Covenant of Redemption Questions

[Mikey]

The covenant of redemption is the agreement made between the members of the Trinity in order to bring us salvation. Under this covenant, the Father plans redemption and sends the Son in order to save His people. The Son agrees to be sent and to do the work necessary to save the elect and the Spirit agrees to apply the work of Christ to us by sealing us unto salvation

What evidence is there that the Godhead made a covenant amongst them? why does there need to be a Covenant of Redemption? Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace seem to work without it.

 

[Reformed]

Actually, the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace share many similarities, although the Covenant of Grace is unique in that it is a republication of the Covenant of Works. More on that in a moment.

The Covenant of Redemption focuses on God's eternal plan for the redemption of His people (the elect). The Covenant of Grace reveals that plan through the Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ (the last Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45) kept the Covenant of Works that the first Adam failed to keep, thus conveying the benefits of the promise to His posterity. The Covenant of Redemption is useful in providing an umbrella under which all of God's redemptive work comes to rest.

 

[Yeshua1]

The covenant of redemption is the agreement made between the members of the Trinity in order to bring us salvation. Under this covenant, the Father plans redemption and sends the Son in order to save His people. The Son agrees to be sent and to do the work necessary to save the elect and the Spirit agrees to apply the work of Christ to us by sealing us unto salvation

What evidence is there that the Godhead made a covenant amongst them? why does there need to be a Covenant of Redemption? Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace seem to work without it.

I thought that there were just the Covenant of Works that Adam was under before the Fall, and One of Grace afterwards!

 

[Reformed]

I thought that there were just the Covenant of Works that Adam was under before the Fall, and One of Grace afterwards!

It depends on who you ask. Many Baptists don't recognize the Covenant of Redemption while others do.

 

[Mikey]

Actually, the Covenant of Redemption and the Covenant of Grace share many similarities, although the Covenant of Grace is unique in that it is a republication of the Covenant of Works. More on that in a moment.

The Covenant of Redemption focuses on God's eternal plan for the redemption of His people (the elect). The Covenant of Grace reveals that plan through the Son, Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ (the last Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45) kept the Covenant of Works that the first Adam failed to keep, thus conveying the benefits of the promise to His posterity. The Covenant of Redemption is useful in providing an umbrella under which all of God's redemptive work comes to rest.

the way I understand it is, after the covenant of works ended-the fall- Godhead made a covenant( redemption) to implement the Covenant of Grace.

would this be roughly correct?

 

[Yeshua1]

It depends on who you ask. Many Baptists don't recognize the Covenant of Redemption while others do.

What was that part on recapulation of the Mosaic Covenanic, is that a Kline thing?

 

[Yeshua1]

the way I understand it is, after the covenant of works ended-the fall- Godhead made a covenant( redemption) to implement the Covenant of Grace.

would this be roughly correct?

Most text books seem to just see the CoW and the CoG, with the main division being just how the CoG was worked out, as was the NC brand new or not?

 

[Mikey]

Most text books seem to just see the CoW and the CoG, with the main division being just how the CoG was worked out, as was the NC brand new or not?

yeah agree. Books i've seen just briefly skip over CoR if they mention it at all, so seems to me as not being vitally important to the understanding of CoW/CoG.

I personally don't see the need or evidence for the CoR( at least as I understand it)

 

[Yeshua1]

yeah agree. Books i've seen just briefly skip over CoR if they mention it at all, so seems to me as not being vitally important to the understanding of CoW/CoG.

I personally don't see the need or evidence for the CoR( at least as I understand it)

The CoR seems to be externally manifested towards us under the NC, so that would be theone God wants us to focus upon, as the other seems to be more speculative.

 

[Reformed]

the way I understand it is, after the covenant of works ended-the fall- Godhead made a covenant( redemption) to implement the Covenant of Grace.

would this be roughly correct?

Not exactly. The 1647 edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace;". The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of faith renders it this way, "Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace", so both major confessions recognize the Covenant of Grace. Only the Westminster Confession specifically mentions the Covenant of Works, although it is implied in the 1689 LBCF. As far as the Covenant of Redemption, it depends on who you ask. Some theologians believe the Covenant of Redemption is the over-arching covenants under which the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works resides. Others do not. While I have no problem with using the Covenant of Redemption as a way to describe how all the covenants intersect, it is not worth getting hung up over. The Covenant of Grace is more critical.

