The Highway Forums General Discussion Open Forum Fred Malone a dispensationalist?

Could you kindly direct me to where the W.C.F. speaks specifically of the Covenant of Redemption. I have had a quick browse through and I can't seem to find it.

Psalm 2:7-9 I will tell of the decree: Jehovah said unto me, Thou art my son; This day have I begotten thee. Ask of me, and I will give thee the nations for thine inheritance, And the uttermost parts of the earth for thy possession. Thou shalt break them with a rod of iron; Thou shalt dash them in pieces like a potter's vessel.

John 5:36 But the witness which I have is greater than that of John; for the works which the Father hath given me to accomplish, the very works that I do, bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me.

I take it from your reply that it doesn't appear at all. Thank you.

The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for his own glory, man's salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture (WCF 1.6).

Up to this point, Berkhof defines both the Covenant of Redemption and its historical outworking, the Covenant of Grace as established only with God’s elect; this is the unifying link between the historical covenants. Baptist covenantalists would heartily agree with this (The Baptism of Disciples Alone, p 68).

Covenantal Baptists agree with their paedobaptist brethren that there is essential unity between the covenants. The Old Testament covenants of promise and the New Testament fulfillment are all administrations of that historical Covenant of Grace (or way of salvation), which is the historical outworking of the eternal Covenant of Redemption (p. 71).

Isn't it rather droll that you are coming to Fred Malone for support and I to the WCF?

The term, 'Covenant of Redemption' seems to be an American term rather than an English one. Actually, I don't really have a problem with it. My purpose up to now has been to show that 'Covenant od Redemption' and 'Covenant of Grace' are not Biblical terms, but human constructs, which may be helpful in understanding God's saving purposes in Christ, but which should not be pressed too far.

Isn't it interesting that the phrase 'Covenants of Promise' which IS found in the Bible, attracts so little attention from theologians (including Malone) compared with the other two terms. Perhaps you might care to address yourself to this question whilst I am on holiday? What are the Covenants of Promise? And why does Paul use that term whilst eschewing the other two?

BTW, a swift trawl through Spurgeon on Psalm LXXII did not reveal a 'Covenant of Redemption' (though I may have missed it).

Ver. 15. Prayer also shall be made for him continually; and daily shall he be praised. It might have been rendered, "Prayer also shall be made through him continually, and daily shall he be blessed." The word is rendered "blessed, "when speaking if an act of worship towards God; and the word translated "for" is sometimes used for "through, "as Jos 2:15, "Through the window." If we hold the translation "for him, "then it must be understood of the saints praying for the Father's accomplishment of his promises, made to the Son in the covenant of redemption, that his kingdom may come, his name be glorified, and that he may see his seed, and that the full reward may be given him for his sufferings, and so that he may receive the joy that was set before him. Jonathan Edwards.

grace2u's response to Pilgrim Unfortunately your hyper-covenantalism has led you into a number of non-biblical hypothetical constructs

Denying the analogy of faith, which leads to a disregard of systematic
theology

Affirming that one must have the mindset of a rabbinic Jew to understand
Scripture

Affirming that law and gospel are identical

Denying the covenant of works and the federal headship of Adam,
including: Denying the Biblical teaching on the federal headship of Jesus
Christ Denying the imputation of Christ's active obedience and
righteousness to believers

Affirming that we are justified by an obedient faith, which is the same
as saying faithful obedience, including: Affirming that works (obedience), with the help of the Holy Spirit (non-meritorious), are necessary for justification Affirming that in the post-Fall era, God accepts a partial sin-tainted obedience to the law instead of Christ's perfect righteousness
Affirming that justification is primarily concerned with ecclesiology and not soteriology
Affirming that Paul uses the term justification only to describe how the Gentile Christians are given equal status with the Jewish Christians in the covenant community Affirming that "the works of the law" refers only to the ceremonial laws-for example, circumcision and dietary laws which pertain only to the Jews Affirming that justification is solely the forgiveness of sins
Affirming that justification is a process and thus denying its forensic character Affirming that a justified person can apostatize and go to hell Affirming that James 2:20-26 teaches that works are a necessary condition or instrument of justification

Denying the invisible/visible church distinction, which leads to the
following: Affirming that every member of the visible church is united to Christ,
regenerated, and saved. Affirming that a believer can lose his salvation

Affirming that the covenant of grace is conditional, which includes the
following: Affirming that the elect can lose their salvation Affirming that obedience to the covenant determines salvation and not the predetermined election of God
Affirming that Christ's death has saving benefit to the non-elect

Affirming a form of baptismal regeneration, which includes the
following: Affirming that baptism with water and baptism by the Holy Spirit are
inseparable Affirming that every baptized person is truly united to Christ and has
all the benefits of His work Affirming that Christ's work is not sufficient to guarantee perseverance in the covenant Affirming that the sacraments are efficacious apart from faith

