Covenant of Redemption

[Martin Marprelate]

The problem is that some people are so used to packaged foods, that they are confused when they see a recipe which calls for separate ingredients.
Probably the best way to see the Covenant of Redemption in a nutshell (which seems to be what people want) is to look at Ephesians 1:3-14. Here we have the covenant neatly packaged for us in nice crunchy, bitesize chunks so that even the least educated may understand it.
In verses 3-5, we have the work of the Father. Out of the wreck of mankind through the Fall, He has chosen to save a vast crowd of sinners from every nation, tribe, people and tongue (cf. Revelation 7:9) without compromising His righteousness 'to the praise of the glory of His grace' (v.6). The work of 'the Beloved [Son]' is detailed in verses 7-11, 'to the praise of His glory' (v.12) and the work of the Spirit in vs. 13-14, 'to the praise of His glory.' Obviously this is a massive condensation of the work of each Person of the Trinity. Specifically, the work of the Spirit in, say, conviction (John 16:8-10) is not mentioned.

I am also puzzled by those who claim that they understand covenant theology but object that the Covenant of Redemption is the same as the New Covenant. Well yes. The whole point of covenant theology is that the covenants are a progressive unveiling of God's gracious purposes for the world. The New Covenant is the fulfilment in time of the Covenant of Redemption made in eternity. That is Covenant Theology 101. The first essay I had to produce on the subject of C.T. was "List the covenants and show that they are one."

I wonder what these people think the 'covenants of promise' are.

 

[JonC]

Each Covenant can and should be discussed one by one, and then all together. This thread is about what is known as the Covenant of Redemption. I will start a thread also on what is known as Covenant theology also to keep the issues separate and point out the value of it.

The issue is the "covenant of redemption" steals from other covenants (and creates covenants by assumption).

You proved this when you quoted what Jesus called the New Covenant as a part of the "covenant of redemption".

Covenant Theology removes portions of Scripture from the context in which God gave us His revelation and places those passages in an entirely different framework.

It would be like studying history by pulling out events (actual events) and arranging them to tell a different story.

 

[JonC]

Thanks for showing your thoughts here, interesting for sure.

You are welcome.

I have the benefit of having been a Calvinist (and having some good Calvinists as mentors and teachers) so it is fairly easy for me to speak on Calvinism. I've never affirmed Covenant Theology, except in the traditional Calvinistic sense (covenant of works and covenant of grace).

I could speak the praises of Calvinism, walk you down Covenant Theology, explain in detail the Five Points, discuss Owen, Knox, Spurgeon, Gill, Edwards (especially Edwards), ect. at length. However God has moved me from that position and it is no longer something I affirm.

 

[JonC]

JonC,

You really are going out on a limb here, however
That is not the topic of this thread is it?



Another off topic attack post? Really?



Or, they can go through and see how many times Iconoclast offers a topic, that gets marked as a "featured post" and see who shows up to offer negative off topic attacks on Iconoclast, saying what is wrong with the thread, then offering off topic thoughts.

We can let those that read see what is what. Good idea, thanks for sharing once again

I agree people can read these threads for what they are

I hate to tell ya, but the "featured topic" is an automated tag based on the number of replies in a specific timeframe.

I do appreciate the passages you offer. I agree that the covenant of redemption contains many passages. The problem, however, is the fact that Scripture places those passages under different covenants within the biblical narrative

When we ignore the fact that Scripture is a narrative, that it incorporate movements of history (that it is "story" in the sense that there is progression towards an ultimate conclusion), and we treat God's Word as a reference by removing verses from its own context and into a new framework then we hold in our hand Scripture but in our minds anything but the Word of God.

 

[AustinC]

The issue is you say stupid stuff just to disrupt (you claim I abhor Reformed doctrine when I simply think it is incorrect; you say I reject using systematic theology when I obviously do not; you say Liberty does a poor job of teaching Reformed Theology when we had a Reformed theologian as a professor, ect ).

Your posts are beyond ignorant. They are plain stupid because you do not even bother with truth.

You said: "I do not care what people call a doctrine."
Now you spend your time caring what people call a doctrine. When called out, you whine, complain, and call people stupid and ignorant.

It is clear that you don't really know what you are talking about, despite clinging to an MDiv from a primarily Arminian school whose leader despised Reformed Theology. Along your path, after your degree, you followed a rabbit trail few go down and now you think all who don't follow you are ignorant and stupid for questioning your unorthodox narrative.
That is your right to hold such opinions. I find your opinion illegitimate and baseless, but you are free to hold it none-the-less.
When you speak of Covenants it is obvious you don't understand as you speak in broad brush strokes from your bias. You can keep conversing with @Iconoclast, but what you claim is merely bluster on your part. The question is how long will Iconoclast endure the bluster you provide?

