← Back to sermon library

Well, you could take your copy 
of the Confession and turn to Chapter 7. Two weeks ago, we 
looked at the first two paragraphs and into Paragraph 3. We'll spend 
this morning finishing up Paragraph 3. of God's covenant, I'll begin 
reading in paragraph one. The distance between God and 
the creature is so great that although reasonable creatures 
do owe obedience unto him as their creator, yet they could 
never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary 
condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to 
express by way of covenant. Moreover, man having brought 
himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the 
Lord to make a covenant of grace, wherein he freely offereth unto 
sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them 
faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give 
unto all those that are ordained unto eternal life his Holy Spirit, 
to make them willing and able to believe. This covenant is 
revealed in the Gospel, first of all to Adam, in the promise 
of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterward by farther 
steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the 
New Testament. And it is founded in that eternal 
covenant transaction that was between the father and the son 
about the redemption of the elect. And it is alone by the grace 
of this covenant that all of the posterity of fallen Adam 
that ever were saved did obtain life and a blessed immortality, 
man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those 
terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. Amen. Well, just by way of review and 
reminder, I quoted Jim Renahan last time when he says, we believe 
that the structure of Scripture is properly defined by what has 
been designated as covenant theology. To grasp this fact is to grasp 
the central architecture of the entire Bible. So basically, it's 
an approach or a methodology that we bring to the Scripture 
to help us understand the Scripture. And there are a variety of hermeneutical 
approaches, sort of big-picture ways of approaching Scripture. 
There is covenant theology. That's what we subscribe as Reformed 
Baptists. Obviously, we see that confessed 
or stated clearly here in chapter 7. There's also something called 
dispensational theology. It's probably the most popular 
out there among evangelical churches. And essentially, dispensationalism 
is a system of biblical interpretation and of theology which divides 
God's working into different periods or dispensations which 
he administers in different ways. Now, there's a whole host of 
problems that are associated with a dispensational approach 
that would take us too far afield to consider all that, but no 
doubt I will make a few observations along the way. And then there 
is something that is now called New Covenant Theology, which 
attempts a mediating position between covenant theology and 
dispensational theology. So it's an attempt to try to 
broach or try to bring balance, as they perceive imbalance, either 
in the covenant theology or dispensational theology approaches. And essentially, 
New Covenant theology is also very popular among Calvinistic 
Baptists. For instance, not everybody who 
says they're a Reformed Baptist are necessarily Reformed. I know 
it's a matter of semantics, but it's semantics that does matter. 
Reformed means Covenant theology. You cannot be Reformed if you 
don't confess Covenant theology. John MacArthur is a dispensationalist. He's a Calvinist, a five-point 
Calvinist, and we can thank God for that, but he is not reform 
because he does not hold to covenant theology. That's not an attack. That's not consigning him to 
the outer pits of hell. It is simply what is. Words have 
meaning, and covenant theology, or reform theology, in the language 
of R.C. Sproul, is covenant theology. Now, it's very important that 
we take these hermeneutical approaches and understand them relative 
to exegesis. So hermeneutics is the science 
or the principles of interpretation, and exegesis is employing those 
to deal with specific texts in scripture. When it comes to exegetical 
issues concerning these hermeneutical approaches, I mentioned last 
time. First, continuity and discontinuity 
between the testaments. A dispensationalist sees more 
discontinuity, and a covenant theologian sees more continuity. But continuity and discontinuity 
between the testaments or covenants is definitely affected by one's 
hermeneutic. Secondly, the role of ethnic 
Israel. For dispensationalism, there 
is a distinction between the Jews and the Gentiles. That is 
absolutely, positively non-negotiable. If you are a dispensationalist, 
you maintain a Jew-Gentile distinction. Now, whether or not that's true, 
the Bible has to inform us, but that is simply the way it is. 
The role of ethnic Israel. Third, the place of the church 
in relation to Israel. Another thing affected by one's 
approach to scripture, whether you're a covenant theologian, 
a dispensational theologian, or a new covenant theologian, 
the place of the church in relation to Israel. As I said, the covenant 
theology sees more continuity and as well discontinuity as 
long as the New Testament informs that with reference to the church 
and its relation to Israel. Fourthly, the sacraments of the 
church. Why do we not baptize babies? Well, it has to do with 
what we find in paragraph 7. So it's not just the chapters 
dealing with baptism that need to be taken into account for, 
taken accounted for, but we need to understand it's our view of 
covenant that yields our approach, more often than not, to the sacraments. 
And then the law of God in the new covenant, the moral law specifically 
and its abiding validity. Remember, as I mentioned with 
the Dispensationalists, for instance, they have a Jew-Gentile distinction. 
They see the Ten Commandments, that given at Sinai, as being 
specifically for Israel. So they don't see the abiding 
perpetuity of the Ten Commandments for the New Covenant Church. 