Denying the perseverance of the saints, which includes the following:
Affirming that, by God's grace, one must maintain his elect status through obedience to the covenant Denying definitive sanctification, i.e. that Christ's redemptive work
guarantees its application to the believer Affirming that one's own personal subjective righteousness is necessary for final justification Affirming that assurance is gained simply by looking to one's baptism

There is much controversy and ignorance over this doctrine today. Errors in this doctrine (Law and Gospel) have spawned dispensationalism, theonomy, the New Perspective on Paul, hypercovenantalism, legalism, antinomianism, shallow evangelism, shallower sanctification, worship errors and unbiblical mysticism. Law and Gospel

Are there not different forms of Dispensationalism? ... Thus, yes, if one is not CT, more than likely they are using some form of dispensational hermeneutic somewhere in their methodology.

Pure and simple a dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity! The less proper continuity the less proper interpretation. The more proper continuity the more proper interpretation. As Dr. Gerstner reveals, the dispensationalist's theology determines their hermeneutic and not the reverse.

No one TMK has stated that there is not any discontinuity between the OC and the NC. Our argument, which is factual, is that Malone and others see less continuity then their CT brothers.

It clearly falls apart in their interpretation of Jer 31, etc. Moreover, Malone begins his hermeneutic from the middle of the Bible (NT) and then moves backwards, instead of the beginning—that is at the beginning of the story of redemption and moving forward. This is clearly seen in his overall interpretative and writing method …

Moreover, the “new” in New Covenant does not mean “brand new.” Normally, readers of the NT use Hebrews 8:13 which states, “In that he saith, A new covenant he hath made the first old. But that which is becoming old and waxeth aged is nigh unto vanishing away,” and say the OC is GONE.

However, they fail to read the text: (1) it is in the present tense—thus it is still passing away, why, because it is eternally connected to the NC and can never fully pass away and thus the beautiful use of the Greek present tense.

(2) moreover, Jesus' own words in the Sermon on the Mount, that He had come not to destroy the Law but to fulfill it (Matt 5:17-18) resound even more here. “New” here has the meaning the fulfilling of the OC, not a brand new covenant! To confuse the two is to make yet another grave hermeneutical error in interpretation.

(Fred) I would agree with you that a dispensational hermeneutic sees too much discontinuity, however, and once again, discontinuity does not equate a dispensational hermeneutic. Is it your contention then, that CTers can see too much continuity? Say for instance the reconstructionist/theonomy crowd? The reverse is also true in my case: The more proper discontinuity the more proper interpretation of scripture.

(Fred) You seem to be making the argument that there exists no discontinuity between the OC and the NC. If you think there is discontinuity between the two, please elaborate why that then is not a dispensational hermeneutic.

(Fred) O. Palmer Robertson disagrees with you. Re-read his last chapter Christ: The Covenant of Consummation. Through out that chapter he makes statements like, "This uniqueness sets the NC apart from the previous covenantal dealings with his people" and "A 'new' covenant shall replace all of God's previous covenantal dealings" and "Because of the radical incapacity of man to keep God's covenant, no lasting purpose will be served through a future reestablishment of this same covenantal relationship." pp. 276, 281. [emphasis mine]. Robertson's basically argues in the same manner as Malone. So, why is he wrong?

The “ceremonial” laws were shadows or types of that which was to come (i.e. the atonement of Christ) and thus are fulfilled in Christ. The book of Hebrews makes this abundantly clear. The “civil” law was given to Israel as a theocracy and they were shadows or types of the New Heavens and New Earth. The “moral” law (which did not originate on Mt. Sinai, but in the beginning), being the very expression of the nature of God cannot be made obsolete by the coming of Christ or your short history lesson above!

John Murray reminds us that the contrast spoken of here "is not expressed in terms of difference between covenant and something else not a covenant. The contrast is within the ambit of covenant" (Covenant of Grace), that is, it is within the covenant itself. That is seen within the prophet’s own description of the new covenant, in which God will put his law in the inward hearts of his people. The newness of the new covenant is not in terms of the features of covenant – the same law is to be upheld and applied – but in terms of its internalisation. The covenant will provide, as it always has done, for a personal relationship between God and his own – "I … will be their God and they shall be my people" (v33), and they will know him, and will know him as a God who forgives sin (v34). As the Westminster Confession of Faith puts it, "there are not therefore two covenants of grace, differing in substance, but one and the same, under various dispensations" (vii.6).

1. With each successive era of redemptive revelation, each administration of the covenant built on what went before, substantially developed and added to it, and anticipated a further revelation to come. Each administration constitutes a re-casting and re-forming of the previous administrations, until the covenant is cast in its perfect form with the coming and the work of Jesus Christ.

