should apply to them the fruits of His merits: complete pardon, and the renewal of their lives through the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. By doing this He would render it absolutely certain that believers would consecrate their lives to God, John 10:16; John 16:14,15; 17:12,19-22; Heb. 2: 10-13; 7:25.

2. PROMISES. The promises of the Father were in keeping with His requirements. He promised the Son all that was required for the performance of His great and comprehensive task, thereby excluding all uncertainty in the operation of this covenant. These promises included the following:

a. That He would prepare the Son a body, which would be a fit tabernacle for him; a body in part prepared by the immediate agency of God and uncontaminated by sin, Luke 1:35; Heb. 10:5.

b. That He would endow Him with the necessary gifts and graces for the performance of His task, and particularly would anoint Him for the Messianic offices by giving Him the Spirit without measure, a promise that was fulfilled especially at the time of His baptism, Isa. 42:1,2; 61:1; John 3:31.

c. That He would support Him in the performance of His work, would deliver Him from the power of death, and would thus enable Him to destroy the dominion of Satan and to establish the Kingdom of God, Isa. 42:1-7; 49:8; Ps. 16:8-11; Acts 2:25-28.

d. That He would enable Him, as a reward for His accomplished work, to send out the Holy Spirit for the formation of His spiritual body, and for the instruction, guidance, and protection of the Church, John 14:26; 15:26; 16:13, 14; Acts 2:33.

e. That He would give unto Him a numerous seed in reward for His accomplished work, a seed so numerous that it would be a multitude which no man could number, so that ultimately the Kingdom of the Messiah would embrace the people of all nations and tongues, Ps. 22:27; 72:17.

f. That He would commit to Him all power in heaven and on earth for the government of the world and of His Church, Matt. 28:18; Eph. 1:20-22; Phil. 2:9-11; Heb. 2:5-9; and would finally reward Him as Mediator with the glory which He as the Son of God had with the Father before the world was, John 17:5.

 

[SovereignGrace]

Jesus is said to be the Lamb slain from the creation of the world. Would not that show the covenant of redemption is eternal?

 

[agedman]

Ok, lets get the terms correct.

In the modern world, at times "covenant" and "vow" are interchanged, HOWEVER, in the Scriptures, the difference becomes one of grand importance. One in which there must be made a distinction, AND most folks still recognize the difference in the matter of emphasis upon the promise(s) and goal(s).

1) Covenants are agreements made in which the parties agree upon to the accomplishment of a certain goal.

For example: 2nd Chronicles 7 has a number of covenant type agreements that God presented Solomon in the dream. The perpetual abode, the hearing ear of God, the eternal reign, judgment of disobedience... are all in response to the prayer Solomon made at the temple dedication. Deuteronomy 29 has the people standing before God as He establishes the covenant with them as His people.​

2) It makes no sense to use the term "unconditional covenant" if by definition BOTH parties have to agree to the condition(s) and goal(s). That in itself makes the "unconditional" - conditional. That is mere nonsense. The use of the term "Unconditional Covenant" is misleading, because of the legal contractual establishment of a covenant is ALWAYS conditional.​

Vows are NOT agreements BETWEEN two people but are statements in which establishes the position of the one making the vow.

Would that scholars would use "vow" rather than "unconditional covenant" and that way the common person who has limited understanding of the intent used in Scripture will not be misinformed.

Besides, the word "vow," in this day of usage, is a much more powerful word that shows the authority line and the actual intent of those using the words "unconditional covenant." The authority line is important in the Vow.

For example: In the marriage, a husband's vow cannot be rescinded by the wife, but should the husband overhear the wife's vow and disagree with it, he has the authority within a certain period of time to rescind it. (Numbers 30)​

Therefore, the vows made by God are cannot be rescinded by humankind. Such vows are established unconditionally upon God's authority, and wholly within His domain to enact. Human vows are able to be rescinded by God, or accepted by God. Just as a husband acts in the place of authority over the home, God acts as the final authority over the creation.

Again, I see the need that the TERM "unconditional covenant" were discarded and "vow" used in the place.

Relying upon terms used by the folks in the past and not adjusting them to the usage of this day is (imo) causing a growing disconnect which results in the truth of both the Scriptures and the presentation of the principles of the Scriptures is clearly not what the recipient actually comprehends.

If one uses the "archaic" terms in which in today's time has a different meaning, then it is likely that the hearers are not going to be understanding by either confusing message or a misunderstanding the message.