It's most obvious when it comes to the Fourth Commandment, but 
it affects other ways of interpreting that moral law as well. So those 
are just some of the issues that are necessary to take into consideration 
when it comes to hermeneutical systems. And typically, what 
you put into the Bible in terms of some assumptions and principles 
of interpretation affects what you get out of it. And if you 
bring dispensationalism to the Bible, you're going to get dispensationalism 
from the Bible. You bring covenant theology, 
and you're going to get those things consistent with it. So 
it's a methodology by which we interpret Scripture. And it's 
important that we understand that if you evangelize a sinner, 
they don't have to know everything I just said. Believe on the Lord 
Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved. That's the emphasis. in 
the evangel, but when it comes to growth in grace and in the 
knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, it's not just individual 
texts that we need to deal with, but it's also good to see how 
we exegete individual texts in relation to other texts and to 
other doctrines. So last time we saw the necessity 
of God's covenant in paragraph one. Secondly, the essential 
characteristics of God's covenant in paragraph two. and then the 
biblical revelation of God's covenant in paragraph three. And what paragraph three speaks 
to are the three, what I call three theological covenants, 
but then it also refers to the historical covenants. And the 
theological covenants are the covenant of grace, the covenant 
of redemption, and the covenant of works. The historical covenants 
are covered by this statement and afterward by farther steps. If you look at paragraph 3, it 
says, this covenant is revealed in the gospel. It's speaking 
specifically about the covenant of grace. So this covenant is 
revealed in the gospel. First of all, to Adam in the 
promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterward by 
father's step. So God makes covenant with Adam 
in the Garden of Eden, and then we see that covenant extend to 
the Noahic covenant with reference to Noah. While it's not a redemptive 
covenant, it provides the context for the proclamation of redemptive 
grace. So it's a common grace covenant 
that establishes stability in the created order such that the 
gospel can go forth. So then you have not only the 
covenant with Noah, but then you have the Abrahamic covenant, 
and then you have the Mosaic covenant, and the Davidic covenant. 
So these are the farther steps by which the original promise 
of God in the garden to Adam of salvation by the seed of the 
woman is extended, it's amplified, and it's developed. It's moved 
along. But then notice what the confession says. Until the full 
discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament. So while 
the Abrahamic Covenant and the Mosaic Covenant and the Davidic 
Covenant speak concerning the Covenant of Grace, it isn't the 
realization of it, or it isn't the full discovery of it, until 
what Christ comes to do in terms of the New Covenant. So that's 
the Covenant of Grace. Now notice, you've got the revelation 
of the Covenant of Grace, promise in the Garden, progressive revelation 
by farther steps, and then we see that that is founded in the 
Covenant of Redemption. Notice, and it is founded in 
that eternal covenant transaction that was between the father and 
the son about the redemption of the elect. So you have the 
revelation of the covenant of grace, and then secondly, the 
foundation in the covenant of redemption, and then notice thirdly, 
the covenant of works. It goes on to say, and it is 
alone by the grace of this covenant that all of the posterity of 
fallen Adam that ever were saved did obtain life and a blessed 
immortality, man being now utterly incapable of acceptance with 
God upon those terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. So that looks back to Genesis 
chapter 2 and the covenant of works there. So you have the 
revelation of the covenant of grace, founded in the covenant 
of redemption, and it is the divine response to the broken 
covenant of works that God gave to Adam in Genesis chapter 2. 
So we looked at the covenant of grace last time, so let's 
look now at the foundation in the covenant of redemption. So 
notice, it says, and it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction 
that was between the father and the son about the redemption 
of the elect. Now, in terms of the covenant 
of redemption, this is also referred to in the Latin as the pactum 
salutis. And the definition given by Muller 
is simple. It emphasizes the eternal, inviolable, 
and Trinitarian foundation of the covenant of grace. So it's 
pre-temporal, before time, God the Father, Son, and Spirit covenanted 
or engaged in this eternal covenant transaction for the salvation 
of the people of God. Now, in terms of fleshing this 
out and seeing it in the New Testament, you cannot turn to 
Romans 17 and there Paul say, look, here's what the covenant 
of redemption looks like, here's what the covenant of works looks 
like, here's what the covenant of grace looks like. So we look 
at scripture to see if, in fact, what the divine say here was 
true. And there are a lot of data given 
in scripture to indicate that there was, in fact, an eternal 
covenant transaction that was between the father and the son 
about the redemption of the elect. So we'll just look at some of 
these passages, some of these heads. We won't exhaust it. If 
you're interested, you can email me, and I'll send you the notes 
for your further study. And you can investigate the various 
texts that are indicated. Turn to 2 Timothy chapter 1. 
2 Timothy chapter 1 just to show that in fact scripture does point 
back to eternity past to establish that there was a transaction 
between the Father and the Son relative to the salvation of 
God's people. Notice in 2nd Timothy 1a, therefore 
do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, 
but share with me in the sufferings for the gospel according to the 
power of God, who has saved us and called us with a holy calling, 
not according to our works, but according to his own purpose 
and grace, which was given to us in Christ Jesus, notice, before 
time began. That's the covenant of redemption, 
but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Jesus 
Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality 
to light through the gospel. That's the covenant of grace. 
Turn back to Ephesians chapter 1. passage that we are all very 
familiar with. The Apostle praises the triune 
God for the salvation of his people. But notice where that 
praise begins or its origin. Notice in verse 3, blessed be 
the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ who has blessed 
us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ. 