 

[AustinC]

You are welcome.

I have the benefit of having been a Calvinist (and having some good Calvinists as mentors and teachers) so it is fairly easy for me to speak on Calvinism. I've never affirmed Covenant Theology, except in the traditional Calvinistic sense (covenant of works and covenant of grace).

I could speak the praises of Calvinism, walk you down Covenant Theology, explain in detail the Five Points, discuss Owen, Knox, Spurgeon, Gill, Edwards (especially Edwards), ect. at length. However God has moved me from that position and it is no longer something I affirm.

Do you realize that it's not "ect?" It is etc.
No doubt you have a high opinion of yourself and your knowledge, yet you make massive, broad brush claims that betray your claims about your knowledge.

 

[Martin Marprelate]

In the light of certain comments, I think it ought to be made clear that all the early Particular Baptists were covenant theologians.
The first Particular Baptist book of which I'm aware was A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme (1643) by John Spilsbury, who was the Pastor of what seems to have been the first Particular Baptist church. It is a covenantal book, as were the books of just about all the P.B. fathers. The early Baptists laid their collective finger on the error in Paedobaptist C.T. and showed its proper meaning.

But even in Paedobaptist circles, there was nothing in C.T. that demanded either Presbyterianism or Union of Church and State; nor, indeed, any particular form of eschatology (Dispensationalism was not yet invented). One of the pioneers of C.T. was William Ames, an independent. His Marrow of Sacred Divinity is referenced many times by the writers of the 1644 Confession.

 

[JonC]

You said: "I do not care what people call a doctrine."
Now you spend your time caring what people call a doctrine. When called out, you whine, complain, and call people stupid and ignorant.

It is clear that you don't really know what you are talking about, despite clinging to an MDiv from a primarily Arminian school whose leader despised Reformed Theology. Along your path, after your degree, you followed a rabbit trail few go down and now you think all who don't follow you are ignorant and stupid for questioning your unorthodox narrative.
That is your right to hold such opinions. I find your opinion illegitimate and baseless, but you are free to hold it none-the-less.
When you speak of Covenants it is obvious you don't understand as you speak in broad brush strokes from your bias. You can keep conversing with @Iconoclast, but what you claim is merely bluster on your part. The question is how long will Iconoclast endure the bluster you provide?

No. What I mean is the doctrine, not the title, is what matters.

For example, you could say the "Doctrine of the godhead" and mean the Doctrine of the Trinity. What matters is the doctrine.

I am not calling you stupid. I believe you could post intelligent posts, and you do when you want to.

But at the same time you post stupid stuff designed only to disrupt. For example, knowing I have a degree in theology and employ systematic theology you chose to declare that I do not believe in systematic theology. That was a stupid post.

Iconoclast made a claim and I repeated that claim verbatim. You posted that I should apologize because Iconoclast wouldn't have said that. Again, a stupid post.

But you responded to my question about covenant theology in an intelligent manner. So you are not a stupid man, you just choose to make stupid posts at times.

 

[JonC]

In the light of certain comments, I think it ought to be made clear that all the early Particular Baptists were covenant theologians.
The first Particular Baptist book of which I'm aware was A Treatise Concerning the Lawfull Subject of Baptisme (1643) by John Spilsbury, who was the Pastor of what seems to have been the first Particular Baptist church. It is a covenantal book, as were the books of just about all the P.B. fathers. The early Baptists laid their collective finger on the error in Paedobaptist C.T. and showed its proper meaning.

But even in Paedobaptist circles, there was nothing in C.T. that demanded either Presbyterianism or Union of Church and State; nor, indeed, any particular form of eschatology (Dispensationalism was not yet invented). One of the pioneers of C.T. was William Ames, an independent. His Marrow of Sacred Divinity is referenced many times by the writers of the 1644 Confession.

Yes, they were. I agree. Reformed Theology began with the Reformation and the Reformers and grew from there.

 

[JonC]

Do you realize that it's not "ect?" It is etc.
No doubt you have a high opinion of yourself and your knowledge, yet you make massive, broad brush claims that betray your claims about your knowledge.

While it certainly may seen that way where you are, I do not have a high opinion of myself at all. I have not made broad brush claims, either.

These issues are much less subjective than you think.

 

[Alan Gross]

"List the covenants and show that they are one."

I asked Br. Berlin Hisel if he thought the Covenants in John Gill's Body of Divinity were right and he said, "yes".

See, I'm not the only one who can be concise.

John Gill treats them as One Eternal Covenant of Grace Planned for the Salvation of man, with the two major divisions for the Administration of that One Eternal Covenant of Grace, being that of the Old Testament and then The New Testament.