"The gay partner on the trip surely lighted the journey," has a whole different meaning today than it did even 50 years ago.

 

[Iconoclast]

Ok, lets get the terms correct.

In the modern world, at times "covenant" and "vow" are interchanged, HOWEVER, in the Scriptures, the difference becomes one of grand importance. One in which there must be made a distinction, AND most folks still recognize the difference in the matter of emphasis upon the promise(s) and goal(s).

1) Covenants are agreements made in which the parties agree upon to the accomplishment of a certain goal.

For example: 2nd Chronicles 7 has a number of covenant type agreements that God presented Solomon in the dream. The perpetual abode, the hearing ear of God, the eternal reign, judgment of disobedience... are all in response to the prayer Solomon made at the temple dedication. Deuteronomy 29 has the people standing before God as He establishes the covenant with them as His people.​

2) It makes no sense to use the term "unconditional covenant" if by definition BOTH parties have to agree to the condition(s) and goal(s). That in itself makes the "unconditional" - conditional. That is mere nonsense. The use of the term "Unconditional Covenant" is misleading, because of the legal contractual establishment of a covenant is ALWAYS conditional.​

Vows are NOT agreements BETWEEN two people but are statements in which establishes the position of the one making the vow.

Would that scholars would use "vow" rather than "unconditional covenant" and that way the common person who has limited understanding of the intent used in Scripture will not be misinformed.

Besides, the word "vow," in this day of usage, is a much more powerful word that shows the authority line and the actual intent of those using the words "unconditional covenant." The authority line is important in the Vow.

For example: In the marriage, a husband's vow cannot be rescinded by the wife, but should the husband overhear the wife's vow and disagree with it, he has the authority within a certain period of time to rescind it. (Numbers 30)​

Therefore, the vows made by God are cannot be rescinded by humankind. Such vows are established unconditionally upon God's authority, and wholly within His domain to enact. Human vows are able to be rescinded by God, or accepted by God. Just as a husband acts in the place of authority over the home, God acts as the final authority over the creation.

Again, I see the need that the TERM "unconditional covenant" were discarded and "vow" used in the place.

Relying upon terms used by the folks in the past and not adjusting them to the usage of this day is (imo) causing a growing disconnect which results in the truth of both the Scriptures and the presentation of the principles of the Scriptures is clearly not what the recipient actually comprehends.

If one uses the "archaic" terms in which in today's time has a different meaning, then it is likely that the hearers are not going to be understanding by either confusing message or a misunderstanding the message.

"The gay partner on the trip surely lighted the journey," has a whole different meaning today than it did even 50 years ago.

Unconditional is the correct wording that God having purposed in Himself to redeem a multitude of sinners in Himself.
If I remember correctly.....I believe this same author put it this way.....
The C.O.R.......is God's self imposed obligation for the reconciliation of sinners to himself.
When this covenant is expanded or rather extended to man in the Covenant of grace....notice in Genesis 15 Abraham is put to sleep and only God passes through the cut animal. Man was passive.

The medical field has its own terminology,as well as many other fields,such as science, and engineering.
While we do not have to restrict our language to kjo.....it is okay to explain to new converts our biblical and theological terms and keep it as simple as we can.
Keep in mind this discussion is primarily about the covenant of Redemption which is made before man was created,so that discussion about man is better served in a thread dealing with the covenant of grace.

 

[agedman]

While we do not have to restrict our language to kjo.....it is okay to explain to new converts our biblical and theological terms and keep it as simple as we can.

THAT is the essence of my point.

A covenant is a contract. An agreement between two or more upon something.

A vow is a promise. It is made irregardless of the agreement or lack of agreement between the parties involved.

The vow is what folks want to call "unconditional covenant."

It makes no sense to call something "unconditional" and then put "agreement" (covenant) when by definition the two words cannot be put together.

Replace Unconditional Covenant with Vow, and even the common person can understand without some puffy religious terminology having to be taught.

Even doctors know to talk to their patients using common terms.

 

[Iconoclast]

THAT is the essence of my point.

A covenant is a contract. An agreement between two or more upon something.

A vow is a promise. It is made irregardless of the agreement or lack of agreement between the parties involved.

The vow is what folks want to call "unconditional covenant."

It makes no sense to call something "unconditional" and then put "agreement" (covenant) when by definition the two words cannot be put together.

Replace Unconditional Covenant with Vow, and even the common person can understand without some puffy religious terminology having to be taught.

