← Back to sermon library

You can turn with me to chapter 
seven in your confessions of faith. We're now at the doctrine 
of God's covenant. So I'll read the three paragraphs 
in chapter seven and then we'll have a look at the doctrine of 
God's covenant. Chapter seven, 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 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 here 
we have the Reformed Baptists or the Particular Baptists entry 
in the confession concerning the topic of covenant theology, 
and we can never we can never underestimate or sort of bring 
down the topic, the significance or the importance of the doctrine 
of God's covenant. Covenant theology is something 
that is not simply confined or consigned to being one of a number 
of columns in the building of systematics, if you will, but 
rather it is the architecture itself. Covenant theology is 
simply the story of the Bible. Covenant theology is simply the 
story of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, bringing glory to 
Himself by the salvation of the elect through the perfect work 
of Jesus Christ. And all of those historical covenants, 
all of the covenants that we have in Scripture, serve that 
grand redemptive purpose to bring many sons to glory through the 
saving work of Jesus Christ, and ultimately and finally unto 
the glory of God. Many theologians, including Jim 
Renahan, for example, use the word architectonic to speak with 
regards to covenant theology. It is the organizing and unifying 
principle of the Bible and of theology. If we consider the 
Bible, really the movement of the narrative from Genesis is 
towards is towards covenant, the giving of the covenant of 
works to Adam in the garden. And then after that, it is with 
respect to covenant, moving to that full discovery in the New 
Testament with respect to the final revelation, if you will, 
of the covenant of grace. Again, to say covenant theology 
shouldn't be confined or consigned to being one of a number of theological 
columns in the architecture of systematics, but it simply is 
that very architecture. So it's an important topic as 
we read our Bibles, as we do theology. The confession itself, 
while we have of God's covenant explicitly stated as the chapter 
title for this, we must note that covenant theology is is 
there, is present from beginning to end, and is certainly, certainly 
is a multitude of threads that bind the tapestry together. There are some similarities with 
respect to the doctrine of God's covenant in the Second London 
Confession, similarities to the Savoy before it and the Westminster 
before it, but there are more differences. and that is for 
a specific reason that we'll note as we move along. For example, Renahan writes, 
when viewed against the confession hours versus the Savoy and the 
Westminster Confession, when viewed against the context of 
the Westminster Confession of Faith and Savoy material, one 
is able to see that the Baptists sought to retain the notion of 
covenant theology while at the same time framing it in a more 
historical cast. The particular Baptists, no doubt 
with the benefit of time, but not just that, sought to be more 
faithful to the Scriptures with respect to their covenant theology. On, maybe, unprejudiced by a 
desire to find a theology to match a practice. The Paedo-Baptists 
were more faithful to the biblical witness with respect to the covenants. Would somebody be able to grab 
me a tissue for my nose if that's okay? Thanks, Steve. I don't 
know where that came from, but there it is. Sorry, people who 
are listening, and sorry to all of you. So there are some, thank you, 
there are some similarities There are some similarities, 
but there are more notably differences. If you were to compare, and I 
have it in front of me here, but if you were to compare the 
three confessions, there are similarities in paragraph one, 
but then there are dissimilarities starting with paragraph 2, which 
is 3 in the previous confessions, and then our paragraph 3 compared 
to 5 and 5 and 6 in the previous confessions. And we'll note those 
differences because they are important as we move along. So 
there are some similarities. We want to note that the particular 
Baptist didn't depart from covenant theology. There are many similarities 
that are retained amongst or in comparison with and in concert 
with are Reformed brothers and sisters, but there are notable 
departures within the larger framework of covenant theology 
that represent a more wholesome, more faithful representation 
of what the Bible speaks to with respect to God's covenant. So 
more on that as we move along. Jim Renahan also notes that covenant 
theology is integrative, not only in the Bible, but also in 
our confession of faith. And hopefully a little bit of 
that will come out as we move along. There's an important connection 
more with a closer proximity here between chapter six and 
chapter seven with regards to the Baptist changes in chapter 
seven and the covenant of works. When Jim was working through 
chapter six, the Baptists in chapter six have much more to 
