New Covenant Theology:

Time for a More Accurate Way

Gary D. Long

Copyright © 2013 by Gary D. Long

All rights reserved.

Available on Amazon.com, www.CreateSpace.com and other Retailers

Anyone is at liberty to quote wording originating with the author of this book as long as citations are quoted in context and made with bibliographical credit.

Unless otherwise noted, Scripture citations are taken from the NEW AMERAICAN STANDARD BIBLE®; ©Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission (www.Lockman.org)

ISBN: 1-4903-1262-5

ISBN 13: 978-1-4903-1262-0

Dedication

To my mentor, S. Lewis Johnson, Jr., a gracious man and gentleman scholar whose submission to the teaching of the Word of God in doctrine and life lives on and to Charles Sild, a faithful Christian friend in Dallas, Texas who exemplified Matthew 5:16 in his daily walk and family life

Preface

Chapter 1: Introduction—New Covenant Theology: What It Is

Chapter 2: How New Covenant Theology Differs from Covenant Theology: A Condensed Historical Background

Chapter 3: How New Covenant Theology Differs from Covenant Theology on the Covenant of Grace

Chapter 4: How New Covenant Theology Differs from Covenant Theology on the Covenant of Works and the Covenant of Redemption

Chapter 5: How New Covenant Theology Differs from Covenant Theology on the Law of God

Chapter 6: New Covenant Theology: Time for a More Accurate Way

Appendix A: Explanation of Theological Terms and Systems

This book is a condensed one volume documented work purposefully written in a non-technical, palatable style. It is designed to explain what New Covenant Theology is as a developing theological system by showing how it differs from Reformed Theology’s system of Covenant Theology. The opening chapter explains in succinct form what I believe the doctrinal essence of NCT is. The remainder of this book will question Covenant Theology starting with Chapter 2 which presents a condensed historical background to the rise of Reformed Theology’s system of Covenant Theology. Separate chapters will then be devoted to questioning Covenant Theology’s teaching on its three theological covenants in the historical order in which they were developed: Chapter 3 on the covenant of grace—the heart of its theological system; Chapter 4 on the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption; Chapter 5 will question Covenant Theology’s teaching on the covenantal administration of the God’s law. Chapter 6 summarizes why it is “Time for a More Accurate Way” by taking a macro look at New Covenant Theology in view of God’s eternal kingdom purpose. Appendix A: An Explanation of Theological Terms and Systems concludes the book.

My approach is doctrinal not personal. I owe much to many reformed theologians holding to Covenant Theology, especially in their contribution to the sovereignty of God in creation, providence and redemption. It is my concern that we who have been saved by grace sometimes rely too much upon the writings of gifted but fallible man. Their theological systems and confessions of faith must be continually assessed in the light of the infallible Word of God. I realize that my difference with Covenant Theology must also be assessed. So, as I question the theological system of Covenant Theology, I do so being fully aware that there will be some who will dismiss the purpose and design of this book as a futile effort to critique its theological underpinnings as preserved in its famous confessions of faith and writings by godly men of the Reformed faith. However, I am convinced that it is time for a more accurate way to interpret the Bible and I believe that there is a growing number today who also believe this to be true.

I present this work in the spirit of Priscilla and Aquila acknowledging that many of those holding to Covenant Theology—both Paedobaptist and Baptist—have been and are far mightier in the Scriptures than I. But I firmly believe that there has been something missing in their hermeneutical system that affects the theological significance of the newness of the New Covenant in several areas, especially relating to the nature of the church which is the spiritual body of Christ and the covenantal administration of the law of God for the believer.

My hope is that this book will help lay a foundation for developing New Covenant Theology as a theological system that explains the way of God more accurately (Acts 18:26) than the theological system of Covenant Theology (as well as that of Dispensational Theology). I have often reflected upon what would happen if the Holy Spirit should be pleased to break down those questionable principles of interpretation that doctrinally divide the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. Would that not be a marvelous blessing in this sin-wrecked world in which we live? Brethren, it is the church which reveals the manifold wisdom of God (Ephesians 3:10). It is my heart’s desire for the church to handle God’s word more accurately and manifest it corporately and individually in life before others that they may see our good works and glorify our Father who is in heaven (Matthew 5:16). To this end, I submit this work to our great God and Savior for the glory of His everlasting new covenant of love, mercy and grace.

Gary D. Long

Colorado Springs, CO

March 14, 2013

New Covenant Theology: What It Is

The principles of interpretation (hermeneutics) of New Covenant Theology (NCT) are as old as the New Testament (NT) itself. The way it interprets Scripture is based upon Christ’s and the NT writers’ understanding of the Old Testament (OT) Scriptures in explaining the outworking of God’s will on earth (Matt. 6:10). But as a theological system in America it is a recent development having different explanations, especially due to diverse—sometimes, sad to say, even heterodox—writings on the Internet which lack the discipline of biblical hermeneutics. The time has come for those who hold to the need for NCT to unify, explain and demonstrate what it is as a developing theological system exegetically based on sound principles of biblical interpretation. Thus being set forth, it is in agreement with much that is taught in the theological system of Reformed Theology (RT) or Covenant Theology (CT),[1] especially with its teaching on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the doctrine of God and creation, the doctrine of man, and the doctrine of the person and work of Christ,[2] and even on the covenantal structure existing in Genesis 2 and 3 with Adam before and after the Fall. However, there are significant differences with RT or CT[3] as a theological system to warrant the development of NCT as a distinct theological system. This introductory chapter provides a definition, description and listing of some of the major characteristics of NCT—some in basic agreement with CT—and closes by summarizing how NCT differs from RT, to be more fully explained historically and theologically in the follow-on chapters.

NCT Defined. NCT may be defined broadly as God’s eternal purpose progressively revealed in the commandments and promises of the biblical covenants of the OT and fulfilled in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ. Its major themes may be summarily described with reference to:

- God’s eternal purpose of redemption: covenantally revealed and administered through biblical covenants beginning with a pre-fall covenant of obedience with Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; Eph. 2:12) and a post-fall covenant of promise (Gen. 3:15);

- Hermeneutics: consistent interpretation of the OT in light of the NT (Luke 24:27; II Cor. 1:20);

- The people of God: all the elect of God throughout time first constituted as the church at Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5), but not before (John 7:39; 17:21-22; Col. 1:26-27; Heb. 11:39- 40), as one corporate spiritual body in union with Christ (I Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:19-21; Col. 1:18, 24); and

- The law of God: the two greatest commandments of God—love of God and neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40)—are innate law known instinctively by man (Rom. 2:14-15) created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). Upon these two greatest commandments all of God’s covenantally written laws depend as administered under biblical covenants, which culminate in the New Covenant (NC) law of Christ (I Cor. 9:20-21; Romans 13:8-10; Galatians 6:2; Heb. 8:6, 13; James 2:8; I John 5:3). Innate law is righteous and unchanging. Covenantal law is written, righteous and changeable (Heb. 7:12) worked out in history in accordance with God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 1:11; 3:11; II Tim. 1:9).

NCT Described. The historical roots of NCT are independent and eclectic. By this is meant that while laboring always to be biblically based, it owes much to the Swiss Brethren of the 16th century pertaining to the nature of church, to the English Particular Baptists a century later, especially as expressed in the 1646 edition of the First London Baptist Confession, and to contemporary writings of sovereign grace Baptists in America who are not functionally wedded to the Baptist version of the Westminster Confession of Faith of 1647, the Second London Baptist Confession of 1677/1689. But most of all, today it is a developing theological system which, for the enhancement of the Gospel, strives to provide a more accurate way to interpret the Scriptures by questioning key theological presuppositions which undergird the principles of interpretation (hermeneutics) that exist in both Covenant Theology and Dispensational Theology. NCT is based upon a redemptive history approach to understanding the fulfillment of God’s eternal kingdom purpose on earth. Its principles of interpretation are based upon a biblical theology that stresses the theology of the Bible itself, especially upon the NT understanding of the OT. NCT questions the explanation of the theological presuppositions of the one covenant of grace system of CT, including its understanding of the “moral law” of God and the nature of the Church. The driving motive of NCT is back to the Bible. NCT emphasizes the inductive study of the Bible. A major objective of NCT is that its Christotelic[4] hermeneutic will help bring doctrinal unity in this sin-wrecked world by breaking down the middle walls of doctrinal partition that exist within the theological systems of both CT and DT.[5]

NCT Characteristics. The following lists some of the major NCT characteristics. NCT teaches that:

- The discernment of the Holy Spirit is absolutely essential for accurately handling the word of God because there is no authentic leading of the Holy Spirit that is not contextually wedded to the words of the Bible (I Cor. 2:13-14; II Tim. 2:15; 3:16).

- The most important principle of interpretation is contextual biblical exegesis. Contextual biblical exegesis demands grammatical/historical/theological principles of interpretation.

- The imputation of Adam’s first sin to all mankind (Rom. 5:12d, 18a-19a), the elect’s sins to Christ (II Cor. 5:21), and Christ’s righteousness to the elect (Rom. 5:18b-19b) are vital for the Christian faith. Without the doctrine of imputation the whole doctrine of the substitutionary atonement and justification by faith alone in Christ alone are undermined (Rom. 5:12-19). The type/antitype teaching of Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-19 demands that a covenant relationship (distinguished from that taught by CT) existed between God and Adam both before and after Adam’s Fall.

- God’s plan of salvation is revealed and administered according to His eternal purpose (II Tim. 1:9) through the unfolding of biblical covenants in the flow of redemptive history, but not as explained through the theologically deduced system of CT’s Covenant of Works/Covenant of Grace/Covenant of Redemption schema.

- Christians “are not under law (hupo nomon), but under grace (hupo charin),” (Rom. 6:14)—meaning that the believer in Christ is no longer under the Mosaic law as covenantal law but under the grace of the NC—a covenant that not only has the internal leading of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:1-4), but also external commands to be obeyed, summed up in the NC declaration: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 5:14).

- The Law of God is both absolute and covenantal (Matt. 5:17-20). God’s absolute law is innate, written on the heart of man created in the image of God. It is God’s unchanging standard of righteousness. God’s covenantal law, however, is written and changeable according to the covenant being administered.

- The love of God and the love of neighbor are the two greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36-40) upon which the whole Law and the Prophets hang. This means that the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue, hang upon these two greatest commandments, not the reverse as traditionally taught by CT.

- The Ten Commandments are a covenantal outworking of the two greatest commandments in redemptive history not the reverse. They were given through the hand of Moses to the nation of Israel first at Mount Sinai (Exod. 20).

- The Fourth Commandment, the Sabbath commandment, being the sign of the Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 31:15-17), is not a creation ordinance as taught by CT.

- The Ten Commandments commonly called moral law forever, first written on the heart of man at creation and forever binding upon all mankind as CT teaches in its confessions of faith e.g., the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) and the Second London Baptist Confession (1677/1689). In fact, the term “moral law” does not occur in the original languages of the Bible. Although under any given covenantal administration, man is obligated to obey all of God’s commandments; yet the Bible does not separate God’s law into three parts: moral, ceremonial and civil. Historically, this threefold separation was not substantially taught until the time of Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century and in the 16th century by Calvin.

- The Decalogue is not “transcovenantal” and, therefore, does not function outside the Old Covenant as a unit as much of CT teaches.

- Christ came not to destroy the OT Scriptures but to fulfill them, which includes the Decalogue. The NC law is called the law of Christ which is distinguished from Mosaic law and from the Gentiles who do not have a written revelation of God’s law (I Cor. 9:20-21).

- The law of Christ is not to be equated with the Decalogue. Although the law of Christ, the law of the NC people of God, is related to the Decalogue in that it incorporates nine of the Ten Commandments. The law of Christ is a better law than the law of Moses (Matt. 5:21-48; Heb. 7:19) in the sense that (1) it is a higher revelation of the righteousness of God (Matt: 5:20); (2) it is based upon a higher standard of love (Matt. 5:44); and, (3) Christ’s inauguration of the NC brings in things “now” that are “not yet” (I John 3:2), things that are qualitatively newer, expressed in developing the theological significance of such basic concepts as new wineskins, new teaching, new commandment, new creation, new man, new name, new song, new Jerusalem and all things new (Rev. 21:5).

- The OC Sabbath commandment is typologically fulfilled by Christ for the people of God who rest in Him by faith (Heb. 4:9-10).

- NC believers are in-lawed to Christ; they are not under the OC law of Moses but under the grace of the NC (Rom. 6:14). NCT does not equate the law of Christ with the Decalogue as do many holding to CT.

- The indwelling Holy Spirit is the norm for Christian living. NCT does not teach that the Ten Commandments are the only objective standard for addressing the Christian life (see e.g., some two dozen commandments in the last thirteen verses of Rom. 12). Rather, NCT emphasizes that it is the Spirit who enables Christians to have a godly walk (Rom. 8:4; Gal. 5:25) acknowledging that all Scripture is profitable for instruction in righteousness (II Tim. 3:16).

- Christ merited righteousness for the elect only and imputed it to them based upon His total obedience to the will of the Father in His life and death (Matt. 3:15; Rom. 5:19).

- The church, which is the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; Col. 1:18; see Eph. 2:13 to 3:1-12) was first formed in history when the Spirit was poured out during the Pentecost event not in past history under the OC. Most holding to CT see the church existing in the OT before Pentecost; NCT does not. Contrary to DT, NCT sees only one redemptive purpose for the one people of God, which is represented in the good olive tree (Rom. 11).

- Christ gave permanent spiritual gifts to the church for exercise throughout the entire age of the NC—from Pentecost to the Second Advent—and temporary gifts (largely sign or miraculous gifts, including that of apostleship and prophecy) exercised during its foundation (Eph. 2:20; 3:5).

- The ordinance of water baptism is the pledge of membership in the NC for believers alone and the sign of the NC is not baptism, rather the sign is the cup, which memorializes the NC in Christ’s blood (Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25).

- The now-not yet principle of interpretation is essential to understand the teaching of the NT. The Christian experiences the commencement of “every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ” (Eph. 1:3); yet he stills awaits the consummation of these blessings at Christ’s return. The End has come! The End has not come! The whole theology of the NT is qualified by this tension: between the already or now and the not yet (I John 3:2).

- The recapitulation principle (to recap/repeat/go over again) is essential to understand the NT prophetic Scriptures (Matt. 24:4-14 and 24:15-31; Rev. 11:15-19 and 12:1-6).

- The blessed hope will occur when Christ returns (Titus 2:13) to earth bodily and visibly (Acts 1:11) at the Second Advent to abolish death (I Cor. 15:26, 54) by swallowing it up in victory (I Cor. 15:54) and to resurrect, judge and consign the saved to heaven and the lost to a Christless eternity (John 5:28-29; Rev. 20:12-15).

New Covenant Theology: How

It Differs from Covenant Theology

This section is a summary of much of the following chapters which provide a fuller explanation of NCT and how it differs from CT. In brief, this section questions the hermeneutical basis of Reformed Theology’s system of Covenant Theology and in so doing shows why it is time to introduce a more accurate way to interpret the Bible. It is my intent that the substance of the whole book will be clear, palatable and—although purposefully condensed—evidence sound biblical interpretation and documented historical accuracy.

I begin with the heart of CT: its one overarching covenant of grace. As a theological system, CT evolved historically to explain God’s covenants with man under three theological covenants; first, the “Covenant of Grace” followed in order by the covenants of “Works” and “Redemption.” As great and essential as RT’s teaching has been for Christianity regarding its teaching on the sovereignty of God in creation, providence and redemption by a host of godly theologians and preachers of the past and present, I am convinced that there is something wrong with the hermeneutical system of CT, especially regarding the nature of the church and the covenantal administration of the law of God—the two carotid arteries of its theological system.

The points below summarize how NCT differs from CT. The follow-on chapters will address the differences in more detail. The points stem from a fundamental question based upon the Apostle Paul’s explicit teaching that the manifold wisdom of God is made known under the NC through the church according to His eternal purpose (Eph. 3:9-11). Clearly, the fundamental issue with RT pertains to the doctrine of the church (ecclesiology).

- If under the NC the manifold wisdom of God is made known through Christ in reconciling both Jew and Gentile to Him into one body, which is the church, (and the Scripture says it is), is it not highly important to address the nature of the church, the church which “God purchased with His own blood” (Acts 20:28)? The answer must be unabashedly yes! Anything that distorts or beclouds the true nature of the church—that it is comprised of Jews and Gentiles reconciled to God through the cross—reflects negatively upon the wisdom of God’s redemptive purpose, even upon the character of God Himself.

- Reformed Theology explains the nature of the church through the lens of CT and its one overarching covenant of grace which, as a theological system, traditionally includes three covenants: Grace, Works and Redemption developed historically in that order. But the teaching of this system needs to be examined because it fails to give due consideration to the teaching of the NC Scriptures that the church is a reconciled, spiritual body of believers in which each one of its members knows the Lord (Heb. 8:11). The NT makes it plain that every genuine member of the church is a new creation in Christ having access to the Father by the indwelling Holy Spirit. The NT clearly teaches that the gift of salvation is by grace alone and that no one becomes a member of the church without being reconciled to God through faith in Christ (Eph. 2:8-18). Hence, there are no un-reconciled members in the church, the spiritual body of Christ.

- NCT agrees with CT that there was both a pre-fall covenant[6] and post-fall covenant with Adam, but NCT rejects the traditional covenant of works explanation of CT as taught by the majority of Reformed theologians, even by many Particular Baptists of the past, including many present-day Reformed Baptists. NCT also rejects the covenant of grace explanation of CT held by all Reformed theologians, (see below) which includes misunderstandings on the formation of the church by many Reformed Baptists past and present who continue the use of the theological term, the covenant of grace.

- There are several reasons for NCT to hold to a pre-fall covenantal relationship between God and Adam. It has also been called a covenant of nature, covenant of life, Adamic (Edenic) covenant, covenant of obedience, and a covenant of creation. I prefer calling it just what it is, a pre-fall covenant or creation covenant. The most important support for NCT teaching that a covenant arrangement existed with Adam is due to the type/antitype analogy of Romans 5:12-19. On this, NCT agrees with CT; the difference arises over explaining the meaning of that covenantal arrangement starting with the pre-fall covenant. The doctrinal truth of the parallel analogy between Adam and Christ in the Romans passage is unique and vital. It is vital because the principle of representative headship is set forth there. As Adam was the sole representative head of fallen humanity, so Christ is the sole representative head of redeemed humanity. Without the representative principle taught in this passage (also see I Cor. 15:22, 45), every human being would have come into the world and would have stood or fallen based on each of his or her own obedience or disobedience to the law of God. There would be no special representation, either by Adam or Christ—the principle is the same: no imputation of the guilt and penalty of Adam’s first sin to all mankind; no imputation of the guilt and penalty of the believer’s sin to Christ; and no imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer. Therefore, there would be no vicarious atonement for sin, no substitutionary Savior, indeed no salvation!

- Aside from the traditional arguments for a pre-fall covenant with Adam associated with Adam being created in the image of God and understanding that Hosea 6:7 teaches a covenantal relationship with Adam—which I agree with CT is exegetically preferred—I will here only mention a couple of other reasons to support a pre-fall covenantal arrangement, a creation covenant, with Adam which is close in meaning, with qualifications, with that taught in CT. First, the several facets of the original creation are redemptively reenacted in the new creation. For example: (1) the parallel between Genesis 1 and John 1; (2) the creation rest of the original creation in Genesis 2 culminating in the redemptive rest in Christ of the new creation in Hebrews 4; and (3) the Spirit’s presence in: (a) hovering over the surface of the waters in Genesis 1 regarding a creation covenant; (b) passing between the divided sacrifice in Genesis 15 regarding the Abrahamic covenant; (c) engulfing Mount Sinai in smoke and fire in Exodus 19 regarding the Mosaic covenant; and (d) the pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2; 8; 10 and 19 regarding the NC fulfillment of OT prophecy (Ezek. 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32). Second, I do not find in Scripture where God ever communes with man outside of a covenantal arrangement; so it was with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and so it is with Christ under the New Covenant.

- The above reasons for a pre-fall covenant are contested by some within NCT. They rightly object to RT’s explanation of a pre-fall covenant of works. But I do not find their arguments convincing in denying a covenant relationship itself with Adam before the Fall, especially in light of Romans 5:12-19. I hope that an elaboration upon this issue in in Chapter 4 will help break down the doctrinal wall of partition that exists between Paedobaptist Covenant Theology and Baptist Theology, including those among the latter who deny any divine covenant with Adam before the Fall. Was there a divine covenant with Adam before the Fall? Yes, there was. Is it to be explained as traditional CT has done? No, it is not. Is it to be explained as contemporary covenant theologians explain it? No, it is not; they too differ over how to explain the covenant of works. Then, how can a covenantal arrangement be biblically established without taking upon it all the encumbrances of CT including its stress on the organic nature of biblical revelation?[7] I believe that it can if it be rooted in a biblical theology of God’s eternal kingdom purpose coming to pass on earth (see Chapter 6).

- New Covenant Theology, therefore, has a theology of the covenants because covenants are biblical and because God’s covenants with man reveal how He governs creation and man in history. NCT holds that God’s will, “will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10) and that His eternal kingdom purpose is the central theme of the Bible as He administers His will covenantally in time. However, NCT dissents with RT’s one covenant of grace theological system to explain redemptive history. Indeed, it disagrees with key elements in all three covenantal teachings of CT, believing that they are sometimes based upon theological deductions with little biblical warrant. NCT, therefore, holds that there is: (1) no one covenant of grace that overarches both dispensations of the OT and NT (see Chapter 3); (2) no covenant of works with a temporal probationary period which, if kept by Adam, would have resulted in earning eternal heavenly life for Adam and all mankind (see Chapter 4); and, (3) no pre-temporal intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption because God’s covenants are all planned to occur in history according to and in execution of His eternal purpose (see Chapter 4). These three theological covenants have helped to shape Reformed Theology’s hermeneutic for interpreting the entire Bible. But they distort the very nature of the church which God purchased with His own blood. They ought to be examined biblically and historically. Indeed, there is a more accurate way to understand and explain the covenantal nature of the Bible. And this is what NCT is working to accomplish while holding, without reservation, to Reformed Theology’s biblical teaching on the sovereignty of God in creation, providence and redemption.

- One of the major reasons why RT was first formed during the early years of the Reformation was due to the need to answer the Swiss Brethren’s (Anabaptists’) stance that the NT church was a believer’s church consisting only of confessor baptism,[8] which necessarily ruled out a state-church (Corpus Christianum—see Chapter 2) and the long held practice of infant baptism. So, to defend the sacrament of infant baptism, the early Reformers developed a covenantal mold based upon the OT covenant of circumcision in an attempt to provide an evangelical basis for practicing it (Paedobaptism) under the NC without teaching that it was necessary for salvation. Huldreich (Ulrich) Zwingli (1484-1531), the Swiss Reformer, taught that just as covenant children were circumcised under the OC prior to faith so now under the NC baptism of covenant children should take place. Zwingli feared that if baptism of infants of adult believers were rejected the Reformation in Switzerland would be stopped. The people in the canton of Zurich would not accept this doctrinal reformation step. It was too much and too fast as Reformation truth was causing them to reject so many other unbiblical practices of Roman Catholicism.

- The theology of the covenant birthed by Zwingli subsequently developed systematically into what is called RT; also called CT. It teaches that there is one overarching covenant of grace,[9] which was instituted by God after the Fall of Adam. This means that all the biblical covenants from Noah to the New Covenant are administrative out-workings of one overarching covenant of grace, rather than a covenantal outworking of the eternal purpose of God (II Tim. 1:9). Hence the covenant of grace and God’s eternal purpose are terms frequently understood to be interchangeable by Paedobaptist Covenant theologians as well as by some Reformed Baptist theologians creating doctrinal confusion.

- The covenant of grace teaching of RT results in the church beginning in Genesis 3:15. Thus, the church began its existence in the OT and continues generically as one body under both the Old and New Covenant administrations of the one overarching covenant of grace. However, with rare exception RT does not accurately address how the body of Christ was formed and in existence before Christ—“the head” and “the first-born” of “the body, the church”—was raised from the dead (Col. 1:18). Many fail to mention the historical significance of the gift of the Holy Spirit poured out at Pentecost in first forming the church in redemptive history—but a headless church? existing in the OT makes no biblical sense! To say the least, the teaching of RT’s one covenant of grace system needs recasting. Further—

- This overarching covenant of grace teaching carries the OC law over into the NC. Yet, RT recognized that not all of the OC law could apply to the NC. Hence, the Reformers Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575), Zwingli’s successor, and John Calvin (1509-1564) followed Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274), the systematizer of ancient and medieval Roman Catholic dogma, in the threefold division of the law of God into moral, ceremonial and judicial (civil). This was interpreted to mean that the ceremonial and judicial aspects of the OC law were fulfilled and done away under the NC administration of the covenant of grace, but the moral law continued.

- In essence, then, what remained of the OC law were the Ten Commandments which are said to transcend all of God’s covenants and thus they continue as moral law forever, even under the NC in which all people are obligated to obey.

- Admittedly, according to CT, the keeping of the moral law, specifically the Ten Commandments, could not save since salvation is by grace through faith alone. So, although obeying the Ten Commandments can never save a person, they are to be obeyed as a rule of life for the believer’s sanctification.

- However, difficulties arose over RT’s understanding of the law of God relating to both the Sabbath commandment—the fourth commandment—and how the Ten Commandments as a unit could continue covenantally under the NC. No, the NC fulfilled the OC making it and its “tablets of stone” covenantally obsolete (Heb. 8:6-13; II Cor. 3); e.g., see the transfiguration account and the Father’s command to “hear Him” (Christ).

- To show that the Ten Commandments continue under the NC, they are said to be unchanging moral law. But this presents a problem, especially with the Sabbath commandment. So, RT teaches that the seventh day Sabbath was changed to the first day Sabbath, the Christian Sabbath, following the NT apostolic practice of the Christian church meeting on the first day of the week, the day that Christ rose from the dead. However, this does not answer the question: “If the Ten Commandments are unchanging moral law how could the day change?” Several explanations have been given by CT for keeping the Christian Sabbath, but without unanimity over how to observe it, especially as practiced by 17th century Puritanism in England and New England and by some Reformed churches (both Presbyterian and Baptist) today.

- The bottom line: The one overarching covenant of grace teaching of CT has created serious difficulties in understanding the biblical nature of the church and the covenantal administration of the law of God under the NC. It has also created difficulties among Credo-(Reformed) Baptists, many of whom have accepted the one covenant of grace teaching of CT while attempting to explain it regarding Baptist church doctrine.

- In sum, the Bible clearly teaches that God administers His will on earth covenantally; yet, it is not accurately explained by CT (see the following chapters). Any method of interpretation, therefore, that distorts the nature of the church which God purchased with His own blood or confuses the covenantal administration of God’s holy and just law must be corrected. The main purpose of this book, therefore, is to examine RT and introduce a more accurate way to understand the Bible than adhering to the traditional one overarching covenant of grace—two different administrations teaching of CT, whether held by Presbyterians or as modified by Particular Baptists past and present.

It has been over 480 years since the theology of the Covenant of Grace was birthed by Huldreich (Ulrich) Zwingli in Switzerland in the 1520s and over 360 years since its confessional formulation in the Westminster Confession of Faith in 1647. The scriptural basis for CT on its teaching regarding the doctrine of the church has been questioned since the early Swiss Brethren in the 1520s and 1530s and the early English Particular Baptists in the 1640s and 1650s. As a result, those holding to a confessing church of believers only, have long held that the Reformation was never doctrinally completed. Complicating the development of a better hermeneutic is the fact that many Credo (Reformed) Baptists have, without clarification, basically accepted Covenant Theology’s one covenant of grace theological system, except for its teaching on the nature of the church and the ordinance of baptism for believers only—not to mention acceptance of CT’s teachings of a covenant of works and covenant of redemption. But the retention of the system of CT, although modified by the Credo-Baptists, has failed to resolve the hermeneutical barrier that can only remain between Presbyterians and Baptists. It is time for a more accurate way to interpret the Bible that will help break down this doctrinal barrier. I am convinced that there is a more accurate way that must be pursued for the cause of Christ and the unity of the body of Christ. That way is called New Covenant Theology, which is in the process of being established as a distinct theological system. Rightly explained exegetically, biblical and systematically, NCT understands the covenantal administration of God’s eternal purpose with man in history more accurately than that taught in the system of Covenant Theology, whether held by Presbyterians or Baptists, as the following chapters will strive to demonstrate.

I readily acknowledge that this book questions long standing tradition held to be biblical by men mighty in the faith and that it will be strongly assailed by many, even by some as doctrinal heresy. Be that as it may, I remind the reader again that my disagreement with covenant theologians and their system of CT is doctrinal not personal. John Murray, one of CT’s greatest exegetical paedobaptist theologians, has acknowledged that “theology must always be undergoing reformation, [because] the human understanding is imperfect” and [because] “covenant theology, not withstanding the finesse of analysis with which it was worked out and the grandeur of its articulated systematization, needs recasting.”[10] This book is an attempt on behalf of New Covenant Theology to that end—to provide a more accurate way than that taught in the theological system of Covenant Theology.

The remainder of this book will question Covenant Theology starting with Chapter 2 which presents a condensed historical background to the rise of Reformed Theology’s system of Covenant Theology. Separate chapters will then be devoted to questioning Covenant Theology’s teaching of its three theological covenants in the historical order in which they were developed: Chapter 3 on the covenant of grace; Chapter 4 on the covenant of works and the covenant of redemption. Chapter 5 will address CT’s teaching on the covenantal administration of the God’s law. Chapter 6 will conclude with a macro view of NCT and God’s eternal kingdom purpose.

How Nct Differs from Covenant Theology

A Condensed Historical Background[1]

The heart of Reformed (Covenant) Theology is its one overarching Covenant of Grace. Its expanded theological system includes two major arteries which provide the theological lifeblood for how it understands and explains the nature of the church and the covenantal administration of the law of God. Before addressing the system directly, it is necessary to provide a condensed historical background of what took place in Christianity after the close of the Apostolic Age. This will show how political and religious history affected the rise later of Covenant Theology (CT) in the 16th century Reformation and its 17th century development. Two things especially significant occurred in the first century and a half after the days of the Apostles. They were the rise of the monarchial bishop and the practice of infant baptism—both of which greatly affected the nature of the church in post-Apostolic Christianity. But it needs to be pointed out from the outset that these things occurred regardless of the fact that the Bible was silent regarding infant baptism and that in the Apostolic Church no hierarchal distinction of office was made between that held by an elder, bishop or presbyter.

The Rise of the Monarchial Bishop

It was not long after the close of the NT until recognition of a monarchial bishop came into being by the middle of the 2d century. This practice distinguished between bishop and elder by elevating the role of one elder in each local church to that of bishop who then ruled over the other elders. By the next century in A.D. 251, for example, there were some 66 monarchial bishops in the churches of North Africa. This practice was led and taught by Cyprian (Bishop of Carthage; d. A.D. 258). Soon throughout Imperial Rome the practice of recognizing the monarchial bishop in the local churches increased with the Bishop at Rome receiving special honor. Through Cyprian and the traditional teaching of the martyrdom of Peter and Paul in Rome, the primacy of the Bishop of Rome and the doctrine of apostolic succession took root, although Papal supremacy was yet to come.

The Practice of Infant Baptism

The Bible is silent regarding infant baptism. The earliest post-Apostolic writings of the Didache (A.D. 100-110), the Epistle of Barnabus (ca. A.D. 120-130), and the Shepherd of Hermas (ca. A.D. 150) were also silent. The first explicit mention of infant baptism was made by Tertullian between A.D. 200-206 where he said that “the delay of baptism is preferable . . . in the case of little children . . . when they become able to know Christ.”[2] Not until Cyprian (ca. A.D. 251-253) was the first defense of infant baptism made claiming apostolic authority. Cyprian also taught the practice of infant communion. By the time of Augustine (d. A.D. 430), infant baptism as well as infant communion were widely acclaimed to have had apostolic authority. Augustine taught that neither salvation nor eternal life is to be hoped for anyone, including infants, without baptism and communion.[3] However, the Medieval Church (A.D. 590-1517) in Western Christianity dropped the practice of infant communion and the need for a sacrament of confirmation was recognized as a part of official Roman Catholic Church dogma.

The Union of Church and State

In addition to monarchism evolving into Papal supremacy and the post-apostolic practice of infant baptism, the third major area which provides the historical context for the Reformation is the state-church union that came about in the 4th century. Persecution of Christians was especially severe during the last half of the 3d century when the Emperors Diocletian and Galerius tried to wipe out Christianity. Following their reign, it was Emperor Constantine whose army was about to be defeated by enemies of the empire in A.D. 312 in a battle at Milvian Bridge on the Tiber River, when it is said that Constantine had a vision of the cross in the sky that said “in this sign conquer.” Believing this to be a good omen, Constantine’s army won the battle and he and Licinius, a co-emperor at that time, granted Christians freedom of worship with the Edict of Milan in A.D. 313. Constantine then became the first Christian Caesar, and founder of Constantinople (modern day Istanbul) and the Byzantine Empire. And so by the end of the 4th century Christianity was recognized as the official religion of the Empire. The church had now become the body of Christendom (Corpus Christianum), a state-church, embracing the whole empire as a Christian society. Papal supremacy rose to dominancy, especially during the reign of Pope Leo the Great (A.D. 440-461) and Pope Gregory I (A.D. 590-604). The result was that between A.D. 313 and 590 the Old Catholic Church under its monarchial bishops became the Roman Catholic Church of the Middle Ages. Since then, the church of Christendom grew under the Papacy until the time of the Protestant Reformation.