just as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world, 
that we should be holy and without blame before him." So you notice 
that the apostle traces our salvation, not back to that moment where 
we believe the gospel, but back to before the foundation of the 
world, wherein God chose us in Christ before the foundation 
of the world. And then when we look at specific 
elements or pieces of this particular covenant, we see that what we 
find in the mission of Christ supports this understanding of 
the covenant of redemption. For instance, the Father gave 
the Son a definite number of people. You see that emphasized 
in John's Gospel. All that the Father gives me 
will come to me, and the one who comes to me, I will certainly 
not cast out." So John 6, 37. John 10, where the Good Shepherd 
talks about Him laying down His life for the sheep. Well, who 
are the sheep? They are the ones given by the 
Father to the Son. As well, we have the father sent 
the son to save his people. And again, I've got plenty of 
texts here. Matthew 121, you shall call his name Jesus, for 
it is he who will save his people from their sins. The Lord Jesus, 
again, specifically in John's gospel, underscores or emphasizes 
the purpose for which he was sent by the father. Why do you 
think that is? Because there was this eternal 
covenant transaction betwixt the persons of the Trinity in 
terms of the salvation of the elect. So that is reflected in 
the Son's statement concerning the mission for which the Son 
came into the world. As well, we see the son obey 
the father. He is the servant of the Lord, 
as Isaiah the prophet tells us in Isaiah 42, 49, chapter 50, 
and chapter 53. And that servant of the Lord 
obeys the father. He always does the will of the 
father who sent him. He says, my meat is to do the 
will of him who sent me. As well, the father rewards the 
son for his obedience. You see that in the book of Ephesians, 
for instance. God raised him from the dead 
and then seated him at his right hand and gave him a name which 
is above every name. Why is that? Because that was 
in the eternal covenant transaction. For the son's obedience, for 
the son's compliance, for the son's honoring the father's will, 
there is this exaltation according to the mediatorial office of 
our Lord Jesus Christ. As well, you have the use of 
covenantal language. God institutes his son to do 
what he does by oath. You see that in Psalm 110 at 
verse 4. You see it in Hebrews chapter 
7. Christ does not become a priest without the oath of God. Again, 
it's covenantal language. And look at Luke's gospel in 
Luke 22 specifically, where Jesus uses the language of covenant 
in terms of the kingdom that he is giving to his children. 
It is a covenanted kingdom. Notice in Luke 22 at verse 28, Excuse me. But you are those who have continued 
with me in trials. And I bestow upon you a kingdom 
just as my father bestowed one upon me, that you may eat and 
drink at my table in my kingdom and sit on thrones judging the 
12 tribes of Israel. Now the specific word that is 
used here is covenant. He is making it clear that what 
he is bestowing upon them is covenanted to them. In fact, 
Witsias translates it this way, and I engage by covenant unto 
you a kingdom as my father hath engaged by covenant unto me. So when it comes to the broad 
outline concerning the covenant of redemption, you see it in 
Ephesians 1, where the apostle goes to eternity past to trace 
the origin of our salvation. He does the same thing in 2 Timothy 
1 at verse 9. When we survey the mission of 
the Savior, we see that he didn't come willy-nilly. We see that 
this isn't arbitrary. We see that this isn't capricious. 
It isn't just something the Son decided to do in terms of the 
assumption of our humanity and to come down for us men and for 
our salvation. It is founded in that eternal 
covenant transaction the way that the confession tells us. that was between the father and 
the son about the redemption of the elect. And the fact is, 
is that it was indeed established in eternity. Scripture makes 
that clear. Just the two texts that we looked 
at, but you could also see Ephesians 3, 10 and 11, 2 Thessalonians 
2, 13, and 1 Peter chapter 1 and verse 2. So the New Testament authors 
go behind the scenes, as it were, to show us that it wasn't the 
day that we believed the gospel that God originated this plan. 
No, God chose us in Him before the foundation of the world. 
He gave to the Son a particular number. We call them the elect, 
or we call them the sheep, or we call them the bride, or the 
church, or believers. and the Son comes into the world 
to save those sinners. We subscribe the doctrine of 
definite atonement. Well, it's definite because of 
this very reason. It's not the case that God is 
not in charge of those who are saved. God, most high, ordain 
this. Now, in terms of a sort of a 
Puritan approach to this particular doctrine, John Flavel writes 
this. He says, my son, here is a company 
of poor, miserable souls that have utterly undone themselves 
and now lie open to my justice. Justice demands satisfaction 
for them or will satisfy itself in the eternal ruin of them. 
What shall be done for these souls? And thus Christ returns, 
O my Father, such is my love to and pity for them, that rather 
than they shall perish eternally, I will be responsible for them 
as their surety. Bring in all thy bills, that 
I may see what they owe thee. Lord, bring them all in, that 
there may be no after reckonings with them. At my hand shalt thou 
require it. I will rather choose to suffer 
thy wrath than they should suffer it. Upon me, my father, upon 
me be all their debt. But my son, if thou undertake 
for them, thou must reckon to pay the last might. Expect no 
abatements. If I spare them, I will not spare 
thee. Content, Father, let it be so. 
Charge it all upon me. I am able to discharge it. And 
though it prove a kind of undoing to me, though it impoverish all 
my riches, empty all my treasures, yet I am content to undertake 
it. Brethren, that is a very encouraging 
approach to understanding our salvation in the Lord Jesus Christ. This idea that covenant theology 
is dry, that it's simply for seminarians or doctors in the 
church, could not be further from the truth. It is this stuff 
that is the very foundation of our salvation by grace through 
faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Our salvation is not an afterthought 
in the mind of God. He is not reactionary. He doesn't 
look at the fallen state of man and say, what am I going to do 
now? No, he ordained all things whatsoever comes to pass for 
his own glory and for the good of those who love God and those 
who are the called according to his purpose. It is founded 
in that eternal covenant transaction that was between the father and 
the son about the redemption of the elect. If that does not 
encourage you or strengthen you or cheer you, then you need to 
get your minds wrapped around it. Because as Paul says, he 
chose us in him before the foundation of the world. Election does not, 
election finds us in Christ. Election puts us in Christ. It's not that we believe and 
then we're elected. Nothing could be further from 
the truth. As well, when we look at this confessional statement, 
you see there is a close connection between the covenant of grace 
and the covenant of redemption. So after highlighting the covenant 
of grace, it says, and it is founded in that eternal covenant 
transaction that was between the father and the son about 
the redemption of the elect. Burkhoff makes this observation. He says, though the covenant 
of redemption is the eternal basis of the covenant of grace, 
and as far as sinners are concerned, also its eternal prototype, it 
was for Christ a covenant of works, rather than a covenant 
of grace. For him, the law of the original 
covenant applied, namely that eternal life could only be obtained 
by meeting the demands of the law. As the last Adam, Christ 
obtains eternal life for sinners in reward for faithful obedience, 
and not at all as an unmerited gift of grace. And what he has 
done as the representative and surety of all his people, they 
are no more in duty bound to do. The work has been done, the 
reward is merited, and believers are made partakers of the fruits 
of Christ's accomplished work through grace. It's because of 
the covenant of redemption that we have a covenant of grace. 
