Hello OC,
This isn’t a topic I had particularly sought to discuss with an orthodox roman catholic but since you have taken the time to write a response I’ll try to answer you. One thing that might be useful in my contention with paedobaptists is that I would consider their position to be an incomplete reformation of yours (if you’re a good “orthodox roman catholic” that is. ). There should be a discernible continuum from my views on the Baptist side through theirs to yours. I don’t intend to be hostile or insulting in anything I say so please bear with me.
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.
Well, I don't really feel I'm in a quagmire. Particularly not on the issue of baptism and I don't want to divert the thread into other aspects of Roman Catholic Theology if we can help it.
You make much of the "legal sounding" terminology we use in discussing covenants. I grant that it is judicial terminology much of it, but it also carries the senses of morality and binding commitment. You contrast the judicial model with the matrimonial model, but at root they are the same. God's perfect justice is as important as His perfect love. He cannot deny either attribute. Have you considered that were it not for the perfect justice of God, sin could simply be ignored and Atonement rendered unnecessary? I'm speaking foolishly here only to highlight that the dichotomy you raise is a false one. There is no inherent fault in speaking of the Justice of God in the economy of Redemption in terms of the word covenant.
Before I forget OC, I'm afraid those were only my statements and not Dr Owen's. I can post Owen's treatment as an attachment if anyone wants.
We know that marriage is a covenant relationship between husband and wife and the NT makes it clear to us that it also typifies the union of Christ and His Bride, the church. I find your correspondence between the human
family and the Trinity highly questionable. Was
man created in the image of God or was the family. I think your plausible analogy here is unbiblical (but then, you never did subscribe to Sola Scriptura...did you?). Note there are three people in a family only when there is one child. And extended families do distort the picture a bit as well.
Setting that aside for now...what was the great Trinitarian Covenant of Love you allude to? What was its purpose and its ends? Where would you support this idea from in scripture? Now to be fair, the terms Covenant of Grace and Covenant of Works that we work with are extra-Biblical terms, but they are rather shortcuts for theological understandings that we consider in themselves to be Biblical -we just need a shorthand to refer to them. When the terms are misunderstood or misapplied, then we have scope for error. But we have just as much scope for error when the theology at the root of our terminology is in error. So I don't get too hung up on whether we need everything to be called a "covenant" if it fulfils all the attributes of a binding agreement and settled purpose on the part of God, whether conditional or not (as in the
unconditional (!) Noahic Covenant).
Your response to my summary statement "The purpose of Redemption, as that of all Creation, is to glorify God." Launched into a discussion of animate v inanimate creation and sonship which I thought was redundant to the argument. The profundity of the term sons of God is not lost on me, but neither isw it relevant here. God is glorified by initial Creation (spiritual, sensate, animate and inanimate) but the Glory that redounds to Him in Redemption and its grand display of His infinite attributes of ove, justice and mercy would not be so great in an unfallen realm. And you're right, you shouldn't argue with scripture.
The involvement of love and relationship is not external to the Reformed view of the covenant. Think about what and why law itself exists and what it reflects - the righteous have no need of laws to do what is good and right. So applying perfect law to a relationship merely speaks of the righteousness of it. Building in our modern cynical attitudes to corrupt human legal and judicial constructs unnecessarily prejudices the consideration of scriptural justice and love.
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)
Did you notice that Adam's son after the fall was created in
his (Adam's) image, not God's? (Gen 5:3). That we are no longer born "the children of God"? I'm not going to follow you into RC ecclesiology because we would then be abandoning scripture.
I wrote "God makes an explicit stipulation on Adam (aka The Covenant of Works with Adam -)" and you responded:
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!!
Well...the difference would be the federal standing Adam had as head of the human race. His fall took us all down with him. Use whatever terminology you will and you still have to describe the means by which the human race fell. For brevity I would call it the Covenant of Works with Adam because the term is limited to discussion of Adam's rebellious act and its consequences and is understood by most in theological discussions. How do you account for Adam breaking the relationship for the whole human race?
Your comments on the complete absence of human merit for restoration to relation with God we agree on. But, slightly repetitively, how does got justly (in terms of His own perfect Justice) restore us?
I wrote:
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. And you responded:
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")
Again, not Owen here, just me. But John 5:28-29 and Romans 2: 5-10 speak of God's Judgement. I fail to see the connection with my statement. My statement had respect to the way in which the Abrahamic Covenant is interpreted re physical descendants and Canaan on the one hand (the national, temporal, typical aspects) and "spiritual Israel" and the Church on the other (the eternal, spiritual aspect). Soooo....I don't think you understood me here at all. I continued on the Abrahamic Covenant:
"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." And you responded
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?
I think you may be confused about which covenant we are speaking here. In Reformed Theology the Old Covenant of Hebrews 8:6 is the Mosaic/Sinaitic, the so-called CoW with Adam is in Eden, The Abrahamic was always a Covenant of Grace (Abraham couldn't fall lower than he was to start with and the gracious nature of God's dealing with him personally and as head of a nation was a wonderful display of mercy). Hence "It is not a covenant of works, but a covenant of grace that has conditions attached."
Mr Sutton is just plain wrong about all covenants being conditional. Again I'd cite the Noahic as an example (Gen 9:11-15).
I Wrote "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." You respond:
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.
It is worth noting that the Abrahamic covenant promise was repeated to Abraham's son and grandson to the extent that God made the covenant with all three. Also note Abraham's treatment of Ishmael at Sarah's behest. Particularly God's words in Gen 21:12. This belies your notion of covenant status being determined by the Covenant Head alone. There is a limited sense in which I can agree with some of what you write here, but the two high priests in Christ's time weren't the first abuse of this office. Is there an element of "Open Theism" in your thinking. Can I ask directly if you think the OT Economy "should " have and could have worked, or whether Redemption by Christ's Atonement was always part of God's original plan for this Creation or was Calvary "second best" somehow?
I wrote: "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. " And you:
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.
Now this is something Owen does do. And at length. I'll post a link or attachment as I'm able.
John Owen on Hebrews 8:6 (modernised) The unmodernised original is attached as an .rtf file
But in short, the key is that the Old Covenant was a picture (comprising physical Israel, promised land, atonement by blood, separated people, priestly intercession, physical circumcision) of the Realities of the New Covenant (including Spiritual Israel - the regenerate, heaven, Calvary, the church, Christ's intercession, circumcision of the heart - baptism of the Holy Spirit). My contention remains that paedobaptist views confound OT types and NT Antitypes.
On the contrary...but perhaps it is such a different model to what you're used to that we haven't made it clear yet. Coming from such a different place our vocabulary will be very very different.
Finally, here is a link to a website diagram of my understanding of the Historic Baptist view of the Covenants
Baptist Covenant DiagramRegards,
Dan