say about the covenant of works than our than the Independents 
and the Presbyterians before them. The Presbyterians and the 
Independents have more of the Covenant of Works in their chapter 
on covenant theology, whereas the Baptists don't, but that's 
because the Baptists place the Covenant of Works more prominently 
in the chapter that concerns the fall of man. And so there 
are a number of differences between the Baptists chapter 6 and the 
predecessors chapter 6 and the Baptists spend more time on the 
covenant of works there because In large part, chapter seven 
is, chapter seven has to do less with covenant theology, largely 
speaking, and more to do specifically with the covenant of grace, in 
particular. There is reference to the covenant 
of works, but it's within the context of emphatically declaring 
the Baptist doctrine of the covenant of grace. Just very briefly, a definition 
of covenant, largely speaking, and then more specifically as 
it pertains to covenant theology in the Bible. This is Sam Renahan 
on sort of a general definition of covenant. A covenant is a 
sanctioned commitment defining the relationship between two 
or more parties. Just one more time, a covenant 
is a sanctioned commitment defining the relationship between two 
or more parties. More specifically, Nehemiah Cox, 
with regards to the Bible and covenant, a covenant is a declaration 
of his, that is God's, sovereign pleasure concerning the benefits 
he will bestow on them, the communion they will have with him, and 
the way and means by which this will be enjoyed by them. Now, 
moving on, just still by way of introduction, throughout the 
confession, there are a number of explicit references to covenant 
and covenant of grace, both covenant of works and covenant of grace, 
and then there are a lot of implicit references to covenant relationship 
between God and man. In chapter one, for example, 
if you turn there for a moment, in chapter one, right at the 
outset, with respect to the doctrine of the scriptures, We read, the 
Holy Scripture is the only sufficient, certain, and infallible rule 
of all saving knowledge, faith, and obedience. Although the light 
of nature and the works of creation and providence do so far manifest 
the goodness, wisdom, and power of God as to leave men inexcusable, 
yet they are not sufficient to give that knowledge of God and 
his will which is necessary unto salvation. Now to our point, 
note, therefore it pleased the Lord at sundry times and in diverse 
manners to reveal himself, and to declare that his will unto 
his church. Now, that will come up as we 
look at paragraph one and as we move along with the doctrine 
of reveal, not the doctrine of reveal, but the language of reveal 
and revelation relative to covenant. But turn to chapter two now, 
the doctrine of God, and we've rehearsed a number of times that 
wonderful statement that ends the chapter on theology proper 
on the doctrine of God, at the end of paragraph three we read 
this language, which doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation 
of all our communion with God and comfortable dependence on 
him. That language was used on a number 
of occasions by John Owen within the context of covenant between 
God and man, specifically with regards to both the covenant 
of works, but more specifically with regards to the covenant 
of grace. So the doctrine of God is, of 
course, resting foundationally behind the doctrine of the covenant, 
and God and covenant, those doctrines come together in this idea, this 
blessing, this blessed reality of our communion with God and 
comfortable dependence on him. So there's an intimate link between 
the doctrine of God, of course, and the doctrine of covenant. 
No doubt other chapters, other locations in the confession, 
there are explicit references, for example, to the covenant 
of redemption in 8.1 and 8.5, as well as here in our chapter 
7. Justification, chapter 11, verses 
1 to 3, explicit references with regards to the covenant of redemption. 
There are some implicit references, of course, to the covenant of 
works in 4, 3, 6, 1, 2, and 3. Explicit Covenant of Works references 
in 19, 1, and 6, and 20, verse 1, and then explicit Covenant 
of Grace references after chapter 7 in chapters 14, 15, 17, and 
18. the doctrine of covenant theology, 
the doctrine of God's covenants are repletive here in the confession 
of faith. Just very briefly, and then we'll 
move into the meat and potatoes, an outline of the chapter, very 
simply, with some paraphrasing of Jim Ranahan with regards to 
the chapter outline, but chapter one, the necessity of covenant, 
excuse me, paragraph one, chapter seven, paragraph one, the necessity 
of covenant, paragraph two, the necessity of a covenant of grace, 
and then paragraph three, the revelation of the covenant of 
grace. So necessity of covenant, the 
necessity of a covenant of grace, and then the revelation of the 
covenant of grace. The first thing that we wanna 
look at from the chapter is the ground of covenant necessity. The ground of covenant necessity. 