It's because Christ kept the covenant of works for us that 
we have a covenant of grace. It's because Christ obeyed perfectly 
the law of the Father that we are saved by that grace, receiving 
both forgiveness of sins and the imputation of that righteousness 
received by faith alone. Now this doesn't mean, and some 
will take this and say, well, then people will live any old 
way they want. No, justification always produces 
sanctification. There is a close connection between 
the two doctrines, and those saved by grace through faith 
in Jesus Christ. It is faith alone, but it's not 
a faith that is alone. It's always accompanied by all 
other saving graces, as the Confession says in chapter 11. Another couple 
of men make this observation. When Jesus Christ earned the 
righteousness to be imputed to his people, he was fulfilling 
not only the historic covenant of works as the second Adam, 
but also the covenant he made with his father. So there's both 
a God word and a man word reference in terms of this covenant. So we've got the covenant of 
grace revealed. We see its connection to the 
covenant of redemption. And then notice, thirdly, it's 
the divine response to the broken covenant of works. Now, I shall 
tell you, or I should tell you, that this is probably the covenant 
of the three theological ones that persons have a lot of problems 
with. Some persons have problems with 
the covenant of redemption. For those who might be questioning 
how this affects our view of the Trinity, We keep reading 
in Matthew Barrett's book. I think he deals pretty helpfully 
and successfully with the covenant of redemption in a biblical understanding 
of the Trinity. So we'll see that, God willing, 
as we move through that book. But in terms of the covenant 
of works, I told you last time that the covenant chapter here 
that the Baptists have put together deleted the covenant of works 
paragraph from Westminster. So that has led some to say that 
the Reformed Baptists, or the particular Baptists of the 17th 
century, did not affirm the covenant of works. They most certainly 
did. They say it right here at the 
end of paragraph three. Man being now utterly incapable 
of acceptance with God upon those terms on which Adam stood in 
his state of innocency. That is the covenant of works. And the confession speaks concerning 
the covenant of works, not only here, but also in 6.1, in 19.6, 
and in chapter 20, paragraph 1. So if the particular Baptist 
did not confess the covenant of works, they sure don't do 
so in a really strange way. They do so by doing so in several 
places in the confession of faith. Now, with reference to the covenant 
of works, it's important that we understand it, because it 
sets the stage for the rest of the Bible in terms of the covenant 
of grace. Typically, those who read more 
grace into the covenant of works have to read more works into 
the covenant of grace. And that is a problem. And so 
it's very important that we think properly concerning covenant 
of works and covenant of grace. But notice the confession. This 
is the exclusive provision for God's elect. It says, and it 
is alone by the grace of this covenant, the covenant of grace, 
that all of the posterity of fallen Adam that ever were saved 
did obtain life and a blessed immortality. That's underscoring 
the reality that man in Adam, man in sin, cannot by his own 
obedience or performance attain to heaven. He cannot abide, he 
cannot perpetually and personally and entirely and exactly keep 
the law of God. In Adam, all died. And so without 
the provision of the covenant of grace, man shall not enter 
into heaven. If man attempts to go it by the 
covenant of works, he is destined to fall. as well notice the impossibility 
of acceptance with God in terms of the covenant of words. Man 
being now utterly incapable of acceptance with God upon those 
terms on which Adam stood in his state of innocency. Turn 
to Galatians chapter three. Galatians three, the apostle 
highlights this reality as he's articulating the doctrine of 
justification by faith. Notice in Galatians 3 at verse 
10, for as many as are of the works of the law are under the 
curse, for it is written, curse it is everyone who does not continue, 
notice, in all things which are written in the book of the law 
to do that. You see, it's not your best attempt. It's not 90% obedience. It's 
not 99.999% obedience. It has to be 100% obedience in 
order for a sinner which, it is an impossibility 
for a sinner, to be accepted by God. So it's either the obedience 
of Christ, or it's the attempted obedience by sinners. And what 
the Confession says is what Paul says. Cursed is everyone who 
does not continue in all things which are written in the book 
of the law to do that. But that no one is justified 
by the law in the sight of God is evident, for the just shall 
live by faith. Yet the law is not of faith, 
but the man who does them shall live by them. Christ has redeemed 
us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us. 