Even doctors know to talk to their patients using common terms.

Men were

THAT is the essence of my point.

A covenant is a contract. An agreement between two or more upon something.

A vow is a promise. It is made irregardless of the agreement or lack of agreement between the parties involved.

The vow is what folks want to call "unconditional covenant."

It makes no sense to call something "unconditional" and then put "agreement" (covenant) when by definition the two words cannot be put together.

Replace Unconditional Covenant with Vow, and even the common person can understand without some puffy religious terminology having to be taught.

Even doctors know to talk to their patients using common terms.

The thing is that God Himself uses the language of Covenant....so we will stick with it.
It is spoken of as an oath, and a promise...is as close as it gets to your idea.
I think for now we will stick with the scriptural usage as that is what the church has used throughout timeThumbsupThumbsupThumbsup

 

[Iconoclast]

The New Covenant, part of the Covenant of Redemption (a.k.a. the Covenant of Grace), is not effectual for all; for if it was effectual for all then all would be saved. It is a covenant made with "the house of Israel and with the house of Judah". This is not a covenant made with nations, but with God's covenant people of faith. We know this because Jeremiah writes, "I will put my law within them and on their heart I will write it". This internal law is only possible for the people of God. Remember that not all Israel belongs to Israel (c.f. Romans 9:6). Spiritual Israel is on the basis of faith (c.f. Romans 4:3).

I like how he words this very simply;

D. REQUIREMENTS AND PROMISES IN THE COVENANT OF REDEMPTION. 1. REQUIREMENTS. The Father required of the Son, who appeared in this covenant as the Surety and Head of His people, and as the last Adam, that He should make amends for the sin of Adam and of those whom the Father had given Him, and should do what Adam failed to do by keeping the law and thus securing eternal life for all His spiritual progeny. This requirement included the following particulars:

a. That He should assume human nature by being born of a woman, and thus enter into temporal relations; and that He should assume this nature with its present infirmities, though without sin, Gal. 4:4,5; Heb. 2:10,11,14,15; 4:15. It was absolutely essential that He should become one of the human race.

b. That He, who as the Son of God was superior to the law, should place Himself under the law; that He should enter, not merely into the natural, but also into the penal and federal relation to the law, in order to pay the penalty for sin and to merit everlasting life for the elect, Ps. 40:8; Matt. 5:17,18; John 8:28,29; Gal. 4:4,5; Phil. 2:6-8.

c. That He, after having merited forgiveness of sins and eternal life for His own, should apply to them the fruits of His merits: complete pardon, and the renewal of their lives through the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit. By doing this He would render it absolutely certain that believers would consecrate their lives to God, John 10:16; John 16:14,15; 17:12,19-22; Heb. 2: 10-13; 7:25.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

THAT is the essence of my point.

A covenant is a contract. An agreement between two or more upon something.

A vow is a promise. It is made irregardless of the agreement or lack of agreement between the parties involved.

The vow is what folks want to call "unconditional covenant."

It makes no sense to call something "unconditional" and then put "agreement" (covenant) when by definition the two words cannot be put together.

Replace Unconditional Covenant with Vow, and even the common person can understand without some puffy religious terminology having to be taught.

Even doctors know to talk to their patients using common terms.

The Bible speaks of 'covenants of promise' (Eph. 2:12), and the covenants with Noah (Gen. 9:11; Isaiah 54:8-10), Abraham (Gal. 3:17-18) and David (Psalm 89:3-4; Acts 2:30) are spoken of in terms of oaths and promises. Yet they are still described as covenants. It is wrong to change the words of the Holy Spirit. These are covenants of promise, and they are subsidiary to that great covenant made among the Persons of the Trinity that Iconoclast has been describing.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Some further thoughts on the Covenants of Promise.
Here is A. W. Pink:-

‘God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures able to enter into covenant with their august and holy Maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or to be sureties for others? The very question answers itself. What, for instance, could Noah possibly do which would ensure that the earth should never be destroyed again by a flood? These subordinate covenants were nothing more or less than the Lord’s making manifest, in an especial and public manner, the grand covenant: making known something of its glorious contents, confirming their own personal interest in it, and assuring them that Christ, the great covenant Head, should be of themselves and spring from their seed. ‘This is what accounts for that singular expression which occurs so frequently in Scripture: “Behold, I establish My covenant with you and your seed after you” (Gen 9:9 ). Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? Because the “conditions” were to be fulfilled and the “work” was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings upon His people. So when David says, “He hath made with me an everlasting covenant” (2Sam 23:5 ) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges. Hence it is that when the apostle Paul refers to the various covenants which God had made with men in Old Testament times, he styles them not “covenants of stipulations” but “covenants of promise”'

