The Covenants of Promise.....Eph2:12

[Iconoclast]

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Paul is explaining to Gentiles who were being saved by God...that before the cross they were "strangers" from the Covenants of promise.

At the cross it changes. Gentiles are grafted in......to what?

Is it the same covenant that they used to be strangers too?

Is there a complete continuity from the Old Covenant to the New?

Is it an identical Covenant?

Why is the new Covenant new as far as you can tell?

Why was the Old called Covenants of promise?

Is there one salvation, or two?

When was the Covenant of grace put into effect?

Is there a time when the covenant of grace was not in effect?

Do baptists have a "Covenant theology" or do we leave it for the Presbyterians?

Give scriptural support for your responses.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

This looks a bit like a Covenant Theology examination paper, but I'll have a crack at it.

12 That at that time ye were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world:

Paul is explaining to Gentiles who were being saved by God...that before the cross they were "strangers" from the Covenants of promise.

At the cross it changes. Gentiles are grafted in......to what?

The household of God (Eph. 2:19) and the olive tree of salvation (Romans 9:16-21) aka the New Covenant (Mark 14:24; 2 Cor. 3:3-6). That is why Covenant Theology is not 'replacement theology' but Inclusion Theology.

Is it the same covenant that they used to be strangers to?

My understanding of the covenants of promise is that they are the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. These covenants promised salvation through a 'Seed' (Abrahamic) or 'Messiah' (Davidic). They promise the New Covenant but are not actually it.

Is there a complete continuity from the Old Covenant to the New?

If by the Old Covenant you mean the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant, then it depends what you mean by 'complete.' The O.C., of which the Law is such a prominent part, was given 'because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made' (Gal. 3:19). Now that the N.C. is here, the O.C. became obsolete and passed away with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (Hebrews 8:13).

Is it an identical Covenant?

No. Jesus is the 'Mediator of a better covenant which was established on better promises' (Heb. 8:6).

Why is the new Covenant new as far as you can tell?

Because it replaces the old, and because in it the Law, instead of being written on stone tablets is written on the hearts of believers (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:10-11).

Why was the Old called Covenants of promise?

The Old Covenant contains a promise of the New in the sacrifices that pointed to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.

Is there one salvation, or two?

Only one way of salvation. The O.T. saints looked forward to Christ and the salvation He would bring (Luke 2:25; John 8:56) just as we look back (Luke 22:19; 2 Timothy 2:8).

When was the Covenant of grace put into effect?

It was arranged in eternity past (Eph. 1:4-6; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; Titus 1:2-3) and put into effect at the Fall (Genesis 3:15).

Is there a time when the covenant of grace was not in effect?

Yes. In the Garden before the Fall (cf. Gen. 3:3; 1 Cor. 15:22). There does not appear to have been any arrangement to deal with sin at that time, but that didn't matter because there was no sin.

Do baptists have a "Covenant theology" or do we leave it for the Presbyterians?

The first Particular Baptists were all covenantal. Presbyterians tend to see the New Covenant as being 'renewed' and therefore see baptism as a continuation of circumcision. Baptists see it correctly as new and better (Hebrews 7:22). Three good books to read are The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault (SGCB), Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, ed. Richard Barcellos (RBAP) and The Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink (Pietan Publications).

Give scriptural support for your responses.

I have endeavoured to do so.

 

[Iconoclast]

This looks a bit like a Covenant Theology examination paper, but I'll have a crack at it.

The household of God (Eph. 2:19) and the olive tree of salvation (Romans 9:16-21) aka the New Covenant (Mark 14:24; 2 Cor. 3:3-6). That is why Covenant Theology is not 'replacement theology' but Inclusion Theology.


My understanding of the covenants of promise is that they are the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. These covenants promised salvation through a 'Seed' (Abrahamic) or 'Messiah' (Davidic). They promise the New Covenant but are not actually it.


If by the Old Covenant you mean the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant, then it depends what you mean by 'complete.' The O.C., of which the Law is such a prominent part, was given 'because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made' (Gal. 3:19). Now that the N.C. is here, the O.C. became obsolete and passed away with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (Hebrews 8:13).


No. Jesus is the 'Mediator of a better covenant which was established on better promises' (Heb. 8:6).


Because it replaces the old, and because in it the Law, instead of being written on stone tablets is written on the hearts of believers (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:10-11).