The First Front of the Reformation

The doctrine and unbiblical practices of the Roman Catholic Church in a state-church political environment were instrumental in leading up to the first front of the Protestant Reformation in Germany in 1517 led by Martin Luther (1483-1546) and in Switzerland in 1523 led by Ulrich (Huldrych or Huldreich) Zwingli (1484-1531). The Reformers insisted upon the sole authority of the Bible and attempted to abolish all doctrines not taught in accordance with it, which included the mass, the granting of indulgences, the use of images, and the power of the papacy. Yet, some aspects of the abused practices of Roman Catholicism remained.

The Second Front of the Reformation

The second front[4] of the Reformation originated in Switzerland. It began when an internal struggle broke out in Zurich late in 1523 and 1524 between Zwingli and some Swiss Brethren over Zwingli’s abandonment of his previously announced plans to abolish the mass. Follow on differences then arose between Zwingli and the Brethren over the authority of the New Testament’s teaching on the nature of the church and the practice of infant baptism. Some of the Brethren (derisively called Anabaptists, that is, rebaptizers) had been younger disciples of Zwingli, including Conrad Grebel (ca. 1498-1526), the main founder of the Swiss-South German Brethren and Felix Manz (ca. 1498-1527), one of the founders of the original Swiss Brethren congregation in Zurich and first martyr there by Protestants.[5]

Zwingli and the Swiss Brethren (Anabaptists)

The Swiss Brethren believed the NT taught that the church, the body of Christ (Corpus Christi), consisted of regenerate believers only. This soon became the major issue between Zwingli and the Anabaptists. A church comprised of those who confessed their faith in Christ meant a complete break from the medieval practice of a state-church (Corpus Christianum) and this necessarily excluded infant baptism. At first Zwingli agreed with the Brethren in denying infant Baptism saying: “Nothing grieves me more than that at the present I have to baptize children, for I know it ought not to be done.”[6] But by the end of 1524, the Zurich Anabaptists (radicals as they were also subsequently called) wanted Zwingli to publicly defend his earlier teaching against infant baptism based upon the NT Scriptures. However, this, he failed to do.

The Birth of Anabaptism

Anabaptism was born in Zurich on the night of January 21, 1525 when Conrad Grebel initiated believer’s baptism by baptizing George Blaurock in the home of Felix Manz. “With this first baptism, the earliest church of the Swiss Brethren was constituted.” It not only symbolized a revolutionary break with Rome, but it received a corresponding dissatisfaction from Zwingli and his “alternate program of reform.”[7] Controversy and persecution of the early Anabaptists by Rome[8] and the Protestant Reformers followed. In May, 1525 Zwingli published a pamphlet “On Baptism, Anabaptism, and Infant Baptism that strongly denounced Balthasar Hübmaier (ca. 1480/81-1528), a learned Anabaptist scholar and preacher from Southern Germany. In July, Hübmaier published a response to Zwingli in a book entitled “The Christian Baptism of Believers.” In November Zwingli published An Answer to Hübmaier’s book. Clearly, believer’s baptism which necessarily excluded infant baptism was the focal point of disagreement between Zwingli and Hübmaier. As Verduin documents, Zwingli knew if he renounced infant baptism that he would be opposed by the people and political rulers in the Zurich canton (district), that the Reformation break with Rome would be discredited, and that he would lose his stipend.[9] In brief, Zwingli feared that the Reformation in Switzerland would fail if Anabaptism succeeded.

The Birth of Covenant Theology

Zwingli’s answer to the Anabaptist rejection of infant baptism was to appeal to the analogy between OT circumcision and NT baptism and the unity of the Testaments. Although this analogy had long been used in church tradition as a basis for infant baptism, it was Zwingli who, in his November 1525 response to Hübmaier, initiated a covenantal mold for it that birthed CT as a theological system. In this response Zwingli held baptism to be the covenant sign under the New Covenant like circumcision had been the covenant sign under the Abrahamic Covenant. What Zwingli initiated laid the basis for the one covenant of grace[10]—different administrations teaching of Reformed Theology holding that the church is generically one in both the OT and NT and that the covenant made with Abraham in Genesis 17 with its sign and seal of circumcision is fulfilled in the New Covenant with its sign and seal of baptism.[11] This covenantal concept, tied to the Abrahamic Covenant,[12] was initiated by Zwingli and developed especially by his successor, Heinrich (Henry) Bullinger (1504-1575) and then by John Calvin (1509-1564). It continued to be developed by the German Reformers, Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583) and Kasper Olevianus (1536-1587) along with other Reformed theologians in Germany, Holland, Scotland and England. Thus, the covenantal concept undergirding CT provided an evangelical basis for infant baptism, which meant that infant baptism, although not necessary for salvation, is a requirement for adult believers to baptize their infant children based upon one everlasting covenant of grace now administered under the New Covenant.

The Significance of the Swiss

and South German Anabaptists

The significance of the Swiss and South German Anabaptists has often been distorted in Reformation history by not distinguishing them from the Inspirationists and Rationalists.[13] Admittedly, the Anabaptists had some major doctrinal deviations, but these early sixteenth century Swiss and South German Brethren—derisively called Anabaptists—should be an encouragement for us today regarding their understanding of the nature of the church. How so? Because of their uncompromising stand upon the sole authority of the Bible and the NT as normative for the church; for their stand for regenerated church membership (Corpus Christi), the rejection of infant baptism, separation of church and state; and for their subsequent influence upon the English General and Particular Baptists of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.[14] True, not only were many Anabaptists persecuted even unto death by the civil magistrates starting in 1526 and 1527 with direction from the Reformers, but many Reformers themselves were also put to death by the civil magistrates starting in 1523 with direction from the Catholic Church. Indeed, the state-church (Corpus Christianum) carried out such persecutions, regardless of whether the state-church was Catholic or Reformed in a given politically controlled territory.

The Significance of Infant Baptism in

the Development of Covenant Theology

The condensed historical background to the Reformation and the second front between the Swiss Reformers and the Anabaptists show that infant baptism was a major reason for the doctrinal origination of CT. The following will show the influence of infant baptism in the development of several Continental Reformed Confessions of faith and as classically expressed a century later in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) with its Larger and Shorter Catechisms. The nature of the church inseparably linked to the issue over infant baptism of covenant children became the major doctrinal reason for the origination of the Particular Baptists in England in the middle of the 17th century. Indeed, this issue persists as a middle wall of doctrinal partition between Paedobaptist and Baptist churches today causing disunity within the body of Christ that ought not to be.

The development of the covenantal concept into a theological system by the Reformers began with Zwingli in the 1520s in opposition to and in debates with the early Swiss and South German Anabaptists. To answer the Anabaptists’ rejection of infant baptism, he added to the traditional analogy of OT circumcision with NT baptism the essential unity of the Old and New Testaments.[15] Geerdardus Vos, who has been called the “father of Reformed biblical theology” by the editor of his shorter writings, wrote: “In Switzerland the Reformers had come into direct conflict with the Anabaptists. . . . In their defense of infant baptism they reached for the Old Testament and applied the federal [covenant] understanding of the sacraments to the new dispensation. Zwingli did this in 1525.”[16] This argument was picked up by Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s younger successor, John Calvin and other Continental and English Reformers as expressed below in their 16th and 17th century theological writings and confessions of faith. A major purpose of what follows is to show how it is that—both then and now—the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism is the doorway that opens up the heart of Covenant Theology’s one covenant of grace—different administrations teaching.

It is long overdue for the system of CT to be questioned, especially as it relates to the nature of the church and the law of God. Furthermore, the reader will see in what ensues that the one covenant of grace and infant baptism teaching of Covenant Theology are interdependent in supporting one another. For example, Pierre-Charles Marcel, a respected Reformed pastor of the French Reformed Church openly acknowledged that “with the rejection of the covenant of grace every possible foundation of infant baptism disappears.”[17] And Herman Bavinck, a celebrated Reformed Paedobaptist theologian, speaking historically of the Reformers’ defense of infant baptism against Anabaptism, expressly stated that “this covenant [the covenant of grace] was the sure, scriptural, objective ground upon which all the Reformed, together and without distinction, based the right to infant baptism. They had no other, deeper, or more solid ground.”[18]

The developing system of New Covenant Theology (NCT) is working to provide a better hermeneutical foundation than that undergirding the system of Covenant Theology which began to be developed in Reformed (Covenant) Theology in the mid-1520s and since 1677/1689 by the English Particular Baptists as expressed in the Second London Baptist Confession.[19] The latter continued to use the term, “the covenant of grace,” like Covenant Theology while attempting to modify it over how it is progressively and covenantally administered[20] and how it relates to the nature of the church and the ordinance of baptism for believers only. However, this ends up creating doctrinal confusion because it still permits teaching that the church existed in the OT—foundational for the system of CT—and because it generates misunderstanding regarding the administration of God’s law under the New Covenant (see Chapter 5). New Covenant Theology like CT does hold that God has always communed with man by way of a covenant relationship, but NCT holds that this relationship is not accurately explained by CT. The latter is the case with CT whether held by Reformed Paedobaptists or to a lesser extent by many among Reformed Baptists of the past and present. This is especially the situation with those who subscribe to the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/1689 and follow after the covenant of works and a Reformed Baptist modified interpretation[21] of the covenant of grace teaching of the historic WCF. Now, back to the historical development of CT and its defense of infant baptism.

Johannes Oecolampadius (1482-1531)

In 1522, the German born Oecolampadius, a contemporary and friend of Zwingli, became the principal reformer and a professor of theology in Basel, Switzerland and the pastor of St. Martin’s Church. In early 1525 he wrote a letter to Balthasar Hubmaier that he, like Zwingli initially, had not yet come across any Scriptures which had compelled him to accept infant baptism, but in a postscript also stated that “I do not see anything in Holy Scripture to prevent infant baptism.”[22]

After a private disputation with the Anabaptists in the pastoral residence of St. Martin’s in August 1525, Oecolampadius advocated infant baptism and wrote against them. By 1529 the Reformation was formally established in Basel on February 9th with the abolition of the mass, the destruction of images, and the closing of convents, but with an understanding on infant baptism that was in harmony with that being taught by Zwingli. Before Oecolampadius’s death in 1531, he wrote the first draft of the First Confession of Basel which was revised in 1532 and first published by his successor, Oswald Myconius, in 1534. The Confession was a brief statement of the Reformed faith in twelve short articles directed against the Roman Catholics and the Anabaptists. The last article, Article XII, entitled Against the Error of the Anabaptist states in part:

We publicly declare that we not only do not accept but reject as an abomination and as blasphemy the alien false doctrines which are among the damnable and wicked opinions uttered by these factious spirits, namely, that children (whom we baptize according to the custom of the apostles and the early Church and because baptism has replaced circumcision) should not be baptized.[23]

Heinrich Bullinger (1504-1575)

Bullinger was the successor to Zwingli and the main author of the first Reformed Creed of national authority, the First Helvetic Confession (1536). In Article 25, it accused the Anabaptists of introducing “alien and ungodly doctrines into the Church” and—citing Isaiah 5:20 and Acts 3:23—said “they should be punished and suppressed by the supreme power, in order that they may not poison, harm or defile the flock of God with their false doctrine.”[24] Bullinger was the sole author of the Second Helvetic Confession published in 1566. Chapter 20 of this later confession states:

We condemn the Anabaptists, who deny that newborn infants of the faithful are to be baptized. For, according to the evangelical teaching, of such is the kingdom of God, and they are written in the covenant of God. Why, then, should the sign of the covenant not be given to them? Why should those who belong to God and are in his Church not be initiated by holy baptism?[25]

Without explicitly teaching a covenant of works,[26] Bullinger developed Zwingli’s understanding of the covenantal concept making it the major way in which to interpret the Bible.[27] For Bullinger, the covenant arrangement between God and man began with Adam and the first Gospel promise ( proto-evangelium; Gen. 3:15). The promise of this covenant was confirmed as one covenant promise with Abraham. When the old sacraments of circumcision and Passover were fulfilled by Christ, it became necessary for them to be replaced “by Baptism and the Eucharist. Just as infants before Christ had been initiated into the covenant and the church of God by circumcision, so they were, after Christ, enrolled among the people of God by baptism.”[28] Thus, the sacramental sign of the covenant under the New Covenant is changed from circumcision to holy baptism[29] to be administered to all in the church, including infant children of faithful parents.

John Calvin (1509-1564)

By the time Calvin wrote the first edition of his Institutes in 1536, he was aware of the Anabaptists and their rejection of infant baptism as Zwingli had been some ten years earlier. By 1537, in Calvin’s first stay in Geneva, he had personal contact with some Anabaptists.[30] By the 1539 edition of the Institutes, Calvin addresses the agreement of God’s covenant in the OT and NT. He writes that the points of agreement can be explained in that “the covenant [of circumcision] made with all the patriarchs is so much like ours [the covenant made with us after Christ’s advent] in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation.”[31] Only the sign of the covenant, “the manner of confirmation is different—what was circumcision for them was replaced for us by baptism.”[32] “If the covenant [made with Abraham in Genesis 17:7, 10] still remains firm and steadfast, it applies no less today to the children of Christians than under the Old Testament.”[33] “It is most evident that the covenant which the Lord once made with Abraham is no less in force today for Christians than it was of old for the Jewish people.”[34] Clearly, Calvin’s defense of infant baptism against the Anabaptists is based upon the covenant promise God made with Abraham and his seed (Gen. 17:7, 10).[35] And this is integral to his theological system. Indeed, it is no understatement to say that Calvin’s teaching of one covenant in redemptive history becomes the basis for the later development of Covenant Theology’s one covenant of grace—different administrations hermeneutical system.

The Scottish Confession of Faith (1560)

This confession was composed by six men, John Knox (ca. 1513-1572) being prominent. It became the official doctrinal statement of the Church of Scotland until superseded (though not discontinued for the sake of unity) by the Westminster Confession of Faith. Distain for the Anabaptists is explicitly stated in Chapter XXIII on “To Whom Sacraments Appertain.” It states: “We hold that baptism applies as much to the children of the faithful as to those who are of age and discretion, and so we condemn the error of the Anabaptists, who deny that children should be baptized before they have faith and understanding.”[36]

The Belgic Confession (1561)

The chief author of the Belgic Confession, first written in French, was Guy de Brès. It was later translated into Dutch, German and Latin. It was revised and adopted by the Synod of Dort in 1619. Since then, the Belgic Confession and Heidelberg Catechism have been the recognized symbol of the Reformed Churches in Holland, Belgium, and of the Reformed (Dutch) Church in America. According to Schaff, the Belgic Confession, on the whole, is recognized as “the best symbolical statement of the Calvinistic system of doctrine, with the exception of the Westminster Confession.”[37] The Belgic Confession, as revised at the Synod of Dort in 1619, states in Article XXXIV on “holy baptism” that—

We detest the error of the Anabaptists, who . . . condemn the baptism of the infants of believers, who, we believe, ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant, as the children in Israel formerly were circumcised upon the same promises which are made unto our children.[38]

The Heidelberg Catechism (1563)

This catechism was largely prepared by the German Reformer, Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583); perhaps assisted by Kasper Olevianus (1536-1587). However Olevianus did write an important catechetical work on the covenant of grace (ca. 1575). Question 74 in the Heidelberg Catechism asked “Are infants also to be baptized?” The answer:

Yes; for since they, as well as their parents, belong to the covenant and people of God, and both redemption from sin and the Holy Ghost, who works faith, are through the blood of Christ promised to them no less than to their parents, they are also by Baptism, as a sign of the covenant, to be ingrafted into the Christian Church, and distinguished from the children of unbelievers, as was done in the Old Testament by Circumcision, in place of which in the New Testament Baptism is appointed.[39]

In his exposition of Question 74 to the Heidelberg Catechism, Ursinus wrote “that denial of infant baptism is no trifling error, but a grievous heresy, in direct opposition to the word of God, and the comfort of the church.”[40]

The Westminster Confession of Faith (1647)

The Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) and the Larger and Shorter Catechisms (approved by the Westminster Assembly in December 1646 with Scripture references provided early in 1647 and adopted by the English Parliament in 1649) states in Chapter XXVIII on baptism: “Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, . . . a sign and seal of the covenant of grace . . . [and, based upon Gen. 17:7 that] infants of one or both believing parents are to be baptized.” In answer to Question 166: “Unto whom is baptism to be administered?” the Larger Catechism also refers to Genesis 17:7 and states that “infants descending from parents, either both, or but one of them, professing faith in Christ, and obedience to him, are in that respect within the covenant, and to be baptized.” In answer to Question 95, “To whom is baptism to be administered?” the Shorter Catechism refers to Genesis 17:10 and states that “the infants of such as are members of the visible church are to be baptized.” Hence, the covenant promise that God made with Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 17:7, 10) is held by the WCF to be the same in substance with the New Covenant for “believers and their children” (Acts 2:39a), only the sign, is said to have changed from circumcision to baptism (Col. 2:11-12).[41]

The Directory for the Public Worship of God

This directory for public worship, prepared by the Westminster Assembly, states on the administration of the sacrament of baptism that—

the seed and posterity of the faithful, born within the church, have, by their birth, interest in the covenant, and right to the seal of it, and to the outward privileges of the church, under the gospel, no less than the children of Abraham in the time of the Old Testament; the covenant of grace, for substance, being the same; and the grace of God, and the consolation of believers, more plentiful than before; . . . That they [such covenant children] are Christians, and federally holy before baptism, and therefore are they baptized: That the inward grace and virtue of baptism is not tied to that very moment of time wherein it is administered.

Historical Summary

The above historical survey shows that the nature of the church has been greatly affected by post-apostolic and medieval church history and by Reformed Theology’s one covenant of grace teaching that the church is generically one and the same in both the OT and NT with only the sign of the Abrahamic and the New Covenant changing from circumcision to baptism. To support infant baptism CT appeals “to the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant and its genealogical principle, so that it remains unchanged across time. Unless God specifically abrogates it, it is still in force even though there is not one New Testament example of infant baptism or the command to do so.”[42]

It is also no over statement to say that the genesis of CT’s one covenant of grace theological system began with Zwingli in defense of infant baptism against the Anabaptists. Indeed, the role that infant baptism has had in the development of CT is readily admitted by Reformed theologians. To cite Geerhardus Vos again, he wrote: “In Switzerland the Reformers had come into direct conflict with the Anabaptists. . . . In their defense of infant baptism they reached for the Old Testament and applied the federal [covenant] understanding of the sacraments to the new dispensation. Zwingli did this in 1525.”[43] Hence, this argument—which is in direct conflict with the major biblical hermeneutical principle that the NT interprets the OT—was picked up by Heinrich Bullinger, Zwingli’s younger successor, John Calvin and other Continental and English Reformers as expressed in their 16th and 17th century theological writings and confessions of faith. A result of Zwingli’s “debates with the Anabaptists made the covenant the main argument for the Reformed understanding of infant baptism.”[44]

Also to cite Herman Bavinck again: “This covenant [of grace] was the solid, biblical, and objective foundation upon which all the Reformers unanimously and without exception rested the legitimacy of infant baptism. They had no other, deeper, or more solid ground.”[45] Just how important is infant baptism to Covenant Theology? Hear Herman Hoeksema, a mid-20th century Dutch Reformed theologian, who has answered this question by boldly declaring:

Infant baptism is not a matter of lesser importance, but of the greatest moment. He who does not acknowledge it or who belittles it shows thereby at the same time that he does not understand the great and basic idea of God’s Word, [namely,] that the Lord establishes His covenant with believers and their seed in the line of continued generations.[46]

John Murray, a leading CT theologian immediately after stating that “the church is generically one in both [OT and NT] dispensations,” wrote: “the basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church.”[47]

The purpose of this historical summary has been to show that there is abundant documentation for asserting that the Reformed doctrine of infant baptism is the doorway that opens up the heart of Covenant Theology’s one covenant of grace theological system.

As much as New Covenant Theology agrees with Reformed Theology on the nature of God and the sovereignty of God in creation, providence and redemption, it differs—as the following chapters will demonstrate—with how Covenant Theology explains the covenant of works with Adam and its theologically deduced one overarching covenant of grace—different administrations teaching interdependently linked with infant baptism.

How Nct Differs from Covenant

Theology on the Covenant of Grace

Introduction

Before questioning Covenant Theology’s covenant of grace, it needs to be acknowledged that New Covenant Theology (NCT) agrees with Covenant Theology (CT) that there was a post-fall covenant relationship promissorily inaugurated by God in Genesis 3. Unless a covenantal union existed in Genesis 3 no one could have been saved between Adam and Abraham as were, for example, Abel and Enoch (Heb. 11:4-5). Understanding this is doctrinally vital because there could be no salvation for man! Why? Because without a solidaric representative union, a covenantal union, existing between Christ and God’s elect, the one people of God, every individual of mankind would have fallen and stood condemned before God’s judgment bar like the fallen angels who were without a substitutionary Savior (Heb. 2:16; Jude 6). At stake then is the whole principle of substitution revealed in the parallel account of the doctrine of imputation of one man’s first sin (original sin) and One Man’s righteousness, existing in a representative head, a covenant head (Rom. 5:12-19). This understanding is acknowledged and taught by most Reformed theologians, whether Paedobaptist or Baptist,[1] and myself as one holding to NCT.

Before directly questioning the covenant of grace the reader is reminded that the theological system of CT is more inclusive than just the covenant of grace itself. As a theological system, the teaching of CT traditionally includes three overarching theological covenants. For example, they are as Michael Horton, a present day Reformed theologian, has written: “the covenant of redemption (an eternal pact between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), the covenant of creation [works] (made with humanity in Adam), and the covenant of grace (made with believers and their children in Christ).”[2]

There are several other points that need to be made before directly questioning the covenant of grace. First, the historical development of Reformed Theology’s three covenants was originally formed in reverse order from that as presented later in a more fully developed system. The first covenant developed by Reformed Theology (RT) was the covenant of grace (ca. 1525-1600), not the covenant of works as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF). Historically, the development of the covenant of grace was followed, with some overlap, by the covenant of works (ca. 1560-1650), and then by a third covenant, the covenant of redemption (ca. 1650-1700).[3] So, in this chapter, the historical order for these three covenants will be followed by questioning the covenant of grace first. The historical order is important to show not only the process of development, but also, as the previous chapter has shown, that RT was developed in the historical milieu of a state-church society (Corpus Christianum) and the medieval practice of infant baptism by the Catholic Church. Why? Because the Reformation and Reformed Theology were shaped by these factors as well as the Scripture.

The second point to be made before proceeding is that New Covenant Theology does hold to a covenantal understanding of biblical history. Indeed, it does so because God’s purpose for mankind is covenantally structured and administered progressively throughout history. But NCT differs significantly with Covenant Theology over how to explain God’s covenants by not viewing the Old Covenant (OC) and New Covenant (NC) as different administrations of one overarching covenant of grace, as CT does without exception.

Third, it is acknowledged that the word covenant is a biblical term[4] that needs definition before addressing the covenant of grace as a distinct covenant. From the beginning of RT in Switzerland and throughout the development of CT in Western Europe and the British Isles in the 16th and 17th century, a divine covenant was defined as a mutual contract or compact between God and man. With the WCF and theologians subsequent thereto, this teaching was expressed as a voluntary condescension on God’s part by way of a pre-fall covenant of works and a post-fall covenant of grace. However, more recently Reformed theologians no longer define God’s covenant with man as a mutual contract.[5] Rather they express it differently as: (1) a “sovereign administration of grace and promise,”[6] (2) a “sovereign administration of the kingdom of God,”[7] or (3) a “bond of life and death sovereignly administered.”[8]

John Murray has rightly noted that “any theology which regards the Scripture as the rule of faith is compelled to recognize the frequency with which the relationship that God established with men is set forth in covenantal terms.”[9] Clearly, therefore, the biblical nature and meaning of covenant is highly important because it involves God’s relationship with man in the accomplishment of His will on earth. There is no substantial disagreement between CT and NCT over God making a gracious covenantal promise in Genesis 3. However, the agreement is apt to stop there. It stops over how CT explains the meaning of covenant in its teaching on the covenant of grace, which is integral to its hermeneutical system, as one overarching covenant standing above all of redemptive history. This teaching is necessary to support infant baptism of covenant children, as Chapter 2 has demonstrated. But the major issue is whether the covenant of grace as taught by CT has consistent biblical warrant. The answer directly affects ecclesiology, the doctrine of the church—the church which Christ purchased with His own blood (it also directly affects understanding the covenantal administration of God’s law; see Chapter 5).

Fourth, in addition to questioning the covenant of grace—historically, the first of the three theological covenants of Covenant Theology—this chapter will also emphasize the theological significance of Jesus’ pouring out the Spirit at Pentecost (baptism in/with the Spirit) to form the church as the spiritual body of Christ. This will show that the church as the spiritual body of Christ is composed of confessing believers only under the New Covenant and, therefore, that the church, which is Christ’s spiritual body, did not exist in the OT except by promise. This is in direct contradiction with the very heart of Covenant Theology’s theological system—its one overarching covenant of grace.[10]

Fifth, the doctrinal partitions that sadly divide sovereign grace theology held by both Presbyterians and Baptists cannot be broken down for the gospel’s sake without questioning the heart of Reformed Theology’s system of Covenant Theology—its one overarching covenant of grace. Baptists have dealt with the result of CT for over 360 years by rightly rejecting its doctrine of the church being a mixed multitude and the practice of infant baptism of covenant children, but they have not adequately dealt with the cause, the heart of CT’s whole doctrinal system, namely, the one overarching nature of the covenant of grace itself. Inseparably related to the heart issue is when was it that the church was first formed as the body of Christ in biblical history? When this question is answered,[11] it will help expose the theological weakness of one overarching covenant of grace. Indeed, it could well lead not to just recasting but to replacing the entire system of Covenant Theology. So, to continue, a working definition of the covenant of grace as taught by CT is now in order.

The Covenant of Grace Defined

Reformed theologians, both past and present, have explained the covenant of grace as one overarching covenant by reverting to the OT and virtually equating it with the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 in order to justify infant baptism under its New Covenant administration. For example, a highly regarded Reformed theologian today has written: “The one covenant of grace, which begins after the fall with God’s promise of a Savior and continues through Abraham to David and finally to Christ, is administered differently in Old and New Testaments. The new covenant . . . is not different in substance from the Abrahamic covenant. . . .”[12] As such, the covenant of grace as taught by Reformed Theology may be defined as:

one in redemptive substance that covenantally overarches all of redemptive history first made and promissorily given in the protoevangelium (Gen. 3:15) with Christ as the Second Adam and in Him with all the elect as His seed (Gal. 3:16), then historically advanced more fully in the Abrahamic Covenant and differently administered thereafter under the Old and New Covenants.[13]

To show the unity of the NT with the OT, Reformed theologians say that the substance does not change in the administration of the covenant of grace under the Old and New Testaments, only the sign. The covenant sign changes from circumcision under the Abrahamic Covenant to baptism under the New Covenant. As previously cited in Chapter 2, Herman Bavinck, a respected early 20th century Dutch Reformed theologian, wrote: “This covenant [of grace] was the sure scriptural, objective foundation upon which all the Reformers, together and without distinction, based the right to infant baptism. They had no other, deeper, or more solid ground.”[14] Indeed, nearly 500 years ago, as summed up by Beirma, Zwingli’s justification for infant baptism is based upon the grounds that—

If there is, indeed, one covenant and one people of God throughout redemptive history, children of NT believers are no less a part of that covenant than were the children of the OT believers, nor are they any less entitled to the sign of that covenant. NT baptism has replaced OT circumcision, but like circumcision baptism signifies and seals covenantal promises extended to God’s people long before they themselves are able to respond to them in faith.[15]

The Heart of Covenant Theology

Admittedly, because the one covenant of grace is understood to overarch all of redemptive history, it becomes the central structure—the heart—of the theological system of Reformed Theology. Therefore, the emphasis of what follows will focus upon Reformed Theology’s teaching of the covenant of grace[16] in relationship to the doctrine of the church (ecclesiology) and the significance of Pentecost in its historical formation—both critical for understanding, questioning and answering CT. Due to the internal differences which have and continue to exist within CT, John Murray, a leading 20th century CT theologian, readily admitted that it “needs recasting”[17] due to differences over the covenants of works and redemption (see Chapter 4). Yet, one thing remains constant regardless of the differences over the definition of covenant by Reformed theologians, namely, that the covenant of grace is one in substance that overarches all of redemptive history.[18] They affirm that it had its beginning in Genesis 3:15 and that it is clearly set forth in the Abrahamic Covenant in Genesis 17 and it continues throughout both the OT and NT dispensations. This becomes the pillar to support the church’s existence in the OT. The only change for the church under the New Covenant administration of the covenant of grace is that circumcision under the Abrahamic administration has been replaced by the sacrament of baptism for believers and their covenant children. To this effect, Murray writes that “the death, resurrection and ascension of Christ and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost” affects the “new form” of the church. “Nevertheless the distinction does not warrant the denial of the existence of the church under the Old Testament, nor of the generic unity and continuity of the church in both dispensations.”[19] Hence, to emphasize again as cited in Chapter 2, “the church is generically one in both dispensations. [Therefore,] the basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church.”[20]

Without question, the covenant of grace provides Covenant Theology with the theological grid which governs how to interpret the entire Bible. This is especially so regarding the doctrine of the church, which is central for understanding CT. New Covenant Theology disagrees with this interpretation and, in order to present a more accurate way, questions two interrelated aspects of ecclesiology upon which Reformed Paedobaptist theologians are agreed. The first aspect questions the covenant of grace being one in substance in both the OT and NT dispensations. The role that infant baptism has had in the theological formulation of CT and its understanding of the nature of the church are vividly revealed in this first aspect. Closely related is the second aspect which questions the church being generically one in both testaments. An excursus at the end of this chapter will address the vital role in the unfolding of redemptive history for the gift of the Spirit poured out at Pentecost to form the church as the spiritual body of Christ. With rare exception, this is a doctrinal area that must be addressed because it has been greatly neglected by Reformed Theology and grossly distorted by Charismatic Theology.

The Covenant of Grace Being One in Substance

in Both the OT and NT Dispensations Questioned

In his magisterial work, Reformed Dogmatics, Bavinck affirms that “the doctrine of the covenant . . . is found in principle already with Zwingli, who, in his polemic with the Anabaptists, maintained the essential unity of the Old and New Testaments.”[21] As demonstrated in Chapter 2, this understanding developed in the Reformers defense of infant baptism for covenant children in response to the Anabaptists. As such, traditional Reformed Theology teaches that there is only one covenant of grace and that, historically, it was revealed as the covenant of grace in germinal form to Adam in the promise of Genesis 3:15. This means that all the other divine covenants, including the Noahic Covenant, are made with man as an outworking of one overarching covenant of grace made first with Adam in his post-fall state. The covenant of grace was then clearly revealed in the Abrahamic Covenant and administered through the Old and New Covenants. “There are not therefore two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations”[22] of the OT and NT. Hence, Reformed theologians say, only the sign of the covenant made with Abraham, “the manner of confirmation is different—what was circumcision for them [the Jewish people] was replaced for us by baptism.” “Indeed, it is most evident that the covenant which the Lord once made with Abraham (see Gen. 17:14] is no less in force today for Christians.”[23] “Infant baptism,” therefore, “is not a matter of lesser importance, but of the greatest moment.”[24] Those who do not acknowledge that “the Lord establishes His covenant with believers and their seed,” namely, that “little children of believers, as well as the adults, are comprehended in the covenant and church of God,” show that they do not understand the organic nature of Scripture that “throughout history, both in the old and in the new dispensation, God establishes His covenant in the line of continued generations.” Hence “the generations of believers, and therefore also the little children, ought to receive the sign of baptism.” So, “with this organic conception of God’s covenant people, . . . we have a Scriptural-Reformed point of view” which stands “strong over the Baptist position.”[25]

This one covenant of grace—different administrations is questioned by New Covenant Theology for the following reasons.

The Covenant of Grace is not a biblical term. It does not once occur in Scripture. This fact does not necessarily mean that it is without biblical warrant. However, NCT believes that it is without consistent biblical teaching and confusing because of the way it is explained. Some who speak of the covenant of grace use it interchangeably with the God’s eternal redemptive purpose. However, to say that the New Covenant is a most gracious covenant is one thing; but to say that the New Covenant is an administration of the one overarching covenant of grace of CT is quite another. The one covenant of grace teaching is so imbedded in Covenant Theology’s theological system that it is not easy to explain its meaning to growing Christians, especially when it is used variously by covenantal Baptists both past and present.[26]

Now, this is where NCT can hopefully help clarify some of the differences with present-day covenantal Reformed Baptists[27] wherein it is in basic agreement with the progressive revelation of God’s gracious promise as first stated in Genesis 3:15 and formally concluded under the New Covenant.[28] However, it will be necessary for the “the covenant of grace” term to be replaced by the term “covenant of promise”—or something close thereto[29]—to help explain the misunderstanding that exists between covenantal Baptist Theology and covenantal Paedobaptist Theology over the meaning of the covenant of grace term. To change terms will be difficult to do because of the long history behind the use of the covenant of grace term which in essence views the entirety of Scripture in light of the Abrahamic Covenant, but if it should be done it would help provide a more accurate way to understand the covenantal structure of the Bible. This is something that NCT definitely believes should be pursued because it removes the theologically deduced overarching nature of one covenant of grace and its twofold administration as taught by CT—including such understanding by prominent covenantal Baptists of former times[30]—and replaces it with a covenant of promise that begins in Genesis 3:15 progressively worked out covenantally thereafter in redemptive history and culminating in the New Covenant.