Now when I say that, and when we say the necessity of covenant, 
we're not saying that God is by nature required or somehow 
obliged to enter into covenant. There is no natural requirement 
on the part of God to covenant with man. As we'll see in the 
language of the confession, he voluntarily condescends by way 
of covenant. So what do we mean when we talk 
about the ground of covenant necessity? We'll notice the language 
in paragraph 7. excuse me, chapter 7, paragraph 
1. Notice this language. by some voluntary condescension 
on God's part. So the necessity is more, is 
not more, the necessity is manwards. If man is to obtain the reward 
of life, God must then therefore condescend voluntarily, sovereignly, 
and according to his good pleasure. and express himself by way of 
covenant. So the ground of covenant necessity 
with this language in view, the distance between God and the 
creature is so great. Negatively, we want to note that 
the ground of covenant necessity is not because of the fall. Now, 
we'll get to that with regards to the covenant of grace, because 
that is because of the fall, but with covenant largely speaking, 
the necessity or ground of covenant necessity is not because of the 
fall. The confession here clearly states 
that positively, it is because of the creator-creature distinction. Notice again the language, the 
distance between God and the creature is so great. So the 
ground of covenant necessity is the creator-creature distinction. There is that grand and unbridgeable 
ontological chasm between God and man. We are not in the same 
category of being, we're not in the same We're not in the 
same sphere or universe of being. God is pure act and we are becoming. God is God and we are creature. He is creator and we are that 
which he has created. And so if there is to be, and 
there's another thing that conditions this, if you will, if there is 
to be the reward of life, God must voluntarily condescend. But with respect to the creator-creature 
distinction and covenant, Renahan notes, citing Nehemiah Cox, the 
divinely chosen vehicle through which contact and communication 
would be made with humanity is covenant. the divinely chosen 
vehicle through which contact and communication would be made 
with humanity. So, first off, with regards to 
the creator-creature distinction, a quote from Bovink. What's in view is not so much 
man's finitude, though that is somewhat in view, because we're 
talking about the creator-creature distinction, but more specifically, 
God's infinity and his incomprehensibility. This is Boeving. Nevertheless, 
the doctrine of God's immutability is highly significant for religion. The difference between the creator 
and the creature hinges on the contrast between being and becoming. All that is creaturely is in 
process of becoming. It is changeable, constantly 
striving in search of rest and satisfaction, and finds this 
rest only in him who is pure being without becoming. Christian 
theology frequently also expressed this last point in the terms 
of pure actuality. So what is the ground of covenant 
necessity? It is the creator-creature distinction. Also notice that there's connected 
to this, and because of this, the obedience that is due based 
on that. Notice the language here. The 
distance between God and the creature is so great that although 
reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their creator. By virtue of our creation, by 
virtue of God being God, the creator being the creator, and 
us being the creature, we, by nature, owe obedience unto God. That's why the next clause comes 
that we can't, as creatures, we're not, we don't deserve reward 
by virtue of our obedience to God and natural law. We don't deserve a reward. There 
is a distinction between merit and deserving, and that's why 
we have this next clause, yet they could never have attained 
the reward of life, but by some voluntary condescension on God's 
part. we have the creator-creature distinction, we have the fact 
that we simply owe obedience to God by virtue of us being 
creatures. We are unprofitable servants, 
and when we have done what we are to do, though obviously we 
do it imperfectly, if we do what we are obligated to do, we have 
just rendered our service. We don't merit any reward. Notice, you can notice in chapter 
22, the doctrine on religious worship in the Sabbath day. Notice 
this language here with regards to the creator and his creation 
and the light that that brings to the creature. We could speak 
with regards to natural revelation and natural law, but we won't 
spend a whole lot of time on that. Only to emphasize this 
point, the creator-creature distinction, but then the obedience that is 
to flow by virtue of that. The light of nature, chapter 
22, paragraph one, shows that there is a God who hath lordship 
and sovereignty over all, is just, good, and doth good unto 
all, and is therefore to be feared, loved, praised, called upon, 
trusted in, and served with all the heart and all the soul and 
with all the might. This is something that comes 
simply as a creaturely obligation to be rendered unto the creator 
by the simple fact of creation itself. Without covenant yet 
expressed, without covenant yet revealed, man owes obedience 
to his creator. So that's natural law and natural 
revelation, but then we have this special revelation or supernatural 
revelation or positive law that comes on the heels of those clauses. But the acceptable way of worshiping 
the true God is instituted by himself and so limited by his 
own revealed will. So back to chapter seven. We just want to note, then, the 
ground of covenant necessity negatively is not because of 
the fall, but because of the creator-creature distinction. 