The Old Covenant contains a promise of the New in the sacrifices that pointed to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.


Only one way of salvation. The O.T. saints looked forward to Christ and the salvation He would bring (Luke 2:25; John 8:56) just as we look back (Luke 22:19; 2 Timothy 2:8).


It was arranged in eternity past (Eph. 1:4-6; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; Titus 1:2-3) and put into effect at the Fall (Genesis 3:15).


Yes. In the Garden before the Fall (cf. Gen. 3:3; 1 Cor. 15:22). There does not appear to have been any arrangement to deal with sin at that time, but that didn't matter because there was no sin.


The first Particular Baptists were all covenantal. Presbyterians tend to see the New Covenant as being 'renewed' and therefore see baptism as a continuation of circumcision. Baptists see it correctly as new and better (Hebrews 7:22). Three good books to read are The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault (SGCB), Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, ed. Richard Barcellos (RBAP) and The Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink (Pietan Publications).


I have endeavoured to do so.

Well done. I am working through these books now. That is what gave rise to this thread.
Most books in our libraries are written by people who are not baptists. I am thankful that this is changing.
This study settles many issues that we face.

 

[Iconoclast]

"Martin Marprelate,

The household of God (Eph. 2:19) and the olive tree of salvation (Romans 9:16-21) aka the New Covenant (Mark 14:24; 2 Cor. 3:3-6). That is why Covenant Theology is not 'replacement theology' but Inclusion Theology.

This household of God passage , where it is in Ephesians has to be dealt with.
Many Baptists skip over it as if it was not there.

My understanding of the covenants of promise is that they are the Noahic, Abrahamic and Davidic covenants. These covenants promised salvation through a 'Seed' (Abrahamic) or 'Messiah' (Davidic). They promise the New Covenant but are not actually it.


If by the Old Covenant you mean the Mosaic or Sinaitic covenant, then it depends what you mean by 'complete.' The O.C., of which the Law is such a prominent part, was given 'because of transgressions, till the Seed should come to whom the promise was made' (Gal. 3:19). Now that the N.C. is here, the O.C. became obsolete and passed away with the destruction of the Temple in AD 70 (Hebrews 8:13).


No. Jesus is the 'Mediator of a better covenant which was established on better promises' (Heb. 8:6).


Because it replaces the old, and because in it the Law, instead of being written on stone tablets is written on the hearts of believers (Jer. 31:31-34; Heb. 8:10-11).


The Old Covenant contains a promise of the New in the sacrifices that pointed to the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.


Only one way of salvation. The O.T. saints looked forward to Christ and the salvation He would bring (Luke 2:25; John 8:56) just as we look back (Luke 22:19; 2 Timothy 2:8).

It was arranged in eternity past (Eph. 1:4-6; 2 Thes. 2:13-14; Titus 1:2-3) and put into effect at the Fall (Genesis 3:15).

Yes. In the Garden before the Fall (cf. Gen. 3:3; 1 Cor. 15:22). There does not appear to have been any arrangement to deal with sin at that time, but that didn't matter because there was no sin.

Jonathan Edwards suggests that it was only because Jesus was already pledged and promised to be mediator and surety that creation could even take place.

The first Particular Baptists were all covenantal. Presbyterians tend to see the New Covenant as being 'renewed' and therefore see baptism as a continuation of circumcision. Baptists see it correctly as new and better (Hebrews 7:22). Three good books to read are The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology by Pascal Denault (SGCB), Recovering a Covenantal Heritage, ed. Richard Barcellos (RBAP) and The Divine Covenants by A.W. Pink (Pietan Publications).

Good books

 

[Martin Marprelate]

Well done. I am working through these books now. That is what gave rise to this thread.
Most books in our libraries are written by people who are not baptists. I am thankful that this is changing.
This study settles many issues that we face.

It's great that these books are becoming available. I hope many Baptists will read them and find out what their spiritual forefathers believed. It's also good to know that the works of 17th Century Baptists like Benjamin Keach are every bit as good as those of the more famous Puritans. I hope more old Baptist books will become available.

It is also interesting to see the continuity of thought from men like Kiffin, Keach and Bunyan through Andrew Fuller, Abraham Booth, James and Robert Haldane all the way down to Spurgeon. This is our Baptist heritage and we should value it.