For it is written, cursed is everyone who hangs on a tree, 
that the blessing of Abraham might come upon the Gentiles 
in Christ Jesus, that we might receive the promise of the Spirit 
through faith. So if a man tries, and I mean 
man and woman, I am speaking inclusively, speaking the way 
rational people have for 20 centuries. But with reference to man's attempt 
to garner access into God's favor, if he does it in his own, he 
will fail. That is clear in both Testaments. Notice that Paul is quoting from 
Leviticus. This is why I argue that the 
Old Testament was a republication of the covenant of works. Israel 
functioned as an Adam-like figure and like Adam they fail. Christ 
comes as the true Israel and as the last Adam and he fulfills 
all of the obligations placed upon him. Paul draws out this 
federal theology in Romans chapter 5 and tells us that God looks 
at mankind in terms of two men. It's either Adam the first or 
Adam the last. And with reference to the Old 
Testament, it as clearly, as the New Testament, told sinners 
that they needed redemption through the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. That was the purpose for the 
Levitical system. That was the purpose for the 
sacrificial system. It was tutelage. It was pedagogical. It was pointing them forward 
to Messiah, the champion that would save his people from their 
sins. So when we come back to the formulation of the covenant 
of works, as I said, the biggest issue here is dispensationalism. 
They definitely do not teach a covenant of works. Neither 
does New Covenant theology. Some may give a hat tip to it, 
but with reference to a reformed understanding, they simply don't 
have it. So let's turn to Genesis chapter 2 and look at the covenant 
of works. Genesis chapter 2. Now, first of all, that Moses 
uses the name Yahweh in Genesis chapter 2 is instructive. Yahweh is the covenant name for 
God. And the fact that he introduces 
scripture with Elohim, God the Almighty, the all-powerful, the 
creator of heaven and earth. When he comes to chapter 2, he 
uses the word Yahweh, the covenant name of the Lord. That should 
cause us to stand and take notice. Why this shift? Why this change? Why the use of this terminology? Now, there is an absence, obviously, 
of the word covenant. This is probably the biggest 
sort of attack upon the covenant that works. Well, you know, Genesis 
chapter 2 does not say covenant. God doesn't say to Adam, I'm 
making a covenant with you. Well, I'll give you two responses 
to that. In the first place, you will 
not find the word trinity in the Bible. If you take your concordance 
or you look at Google and you type in trinity and you look 
for Bible text, you won't find any. It's the word concept fallacy. Just because the word is absent 
doesn't mean that the concept is. And then parallel to that, 
by way of a second statement, is 2 Samuel chapter 7. Does anybody know what 2 Samuel 
chapter 7 records? No? Yes? the Davidic covenant. Intriguingly, if you look at 
2 Samuel 7, you don't see the word covenant. But when you look 
at Psalm 89 and Psalm 132, which is divine commentary on 2 Samuel 
7, you see the word covenant. So just because the word covenant 
is absent doesn't mean that covenant is absent. All of the elements 
of a covenant are present. You have parties. You've got 
God and you've got man. There is stipulation, the positive 
law concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You 
have promise, life for obedience by implication, and then you 
have the sanction, which is death. So everything that is intrinsic 
to a covenant is in Genesis chapter 2. As well, later historical 
revelation comments on what goes on in the garden, and it uses 
language suggestive of covenant. Turn to Job 31. Job 31. Actually, before you do that, 
we should read Genesis chapter 2. Sorry about that. Getting 
ahead of myself. Genesis chapter 2, all those 
elements involved. Notice verse 8. The Lord planted 
a garden eastward in Eden, and there he put the man whom he 
had formed. And out of the ground the Lord 
made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight and good 
for food. The tree of life was also in the midst of the garden, 
and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Now a river 
went out of Eden to water the garden, and from there it parted 
and became four river heads. The name of the first is Pishon. 
It is one which skirts the whole land of Havilah, where there 
is gold. And the gold of that land is 
good, but Delium and the Onyx Stone are there. The name of 
the second river is Gihon. It is the one which goes around 
the whole land of Cush. The name of the third is Hiddeko. 
It is the one which goes toward the east of Assyria. The fourth 
river is the Euphrates. Now notice, then the Lord took 
the man, put him in the garden of Eden to tend and keep it. 
And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of 
the garden you may freely eat. but of the tree of the knowledge 
of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you 
eat of it you shall surely die." You've got parties, you've got 
a stipulation concerning positive law, you've got a promise, life 
for obedience. Now it's not specified, it is 
the converse of the dying you shall die. There is a sanction, 
a threat imposed by God for disobedience. The obvious inference or implication 
is that if Adam obeys, then it's not dying, he shall die, but 
it's rather life, he shall live. So all the elements involved 
in covenant making are there. Now turn to Job 31. Job 31, a 
couple places in later redemptive history indicate that what's 
happening in the garden is covenantal. Job 31 at verse 33, excuse me, 
if I have covered my transgressions as Adam by hiding my iniquity 
in my bosom. Turn to Isaiah chapter 24. Isaiah 
chapter 24. We see a covenant made with creation. Isaiah chapter 24, specifically 
at verses 5 and 6. We'll look at verse 4. The earth 
mourns and fades away. The world languishes and fades 
away. The haughty people of the earth languish. The earth is 
also defiled under its inhabitants because they have transgressed 
the laws, changed the ordinance, broken the everlasting covenant. 
Therefore, the curse has devoured the earth, and those who dwell 
in it are desolate. Therefore, the inhabitants of 
the earth are burned, and few men are left." Dr. Barcello says, 
the curse which extends to the entire earth came about due to 
transgressed laws, violated statutes, and a broken covenant. Since 
the earth was cursed due to Adam's sin as our representative, Adam 
broke covenant with God in the Garden of Eden, and the effects 
of his covenant breaking affects those who live on the earth, 
that is, everyone. Here is a prophet writing long 
after Adam was created and long after Moses wrote, utilizing 
principles that first started with Adam to explain the universal 
guilt of man. In this sense, Isaiah was very 
Pauline, or better yet, Paul was very Isaianic. In other words, 
what we find in Genesis chapter 2 is foundational for what follows. Genesis 3, 15 specifically, the 
promise of redemption by the seed of the woman and the revelation 
of that promise in the farther steps in terms of historical 
covenants until the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ when he 
inaugurates the new covenant in his blood. Turn over to the 
prophet Hosea, Hosea chapter 6. Hosea chapter 6. Again, later revelation commenting 
on what we find in the Garden of Eden. Hosea 6. And verse 6, for I desire mercy 
and not sacrifice and the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. And then notice in verse 7, but 
like men, or like Adam, they transgressed the covenant. There 
they dealt treacherously with me. Barcelos again says the translation 
like Adam has a long pedigree, going back at least to Jerome. 