2. As redemptive history progressed, the arc of OT revelation got wider, and the focus of God’s redemptive purpose became narrower, until at last all the covenant provision of grace focused on Christ.

3. At that point, the interest became wider again, as more and more are brought into the covenant of grace, fulfilling the promise of the covenant of redemption, because of the perfect discharging of the obligations of the covenant of works on the part of the Saviour.

For instance, we can study Hebrews and see how the Old Testament sacrificial system was glorious and typological of Christ’s work, thereby understanding His work better. However, the same book declares the abolition of the Old Testament system through a typologically greater fulfillment in Christ (Hebrews 10:1-17). (p 45)

Suppose, early in 1992, you pulled a "Rip Van Winkle" and fell into a lengthy sleep. You have only now just awakened. When you fell asleep, George H. Bush was President of the United States. Now you awaken to find that a man by the name of George W. Bush is President. What would you conclude? Well, you’d probably make the correct assumption that the elder Bush was no longer president and that his son had been elected sometime during the intervening years. You would also assume that, essentially, the laws of the land were the same—e.g. you’d still send in your taxes (and don’t forget those back taxes for the years you were asleep) to the IRS—but that these laws were now being administered by a new administration and in somewhat different fashion.

Relate this scenario to the covenantal question and you have the view of Covenant Theology regarding a man living first in the Old Covenant age and then in the New. Just like the case in our example, going from the Old Testament age into the New is a fairly homogenous process. A change has occurred at the top, but little has actually changed for the "man on the street." Men are saved the same way, the "church" of the Old Testament now becomes the "church" of the New Testament, and the laws under which we are to live are basically the same, though administered somewhat differently. We have a new and better Administrator of the covenant—Jesus—but it is fundamentally the same covenant.

Now, assume the same scenario as described above–except that, this time, when you awake, a 29 year old German citizen named Fritz Von Somethingoranother is President. What would you conclude? Well, it’s clear that what has transpired is far more than a mere change of administration! Our constitution (and we’re assuming it hasn’t been amended) requires the President to be at least 35 years of age and an American citizen. To discover that a 29 year old German is President means that a fundamental change in the government of the land has taken place. No longer could you just assume that it was "business as usual." You’d know that you owed taxes to somebody (we always do!), but you could no longer assume that the IRS was even operable! The government in place when you fell asleep must have been replaced by another, and you would naturally assume that everything has changed, including even your citizenship. Note the discontinuity. The basic presumption is that all previous laws have been swept away and replaced by new ones.

Perhaps a better way to view the New Covenant is not in terms of the conditional/unconditional issue but in terms of whether it is breakable or unbreakable. The Sinai Covenant was breakable by covenant members because their weakness (not God’s), and because that covenant contained a blessing-cursing formula within it. … However, the New Covenant is not like the Sinai Covenant in this respect. It is unbreakable simply because God supplies the circumcised heart in every member by which they will keep it (Deut 30:6; Ezek 36:26; Jer 32:40; Joel 2:28). The New Covenant is the Divine unilateral Covenant (p. 85)

Heb 10:21-31 and having a great priest over the house of God;

let us draw near with a true heart in fulness of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience: and having our body washed with pure water,

let us hold fast the confession of our hope that it waver not; for he is faithful that promised:

and let us consider one another to provoke unto love and good works;

not forsaking our own assembling together, as the custom of some is, but exhorting one another; and so much the more, as ye see the day drawing nigh.

For if we sin wilfully after that we have received the knowledge of the truth, there remaineth no more a sacrifice for sins,

but a certain fearful expectation of judgment, and a fierceness of fire which shall devour the adversaries.

A man that hath set at nought Moses law dieth without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses:

of how much sorer punishment, think ye, shall he be judged worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood <span style="background-color:#FFFF00">of the covenant </span>

wherewith he was sanctified an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?

For we know him that said, Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense. And again, The Lord shall judge his people.

It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

Who then is a member of the present New Covenant administration? New Covenant members are those disciples of Jesus Christ who have the law written on their hearts by the Holy Spirit of God (and we know this how?), who know God experientially by faith (and we know this how?), and who possess in reality the forgiveness of sins (and we know this how?), (Heb 8:8-12). These are the circumcised of heart (and we know this how?), the true (and we know this how?), the faith seed of Abraham (and we know this how?), the seed of Christ (and we know this how?), the people for whom He died (and we know this how?), the sheep whom He will keep from falling and bring safely to the eternal kingdom (and we know this how?). They individually possess all the New Covenant blessings, have Christ as an effectual Mediator, and are the true fulfilled seed of Abraham, the new Israel of God (Gal 6:16). These alone are entitled to the New Covenant sign of baptism, evidenced by their confession of Christ as Lord (p. 91).

grace2U said:
So we agree then that Spurgeon does not use the term 'Covenant of Redemption' in his commentary on Psalm LXXII?