Regretfully, some covenant theologians are bold to assert that “God’s covenant of grace in Scripture is one of those things that is too big to be easily seen, particularly when one’s mind is programmed to look at something smaller.”[31] I trust that those holding to NCT will not be intimidated by such remarks. Indeed, God’s redemptive plan for the church is “programmed” in Scripture to be accomplished according to His immutable (Job 42:2), eternal purpose (Eph. 3:11). This should not be too big to be comprehended by the child of God. Do not the Scriptures clearly set forth God’s redemptive plan for His church, which He purchased with His own blood, whereby under the New Covenant “all shall know the Lord from the least to the greatest” (Heb. 8:11)? Surely, this is not too “big to be easily seen” by the believer indwelt by the Holy Spirit.

Again, to review, the covenant of grace concept originated in Switzerland in the 16th century to answer the Anabaptist teaching that the church was comprised of confessing believers only. The covenant of grace developed into a mature theological system in the 17th century, but not without significant internal differences regarding the meaning of a divine covenant as recently expressed by respected Reformed Paedobaptist theologians.[32] (See Chapter 4 regarding the Covenants of Works and Redemption.)

The Covenant of Grace is not one overarching redemptive covenant. As expressed explicitly in the Westminster Confession of Faith, Reformed Theology teaches that the covenant of grace is the second of two divine covenants; the first being the covenant of works which existed with Adam before the Fall (Gen. 2); the second, a covenant of grace that began after Adam’s Fall (Gen. 3) and is clearly revealed in Genesis 17 in the Abrahamic Covenant. The Old and New Covenants thereafter are covenantal administrations of this one overarching covenant of grace. This is the foundational premise of CT. But this understanding of the covenant of grace is a theological construct[33] that over-emphasizes the unity of the OT with the NT and flattens redemptive history to the point that the church is said to be generically one in both the Old and New Testament dispensations (see below on “The Church Being Generically One in Both Testaments Questioned”).

The Covenant of Grace wrongly teaches that the sign and seal of the New Covenant is water baptism. Reformed Theology holds that the sign and seal of circumcision under the Abrahamic administration of the covenant of grace only changes form, being replaced with the sign and seal of baptism under the New Covenant administration. Therefore, since infants as covenant children under the Abrahamic administration had to receive the sign and seal of circumcision so infants as covenant children of believing parents under the New Covenant administration must receive the sign and seal of baptism. Granted, there is an analogy between OT circumcision and NT baptism in identifying one as a covenant member of the Abrahamic Covenant and New Covenant respectively, but the analogy is not identical,[34] with only the covenantal sign changing in form under one overarching covenant of grace. Why? Because the NT teaches that the cup of remembrance is the sign of the New Covenant (Luke 22:19-20) and the seal is the Holy Spirit (II Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:14)—not water baptism. Hence, the sacrament of water baptism may indeed be the sign and seal of the “covenant of grace,” but it is not the sign and seal of the New Covenant.[35]

The Covenant of Grace was theologically deduced to support infant baptism. Reformed Theology is steadfast in affirming that infant baptism for covenant children is based upon its one covenant of grace—different administrations system. For instance: “The ground for baptising infants . . . is the institution which God has established and revealed, namely, that to the infant seed of believers the sign and seal of the covenant of grace is to be administered.”[36] Note Well. New Covenant Theology, however, affirms that infant baptism of covenant children is the Achilles’ heel, a fatal weakness, in the whole system of Covenant Theology. Remove the defense for infant baptism from it and the entire theological system will not only have to be recast but replaced. Why so? Just remove the theologically deduced rationale for infant baptism and see if any basis can be found for it in the New Covenant Scriptures; see if it even has one verse in the Bible that teaches infant baptism under any circumstance; see if it will withstand the teaching that under the New Covenant everyone knows the Lord, “for all shall know Me, from the least to the greatest” (Heb. 8:11). No; Hebrews 8:11 does not fit with CT’s one covenant of grace system. Neither does John 1:12-13 fit with infant baptism under any circumstance, including assuring that infants of believing parents are recipients of the covenant promise made with Abraham and his descendants. John 1:12-13 explicitly states that the “children of God” are those who believe in Christ and that they are “born not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”

Would to God that Hebrews 8:11 and John 1:12-13 would have been central in resolving the issue from the beginning of the Reformation. But, no; Reformed Paedobaptist Theology teaches that baptism is not only a sign, but also a seal of a theologically deduced covenant of grace. Indeed, it says that infant baptism is to be viewed as a means of grace as it works in “some mysterious way to increase the grace of God in the heart, if present, but may also be instrumental in augmenting faith later on, when the significance of baptism is clearly understood. This is clearly taught in both the Belgic and Westminster Confession.”[37]

New Covenant Theology agrees that the confusion which Paedobaptism creates, without clear warrant in Scripture, could be greatly enhanced—humanly speaking—if, as another has well stated, it were recognized that—

the promise of the seed made to Abraham [in Gen. 17] had a twofold reference. In the age of type and anticipation, it embraced not only those who shared Abraham’s faith but also the whole nation of Israel, which descended from his loins according to the flesh. In the age of fulfillment the promise embraces the true seed according to the Spirit, typified by the literal seed according to the flesh. This true seed of Abraham is “born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God” (John 1:13).[38]

The Covenant of Grace historically reviewed. To review, the hermeneutical underpinnings of Covenant Theology were first conceived in Switzerland by Zwingli in the 1520s. The covenant concept was presented in the second front of the Reformation in defense of infant baptism against the Swiss Brethren (Anabaptists) who believed that water baptism was for believers only. This necessarily excluded baptism of their infant children. Subsequently, CT has developed to the point where it is openly asserted that “the most distinctive feature of covenant theology in connection with the sacraments is the inference drawn from the nature of the covenant in support of paedobaptism.”[39] Indeed, as John Murray proclaimed: “the basic premise of the argument for infant baptism is that the New Testament economy is the unfolding and fulfillment of the covenant [of grace] made with Abraham and that the necessary implication is the unity and continuity of the church,” which is “generically one in both dispensations.”[40]

The Covenant of Grace is the only basis for infant baptism. It is clear that the Reformed Paedobaptist theologians’ hermeneutical argument for infant baptism resides in understanding that it is one covenant of grace that overarches all of redemptive history. Without reservation they declare: “With the rejection of the covenant of grace every possible foundation of infant baptism disappears.”[41] “This covenant was the sure, scriptural, objective ground upon which all the Reformed, together and without distinction, based the right to infant baptism. They had no other deeper or more solid ground.”[42] The interdependency of the covenant of grace and infant baptism provides the basis for CT’s postulating the identity of OT circumcision with NT baptism. Only the form of the sign of the covenantal administration of the one covenant of grace changes from circumcision to baptism.[43] Reformed Paedobaptist Theology must, therefore, insist upon this postulated identity or lose its defense of infant baptism. But if this were to happen, it would remove the theological lynchpin for its understanding of the nature of the church and, indeed, require its one covenant of grace theological system to be recast,[44] if not replaced. I say theological system because the system includes not only the covenant of grace itself, but also—with exceptions—the teaching of a covenant of works and covenant of redemption (see Chapter 4 and Appendix A). These two covenants were developed after the covenant of grace to help explain the theological system of Covenant Theology. However, it needs to be emphasized that New Covenant Theology does not abandon the covenantal understanding of biblical history. Rather it provides a more accurate way to explain it based upon the covenantal outworking of God’s eternal purpose and grace (II Tim. 1:9). Covenant Theology’s one overarching covenant of grace—no! God’s one overarching, immutable, eternal purpose—yes! They are not to be equated.

The Church Being Generically One in Both Testaments Questioned

Inseparably linked to the one overarching covenant of grace is Covenant Theology’s teaching that the church existed before it existed, that is, before Jesus said: “I will build My church” (Matt. 16:18). How is this explained by covenant theologians? John Murray, a respected paedobaptist theologian, explains it this way: “In terms of covenant union and communion the church is but the covenant people of God in all ages and among all nations.”[45] When Jesus said “I will build My church,” He “was referring to the new form which the church was to assume in consequence of his own messianic work.”[46] After acknowledging that “full” allowance must be made for Jesus’ Messianic work and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Murray continues: “Nevertheless the distinction does not warrant the denial of the existence of the church under the Old Testament, nor of the generic unity and continuity of the church in both dispensations.”[47] Indeed, it is widely proclaimed by paedobaptist covenant theologians that OT Israel was the church of God even if in embryonic form. To support this contention, reformed theologians, including Murray, refer to Acts 7:38 and Matthew 18:17 as evidence that the church existed in the OT. In Acts 7:38 the OT people of God are called “the church (ekklesia) in the wilderness.” In Matthew 18:17 Jesus tells His disciples how to correct a sinning brother who refuses corrective reproof from two or three witnesses by telling them to “tell it to the church (ekklesia).” Both of these references, however, are speaking of a church in a general sense, that is, of an assembly or congregation of people, including OT Israel.[48] But with the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost the ekklesia takes on a distinctive meaning for the first time in the unfolding of redemptive history. It was then that the church was first formed as a spiritual entity—a corporate spiritual body—following the resurrection of Christ (Col. 1:18). Not until Pentecost did the church, which is the body of Christ, exist in redemptive history and it consists only of those who know Him as Lord (Heb. 8:11).

Pentecost is not an epochal event in redemptive history for Covenant Theology. Covenant theologians may on occasion acknowledge that Pentecost was the commencement of the NT church, but to them it does not prevent the church from also existing in the OT. With notable exception,[49] Reformed theologians do not give sufficient attention to Pentecost. Their explanation does not view Pentecost as a major event in the movement and fulfillment of redemptive history—indeed, it tends to flatten it; rather it was just a greater outpouring of the Spirit than existed in OT times. However, the Pentecost event was epochal in redemptive history! It was the historic outpouring of the gift of the Spirit prophesied by Ezekiel (36:26-27) and John the Baptist (Matt. 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33) and declared about to occur by Jesus (Acts 1:5) and having occurred by Peter (Acts 11:16-17) and Paul (I Cor. 12:13).

The significance of Spirit baptism is greatly neglected by Covenant Theology. Yes, the Pentecost event has momentous ramifications for understanding the doctrine of the church. What occurred in the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost was the fulfillment of the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49) given to Christ in fulfillment of His redemptive accomplishment (Acts 1:4). But, sad to say, this doctrine of baptism with or in the Spirit (short title: Spirit Baptism) has been greatly neglected by Covenant Theology[50] and grossly distorted by Charismatic Theology.[51] New Covenant Theology holds that Spirit baptism is a vital doctrine because it entails being in spiritual union with the resurrected and exalted Christ. Before specifically addressing the significance of Spirit baptism in the following excursus, the importance of spiritual union with Christ is rightly asserted by Murray, although he does not acknowledge that it comes about by virtue of Spirit baptism. He writes:

Union with Christ is the central truth of the whole doctrine of salvation. All to which the people of God have been predestined in the eternal election of God, all that has been secured and procured for them in the once-for-all accomplishment of redemption, all of which they become the actual partakers in the application of redemption, and all that by God’s grace they will become in the state of consummated bliss is embraced within the compass of union and communion with Christ.[52]

This is a correct statement by Murray in as far as it goes. However, great confusion is injected into it when he writes elsewhere that the rite of water “baptism signifies union with Christ and membership in his body. It means this for both adults and infants. And so, in respect of efficacy, baptism is for infants precisely what it is for adults, namely, the divine testimony to their union with Christ.”[53] “This is the purpose of baptism as a sign. And what is its purpose as seal? As seal it authenticates, confirms, guarantees the reality and security of this covenant grace.”[54] “In other words, the covenant of grace and the divinely instituted method of administering it in the world are the rationale of infant baptism.”[55] What confusion! Would to God that the New Covenant ordinance of baptism be so readily understood that “he may run who reads it” (Hab. 2:2). For CT the sign and seal of the covenant of grace may be the sacrament of water baptism. But the NT is clear: the sign of the New Covenant is the cup of remembrance (Luke 22:20) and the seal is the Spirit (II Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:14).

Covenant Theology must have the church existing in the OT to support its one covenant of grace teaching and infant baptism. Aside from the interdependency of infant baptism and the covenant of grace, Covenant Theology does not accurately explain that it is the gift of the Spirit poured out at Pentecost which brings about the believer’s experiential union with Christ in “the church which is His body” (Eph. 1:22b-23). Indeed, the church did not exist in history until Christ was raised as “the firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18). According to this verse, if the church, which is Christ’s body, had existed in the OT, it would have been a headless church. Further, it is the gift of the Spirit that brings to fulfillment our Lord’s high priestly prayer in John 17:20-21, namely that the Father, the Son and believers may all be one. However, some Reformed theologians equate regeneration by the Spirit with Spirit baptism.[56] But regeneration and Spirit baptism are not identical. They could not be identical, because the OT believer, although regenerated by the Spirit, had not yet received the promised (Luke 24:49) baptism with the Spirit (Acts 1:5), for “the Spirit was not yet given” (John 7:39). Covenant Theology misses this vitally important redemptive historical fact. Why? Because Covenant Theology must have the church existing in the OT to support its one covenant of grace teaching and infant baptism of covenant children. Again, the covenant of grace and infant baptism are mutually dependent upon one another. Pentecost, therefore, is not acknowledged as the birthday of the church by most covenant theologians, whether Paedobaptist or Baptist; rather it is viewed as just a greater outpouring of the Spirit than existed before. On the other hand, New Covenant Theology holds that it is the Pentecost event that inaugurates the formation of the church in the unfolding of redemptive history. On that day the Christian church was born. It is baptism in/with the Spirit (I Cor. 12:13) that makes believers members of the corporate body of Christ; it is that which places the believer into that union with Christ: “Christ in you, the hope of glory” (Col. 1:27). Now, under the New Covenant, if one is not in Christ, there is no hope of glory. That is why Spirit baptism is a most important Christian doctrine.

An Excursion on the Significance

of Pentecost in Redemptive History

To help answer Covenant Theology regarding the significance of Spirit baptism, the reader is referred to an exception among one of Covenant Theology’s own theologians: Richard Gaffin. He rightly explains union with Christ as follows. “The baptism with the Holy Spirit at Pentecost is a unique event of epochal significance in the history of redemption.”[57] Then, with regard to the matter of union with Christ in I Corinthians 12:13, he writes that “the experience of being united to Christ (being incorporated into his body) involves an experiential share in the gift of the Spirit with which he baptized the church at Pentecost.”[58] With regard to Pentecost and the church, Gaffin declares that “Pentecost is nothing less than the establishment of the church as the new covenant people of God, as the body of Christ.”[59] Although this last statement by Gaffin might not in and of itself rule out the existence of the church in the Old Testament, the following explanation does. With reference to “the significance of Pentecost in terms of differences between the experience of new covenant and old covenant believers”[60] and what is entailed in the “something better” of Hebrews 11:40, Gaffin continues:

The New Testament indicates one clear and fundamental difference between the experience of old and new covenant believer. That is the (spiritual) union New Testament believers have with Christ, the life-giving Spirit, and so, in Christ, with each other (in the church, his body). This union, as union with the exalted Christ, was . . . not enjoyed prior to Christ’s death and resurrection.[61]

Does this not mean that if there is no union with Christ; there is no church; no body of Christ? Note that the previous citation from Murray’s book, Redemption Accomplished and Applied, and the citations from Gaffin are in harmony with New Covenant Theology. Yet, both of these two highly regarded covenant theologians remain convinced that the church consists of believers and their covenant children—a profound inconsistency! The last quote above from Gaffin could be interpreted to mean that the church, as an assembly or congregation of people, existed in the OT in a non-spiritual corporate union with an un-exalted, un-resurrected Christ. But what kind of union would that be! It would not be a spiritual union. This is precisely the point: the congregation of Israel in the OT was not the body of Christ, the church of the NT. No, the last quote from Gaffin states that the church did not exist in corporate spiritual union with the exalted Christ prior to His death and resurrection. And that spiritual union was not enjoyed prior to Pentecost. This is clearly substantiated by Scripture and is what NCT steadfastly affirms; the church as the spiritual body of Christ did not exist in the OT. New Covenant Theology also agrees with Gaffin’s statement that—

the Spirit given at Pentecost constitutes the body of Christ as a dwelling place of God in the Spirit (Eph. 2:22), as the temple of God in which the Spirit of God dwells (I Cor. 3:16). Accordingly, all who have been incorporated into that Spirit-baptized body and have a place in it share in the gift of the Spirit (I Cor. 12:13).[62]

In brief, Gaffin’s writing is an apparent anomaly within CT. Covenant Theology at large variously interprets the significance of Pentecost and baptism of believers with one Spirit into one body in I Corinthians 12:13.[63] More clarification, therefore, is needed to explain the “Spirit-baptized” body of Christ that was first formed at Pentecost. What follows systematically outlines a better understanding of Spirit baptism. It provides a biblical corrective to the doctrinal difference that remains between New Covenant Theology and traditional Covenant Theology, namely whether the church is to be understood as generically one in both the OT and NT.

The Importance of Spirit Baptism

Spirit baptism is an important Christian doctrine, first, because it is what places the individual believer into spiritual union with Christ. And to be in Christ also means that the believer is placed into the spiritual body of Christ which is a corporate entity; that is, the church (I Cor. 12:13). Second, if one does not have the Spirit of Christ dwelling in him that one does not belong to Christ (Rom. 8:9, 11). The indwelling that Paul wrote about is what Jesus taught His Apostles when He told them that the Spirit will be in them (John 14:17)—an obvious reference to Pentecost. It is also that which the Apostle John wrote concerning believers abiding together as one corporate body in Christ and knowing that He “abides in us, by the Spirit which He has given us” in I John 3:24; 4:13—again referring to the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost. Third, there is no hope of glory unless one be in Christ (Col. 1:27). No believer before Pentecost is ever said to be in Christ. But since Pentecost every believer is now in Christ (I  Cor. 12:13) including OT believers who, because of redemption accomplished under the New Covenant, are now made perfect with the “something better” of NT believers (Heb. 11:40). Fourth, it is Spirit baptism which first formed the church at Pentecost and it is the church—not the covenant of grace—which reveals the manifold wisdom of God’s eternal purpose (Eph. 3:10-11) in the progressive outworking of His plan of salvation in redemptive history. Fifth, the doctrine of Spirit baptism has been greatly neglected by Covenant Theology and grossly distorted by Charismatic Theology.[64] In sum, Spirit baptism is important because of the aforementioned reasons. The doctrine of Spirit baptism must be included in a better hermeneutic, a better method of interpretation, based upon a progressive unfolding of redemptive history approach to understanding the fulfillment of God’s eternal kingdom purpose on earth (Matt. 6:10). A hermeneutic based upon the theologically deduced one overarching covenant of grace system tends to flatten redemptive history and does not give due consideration to the newness of the New Covenant and the significant role that Spirit baptism has in Christ forming the church, which is His body (Eph. 1:23).

The Meaning of Spirit Baptism

To understand what Spirit baptism means requires acknowledgement of its fulfillment in the once-for-all accomplishment within redemptive history, the order of redemptive application in the Book of Acts, and its manifold applications throughout the New Covenant age. From the standpoint of redemption accomplished, Spirit baptism may be described as a culminating event in redemptive history. It came to pass in the fullness of time when the risen Christ formed His church. He formed it when He poured out the gift of the Holy Spirit in the Pentecost event, that all who believe in Him as the Christ (Messiah) for salvation (including OT believers) might now receive the promised Spirit through faith. As a result they are incorporated into Christ’s spiritual body, the church, so that now under the New Covenant all are one corporate body in spiritual union with the Son, whether Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male or female.[65]

From the standpoint of redemption accomplished, Spirit baptism is the result of the gift of the Holy Spirit poured out by the exalted Christ (Acts 2:1-4) upon the Apostles and about 120 brethren (Acts 1:15; 2:1) as historically accomplished at Pentecost. In addition to the Acts 2:1-4 account of the Spirit’s outpouring (see Acts 11:15-16), it was apostolically extended to three other groups potentially destructive to the unity of the church never again to be repeated as an accomplished event.[66] These three groups were the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17), the Gentiles (Acts 10:44-48; see 11:15-18) and the followers of John the Baptist (Acts 19:1-7).[67] The “extensions of Pentecost” in Acts 8, 10, and 19 are “elements in the initial, foundational spread of the gospel and so correlate with the events of Acts as parts of a unique, non-repeatable complex of events . . . that took place once for all through the foundational ministry of the apostles.”[68] Thereafter, Spirit baptism was never again repeated anymore than the “once for all time” crucifixion of Christ (Heb. 10:12). Indeed, Pentecost was the birthday of the church. True, in the OT there was an assembly (an ecclesia), but this is an analogy, a type of the church (ecclesia), the body of Christ, and is not to be identified with it as existing in the OT dispensation.[69] Not until the Spirit was poured out following Christ’s post-resurrection glorification (John 7:38-39) was the church formed as “a holy temple in the Lord,” the household of God “having been built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone” and which continues to be built “into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.” (Eph. 2:19-22).

From the standpoint of redemption applied, Spirit baptism is the result of the gift of the Holy Spirit experientially applied by the exalted Christ after Peter’s sermon (Acts 2:22-47). The experiential application that forms the body of Christ, which is the church, includes every individual believer in Christ—whether Jew or Gentile—so that one “might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14, 26-29; see Acts 2:41; I Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:11-3:12), whereby each one is made a fellow-heir with Christ in His substitutionary sufferings, death and resurrection life (John 17:21-23; Rom. 6:3-5; 8:11, 17; Col. 2:12). Thus, the incorporation of every believer—whether Jew or Gentile—into the one spiritual body of Christ is in fulfillment of the New Covenant teaching concerning Christ and the building of His church (Matt. 16:18; Acts 2:39; 9:31).

The Purpose of Spirit Baptism

The purpose of Spirit baptism in fulfillment of the promise of the Father (Luke 24:49; Acts 1:4) is: to form and build the New Covenant household of God which is the church, the body of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23; 2:19-23; Col. 1:18); to place every believer (whether Jew or Gentile) into the body of Christ (I Cor. 12:13; Gal. 3:26-29); and, to unite both Old and New Testament believers corporately into a permanent abiding, living (organic) spiritual union with the Father and the crucified, resurrected ascended and glorified Christ (John 14:16-17; 17:20-21; I John 3:24; 4:13; see John 10:16, 30; Rom. 6:3-5; Eph. 4:4-6; Col. 1:26-27; Heb. 11:39-40).

The Characteristics of Spirit Baptism

First, John 7:37-39 teaches that baptism in/with the Holy Spirit is a distinctive blessing of the New Covenant age, “for the Spirit was not yet given, because Jesus was not yet glorified” (v. 39). Just before Pentecost, Jesus tells the apostles that they “shall be baptized with the Holy Spirit not many days from now” (Acts 1:5). Then baptism with the Spirit occurred in history on the Day of Pentecost (Acts 2:1-4; 11:15-18). On that day the Christian church was born. Second, John 14:16 teaches that Spirit baptism results in a permanent blessing. Before Pentecost, Jesus said that He would pray for the apostles that the Father would give them the Holy Spirit as “another Helper, that He may be with (them) forever.” The contextual significance of Jesus’ words is that the gift of the Spirit which He would pour out upon them and the infant church at Pentecost would be permanent. It would be forever, because the Spirit will not only be with them as He was before Pentecost, but also He will be[70] in them (v. 17) forever after Pentecost. Third, the apostle Paul declares that Spirit baptism is a universal blessing for all believers. “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit” (I Cor. 12:13, ESV).

The Theological Significance of Spirit Baptism

The New Covenant Scriptures teach that baptism with the Spirit is distinctive of the New Covenant. It is the outpouring of the gift of the Spirit at Pentecost that first formed the spiritual body of Christ, which is the church. The OT assembly or congregation,[71]a general term often referring to the community of Israel, was a type of the NT church (ekklesia) but it was not the antitype, not even an embryonic antitype.[72] No, the church, as the spiritual body of Christ, did not exist in the OT. In sum, this means that Reformed Theology’s teaching that “the church is generically one in both dispensations” is without biblical warrant. It means that CT’s understanding of the covenant of grace as overarching the OC and NC is based upon theological deduction without consistent biblical foundation. “Therefore,” as James Haldane, a Particular Baptist preacher in Scotland, declared two hundred years ago, “the assertion that the church has been the same in all ages is entirely unfounded.”[73]

A Concluding Question

A concluding question for this chapter that needs answering is: “How could OT believers have been truly saved if they were not then in Christ?” The answer is that they were in Christ by covenantal promise; they were awaiting New Covenant fulfillment of that promise, which occurred at Calvary and Pentecost. Yes, the promises of God are sure to come to pass because God’s promises are irrevocable. The redemptive historical answer is that they could not have been in Christ experientially until He, as the “head of the body, the church,” had been raised as the “first-born from the dead” (Col. 1:18). Note Well: To have the people of God in the OT, OT believers, in Christ before the “first-born” member and head of the church had been raised from the dead means that an OT church would have existed in redemptive history without Christ as its head—a headless church! No; OT believers were neither in the church historically nor experientially until—together with New Covenant believers—they received what had been promised to them in the “something better” in which they were now “made perfect,” under the New Covenant (Heb. 11:39-40). That “something better”—the accomplishment of redemption at Calvary and Pentecost—is what made OT and NT saints one in Christ Jesus in order that both “might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith” (Gal. 3:14). In sum, the significance of Spirit baptism for the body of Christ—like that of the Cross—reaches backward and forward from Pentecost fulfilling and applying all the redemptive benefits of union with Christ to both Old and New Covenant believers—the one people of God chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world. Both are sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise as “God’s own possession, to the praise of His glory” (Eph. 1:13-14).

How Nct Differs from Covenant Theology

on the Covenant of Works and

Covenant of Redemption

The Covenant of Works

Introduction

Reformed Theology’s covenant of works[1] developed after and as a result of the covenant of grace. One of the first to develop the concept of a covenant of works was the German Reformer Zacharias Ursinus (1534-1583). He was a younger associate of Calvin[2] and the principle author of the Heidelberg Catechism (1563). He published in his Summa Theologiae in 1562 two covenants: the covenant of creation or nature (subsequently called by others the covenant of works) and the covenant of grace. The covenant of nature was a covenant with Adam at creation before the Fall and a covenant of grace after the Fall. By the end of the sixteenth century the covenant of works teaching was clearly enunciated by Robert Rollock, a Scottish theologian. He taught that—

“After God had created man in His image, pure and holy, and had written His law in man’s heart, He made a covenant with him in which He promised him eternal life on the condition of holy and good works which should answer to the holiness and goodness of the creation, and conform to the law of God.”[3]

During the seventeenth century the covenant of works found formal expression in the Irish Articles (1615), the Westminster Confession of Faith in England (approved with Scripture text in April 1647 and adopted in Scotland by the Scotch General Assembly in 1647 and indorsed by the Scotch Parliament in 1649), and later in Switzerland in the Helvetic Consensus Formula (1675). The Westminster Confession states: “The first covenant made with man was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.”[4] It has become traditional for Reformed theologians to say that before the Fall, Adam would have earned eternal life if he had met the test of obedience, but, because of the Fall, “earning eternal life was forever taken out of his hands.”[5] It then pleased the Lord to make a second covenant, “commonly called the Covenant of Grace,”[6] in which eternal life is made possible only through the mediatorship of Christ.

Problems with the Covenant of Works

At the current stage of developing New Covenant Theology (NCT) toward a mature theological system, some within NCT deny that a covenant existed between God and Adam because the word covenant does not occur until Genesis 6:18. However, this is too simplistic for such a position does not take into account the characteristics of a divine covenant present in the original creation and more fully revealed and explicitly taught in the movement, the organic nature, of redemptive history. Therefore, it is essential for NCT to acknowledge and biblically establish that there was a covenantal relationship between God and Adam both before and after the Fall and demonstrate that it is not rightly explained by the covenant of works and covenant of grace as traditionally taught by most Reformed covenant theologians. For, as Chapters 2 and 3 have shown, the system of Covenant Theology (CT) was expressly designed to support the existence of the covenant of grace and infant baptism of covenant children—teachings based upon theological deductions that greatly affect the nature of the church. For the present, it needs to be pointed out that there are objections to the traditional teaching of Reformed Theology’s covenant of works even by some within that system, such as, John Murray and Herman Hoeksema (see below). The following addresses three interrelated problem areas with the covenant of works and why NCT has biblical justification for holding to a pre-fall covenantal relationship of Adam with mankind while disagreeing with the teaching of a covenant of works as traditionally explained by Reformed theologians.

The problem of terminology. The first problem area concerns terminology. The legal connotation with the term “works” has caused untold confusion, even among reformed theologians themselves.[7] That is why John Murray believed that the Westminster documents moved away from the legal to the gracious character of a divine covenant by construing the covenant as “a voluntary condescension” and a “special act of providence.” Hence, he believed that “the designation ‘covenant of life’ in both [of the Westminster] Catechisms is much more in accord with the grace which conditions the administration than is the term ‘covenant of works.”[8] But, the Westminster “solution” only transformed the difficulty from one of “legality” of “human works” to one of the “conditionality” of “human merit.” New Covenant Theology contends that much confusion would have been avoided if the term “covenant of works” had never entered into the theological vocabulary of Reformed Theology (RT). Why? Because the term “works” on the part of fallen mankind runs counter to salvation by grace alone (Eph. 2:8-9). I believe referring to the covenant relationship generically as a pre-fall covenant would avoid the negative connotation of the term “works.”[9] It would at least soften the terminology problem. In and of itself, however, this would not remove the problem. But it would permit moving beyond the terminology problem to address the vastly more important issues of how God administered His will with Adam in the Garden of Eden, both before and after the Fall, and how it is that Adam is the covenantal and representative head of all mankind.

The problem of a probationary period. The second area that NCT rejects is the teaching of a probationary period for Adam in which he could have earned eternal life if he would have obeyed God for an unspecified period of time. Why reject this teaching? Because there is no probationary period taught in Scripture. Such teaching is a theological deduction developed since the days of the Westminster Confession offered to help explain Covenant Theology’s rationale for its understanding of a divine covenant with Adam.[10] The Lord God commanded Adam that he should not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, “for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” (Gen. 2:17). Perpetual obedience was the requirement for Adam to continue walking and communing with the Lord God, his creator. Nothing is said about a temporal probationary period; that was not God’s plan (Pet. 1:19-20). We know through later scriptural revelation that with infinite wisdom God planned the fall of mankind in Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; I Cor. 15:22, 45) in order that He might be glorified in His redemptive plan for those whom He chose in Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. 1:3-14). Indeed, God’s purpose of eternal blessedness for man is not and must not be based upon any hypothetical condition from finite man, whether by Adam before the Fall or by wrong theological deductions of anyone since, including Reformed theologians. God is not a hypothetical God! He “works all things according after the counsel of His will” (Eph. 1:11-12). And what God has purposed He will do (Isa. 46-10-11; cf. Job 23:13)!

The problem of eternality. Embedded in the heart of the covenant of works is the third problem area, the meaning of the promise of life. Does the implied promise of Genesis 2:17 in God’s commandment teach that if Adam had obeyed, he would have—even relatively speaking—“merited” eternal life in the full sense of heavenly bliss as explained by Covenant Theology’s teaching of a covenant of works? Or does Genesis 2:17 mean for Adam that if he continued obedient, he would continue in his present state of earthly bliss? NCT rejects the former and affirms the latter.

It has been traditional within the teachings of RT—not so much in its confessions—to say that before the fall Adam was in a state of temporal probation and that if he had met the test—that is, kept the “covenant of works”—he would have merited eternal life in the full sense of heavenly bliss.

New Covenant Theology does not hold that earning eternal life before the fall was ever possible in the hands of finite Adam. Others have also rejected the teaching that Adam could have earned—whether merited or received—eternal life if he would have obeyed God in Eden even for a probationary period. For example, Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965), a paedobaptist pastor and theologian of the Protestant Reformed Church in America, adamantly renounced in his writings that the promise of life to Adam was that of eternal life,[11] saying:

Of this we read absolutely nothing in God’s Word. . . . We are indeed of the conviction that here is one of the most fundamental principles of a Scriptural and Reformed presentation, and because a thoroughly unscriptural and un-Reformed view [of the covenant of works] has already for a long time found acceptance among our people.[12]

Elsewhere he wrote—

that the relation between God and Adam in the state of righteousness was a covenant relation we readily admit. But that this covenant should be an established agreement between Adam and his Creator . . . whereby Adam might work himself up to the highest state of eternal life and heavenly glory that is now attained by the believers in Christ, we deny. First of all, there is the chief objection that this doctrine finds no support in Scripture.[13]

Yes, it would have been glorious for Adam if he would have remained obedient and continued to enjoy a perfect state of perpetual earthly life and bliss; but, it is infinitely more glorious—both for those who are redeemed through the obedience and precious blood of Christ and for the glory of God—that the first Adam should fall and that the second Man and last Adam should not. What comparison can there be between finiteness and infinity? What are all the temporal, material blessings in earthly life compared with the never ending eternal, spiritual blessings in the heavenly life to come? As for Adam, an eternal earthly bliss—hypothetically, perhaps; eternal heavenly bliss—definitely, no! No, dear reader, heaven had to come down! No mere man, not even finitely holy and finitely perfect Adam, before his “original sin,” could ever attain or merit transference from the creaturely realm to the heavenly domain of the Creator. This is a work reserved for the God-man, Jesus Christ, the only mediator between God and man. It is indeed a serious error to build a theology of works, even in the pre-fall state of sinless bliss for Adam and the possibility of his meriting eternal life.