Warfield states that due to Jerome's translation, to the Christians 
of the West, Hosea 6-7 spoke of a covenant of God with Adam. So it's not a manufactured theological 
category to fit and service Reformed theology. Reformed theologians 
reading Scripture, interpreting Scripture, comparing Scripture 
with Scripture, see these theological covenants. Covenant of grace, 
covenant of redemption, and it's as the divine response to the 
broken covenant of works. And then, of course, turn to 
Romans chapter 5. Romans chapter 5, the parallel 
between Adam the first and Adam the last. The covenant of works 
provides the biblical and theological context for the work of the Lord 
Jesus as the last Adam. A faulty understanding of the 
former typically results in a faulty understanding of the latter. 
Now, this is one of those sorts of things that the first pass-through 
you may not get. But when I said earlier, those 
who put more grace in the covenant of works typically have to put 
more works in the covenant of grace. You may not get that, 
and that's okay. But suffice to say, there's validity 
to that statement. Abrakel makes this observation 
concerning the covenant of works. He says, whoever errs here or 
denies the existence of the covenant of works will not understand 
the covenant of grace and will readily err concerning the mediatorship 
of the Lord Jesus. Such a person will readily deny 
that Christ, by his act of obedience, has merited a right to eternal 
life for the elect. This is to be observed with several 
parties who, because they err concerning the covenant of grace, 
also deny the covenant of works. Conversely, whoever denies the 
covenant of works must rightly be suspected to be in error concerning 
the covenant of grace as well. In other words, if you've got 
a faulty approach to Adam in the garden, it's going to affect 
your approach to Jesus Christ as the last Adam. When you put 
more grace in the covenant of works, you typically have to 
put more works into the covenant of grace. That's why persons 
who have a tendency to deny the covenant of works oftentimes, 
not always, there have been blessed exceptions to this, but oftentimes 
end up sounding a bit papist when it comes to the doctrine 
of justification. If we uphold the covenant of 
works, covenant of grace, then when we consider the doctrine 
of justification, it makes perfect sense. Justification is an act 
of God's free grace, wherein he pardons all our transgressions 
and accepts us as righteous in his sight, only for the righteousness 
of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. There are persons 
who define justification simply as forgiveness. That's not biblical. That's partly biblical, but justification 
is not only forgiveness for sin, but it's also the imputed righteousness 
of Jesus. So if we fail here, we're going 
to have to see a place for our obedience in the covenant of 
grace to round out or make acceptable our presentation before God on 
the day of judgment. Now again, that may seem a bit 
like I'm speaking Japanese right now. Maybe next time we come 
through chapter 7, you'll go, yeah, I'm starting to see it 
better. One man, a fellow by the name 
of Ward, I can't remember his first name, he says, minimizing 
the difference between the pre-fall and post-fall covenant seems 
to mean you get more grace before the fall and less grace afterward. Our covenantal obedience is emphasized 
as the way of maintaining the covenant relationship and inheriting 
its blessing. Brethren, that's Romanism. I 
think I've shared before. When you have Roman Catholicism, 
they take justification, and they take sanctification, and 
they conflate it. So they mean belief in Christ 
and our loyalty to Christ is what presents us on that day 
of judgment. That's not biblical, brethren. 
That's what Paul condemns in Galatians. If righteousness comes 
through the law, even a tiny little bit, then Christ died 
in vain. Now, following Roman Catholicism 
is something called the New Perspective on Paul. They teach the same 
thing. Again, they deny the covenant 
of works. They deny the imputed righteousness 
of Jesus Christ. N.T. Wright mocks the concept 
of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ. That's scandalous, 
brethren. Without the imputed righteousness 
of Jesus Christ, at least as the story goes, Machen would 
have had no comfort on his deathbed. Last thing he said, I am so thankful 
for the active obedience of Christ. There's no hope without it. So 
when it comes to this reality or this covenantal context, we 
might say, well, you know, that's for the seminarians, that's for 
the doctors of theology. No, it's for your comfort, it's 
for your encouragement, and it's for your stability. If you think 
for a moment that your acceptance with God depends even a little 
bit upon yourself, you need to get your mind saturated with 
the glory of the gospel. of our Lord and Savior Jesus 
Christ. If you don't understand that justification is not only 
forgiveness, but the imputation of the righteousness of Jesus 
Christ and received by faith alone, you need to study these 
things. This is encouraging. This builds 
up the faith of God's people. This helps us. This strengthens 
us. And this stabilizes us. Look 
at Romans chapter 5, specifically at verse 18. Therefore, as through 
one man's offense, judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, 
even so through one man's righteous act, the free gift came to all 
men, resulting in justification of life. Where does Paul put 
the responsibility for the righteousness that we have? Not on us, he puts 
it on Christ. Notice in verse 19, for as by 
one man's disobedience many were made or better constituted, so 
also by one man's obedience many will be made better constituted 
righteous. He is dealing in legal categories, 
he is dealing in forensic categories. He is dealing with the doctrine 
of imputation. Adam's sin is imputed to us. Our sin is imputed to Christ, 
and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, and it's received 
by faith alone. When we mess with the covenant 
of works, it's going to affect the covenant of grace. Again, 
there have been happy exceptions. John Murray was the professor 
of systematic theology at Westminster Seminary. His commentary on Romans 
is second to none. He was a great theologian. He 
did not embrace the covenant of works. He called it the Adamic 
administration and he tweaked it a bit. And he tweaked it in 
ways that were not helpful and in ways that were not healthy. 