And when we say covenant necessity, we're talking about covenant, 
largely speaking, God condescending to communicate and commune with 
man by way of covenant. So, the ground of covenant necessity 
is because of the creator-creature distinction, and secondly, because 
man cannot, by obedience in that relationship, attain the reward 
of life. There must be some voluntary 
condescension on God's part, and of course, the confession 
says that that's expressed by way of covenant. So, secondly 
then, covenant and the divine nature. So the ground of covenant necessity 
first, but now secondly covenant and the divine nature. We want 
to make a note here at the language of voluntary condescension because 
some have perverted the language a little bit or used it in the 
service of bad theology. The language here says, yet they 
could never have attained the reward of life but by some voluntary 
condescension on God's part. We want to note first under this 
head covenant and the divine nature that the voluntary condescension 
in covenant expression does not require nor bring about change 
in God. Whatever that, not whatever that 
voluntary condescension is, because it is simply revelatory, it's 
revelation, it's expression, it's God-pleasing to communicate, 
to set up this economy, if you will, of communication to humanity 
and contact with them. But voluntary condescension does 
not mean some sort of ontological condescension, that is the doctrine 
of being that God in some way changes, whether it's with loss, 
or whether it's with addition, or whether it's somehow with 
both. The covenant expression in voluntary 
condescension does not require nor bring about change in God. 
have used the language of voluntary condescension to press that point. 
Just some examination of some bad theological statements by 
some who have sort of jumped onto either that language explicitly 
or the concept generally to propose that there is change in God. 
One man writes, he remains who he is, but decides to be something 
else as well. He decides to be the God of the 
covenant. It was to be sure a monumental 
decision. It changed the mode of God's 
existence for eternity. He began to exist according to 
relationships at extra or outside of himself, which had not been 
the case before. Hopefully you see the immense 
problem with that statement. First off, he decides to be the 
God of the covenant. God doesn't decide to do anything. 
He's God. He's immutable, eternal, infinite, 
a most pure spirit without body parts and passions. The language 
of he remains who he is but changes is simply paradoxical and contradictory 
and against everything the Bible says with regards to God. It 
changed the mode of God's existence for eternity. He began to exist 
according to relationships outside of himself, which had not been 
the case before. So God's immutability is shattered. But not only that, we are worshiping 
then a creature. and not one who is purely God, 
because he has changed relative to creation. He is not what he 
has been from eternity, but rather has changed, has made this monumental 
decision to exist according to another mode for eternity. So we won't elaborate on the 
heap of problems, but suffice it to say that that's very problematic. 
More to the point of this language of condescension, the same man 
writes, once God condescends, we should recognize that in taking 
to himself covenantal properties, which is a fanciful and novel 
term that we ought not to use, he takes to himself as well the 
kind of knowledge that accrues to these properties. Or to put 
it another way, one of these properties that he takes to himself 
is the development of knowledge that is conducive to his interaction 
with his creation generally, and specifically with his people. 
So what he's saying, tragically, is that God develops in his knowledge, 
that he is perfect with respect to knowledge prior to creation 
and covenant, but for the sake of creation and covenant interaction, 
he somehow progresses in his knowledge along with creatures. That's closer to open theism 
than it is to the God of biblical theology, the God of the scriptures. Two last briefer quotes, briefer 
a word. God is changeable in relation 
with his creation. In this relational mutability, 
God does interact with his people in the experiences of their lives 
as these unfold in time. So God is changeable is the statement. The same man says that God is 
immutable, but is changeable. He's immutably mutable. A contradiction, 
obviously, and one that we should stay far from. One last one here 
with respect to, oh, one man uses that term, the student of 
that former master previously quoted, relational mutability, 
a distinction between God in eternity and God in time. that God, before creation and 
condescension by way of covenant, changed himself in order to create 
and in order to engage in covenant. But that is not the God of the 
scriptures and that's not the God of chapter two. Remember 
that same God of chapter two is the God of chapter seven. 
