The foundation for an understanding of Baptist (and actually Presbyterian as well) covenantal theology is that which creates the wrong ideas as to what a covenant is in the first place. Thus, setting a wrong foundation, one is quickly quagmired and sinks into a theology which allows for no escape.
To properly baptize, you must properly understand the nature of what a covenant is. It is not, as those of the Reformed persuasion insist A CONTRACT! This view comes from the legal and court room understanding that is predominant among all Reformers. They simply do not have the Biblical view of covenant:
Ezekiel 16:8 Now when I passed by thee, and looked upon thee, behold, thy time was the time of love; and I spread my skirt over thee, and covered thy nakedness: yea, I sware unto thee, and entered into a covenant with thee, saith the Lord GOD, and thou becamest mine.
Please note what is happening here. Union is happening. Two are becoming one. Marriage is taking place. This is the Biblical description and this is far far from the legal understanding in which Reformers describe a contract.
Let's tear apart Mr. Owen's statements:
Quote
1 Beginning in “eternity past”, within the Tri-une Godhead, a purpose, called by some “the Covenant of Redemption” (also called The Counsel of Peace by Louis Berkhof –see Num 37:26) between the First, Second and Third Persons is formed for the Glory of God by redemption of elect fallen sinners.
This is wrong. God did not form a covenant for the redemption of sinners. The Trinune Godhead is a "communio personarum" of love, that is UNION IN LOVE between the three persons of the Godhead. How do we know this? Because man(kind), created in the image of God, is also created as a commuion of love in which there are three (father--covenant head, mother--covenant helpmeet, child--result of the life giving love between father and mother) The covenantal family structure here on earth is a picture of the great Trinitarian covenant of the Godhead, and that covenantal relationship is not one of legal status, is it one of union in love.
Incidentally think this requires the supralapsarian position as per Robert L. Reymond’s order in “A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith”. This may be thought of as a covenant (to work/of work) between the First Person as Father and the Second Person as Son and the third Person as Holy Spirit. This covenant (or purpose or decree - the term is debatable (as per John Murray) but adopted here for brevity) will form the judicialthere's my proof right there -- note the appeal to legal basis rather than to union in love basis for the Covenant of Grace between God and Fallen Man.
The purpose of Redemption, as that of all Creation, is to glorify God.
Ahhhhh, sort of. I obviously cannot and should not argue with scripture (Rev. 4:11), but there is so much more than just a Creator making something inanimate for his glory. I can do that when I make a stained glass window, but there is no covenant involved, no love or union with that which I have created.
On the other hand, look at the express purpose of God relating to His familial structure -- we are SONS AND DAUGHTERS, not inanimate objects simply made for His glory as a master artisan.
Hebrews 2:10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.
Notice what God did when He created:
Luke 3:38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.
Adam was the son of God!
That phrase alone should give you pause. God was not some craftsman making yet another addition to the insensate earth. No, He now creates life which is in His image and is so much so that Adam is called His son.
Profound!! (You need to meditate upon all the ramifications of what it means to be a son)
When my children were born, they did not ask to be entered into the covenant relationship which I have with my wife. By dint of their relationship to me as sons and daughters, they are always in covenant with me. They are always part of our covenant relationship and are bound by the rules of our covenant household. This is not some legal matter as authors such as Pink, Owen, et al insist, but a real functioning union coming from the relationship between us.
This is where Reformed understandings of covenant are completely at a loss. Yes, there are civil "covenants" such as the Suzerain covenants described by Ray Sutton in his book, but they are civil and legal covenants. We are created THE CHILDREN OF GOD -- Adam our forefather being the prototype and foundational model. Everything in the kingdom covenant points to the trinitarian model of family, even the Church (Holy Father, Holy Mother Church, offspring)
2 God makes an explicit stipulation on Adam (aka The Covenant of Works with Adam -)
WRONG AGAIN!! Oh man!! PLEASE!! Read Ray Sutton's book on the covenant --THAT YOU MAY PROSPER - Dominion by Covenant. You can find it here:
Every covenant has oaths/sacntions. The "works" which you claim that Adam was placed under were nothing more than the terms of the covenant relationship into which Adam was created. The same thing works even today. If my son continues to support the Democratic party, knowing how I feel about them, I am more than likely to DISINHERIT HIM!! That is what happened when Adam fell. He disobeyed the covenant structure based in the rules of the household and was severed from his relationship with his Father. There is no such thing as a "covenant of works". All relationships (covenants) depend upon works to maintain the relationship. If I start performing works which sever the relationship between my wife and I (getting drunk every Friday night, abusive treatment of her, whoring, etc.) that relationship will be deep sixed and pretty dern soon!!
Why?
Because I not only broke my covenant vows made at the wedding cereony, I have destroyed the covenantal relationship.