Thankfully, however, he managed to maintain justification by 
faith alone. When I've seen, and not that 
I've been in this forever, but in my time as a Christian, looking 
at these particular categories and surveying various theological 
systems, people typically that have a problem with the covenant 
of works don't have a robust understanding of the covenant 
of grace, vis-a-vis, specifically at the point of justification 
by faith alone. It's not just forgiveness that 
we need. We need a righteousness that 
avails with God. To obey is better than to sacrifice. God has never compromised that. 
And the beauty of the work of Christ as the last Adam is to 
do what Adam the first failed. It is to do what Israel in the 
wilderness failed. It is to do what those typological 
characters did not engage. Christ comes and he fulfills. 
So Paul draws this parallel between Adam and Jesus and shows us that 
in Adam all die, but in Christ all shall be made alive. And 
everything that is necessary for our acceptance with God is 
provided for us in the covenant of grace. Because Jesus obeyed 
the law of God, because Jesus did what was commanded of him 
in terms of the covenant of grace, which was for him a covenant 
of works, based on that eternal covenant transaction between 
the Father, Son, and Spirit, because He does that, we have 
everlasting life. Now brethren, if you don't get 
all that, that's okay. I think that going through these 
things time and time again, If you get paragraph three, it's 
kind of like that Lutheran moment when he saw Romans 1, 16, and 
17. It was, as it were, paradise 
opened up. If you understand these three 
theological covenants, again, it's not just you'll be a better 
theologian than the dispensationalists down the street. You'll be more 
comforted. There'll be more strength. There'll 
be more understanding and stability. And again, never conclude. Well, 
it doesn't matter how we live. No, in terms of God's covenantal 
dealings with his people, the faith that justifies us is accompanied 
by all other saving graces. So the idea of Psalm, well, that 
means then if we're not responsible for our acceptance with God, 
then it doesn't matter how we live. That doesn't follow. That 
is the devil's logic. That's not gospel logic. Well, 
I will close in prayer, and then if there's any questions on this 
chapter, we'll deal with that. Our Father in heaven, we thank 
you for your word, we thank you for the good confession that 
we have, that we subscribe as a church, and I pray that you 
would cause us to reflect upon these things, cause us to reflect 
upon theology, and may it be to our comfort, and to our encouragement, 
and to our fortification. And God, in terms of the covenant 
of grace today, I pray that it would be proclaimed. I pray the 
truth of the gospel would go forth throughout this earth and 
that many, by grace, would believe on the Lord Jesus Christ and 
know the joy of being found in him. And we ask in Jesus' name, 
amen. Any questions? Yes, go ahead. Did Adam have a righteousness 
that availed with God before the fall? Did Adam? Yeah, he had no sin. There's 
a question as to what the degree of blessing would have been if 
he had successfully passed the probationary period. Would he 
be moved into eschatological glory, or would he have continued 
in the earthly glory? So that's kind of an intramural 
debate in terms of Adam. But yeah, prior to his fall into 
sin, He had communion with God. He enjoyed the presence of God. 
There was nothing that was enmity between him and God at that point. Yes, go ahead. Sure. Absolutely. I would say that God makes the 
promise of salvation by Jesus Christ in Genesis 3.15, and then 
in Genesis 3, he shows that typologically, right? He kills the animals before 
Adam and Eve, and obviously, Adam passed that data on to his 
sons, because at the end of days, they come to bring sacrifice. 
Yeah, I definitely hold that position. So there'd be a sense 
in which the sacrificial system, would you say, would be for all 
men, because it was done to Adam, and all of That's a good question. I would say no, just based on 
the covenant contours in terms of the Old Testament. I mean, 
obviously, we get to the Tower of Babel. There wasn't information 
that obtained among creatures as creatures. I think that explains 
the sorts of bastardized sacrifice that had gone on outside of of 
Israel in terms of the detailed legislation that God gave them. 
So yeah, in terms of having some semblance of understanding that 
we need to appease the God, yeah, I'd say that was probably extant. 
But in terms of what God teaches Adam, and then what God teaches 
Abraham, and then what God demands from Israel, I think it's specifically 
conditioned in terms of covenant. But yeah, there's vestiges of 
the knowledge of God. Going up to the tower of Babel, 
man knew God. Man knew of sacrifice. It's just 
after the dispersal of nations. They took that vestige of understanding 
and messed with it and distorted it. Yeah, I don't know that I'd put 
that in a particular covenant arrangement. I think that, you 
know, it's definitely typological and it definitely jives with 
what we find in the old covenant, but I don't know that I'd put 
that in a certain covenant, you know, sort of with all men everywhere. 
I think the way of covenant is a universal covenant. I think 
that's all men everywhere. William and then Charlotte. My Bible does have Romans 9 to 
11. It's a Cambridge. It's a beautiful 
Bible, by the way. Yeah, I don't know how that would Again, that's getting into the 
differences between the old covenant and the new covenant. That's 
dealing with, as I mentioned at the outset, one of the things 
that covenant theology and dispensational theology and new covenant theology 
have to reckon with is the relation between church and Israel. And I think that's what's going 
on in Romans 9 to 11. So I don't know that these three 
theological categories It's apples and oranges. Romans 9 to 11 is 
the differences, distinctions, continuity, discontinuity, relationship 
between Israel as a people group and the Church of Jesus Christ. 