The one who voluntarily condescends and expresses himself by way 
of covenant is the eternally timeless He does not change, 
but God is, as our confession states, immutable, eternal, a 
most pure spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in all of his 
glorious perfections. Just a couple quotes with regards 
to this reality of the unchangeability of God, a couple witnesses to 
that particular reality that it looks like I didn't copy and 
paste into here. Oh, there we go. First off, Gregory 
of Nazianzus, for if God was not always what he now is, he 
certainly changed either from the better to the worse or from 
the worse to the better. And of these assertions, the 
impiety is equal either way, whichever statement is made concerning 
the divine nature. So if God is immutable and changes, 
then that's for the worse, because he has now put on, if you will, 
mutability. But if God somehow adds to himself, 
than he was somehow worse before, because now he's better, for 
he's added to himself. And as he says, the impiety is 
equal either way. It is impious to suppose any 
sort of mutability in God. Charnock writes, I said mutability, 
right? Okay, I think I did. We'll rewind 
later. For the better or for the worse, 
this is Charnock, repeating Gregory of Nazianzus, for the better 
or for the worse, if for the better, then he must not have 
been infinite in perfection prior to the change, and therefore 
was not God. If for the worse, then he would 
no longer be infinite in perfection after the change, and therefore 
no longer God. So we know that this voluntary 
condescension does not mean God changes, but much rather it simply 
means that God expressed or revealed himself in a particular way to 
man. It's a revelatory condescension, 
it's not an ontological condescension. Thirdly, covenant as revelatory 
condescension. Notice the language here uses, 
the language in paragraph one states, after voluntary condescension 
on God's part, note, which he hath been pleased to express. 
by way of covenant. So this voluntary condescension 
isn't a change in the being of God, it's simply a change relative 
to creation that God is expressing himself to man by way of covenant. It's a revelatory condescension. Now when we use that language, 
revelatory condescension, we can use it in two ways which 
are kind of connected. In one sense, revelatory condescension 
is necessary because God is God and we are creature. He stoops 
to accommodate himself to man when he reveals himself supernaturally 
to us. He uses those anthropomorphisms 
in scripture where he talks about, you know, where he ascribes wings 
to himself, or arms, or a hand, and eyes, and those sorts of 
things. God stoops to our finitude from 
his infinitude in order that we might understand his revelation 
to us. Also, with regards to revelatory 
condescension, we can see that as God voluntarily expressing 
himself by way of covenant in order that man may have the reward 
of life. And so these are no doubt connected, 
but it's sort of in that latter sense that we see it used here. This language of revelatory condescension 
in covenant, or that covenant is revelatory condescension, 
we see the word express, we see the word covenant, and then later 
make, offer, promising, revealed, and then also revealed afterwards 
in only this chapter. So this voluntary condescension 
is revelatory condescension where God stoops to man's creatureliness 
and makes contact and communication with him. Fourthly, Moving on to paragraph two, the 
occasion and nature of the covenant of grace. So notice the occasion 
and nature of the covenant of grace, and first off, due to 
man's fall into sin and having violated the terms of the covenant 
of works, "'the Lord is pleased to make a covenant of grace. 