New Covenant Theology’s Understanding

of a Pre-Fall Covenant with Adam

New Covenant Theology differs with the traditional covenant of works explanation of CT whether held by most Reformed Paedobaptists, even by many Particular Baptists who adopted the Second London Baptist Confession[14] then and today.[15] Yes, NCT does see a pre-fall covenant relationship existing with Adam, but it is not that as expressed in the covenant of works teaching of the majority of Reformed theologians.

There are several reasons for NCT to hold to a pre-fall covenant relationship between God and Adam in agreement with CT. It has also been called a covenant of nature, covenant of life, Adamic covenant, covenant of obedience, and a covenant of creation. I also call it a covenant of creation or covenant of obedience understood to be in seed form before the Fall during the time of creation in Genesis 1 and 2. However, due to the different explanations of the covenant of creation by Reformed theologians, I prefer using the generic term “pre-fall” covenant of obedience (also “post-fall” covenant of promise for that which occurred in Gen. 3:15-19; see the chart and its explanation in Chapter 6). A developed understanding of a divine covenant, the essence of which lies in God’s promise,[16] is progressively revealed in the unfolding of redemptive history starting with Noah. Hence, in Genesis Chapters 1-3 the essence of a divine covenant with man is present, founded upon God’s promise that includes the elements of sovereign administration, law and commandment, and grace, as well as promise. In 1981, I delivered an unpublished theological treatise at a doctrinal conference[17] where I set forth biblical warrant for a divine covenant both before and after the Fall. In agreement with different elements from definitions of leading contemporary Reformed scholars, I defined a divine covenant broadly as:

God’s sovereign administration in history of a way of life over His created order by which grace and promise and law and commandment are progressively manifested in various solemnly bonded relationships to bring to pass His eternal kingdom purpose on earth.

As pointed out at the beginning of Chapter 3, recent Reformed theologians no longer define God’s covenant with man as a mutual contract. Rather they express it differently as a “sovereign administration of grace and promise” (John Murray), a “sovereign administration of the kingdom of God” (Meredith Kline) and a “bond of life and death sovereignly administered” (O. Palmer Robertson). I believe that each of these differing expressions have biblical warrant when referring to a divine covenant which includes revealing the sovereign administration of God’s will upon His created order within history and time. The conditional elements of law and commandment are dominant in Genesis 2 and the Mosaic Covenant; the unconditional elements of grace and promise are dominant in Genesis 3 and the Noahic, Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants. However, the above definition of a divine covenant is broad enough, where biblically supported, to encompass both conditional and unconditional elements.[18] Therefore, the covenantal structure of the Bible can be held without imbibing and accepting the explanation of a pre-fall covenant of works with Adam as held by most covenant theologians and their teaching of a theologically deduced post-fall, one overarching covenant of grace.[19]

The theological basis for a pre-fall covenant. If a pre-fall covenant had not existed between Adam and mankind, there would not have been a just basis for Adam’s one sin being put to the account of all mankind. To reject solidaric union[20] with mankind and a covenant head removes the ground for the first Adam being the representative head of all humankind and it removes the ground for the second and last Adam being the representative head of all redeemed mankind. The denial of a pre-fall covenantal union existing between the first Adam and his posterity ultimately results in little more than the biological relationship which exists between parents and their children. Denial does not explain biblically why only the guilt and penalty of the first sin of Adam (original sin) was put to the account (imputed) to all mankind. For Adam to have been a representative head—a mere public head—of mankind without a covenantal relationship is no answer and—whether unknowingly or unintentionally—violates the very character of God. Why? Because denying a covenantal union relationship sooner or later results in God arbitrarily out of sovereign might constituting Adam’s first sin to be the sole occasion for every person to sin at the first exercise of moral agency; hence, all sin has to be actual and the imputation of alien guilt or righteousness from another (i.e., in the first and last Adam) is denied. But when such imputation is denied there is no just basis[21] for a wise and holy God to purpose the whole plan of redemption which includes; yes, even purposing that in solidaric union with the first Adam all mankind would fall and that in union with the last Adam all of redeemed mankind, the elect, would be saved; all to the praise of His eternal purpose and grace. God’s plan of redemption is infinitely holy, wise and just from the beginning to the end!

A serious example of the denial of imputed sin from Adam and righteousness from Christ is what occurred in New England Theology in the last half of the 18th and early 19th century in the writings of Samuel Hopkins (d. 1803) and Nathaniel Emmons (d. 1840).[22] The doctrinally damaging result of their teaching remains ever present in free will theology of Arminianism. Note Well. Understanding that there was a pre-fall divine covenant (as well as a post-fall divine covenant) is vital for establishing sound doctrine in the hearts and minds of pastors and teachers to herald more accurately the gospel of Christ as a substitutionary Savior and Lord to a sin-wrecked world. It is imperative for those brethren who presently do not hold to a pre-fall covenant to come to grips with the doctrinal necessity for its existence and to come to understand that it is absolutely necessary for God’s infinitely holy and perfect plan of redemption.[23] And it is necessary for those brethren holding to Covenant Theology to clarify biblically their doctrinal explanation of the covenant of works that only the last Adam could and did merit eternal salvation for His people. The first Adam could not do it; neither for himself nor for his progeny. Heaven had to come down!

The major scriptural passage for a pre-fall covenant. The most important reason for a covenantal arrangement to exist with Adam is due to the type/antitype analogy of Romans 5:12-19. On this, NCT agrees with CT; the difference arises over explaining the meaning of that covenantal arrangement. The doctrinal truth of the parallel analogy between Adam and Christ in the Romans passage is unique and vital.[24] It is vital because the principle of representative headship by covenantal union is set forth there. As Adam was the sole representative and covenant head of fallen humanity, so Christ is the sole representative and covenant head of redeemed humanity. Without the representative principle including a covenantal union relationship taught in this passage (also see I Cor. 15:22, 45), every human being would have come into the world and would have stood or fallen based on each of his or her personal obedience or disobedience to God. There would have been no special covenantal representation, either with Adam or Christ—the principle is the same—so purposed by the omniscient “Lord God” who “made heaven and earth” (Gen. 2:4). No imputation of the guilt and penalty of Adam’s first sin to all mankind (Rom. 5:12-13); no imputation of the believer’s sin to Christ (II Cor. 5:21); no imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the believer (Rom. 5:19). God forbid! Without a covenantal union relationship in existence, there would be no imputation of Christ’s righteousness; there would be no vicarious atonement for sin, no substitutionary Savior, indeed no salvation! Likewise, without a covenantal union relationship having been in existence in Eden, there would have been no just way[25] for God to impute the one sin of Adam to mankind; there could have been no infinitely perfect way to glorify God—any other way would and could not be infinitely perfect. But what took place is what God purposed from all eternity to most glorify Himself or it would not have taken place. Therefore, both imputations and both covenantal unions had to exist to justify and perfectly glorify God’s holiness. And that is why God planned it this way. Indeed, the theological uniqueness of the typological analogy between Adam and Christ is declared by the Apostle Paul, as Murray has said: “There is none before Adam—he is the first man. There is none between—Christ is the second man. There is none after Christ—he is the last Adam (I Cor. 15:44-49).”[26]

Yes, to emphasize again, the first Adam and the last Adam are wholly unique in their representative roles. Although there are other representative heads in Scripture. There are no other representative heads like that with the first and last Adam where imputation of sin and righteousness occurs. Noah was not, Abraham was not, Moses was not, and David was not. What makes the representative headship of the two Adams unique? What kind of unique arrangement was involved? It was a headship based upon covenantal union; otherwise the parallel in Romans 5 breaks down. Put another way: Christ could not have been a representative head of the redeemed race without being the One with whom a covenant was made. But a covenant was made, which Jesus calls the new covenant (Luke 22:20) and He is its head. Without a covenantal union; no imputation; no representative headship. Therefore, Adam could not have been the representative head of the human race without also being the one with whom a covenant was made; call it what you will. I believe calling it generically a pre-fall covenant—a pre-fall covenant of obedience or a creation covenant rightly explained—is quite in harmony with the Apostle Paul when he declared: “For just as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19).

The organic character of biblical revelation supports a pre-fall covenant. Does the organic character of biblical revelation support a covenant relation, although it be only in seed form between God and Adam? The answer is yes. Why? Because God’s self-revelation of Himself through the inspired Scripture is a progressive, organic process. The books of the Bible are not separate and distinct, but an organic whole. The Bible is not just a collection of individual writings, inspired but unrelated. Likewise, God’s purpose in redemption is progressively revealed in the Bible. The progressive covenantal nature of redemption is recognized; so is that of biblical revelation. Thus, a task for Biblical Theology is to demonstrate that there was a covenantal relationship existing between God and Adam before the Fall.

Biblical Theology recognizes that the advance in God’s written revelation is an organic process out of which “the perfect germ the perfect plant and flower and fruit are successively produced.”[27] Failure to see the organic process or the progressive character of biblical revelation which had its beginning in the creation account may prompt one to say: “Since the word ‘covenant’ does not occur in Genesis 1-3, there was no covenant relationship between God and Adam.” Or, because one may reject the idea of a covenant of works as the explanation of a covenant relationship, he may deny that God made a covenant with Adam.[28] But this is to look at the Scripture with myopic vision or with “blinkers” (as one respected theologian has called it).[29]To those that deny that such a covenant relationship existed, it should be asked whether they deny the “proto-evangel” as taught in Genesis 3:15.In other words, “Is Genesis 3:15 really covenantal in form, even though the word ‘covenant’ (berith) does not occur until Genesis 6:18”? The inevitable result is that few will deny that the covenant idea is inherent in Genesis 3:15 because Galatians 3:16 demands it.

Biblical parallelism as a basis for a pre-fall covenant. Biblical parallelism beautifully teaches theological truth. To illustrate, Arthur Pink, although using the terminology of the covenant of works and the covenant of grace elsewhere in his writings, recognizes “some striking points” that teach a covenantal arrangement between Adam and Christ. They are:

1. Adam, the one with whom the covenant was made, entered this world in a manner that none other ever did. Without being begotten by a human father; so with [the incarnate] Christ [by the virgin birth].

2. None but Adam of the human family entered this world with a pure constitution and holy nature; so was it with Christ.

3. His [Adam’s] wife was taken out of him, so that he could say, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh” (Gen. 2:23); of Christ’s bride it is declared, “We are members of His body, of His flesh, and of His bones” (Eph. 5:30).

4. Adam voluntarily took his place alongside of his fallen wife. He was not deceived (I Tim. 2:14), but had such a love for Eve that he could not see her perish alone; just so Christ voluntarily took on Himself the sins of His people (cf. Eph. 5:25).

5. In consequence of this, Adam fell beneath the curse of God; in like manner Christ bore the curse of God (cf. Gal. 3:13).

6. The father of the human family was their federal [covenant] head; so is Christ, the “last Adam,” the federal [covenant] head of His people.

7. What Adam did is imputed to the account of all those whom he represented; the same is true of Christ. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19).[30]

Other reasons for a pre-fall covenant. Other reasons for holding to a pre-fall covenant with Adam have varying weight for biblical argument. But taken as a whole they lend strong and convincing support for a pre-fall, creation covenant in Genesis 2:15-17. Without precedence they are as follows.

First, the several facets of the original creation are redemptively reenacted in the new creation under the New Covenant. For instance: (1) the parallel between Genesis 1 and John 1; (2) the creation rest of the original creation in Genesis 2 culminating in the redemptive rest in Christ of the new creation in Hebrews 4; and (3) the Spirit’s presence in: (a) hovering over the surface of the waters in Genesis 1 regarding a “creation covenant;” (b) passing between the divided sacrifice in Genesis 15 regarding the Abrahamic covenant; (c) engulfing Mount Sinai in smoke and fire in Exodus 19 regarding the Mosaic covenant; and (d) pouring out of the Spirit at Pentecost in Acts 2 regarding the New Covenant fulfillment of OT prophecy (Ezek. 36:26-27; Joel 2:28-32).

Second, the compound name “LORD God” (Yahweh Elohim) in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 would seem to support the covenantal nature of God’s relationship with Adam. It is widely accepted that Elohim emphasizes God as Creator in the opening chapters of Genesis and that the name Yahweh emphasizes the personal and covenantal nature of God later with Israel. Whether the covenantal nature of Yahweh is inherent as early as Genesis 2 and 3 may be questioned,[31] but it must be remembered that Moses was the human author of Genesis and that he was well aware of Yahweh as Israel’s covenant God (Exod. 3:14). Moses writes of the LORD God (Yahweh Elohim) twenty times in Genesis chapters 2 and 3. The first occurrence of LORD (Yahweh) occurs in Genesis 2:4 and thereafter ten more times in chapter 2, including verse 16 where the LORD God commands Adam. Yahweh then occurs nine more times in Genesis chapter 3, some both before and after the promise of verse 15. So, although the word for covenant (berith) does not occur until Genesis 6:18, it does not prevent the covenantal concept to underlie the use of the term Yahweh Elohim in Genesis chapters 2 and 3 at this earliest stage of recorded redemptive history.

Third, when the OT describes the ratification of the various biblical covenants it primarily uses one of two Hebrew constructions to make or cut (karat) a covenant (berith) or to establish (hakeem). The first construction “to make or cut” appears when a particular covenant is being ratified for the first time. For example, with regard to the Abrahamic Covenant (Gen. 15:18), the Mosaic Covenant (Exod. 34:27), the Davidic Covenant (Ps. 89:3), and the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31, 33). However, the second construction “to establish” is generally[32] used when a previous covenant is amended, reconfirmed, or reestablished. For instance, when the Lord amends the already-standing Abrahamic Covenant by making physical circumcision its covenantal sign, He uses hakeem, to establish (Gen. 17:7). This distinction is essential for understanding the nature of the Noahic Covenant. When God ratifies His covenant with Noah, He declares, “I will establish My covenant with you” (see, Gen. 6:18; 9:9, 11). The usage of this construction in Genesis 6 & 9 implies that God’s covenant with Noah is a confirmation, an establishment, of a covenant made previously. This lends support for saying that the Noahic Covenant is an establishment of the pre-fall covenant which God made with Adam in Genesis 2.[33] Peter Gentry asserts that “the absence of the word for ‘covenant’ (berith) in Genesis 1-3, then, is no argument at all against the notion that a divine-human covenant is established at creation, if exegesis can demonstrate that the idea is there.”[34] Viewing Genesis 1:26-27 in the context of Genesis 2:8-17, Gentry observes:

Genesis 2:4 begins an explanation and exposition of Genesis 1:26-28 in which the creation of man as a species is related and loyal rule over the world is conferred upon man. Chapter 2, in effect, tells how this royal rule which is given to humankind within the covenant structure is to operate.[35]

These observations are strengthened by the parallels between Adam and Noah, for example, both were given similar mandates to multiply and fill the earth (Gen. 1:28; 9:1-3). There are other parallels that are not necessary to name here to enhance this point on behalf of a pre-fall covenant.

Fourth, I do not find in Scripture where God ever communes with man outside of a covenantal arrangement;[36] so it was with Noah, Abraham, Moses, David, and so it is with Christ under the New Covenant. Does this not lend support to Adam’s being in a covenant relationship with God when he walked and communed with Him in the Garden of Eden? If there was no covenant with Adam before the Fall, what was it that caused Adam’s first sin to be imputed to all mankind (Rom. 5:12)? If by Divine fiat arbitrarily imposed upon every individual of mankind, would that not impugn the justice of a holy God?

Fifth, all temples in the Bible are connected to biblical covenants. For instance, the Tabernacle is connected to the Old Covenant. The Temple in Jerusalem is connected to both the Old and Davidic Covenants. The Lord Jesus Christ (John 2:20-21; Col. 2:9, who is the Ultimate Temple of God, His Church (Eph. 2:19-22), and the individual believer (I Cor. 6:19) are all temples which are connected to the New Covenant. The similarities between the Tabernacle, Temple, and the Garden of Eden indicate that the garden was a “non-architectural temple” where God uniquely manifested His presence.[37] As a temple of God, the Garden of Eden, therefore, must also be connected to a biblical covenant. It logically follows that the Lord did make a pre-fall covenant with Adam. Further, all priests of the one true God, with the sole explicit exception of Melchizedek (Gen. 14:18-20), are connected to biblical covenants. The two verbs in Genesis 2:15 which describe Adam’s responsibility in paradise “to cultivate (work) it and to keep (guard) it” are respectively used to describe the duties of the Levites (Num. 3:7-8; 4:23-24, 26) to serve God and “to guard the tabernacle.”[38] In other words, Adam fulfilled a priestly role in Eden,[39] further evincing that God forged a pre-fall covenant with him.

Sixth, there is the text in Hosea 6:7. A great deal of controversy surrounds the meaning of the prefixed Hebrew word translated “like Adam” (kĕ’ādām) in the sentence, “but they like Adam have transgressed the covenant: there have they dealt treacherously against me” (ASV, 1901). Typically, “like Adam” has been translated four ways: at Adam, like men, like man/mankind, and like Adam. Before briefly assessing these four ways of understanding kĕ’ādām, observe that the word order supports translating “but they, like Adam” (two words in Hebrew), which places emphasis on the comparison between they (i.e., Israel’s transgression) and the willful transgression of Adam, the first man created.[40] Also observe that the context of chapters 5 and 6 shows that God’s indictment against “they” in 6:7 is referring to both nations, Israel and Judah. Now, first, an assessment of “at Adam” is in order. The adverb there in verse 7 leads some to believe that Adam refers to a place, not a person; hence, “at Adam.” Scripture does speak of a town by the name of Adam in Joshua 3:16. However at Adam is a poor translation of kĕ’ādām. Why? Because the prefixed preposition kĕ is not understood as indicating a comparison, which the context is teaching, and because there is no recorded transgression of a covenant at that particular location. Some textual critics even attempt to emend the text by changing the prefixed preposition “kĕ” to “bĕ” meaning “at Adam” (bĕ’ādām). This they believe goes better with “there” in the next clause understood to refer to a place rather than to a person. But there is no textual support for this novel attempt![41] Second and third are the assessments of “like men” and “like man/mankind.” These translations are not viable because Hosea 6:7 cannot be understood as comparing the whole house of Israel, a covenanted people bound to God through the Mosaic Covenant, to men or mankind generically, that is to Gentiles who are not in covenant with God; not unless referring back to a pre-fall covenant with Adam, and, hence, to understand kĕ’ādām (like Adam). Therefore, the fourth assessment has the best support for translating kĕ’ādām “like Adam” or “as Adam[42] (which has the same meaning).

In summary, regardless of attempts to teach otherwise, it is concluded, therefore, that Hosea 6:7 may rightly be viewed as an explicit reference that is comparing Israel’s transgression of the Mosaic Covenant to Adam’s transgression of a pre-fall covenant in the Garden of Eden.

The above support for a pre-fall divine covenant will no doubt be contested in part by those who deny it to be so, especially as it is traditionally explained by Reformed Theology as a “covenant of works.” But I do not anticipate that their argument for denying a pre-fall covenant will be convincing based almost entirely upon the word for covenant (berith) not occurring in Scripture until Genesis 6:18 and thereby ignoring or dismissing the above reasons for a pre-fall covenant. However, their argument will be un-convincing if for no other reason than the teaching of Romans 5:12-19, which demands a pre-fall covenant and representative covenant headship. Indeed, there was a unique solidaric/corporate union that only existed with man in the First and Last Adam and that union is best described as a federal, a covenantal union, biblically taught in the NT, but not as a realistic union[43] of all mankind with Adam as some attempt to explain as the only other orthodox answer to the age-old problem in the doctrine of original sin of alien guilt.

Summary. What I hope the preceding may do is help break down the doctrinal walls of partition that exists between Covenant Theology and Baptist Theology.[44] Was there a divine covenant with Adam before the Fall? Yes, there was. Is it to be explained as traditional Covenant Theology has done? No, it is not. Is it to be explained as contemporary covenant theologians explain it? No, it is not; they too differ over how to explain the “covenant of works.” Then, how can a covenantal arrangement be biblically established without taking upon it all encumbrances of Covenant Theology including the terminology used and its overstress upon the organic nature of biblical revelation?[45] I believe that it can be if it be rooted in a biblical theology of God’s eternal kingdom purpose coming to pass on earth (Matt. 6:10). This is what I and others in New Covenant Theology are working to accomplish for the sake of doctrinal unity in proclaiming the gospel of Christ. May it come to pass.

The Covenant of Redemption

The Covenant of Redemption is the last of the three theological covenants developed within Reformed Theology. Although a few have claimed that the essence of each of the three covenants existed in the writings of the early Reformers—especially with Calvin,[46] the systematic structure of each covenant certainly did not take shape until later. Historically speaking, it was the covenant of grace that took root first in the second quarter of the sixteenth century, followed by the covenant of works (ca. 1560-1650) and thereafter in 1650-1700 by the covenant of redemption, a term that does not occur in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647).[47]

A vigorous dispute arose among Reformed theologians in the seventeenth century over the problem of conditionality in the covenant of grace. The result was the development of a pre-temporal (a-historical) covenant called the covenant of redemption. Although this covenant is not agreed to by some covenant theologians,[48] since the late seventeenth century most have held that the covenant of redemption is to be understood as an intra-Trinitarian covenant made in eternity past. It is unconditional allowing no conditions to be met by man. Its execution is certain to be worked out as God’s gracious condescending act in history in the covenant of grace. Once the covenant of grace was interpreted in terms of a temporal outworking of the unconditional eternal covenant of redemption, it became obvious that the dispute over the conditionality of the free offer of the gospel in the covenant of grace should no longer be made.[49] The covenant of redemption gave further theological impetus to the nature of Covenant Theology’s one covenant of grace teaching of the perpetuity of that single redemptive covenant which overarches both the OT and NT. In so doing it allegedly enhanced the rationalefor Covenant Theology’s doctrine of the church as existing in the OT and the practice of circumcision being replaced under the New Covenant with infant baptism for covenant children.

New Covenant Theology Objections

to the Covenant of Redemption

The primary objection that NCT has with the covenant of redemption is that it is a theologically deduced covenant made necessary (1) to answer problems arising from the teaching of the covenant of grace and covenant of works; and, (2) to bring theological coherence to its hermeneutical system. New Covenant Theology agrees that the word covenant is used in Scripture to express a condescending relationship which God sovereignly administers with man in history. As previously mentioned,[50] sovereign administration are common words used in the definitions of a divine covenant by three modern-day representatives of Reformed Theology: John Murray, Meredith Kline and Palmer Robertson. All three agree on that characteristic when referring to God’s covenants with man in history. But Murray and Robertson do not hold to a pre-temporal covenant of redemption. The characteristics of a divine covenant with man in history do not apply to a pre-creation intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption in eternity past. To say that there is a sovereign administration of one member over another within the eternal Godhead violates the unity of the Trinity and confuses the covenantal execution of God’s purpose in time with the eternal purpose itself. New Covenant Theology agrees with Robertson where he states:

Affirming the role of redemption to the eternal counsels of God is not the same as proposing the existence of a pre-creation covenant between Father and Son. A sense of artificiality flavors the effort to structure in covenantal terms the mysteries of God’s eternal counsels. Scripture simply does not say much on the pre-creation shape of the decrees of God. To speak concretely of an intertrinitarian “covenant” with terms and conditions between Father and Son mutually endorsed before the foundation of the world is to extend the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety.[51]

Indeed, the term covenant is never used in Scripture to refer to an intra-Trinitarian, pre-creation covenant within the Godhead. To say that it does, makes a divine covenant interchangeable with God’s eternal purpose, will, counsel, or predetermined plan. But this interchangeability is never taught in the Bible. Yes, covenant and God’s eternal purpose are related but they are not interchangeable. The reader can discern that God’s eternal purpose and the covenantal execution of His purpose in time and history are not the same thing, “for God executes nothing in time which he had not ordained from eternity, and appointed all the means and circumstances whereby it should be brought about.”[52] And this includes God’s covenants planned to occur in history as a means to execute His eternal purpose. This can be readily discerned using an English Concordance to see where “covenant” occurs (berith in Hebrew OT and diathēkē in the Greek translation of the OT and in the NT). The context of those passages will show that covenant is never used interchangeably with God’s eternal purpose (prothesis) for salvation (e.g., Eph. 3:11; II Tim. 1:9). Neither is covenant used interchangeably with God’s counsel or plan (boulē), predetermined (horizō) plan (boulē), or predestination (proorizō). See explicit OT and NT examples in Job 42:3; Psalm 33:11; Isaiah 46:10; Acts 2:23; 4:28 and Ephesians 1:11. Covenant Theology is mistaken; there is no pre-creation covenant of redemption. Rather, God’s eternal purpose is worked out in redemptive history through covenantal administrations of His eternal will (Matt. 6:10).

In brief, NCT teaches that there is neither explicit biblical evidence nor biblical support to substantiate Reformed Theology’s covenant of redemption: a plan of redemption, yes! a covenant of redemption, no! Who has been Jehovah’s counselor (Isa. 40:13-14; Rom. 11:34)? No, no one! The Triune God needs no counselor!

Conclusion

New Covenant Theology has a theology of the covenants because covenants are biblical and because God’s covenants with man reveal how He governs creation and man in history, beginning with the creation account in Genesis 1 and 2. New Covenant Theology holds that God’s will, “will be done on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10) and that His eternal kingdom purpose is the central theme of the Bible as He administers His will covenantally in time (see the chart at the end of Chapter 6). However, NCT dissents with Reformed Theology’s teaching of the one covenant of grace theological system in explaining redemptive history. It has disagreements with: (1) all three covenantal teachings of CT, believing that—as explained and taught—they are partially based upon theological deduction without biblical warrant; (2) equating the historical outworking of God’s eternal purpose with a pre-temporal eternal covenant; and (3) interpreting the NT by the OT in its must defense of infant baptism of covenant children[53] (see Chapter 2).

Although differing from the theological system of RT, NCT does hold that there is: (1) one covenant of promise, but not explained as one covenant of grace that overarches both the OT and NT; (2) a pre-fall covenant with Adam, but not explained as a covenant of works with a temporal probationary period, which if kept by the first Adam would have resulted in earning eternal heavenly life for Him and all mankind; and, (3) an eternal redemptive purpose, but not a pre-temporal intra-Trinitarian covenant of redemption, because God’s covenants all occur in history according to and in execution of His eternal purpose (counsel, plan, will). In sum, the three theological covenants of RT shape its hermeneutic for interpreting the entire Bible. But they distort the regenerate nature of the church as a corporate spiritual body first formed at Pentecost, which God purchased with His own blood. They ought to be challenged biblically and historically. There is a more accurate way to understand and explain the covenantal nature of the Bible.[54] And this is what NCT is working to accomplish while holding, without reservation, to both a pre-fall and post-fall covenant (as explained herein), and to Reformed Theology’s biblical teaching on the sovereignty of God in creation, providence and redemption.

How Nct Differs from Covenant

Theology on the Law of God

Introduction

A thorough biblical study of the law of God is clearly beyond the scope of this book, let alone this chapter. Therefore, to keep within the confines of this chapter, I will focus upon three central passages wherein New Covenant Theology (NCT) agrees in part but differs significantly from Covenant Theology (CT). This includes some statements by John Calvin in the 16th Century, the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) a hundred years later, and by other Reformed theologians today. The passages are Matthew 22:36-40 followed by Romans 2:11-16 (with Gen. 1:27) and I Corinthians 9:20-21(the central passage undergirding the Christotelic hermeneutic[1] of New Covenant Theology and its teaching on the Law of God. Treatment of these passages is designed to answer questions and bring to fore the distinguishing differences between NCT and CT over the twofold understanding of the law of God as absolute and covenantal. [2] But first, a brief statement about the historical development and writing of the WCF is necessary to show Covenant Theology’s traditional understanding on the law of God as expressed in the WCF.

A Brief Historical Statement on the

Westminster Confession of Faith

The Westminster Assembly of Divines convened regularly in London for five days a week between July, 1643 and February, 1649 during which 1163 numbered sessions were held producing the Westminster Confession of Faith with its Larger and Shorter Catechisms with Scripture texts in April 1647.[3] Initially, this august body consisted of 121 Calvinistic clergymen from England and Scotland (plus 10 layman from the House of Lords and 20 from the House of Commons) that met by order of the Long Parliament whose leaders were Anglicans but Puritan in spirit giving way to the party names of Presbyterians and Independents. No Baptists were included. Parliament had forced the king, Charles I, to convene the assembly after having abolished the episcopacy and liturgy of the Church of England in 1642. The purpose of the Westminster Assembly was “to effect a more perfect reformation of the Church of England in its liturgy, discipline, and government on the basis of the Word of God, and thus to bring it into nearer agreement with the Church of Scotland and the Reformed Churches on the Continent.”[4]

Covenant Theology’s Traditional Understanding

on the Law of God as Expressed in the WCF

God gave to Adam a law, as a covenant of works, by which he bound him, and all his posterity, to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it. . . . This law, after his fall, continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness; and, as such, was delivered by God upon mount Sinai in ten commandments, and written in two tables; the first four commandments containing our duty towards God, and the other six our duty to man. Besides this law, commonly called moral, God was pleased to give to the people of Israel, as a church under age, ceremonial laws . . . which . . . are now abrogated under the New Testament. To them [Israel] also, as a body politick, he gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people [with the coming of Christ]. . . . [Since then] the moral law doeth for ever bind all, as well justified persons as others, to the obedience thereof. . . . Neither doth Christ in the gospel any way dissolve, but much strengthen this obligation. Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty.[5]

New Covenant Theology’s Understanding

of Matthew 22:36-40

36Master, which is the great(est) [6] commandment in the law?

37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38This is the first and great(est) commandment. 39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets. (KJV)

The Pharisees have their expert on the Mosaic law ask Jesus “which is the greatest commandment in the law” (v. 36). Jesus answers the lawyer in vv. 37-39, telling him that the two greatest commandments are “love of God” and “love of neighbor” (citing Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18). Then in v. 40 Jesus tells the lawyer that “on these two commandments hang (depend) all the law and the prophets,” referring to all of the Old Testament (OT).[7] The point that Jesus is making is that the whole OT Scriptures are suspended from these two commandments: love of God and love of neighbor. As for the law of God, these two commandments—love of God and love of neighbor—are “eternal moral law” (to use CT language) the source for all the covenantal administrations of God’s law throughout the history of redemption.

This answers the question: “Where and when do these two commandments come into being?” The answer must go back to the beginning of creation; otherwise the whole of the OT would not hang upon these two commandments. The text is clear that the Ten Commandments (the Decalogue) are not that upon which the two greatest commandments hang; rather it is the other way around: the Ten Commandments hang upon the two greatest commandments; not the reverse. Now, certainly the Ten Commandments are included in the OT Scriptures and hang upon—are a covenantal outworking of—the two greatest commandments, but the whole Mosaic law including the Ten Commandments was given to the nation of Israel long after the creation account of Adam and Eve. How then could the Ten Commandments have been from the beginning of creation of man and existing during the pre-fall state of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden? Specifically, how would a sinless Adam before the Fall have understood such commandments in the Decalogue (the ten words) as not taking the Lord’s name in vain, or honoring a father or mother when he had none, or not stealing, or committing adultery, or bearing false witness against his neighbor, or coveting a neighbor’s wife (see Exod. 20:8-17)? The answer should be obvious.

Now back to the question: What Scripture supports that the two greatest commandments have existed from the beginning of creation? There are two explicit texts that shed light on the answer. They are Romans 2:11-16 supported by Genesis 1:27.

New Covenant Theology’s Understanding of

Romans 2:11-16 with Genesis 1:27

In context, the Apostle Paul is here setting forth the case for God’s righteous judgment of sin. Foremost is the case made against the Jews, but it is also made against Gentiles, for “there is no respect of persons—no partiality—with God” (v. 11). Now the “the law” in this passage is clearly referring to the Old Covenant (OC) law of Moses. But notice in verse 14 that “the Gentiles, which have not the law [the Mosaic law] do by nature [do instinctively] the things contained in the law.” They show “the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts accusing or else excusing one another [defending them]” (v. 15). This answer given here by the Apostle Paul goes back beyond the Mosaic law to creation and man being created in the image of God: “And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Gen. 1:27). In brief, Adam and Eve were created with a God-consciousness. That is, they knew by nature that they should love God and one another—the two greatest commandments. On the meaning of nature in Romans 2, NCT agrees with John Murray, a highly respected covenant theologian, who wrote that “by nature” refers to that aspect of God’s law which is “implanted or “engraven on our [man’s] natural constitution’”[8] The best explanation for the two greatest commandments being innate, being implanted, in Adam and Eve’s natural constitution is due to the fact that they were created in God’s image with a God’s consciousness. Thus far NCT is in agreement with CT. However, the difference arises over the Westminster Confession of Faith explanation of God’s law before the fall to be moral law “for ever” “summarily comprehended in the “ten commandments” (answer to Q. 98 in the Larger Catechism) which bind all persons to obedience (WCF, XIX.v) with the Sabbath commandment understood to be a creation ordinance.[9]

I submit, therefore, that Romans 2, especially vv. 14-15 and Genesis 1:27 help explain God’s absolute unchanging law to be the two greatest commandments, love of God and neighbor, which began with the creation of Adam and Eve and which continues until Christ returns at the end of the present age (and extending into the eternal age to come for the redeemed). This innate law created by an unchanging God is righteous because God is righteous. It never changes. It exists in all of mankind from Adam and continues unchanging throughout the history of redemption until “the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Christ Jesus according to my (the) gospel” (Rom. 2:16). “That day” for believers will be “when (Christ) comes to be glorified in His saints” (II Thess. 1:7-10), that is, when He returns in His resurrection body at the Second Advent and ushers in the eternal state of the age to come.[10]

New Covenant Theology’s Understanding

of the Law of God

New Covenant Theology differs with CT over the threefold division of Old Covenant law (the law of Moses) into moral, ceremonial and civil[11] and over CT’s teaching on the Ten Commandments which are commonly called moral and asserted to be binding forever upon all mankind. To address this, I will demonstrate that which is innate and unchanging (i.e., absolute) from the creation of the first Adam to the return of Christ and continuing in the eternal age to come is not the Ten Commandments but the two greatest commandments spoken by our Lord in the Gospel of Matthew (also in Mark and Luke). To keep within the confines of this chapter, I will focus again upon Matthew 22:36-40 to address further Covenant Theology’s teaching on moral law and the Ten Commandments before moving on to I Corinthians 9:20-21 at the end of this chapter.