As we consider these things, we may see that the very first ‘Covenant of Promise’ was made, not with Noah, but with Adam, immediately after his disastrous fall from grace. The words are spoken to the serpent, Satan, but the application is to us through the merits of Christ. ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.’ There was nothing that Adam could do to bring this about. It is the work of Christ (1John 3:8 ), the true Seed of the woman (Gal 4:4 ) that comes to us through our union with Him (Rom 16:20 ). As a sign of this covenant, God graciously provide a covering for the guilty couple (Gen 3:21 ) and for this an innocent creature had to die, foreshadowing the one great sacrifice of the Lamb of God who provides for us the true covering or atonement for sin (cf. Isaiah 61:10; Rev 7:14 ).

So it was that Abel, having learned from his parents of their great sin and fall, seeing himself lost and mired in sin, took that promise to his parents and made it his own by faith. He looked down the millennia by that same faith and saw the Seed that should come taking his sin upon His sinless shoulders on the cross, and, filled with love for the God that loved him so much, he took the finest lamb of his flock and sacrificed it to Him who would not withhold His beloved Son to save him. It was not the sacrifice that wrought salvation for Abel; it was his faith that united him to Christ in His death and resurrection. And so it is for us, that if we will look to Christ in repentance and faith, we too will be clothed in His righteousness and know the forgiveness of our sins. Abel and the Old Testament saints knew only the promise of Christ as they looked forward to His coming; we know the historical fact as we look backwards to the cross; yet the outcome is the same. “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” The one Covenant of Grace, expressed in the will of the Father and the obedience of the Son, has brought about salvation for all of God’s elect, from Adam and Eve themselves, to the very last sinner to be saved before Christ comes again.
[Taken from my blog: https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/the-covenants-part-ii-the-covenant-of-grace/ ]

 

[agedman]

Some further thoughts on the Covenants of Promise.
Here is A. W. Pink:-

‘God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures able to enter into covenant with their august and holy Maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or to be sureties for others? The very question answers itself...Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? Because the “conditions” were to be fulfilled and the “work” was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings upon His people.

Martin,
You just proved my statement of the difference between covenant and a vow to be correct.

I am Not changing what the Holy Spirit wrote, I am placing the writing into the language the modern folks comprehend; in doing so, I am removing any possible misinterpretation by the readers of the Scripture.

God made a promise to Noah - a covenant, a league, - that was conditional (NOT unconditional) and as the commentator states, the conditions were fulfilled by the work of Christ.

There is a difference between vow and covenant. Covenants are conditional. Vows are not.

Thank you for demonstrating that difference.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Covenants are conditional. Vows are not.

That is your definition. It doesn't appear to be God's.
Gen. 26:18. 'And Isaac dug again the wells of water which they had dug in the days of Abraham his father........He called them by the names which his father had called them.'

With much respect, if my Heavenly Father calls something a covenant, that's the name I'm going to use.

 

[agedman]

Certainly it is Gods authority to use whatever words He desires.

The misunderstanding is that YOU desired to quote from from A. W. Pink to demonstrate YOUR view. But when in actuality what A. W. Pink demonstrated was the use of the word "covenant" in the manner I described. YOU don't like that, so rather than presenting some other source, you make a bold statement of authority using the Scriptures in "proof text" fashion.

Quoting from Gen 26:18 has nothing to do with the discussion, unless you are claiming Issac is God.

Do you see God saying His covenant with Noah (Gen 9:9 ) was an "unconditional" covenant? NO. When Pink states, "(2Sam 23:5 ) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges," he again is showing that there is an agreement made between parties in which David gets to partake of the privileges. That is the appropriate use of covenant.

Remember, by DEFINITION a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties that involves an established goal.

A vow is NOT an agreement, but a declaration unconditioned upon any party except the one making the vow.

As A. W. Pink points out.

 

[Iconoclast]

Certainly it is Gods authority to use whatever words He desires.

The misunderstanding is that YOU desired to quote from from A. W. Pink to demonstrate YOUR view. But when in actuality what A. W. Pink demonstrated was the use of the word "covenant" in the manner I described. YOU don't like that, so rather than presenting some other source, you make a bold statement of authority using the Scriptures in "proof text" fashion.