"'Moreover man, having brought himself "'under the curse of 
the law by his fall, "'it pleased the Lord to make a covenant of 
grace.'" So this language of moreover connects the flow and 
speaks now specifically of the covenant of grace. And so this 
is, the necessity in this case is because of man's fall. The 
necessity of the covenant of grace is because man has brought 
himself under the curse of the law by his fall, by violating 
the law of God, by violating that particular precept not to 
eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, which with 
it, no doubt, was a violation, as some have acknowledged, of 
the entire moral law. that was written upon the heart 
of Adam and Eve by virtue of their creation. So due to man's 
fall into sin, having violated the terms of the covenant of 
works, the Lord is pleased to make a covenant of grace. After the fall, this is John 
Owen, he entered, that is God, entered into another covenant 
with mankind, which from the principle nature and end of it 
is commonly called the covenant of grace. So the covenant of 
grace comes upon the heels of the fall, man having violated 
the terms of the covenant of works, which the divines here 
in the Second London Confession of Faith bring out in chapter 
six. more largely than their predecessors at the point of 
the Covenant of Works there. Secondly, under the occasion 
and nature of the Covenant of Works, the divine action in the 
Covenant of Grace, notice after it pleased the Lord to make a, 
well, first of all, let's just stop there for a moment. It pleased 
the Lord. that is divine action. It pleased the Lord to make a 
covenant of grace. It's sovereign good pleasure 
on the part of God. Remember, God not obligated naturally 
to condescend, to commune with man, to communicate to humanity 
by way of covenant, but nevertheless it pleased him to do so from 
the immutable love of God, from the everlasting grace and mercy 
of God. So notice the language, it pleased 
the Lord to make a covenant of grace and then wherein he freely 
offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ. So we have this divine action 
in the covenant of grace. As Jim has often said, it's God 
who seeks man, not man who seeks God. As we trace the biblical 
narrative, it's always God that voluntarily condescends, according 
to his good pleasure, to bless man with communion and communication. It's always God seeking man, 
not the other way around. So there is expressly and exclusively 
divine action in the covenant of grace, whether it's by virtue 
of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit in the giving of the covenant 
of grace, freely making that covenant of grace, or whether 
it's with the champion of the covenant of grace, the incarnate 
Son of God, who comes and perfectly and substitutionarily saves his 
people from their sins. So, divine action in the covenant 
of grace. It pleased the Lord and He freely 
offers. Thirdly, under the occasion and 
nature of the covenant of grace, we have man's response to that 
which is offered in the covenant of grace. Notice the language 
here, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved. Now, When we use this language 
of man's response, we're obviously framing it within the safe confines 
of reformed soteriology, because notice, the language continues, 
that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those who are 
ordained unto eternal life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing 
and able to believe. So God makes this covenant with 
God. God freely offers salvation by 
Jesus Christ by means of this covenant of grace that he was 
pleased to give. He requires faith on the part 
of man, but it is the very faith that he gives him, those who 
are ordained unto eternal life. So requiring of them faith in 
Him, making them willing and able to believe, and so they 
do believe, and they lay hold of the Son of Life. Fourthly, 
with regards to the occasion, and lastly, with regards to the 
occasion and nature of the covenant of grace, we notice the divine 
provision in the covenant of grace. This language after we 
read, requiring of them faith in Him that they may be saved, 
we see here, and promising to give. unto all those who are 
ordained unto eternal life, His Holy Spirit to make them willing 
and able to believe. So we have the divine provision. Not only do we have divine action, 
but we have also divine provision. He promises to give His people, 
His Holy Spirit, that Spirit which makes them willing and 
able to believe. And this is where we see covenant 
intimately linked to the chapters that follow in the confession 
of faith. Because right upon the heels 
of chapter seven, we have chapter eight of Christ the mediator, 
the mediator of the covenant. He comes as the one promised 
according to the terms of the covenant of redemption. He comes 
and he perfectly, he exercises perfectly obedience, perfect 
obedience to his covenant terms that were established for him, 
that he would become incarnate and that he would perfectly secure 
the salvation of the elect. He comes in due time as the champion 
of the covenant to perfect to perfect and to complete the covenant 
of grace, ratifying it in his own blood. After that, we see 
the covenant blessings coming out. We see a chapter on free 
will, which isn't somehow detached and just lurking in the ether 
of theology, but it's placed there properly because then we 
have the blessings of the covenant coming to that one, that one 
who is saved from out of the darkness of slavery to a sinful 
will. The covenant blessings come and 
so from chapter 10 onwards we see the movement of covenant 
blessings being poured out by God upon his elect. So hopefully we can see here 
how covenant theology does bear that architectonic nature. It's the architecture, it's the 
organizing and unifying principle of theology and of the Bible 
of God's dealing with man. Fifthly and lastly then, we want 
to notice the revelation of and composition of the covenant of 
grace from paragraph three. The revelation of and composition 
of the covenant of grace. Jim Renahan notes, this is a 
wonderful redemptive historical overview of the covenantal purpose 
of God in the gospel. There's obviously and explicitly 
an intimate link between covenant theology and the gospel, because 
covenant theology is for the purpose of the revelation of 
the gospel of Jesus Christ. There is a wonderful redemptive 
historical overview of the covenantal purpose of God in the gospel. The importance of the term revelation 
used here cannot be underestimated as we compare it to the paedo-baptistic 
confessions of faith at this particular chapter of God's covenant. The Baptists use revelation. They do not use the language 
of administration or dispensation like their Paedo-Baptist forerunners. They use the language exclusively 
with regards to revelation, and that's for a particular purpose. This is Nehemiah Cox with respect 
to this language. It lacked its solemn confirmation 
and establishment by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged 
to it with respect to the covenant of grace and formal establishment. 
Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal 
nature of a covenant or a testament, as our apostle proves, Hebrews 
9, 15 to 23. For neither, as he shows in that 
place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had 
it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. To that 
end, the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant. What he's saying is one of the 
reasons for the use of revelation and the removal of the language 
of administration is because the covenant of grace was not 
properly and formally a covenant until it was fully discovered 
in the New Testament by the ratification of Jesus Christ. That's why there 
can be no administration of the covenant of grace before it's 
formally established in the New Testament. There is an identity 
to, a measure of identity to the covenant of grace and the 
New Testament, but there is also distinction, as Denolt says, 
without separation. The distinction is that the covenant 
of grace was not, again, properly and formally a covenant until 
it's ratified by Jesus Christ. It had a promissory form. in 
the promise given to Adam in the garden. Notice this covenant 
is revealed in the gospel first of all to Adam in the promise 
of salvation by the seed of the woman. And so there is this revelation 
that is emphasized in opposition to administration or dispensation 
because of the fact that the covenant itself is not The covenant 
of grace is not formally and properly a covenant until Christ 
ratifies it in his blood. So the first revelation of the 
covenant of grace we see to Adam in the promise of salvation by 
the seed of the woman. And I would want to emphasize 
that there's something important here with regards to the emphasis 
upon Adam with regards to the covenant of grace and the absence 
of language with regards to Abraham concerning the covenant of grace. Our Baptistic forerunners are 
more Christological and Christocentric in their covenant theology than 
their Paedo-Baptistic forerunners. forerunners who emphasize, and 
necessarily so, the Abrahamic reality of the covenant of grace 
because they're obligated to, because of their sacrament of 
baptism. which includes obviously the 
baptism of infants. The language of Abraham and his 
seed is predominant in the formulation of pedobaptistic covenant theology, 
and we see the absence of that in the Baptist formulation, I 
think, not I think, because the emphasis on Adam brings to the 
fore the reality that that's the proto-gospel in the garden. 
That's the first announcement of the covenant of grace, the 
promise that there will be a hero born of woman who will crush 
the serpent with his heel. And then, After that, we have 
subsequent anticipatory revelation of the covenant of grace. Notice 
the language here of farther steps. 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. So 
there is subsequent anticipatory revelation of the covenant of 
grace that follows the promise given to Adam in the garden before 
his exile. So there's this progressive, 
a divinely intended, divinely designed progressive revelation 
in redemptive history where light builds upon light until the full 
discovery of the covenant of grace comes with the new covenant 
in the first advent of Christ. This is a quote from an English 
churchman, an English minister, Church of England guy, who would 
have been preaching and writing just before or around the time 
that the Baptists penned their confession in 1677. This is Robert South, a Paedo-Baptist, 
speaking with regards to the covenant of grace, and he uses 
the identical language that our Baptists forerunners use with 
regards to farther steps, and full discovery, and he helps 
to sort of explain or elaborate upon what is meant by farther 
steps until. He says, he preached in a sermon, 
he that at first was known only as the seed of the woman was 
in process of time known to be the seed of Abraham, and after 
that, the seed of David. And from thence proceeding to 
greater particularities relating to the manner of his coming, 
he was known to be born of a virgin. and for the place where to be 
born at Bethlehem. And for his person and condition, 
that he should be a man of sorrows, and that he should suffer and 
die for sin, that he should rise again, that he should ascend 
into heaven and lead captivity captive. And he's citing Old 
Testament passages as he moves along. That he should reign till 
he had subdued his enemies and saw the world brought under him. 