Matthew 22:36-40, Moral Law[12] and

the Ten Commandments

Referring to the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22 and Luke 10, Calvin explains that the moral law “is the true and eternal rule of righteousness” 13 (italics mine). “In this way our Lord . . . summarizes the whole law under two heads: that ‘we should love the Lord our God with all our heart, and with all our soul, and with all our powers’; and ‘that we should love our neighbor as ourselves’ [Luke 10:27; Matt. 22:37, 39]”[14] (italics mine). Based upon his understanding of Romans 1:21-27 and 2:14-15, Calvin taught that “the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.”[15] However, Calvin, followed by the 17th century systematization of Reformed Theology in the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647), held to teaching that can be traced back to Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) to explain the Law of God by dividing “the whole Law of God published by Moses into moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws.”[16] In Book II of the Institutes, Calvin describes the moral law, that is, natural law, as being “engraved . . . upon the hearts of all, [and that it] in a sense asserts the very same things that are to be learned from the two Tables [i.e., the Ten Commandments, the Decalogue]. . . . [Hence, he writes:] “the Lord has provided us with a written law [i.e., the Ten Commandments] to give us a clearer witness of what was too obscure in the natural law.”[17] And so, the Ten Commandments, in essence, became known as the moral law of God and, according to Calvin, the two greatest commandments became the summary of them.

A century after Calvin the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF) explained the moral law close to that by Calvin, yet it differed in stating that “the moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments” (Larger Catechism answer to Q. 98), rather than Jesus’ summary of the moral law being the two greatest commandments. This difference has caused confusion. For example, a present-day respected covenant theologian says, on the one hand, that “the moral law, summarized in the Ten Commandments, is inscribed on our consciences by virtue of our being created in God’s image (Romans 1-3)”[18] (italics mine). Then on the other hand, he writes on the same page that “Jesus’ summary of the two tables of the Ten Commandments” is the two greatest commandments[19] (italics mine). Yet, in agreement with Calvin, another contemporary Reformed scholar has written that it is “Jesus [who] sums up the Ten Commandments, or the whole moral law, as ‘love of God and neighbor’”[20] (italics mine). However, according to Questions 91-93 in the WCF’s Larger Catechism, the moral law is stated to be the rule of obedience of mankind to God’s revealed will “directing and binding every one to personal, perfect, and perpetual conformity and obedience thereunto.” Then again in Question 98 the Larger Catechism asked: “Where is the moral law summarily comprehended?” The answer given—citing Matthew 22:37-40 as scriptural proof—is that “the moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments, which were delivered by the voice of God upon mount Sinai, and written by him in two tables of stone; and are recorded in the twentieth chapter of Exodus” (italics mine). This is immediately followed by Question 99 which asked for rules to be observed for a right understanding of the Ten Commandments. The first rule given was “that the law [i.e. the moral law summarily comprehended in the ten commandments] is perfect, and bindeth every one to full conformity in the whole man unto the righteousness thereof, and unto entire obedience for ever” (italics mine). Which is it according to CT? Are the two greatest commandments the summary of “the moral law” or the Ten Commandments the summary of the two greatest commandments? What confusion!

The Two Greatest Commandments and

the Ten Commandments

Aside from the Sabbatarian issue, which is beyond the scope of this chapter,[21] differences and confusion as just noted exist over whether it is better to view the moral law as the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22:27, 29 (see Mark 12:28-31) which binds every one “forever” (i.e., “eternal” extending throughout the age to come) or whether it is the Ten Commandments that summarize the moral law and binds every one “forever” (extending to the end of the present age). I will now explain.

First, only the two greatest commandments can rightly be stated to be eternal including the age to come. Question 99 of the Westminster Larger Catechism says that the Ten Commandments are to be obeyed “for ever.” This has caused great confusion by those who in agreement with CT hold that the Ten Commandments being the summation of moral law are therefore eternal, but do not explain whether eternal includes heaven in the age to come. However, to the credit of Covenant Theology, the Reformed scholar, William Hendriksen has rightly stated that “in the new heaven and earth ‘the law’ as a written book will no longer be necessary. In fact, the written Bible—Old and New Testament—will have become superfluous.”[22] It needs, therefore, to be made clear that it is not the Ten Commandments, but the two greatest commandments—love of God and neighbor—which alone are eternal, that is, absolute and unchanging and which transcend all the covenantal administrations of God’s law on earth in time and are eternally perfected for God’s elect in heaven in the blessed eternal age to come.

Second, to address this confusion requires explaining the relationship of the two greatest commandments in Matthew 22:36-40 with the Ten Commandments being called the moral Law of God by Covenant Theology. (Understand that NCT holds that only the two greatest commandments—love of God and love of neighbor—are innate, absolute and unchanging law not the Ten Commandments.) However, NCT does agree with Calvin in so far as it is understood that “the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men.”[23] Again (see above), NCT agrees that the two greatest commandments, love of God and love of neighbor, are natural law, innate in all mankind (Rom. 2:14-15) by virtue of being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27) and that the two greatest commandments being so understood as moral law are “the true and eternal rule of righteousness”[24] continuing forever in the age to come. But NCT disagrees with CT when, for example, it teaches on the one hand by Calvin, that the two greatest commandments, understood to be the moral law of God, are the summary of the Ten Commandments and, on the other hand by the Westminster Confession of Faith and other modern-day covenant theologians, that the Ten Commandments are the summation of the moral law. Again, this causes great confusion when compounded by the assertion that the Ten Commandments are said to be innate, that is, when they are said to be “inscribed on our consciences by virtue of our being created in God’s image.”[25] This also requires the Sabbath commandment to be a creation ordinance contrary to the teaching of NCT (Col. 2:16-17; Heb. 4:1-11).

Third, to say that the Ten Commandments are innate is to get things reversed. Think about it. Adam, with whom the whole human race was in solidaric union, was created as a finite holy human being without sin. He had not yet eaten of the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen. 2:9). And if he knew innately (which both NCT and CT agree) that he ought to love God and his neighbor, Eve, neither much of the first or second table of the Ten Commandments[26] would have been understood by him in his state of creature holiness. At that time there were no other gods to bow down before; no father and mother to honor, or any basis for Adam to kill, commit adultery, steal, bear false witness against, or to covet. Not until after the fall and his willful disobedience to God’s spoken commandment (Gen. 2:17) did he understand the awfulness of sin and so hid with Eve from the presence of the Lord God (Gen. 3:8). To say, therefore, that the Ten Commandments are a summation of “the moral law”—the two greatest commandments—gets things reversed. The Ten Commandments are written laws covenantally administered by God for the people of Israel—and later in the hands of Christ for members of the New Covenant—in the outworking of the history of redemption of the two greatest commandments which are innate, unwritten, and unchanging law.

Indeed, to put it another way: Matthew 22:40 says that upon these two commandments “hang all the law and the prophets,” that is the entire two parts of the Old Testament Scripture hang upon the two greatest commandments (as now does the whole New Testament Scripture). This means that the Ten Commandments, indeed the whole Bible, depend upon the two commandments to love God and neighbor. Therefore, the Ten Commandments cannot be the summary of “the moral law” or “the moral law” (meaning the two commandments) the summary of the Ten Commandments. To say so, results in a confusing misrepresentation used to support the theological construction of CT to show how “the moral law”—summarized in the Ten Commandments separate from the ceremonial and civil law—applies without covenantal distinctions upon all mankind forever. But the biblical fact is that the law which never changes is the two greatest commandments; they are innate, absolute and unchanging, not the Ten Commandments. However, they do change in the way they are covenantally administered by God under the Old and New Covenant administrations of His eternal will (Matt. 6:10). The Ten Commandments are no longer administered through the hands of Moses—the mediator of the Old Covenant, but through the hands of Christ—the mediator of the New Covenant (I Tim. 2:5).

I Corinthians 9:20-21

Before beginning the exposition on the law of God in this passage, it is necessary to point out that a right understanding of the principles of biblical law will and must entail a distinguishing between: (1) that aspect of the law of God which is universally binding as absolute or unchanging law, which is subjectively inherent in man by nature (Rom. 2:14-15) and objectively revealed in the Old and New Testament Scripture as ethically binding and unaffected by changing covenantal sanctions; and (2) that aspect of the law of God not universally binding as covenant law, which is taught in the Old and New Testament canons of Scripture and uniquely binding, but only as administered under the covenantal sanctions in force at a given period of time within redemptive history. Failure to contextually interpret the absolute and covenantal distinctives of biblical law will only prolong the differences that continue to exist within Reformed theology, whether it be among Reformed Paedobaptists or Reformed Baptists.

Biblical Law: Absolute and Covenantal

Biblical law may be rightly explained under two distinctive categories: the absolute law of God and the covenantal law of God. God’s absolute law—His unchanging law—individually and personally binds all mankind by virtue of their being created in the image of God regardless of dispensational and covenantal distinctions. [27] But God’s covenant law covenantally binds only those who are in the covenant community according to the terms of the covenant in force at a specified time within redemptive history. To re-emphasize, in its absolute sense God’s law is ethically and morally binding upon all mankind forever—whether Jew or Gentile (Rom. 2:14-15), whether living in the Old or New dispensation era (Matt. 22:36-40). But in its covenantal sense, God’s law is only binding upon a covenant community so long as that specified covenant is in force. The law of Moses as covenant law was binding upon the physical seed of Abraham under the Old Covenant dispensation. The law of Christ is binding upon the spiritual seed of Abraham under the New Covenant dispensation. Therefore, this means that the New Covenant believer is not under Old Covenant law; yet, he is not without covenant law to God for he is in covenant union with Christ being in-lawed to Him under the terms of the New Covenant.

New Covenant Theology’s Central Passage

on the Law of God

An annotated reading of verses 20 and 21 in I Corinthians 9—the central passage of New Covenant Theology on the law of God—will help clarify the distinguishing differences between NCT and CT over the twofold understanding of the law of God as innate, unwritten and unchanging—especially as it pertains to the two greatest commandments which are absolute and eternal—and the law of God as covenantal, written and changing—especially as it is codified and covenantally administrated within redemptive history under the Old and New Covenant dispensations of God’s eternal purpose.

20To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win [unsaved] Jews. To those [unsaved Jews] under the law [hupo nomon i.e., the OC law of Moses] I became as one under the [Mosaic] law (though not being myself under the [Mosaic] law) that I might win those [unsaved Jews who were] under the law [hupo nomon, under the Mosaic law]. 21To those outside the [Mosaic] law [Gentile unbelievers] I became as one outside the [Mosaic] law (not being outside [anomos] the law of God [the law of nature (Rom. 2:14-15)—the two greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36-40) innate in all mankind by virtue of being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27)] but under the [NC] law of Christ [ennomos Christou, lit. in-lawed to Christ] that I might win those [unsaved Gentiles] outside the [Mosaic] law. (ESV)

The teaching of this passage reveals a number of things important for understanding what the Apostle Paul is saying about the law of God. First, note that the phrase “under law” (hupo nomon) occurs four times in verse 20 with each one referring to the OC law of Moses. Also observe that Paul makes it abundantly clear that he does not see himself as being under the Old Covenant law of Moses. Second, he declares that he is not without law to God because he is under the New Covenant law of Christ. Third, note that biblical law in verses 20 and 21may also be explained under three categories: (1) the law of Moses; (2) the law of Christ; and (3) a broader category, the law of God. Fourth, CT often explains “under law” (hupo nomon) in verse 20 to refer to the ceremonial law only not the Mosaic law as a whole.[28] Although the context, in part, is speaking about food and drink, it makes little sense to explain the four occurrences of “under the law” in verse 20 to mean “under the ceremonial law.” Try it and see. Fifth, the immediate context of verses 20-21demands that the phrase under the law “be interpreted in terms of redemptive history”[29] moving, not just from the ceremonial law, but from the whole Old Covenant law of Moses to the New Covenant law of Christ. Sixth, in verse 21, the law of God is closely related but not to be equated with “the law of Christ. Why? For two reasons: (1) because the phrase “under the law of Christ” in verse 21 is not an appositional explanation of the same meaning—a further description—of “being outside the law of God”; and (2) because the law of Christ is a covenantal outworking of that broad third category of the law of God, God’s absolute law, which is best explained as the two greatest commandments—love of God and love of neighbor—which are eternal and unchanging. These two commandments are eternally perfected with every child of God and never change in the age to come wherein there is no sin or breaking of God’s commandments. Hence, the law of Christ in verse 21 is to be understood as the covenantal outworking of God’s eternal law in redemptive history under the terms of the New Covenant administration. The law of God and the law of Christ in this verse:—intimately related, yes! totally equated, no!

Summary

Innate Law (unwritten and unchanging)

The two greatest commandments: love of God and neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40; Rom. 2:14-15; Gen. 1:27). God’s innate law is:

-Absolute for all mankind from Adam to Christ’s return and in heaven

-Eternal, righteous and unchanging

Covenantal Law (written and changeable)

It “depends” upon the two greatest commandments of God. (Matt. 22:40)

-Both the law of Moses and the law of Christ are covenantally administered and distinguished in redemptive history (I Cor. 9:20-21). Both stem from the two greatest commandments—the innate law of God.

-The NC law of Christ is indeed a new covenantal administration of God’s revealed law fulfilling and of necessity replacing the OC administration of God’s revealed law under Moses (Heb. 7:12).

Conclusion

The sum of the Ten Commandments is not the two greatest commandments (love of God and love of neighbor, Matt. 22:36-40). Rather the Ten Commandments are the covenantal outworking of the Old and New Covenants Christotelically (see Appendix A). Therefore, the Ten Commandments, including the Sabbath commandment, are not to be viewed as transcovenantal moral law.[30] Rather, they are to be viewed in the hands of Christ as the covenantal outworking in history of God’s eternal kingdom purpose on earth (Matt. 6:10) for the elect of God. With the incarnate coming of Jesus into history and the inauguration of the New Covenant era, all the Law and the Prophets—the OT Scriptures, including the Ten Commandments—will be consummated and fulfilled by Christ (Matt. 5:17-18). The law of God is now being covenantally administered under the new and better covenant (Heb. 8:6, 13) by the law of Christ (I Cor. 9:21, which is the law of love, John 13:34; 14:15; I Cor. 13:13; I John 5:3; II John 6) for all the redeemed—the body of Christ, which is the church—in accordance with God’s eternal purpose (II Tim. 1:9; Eph.3:10-11) to the praise of His glorious grace (Eph. 1:6-7). Yes, and in agreement here with the following statement by Calvin, NCT can say “Amen!” because as he put it:

Nothing belongs to the service of God, if it does not rest upon this fundamental principle: ‘Thou shalt love the Lord with all thy heart, with all thy soul, with all thy strength.’ There is also no duty of love, which is not covered by the precept: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’ (Mark 12:30-31).[31]

Some Questions to Ask Regarding the Law of God

In light of this chapter the reader is encouraged to answer the following questions on the law of God.

- Can God’s righteous commandments be administered differently under the Old and New Covenants? Or must some or all of God’s OC commandments remain unchanged and binding upon all mankind alike under the NC until all is accomplished, i.e., as some teach, until heaven and earth pass away (Mt. 5:18)?

- What is meant by the term “moral law”?

- Is it correct to divide the law of Moses into three parts: moral, ceremonial and judicial?

- Is it proper to say that one or two parts of OC law was fulfilled and done away, while OC “moral law” continues throughout the NC era?

- Does the Bible make any distinctions between the law of God administered under the OC and under the NC?

- Is there a distinction between the law of God and the law of Christ in I Corinthians 9:21? If so what is it?

- Is the moral law of God under the OC summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments the same as the law of Christ?

- Is the law of Christ a new law or is it just a continuation of the old law of Moses?

- Is the 4th Commandment, the Sabbath Commandment, binding upon the NC believer?

- What is the significance of Christ, the God-Man, keeping the law of Moses and fulfilling all righteousness as Jesus said in Matthew 3:15?

These and more questions could be asked. Each of us needs to search the Scriptures for the answer. For the sake of the gospel of Christ, may God help us to do so in order to help break down the doctrinal walls of partition that separate us over how God covenantally administers His holy and righteous law.

New Covenant Theology: Time

for a More Accurate Way

Two Major Theological Areas in Conclusion

In this closing chapter, I will briefly address two major areas that are intimately related to the previous chapters and that show where New Covenant Theology (NCT) provides a more accurate way to explain these areas than Covenant Theology (CT). The first major area pertains to the covenantal administration of God’s law. This area, sadly, is likely the one which differs the most from CT, although it should not. The second area shows how God’s eternal kingdom purpose is viewed macrocosmically as accomplished covenantally in time.

On the Covenantal Administration of God’s Law

In Chapter 5, I demonstrated that it is the two greatest commandments that are eternal “moral” law, not the Ten Commandments which are the covenantal outworking of the two greatest commandments—first under the Old Covenant and then under the New Covenant. Because of this understanding of the Decalogue some who hold to NCT have been accused of being Antinomian (against or without law). Perhaps there have been statements that have been just that. However, that is not what I am saying. Some 40 years ago I found a microfilm copy of an Appendix to the 1646 edition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith also written in 1646 by Benjamin Cox. In 1980, I had it printed and appended to the 1646 Confession[1] to use as a confessional expression in the church I was then pastoring in San Antonio, Texas. In reading it, I found it to exude Christ in a succinct and lucid manner. In comparing it to the Westminster Confession of Faith—WCF (also the 1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession), I noticed that there was a strong emphasis placed upon the Ten Commandments as a rule of life. Conversely, I found that the emphasis of the 1646 edition of the First London Confession (in all five editions: 1644, 1646, 1651, 1652 and 1653) was upon the law of Christ under the New Covenant. To answer the false charge of Antinomianism and help break down the wall of doctrinal partition that separate CT and NCT, I believe an accurate teaching for what NCT believes and affirms on the law of God relating to sanctification and evangelism under the New Covenant is stated in the following articles of the 1646 edition of the First London Confession and the 1646 Appendix to it by Benjamin Cox. The first three articles relate to the believer’s sanctification and the fourth to preaching the gospel and biblical evangelism.

Article XXIX of the First London Baptist Confession, 1646 ed. All believers are a holy and sanctified people, and that sanctification is a spiritual grace of the new covenant, and an effect of the love of God manifested in the soul, whereby the believer presseth after a heavenly and evangelical obedience to all the commands, which Christ as head and king in His new covenant hath prescribed to them. I Cor. 1:2; I Pet. 2:9; Eph. 1:4; I John 4:16; Matt. 28:20. (Italics mine)[2]

Article IX of the 1646 Appendix. Though we that believe in Christ be not under the law, but under grace, Rom. 6:14; yet we know that we are not lawless, or left to live without a rule; “not without law to God, but under law to Christ,” I Cor. 9:21.[3] The Gospel of Jesus Christ is a law, or commanding rule unto us; whereby, and in obedience whereunto, we are taught to live soberly, righteously, and godly in this present world, Titus 2:11, 12; the directions of Christ in His evangelical word guiding us unto, and in this sober, righteous, and godly walking, I Tim. 1:10, 11.

Article X of the 1646 Appendix. Though we be not now sent to the law as it was in the hand of Moses, to be commanded thereby, yet Christ in His Gospel teacheth and commandeth us to walk in the same way of righteousness and holiness that God by Moses did command the Israelites to walk in, all the commandments of the Second Table being still delivered unto us by Christ, and all the commandments of the First Table also (as touching the life and spirit of them) in this epitome or brief sum, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thine heart, etc.,” Matt. 22:37, 38, 39, 40; Rom. 13:8, 9, 10. (Italics mine)

Article XXV of the First London Baptist Confession, 1646 ed. The preaching of the gospel to the conversion of sinners, is absolutely free; no way requiring as absolutely necessary, any qualifications, preparations, or terrors of the law, or preceding ministry of the law, but only and alone the naked soul, a sinner and ungodly, to receive Christ crucified, dead and buried, and risen again; who is made a prince and a Savior for such sinners as through the gospel shall be brought to believe on Him. John 3:14, 15; 1:12; Isa. 55:1; John 7:37; I Tim. 1:15; Rom. 4:5; 5:8; Acts 5:30, 31; 2:36; I Cor. 1:22, 24.

Surely, NCT’s acceptance of the above articles of the first generation Particular Baptists in England does not warrant the false charge of Antinomianism. How could that be when NCT holds that the New Covenant believer is not “without the law of God but under the law of Christ (en-lawed to Christ)”? (I Cor. 9:21)[4]

On the Covenantal Accomplishment of God’s Eternal Kingdom Purpose “Thy Kingdom Come.

Thy Will Be Done in Earth, as It Is in Heaven” (Matthew 6:10)

My purpose at the close and summation of this book is to point out a number of things by way of a chart that depicts macrocosmically how God’s eternal kingdom purpose with Christ as the focal point is accomplished covenantally in redemptive history. Before I do this, however, I will quote one elongated sentence by an author that illustrates what could be affirmed and favorably cited by all covenant theologians, whether Paedobaptist or Baptist. I also, as one who holds to NCT, have favorably cited the work with only the phrase “the covenant is renewed” being questioned in brackets (see below). On the one hand, how one should keep or modify this one phrase is integral to understanding Covenant Theology from a Paedobaptist or a Baptist perspective. It would then seem easy to reconcile the fundamental differences between these two theological systems over the meaning of just one phrase in one beautiful, biblically-written, elongated sentence. On the other hand, it definitely is not easy, as proven by differences which have existed for nearly four centuries. Indeed, differences have existed ever since the First and Second Fronts of the Reformation in Switzerland and Germany[5] at the close of the first quarter and the second quarter of the 16th century. The meaning and use of “the covenant is renewed” phrase has opened up the whole area of understanding and explaining “the covenant of grace” as taught in Reformed Theology and Baptist Theology, now including NCT, over major doctrinal issues. For instance, major issues exist over whether there is one overarching covenant of grace differently administered under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant; whether there is a covenant of works and covenant of redemption; whether the Ten Commandments are moral law forever; whether or not the church existed in the Old Testament; and whether the nature of the church as a mixed multitude is comprised of believers and their children or a church consisting of believers only.[6] In brief, I believe that a slight modification in understanding the following citation illustrates what could become a very important step toward helping to clarify and resolve these issues and to bring doctrinal unity to the body of Christ.

In Jesus the promise is confirmed, the covenant is renewed [?], the prophecies are fulfilled, the law is vindicated, salvation is brought near, sacred history has reached its climax, the perfect sacrifice has been offered and accepted, the great priest over the household of God has taken His seat at God’s right hand, the Prophet like Moses has been raised up, the Son of David reigns, the kingdom of God has been inaugurated, the Son of Man has received dominion from the Ancient of Days, the Servant of the Lord, having been smitten to death for His people’s transgression and borne the sin of many, has accomplished the divine purpose, has seen light after the travail of His soul and is now exalted and extolled and made very high.[7]

To sum up and demonstrate what I am saying, the phrase “the covenant is renewed” in Reformed Theology language means the one overarching covenant of grace is renewed under its new covenant administration. Reformed Baptist Theology today would change the phrase to read “the covenant of grace has been progressively revealed (and is now being fulfilled under the new covenant).” However, the fact is that the covenant of grace term itself has too often been understood differently resulting in 350 years of debate over the nature of the church and baptism of disciples alone. To illustrate the issue and avoid such differences and misunderstandings, I would suggest replacing the phrase in the citation to read “the covenant of promise has been progressively revealed (and is now being fulfilled under the new covenant).” Adoption of the latter could serve as a catalyst for sake of the Gospel by helping to break down the walls of doctrinal partition that separate Reformed Paedobaptist Theology from Baptist Theology—not only Reformed Baptist but also New Covenant Baptist Theology. Thus, the following discussion of major elements on the macro chart is designed to help depict a more accurate way to understand God’s eternal kingdom purpose in Redemptive (Salvation) History (see Appendix A).

Time for a More Accurate Way

An Overview of Redemptive History

On the upper left portion of the following chart, the biblical account of the progressive outworking of God’s eternal kingdom purpose in redemptive history begins with the creation of the heavens and the earth and the first Adam, the son of God (Gen. 1-2; Luke 3:38). It ends on the right with the promised return of Christ at the close of history and the creation of the “new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness” (II Pet. 3:13—KJV). Between the beginning and end of history, the Bible speaks of the renewal of history in the recreation of the earth and the recommissioning of man through Noah (Gen. 9) and the middle of history in the incarnation and Cross event of the last Adam, Christ, the Son of God.

Taking the apostle Peter’s overview of redemptive history, the coming of God’s kingdom may be viewed from the standpoint of three worlds: “the world that was” (II Pet. 3:6) as a result of the original creation; “the world that now is” (v. 7) as a result of the Noahic flood; and “the world to come” (v. 13) as a result of the return, the parousia (v. 4), of the Son of Man (see Matt. 24:37). Or the coming of God’s kingdom into history may be viewed from the standpoint of the material creation during two eras: the eras of the old and new orders of creation divided by the flood. Or it may be viewed from the eras of the Old and New Covenants divided by Christ[8] as the center of redemptive history with the pre-flood era serving as a prologue to covenant history and the post-flood era encompassing both Old and New Covenant history.

Major Interventions of God in Redemptive History

The vertical lines crossing the center horizontal time line on the chart depict major interventions of God in redemptive history, like the original creation, the Fall, the Flood, the Exodus & Mount Sinai, the Cross, Pentecost, the A. D. 70 Judgment, and Christ’s Return. Each event is the result of God’s eternal kingdom purpose breaking or irrupting into time and history.

The Progressive Unfolding of Biblical Covenants in Redemptive History

Notice also that the vertical lines on the horizontal redemptive line depict the progressive unfolding of covenant history. The way in which God brings to pass the redemptive fulfillment of His kingdom purpose on earth is through carrying out His will by means of the covenants of promise (Eph. 2:12) beginning with the post-fall Covenant of Promise in Genesis 3:15 followed by the Abrahamic, Davidic and New Covenants.[9] Because God’s acts in history are structured in terms of covenants, it follows that biblical theology must be the study of covenant history.

God’s Unchanging Law in Redemptive History

Note that the horizontal law line located just below the horizontal time line depicts God’s law as righteous and unchanging. The Scripture cited for this line is Matthew 22:36-40 and Romans 2:14-16. Thus, it is the two greatest commandments—love of God and neighbor—that truly are eternal “moral” law, not the Ten Commandments.[10]

If it is asked, Is not the Christian under the authority of the ten commandments? The reply is, In their Old Testament form as a part of that [covenantal] system, he is not. The essential substance of the ten commandments consists of changeless principles of righteousness, and is therefore a part of Christianity; in that sense the Christian is under the commandments, and in no other.[11]

The NT Use of OT Themes in Redemptive History

The New Testament is, in fact, a reinterpretation of the Old in the light of Christ. It takes up the great central themes of the Old Testament’s theology—God’s gracious election of his people, his covenant with them and kingly rule over them, his purposes for them and promises to them—and gives these a new significance in the light of what Christ has done. As God through his grace once called Israel out of bondage, so now through his grace in Jesus Christ he summons to himself his new Israel, the church, redeemed from the bondage of sin and death. As God gave his covenant at Sinai, binding Israel to live under his law, so now through Christ he has given his promised new covenant, committing his church to the lordship of Christ and to the service of his purpose in the world. As God through his prophets promised to Israel the triumph of his kingly rule in earth, so now through Jesus, who is the Christ (Messiah), he has brought that kingdom to pass and has promised its final victory. Everywhere the New Testament seizes hold of the key themes of the Old and gives them a new meaning in Christ. In doing this, it both completes the Old Testament’s incompleteness and binds it irrevocably with itself within the canon of Christian Scripture. This, and no less than this, is the assertion that the New Testament makes: The redemptive purposes of God, begun in Abraham and the Exodus, have come to fulfillment in Jesus Christ—and this is the whole meaning of God’s history with his people, nay, of history altogether.[12]

Conclusion

In harmony with NCT, it is my understanding that the unfolding of Divine revelation within redemptive history and the progressive intrusion of God’s eternal kingdom purpose on earth in various covenantal relationships from the pre-fall Covenant of creation in Eden to the fully expanded flower of the New Covenant may be stated in the this manner:

At the time of the flood, following the pre-fall Covenant of creation, made in Paradise (Gen. 2:16-17) and the post-fall Covenant of promise (Gen. 3:15), God made a covenant with Noah. Then from Abraham to Sinai there is a progressive unfolding of God’s kingdom purpose through the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants. From Sinai to the New Covenant era, including the Davidic Covenant, the major theme of the Old Testament is the coming of the kingdom of God. With the arrival of the forerunner, the message was “Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand” (Matt. 3:2). In the coming of the Messiah, the present aspect of God’s kingdom was instituted on earth: “The time is fulfilled, and the kingdom of God is at hand; repent and believe in the gospel” (Mark 1:15). Now, in His exalted Kingly office Christ rules and reigns from the right hand of the Father. This will continue “until the period of restoration of all things” (Acts 3:21) when He will be sent from heaven (vv. 20-21) to abolish “all rule and all authority and power. He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet. The last enemy that will be abolished is death” (I Cor. 15:24-26). Then He “delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father” (v. 24a) and the present aspect of God’s eternal kingdom purpose is then consummated on earth in fulfillment of the Lord’s model prayer: “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” For the elect, this will be in fulfillment of the immutable, eternal will of the Father, “For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen” (Rom. 11:36). Truly, the organic nature of biblical theology reveals that the future completion, the eschatological consummation, of God’s eternal kingdom purpose on earth is a most significant aspect of His covenantal dealings with man—a truth that finds its complete and final fulfillment at the second coming of Christ at the end of this New Covenant age (Heb. 12:24-28).

Summary Doctrinal Points on

Behalf of New Covenant Theology

The following provides a number of doctrinal points on behalf of NCT as set forth in this book summarizing what I believe it should be teaching as a developing theological system and how it differs from Covenant Theology—all with the goal to help further the Gospel of Christ.

- NCT has a theology of the covenants because covenants are biblical and because God’s covenants with man reveal how He governs creation and man in redemptive history. Indeed, NCT holds to this biblical understanding of Divine covenants because God’s redemptive purpose for mankind is covenantally structured and progressively administered in the unfolding of God’s eternal plan of redemption.

- New Covenant Theology with Covenant Theology holds that there was a Divine covenant, a pre-fall creation covenant with Adam, but disagrees with how CT explains it as a covenant of works.

- NCT affirms that it holds to a covenantal understanding of biblical history, to include understanding Genesis 3:15 as a post-fall gracious covenant of promise to be worked out in redemptive history according to God’s eternal purpose (II Tim. 1:9).

- Note Well: NCT differs greatly with CT’s explanation of the covenant of grace that is one in substance that overarches all of redemptive history because it confuses the covenant of grace with God’s eternal purpose. That which overarches all of redemptive history is God’s eternal purpose/decree/plan/will—not the covenant of grace! Furthermore, this fact, and the lack of clarity in definition of terms, especially over the covenant of grace and the theologically deduced intra-Trinitarian, pre-creation covenant of redemption, has caused misunderstanding and confusion and an inconsistent use of doctrinal terms throughout the years among both Paedobaptists and Baptists.

- NCT holds that a large part of the confusion over terminology is the direct result of paedobaptist covenant theologians, starting with Zwingli and Bullinger in the 1520s and with others to this very day, who without exception try to justify infant baptism of covenant children as members of the covenant of grace and as “ingrafted into the Christian Church”[1]—confusion at its best! They do this by making the covenant of grace to overarch all of redemptive history. Hence, the covenant of grace is admittedly understood to be virtually the same as the “everlasting covenant” made with Abraham (Gen. 17:7) and its covenant sign of circumcision. This one, same covenant of grace is also said to overarch the New Covenant (NC) without a change in substance. The only change is administrative—a covenantal change in sign from OT circumcision to NT baptism. Therefore, the one covenant of grace teaching of CT becomes the primary reason for its practice of infant baptism since the NT is totally silent concerning it. Hence, the interdependency of infant baptism and the covenant of grace. Furthermore, the sign of the New Covenant is not baptism[2] but the cup of remembrance explicitly stated in Luke 22:20 and I Corinthians 11:25.