Quoting from Gen 26:18 has nothing to do with the discussion, unless you are claiming Issac is God.

Do you see God saying His covenant with Noah (Gen 9:9 ) was an "unconditional" covenant? NO. When Pink states, "(2Sam 23:5 ) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges," he again is showing that there is an agreement made between parties in which David gets to partake of the privileges. That is the appropriate use of covenant.

Remember, by DEFINITION a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties that involves an established goal.

A vow is NOT an agreement, but a declaration unconditioned upon any party except the one making the vow.

As A. W. Pink points out.

A Divine Covenant is not an agreement made between two parties...... in Genesis 9 9 God says I will establish my covenant with you
it doesn't say let us make a covenant you and me together...... it doesn't say let us agree together on a covenant

 

[Iconoclast]

Some further thoughts on the Covenants of Promise.
Here is A. W. Pink:-

‘God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures able to enter into covenant with their august and holy Maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or to be sureties for others? The very question answers itself. What, for instance, could Noah possibly do which would ensure that the earth should never be destroyed again by a flood? These subordinate covenants were nothing more or less than the Lord’s making manifest, in an especial and public manner, the grand covenant: making known something of its glorious contents, confirming their own personal interest in it, and assuring them that Christ, the great covenant Head, should be of themselves and spring from their seed. ‘This is what accounts for that singular expression which occurs so frequently in Scripture: “Behold, I establish My covenant with you and your seed after you” (Gen 9:9 ). Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? Because the “conditions” were to be fulfilled and the “work” was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings upon His people. So when David says, “He hath made with me an everlasting covenant” (2Sam 23:5 ) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges. Hence it is that when the apostle Paul refers to the various covenants which God had made with men in Old Testament times, he styles them not “covenants of stipulations” but “covenants of promise”'

As we consider these things, we may see that the very first ‘Covenant of Promise’ was made, not with Noah, but with Adam, immediately after his disastrous fall from grace. The words are spoken to the serpent, Satan, but the application is to us through the merits of Christ. ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.’ There was nothing that Adam could do to bring this about. It is the work of Christ (1John 3:8 ), the true Seed of the woman (Gal 4:4 ) that comes to us through our union with Him (Rom 16:20 ). As a sign of this covenant, God graciously provide a covering for the guilty couple (Gen 3:21 ) and for this an innocent creature had to die, foreshadowing the one great sacrifice of the Lamb of God who provides for us the true covering or atonement for sin (cf. Isaiah 61:10; Rev 7:14 ).

So it was that Abel, having learned from his parents of their great sin and fall, seeing himself lost and mired in sin, took that promise to his parents and made it his own by faith. He looked down the millennia by that same faith and saw the Seed that should come taking his sin upon His sinless shoulders on the cross, and, filled with love for the God that loved him so much, he took the finest lamb of his flock and sacrificed it to Him who would not withhold His beloved Son to save him. It was not the sacrifice that wrought salvation for Abel; it was his faith that united him to Christ in His death and resurrection. And so it is for us, that if we will look to Christ in repentance and faith, we too will be clothed in His righteousness and know the forgiveness of our sins. Abel and the Old Testament saints knew only the promise of Christ as they looked forward to His coming; we know the historical fact as we look backwards to the cross; yet the outcome is the same. “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” The one Covenant of Grace, expressed in the will of the Father and the obedience of the Son, has brought about salvation for all of God’s elect, from Adam and Eve themselves, to the very last sinner to be saved before Christ comes again.
[Taken from my blog: https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/the-covenants-part-ii-the-covenant-of-grace/ ]

Thanks once again for the Solid post on the topic.
All the historic theologian who spoke on these topics usually come together and find a common teaching there is no need to reinvent the wheel

 

[Iconoclast]

Certainly it is Gods authority to use whatever words He desires.

The misunderstanding is that YOU desired to quote from from A. W. Pink to demonstrate YOUR view. But when in actuality what A. W. Pink demonstrated was the use of the word "covenant" in the manner I described. YOU don't like that, so rather than presenting some other source, you make a bold statement of authority using the Scriptures in "proof text" fashion.

Quoting from Gen 26:18 has nothing to do with the discussion, unless you are claiming Issac is God.