Adam breaches God’s Word and so breaks the terms of the Covenant of Works. The Creation is cursed as a result of Adam’s Fall. Note that no man was ever personally “saved” by the terms of God’s Covenant of Works. Within God’s pronouncement of sentence following Adam’s breach, the provision of a means of Redemption (The Covenant of Grace) is intimated as the Protoevengelium (Gen3.15). This Promise of a God-given means of Redemption is the way in which the Redemptive “Covenant of Grace” will function in throughout the OT. In the NT the prophesied Redeemer, God incarnate as the Lord Jesus Christ, will fulfil the Promise and legally realise the New Covenant in His blood. (There's that courtroom framework again!)
You know, I must say that I find it more than a tad humorous that those people who declare themselves "sola scriptura" then go right on to create terms and understandings which are not found in the Scriptures. I cannot, for the life of me, find the term "covenant of grace" or "covenant of works" in the Bible. But perhaps I'm jest a dummy!
There is only one covenant. It is that relationship which exists between the members of the Blessed Trinity. We, as sons and daughters of God by creation and adoption, are called into it by grace (i.e., that is, we can do nothing to merit entrance into it, nothing to make God offer that sonship relationship to us) And it is ALL OF GRACE. Thus, Jesus does the work of covenant restoration by His death, burial, and resurrection, and the Holy Spirit puts forth the call to all mankind to come and "cut covenant" with God through that work of Christ. Nothing in us stands in demand of God's mercy. But He freely offers to all the opportunity to enter into His covenant family and become adopted sons and daughters.
5 Abraham, initially an idol worshipper, is called by God from Ur and God makes an important covenant with him. This covenant functions on both a typical temporal level and a spiritual eternal level.
Excuse me? Perhaps Mr. Owen has a text I can read in which he proves this assertion? I could not disagree more, and neither could the scriptures such as John 5: 28 - 29 and Romans 2: 5 - 10. (I am, however, assuming that when Mr. Owen speaks of the idea of "spiritual level", he is referring to the idea that upon being "imputed" righteousness through the making of covenant with God, on a spiritual level then became "once saved -- always saved")
The typical aspect is national, temporal, and has conditional blessings. Even in its typical aspect, however, it is a covenant of grace as it is made with Abraham and his seed.
Now he wants to change the rules to fit his theology. It is suddenly a covenant of grace, even though Christ has not come yet to inaugurate this so called "covenant of grace" Is it just me or can you also see a serious flaw in his thinking here?
It is not a covenant of works, but a covenant of grace that has conditions attached.
Wrong again. Back to Sutton's book. ALL COVENANTS have conditions attached to them. That is the nature of personal union. I don't unite and stay unitedwith someone who defies my authority (if I am the covenantal head) or who tyrannizes my life (if I am the covenantal helpmeet). The conditions of a covenant are the terms understood by the two under which they will love and respect each other and maintain that union. Look at Exodus 28 - 29 to see how a covenant is made.
Abraham will be the father of a great nation who will inherit the land of Canaan and be “as numerous as the stars in the sky”. This covenant does not require or provide that all Abraham’s descendants will be godly, and the subsequent nation may be lost if they do not walk in God’s ways.
Again, because Mr. Owen had no understanding of how a covenant works. The covenantal head is the one who keeps the covenant for ALL THOSE WHO ARE UNDER HIM. Thus, when Adam sinned, all of his posterity shared in the curse of that sin. Same thing happened with Korah and his family. The corporate covenant between God and His people (aka "Is-rael") is kept by the covenantal head, which in the Jewish nation was the high priest, and now, in the Church, is our Great High Priest, Jesus the Christ. (Heb. 9 - 10). Thus, while the members of the covenantal kingdom may indeed be wicked (and eventually disinherited eternally), the curse of covenant breaking only falls when the covenant head, who acts in behalf of all under him, becomes a wicked leader. This is why the Jewish nation was cast out as God's people -- the high priest had the Son put to death, thus sealing the fate of the whole nation. And this is also why the Church can never fail, because the Head of the Church is in Heaven right now as our Great High Priest Who righteously kept the whole of the covenant terms (the Law of God) and thus established His house forever because of His faithfulness.
Deut 28:15 et sec. See repetitions of this national covenant, with conditions, to David, Solomon etc. This typical aspect of the covenant causes paedobaptists confusion because the type is the only “covenant membership” into which children are born. Circumcision is the outward sign of and a teaching reminder of the Faith of Abraham and the Messiah promised from his line.
What???? Mr. Owen's writings need to prove a disconnect between the Old and the New Covenant so that while children in the Old Covenant were entered into the covenant by circumcision without any appeal to the exercise of their reason, children of the New Covenant are excluded from the New (and according to scripture "a better covenant speaking of better things") Covenant for no reason other than the idea that they must somehow exercise their reason.
Inconsistent.
Well, that should be enough to hopefully put forth a fruitful discussion.