- NCT is in basic agreement with present-day covenantal Reformed Baptists[3] that the progressive revelation of God’s gracious promise as first stated in Genesis 3:15 is formally concluded under the New Covenant. However, disagreement remains with CT over its one covenant of grace-two administrations teaching, and confusion over the continued use of the covenant of grace term by both CT and Reformed Baptist Theology (RBT). This situation would be helped by replacing “the covenant of grace” term with the term “covenant of promise” as it applies to Genesis 3:15, thus making it a better theological term to use as the first covenant of the “covenants of promise” (Eph. 2:12).

- NCT dissents from Reformed Theology’s teaching of the one covenant of grace theological system to explain redemptive history. It has disagreements with: (1) all three covenantal teachings of Covenant Theology,[4] believing that they are based too much upon theological deduction; (2) equating the historical outworking of God’s eternal purpose with an eternal covenant; and (3) interpreting the NT by the OT in its must defense for infant baptism of covenant children—a violation of sound biblical hermeneutics.

- NCT teaches that the church, as the body of Christ—although existing from all eternity in God’s plan and purpose—did not exist in redemptive history before Christ’s resurrection and Pentecost. To have the church existing in the OT would mean that it was a headless church, since Christ, who as “the head of the body, the church, is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead” (Col. 1:18). Yet, with few exceptions, both CT and much of Baptist Theology, including RBT, teach that the church existed in the OT.

- NCT asserts that the “moral law” is best expressed in the two greatest commandments—love of God and love of neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40; Mark 12:30-31; Luke 10:27), which are absolute and unchanging—not the Ten Commandments as taught by both CT and RBT in their respective confessions (the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) and the 1677/1689 Second London Baptist Confession). These two confessions teach that the Fourth Commandment—the Sabbath Commandment—is binding upon “all mankind in all Ages,” [5] except for the day of observance which is changed from the last day of the week to the first day of the week as a result of the resurrection of Christ. Hence, the Sabbath is viewed as a creation ordinance and to be observed as the “Christian Sabbath.”

- NCT is not Sabbatarian. The Sabbath commandment has been typologically fulfill by Christ (Matt. 11:28-30; Heb. 4:1-11; Col. 2:16-17); yet believers are not to forsake assembling together (Heb. 10:25). NCT affirms that Jesus Christ came to fulfill all the law and the prophets (Matt. 5:17-18) and to inaugurate the New Covenant (Matt. 26:28; Luke 9:31; Heb. 10:9-10) wherein the Father has exhorted us from heaven to “hear Him” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35) and live under the NC law of Christ (I Cor. 9:21)[6] in obedience to the two greatest commandments as taught by Christ and writers of the NT.

- NCT holds that God’s will, “will be done on earth, as it is in heaven” (Matt. 6:10) and that His eternal kingdom purpose “carried out in Christ Jesus” (Eph. 3:11) is the Christotelic[7] focus of the Bible as God administers His will covenantally in time.

- NCT believes that the doctrinal partitions that sadly divide sovereign grace theology held by both Presbyterians and Baptists cannot be broken down for the gospel’s sake without questioning the heart of Reformed Theology’s system of Covenant Theology, namely, its one overarching covenant of grace with its infant baptism of covenant children—the Achilles’ heel to major doctrinal portions of its theological system. Since the writing of the Westminster Confession of Faith, Baptists have dealt with the result of CT for over 360 years by rightly rejecting its doctrine of the church consisting of a mixed multitude primarily caused by the practice of baptizing infants of one or both believing parents, but they have not adequately dealt with the cause, the heart of CT’s whole doctrinal system, namely, its understanding and explanation of the overarching nature of “the covenant of grace” itself. Now is the time for such middle-walls of doctrinal partition to be broken down biblically. May our merciful and gracious God help us to bring it to pass. Amen.

An Explanation of Theological Terms

and Systems

AN EXPLANATION OF THEOLOGICAL TERMS

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. “The term ‘biblical theology’ can . . . be used to denote either the theology that is expressed in the Bible itself, or a system of theology which is—or professes to be—in accord with the Bible. . . . Understood in the first sense, biblical theology lies within the sphere of biblical studies and has the task of providing a coherent description of the structure of belief actually found in the Bible, Old Testament or New. Understood in the second sense, biblical theology refers to a kind of dogmatics [systematics] which bases itself upon the Bible as its primary, or sole, source of authority. . . . Biblical theology and dogmatics are thus two separate but complementary disciplines.”[1] Biblical Theology “is that branch of Exegetical Theology which deals with the process of the self-revelation of God deposited in the Bible.”[2] The form of God’s progressive self-revelation to man finds its clearest expression in the idea of the covenant. Viewed from the standpoint of the eternal Kingdom of God, Biblical Theology may be defined as “the knowledge of God’s great operation in introducing His kingdom among men, presented to our view exactly as it lies presented in the Bible.”[3]

CHRISTOTELIC HERMENEUTICS.[4] The word Christotelic results from the combination of two Greek words: Χριστὸς (Christos – Christ) and τέλος (telos – end or goal). Thus, a Christotelic hermeneutic views the Lord Jesus Christ as the focus and ultimate goal or end of God’s Word seeking to consistently interpret all Scripture in view of this great truth (Luke 24:27). Furthermore, this particular method of interpretation emphasizes three principles: (1) the person and work of the Lord Jesus Christ is the nexus of God’s plan in redemptive history; ( 2) all Scripture either refers to Christ directly (e.g., the Gospel narratives, messianic prophecies) by referring to Christ typologically or preparing the way for Christ by unfolding redemptive history which ultimately points to His person and work (e.g., the Flood, the calling of Abraham); and (3) Christ and the New Testament must have interpretive priority over the Old Testament (OT). We must “listen to Him” (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7: Luke 9:35).

CREATIONISM. “Creationism” is one of two orthodox teachings used to explain the origin of the soul. The other one is that of “Traducianism” (see below). According to “Creationism,” God creates the soul ex nihilo, out of nothing. As the soul is a direct creation by God (Gen. 2:7; Eccl. 12:7, Isa. 57:16, Zech. 12:1, Heb. 12:9) it is pure and sinless, but when considered in relation to the body as a person, the individual is reckoned sinful immediately by virtue of mankind’s solidaric union with Adam. Both the principle of “Solidarity” (see below) and the judicial imputation of Adam’s first sin to posterity result in posterity coming into existence morally depraved and guilty of Adam’s first sin (Rom. 5:12-19). “Creationism” is the teaching that the body only is propagated according to the law that “like begets like,” The main objection against “Creationism” has been that it allegedly makes God the author of man’s sinful nature. But a proper understanding of the principle of solidaric union and judicial imputation relieves it of this charge. In orthodox Christianity, this view has been most generally propounded by those adhering to the Reformed faith.

FEDERAL UNION (HEADSHIP). Synonymous with “Representative Union” (see below).

FEDERALIST. The term “Federalist” is applied to those theologians who teach Representative Union as the specific ground of the union between Adam and posterity.

NATURAL UNION (HEADSHIP). As used by the “Realist” (see below), “Natural Union” means racial unity by virtue of a “Realistic Union” (see below) between Adam and posterity. As used by the Federalist, “Natural Union” means mere parental headship, i.e., the law of natural generation.

NUMERICAL UNITY. As generally used by the “Realist (e.g., Wm. G. T. Shedd),” “Numerical Unity” is a term that refers to human nature as single, entire, and undivided only in Adam and Eve in whom it was created and prior to the propagation of their first offspring.

ORIGNIAL SIN. The term “Original Sin” is used in a wide sense to include both the imputation of Adam’s first sin and the ensuing corruption from it because the imputed sin aspect and the moral corruption aspect are never found separated in natural man. Because Adam was uniquely related to the human race both as the natural and representative head, and because the first evil inclining of Adam’s will had no sinful antecedent, it is denominated “Original Sin.” It is also called “original” because it originated in the human race by man, not God. It differs from the first actual sin in fallen man because of the unique relationship which Adam had as the head of the race. In a loose sense there is an original sin with each individual, but this is not what is meant by the term “Original Sin.”

REALISTIC UNION. “Realistic Union” is the term applied to that view which explains man’s solidaric union (“Solidarity,” see below) with Adam as one that is a real union. In the beginning, Adam was the human race in that human nature was numerically and specifically one in him (see “Numerical Unity” above and “Specific Unity” below). Therefore, when Adam committed his first sin, all men co-sinned with him. According to the “Representative Union” (see below) view of “Covenant Theology” (see below), in difference to the realistic union view, subsequent to the first sin, the sins of Adam were not those of posterity because the “Covenant of Works” (see below) had been broken and could no longer apply to posterity as corporate sin committed by him. “Natural Union,” according to the “Realist,” is sometimes used to mean “Seminal Union” (see below). “Natural Union,” therefore, when used by those who teach the “Realistic Union” view, means more than parental headship. It also includes a real union between Adam and posterity, which the “Federalist” denies. The Realist strongly denies that the imputations of Adam and Christ in Romans 5:12-19 are parallel, holding that the imputation of sin and righteousness are not exegetically the same in principle as the “Representative Union” view teaches.

REDEMPTIVE HISTORY. The term “Redemptive History” (History of redemption) is used interchangeably with the term salvation history[5] meaning the biblical record of the progressive outworking of God’s acts in history, that is, the bringing to realization on earth His will and plan of salvation.

REPRESENTATIVE UNION. “Representative Union” is the term applied to that view which explains man’s solidaric union (“Solidarity,” see below) with Adam as one that is not a real but a representative union. Adam represented mankind by virtue of a unique relationship established by God. This relationship is usually referred to as coming about by means of a covenant. This relationship or covenant was broken by Adam’s first sin. Therefore, those sins committed by Adam after the first sin were not reckoned to posterity because the unique relationship of Adam with posterity had been broken. “Natural Union” (see above), according to the Federalist (see above), is used synonymously with “Seminal Union” (see below) to mean mere parental headship. The term “Representative Union” is used synonymously with “Federal Union” and “Federal Headship” (see above). It involves both a solidaric union and a judicial imputation. Most Federalists also hold that Creationism (see above) is the best explanation of the origin of the soul. The “Realist” teaches that Traducianism (see below) is the best explanation of the origin of the soul.

SEMINAL UNION (HEADSHIP). For the “Realist,” “Seminal Union” is essentially the same in meaning as “Realistic Union.” Perhaps it would also include natural generation. For the “Federalist,” “Seminal Union” means mere parental headship which is inherent in the process of natural generation.

SOLIDARITY. “Solidarity” is defined as a union or community of interests and responsibilities of a group. In respect to the doctrine of “Original Sin,” it means that mankind was in union with Adam either by virtue of a “Realistic Union” or a “Representative Union.”

SPECIFIC UNITY. As generally used by the “Realist (e.g., Wm. G. T. Shedd),” “Specific Unity” refers to the unity of nature of a species. By this is meant not only “Unity of Origin” (see below) but also that every individual is propagated from a common nature, a human nature, or “Substance” (see below) with the distinctive that, in propagation it was subdivided and individualized, therefore, the numerically one human nature, as it first existed, became a multitude of individual persons. Hence, human nature is no longer a “Numerical Unity” although it is still specifically one. “Specific Unity, “as generally understood by the “Federalist,” means the same thing as “Numerical Unity.” The “Federalist” does not believe that an immaterial “Substance” can be divided.

SUBSTANCE. When used metaphysically in reference to the origin of the soul, “Substance” refers to human nature as unextended and formless; yet as a real entity having definite and distinguishable properties. Hence, neither the “Traducianist” nor the “Creationist” uses the term to imply extension of figure, i.e., materiality or corporeality. In reference to the immaterial aspect of man, therefore, it refers only to the unseen principle of life itself. It is a spiritual, rational, and immortal essence, similar to the un-extended essence of God, in whose image it was created ex nihilo, out of nothing. (See Wm. G. T. Shedd’s Dogmatic Theology)

TRADUCIANISM. “Traducianism” is one of two orthodox views used to explain the origin of the soul. The other view is that of “Creationism” (see above). Those who teach the Traducianist view say that the human race was immediately created in Adam, and, as respects both body and soul, was propagated from him by natural generation—all souls since Adam being only mediately created by God, as the upholder of the laws of propagation which were originally established by him. The main objection to this view is that a spiritual “Substance” cannot be divided. Augustine preferred Traducianism for a time. Since Augustine, it has been taught by Romanism, Lutheranism, and many modern-day Evangelical theologians.

UNITY OF ORIGIN. According to the “Realist” “Unity of Origin” means the common nature or “Substance,” i.e., human nature, as it relates, through the law of propagation (according to Traducianism) to the “Specific Unity” of the species in Adam. According to the “Federalist,” “Unity of Origin” means that each individual of the human race derives his nature by natural generation from Adam who is the natural or parental head of the race. The “Federalist” views it as a general expression, not necessarily meaning that the soul comes into existence either by traduction or separate creation. Most “Federalists” are creationists. Therefore, to the Federalist, “Unity of Origin” simply means community of nature, but not a nature that is specifically one with Adam in the Realistic sense.

THEOLOGICAL TERMS RELATED TO GOD’S LAW

ABSOLUTE AND COVENANT LAW. God’s “Absolute Law”—His unchanging law—individually and personally binds all mankind by virtue of their being created in the image of God regardless of dispensational and covenantal distinctions. But “God’s Covenant Law” (see below) corporately and covenantally binds only those who are in the covenant community according to the terms of the covenant in force at a specified time within redemptive history. In its absolute sense, then, the law of God is ethically and morally binding upon all mankind as individuals forever—whether Jew or Gentile (Rom. 2:12-15), whether living in the Old or New dispensation era (Matt. 22:36-40). But in its covenantal sense, the law of God is only binding upon a covenant community so long as that specified covenant is in force.

GOD’S COVENANT LAW. “God’s Covenant Law” is His standard of righteousness administered covenantally. The way God administers His law can and did change. Covenantal law is binding only as long as the specific biblical covenant is in force. The “Old Covenant,” that is, “the law of Moses,” was a highly structured covenant consisting of moral, ceremonial and judicial (case) laws. The Ten Commandments were written upon two tablets of stone are the heart of the Old Covenant (Exod. 20:1-17; 31:18; Deut. 9:9, 11, 15). The Fourth Commandment, which was the Sabbath commandment, was the sign of the Old Covenant between God and the children of Israel. It was to be observed on the seventh day of the week as a Sabbath day of physical rest (Exod. 31:12-17). Under the New Covenant administration, God’s “covenant law is now administered under “the law of Christ” (I Cor. 9:20-21) and its sign is the “cup of remembrance” (Luke 22:20; I Cor. 11:25

GOD’S RIGHTEOUS UNCHANGING LAW. According to “New Covenant Theology,” this aspect of “the law of God” is His one unchanging standard of righteousness; hence, it may be referred to as “God’s Absolute Law” (see above). Theologically, it is better described as being innate in mankind, written on the heart, by virtue of man being created in the image of God. Romans 2:14-15 is central in understanding this meaning of absolute law: “For when the Gentiles who do not have the Law [i.e., the written Old Covenant law of Moses] do instinctively [by nature; KJV] the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness. . . .” This is supported further by Christ’s teaching of the first and second greatest commandments: love of God and neighbor in Matthew 22:36-40. It is better to understand that “the absolute law of God” is God’s unchanging standard of righteousness for all mankind. “The Ten Commandments” of the Old Covenant are a covenantal outworking in “Redemptive History” of the two greatest commandments. In sum, God’s absolute law is not to be equated with the covenantal administration of the Ten Commandments understood to be “moral law” forever as most in “Reformed Theology” and others teach. All the law and the prophets (the OT Scriptures, including “the Ten Commandments,” see below) hang upon the two greatest commandments, not the reverse. Such a reversal causes the Christian to look back to the Old Covenant and Moses as a rule of life and not forward to the New Covenant law of Christ and hear Him as commanded by the Father as set forth in the Holy Scriptures (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35) by which all Christians are to walk by the permanent, enabling and abiding presence of the indwelling Holy Spirit (John 14:16; Rom. 8:4; I John 3:24).

“MORAL LAW” AS TAUGHT IN REFORMED THEOLOGY. According to Calvin, the third division of “the law of God which we call the moral law is nothing else than a testimony of natural law and of that conscience which God has engraved upon the minds of men [Rom. 2:14-15].” For it is God’s “eternal and unchangeable will that he himself indeed be worshiped by us all, and that we love one another [Matt. 22:37-40].”[6] According to the Westminster Confession of Faith, the law of God is “commonly called moral.” It was given by God to Adam “as a covenant of works,” After Adam’s fall through disobedience, the law of God “continued to be a perfect rule of righteousness.” It is summarily “comprehended in the ten commandments.” It binds “the whole man . . . unto obedience forever.”[7] The substance of the moral law of God in the Old Testament, summarily comprehended in the Ten Commandments, means that “the things commanded or forbidden which are morally good or evil . . . cannot be changed or abolished”[8] and thus binds the believer as a rule of life forever.

NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY AND THE LAW OF GOD. The central passage for understanding the law of God by those holding to New Covenant Theology (NCT) is set forth by the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 9:20-21 where he declares:

“to the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might win Jews; to those who are under the Law [the Mosaic law], as under the Law, though not being myself under the Law, that I might win those who are under the law; to those who are without law, as without law, though not being without the law of God (the unchanging law of God understood to be love of God and Neighbor) but under the law of Christ [in-lawed to Christ], that I might win those who are without law.”

This text makes clear that New Covenant believers are not under the Old Covenant administration of the law of God. But they are not “without the law of God; rather they are under the New Covenant administration of God’s law, that is, under the law of Christ [literally, in-lawed to Christ]. In these two verses both the law of Moses and the law of Christ are covenantally taught. Both are covenantal administrations of the two greatest commandments innate and unchanging in the law of God. The covenantal distinction is also made clear in Hebrews 7:12 which reads: “When the priesthood is changed, of necessity there takes place a change of law also”—of covenantal law, referring to the New Covenant, not a change in the law, that is, within the law, that is, with the moral law continuing. The law of God covenantally administered under the New Covenant is also called elsewhere “the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2); “the law of liberty” (James 1:25; 2:12) and “the royal law,” which if “you are fulfilling the royal law, according to the Scripture, ‘YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF,” (James 2:8; Lev. 19:18; Rom. 13:8-10; “the whole law,” Gal. 5:14). The connection of these verses with the OT Scripture in Leviticus 19:18 shows that the second greatest commandment (Matt. 22:39-40), “love your neighbor as yourself, continues unchanging for the NC believer. Under the New Covenant, the law of Christ also incorporates nine of the Ten Commandments including fulfillment of the fourth commandment, the Sabbath commandment, resulting in “Sabbath rest” for the people of God (Heb. 4:9). Indeed, the law of Christ includes all the commandments of the New Covenant administration of God’s unchanging law summed up either under the first and greatest commandment, “the love of God (I John 5:3) or under the second greatest commandment, the “new commandment” which He gave to “love one another, even as I have loved you” (John 13:34). Further, NCT does not agree with the threefold division of the Mosaic law into moral, ceremonial and judicial—a division that was not systematically developed before Thomas Aquinas (ca. 1225-1274) in the 13th century. In the 16th century Reformation it was taught by John Calvin (1509-1564) and then followed by the 17th century systematization of Reformed Theology as expressly stated in the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chap. XIX, Sec., 3 & 4), and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (Chap. 19, Sec., 3 & 4). Traditionally, the majority of Reformed theologians have understood the Ten Commandments to be “moral law” forever. New Covenant Theology, however, holds that the Old Covenant, the law of Moses, as a whole—moral, ceremonial and judicial—was covenantally fulfilled by Jesus Christ and, therefore, done away with as covenantal law. It should be noted that the word “moral” does not occur in the original languages of the Bible. Therefore, it is better not to refer to God’s law as “the moral law of God,” especially if it is understood to be in a separate category from His other covenantal commandments. In sum, NCT does not teach that the Ten Commandments are: (1) “pure moral law” written “on the hearts of all men by creation”; (2) transcovenantal; and (3) “function outside the Old Covenant as a unit.

THE LAW. In the New Testament “the law” is variously used in context, for example, to refer to (1) the will of God as revealed in the whole of the Old Testament Scripture (Matt. 5:17-18; see also Ps. 1:2 and Heb. 10:7-9); (2) the law of God broadly understood as absolute and unchanging, for example, in the two greatest commandments (Matt. 22:36-40) and as taught in “not being without the law of God” in the middle of verse 21 in I Corinthians 9; and, most often of (3) the law of Moses, meaning the Old Covenant (e.g., I Cor. 9:9, 20-21; II Cor. 3:3-17; Gal. 3:17, 19, 21).

THE LAW OF CHRIST. “The law of Christ” is called that in I Corinthians 9:21 and Galatians 6:2. It is intimately related to the love of one’s neighbor and is called “the royal law” in James 2:8 and “the law of liberty” in James 1:25; 2:12. “The law of Christ” is covenantal law binding upon believers in Christ under the administration of the New Covenant, a covenant called the everlasting or eternal covenant by the writer of Hebrews (Heb. 13:20). The New Covenant established by Christ fulfills and therefore, according to the will of God, does away with the Old Covenant as covenantal law (Matt. 17:5; Mark 9:7; Luke 9:35; II Cor. 3:7, 14; Heb. 8:13; 10:9). The New Covenant believer is not under the Old Covenant law of Moses but under grace (Rom. 6:14). However, the New Covenant believer is not without law to God (God’s absolute, unchanging law), for he is under the New Covenant law of Christ (I Cor. 9:21; lit. in-lawed to Christ), the royal law, according to the Scripture” (Jas. 2:8). Hence, “all Scripture,” including the OT Scripture, being God breathed, is “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness (II Tim. 3:16; Acts 24:14; Rom. 13:8-10; 15:4; I Cor. 10:11). But only in Christ and the power of the indwelling Holy Spirit is the NC believer enabled to “live and walk by the Spirit” (Rom. 8:1-2, 4, 9; Gal. 5:18, 25) and so “fulfill the law of Christ” (Gal. 6:2).

THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. “The Ten Commandments” are the words written on two tables of stone given to Moses upon Mount Sinai (Exod. 24:12; Deut. 4:13; 5:22; 9:9, 11, 15). The term, Ten Commandments (lit. the “ten words”) is used interchangeably with the term “Decalogue,” which refers to the “ten words.” Although “the Ten Commandments” are a covenantal outworking in redemptive history of God’s law given to the children of Israel in the hands of Moses, they are not to be equated with God’s absolute law (see above). God’s absolute law is transcovenantal. It is His unchanging standard of righteousness, which is better understood to be the two greatest commandments, upon which all the law and prophets hang (Matt. 22:37-40). It is the two greatest commandments that are innate in mankind by virtue of man being created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27; Rom. 2:14-15), not the Decalogue including its sign, the Fourth commandment (the seventh day Sabbath of Exod. 31:12-17). The Decalogue is not absolute law (unchanging law). It is covenant law, which came later in the progress of “Redemptive History” (see above) and was fulfilled and done away with as covenant law by Christ. Therefore, the Decalogue is neither “moral law” forever nor does it transcend the New Covenant, as “Reformed Theology” teaches. According to NCT, the Old Covenant Decalogue does not bind the conscience of the New Covenant believer as a rule of life; rather it is “the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus” which under the New Covenant sets the believer “free from the law of sin and of death” (Rom. 8:2). Hence, the New Covenant believer is “not under law [the OC law of Moses], but under grace [of the New Covenant law of Christ]” (Rom. 6:14). “What then? Shall we sin because we are not under law but under grace? May it never be” (Rom. 6:15)! For “thanks be to God,” in Christ “having been freed from sin,” we have become “slaves of righteousness . . . resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life” (Rom. 6: 17-18, 22).

TERMS RELATED TO TRADITIONAL

COVENANT THEOLOOGY

COVENANT OF GRACE. Patterned after the “Covenant of Redemption” (see below), the Covenant of Grace is a theologically constructed term by Reformed Theology applied to “that gracious agreement between the offended God and the offending but elect sinner, in which God promises salvation through faith in Christ, and the sinner accepts this believingly, promising a life of faith and obedience”[9] There are a number of different views concerning the parties involved in the “Covenant of Grace,” but most Reformed theologians are generally agreed as to the doctrine involved, namely, that it is to be viewed in its organic relation to the whole counsel of redemption and that Christ as the second and last Adam came to fulfill the broken “Covenant of Works” (see below) which the first Adam failed to do. Historically, this covenant was revealed by God in the promise of Genesis 3:15. Reformed Theology teaches that the Covenant of Grace was clearly revealed in the Abrahamic Covenant made with Abraham and his descendants (Gen. 17:7) and that it continues as the basis for renewal and administering under the Old Covenant and the New Covenant. For Reformed theologians the term “Covenant of Grace” is the second covenant which God made with man—the first being the “Covenant of Works” (see the WCF, Chap. VII, Sec. 3-5). Where many non-covenantal theologians refer to the “proto-evangel” in Genesis 3:15, Covenant theologians refer to it as the “Covenant of Grace,” which overarches all of the biblical covenants which follow in “Redemptive History.”

COVENANT OF REDEMPTION. The “Covenant of Redemption” is a theologically constructed term in “Reformed Theology.” It has been systematically refined in later Reformed Theology to refer to “the agreement between the Father, giving the Son as Head and Redeemer of the elect, and the Son, voluntarily taking the place of those whom the Father had given Him.”[10] Viewed in conjunction with the counsel of redemption, it “is the eternal prototype of the historical covenant of grace. This accounts for the fact that many combine the two into a single covenant. The former is eternal, that is, from eternity, and the later, temporal in the sense that it is realized in time. The former is a compact between the Father and the Son as the Surety and Head of the elect, while the latter is a compact between the triune God and the elect sinner in the Surety.”[11] Historically, there has always been some hesitancy on the part of some within Reformed Theology to avoid “the term ‘covenant’ to identify the intertrinitarian arrangements,” and “no doubt this reflects hesitation as to the legitimacy of this use of the term.”[12] More recently, some within “Reformed Theology” speak of the “Covenant of Redemption,” rather than the “Covenant of Grace,” as the theological term under which all the post-fall divine covenants made with man are to be viewed.

COVENANT OF WORKS. The “Covenant of Works” as clearly enunciated by the Scottish theologian, Robert Rollock, at the end of the 16th century has remained essentially unchanged. Also called the Covenant of Nature (and many other terms, including the Edenic Covenant and Adamic Covenant and at the beginning of the 21st century, the Creator’s Covenant of Works with Adam, by Meredith G. Kline). Rollock defines the Covenant of Nature (Works) as the covenant God made with Adam in which “God promises to man eternal life on the condition of good works performed in the strength of nature, a condition which man in turn accepts. The foundation of this covenant was the holy and perfect nature with which man was endowed at creation and is thus to be sharply distinguished from the foundation of the “Covenant of Grace,” which is in Christ and the grace of God in Christ. The condition was good works performed in virtue of the holy nature with which man was created and not faith in Christ or the works of grace. The heads of this condition are the commands of the Decalogue written first of all upon man’s heart. The promise is eternal life accruing to man not on the basis of his original righteousness or integrity but on the basis of the good works performed in the strength of this integrity. As regards repetition, the covenant is repeated again and again from the creation and fall of man to the coming of Christ but particularly in the promulgation from Mount Sinai by the hand of Moses (Exod. 19:5-8). However, the end of this repetition was not that men might be justified and live by this covenant but that, being convicted of sin and of the impossibility of good works in the strength of nature they might take refuge in the “Covenant of Grace.” The threat of the covenant was the curse epitomized in the two-fold death which followed upon the breach, death corporal and spiritual.”[13] In the creedal formulations and theological writings of the 17th century the conception of God’s covenant with Adam moved away from that “of a legal covenant and the gracious character of what was still called the Covenant of Works came to be recognized and accented. This is the emphasis which appears in the Westminster documents when covenant is construed as ‘voluntary condescension’ and ‘special act of providence.’ And the designation ‘covenant of life’ in both [Larger and Shorter] Catechisms is much more in accord with the grace which conditions the administration than is the term ‘covenant of works.’”[14] (See WCF, Chap. VII, Sec. 1 and 2; Chap. XIX, Sec. 1; L.C., 20-22; S.C., 12).

AN EXPLANATION OF THEOLOGICAL SYSTEMS

COVENANT THEOLOGY. “Covenant Theology” (often used interchangeably with “Reformed Theology,” also known as Federal Theology denotes a development of theological thought and construction within the Reformed or Calvinistic tradition which centers around the covenant idea as the organizing principle of understanding God’s relations with man. The covenant concept had its theological roots in Switzerland early in the Reformation through Zwingli (1484-1531), Calvin (1509-1564) and, especially, Bullinger (1504-1575); it was clearly stated in the Second Helvetic Confession (1556) and developed in Switzerland by Francis Turretin (1623-1687). In Germany, early in the 16th century, it was developed and taught by both Olevianus (1506-1538) and Ursinus (1534-1583), the well-known Heidelberg theologians. Slightly later in the 17th century, in the Netherlands, a system of Covenant Theology was worked out by Cloppenburg (1592-1652) whose system was further developed in Holland by Johannes Cocceius (1603-1669) and Herman Witsius (1636-1708). During the 17th century, Covenant Theology was also developed into a system in the British Isles somewhat independent from Holland as seen in the writings of such men as Rollock and Howie in Scotland, and by Cartwright, Preston, Perkins, Ames and Ball in England. Having creedal roots in the Irish Articles of Religion written by James Ussher in 1615, Covenant Theology was classically set forth by the Westminster divines in the Westminster Confession of Faith and Catechisms (1647). See the WCF, Chap. VII, Sec. 1-6; Chap. XIV, Sec. 2; Chap. XIX, Sec. 1; Chap. XXVIII, Sec. 1; LC, 30-36, 166; SC, 20, 94.[15] Although almost all Reformed theologians are agreed upon some type of representative principle, there have been many variations within Covenant Theology concerning the distinctions in the number and the precise nature of the divine covenants. By and large, however, the covenant idea has been theologically expressed in Covenant Theology by three covenantal terms: the Covenant of Redemption; the Covenant of Works; the Covenant of Grace. The Covenant of Redemption (a later development from a controversy which developed over the problem of “conditionality” in the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace) is applied to the eternal intra-Trinitarian counsel and economy of salvation to which the Covenant of Works and Covenant of Grace are an outworking in time and redemptive history. Because the Covenant of Redemption is said to be an eternal covenant within the Godhead, the Covenant of Grace, according to Paedobaptist Covenant theologians, extends to the children of believers. Hence, such children are to be baptized, patterned after circumcision under the Abrahamic Covenant. This aspect of Covenant Theology: the equating of New Covenant baptism to Old Covenant circumcision has been denied by all Baptists.

CREDO-BAPTIST THEOLOGY. The term Credo-Baptist is used today by many Reformed Baptists who ascribe to the 1677/1689 London Baptist Confession (Second London Confession). Some holding to this confession require member churches to fully subscribe to this Confession. Major characteristics of Credo-Baptist Theology (or Reformed Baptist Theology, see below) are the teachings of: “the Covenant of Grace” modified with respect to the doctrine of the church; the Ten Commandments as unchanging moral law, which is transcovenantal over all the “covenants of promise” in Scripture (Eph. 2:12); and, the Christian Sabbath as a creation ordinance. Several who call themselves Credo-Baptists fully subscribe to and, in practice, are functionally wedded to the Second London Confession. See further the explanation of “Particular Baptists.” The Association of Reformed Baptist Churches of America (ARBCA) is one group that identifies itself as Credo-Baptist.