Charlotte? Covenant of Works, so do Pato 
Baptists not have Covenant of Works? So when you say that those 
who receive more grace in the Covenant of Works Typically, there's persons that 
would deny a covenant of works and basically explain that God's 
dealings with Adam in Genesis 2 was gracious. It was more grace 
than works. And so what happens then is that 
when you come to the new covenant, there's going to be a need for 
more works. on the part of the person. Adam 
related to God in such a way that there was this emphasis 
on grace. Now, that's not all paedo-baptist. Westminster Confession, paedo-baptist. 
Savoy Declaration, paedo-baptist. I'm thinking more federal vision. 
They would have a problem with the covenant of works. We might 
call this mono-covenantalism, one-covenantalism. Again, it's 
difficult to tease out in a setting like this. It's easier for me 
to just throw that bomb in your lap and say, go figure it out. 
Or we spend a lot of time trying to work through this. And I don't 
think that's necessarily. Because Pentecostals, you know, 
my own experience, I had talked through and gone through the 
Confession of Faith for many years before I think I really 
understood paragraph three. And a lot of it had to come as 
a result of, how does the Old Covenant function? A few years 
ago, several years ago, there was a big emphasis on the Old 
Covenant. Is it a covenant of grace, like 
the Westminster says? Or is it a covenant of works, 
like the way many particular Baptists and some Paedo-Baptists 
in history said? And I came to the conclusion 
that, no, it's a republication of the covenant of works. It's 
not the covenant of grace that you have in the Mosaic or Old 
Covenant. So basically, the federal vision 
guys, and not all of them, and they're like nailing Jell-O to 
a wall. I mean, you've got Doug Wilson, 
for instance, who affirms the active obedience of Christ and 
the imputation of it, where others don't. So it's a mixed bag. So typically, it's not this group. There's shades. People get affected or infected, 
as it were, by different strains of thought and end up in odd 
places. I have a quick question. Covenant of grace, are like Noahic, 
Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, is that like subsets of that? I 
would describe those as the historical covenants. The confession says, 
the covenant is revealed in the gospel. Remember, it's talking 
about the covenant of grace. First of all, to Adam in the promise 
of salvation by the seed of the woman. You see Paul do this in 
Ephesians 2. He talks about the covenants, 
plural, of promise. And some suggest the promise 
is Genesis 3.15. And the covenants, or the historical 
covenants, are the afterward by farther steps. So Noah, that's 
not a redemptive covenant. It's a common grace covenant. 
It protects the order, the universal order. And then you've got Abrahamic. Abrahamic is typically identified 
as the covenant of grace by Paedo-Baptists for various reasons. But to say 
it is the covenant of grace is to overstep your boundaries. 
The same with the Mosaic, the same with the Davidic. They all 
add information and details to that promise. But as the Confession 
says, afterward by farther steps until the full discovery thereof 
was completed in the New Testament. So if we're going to identify 
any historical covenant in the Bible as the covenant of grace, 
we would do that with the new covenant. We wouldn't do that 
with Abraham, we wouldn't do that with Moses, we wouldn't 
do that with David. We would say there's certainly 
grace and there's certainly things and there's certainly stuff that 
it informs us about concerning the covenant of grace, but the 
Abrahamic, to say it is the covenant of grace, it really oversteps 
the boundaries, and it does provide, obviously, for, you know, paedo-baptism, 
it's a good argument there, but the Mosaic Covenant, you know, 
what were the stipulations for the children of Israel at the 
foot of Sinai? Do what I command you, or I will 
throw you out of the country. You're gonna lose your land. 
In what realm is that a covenant of grace? Same with the Abrahamic 
covenant. I just read Genesis chapter 17 
this morning. If you're not circumcised, you're 
cut off. Well, baptism doesn't function 
that way in the New Covenant. We're not told, if you're not 
baptized, you're not going to be a believer, you're not going 
to be saved. It's a sacrament, it's a response, 
obviously, but it's not a work that we do in order to maintain 
our place in the covenant people. Does that make sense? Do all 
the covenants then go before the covenant of grace? We've 
got the covenant, again, I would say you've got the promise given 
by God in Genesis 3.15 of salvation by the seed of the woman and 
then that promise is moved along in these farther steps that our 
confession sets. The historical covenants advance 
that. It shows us more about the promise. It shows us more about the contours 
of that Genesis 3.15. We know that he's a man We know 
that he's a man born of a woman, and we know that he's going to 
achieve conquest and victory through his own suffering and 
death. We know that. But when we get to the Old Covenant, 
for instance, the covenant made with Israel, those of the mediator, 
we see the Levitical system, we see the sacrificial system, 
we see that they're God, that without the shedding of blood 
there is no remission. So each, you know, we get to 
the Davidic covenant. You've got David who, you know, 
God promises that from his loins he will have a son that will 
build a house for God. So each of these historical covenants 
or these farther steps give us more information about the Genesis 
3.15 promised seed of the woman that would deliver his people 
through suffering and death. And the full discovery of that 
is completed in the New Testament, when Jesus, with his disciples, 
he says, this is the new covenant in my blood, which is shed for 
the remission of the sins of many. So it's, again, the architecture 
of the Bible. It's the skeletal framework, 
and then you see all of the skin and the various aspects sort 
of brought to fullness in terms of redemptive history.