In his Book IV, he goes into THE ACTS of THE GRACE of GOD TOWARDS AND UPON HIS ELECT IN TIME, as we see God manifesting that One Eternal Covenant of Grace throughout the Bible.

It is quite an enormous subject.

One we rarely, if ever, hear preached.

Every word of it are death nails to Arminianism.

It is one of the Glorious benefits of being settled on The Bible's Eternal Doctrines of Grace, along with many others.

Or, conversely, in absence of that, how such truths have been robbed from some, by Satan.
...

John Gill, D.D. (1697-1771)
English Particular Baptist
Pastor and Theologian
Click Here For A Brief Biography

DOCTRINAL DIVINITY Book II

OF THE ACTS AND WORKS OF GOD

Chapter 6:
Of the Everlasting Council
Chapter 7:
Of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace
Chapter 8:
Of the Part the Father
took in the Covenant
Chapter 9:
Of the Part the Son of God
took in the Covenant
Chapter 10:
Of Christ
as the Covenant Head of the Elect
Chapter 11:
Of Christ the Surety of the Covenant
Chapter 12:
Of the Love of God
Chapter 13:
Of Christ the Testator of the Covenant
Chapter 14:
Of the Concern
the Spirit has in the Covenant
Chapter 15:
Of the Properties of the Covenant
Chapter 16:
Of the Complacency and Delight
the Divine Persons had in Each Other From Everlasting

DOCTRINAL DIVINITY ~ BOOK IV

OF THE ACTS OF THE GRACE OF GOD TOWARDS AND UPON HIS ELECT IN TIME.

Chapter 1:
Of the Manifestation and
Administration of the Covenant of Grace
Chapter 2:
Of the Covenant of Grace
in the Patriarchal State
Chapter 3:
Of the Covenant of Grace
under the Mosaic Dispensation (Administration)
Chapter 4:
Of the Covenant of Grace
in the Times of David and the Prophets
Chapter 5:
Of the Abrogation of the Old Covenant
Chapter 6:
Of the Law of God
Chapter 7:
Of the Gospel

 

[JonC]

I asked Br. Berlin Hisel if he thought the Covenants in John Gill's Body of Divinity were right and he said, "yes".

See, I'm not the only one who can be concise.

John Gill treats them as One Eternal Covenant of Grace Planned for the Salvation of man, with the two major divisions for the Administration of that One Eternal Covenant of Grace, being that of the Old Testament and then The New Testament.

In his Book IV, he goes into THE ACTS of THE GRACE of GOD TOWARDS AND UPON HIS ELECT IN TIME, as we see God manifesting that One Eternal Covenant of Grace throughout the Bible.

It is quite an enormous subject.

One we rarely, if ever, hear preached.

Every word of it are death nails to Arminianism.

It is one of the Glorious benefits of being settled on The Bible's Eternal Doctrines of Grace, along with many others.

Or, conversely, in absence of that, how such truths have been robbed from some, by Satan.
...

John Gill, D.D. (1697-1771)
English Particular Baptist
Pastor and Theologian
Click Here For A Brief Biography

DOCTRINAL DIVINITY Book II

OF THE ACTS AND WORKS OF GOD

Chapter 6:
Of the Everlasting Council
Chapter 7:
Of the Everlasting Covenant of Grace
Chapter 8:
Of the Part the Father
took in the Covenant
Chapter 9:
Of the Part the Son of God
took in the Covenant
Chapter 10:
Of Christ
as the Covenant Head of the Elect
Chapter 11:
Of Christ the Surety of the Covenant
Chapter 12:
Of the Love of God
Chapter 13:
Of Christ the Testator of the Covenant
Chapter 14:
Of the Concern
the Spirit has in the Covenant
Chapter 15:
Of the Properties of the Covenant
Chapter 16:
Of the Complacency and Delight
the Divine Persons had in Each Other From Everlasting

DOCTRINAL DIVINITY ~ BOOK IV

OF THE ACTS OF THE GRACE OF GOD TOWARDS AND UPON HIS ELECT IN TIME.

Chapter 1:
Of the Manifestation and
Administration of the Covenant of Grace
Chapter 2:
Of the Covenant of Grace
in the Patriarchal State
Chapter 3:
Of the Covenant of Grace
under the Mosaic Dispensation (Administration)
Chapter 4:
Of the Covenant of Grace
in the Times of David and the Prophets
Chapter 5:
Of the Abrogation of the Old Covenant
Chapter 6:
Of the Law of God
Chapter 7:
Of the Gospel

Many people do. If this is the Hesil that died 30 something years ago I would expect him to as well.

Sproul was a very good teacher. He also believed Covenant Theology.

 

[Alan Gross]

I have seen you often post such solid links and offer them for consideration.

Thank you, praise the Lord.