DISPENSATIONAL THEOLOGY. There are many variations of Classical and Progressive Dispensationalism, especially in understanding the prophetic Scriptures; yet, all versions are premillennial in their understanding of an earthly millennial age before the eternal age to come. “The essence of Dispensationalism . . . is the distinction between Israel and the Church. This grows out of the dispensationalist’s consistent employment of normal or plain or historical-grammatical interpretation, and it reflects an understanding of the basic purpose of God in all His dealing with mankind as that of glorifying Himself through salvation and other purposes as well.”[16] One of the major differences of Classical Dispensationalism with Progressive Dispensationalism exist over one unified plan of redemption. The former sees two distinct redemptive purposes—one for the Church and one for Israel; the latter sees one redemptive purpose, where the church is a vital part of the plan for the salvation of the Church and Israel.[17]

NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY. “New Covenant Theology” (NCT) is a developing system of theology that is providing a more accurate way of interpreting the Scriptures than that taught by the systems (including their internal variations) of traditional Covenant Theology (CT) and Dispensational Theology (DT). NCT is a biblical theological approach to understanding the progressive unfolding of the history of redemption in fulfillment of God’s eternal kingdom purpose on earth. This approach is based upon a Christ-centered Christotelic (see above) interpretation of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments, that emphasizes the way in which the New Testament interprets the Old as taught by the risen Christ to the Emmaus disciples when “He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures” (Luke 24:27). While agreeing with aspects of CT and DT, NCT questions the basic hermeneutical presuppositions of both theological systems, neither of which are consistent in interpreting the OT in light of Christ in the NT. The fundamental difference that New Covenant Theology has with the traditional system of Covenant Theology is over its one overarching Covenant of Grace designed to support the church’s existence in the OT and infant baptism of covenant children in the NT, and over its teaching of the threefold division of God’s law into moral, ceremonial and civil (judicial). The fundamental difference with the system of Dispensational Theology is over its teaching of two redemptive purposes—one for Israel and one for the Church—and explanation of unfulfilled Bible prophecy. The differences that NCT has with both systems also relate to the doctrine of the Church and the meaning and significance of Spirit baptism. NCT may be defined broadly as “God’s eternal purpose progressively revealed in the commandments and promises of the biblical covenants of the OT and fulfilled in the New Covenant of Jesus Christ.” Its major themes may be summarily described with reference to: (1) God’s eternal purpose of redemption: covenantally revealed and administered through historical covenants beginning with a covenant relationship with Adam (Rom. 5:12-19; Eph. 2:12) and a post-fall covenant of promise (Gen. 3:15); (2) Hermeneutics: consistent interpretation of the OT in light of the NT (Luke 24:27; II Cor. 1:20); (3) The people of God: all the elect of God throughout time first constituted as the church at Pentecost (Acts 1:4-5; 2:1-4), but not before (John 7:39; 17:21-22; Col. 1:26-27; Heb. 11:39-40), as one corporate spiritual body in union with Christ (I Cor. 12:13; Eph. 2:19-21; Col. 1:18, 24); and (4) The law of God: the two greatest commandments of God—love of God and neighbor (Matt. 22:36-40)—are innate law known instinctively by man (Rom. 2:14-15) created in God’s image (Gen. 1:27). Upon these two greatest commandments all of God’s covenantally written laws depend as administered under biblical covenants which culminate in the New Covenant law of Christ (I Cor. 9:21; Rom. 13:8-10; Gal. 6:2; Heb. 8:6, 13; James 2:8; I John 5:3). Innate law is righteous and unchanging; covenantal law is written, righteous and changeable (Heb. 7:12) in accordance with God’s covenantal purpose (Eph. 1:11; 3:11; II Tim. 1:9).

PAEDOBAPTIST THEOLOGY. Paedobaptist Theology refers to that aspect of “Covenant Theology” (see “Reformed Theology”) that holds to water baptism for the infant children of one or both believing parents.

PARTICULAR BAPTISTS. Particular Baptist churches have their doctrinal roots in the early 17th century in England and influence from a century earlier by the Swiss Brethren (also called Anabaptists) in Switzerland, especially regarding the nature of the Church comprised of believers only. Today, in America, they may be distinguished, in general, under two theological groups. The groups may or may not use such terms as “Reformed” or “Baptist” in their name. Although variations exist, the first group may be identified as “Reformed Baptists.” With exceptions, this group agrees with much of Covenant Theology’s teaching as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith, namely, that all of the Ten Commandments are “moral law forever” and binding upon all believers as a rule of life. For the most part, this group prefers the “Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/1689.” Many in this first group may be identified as Credo-Baptists. The second group, which may be identified as “Sovereign Grace Baptists,” prefers the 1646 edition of the “First London Baptist Confession of Faith” with the 1646 Appendix written by Benjamin Cox. This group is increasingly being identified with New Covenant Theology. It holds that God’s absolute or unchanging law, such as expressed in the two greatest commandments upon which all the law and the prophets hang (Matt. 22:36-40), does not change being innate in man by virtue of being created in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; Rom. 2:14-15). However, the administration of God’s covenantal law, such as expressed in the whole Old Covenant law, does change (e.g., Heb. 8:6-13; 10:9). This is the teaching of the apostle Paul where he writes that New Covenant believers are not under the law, that is, the Old Covenant Mosaic law; yet, they are not without law to God, for they are in-lawed to Christ (I Cor. 9:21). Also this group does not agree with the one overarching Covenant of Grace—different administrations teaching of Reformed Theology. The present-day doctrinal issues arising within the Reformed Baptist group and the issues on the law of God, while not answered at length in the 1646 edition of the First London Baptist Confession, are embedded in this Confession held by the Sovereign Grace Baptists. (See Articles XXV and XXIX of the 1646 Confession and especially Articles IX and X of the 1646 Appendix, which briefly answer the lawful use and understanding of the law of Moses and the law of Christ.)

REFORMED BAPTIST THEOLOGY. Many holding to Reformed Baptist Theology, in agreement with the Westminster Confession of Faith (1647) and the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/1689, teach that the New Testament binds the Ten Commandments upon Christian consciences because they are “pure moral law.” The ceremonial and judicial (or civil) laws of the Mosaic Covenant were rescinded in Christ but the moral law remains in force. Thus the Ten Commandments are “transcovenantal” and function outside the Old Covenant as a unit because they are written on the hearts of all men by creation. However, not all who hold to Reformed Baptist Theology teach that the Ten Commandments are transcovenantal. Hence, they do not fully subscribe to and are not functionally wedded to the Second London Baptist Confession as are many of those who call themselves Credo-Baptists. (See above for the two groups of “Particular Baptists.”) It is common for Reformed Baptists to equate the Covenant of Grace with God’s “eternal purpose,” citing II Timothy 1:9 as scriptural proof and asserting “that it [the Covenant of Grace] is founded in that eternal covenant transaction [i.e., the Covenant of Redemption] that was between the Father and the Son about the redemption of the elect.”[18] This equation of God’s “eternal purpose” with the Covenant of Grace/Redemption in II Timothy 1:9 apparently unbeknown by many Reformed Baptists permits understanding the Church, which is the body of Christ, to exist as a corporate spiritual identity in the Old Testament—crucial for Reformed Theology’s teaching in support of its doctrine of the Church and infant baptism of covenant children—which is contrary to Baptist ecclesiology that the Church is comprised of confessing believers only.

REFORMED THEOLOGY. Historically, in a more restricted sense, the term “Reformed Theology” (used interchangeably with Covenant Theology) refers to the doctrine of those churches which, since the days of the 16th century Reformation, bare the characteristic distinctives of Calvinism, i.e., which derive their theological heritage from Geneva. Central to the doctrinal teachings in the stricter sense, especially of later Reformed Theology, are: Covenant Theology, a Presbyterian or Episcopal form of church government, and infant baptism (Paedobaptism). In a broader sense, the term “Reformed Theology” has been used to refer to all those churches which rejected Roman Catholicism during and immediately following the Reformation. In this sense, it included the Lutheran Churches, and the Reformed Churches (in the stricter sense of the term) on the European continent and in the British Isles, and the Church of England, the Independents (Congregationalists), Baptists and Methodists, especially in England and America. Contemporary Reformed Baptists also claim to be “Reformed” in theology. By this they mean that in their concept of God and salvation they are soteriological Calvinists. They believe and proclaim the “five points of Dort” or “the doctrines of grace,” as they are commonly called today, and they affirm the absolute sovereignty of God. But in the doctrine of the church (ecclesiology), including the ordinances, and in certain aspects of Covenant Theology, they are not “Reformed.” Rather, they are uniquely Baptists—Particular Baptists—who have their ecclesiological heritage descending in part from the Swiss Brethren (also called Anabaptists), just as the Reformed Paedobaptists have their ecclesiological heritage descending from the Swiss Reformers, especially, Zwingli and Bullinger. Therefore, the meaning of “Reformed Theology” depends upon how one defines and explains the term. Without explanation, the term, as commonly used on the contemporary scene, loosely refers to all who are “Calvinistic” in theology and who hold to “the doctrines of grace” in close identity with the seventeenth century non-separatist, English Puritans and Calvinistic Independents (including the English Particular Baptists).

[1] There is a theological explanation of this term and others at Appendix A.

[2] It also agrees with some teachings in the theological system of Dispensational Theology (DT), especially its teaching on the inspiration and inerrancy of the Bible, the doctrine of God and creation, the person of Christ, and the understanding of Pentecost as the historical formation of the Church as the body of Christ.

[3] The terms Reformed Theology and Covenant Theology are often used interchangeably (see Appendix A).

[4] The word Christotelic results from the combination of two Greek words: Χριστὸς (Christos – Christ) and τέλος (telos – end or goal). Thus, a Christotelic hermeneutic views the Lord Jesus Christ as the focus and ultimate goal or end of God’s Word seeking to consistently interpret all Scripture in view of this great truth. For further explanation of a Christotelic hermeneutic see Appendix A, “Explanation of Theological Terms and Systems,” where I attribute an expanded explanation of this term to Zachary S. Maxcey, a 2012 Providence Theological Seminary Master of Divinity graduate.

[5] How NCT differs from the hermeneutics of Dispensational Theology (DT) is explained in my book, Context! Evangelical Views on the Millennium Examined, 3d ed. (www.Amazon.com, 2011), Chap. 3-4. In that book I explain how NCT differs with the two redemptive purposes of DT—one for the Church and one for national Israel—and with DT’s literal hermeneutic for understanding key elements of Bible prophecy.

[6] Some who genuinely claim to teach NCT do not hold to a pre-fall covenant with Adam because the word for covenant does not occur until Genesis 6:18. But doctrinally, the denial of a pre-fall covenant will, if consistently carried out, eventually undermine—as history has demonstrated, e. g., in New England Theology (1750-1900)—the whole doctrine of imputation of Adam’s original sin and Christ’s righteousness, indeed of substitutionary atonement. God forbid! Without a solidaric union existing with the first and last Adam there would be no just imputation of sin or righteousness from another (see Chapter 4 on solidaric union via representative and realistic union).

[7] The progressive unfolding of biblical revelation is what Reformed theologians call the organic nature of revelation. Indeed, the organic nature of biblical revelation is true, if it is not overworked. However, CT has overworked the organic nature of Scripture by reading the OT as though it were the NT, especially with regard to the nature of the church being generically one in both Old and New Covenant dispensations. CT does this based upon its one covenant of grace teaching.

[8] See the excellent chapter by Jonathan H. Rainbow, “Confessor Baptism: The Baptismal Doctrine of the Early Anabaptists” in Believer’s Baptism, eds. Thomas R. Schreiner and Shawn D. Wright (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2006), 189-206.

[9] The covenant of grace is a term that never occurs in the Bible. It is a theological term developed by covenant theologians resulting from their system of interpretation. The question is whether its explanation has clear biblical warrant.

[10] John Murray, The Covenant of Grace (London: The Tyndale Press, 1954), 5; highlight mine.

[1] There are many volumes written on church history which deal with the background in great depth. The reader is referred to selections from Christian encyclopedia articles and in such representative writings as Philip Schaff, History of the Christian Church, 8 vols. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Co.; repr., 1958-1968).

[2] Tertullian On Baptism, XVIII in Ante-Nicene Fathers [ANF], American ed., trans. S. Thelwall, vol. 3 (reprint, Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1973), 678. However, citing John 3:5, Tertullian believed that “without baptism salvation is attainable by none”; On Baptism XII, ANF 3:674-75.

[3] It should be noted that, based upon John 3:5, Augustine, Cyprian and Tertullian (as well as many other early Church Fathers) all taught that baptism was necessary for salvation. The reader must always be aware that although ancient citations may help date and explain when sound or unsound doctrine entered the teaching of Christianity, yet such writings must always be weighed in light of the Scripture.

4 See Leonard Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co, 1964), 11; and Schaff’s History of the Christian Church, 8:69-85.

[5] See the Mennonite Encyclopedia for a comprehensive account of their lives.

[6] Quoted in Verduin, 198. Also similarly referenced in the writings of Balthasar Hübmaier (d. 1528) in his discussions with Zwingli as noted by George Huntston Williams, The Radical Reformation, 3d ed., vol. 15 of Sixteenth Century Essays & Studies Series (Kirksville, MO: Truman State University Press, 2000), 149 n. 18, 235.

[7] William R. Estep, The Anabaptism Story, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1996), 15. See further Estep’s work for an account of early Swiss and South German Anabaptists leaders such as Conrad Grebel (d. 1526), Felix Manx (drowned by the Protestant Reformers, 1527), George Blaurock (burned at the stake by the Romanists, 1529), Michael Sattler (burned at the stake by the Romanists, 1527), Balthasar Hübmaier (burned at the stake by the Romanists, 1528), Pilgrim Marpeck (d. 1556) and, in Holland, Menno Simons (d. 1561). The teachings of these men and others had an influence—indirect though it may have been—on the rise of the Particular Baptists in England just over a century later.

[8] The approval early in 1527 of The Schleitheim Confession in Schleitheim, Switzerland, written by Michael Sattler, tragically illustrates persecution from the state-church. The first article of the confession “excluded all infant baptism” a teaching stated as “the first abomination of the pope.” King Ferdinand I, the Catholic king of Austria, two Roman Catholic University representatives, and others conducted a civil trial in Rottenburg, Germany. The trial involved nine charges against Sattler, a recognized leader of the Anabaptists in Switzerland and South Germany. One of the charges accused him of rejecting infant baptism which he did not deny, but used in his defense as an occasion to affirm believer’s baptism. After two days Sattler was convicted and brutally tortured and burned to death on May 20, 1527. His wife was drowned eight days later in the Neckar River.

[9] See Verduin, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren, 199. “One must remember that the civil rulers of the city were sacralists; they saw in sacrament the cement that bound society together; they would therefore be loath to part with the infant baptism.”. . . Introducing believers’ baptism “would tend to divide society—the one thing men of sacralist conviction cannot allow. Anything that results in composite society is for the sacralist an intolerable evil.” Ibid., 198, 200.

[10] “Zwingli defended the practice of paedobaptism on the grounds that there has been one covenant of grace between God and his people from the time of Adam to the present. . . . Upon this foundation—the continuity of the history of salvation and the unity of the covenant of grace—Zwingli goes on to make his case for infant baptism.” Lyle D. Bierma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005), 32-33.

[11] See John Murray, Christian Baptism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co, 1962), 48.

[12] Indeed, the Genesis 17 text became the key text of CT’s Covenant of Grace theological system. This is evident in the writings of Heinrich (Henry) Bullinger who, citing Genesis 17:7, wrote on baptism that “since the young babes and infants of the faithful are in the number or reckoning of God’s people, . . . they are as well to be baptized, as they that be of perfect age which profess the christian faith.” The Decades of Henry Bullinger, ed. Thomas Harding; Parker Society ed., 4 vols. (Cambridge: University Press, 1849-52; repr., 4 vols. in two; Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2004), 2:382. He acknowledged that “the Anabaptists do contend, that none is to be baptized, but he alone which both is able to be taught, and to believe, yea, and make confession of his faith also [italics mine]. . . . By this the Anabaptists do build upon a fickle foundation” (ibid., 385-86). The editor of Decades notes in footnote 2 on page 388 that “Bullinger had many conferences with Anabaptists during his pastorate at Bremgarten; and in the years 1525, 1527, 1531, and 1532, public disputations with them were specially held in Zurich, Basel, Berne, and other neighbouring towns” [in Switzerland].

[13] “Failure to distinguish between the Anabaptists, inspirationists, and rationalists has led to gross misunderstanding of the entire Radical Reformation” (Estep, The Anabaptist Story, 21). A classic modern-day example of the distortion is evidenced in Francis Nigel Lee’s, The Anabaptists and Their Stepchildren, written as a reply to Leonard Verduin’s, The Reformers and Their Stepchildren. The authority for Anabaptists was the NT; for the Inspirationists, immediate illumination of the Spirit; for the Rationalists, reason in interpreting the Scriptures. This distortion of lumping the three groups under the single derisive rubric of Anabaptist also extended and was used a century later in calling the Baptists in England “Anabaptists,” an appellation “wrongly” attributed to them and prominently refuted on the title page of all five editions (1644, 1646, 1651, 1652, 1653) of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith.

[14] See Estep, 301-302. Indeed, it was the “layman’s theologian,” Pilgrim Marpeck, a prominent Anabaptist, who emphasized “the separation of church and state . . . [and] set forth that believers’ baptism as an act of obedience of a committed disciple in contrast to those who held it to be a means of grace.” He taught that to hold that the OT as equally authoritative for the Christian would abolish the distinction between the OT and NT and lead to “most dire consequences” (ibid., 123, 126; highlight mine).

[15] See Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2006), 3:209-210.

[16] Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1980), 236.

[17] Pierre-Charles Marcel, Baptism: Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, trans. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (London: James Clarke & Co., 1953; American repr. Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Pub. Co., 1973), 199; highlight mine.

[18] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:525; highlight mine.

[19] First published in 1677 and again in 1688 before being endorsed in London after the death of King Charles II by over 100 churches at the 1689 General Assembly of Particular Baptist Churches.

[20] See Chap. VII, Sec. 3 of the 1689 Confession in comparison to Chap. VII, Sec. 5 of both the WCF and the 1658 Savoy (Puritan Congregational) Declaration of Faith.

[21] See Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2003). This well written book by a Reformed Baptist is helpful but still lacks clarity in consistently defining the meaning of key theological terms (e.g., confusing the covenant of redemption as synonymous with God’s eternal purpose for salvation in II Tim.1:9; see the section on the covenant of redemption at the end of Chapter 4) and thus does not also adequately answer the Paedobaptist teaching of CT, especially over the meaning and use of the term, the covenant of grace.

[22] Cited in Torsten Bergsten, Balthasar Hubmaier, ed. W. R. Estep, Jr. (Valley Forge, PA: Judson Press, 1978), 197.

[23] Reformed Confessions of the Sixteenth Century, ed. Arthur C. Cochrane (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2003), 96.

[24] Ibid., 110.

[25] Ibid., 283.

[26] Lillback acknowledges that “Bullinger does not discuss the pre-fall relationship of God and Adam. There is no word of a covenant of creation or a covenant of works. . . . There is no idea of a pre-temporal covenant of redemption. There is, however, a full consideration of the one covenant of grace throughout the successive ages of redemptive history.” Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, a division of Baker Book House Co., 2001), 113.

[27] According to Vos, “The Decades, a series of sermons by Bullinger, [which] saw the light of day between 1549-1551 (are) . . . structured entirely by the covenant idea” (Redemptive History, 236).

[28] Charles S. McCoy and J. Wayne Baker, Fountainhead of Federalism: Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenantal Tradition (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1991). 20.

[29] But baptism in not the sign of the New Covenant; the sign is the cup of remembrance. Jesus said: “This cup is the new covenant in My blood; do this in remembrance of Me” (I Cor. 11:25; see Luke 22:20).

[30] Calvin married an Anabaptist widow in 1540 named Idelette de Bure. She and Calvin had a son who only lived a few days. She passed away in 1549.

[31] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), II. X. 2.

[32] Ibid., IV. XVI. 6.

[33] Ibid., IV. XVI. 5.

[34] Ibid., IV. XVI. 6. Also see Calvin’s commentary on Ezekiel 16:61.

[35] The covenantal argument for infant baptism requires viewing “the [unchanging] genealogical principle [to you and your children] of the Abrahamic covenant (Gen. 17:7) in physical/biological terms as it is applied [carried over] in the church” in baptism under the New Covenant. Stephen Wellum, “Kingdom through Covenant: Some Theological Implications” in Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 696.

[36] Cochrane, Reformed Confessions, 182.

[37] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., rev. and enlarged in 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1919), 1:506.

[38] Ibid., 3:427.

[39] Ibid., 3:331.

[40] Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism, trans. from the original Latin by G. W. Willard (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., n.d.), 368.

[41] But this understanding interprets the NT by the OT and not only leaves out the last half of Acts 2:39 which teaches that the promised gift of the Holy Spirit (verse 38) is for “as many as the Lord our God shall call” thus requiring one to answer the call, but also misinterprets Colossians 2:11 which is speaking of the circumcision of the believer’s heart not of the flesh and the believer’s identification with Christ in being buried with Him in baptism and being raised up with Him through faith (v. 12) thus requiring one to exercise faith. This is how the NT interprets the OT, hardly supporting the WCF’s teaching of infant baptism of covenant children.

[42] Wellum, “Some Theological Implications,” 695.

[43] Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1980), 236.

[44] Robert L. Reymond, A Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed., rev. and updated (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 503.

[45] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:525; highlight mine.

[46] Herman Hoeksema, Believers and Their Seed, trans. from the Dutch by Homer C. Hoeksema (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1971), 84-85; highlight mine. See also his Reformed Dogmatics, ed. Homer C. Hoeksema (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Pub. Assoc., 1966), 695. Hoeksema for 40 years occupied the Chair of Dogmatics in the Theological School of the Protestant Reformed Churches in Holland.

[47] Murray, Christian Baptism, 48; highlight mine. Note Well: Murray has here in effect equated the Abrahamic Covenant with the covenant of grace (axiomatic in RT) and teaches that the church existed in the OT, but see the excursion on the historical significance of Pentecost in the historical formation of the church as the body of Christ at the end of Chapter 3.

[1] Walter Chantry, a friend from decades past, has well stated that “the entire apparatus [means] for saving sinners rests upon the same principle by which we were condemned in Adam—imputation. . . . ‘As in Adam all die so in Christ all will be made alive’ (I Cor. 15:22.” Based upon Romans 5:12-21, Chantry proceeds to add that “imputation is the keystone of the biblical doctrine of substitutionary atonement. . . . Everything that has to do with substitutionary atonement leans on the doctrine of imputation. . . . [He then concludes by saying that] this matter of imputation is very central to understanding the transactions by which we are saved. Its denial will have catastrophic consequences for understanding the Scriptures, for the doctrines of grace, and for the atonement we hold so dear.” Walter J. Chantry, “The Imputation of Righteousness & Covenant Theology” in Covenant Theology: A Baptist Distinctive, rev. ed. Earl M. Blackburn (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 118, 122-23; italics mine.

[2] Michael Horton, God of Promise (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 77.

[3] Although sporadic elements of the following three theological covenants may have existed earlier, the formal beginning and protracted development did not take place until later (e.g., not addressing refinements by contemporary theologians today). The covenant of grace was being developed—in the era ca. 1525-1600 via the writings of Huldreich (Ulrich) Zwingli (d. 1531), Johannes Oecolampadius (d. 1531), John Calvin (d. 1564), Heinrich Bullinger (d. 1575), as well as Zacharias Ursinus and Kasper Olevianus, Jerome Zanchius (d. 1590) & later by Robert Rollock (d. 1599) in his writing “On the Covenant of God” in 1596; the covenant of works—in the era ca.1560-1650 via the writings of Ursinus (d. 1583), Olevianus (d. 1587), Robert Rollock, the Irish Articles of Religion (1615), the WCF (1647); and the covenant of redemption—in the era ca. 1650-1700 via such major representative writings as the writings of Johannes Cloppenburg (d. 1652), Samuel Rutherford (d. 1661), Johannes Cocceius (d. 1669), Francis Turretine (d. 1687), Herman Witsius (d. 1708).

[4] “The term ‘covenant’ appears in the Bible nearly 300 times, most often to denote special relationships that God entered into with his people in the course of biblical history.” Lyle D. Bierma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus (Grand Rapids: Reformation Heritage Books, 2005), 11.

[5] See John Murray’s article in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, under the words “Covenant Theology” and in The Covenant of Grace (London: Tyndale Press, repr. 1956); Meredith G. Kline, By Oath Consigned (Grand Rapids: Wm. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1968); The Structure of Biblical Authority, rev. ed. (Wm. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1975); Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006); and O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980).

[6] See Murray, The Covenant of Grace. Murray did not see a pre-fall covenant between God and Adam because he held that a divine covenant is used in Scripture with reference to a redemptive design and this was not the situation before Adam’s Fall. Hence, Murray refers to the pre-fall relationship as an administration of God’s grace and promise, not a covenantal relationship. But he believes the post-fall covenants are all redemptive related administrations of God’s covenant grace and promise, including the OC.

[7] See Kline, By Oath Consigned and Kingdom Prologue. Although Kline agrees with the pre-fall covenant of works and post-fall covenant of grace relationship by God with the first Adam, he expands upon the meaning of God’s covenant with the first Adam and with His Son as the last Adam. He calls the pre-fall covenant in Eden with Adam “the Creator’s Covenant of Works with Adam.” And he calls the covenant with the last Adam “the Father’s Covenant of Works with the Son (i.e., the eternal intratrinitarian covenant” (Kingdom Prologue, 20-21). See further, Chapter 4 below.

[8] See Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants. He speaks of the pre-fall covenant with Adam as the Covenant of Creation and subsumes all the post-fall covenants under what he calls “the Covenant of Redemption.” He does not agree with an intratrinitarian covenant in eternity past with terms proposing the existence of a pre-creation covenant between Father and Son because it extends “the bounds of scriptural evidence beyond propriety.” (Christ of the Covenants, 54).

[9] See “Covenant Theology” in the Encyclopedia of Christianity.

[10] A contemporary Reformed Baptist pastor has written “the fundamental flaw of paedobaptist covenant theology is its attempt to label the Mosaic Covenant as a covenant of grace. The problem is that the Mosaic Covenant contained conditions and covenant-breakers and these two things are contrary to a covenant based upon grace.”. . . Thus “paedobaptist covenant theology is forced to view the covenant of grace as a mixture of regenerate and unregenerate souls. Yet, the New Testament knows nothing of a mixed membership.”. . . Therefore, “the critical flaw of paedobaptist covenant theology is that it destroys and devalues the covenant of grace.” Jeffrey D. Johnson, The Fatal Flaw of the Theology Behind Infant Baptism & Covenantal Dichotomism: Continuity and Discontinuity of the Divine Covenants (Conway, AR: Free Grace Press, 2010), 121, 123, 127. Although this is a helpful work, it still is somewhat hampered by differentiating between the covenant of grace and the new covenant, as do the Reformed Paedobaptists, when he asserts; e.g., “in the fullness of time, under the new covenant dispensation, the covenant of grace was manifested in its fullness” (247). Such teaching can be easily misunderstood to be in harmony with the twofold administration of the one overarching covenant of grace teaching of CT.

[11] See the excursion on the significance of Pentecost in Redemptive History at the end of this chapter.

[12] Michael Horton, The Christian Faith (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2011), 152-53.

[13] This is a conflated definition of the teaching of the Westminster Confession of Faith and several other Reformed sources from the past and present, which, I trust, fairly captures the intent of CT.

[14] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, ed. John Bolt, trans. John Vriend (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2008), 4:525; highlight mine.

[15] Lyle D. Beirma, The Covenant Theology of Caspar Olevianus, 33-34.

[16] See Appendix A for further explanation of the covenant of grace.

[17] Murray, The Covenant of Grace, 5; italics mine.

[18] “The one overarching ‘covenant of grace’ [highlight mine] was historically advanced and administered after Genesis 3:15 by God’s historical covenants” with Noah, Abraham, Israel, David, “and finally through the administration of the New Covenant, . . . Jesus Christ himself being the Mediator of the New Covenant between God and his elect.” Robert L. Reymond, A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith, 2d ed. rev. and updated (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998), 406.

[19] John Murray, Christian Baptism (Philadelphia, PA; Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1962), 46.

[20] Ibid., 48.

[21] Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:209-10. Cf., J. Wayne Baker, Heinrich Bullinger and the Covenant (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 1980), 2, 14, 18.

[22] WCF, VII. vi. “The covenant made with all the patriarchs [in the OT] is so much like ours [under the NT] in substance and reality that the two are actually one and the same. Yet they differ in the mode of dispensation,” John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, II, x, 2. “The Old and the New Testaments are in essence one covenant (Luke 1:68-79; Acts 2:39; 3:25).” Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 3:223.

[23] Calvin, Institutes, IV. xvi, 6.

[24] Herman Hoeksema, Believers and Their Seed (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1971), 85; italics mine.

[25] Ibid., 84, 95-96, 130; italics mine.

[26] This can be illustrated for example, in the writings of two first generation of Particular Baptists—one in England, one in Ireland—and by the wording of all five editions (1644, 1646, 1651, 1652 and 1653) of the First London Baptist Confession (1LBC) in distinction from the Second London Baptist Confession (2LBC, 1677/1689). First, John Spilsbery in England in 1652 and Thomas Patient in Ireland in 1654 referred to the covenant of grace throughout in their writings by several other names, particularly in Abraham’s day as “Gospel covenant,” “Gospel promise,” “covenant of eternal life,” “covenant of life,” “covenant of life eternal,” “everlasting covenant,” “God’s gracious covenant,” “gracious covenant of life,” “holy covenant of grace,” “holy covenant of life,” and “new covenant.” Second, the covenant of grace terminology was in common use before and during both periods of the 1LBC and 2LBC; yet, it did not occur once in the 1LBC, rather it used the new covenant term; whereas the 2LBC used the covenant of grace wording, but not the new covenant. The use of the covenant of grace term by the 2LBC and alignment with the Westminster Confession of Faith as much as doctrinally possible was admittedly due in large part in order to take a stand in greater numbers with the Presbyterians to avoid overt religious persecution under the reign of King Charles II. The 2LBC tried to explain the difference in meaning of the covenant of grace from the WCF in Chap. VII, Sec. 3, but not until recently has that difference begun to be more accurately explained by covenantal Baptists; namely, as one covenant of grace revealed progressively in redemptive history, rather than one covenant of grace carried out in two administrations under the Old and New Covenants so interpreted to support paedobaptist Covenant Theology’s doctrine of the church and infant baptism. See Pascal Denault, The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology: A Comparison Between Seventeenth-Century Particular Baptist and Paedobaptist Federalism (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2013), 61-77. (This newly published work will help sharpen one’s understanding of covenantal Baptist Theology). Also see Fred A. Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2003), 59-65.

[27] See Fred Malone citing John Owen in Baptism of Disciples Alone, 59-66; and Denault, Distinctives of Baptist Covenant Theology, 58-67.

[28] Ibid., 63. However, I would differ with Denault (pp.63-64) over the promise in Genesis 3:15 not also being a covenant; otherwise there would not have been a representative union necessary for the salvation of anyone between Adam and Abraham. In brief, without a solidaric union, i.e., a covenantal union, existing here in the first Gospel promise there would be no proleptical basis for the coming Messiah’s imputation of righteousness to the elect.

[29] As first generation Particular Baptists Spilsbery and Patient did; see footnote 26 above.

[30] See e. g., John Gill, where he writes about “two administrations of the covenant of grace” in his, Body of Doctrinal Divinity (London, 1839); repr., rev. ed. in 1 vol. (Atlanta: Turner Lassetter, 1965), bk. 4, chaps. 1-5, pp. 345-67.

[31] J. I. Packer, Introduction to The Economy of the Covenant between God and Man by Herman Witsius, originally published in 1677, English trans. William Crookshank (London: R. Baynes, 1822; repr., Escondido, CA: The den Dulk Christian Foundation, 1990), 2; italics mine.

[32] See footnotes 5, 6, 7 and 8 above.

[33] See Jeffrey J. Niehaus, “An Argument Against Theologically Constructed Covenants,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 50, no. 2 (June 2007): 259-73.

[34] “There is indeed an analogy between circumcision and baptism, but the Paedobaptists have erred in turning this analogy into identity. In such a scheme Israel becomes the church and the church Israel, in an uncritical, undifferentiated way that ossifies the movement of redemptive history.” Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1978), 104-5.

[35] Rather, “Baptism is an Ordinance of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ, to be unto the party Baptized, a sign of his [the believer’s] fellowship with him [Christ], in his death (Rom. 6:3-5), and resurrection.” Chap. XXIX, Sec. 1 in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (italics mine).

[36] Murray, Christian Baptism, 57; italics his. See Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (repr., London: Banner of Truth Trust, 1963), 639-41, and Hoeksema, Believers and Their Seed, 94.

[37] Berkhof. Systematic Theology, 642 (italics mine). New Covenant Theology and all Baptists strongly object to the unscriptural subjectivity of infant baptism. But, sad to say, such subjectivity is present in many Baptist churches and other churches today in the form of infant dedication.

[38] Jewett, Infant Baptism, 236. See also Jewett’s summary of faith by proxy by Paedobaptists, 184.

[39] Murray, “Covenant Theology,” 215; italics mine.

[40] Murray, Christian Baptism, 48.

[41] Pierre-Charles Marcel, Baptism: Sacrament of the Covenant of Grace, trans. Philip Edgcumbe Hughes (London: James Clarke & Co., 1953; American repr., Cherry Hill, NJ: Mack Pub. Co., 1973), 199; highlight mine.

[42] Herman Bavinck, Reformed Dogmatics, 4:525; highlight mine.

[43] But this argument for infant baptism from the covenant of grace is flawed because “it stresses the covenant idea as the unifying concept of redemptive history to the point of suppressing the movement of redemptive history, a movement from the age of anticipation and promise to the age of realization and fulfillment.” Jewett, Infant Baptism, 235-36.

[44] It needs recasting because it minimizes the newness of the New Covenant as seen in the theological significance of the covenantal administration of God’s law under the Old and New Covenants and in such basic New Covenant concepts “as new wineskins, new teaching, new commandment, new creation, new man, new name, new song, new Jerusalem and ‘all things new.’” Carl B. Hoch, Jr., All Things New: The Significance of Newness for Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1995), 7; italics his.

[45] Murray, Christian Baptism, 46.

[46] Ibid., 46; italics mine.

[47] Ibid.

[48] Just because the word for church (ekklesia) in the NT is the same word for assembly in the OT Greek translation (LXX) doesn’t mean that the OT assembly (e.g., Deut. 23:2) was the church any more than the theater mob (assembly-ekklesia) was in Acts 19:32.