Do you see God saying His covenant with Noah (Gen 9:9 ) was an "unconditional" covenant? NO. When Pink states, "(2Sam 23:5 ) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges," he again is showing that there is an agreement made between parties in which David gets to partake of the privileges. That is the appropriate use of covenant.

Remember, by DEFINITION a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties that involves an established goal.

A vow is NOT an agreement, but a declaration unconditioned upon any party except the one making the vow.

As A. W. Pink points out.

The only covenant that had any condition attached to it was the promise of the land in the Mosaic Covenant the blessing of living in the land was conditioned on the obedience
as far as you trying to force this Vow idea
all the people Said that they would do all that God said and didn't do it so did nothing to accomplish the terms of the Covenant

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Certainly it is Gods authority to use whatever words He desires.

Thank you. I'm glad we've sorted that out.

Remember, by DEFINITION a covenant is an agreement between two or more parties that involves an established goal.
A vow is NOT an agreement, but a declaration unconditioned upon any party except the one making the vow.

As A. W. Pink points out.

The word 'vow' is never mentioned by Pink. He uses the same term I have, and which the Bible uses: Covenant of Promise.' Now, let's get on.

The most prominent feature of the Sinaitic covenant is the law. It is interesting to observe its conditional nature in contrast to the covenants of promise.

Gen 9:11(Noahic). Thus I establish My covenant with you: Never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of the flood.”

Gen 12:2 (Abrahamic). “I will make you a great nation; I will bless you and make your name great; and you shall be a blessing……….And in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed.”

1Chron 17:11 (Davidic). “And it shall be, when your days are fulfilled, when you must go to be with your fathers, that I will set up your seed after you, who will be one of your sons; and I will establish his kingdom.”

Exod 19:5 (Sinaitic). “Now therefore if you will indeed obey My voice and keep My covenant, then you shall be a special treasure to Me above all people.”

The “I will” of the covenants of promise contrasts with the “if you will” of the Sinaitic. Note also the “He will” when the New Covenant is announced.

Matt 1:21. “…..And you shall call His name Jesus for He will save His people from their sins.”

Luke 1:32. “He will be great and will be called the Son of the Highest; and the Lord God will give Him the throne of His father, David.”

‘For all the promises of God In Him are Yes, and in Him, Amen, to the glory of God’ (2Cor 1:20). The covenant of grace and the covenants of promise are all fulfilled in the new covenant in Christ's blood. The Sinaitic covenant, having served its purpose has long since passed away (Gal. 3:19; Heb. 8:13).

 

[Iconoclast]

Some further thoughts on the Covenants of Promise.
Here is A. W. Pink:-

‘God made covenants with Noah, Abraham, David; but were they, as fallen creatures able to enter into covenant with their august and holy Maker? Were they able to stand for themselves, or to be sureties for others? The very question answers itself. What, for instance, could Noah possibly do which would ensure that the earth should never be destroyed again by a flood? These subordinate covenants were nothing more or less than the Lord’s making manifest, in an especial and public manner, the grand covenant: making known something of its glorious contents, confirming their own personal interest in it, and assuring them that Christ, the great covenant Head, should be of themselves and spring from their seed. ‘This is what accounts for that singular expression which occurs so frequently in Scripture: “Behold, I establish My covenant with you and your seed after you” (Gen 9:9 ). Yet there follows no mention of any conditions, or work to be done by them: only a promise of unconditional blessings. And why? Because the “conditions” were to be fulfilled and the “work” was to be done by Christ, and nothing remained but to bestow the blessings upon His people. So when David says, “He hath made with me an everlasting covenant” (2Sam 23:5 ) he simply means, God had admitted him into an interest in the everlasting covenant and made him partaker of its privileges. Hence it is that when the apostle Paul refers to the various covenants which God had made with men in Old Testament times, he styles them not “covenants of stipulations” but “covenants of promise”'

As we consider these things, we may see that the very first ‘Covenant of Promise’ was made, not with Noah, but with Adam, immediately after his disastrous fall from grace. The words are spoken to the serpent, Satan, but the application is to us through the merits of Christ. ‘And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise His heel.’ There was nothing that Adam could do to bring this about. It is the work of Christ (1John 3:8 ), the true Seed of the woman (Gal 4:4 ) that comes to us through our union with Him (Rom 16:20 ). As a sign of this covenant, God graciously provide a covering for the guilty couple (Gen 3:21 ) and for this an innocent creature had to die, foreshadowing the one great sacrifice of the Lamb of God who provides for us the true covering or atonement for sin (cf. Isaiah 61:10; Rev 7:14 ).