 

[Yeshua1]

Not exactly. The 1647 edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace;". The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of faith renders it this way, "Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace", so both major confessions recognize the Covenant of Grace. Only the Westminster Confession specifically mentions the Covenant of Works, although it is implied in the 1689 LBCF. As far as the Covenant of Redemption, it depends on who you ask. Some theologians believe the Covenant of Redemption is the over-arching covenants under which the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works resides. Others do not. While I have no problem with using the Covenant of Redemption as a way to describe how all the covenants intersect, it is not worth getting hung up over. The Covenant of Grace is more critical.

How would you see the distiction between the CoG as in the OC, and now under the Nc?

 

[Mikey]

Not exactly. The 1647 edition of the Westminster Confession of Faith states, "Man, by his fall, having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace;". The 1689 Second London Baptist Confession of faith renders it this way, "Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of grace", so both major confessions recognize the Covenant of Grace. Only the Westminster Confession specifically mentions the Covenant of Works, although it is implied in the 1689 LBCF. As far as the Covenant of Redemption, it depends on who you ask. Some theologians believe the Covenant of Redemption is the over-arching covenants under which the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Works resides. Others do not. While I have no problem with using the Covenant of Redemption as a way to describe how all the covenants intersect, it is not worth getting hung up over. The Covenant of Grace is more critical.

I see, very helpful. Thank you

 

[Yeshua1]

I see, very helpful. Thank you

Are you a calvinist, or a reformed then?

 

[Mikey]

Are you a calvinist, or a reformed then?

I'm certainly a Calvinist. I wouldn't use the word Reformed as I associate it more with Presbyterianism, and I don't hold to any particular historic Confession, though I do think they( WCF, LBCF, Savoy) are good useful documents.(some believe being confessional is a prerequisite to be reformed) Though I understand why it is used. Particular Baptist might be more traditional name.

1689 Federalism seems to fit broadly with my understanding of scripture, though i'm still working through it.

You?

 

[Martin Marprelate]

The Reformed Confessions (WCF, LBCF, Savoy) don't mention a Covenant or Council of Redemption; they tend to subsume it under the Covenant of Grace. But you can find in Scripture a covenant made among the Persons of the Trinity, most notably in Ephesians 1:3-14, where the actions of each Person is described, that of the Father in vs. 3-6, that of the Son in 7-12 and that of the Spirit in 13-14.

I work this out in more detail on my blog post The Covenants part II. The Covenant of Grace though I describe it as the 'Covenant of Grace' rather that that of Redemption.

 

[Mikey]

The Reformed Confessions (WCF, LBCF, Savoy) don't mention a Covenant or Council of Redemption; they tend to subsume it under the Covenant of Grace. But you can find in Scripture a covenant made among the Persons of the Trinity, most notably in Ephesians 1:3-14, where the actions of each Person is described, that of the Father in vs. 3-6, that of the Son in 7-12 and that of the Spirit in 13-14.

I work this out in more detail on my blog post The Covenants part II. The Covenant of Grace though I describe it as the 'Covenant of Grace' rather that that of Redemption.

I read the blog article it was very clear thank you. I certainly agree with the theology of it, I would describe it something along the lines of 'God's eternal plan of salvation' and within the CoG rather than Covenant of Redemption, i think there are issues with referring it to as a separate covenant, it confuses things.

As i understand the history of the development of Covenant theology, CoR was a later development in the early 18th centaury. this probably explains why the confessions don't make direct comment of it.

 

[Yeshua1]

I'm certainly a Calvinist. I wouldn't use the word Reformed as I associate it more with Presbyterianism, and I don't hold to any particular historic Confession, though I do think they( WCF, LBCF, Savoy) are good useful documents.(some believe being confessional is a prerequisite to be reformed) Though I understand why it is used. Particular Baptist might be more traditional name.

1689 Federalism seems to fit broadly with my understanding of scripture, though i'm still working through it.

You?

I agree with the 1689 in the sense of it being a good summery of biblical doctrines, and would also see myself in agreement with 1689 Federalim, as I do tend to see a bigger discontnuity between the old and New Covenants, and that has caused some reformed to still see me as being a Dispy in their mind, as hold withHistorical preMil, not A Mil!

 

[Yeshua1]

I read the blog article it was very clear thank you. I certainly agree with the theology of it, I would describe it something along the lines of 'God's eternal plan of salvation' and within the CoG rather than Covenant of Redemption, i think there are issues with referring it to as a separate covenant, it confuses things.

As i understand the history of the development of Covenant theology, CoR was a later development in the early 18th centaury. this probably explains why the confessions don't make direct comment of it.

Think that it would be best to say with the CoG designation, as that would seem to fit the biblcal model the best.