[49] For example, Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., Perspectives on Pentecost: Studies in the New Testament on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub., Co., 1979). See also Abraham Kuyper (d. 1920), a famous Dutch theologian who had it essentially right when he explains the difference in the Holy Spirit’s impartation of saving grace before and after Pentecost with an illustration of how rain water is collected separately in the cistern of each home compared to that which is supplied to all centrally from a city reservoir. He applies this illustration by stating: “The essential fact of Pentecost consisted in this, that on that day the Holy Spirit entered for the first time into the organic body of the Church, and individuals came to drink, not each by himself, but all together in organic union.” He does not explicitly deny that the church existed in the OT, but the context surrounding this quote comes close. See his book, The Work of the Holy Spirit, trans. Henri De Vries with an Introduction by Benjamin B. Warfield, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1956), 124, see 123-27.

[50] Including covenantal Reformed Baptist Theology.

[51] Including Charismatic Calvinism and New Calvinism (which “is generally continuationist with regard to spiritual gifts.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Calvinism.

[52] John Murray, Redemption Accomplished and Applied (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1955), 170.

[53] Murray, Christian Baptism, 90; italics mine.

[54] Ibid., 87; italics his.

[55] Ibid., 57, n. 30.

[56] For example, “Spirit baptism is here [I Cor. 12:13] described as identical with regeneration. . . .” Anthony A. Hoekema, Holy Spirit Baptism (Grand Rapids: Wm B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1972), 21. See Charles Hodge where he explains that believers are not made one body by water baptism, “but by the baptism of the Holy Ghost, that is, by spiritual regeneration. Commentary on the First Epistle to the Corinthians, 6th ed. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1964), 254, (italics mine).

[57] Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost, 22; highlight mine.”

[58] Ibid., 30.

[59] Ibid., 21; highlight mine.

[60] Ibid., 35.

[61] Ibid., 36 (italics his; highlight mine).

[62] Ibid., 21.

[63] While acknowledging that this is a work of the Spirit, John Calvin teaches that believers “receive the reality with the sacrament” of water baptism. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. John W. Fraser, ed. David and Thomas Torrance (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. CO., 1960), 265. The WCF with its LC and SC associate, without comment, baptism in I Cor. 12:13 in footnoted references with the visible church and the sacrament of water baptism. WCF, XXV.ii; LC, 165; SC, 91. Yet, Charles Hodge sees no “allusion to water baptism” in this verse. See his Epistle to the Corinthians, 254.

[64] See footnotes 50 and 51 above.

[65] See Hoch, All Things New, 41.

[66] Ibid., 42.

[67] Each of these historical outpourings of the Spirit was upon a group who needed to be incorporated into the church. There is no scriptural evidence for individual baptism of a Christian in the Spirit. See Hoch, ibid., 41-42.

[68] Gaffin, Perspectives on Pentecost, 24.

[69] On the church being “the same in all ages,” James A. Haldane, wrote: “Nothing can be more fallacious than the affirmation, that the church was the same in all ages. If by this be meant that God has had a people in every age, who have been equally dear to him, and who have lived by faith, it is true. But those who make the assertion mean that formerly the nation of Israel was the church of God in a spiritual sense is manifestly contrary to fact.” James A. Haldane, Reasons of a Change of Sentiment and Practice on the Subject of Baptism together with a Full Consideration of the Covenant Made with Abraham and Its Supposed Connection with Baptism, 2d ed. (Edinburgh: 1809); repr. in the Newport Commentary Series on An Exposition of the Epistle to the Galatians (Springfield, MO: Particular Baptist Press, 2002), 437.

[70] In John 14:17 Jesus is saying to the disciples before Pentecost that the Spirit is with them now (by their side) and He will be in them in the future, i.e., when Jesus baptizes them with the Spirit into His spiritual body. This occurred historically at Pentecost. Because of a textual variant which has the last verb in John 14:17 in the present tense, “is,” rather than the future tense, “will be,” some, especially covenant theologians, do not rightly discern the dispensational distinction in this verse. They translate it to mean that the Spirit “abides with you and is in you.” However, the context of the phrase focuses upon the contrast between the present and the future as translated in the NASB, KJV, NKJV and NIV. But there is no difficulty even if the verb is translated in the present tense. For the present tense verb can be rightly translated as a progressive present (i.e., “He is going to be in you”) or a futuristic present (i.e., “He will be in you”) when supported by the context as here.

[71] Hebrew, qahal, Greek LXX, ekklesia.

[72] See footnote 48 above.

[73] Haldane, On the Subject of Baptism, 437.

[1] See Appendix A for further explanation of Reformed Theology’s covenant of works.

[2] The genealogy of the covenant of works in relationship to Calvin is both denied and asserted by present-day covenant theologians. For example, on the one hand, John Murray has written that “there is no allusion to the Adamic administration” by Calvin. John Murray, “Covenant Theology” in the Encyclopedia of Christianity, 3:201. The allusions to a covenant of works in his writings are not to a pre-fall covenant, but to “the Mosaic Covenant in distinction from the new covenant” (ibid.). On the other hand, Peter Lillback, the president of Westminster Theological Seminary, strives to establish the concept for a pre-fall covenant of works in Calvin’s writings. He argues that “for Calvin the existence of a sacrament [the tree of life as a figure of Christ] necessarily implies the existence of a covenant between God and man” and that although the covenant of works is “incompletely defined” and the term never used by Calvin, he is “the first of the early theologians to integrate the covenant concept [italics mine] extensively into his theological system.” Lillback thus concludes that “the basic foundation for the existence of a covenant of works in Reformed theology was established by the great Genevan Reformer.” Peter A. Lillback, The Binding of God: Calvin’s Role in the Development of Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, A Division of Baker Book House Co., 2001), 290-91, 304, 311. The point here being is that unanimity does not exist within the ranks of modern covenant theologians as to the origin of the teaching of a pre-fall covenant of works. The historical development of the covenant of works followed after that of the covenant of grace, which was first initiated in Switzerland by Ulrich Zwingli and Heinrich Bullinger. A century after their time the Westminster Confession of Faith in Chapter VII presents the redemptive historical order of the covenant of works followed by the covenant of grace. Hence, it took time for Covenant Theology to mature as a theological system; true of any theological system. But the question is: “How biblical is the theological system?”

[3] Cited in Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation: The Shorter Writings of Geerhardus Vos, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr., (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1980), 239.

[4] WCF, VII.ii.

[5] Vos, Redemptive History, 246.

[6] WCF, VII.iii.

[7] Cf. Murray, “Covenant Theology,” 200-15.

[8] Ibid., 204.

[9] See my explanation and diagram of “God’s Eternal Kingdom Purpose” in Chapter 6 and in my book, “Context! Evangelical Views on the Millennium Examined, 3d ed. (www.Amazon.com, 2011), 318-21, 326.

[10] For example: “The testing of man’s obedience could not be endlessly prolonged. The arrangement could not be one of permanent conditionality. The testing must have temporal limits; that is, it must be a probation” (Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2006), 104). This differs somewhat from the Westminster Confession of Faith, which speaks of Adam’s obedience being conditioned upon his “personal, perfect and perpetual obedience” (VII.ii and the LC, 20); italics mine.

[11] Hoeksema’s objection is valid regardless of his being called a “hyper-Calvinist” by others in Reformed circles—called such, in part, because of his denial of their explanation for a covenant of works/covenant of grace framework of biblical history.

[12] Herman Hoeksema, Believers and Their Seed (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1971), 74.

[13] Herman Hoeksema, Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966), 217. Kline disagrees holding that “for Jesus, the second Adam, regarded his works as meritorious” and, therefore, based upon the analogy that the first “Adam, like Christ, must have been placed under a covenant of works” (Kingdom Prologue, 109-110). Note: There remain unresolved tensions within Reformed Theology. NCT hopes to help resolve those tensions through a more accurate way to interpret the Bible covenantally, including God’s covenant with Adam both before and after the Fall.

[14] The English Particular Baptists adopted the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith after Parliament granted dissenters freedom of worship in 1689. (The first edition of this confession, patterned after the Westminster Confession of faith, was published in 1677 but was not adopted until 1689 after the death of Charles II in 1685 and after the bloodless “Glorious Revolution” in 1688 which drove the Catholic King, James II, from the throne. In 1689 the English Parliament passed a “Bill of Rights” under the reign of William and Mary, which made the king responsible to Parliament and, henceforth, forbade a Roman Catholic from wearing England’s crown.) Interestingly, in later history, while holding to the covenant of grace, John Gill, a Particular Baptist, and A. W. Pink rejected that aspect of the covenant of works wherein Adam would have received the promise of eternal life for himself and posterity if he had obeyed. A couple of brief excerpts reveals why they rejected this understanding. “If eternal life could have been by Adam’s covenant, it would have been by works.” John Gill, Body of Divinity Body of Doctrinal Divinity (London, 1839); repr., rev. ed. in 1 vol. (Atlanta: Turner Lassetter, 1965), bk. 3, chap. 8, p. 315; highlight mine. Pink wrote that he was “not in accord with H. Witsius [a Dutch Reformed theologian, d. 1708] and some other prominent theologians of the Puritan period, who taught that the reward promised Adam upon his obedience was the heavenly heritage. Their arguments upon this point do not seem to us at all conclusive, nor are we aware of anything in Scripture which may be cited in proof thereof.” Arthur W. Pink, The Divine Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 45; highlight mine.

[15] For example, a contemporary Reformed Baptist has written: “Covenantal Paedobaptists and covenantal Baptists both believe in the Covenant of Works that God made with Adam as our federal head.” Fred Malone, The Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2003), 52. That author uses the same terminology as Covenant Theology to explain its terms to teach baptism of disciples alone. But he retains the same terminology which adds unnecessary confusion to a biblical attempt to explain the pre-fall covenant with Adam. (See Chap. 3 above under the par. heading “The Covenant of Grace is not a biblical term.”)

[16] Indeed, as John Owen observed, “every covenant between God and man must be founded on and resolved into ‘promises.’ Hence essentially a promise and a covenant are all one. . . . The being and essence of a divine covenant lies in the promise. Hence are they called ‘the covenants of promise,’ Eph. ii.12.” John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, 7 vols. in 4 vols. (Evansville, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1960), 3:65.

[17] A Council on Baptist Theology held in Dallas, Texas, May 26-29, 1981.

[18] See Bruce K. Waltke, “The Phenomenon of Conditionality within Unconditional Covenants,” Israel’s Apostasy and Restoration: Essays in Honor of Roland K. Harrison, ed. Avraham Gilileadi (Grand Rapids: Baker Publishing Group, 1988), 123-139.

[19] It is the covenant of grace to which covenant theologians universally subscribe in expounding their understanding of CT and practice of infant baptism for covenant children (see Chap. 3).

[20] For why I reject the realistic union view—the only other orthodox view of the imputation of Adam’s first sin (“Original Sin”)—see footnote 43 below and “Appendix A” for the several theological terms related to it.

[21] The second generation English Particular Baptist, Nehemiah Coxe (d. 1689), wrote—correctly, I believe—regarding the necessity of a covenantal relationship existing between Adam and his posterity that had Adam “only been under the law to God, his sin would have remained on himself. It could not have redounded on the whole world of mankind by a just imputation as it now does. . . .” Nehemiah Coxe, A Discourse of the Covenants that God made with men before the Law, (London: printed by J.D., 1681); repr. in Covenant Theology: From Adam to Christ, ed. Ronald D. Miller, James M. Renihan and Francisco Orozco (Reformed Baptist Academic Press, Palmdale, CA: 2005), 48-49; italics mine. Nehemiah Coxe (Cox) was the son of Benjamin Cox (Cockes) who signed the 1646 edition of the First London Baptist Confession and wrote an Appendix to it in 1646. Nehemiah Coxe and William Collins are the likely co-editors of the Second London Baptist Confession first written in 1677. Nehemiah Cox died shortly before this confession was adopted by upwards of one hundred churches in the General Assembly meeting in 1689.

[22] An illustration of how the rejection of the doctrine of imputation permeated New England Theology (1750-1900) is plainly stated by the Congregational theologian, Nathaniel Emmons, who wrote in a caricature of Calvinism: “I know that some Calvinists maintain that the first sin of Adam is imputed to his posterity; that the righteousness of Christ is imputed to believers for their justification; that sinners are under natural inability to turn from sin to holiness; and that Christ made atonement for the elect only. I grant, these are gross absurdities, or mere wens and proturberances, which must be pared off from true Calvinism, in order to make it appear consistent with both reason and Scripture” (Nathaniel Emmons’ Memoir of Himself, quoted in Edwards Amasa Park, Memoir of Nathaniel Emmons (Boston: Congregational Board of Publication, 1861), 430; highlight mine.

[23] Those who are in agreement with NCT on the doctrine of imputation and the substitutionary principle, yet deny that the representative principle necessitates a covenantal headship existing before Genesis 6:18 must explain what it is—what “plus” is in the representative principle that makes corporate union with the first and last Adam unique if it is not covenantal headship. Asserting that it is real union with Adam is a vain attempt in view of the covenantal nature of the whole canon of Scripture. See footnote 43 below.

[24] Realists (see footnote 43 below) strongly deny that the imputations of Adam and Christ are parallel in Romans 5:12-19 in an attempt to answer the representative union view of a pre-fall covenant with Adam.

[25] See footnote 21 above.

[26] Murray’s wording I agree with, but to be fair, he held to a typological analogy not to an actual covenantal relationship existing between Adam and mankind in Genesis 2. John Murray, Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1976-82), 2:49. This particular statement by Murray seems to be somewhat inconsistent with the essence of the writing in his greatly appreciated work, The Imputation of Adam’s Sin (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1959), 39.

[27] Vos, Redemptive History, 11. As a minimum, the opening chapter of this book should be read by every student of Reformed Theology, Paedobaptist and Baptist alike.

[28] NCT is making progress in the disciplines of Exegetical and Biblical Theology to establish that one can affirm the organic nature of divine revelation necessitating a pre-fall covenant between God and Adam without having to fully accept the traditional understanding of the covenant of works.

[29] J. I. Packer, Beyond the Battle for the Bible (Westchester, IL: Cornerstone Books, 1980), 25.

[30] Arthur W. Pink, The Divine Covenants, 62.

[31] Some may argue that the repeated appearance of “LORD God” (Yahweh Elohim) in Genesis 2-3 may serve to demonstrate to Israel that the same God who covenanted with her at Sinai is the same God who created the earth and the heavens and the earth, not to demonstrate that a pre-fall covenant existed between God and Adam.

[32] There are exceptions where to “cut” a covenant is used both for covenant initiation and covenant renewal as e. g., in Exodus 34:10, 27. Dr. Edgar Johnston, a personal friend, has aptly noted in email correspondence that “deciding whether a covenant has been initiated or renewed is based on other information in the text;” i.e., context.

[33] Based upon context, “it is legitimate, then, to conclude that the phrase ‘establish my covenant’ in Genesis 6:18 (and in Gen. 9:9, 11, 17) refers to the maintenance of a preexisting covenant relationship which can only be found in Adam and rooted in creation.” Stephen J. Wellum, “A Biblical Theological Summary” in Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum, Kingdom through Covenant: A Biblical-Theological Understanding of the Covenants (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2012), 613.

[34] Peter J. Gentry, “The Covenant with Creation in Genesis 1-3” in Kingdom through Covenant, 178.

[35] Ibid., 209.

[36] If this be accurate, would it imply that Adam came back into a gracious relationship with God after the Fall as Eve apparently did looking for the promised seed? Is the answer one of “the secret things [which] belongs to the LORD our God” (Deut. 29:29a)?

[37] Gregory K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2004), 383. For other works which describe the Garden of Eden as a temple of God, see Meredith G. Kline, Images of the Spirit (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980; repr., by Wipf and Stock Pub., 1999); Meredith G. Kline, Kingdom Prologue: Genesis Foundations for a Covenantal Worldview (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Pub., 2006; Allen P. Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory: Biblical Worship from the Garden to the New Creation (Grand Rapids: Kregel Pub., 2006).

[38] Ross, Recalling the Hope of Glory, 105.

[39] Additionally, “Genesis 2:8-17 pictures Adam as a kind of king-priest worshipping in a garden sanctuary. This passage explains how the royal rule given to humankind within the covenant structure established in 1:26-27 is to operate.” Gentry, “The Covenant with Creation,” 215.

[40] “According to Rom. v. 14, Israel’s transgression is that fact in the historical development of redemption which stands by the side of Adam’s transgression. And the mention of Adam in Hosea cannot surprise one, since he also shows himself in other respects to be familiar with the contents of Genesis,” e. g., in Hosea 11:8 and 12:4 (Franz Delitzsch, Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament: Job, trans. Francis Bolton (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1949), 2:194). See Benjamin B. Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, ed. John E. Meeter (Nutley, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1970), 1:128.

[41] See Warfield, Selected Shorter Writings, 1:123-25.

[42] Robert Gonzales, Jr. agrees, but prefers translating the prefixed preposition “kĕ” “as Adam” having the same meaning as “like Adam.” See his article “The Covenantal Context of the Fall: Did God make a Primeval Covenant with Adam? Reformed Theological Review 4, no. 2 (July 2007): 31, n. 104.

[43] In contrast to the representative union view which finds the specific ground for imputed sin in Adam’s covenantal union with mankind, the realistic union view denies a pre-fall covenant with Adam and explains man’s solidaric/corporate union with Adam anthropologically as one that is a real union with him (see Appendix A). Realism asserts that all mankind must somehow have participated with Adam in his first sin in order to be justly punished for it. Such a participation requires a real union with Adam. “The hallmark” of this view “is the conviction that all men are ‘co-sinners’ with Adam in the fullest meaning of that word.” G. C. Berkouwer, Sin, vol. 11 of Studies in Dogmatics, trans. Philip C. Holtrop (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1971), 438; italics his. Thus, in the beginning Adam was the entire human race, in that human nature was numerically and specifically one in him (see Appendix A). Therefore, when Adam committed his first sin (“Original Sin,” see Appendix A), all men actually and really co-sinned with him. However, the realistic union view does not adequately explain why—since according to it a pre-fall covenantal union does not exist—Adam’s descendants are held accountable for his first sin only (Rom. 5:12) and not for all of his subsequent sins, including all the subsequent sins of his posterity. In America the realistic union view and its relationship to Traducianism on the origin of the individual soul (rather than Creationism—see Appendix A) became well known in the 19th century writings of William G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ed. Alan W. Gomes, 3d ed., 3 vols. in 1 vol. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Pub. Co., 2003), 550-609. In sum, I find the realistic union view biblically wanting to explain more clearly and accurately the imputation of the guilt and penalty of Adam’s first sin to all mankind than the representative union view as I have asserted in this chapter.

[44] This includes those who deny a divine covenant with Adam and even some within New Covenant Theology who are striving to develop NCT into a mature theological system which, in my opinion, will never occur until God’s pre-fall creation covenant with Adam is rightly understood.

[45] The progressive unfolding of biblical revelation is what Reformed theologians call the organic nature of revelation. Indeed, the organic nature of biblical revelation is true, if it is not overworked. However, Covenant Theology has overworked the organic nature of Scripture when they read the OT as though it were the NT, especially with regard to the nature of the church being generically one in both dispensations. Reformed Theology does this based upon its one overarching covenant of grace teaching. As previously mentioned in Chapter 3, the covenant of grace concept teaching began to be formulated by Zwingli in the mid 1520s to answer the Swiss Brethren’s stance on the body of Christ (Corpus Christi)—a confessing church of believers only. This necessarily led to ruling out recognizing the church as a state church (Corpus Christianum) and the practice of infant baptism.

[46] For example, Lillback, The Binding of God, 212-14.

[47] C. Matthew McMahon, President of A Puritan’s Mind Ministries, zealous to defend CT, asserts that the covenant of works and the covenant of grace “would not exist if it were not for the Covenant of Redemption.” But he does not address the historical fact that the Covenant of Redemption was not originally developed within Reformed Theology until some 100 years after the covenant of grace and did not begin to be more fully developed until the covenantt of works teaching was matured and about to be set forth in the WCF. See McMahon’s endorsement on the back cover of Samuel Rutherford, The Covenant of Life Opened, ed. C. Matthew C. McMahon (originally printed in Edinburgh: Andro Anderson, 1654, repr. by C. Matthew McMahon, New Lenox, IL: Puritan Publications, 2005).

[48] Historically, there has always been pause on the part of some within CT to avoid “the term covenant to identify the intertrinitarian arrangements” within the Godhead and, as John Murray, has stated, this “reflects hesitation as to the legitimacy of this use of the term” to describe the inner workings of God’s counsel (Murray, Covenant Theology, 212).

[49] See ibid., 212, 214-15. This dispute, known as the Antinomian Controversy and the Marrow Controversy flared up during the 17th century in Puritan England and Scotland. Pursuing this controversy here is beyond the scope of this book.

[50] See the Introduction to this Chapter.

[51] O. Palmer Robertson, The Christ of the Covenants (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1980), 54.

[52] Stephen Charnock, The Existence and Attributes of God, 2 vols. in 1 vol. (repr. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1996), 1:338; italics mine.

[53] Jewett rightly points out that “all Christians, of course, read the Old Testament in the light of the New; but it is another matter to read the Old Testament as though it were the New, as though the terms “old” and “new” had no theological significance.” Paul K. Jewett, Infant Baptism and the Covenant of Grace (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1978), 93; italics his.

[54] Although Nichols’ book on Covenant Theology from a Reformed Baptist perspective strives to show more clearly how seven Divine historical covenants—including two Noahic Covenants, and a Messianic Covenant and a New Covenant under the Christian economy of the people of God—rest upon “an evangelical foundation, the mother-promise, the covenant of grace,” I do not find that it actually contributes to the perspicuity of Scripture. Greg Nichols, Covenant Theology: A Reformed and Baptistic Perspective on God’s Covenants (Birmingham, AL: Solid Ground Christian Books, 2011), 110; italics his. For example, he writes about two Noahic Covenants when there is only one: Genesis 6:18, “I will establish (cut),” which occurs before the Flood; and Genesis 9:17, “I have established (confirmed), which occurs after the Flood. It is not necessary to formulate two covenants—to point out promise-fulfillment aspects in different scriptural references is fine. However, to say that the Scripture teaches two covenants in the Christian economy as Nichols does is not helpful. The Scripture that Nichols uses in his chart on p. 119 for distinguishing the Messianic and New Covenants is not necessary when Hebrews 8:6-13 makes it clear that it is the one New Covenant in view not two separate covenants.

[1] The word Christotelic results from the combination of two Greek words: Χριστὸς (Christos – Christ) and τέλος (telos – end or goal). Thus, a Christotelic hermeneutic views the Lord Jesus Christ as the focus and ultimate goal or end of God’s Word seeking to consistently interpret all Scripture in view of this great truth. For further explanation of a Christotelic hermeneutic see Appendix A, “Explanation of Theological Terms and Systems.”

[2] I have demonstrated in some detail with the fact that biblical law has absolute and covenantal distinctives in an exegetical and theological study of Matthew 5:17-20 in Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2008).

[3] The Westminster Confession is epochal in the history of Reformed Theology and the doctrinal teachings of Presbyterianism in England, Scotland and America. The Westminster Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism (1563)—the honored confession of the Reformed Church in Holland, Germany and America—have historically birthed the theological system of Covenant (Reformed) Theology.

[4] Philip Schaff, The Creeds of Christendom, 6th ed., rev. and enl. in 3 vols. (Harper and Row, Publishers, 1931; repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1993), 1:730.

[5] Westminster Confession of Faith, 19:1-6. The wording is virtually the same in the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith, XIX.i-vi.

[6] The positive adjective “great” is to be understood superlatively, i.e., as “greatest” as it is in the NIV. Indeed, the context of vv. 38-40 and the occurrence of “first” and “second” demand the superlative translation “greatest.”

[7] Such occurrences are found Matt. 7:12; 11:13; Luke 16:16; John 1:45; Acts 13:15; 28:23; Rom.3:21.

[8] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1959), 1:73.

[9] Those in the Westminster tradition who hold that the Sabbath is a creation ordinance believe that Genesis 2:3 entails “a creational mandate for humanity to rest on the seventh day of each week.” G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 776.

[10] Yes, I believe that a consistent exegesis of NCT and my position on eschatology are both to be understood as Non-Premillennial because, as I have written elsewhere, that the teaching of I Corinthians 15 and Hebrews 11, in particular, biblically demonstrate that there will be no post-advent earthly millennial kingdom. See my book, Context! Evangelical Views on the Millennium Examined, 3d ed. 2011 (www.Amazon.com).

[11] It is important to understand that the separation of the ceremonial commandments especially from the “moral” commandments of the Mosaic law contradicts the clear, covenantal distinction between law and grace under the Old and New Covenant administrations of God’s law. For example, “we are not under law (hupo nomon), but under grace (hupo charin)” (Rom. 6:14)—meaning that the believer in Christ is no longer under the whole Mosaic law as covenantal law but under the grace of the New Covenant—a covenant that not only, but most importantly, has the internal leading of the Holy Spirit (Rom. 8:1-4), but also external commands to be obeyed, summed up in the New Covenant declaration: “this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments (I John 5:3). On the Apostle Paul’s understanding of the indivisibility of the Mosaic law also see F. F. Bruce, Paul: Apostle of the Heart Set Free (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1977), 192-93.

[12] Although the general sense of the meaning of the word moral is acknowledged as conforming to ethical judgments of what is right and good; interestingly, the word moral and the term moral law never occur in the original languages of the Bible. However, for the better part of what follows I will continue to use and question Covenant Theology’s use of the term “moral law”—for that is the term it uses—but I understand and will explain moral law to refer, strictly speaking, not to the Ten Commandments as generally held by CT, but to God’s two greatest commandments that are unchanging law which are innate and absolute, forever binding for all mankind throughout redemptive history and continuing eternally in the age to come.

[13] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, IV.xx.15.

[14] Ibid., II.viii.11.

[15] Ibid., IV.xx.16.

[16] Ibid., IV.xx.14.

[17] Ibid., II.viii.1.

[18] Michael Horton, God of Promise: Introducing Covenant Theology (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2006), 178.

[19] Ibid.

[20] G. K. Beale, A New Testament Biblical theology: The Unfolding of the Old Testament in the New (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2011), 872.

[21] See my doctrinal pamphlet separately published on The Christian Sabbath Lord’s Day Controversy (Sterling, VA: Grace Abounding Ministries, 1980); also available under “Doctrinal Publications” on the Providence Theological Seminary website, www.ptsco.org.

[22] William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Matthew (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1973), 292. Traditionally, the majority of Reformed theologians have understood the Ten Commandments to be “moral law forever” with little to no reference to heaven. New Covenant Theology, however, holds that the law of God that never changes is that which is explicitly stated to be the two great(est) commandments in Matthew 22:36-40: love of God and love of neighbor, for upon “these two commandments hang (depend) all the law and the prophets.” It is of note that John Owen also wrote in his commentary on Hebrews 8:6 that “when we come to heaven, and the full enjoyment of God, there shall be no use of any covenant any more, seeing we shall be in eternal rest, in the enjoyment of all the blessedness whereof our nature is capable, and shall immutably adhere unto God without any further expectation.” John Owen, An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ed. W. H. Goold, 7 vols. in 4 vols. (repr., Evansville, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, 1960), 3:66.

[23] Calvin, Institutes, IV. xx.16.

[24] Ibid., IV.xx.15.

[25] Horton, God of Promise, 178.

[26] Again, in this chapter, I have purposely not addressed the Sabbath commandment, which is explicitly stated to be the covenant sign of the Old Covenant (Exod. 31:12-17), a covenant which has been fulfilled and covenantally done away by the New Covenant (Heb. 8:13). Also, I have dealt with this in my doctrinal pamphlet on The Christian Sabbath Lord’s Day Controversy.

[27] See my book, Biblical Law and Ethics: Absolute and Covenantal; an Exegetical and Theological Study of Matthew 5:17-20 (Frederick, MD: New Covenant Media, 2008); also available on Kindle. Most of what follows under this subheading is taken from this book.

[28] For example, John Calvin: When Paul “says that he became without the law and under the law, we must realize that he is referring only to the ceremonial law . . . .” Calvin’s Commentaries: The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians, trans. John W. Fraser (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1960), 195.

[29] Thomas R. Schreiner, 40 Questions about Christians and Biblical Law (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 2010), 73.

[30] As both the WCF (XIX.v) and the Second London Baptist Confession (XIX.v) inherently do by stating that “the moral law doth for ever bind[s] all . . . to the obedience thereof” (italics mine). However, neither the First London Baptist Confession nor New Covenant Theology is Sabbatarian; hence, they did not/do not view the fourth commandment of the Decalogue, the Sabbath commandment, as a creation ordinance.

[31] John Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians, 194.

[1] Available on Amazon. com; First London Baptist Confession of Faith, 1646 ed. under “Books.”

[2] Interestingly, neither the WCF nor the Second London Confession has the words “new covenant” in the text of its confession, whereas all five editions of the First London Confession have it.

[3] When discussing the covenantal administration of the law of God, the reader will find that I Corinthians 9:20-21—a central text for NCT—is largely ignored in the writings of both covenantal Paedobaptists and covenantal Baptists. Search and see.

[4] See Chapter 5 above; Galatians 6:2; James 2:8; Romans 13:8-10; John 13:34; I John 5:3.

[5] See Chapter 2.

[6] See Chapters 3-5.

[7] F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Development of Old Testament Themes (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co, 1968), 21; brackets and highlight mine.

[8] “The entire redemptive history unfolds in two movements: the one proceeds from [fallen mankind or] the many [in the first Adam] to the One [Man, Christ]; this is the Old Covenant. The other [movement] proceeds from the One [Man to redeemed mankind or] to the many [in the last Adam, Christ]; this is the New Covenant” Oscar Cullmann, Christ and Time, rev. ed., trans. Floyd V. Filson, (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1964) 117.

[9] Observe on the chart just below the horizontal time line that divine blessing and cursing or judgment is associated with each covenant: blessing from God’s grace and cursing from a holy and righteous God due to sin. It is interesting to note that the first covenant, what I call the pre-fall covenant, begins with blessing and that after the consummation of the last covenant, the New Covenant, blessing continues forever in the world (age) to come. Truly, Christ has reversed the order of history from one of spiritual defeat to one of victory.

[10] See Chapter 5, footnotes 12 and 22.

[11] George Barker Stevens, The Theology of the New Testament, 2d rev. ed. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1918), 25. From the standpoint of NCT, this citation is in harmony with Article X in the 1646 Appendix by Benjamin Cox to the 1646 edition of the First London Baptist Confession (see above).

[12] John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967, repr., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 140.

[1] Question 74 in the Heidelberg Catechism.

[2] See the Second London Confession of Faith, Chap. XXIX, Sec. 1.

[3] See Fred Malone citing John Owen in Baptism of Disciples Alone: A Covenantal Argument for Credobaptism Versus Paedobaptism (Cape Coral, FL: Founders Press, 2003), 59-66.

[4] That is, the covenants of grace, works and redemption.

[5] Chap. XXII, Sec.7 in both confessions.

[6] NCT heartily agrees with the wording and Scripture citations for Articles IX and X in the 1646 Appendix to the 1646 edition of the First London Baptist Confession of Faith. They are: I Cor. 9:21; Titus 2:11-12; I Tim. 1:10-11 and Matt. 22:37-40; Rom. 13:8-10.

[7] A Christotelic hermeneutic is an interpretive method which views Christ as the focus and ultimate goal or end of Scripture (Luke 24:27, 44).

[1] John Bright, The Authority of the Old Testament (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1967; reprint ed., Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975), 112-13, 115.

[2] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology: Old and New Testaments (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1948), 13.

[3] Chester K. Lehman, Biblical Theology (Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 1971), 1:27.

[4] This explanation is attributed to Zachary S. Maxcey, a 2012 Providence Theological Seminary Master of Divinity graduate.

[5] Salvation history (redemptive history) is related to history in that both involve a sequence of events taking place within history. Salvation history “unfolds in history, and in this sense belongs to it.” Oscar Cullmann, Salvation in History, trans. Sidney G. Sowers and the editorial staff of SCM Press (London: SCM Press, 1967), 153. But salvation history and history are not to be equated. The overall flow of events recorded in the Bible and those of history are both chronological, but those of history unfold without interruption or gaps, whereas those of salvation history have gaps which have their connection in the outworking of God’s redemptive purpose.

[6] Calvin: Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 21 of The Library of Christian Classics, .ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Ford Lewis Battles (Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1960), IV.XX.15-16.

[7] See the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), Chap. 19, Sec. 1-4 and the Westminster Larger Catechism (LC), Questions 98 and 99. See also the “theological note on the Law of God” at Exodus 20:1 in The New Geneva Study Bible now called The Reformation Study Bible.

[8] Samuel Bolton, The True Bounds of Christian Freedom, 1645 reprint ed. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1964), 59.

[9] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, British ed. (London: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1958), 277.

[10] Ibid., 271.

[11] Ibid., 270.

[12] John Murray, “Covenant Theology,” The Encyclopedia of Christianity, 3: 212.

[13] Ibid., 202.

[14] Ibid., 204.

[15] See the Westminster Confession of Faith, its Larger Catechism and Shorter Catechism (SC). Encyclopedia of Christianity, “Covenant Theology” by John Murray; and Geerhardus Vos, Redemptive History and Biblical Interpretation, ed. Richard B. Gaffin, Jr. (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian & Reformed Pub. Co., 1980), 234-42.

[16] Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism, with a foreword by Frank E. Gaebelein, rev. ed. (Chicago: Moody Press, 1995), 41.

[17] See my book, Context! Evangelical Views on the Millennium Examined, 3d ed. (www.Amazon.com., 2011), Chapters 2 and 3.

[18] The Second London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1677/1689, Chap. 7, Sec. 3.