So it was that Abel, having learned from his parents of their great sin and fall, seeing himself lost and mired in sin, took that promise to his parents and made it his own by faith. He looked down the millennia by that same faith and saw the Seed that should come taking his sin upon His sinless shoulders on the cross, and, filled with love for the God that loved him so much, he took the finest lamb of his flock and sacrificed it to Him who would not withhold His beloved Son to save him. It was not the sacrifice that wrought salvation for Abel; it was his faith that united him to Christ in His death and resurrection. And so it is for us, that if we will look to Christ in repentance and faith, we too will be clothed in His righteousness and know the forgiveness of our sins. Abel and the Old Testament saints knew only the promise of Christ as they looked forward to His coming; we know the historical fact as we look backwards to the cross; yet the outcome is the same. “And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” The one Covenant of Grace, expressed in the will of the Father and the obedience of the Son, has brought about salvation for all of God’s elect, from Adam and Eve themselves, to the very last sinner to be saved before Christ comes again.
[Taken from my blog: https://marprelate.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/the-covenants-part-ii-the-covenant-of-grace/ ]

“And this is the will of Him who sent Me, that everyone who sees the Son and believes in Him may have everlasting life; and I will raise him up at the last day.” The one Covenant of Grace, expressed in the will of the Father and the obedience of the Son, has brought about salvation for all of God’s elect, from Adam and Eve themselves, to the very last sinner to be saved before Christ comes again.
This is what it is all about....

 

[Iconoclast]

"Reformed,

God's covenant is made with His elect

.
Yes.....and it is offered along with the kingdom in the gospel;

from pt3;
3. Wherever we have the essential elements of a covenant, namely, contracting parties, a promise or promises, and a condition, there we have a covenant. In Ps. 2:7-9 the parties are mentioned and a promise is indicated. The Messianic character of this passage is guaranteed by Acts 13:33;

Psalm2-
Psalm 2King James Version (KJV)

2 Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing?

2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the Lord, and against his anointed, saying,

3 Let us break their bands asunder, and cast away their cords from us.

4 He that sitteth in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision.

5 Then shall he speak unto them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure.

6 Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion.

7 I will declare the decree: the Lord hath said unto me, Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.

8 Ask of me, and I shall give thee the heathen for thine inheritance, and the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession.

9 Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

acts13;
32 And we declare unto you glad tidings, how that the promise which was made unto the fathers,

33 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee.

34 And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.

35 Wherefore he saith also in another psalm, Thou shalt not suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

36 For David, after he had served his own generation by the will of God, fell on sleep, and was laid unto his fathers, and saw corruption:

37 But he, whom God raised again, saw no corruption.

38 Be it known unto you therefore, men and brethren, that through this man is preached unto you the forgiveness of sins:

39 And by him all that believe are justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by the law of Moses.

40 Beware therefore, lest that come upon you, which is spoken of in the prophets;

41 Behold, ye despisers, and wonder, and perish: for I work a work in your days, a work which ye shall in no wise believe, though a man declare it unto you.

42 And when the Jews were gone out of the synagogue, the Gentiles besought that these words might be preached to them the next sabbath.

43 Now when the congregation was broken up, many of the Jews and religious proselytes followed Paul and Barnabas: who, speaking to them, persuaded them to continue in the grace of God.


Heb. 1:5; 5:5. Again,
5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

heb5;
5 So also Christ glorified not himself to be made an high priest; but he that said unto him, Thou art my Son, to day have I begotten thee.


in Ps. 40:7-9, also attested as Messianic by the New Testament (Heb. 10:5-7), the Messiah expresses His readiness to do the Father’s will in becoming a sacrifice for sin.


Christ repeatedly speaks of a task which the Father has entrusted to Him, John 6:38,39; 10:18; 17:4. The statement in Luke 22:29 is particularly significant: “I appoint unto you a kingdom, even as my Father appointed unto me.” The verb used here is diatithemi, the word from which diatheke is derived, which means to appoint by will, testament or covenant. Moreover, in John 17:5 Christ claims a reward, and in John 17:6,9,24 (cf. also Phil. 2:9-11) He refers to His people and His future glory as a reward given Him by the Father.

The kingdom has began clearly for all who have been translated into it.
It would be hard to translate Covenant members into the kingdom if it did not exist yetSick