I am glad the Lord gave His Word to me.

I simply "offer them for consideration", as you said, and try to think souls, here, are being placed under the Eternal Word of God, if the Holy Spirit uses them.

The Lord sure overwhelmed me with good teachers, for some reason (deeper stuff that you all can handle).

One fellow said he couldn't understand from which my motivation 'springs', "unless it is The Holy Spirit." Cool. Supernatural. I'll go with some Christianity!

Most Baptists will not read it, because it has more than two sentences,

...well...

 

[Alan Gross]

If this is the Hesil that died 30 something years ago I would expect him to as well.

He does, now, for sure.

Also, he believes in Amillennialism, now for sure, although he was up on it in this life. Taught me. It came as the last thing I expected.

Back in the day, John Gill wasn't on the internet (or CD), because there wasn't one.

His commentaries and books hadn't been printed in a long time.

I gave my first pastor a 200-year-old copy of his Body of Divinity.

You can bet he preached it.

He recognized the Truth of it all, right off jump street.

 

[JonC]

He does, now, for sure.

Also, he believes in Amillennialism, now for sure, although he was up on it in this life. Taught me. It came as the last thing I expected.

Back in the day, John Gill wasn't on the internet (or CD), because there wasn't one.

His commentaries and books hadn't been printed in a long time.

I gave my first pastor a 200-year-old copy of his Body of Divinity.

You can bet he preached it.

He recognized the Truth of it all, right off jump street.

I suspect most preachers preach what they believe to be true.

I recall reading Gill's insistence that Jesus was the Archangel Michael. I disagree, but I don't blame him for preaching it as that was his view.

 

[JonC]

JonC,


Thanks , but I actually do. I know what the Covenant of Redemption is. All biblical Calvinists who are not novices have already learned something of it. For anyone to claim they are or were a Calvinist and not heard or read of this, is at the very least most suspect.

You misunderstood.

I am not questioning whether you know Covenant Theology. That is simple

I am saying that you are not grasping the real issue I am discussing (as evidenced by the quote of your post above).

That said, you are wrong. Dispensationalism also began with Calvinists. Many still hold to that framework.

 

[JonC]

John, post your thread and say what you are discussing

This is what I mean. Just read this thread. It's here.

 

[JonC]

We are discussing elements of the post from Alan, by john Gill

Well, this is your thread. You titled it "Covenant of Redemption" (a BB rule violation if not the topic) and the OP begins with Silverhair's comment.

If this thread is not about the covenant of redemption then I will rename it for you (or close it for an inappropriate title).

Let me know which you prefer.

 

[canadyjd]

I want to ask icon and Austin a question.

I am attempting to grasp the idea of this covenant of redemption. Please tell me if this is correct.

The “Covenant of Redemption” is primarily an agreement within the Godhead to have a special people that will worship God in Spirit and in truth

This covenant was made within the Godhead before creation. It has been accomplished, thus far, through a series of covenants with mankind and will come to fruition at the resurrection and establishment of the heavenly kingdom

Is that a good summary? If not, please explain how I got it wrong.

Peace to you

 

[Silverhair]

"Silverhair,

Hello SH,
A snit? "theory"? I answered you thinking you were sincere in asking your question, but saw right away you are not to be taken seriously. I will not make that mistake anymore. I do not care if you agree or do not agree.


I trust what Jesus says. I trust the Apostles and prohets. They were men,yes.
All the teachers in church history are men.
I do not mock and despise the gifts God has given to teach us.I read and learn what I can

[QUOTE]and I trust what the Holy Spirit has said.

The fact that you did not comment on any of the verses offered so far, indicates you do not do what you claim to.
Again, you can claim all manner of things on the internet. You can say you know the greek, or you have a masters in theology, or you are an expert in history, or even ,that you were a former Calvinist, you can make all such claims. But for someone to claim to study scripture with any degree of serious inquiry and not even be able to define the Covenant of Redemption, much less try and discuss it, shows you are none of those things at all, doesn't it? People who live close to you might even say...rubbish[/QUOTE]

I do not enjoy circular arguments, they are a waste of time. You come with the premise that your view is correct, as is your right. But what I see is someone trying to use scripture to support a man made doctrine "covenant of redemption" etc. Actually I have come to realize that much of Calvinist theology is man-made in that it twists or misuses scripture. You seem to be under the impression that only those that hold to your particular view are to be taken seriously as only they can correctly understand scripture. A rather arrogant view but it is not the first time I have seen comments like that on this board.

FYI these are things I have not claimed, to know Greek, but I do have dictionaries. Have a masters in theology, but I do have commentaries. Am a expert in history, but I do read. But what I have said is that I have never been or will be a Calvinist. I find it amazing that Calvinists have to keep reading into scripture what is not there.