The marriage of the Lamb is the result of the eternal gift of the Father. Our Lord says, “Thine they were, and thou gayest them me.” His prayer was, “Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.” The Father made a choice, and the chosen he gave to his Son to be his portion. For them he entered into a covenant of redemption, whereby he was pledged in due time to take upon himself their nature, pay the penalty of their offenses, and set them free to be his own. Beloved, that which was arranged in the councils of eternity and settled there between the high contracting parties, is brought to its ultimate end in that day when the Lamb takes unto himself in everlasting union the whole of those whom his Father gave him from of old.

THE MARRIAGE OF THE LAMB. NO. 2096. July 21, 1889. Spurgeon, Charles H. Spurgeon's Sermons: Volume 35.

What you have posted is a quotation from Jonathan Edwards which Spurgeon appended to his commentary

Hebrews 8: Bible students may be wondering up to this point, "If the covenant of grace begins at the Fall of Man into sin and endures until the second coming of Christ, what about Hebrews 8?" Hebrews 8 seems to declare the covenant that was operative in the days of Moses to be "obsolete," replaced by a new covenant established with the first coming of Jesus. The Westminster Divines used Hebrews 8 as a proof text for their distinction between two "administrations" of the covenant of grace: 1) the administration of law; and 2) the administration of gospel (Chapter 7. V - VI). Why did they opt for this distinction when it seems as if the language points to two distinct covenants, not two administrations of one covenant? The answer: The language is a distinction not of terms , but rather a distinction between the promise of the terms fulfilled and their actual fulfillment in Christ. The second administration is an unfolding of the mediatorial fulfillment of the covenant of grace while the first administration was the promise of such mediatorial fulfillment.

(1-6) The terms of the first have not become obsolete; Jesus, the great high priest, comes to fulfill all that the high priests in the first administration communicated through roles and rites of promise; the second administration is "a better covenant" because the promise has been fulfilled in the coming of Christ who keeps the terms of the covenant of grace. Once he has done so, the covenant of grace takes on a profoundly different administration! Why then, "which has been enacted on better promises" ? Have the promises changed? No, but the surety of them has come. Prior to the first coming of Christ, the promise was that he would indeed fulfill the demands of the covenant of grace. In his first coming, these demands are met in his work of perfect obedience and perfect sacrifice. All of God's children are thus justified! His work is once for all. So now, what are the promises that still remain after the work of the first advent is accomplished? The promises of Sanctification and eternal glorification - a final end to all of the curse of sin and death upon God's good creation. These promises are better in the sense that the finished work of Christ has occured and is the down-payment, thus the absolute surety that the completion of our salvation shall occur upon his second advent.

(7-12) What was "faulty" in the first administration of the covenant? Certainly not God's promise but Man's participation. What was wrong with Man's participation? It was connected to the symbols pointing to the fulfillment. Israel's failure to be obedient resulted in their losing the benefits of the symbols - i.e. the Promised Land. But the Promised Land is a symbol of the new heavens and new earth. Just because it is a symbol does not mean that it is "fake" nor "intangible." Israel lost real land; God "did not care for them" (9). But with the coming of Christ Jesus, the reality is secured. The symbol promises are lost forever since they are part of this cursed age and have served their purpose in pointing to the fulfillment. But there is still hope for covenant breakers who look to faith in Christ who ushers in the ultimate promises of the covenant which shall surely be fulfilled for all of God's children in Christ Jesus. (10-12) is prophetic language from the first administration that is assigned to the reality of the new heavens and new earth in the book of Revelation, part of the second administration's literature!

(13) So how do we interpret this verse? It seems quite clear that there are two distinct covenants after the Fall of Mankind (Genesis 3). Don't be so quick. Take into consideration the points above, then read (13) in context. What aspect(s) of the first administration of the covenant are "obsolete" ? Certainly all that symbolically pointed to Christ, the fulfillment since he has come in the flesh! Have the terms become obsolete? NO. Jesus said, "I did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it." Does the law, then have an enduring role in the church in these last days? YES. So there is continuity between the first and second administrations of the covenant. Hence it is the same covenant which takes on a drasticly new look because of the coming presence of Jesus. Has the aspect of grace become obsolete? No. Under the first administration, only through the forgiveness and gifts of God do the blessings flow. And so it is in the second administration. Therefore it is essentially one covenant of grace which explodes into a greater flowering of blessings than ever could be imagined prior to the coming of Jesus.

What does the last sentence mean?!! Simply this: the day of glorification is soon approaching. When the final and eternal reality dawns, we will cease this talk and longing for it, for we shall be consumed in it, enjoying the blessing forevermore.