Truth Warrior

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Compositions of Covenant Theology (Part 2)

We have touched on the covenant of works and the federal headship of Adam in the last post. I have at least hinted to the import and impact this has on Covenant Theology. With the idea of the covenant of works (which some covenant theologians hold is still in force, while others argue that it is not) laid down we are now at a place were a brief explanation of the covenant of redemption is in order.

The Covenant of Redemption

The covenant of redemption is said to be an eternal covenant made between the Father and the Son. The Father sent the Son into the world to accomplish certain objectives. God the Son was to assume a human nature, live a sinless life, and bear the sins of the elect vicariously. God the Father was to prepare a body for Him, sustain Him in His earthly existence and ministry, raise Him from the dead, exalt Him, make Him head of the church, give Him all the elect and glorifying them for all eternity. These are the general stipulations of the covenant of redemption.

Jesus Christ guarantees the covenant and is the representative (the federal head) of the elect in it. He, as the last Adam, was under the original covenant of works just as the first Adam was. Jesus had to obtain eternal life by meeting the demands of the law on behalf of the people whom He represents in His covenant. Adam failed this test and lost eternal life for all. Jesus passed this test and gained eternal life for the elect. It is stressed that He had to do this by meeting the demands of the law.

It is here that that the distinction between the active, and passive obedience of Christ is important. The distinction is twofold. (1) Christ entered the federal relation in which Adam stood in order to gain eternal life for the elect; this is known as His active obedience. (2) Christ also entered the penal relation to the law, dying to pay the penalty in the place of the elect; this is called His passive obedience. Weather Christ actively obeyed the law on behalf of the elect is debated, but it is still a common idea among covenant theologians.

The covenant of redemption is the foundation for the covenant of grace. It would not be feasible to have a covenant of grace apart from a covenant of redemption. The Godhead must covenant to save before He could covenant with the elect to apply that salvation. This brings us to a point where we can now reveal the third composition, the covenant of grace.

The next post will cover the covenant of grace.

6 Comments:

  • It is here that things get interesting, because some Dispensationalists, such as Chafer, Walvoord (at one time) and Stanford argued for a New Covenant distinct from the New Covenant of Jeremiah that is very similar to the Reformed idea of a Covenant of Redemption.

    I think that idea has a lot going for it, though Darby's view of the New Covenant has a lot going for it as well.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Matthew Celestine, at 23/9/06 2:05 PM  

  • Hi Matthew~
    Which is the more plain and reasonable view in your thinking?

    There are some problematic areas here, and not all can be right, and they all can't be wrong. Some view must be better than another. I suppose one could take the approach of a very popular author and agree and disagree with all sides which in a way is the same as taking no sides. Maybe that’s why He is so popular.

    Every Blessing in Christ, to you too my brother.

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 24/9/06 6:48 AM  

  • Chafer's view keeps Israel and the Church completely distinct and fits in with the reference to the 'eternal covenant' in Hebrews.

    Darby's approach manages to maintain one New Covenant, while keeping the Church and Israel separate, but his view treads a knife edge.

    Scofield's present fulfillment of the New Covenant view just leads towards Covenant theology.

    Every Blessing in Christ

    Matthew

    By Blogger Matthew Celestine, at 24/9/06 4:25 PM  

  • So which is the Dyspraxic Fundamentalist view?

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 25/9/06 5:55 AM  

  • As I said, I can see advantages in both the Darby and the Chafer view, but I disagree witht the Scofield/ Progressive Dispensational view. It is a difficult issue.

    I just know I do not have the law written on my heart, I have the Holy Spirit dwelling within me.

    God Bless

    Matthew

    By Blogger Matthew Celestine, at 25/9/06 8:46 AM  

  • Matthew,
    That is about as sweet of answer if ever there was one. It reminds me who it is that bonds our hearts together in true fellowship. Thank you, brother, for that word. I think I should do a post on the experience Rose and I had at my former church yesterday it truly was cumbersome.

    By Blogger J. Wendell, at 25/9/06 9:19 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home

 

Who Links Here