Thus, by a continual gradation, the promise advanced itself with 
further steps and increases, shining more and more unto a 
perfect day, displaying fresh, fuller discoveries through several 
ages of the world, every new degree of manifestation being 
a mercy great enough to oblige an age. So you see this language 
of covenant with regards to the progressive revelation of that 
covenant of grace, the promise in promise form first made to 
Adam, but then as we move now to the terminal accomplishment 
of the covenant of grace, its full discovery is completed in 
the New Testament. So the terminal accomplishment 
of the covenant of grace. We would want to note with some 
qualification that the new covenant is the covenant of grace. This 
is why we only baptize believers who have a legitimate profession 
of faith, that it is only the elect, born again, regenerated, 
and believing, that are to be the proper subjects of baptism. One of the reasons. The New Testament, 
this is Pascal Deneu, The New Testament brings the full revelation 
of the covenant of grace, since the new covenant is its accomplishment. The Baptists considered that 
the new covenant, and it alone, was the covenant of grace. The 
covenant of grace revealed to Adam, and then to Abraham, was 
the new covenant promised. He notes that there's distinction 
without separation, and what that means is, with a measure 
of identity between the new covenant and the covenant of grace, there 
is a distinction in that, remember, it's in promissory form, promise 
form, when it's given to Adam and as farther steps are revealed, 
and then it comes to full discovery or completion in the New Testament 
with the advent of Christ, specifically with the shedding of his blood, 
the blood of ratification, and his resurrection. So, until the 
full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament, promissory 
revelation culminating in ratification of covenant, promise form in 
the OT, building to confirmation of and as covenant in the New 
Testament. Just some quotes with regards 
to that from some Paedobaptists and some particular Baptists 
such as John Owen. Anybody get that joke? Charnock. The first appearance 
at the dawning is an earnest that the victory will be complete 
at last. God did not make a full discovery 
of Christ to Adam. His revelations of him grew brighter 
with every age. The nearer his coming, the clearer 
was the foresight of him. John Owen. And as it was their 
wisdom and their grace to rejoice in the light that they had in 
the Old Testament, and in those typical administrations of divine 
worship, which shadowed out the glory of Christ unto them, "'Yet 
did always pant after that more excellent light "'and full discovery 
of it, "'which was to be made by the gospel. "'And herein consists 
the principal advantage "'of the New Testament above the old. 
"'For although the work of the new creation "'was begun and 
carried out on secretly "'and virtually under the Old Testament, 
"'yet they had not a full discovery of the economy "'of the Holy 
Trinity therein. which was not evidently manifest 
until the whole work was illustriously brought to light by the gospel. And then, one last one here by 
Pascal Deneault. The distinction between the revelation 
and the administration of the covenant of grace finds its whole 
meaning when the second element of Baptist covenant theology 
is added to it. That is to say, the full revelation 
of the covenant of grace in the new covenant. If Westminster 
covenant theology can be summarized as one covenant under two administrations, 
that of the 1689 would be one covenant revealed progressively 
and concluded formally under the new covenant. So that's an 
important, it's a very important distinction that is being made 
there. And it's an important distinction that, that brings import to the doctrine 
of baptism and also the doctrine of the church, not to mention 
implications for doctrines such as soteriology and other things, 
more implications than explicit doing of violence to soteriology, 
but that would take another session. So as we close here, just two 
very quick points. Notice the foundation of the 
covenant of grace. And it is, near the sort of top 
middle, and it is founded, that is the covenant of grace is, 
it is founded in that eternal covenant transaction that was 
between the father and the son about the redemption of the elect. 
So we see the foundation for the covenant of grace is the 
covenant of redemption. And there will be a little bit 
more to say about that when we get to chapter eight, because 
chapter eight, like the Savoy, and unlike the Westminster Confession 
of Faith, adds a particular clause in the doctrine of Christ the 
mediator with regards to the covenant of redemption. The language 
or the clause according to the covenant made between them both 
to be the mediator between God and man. All of that to say the 
covenant of grace is founded on that blessed foundation, the 
covenant of redemption, which was for Christ a covenant of 
works that was between the Father and Son about the redemption 
of the elect. So the covenant of grace, our 
salvation, the salvation of the elect by amazing and victorious 
grace is founded upon that eternal covenant transaction that was 
between the father and son about the redemption of the elect. 
And then lastly, the exclusivity of the covenant of grace and 
its relation to the covenant of works. Notice the last set 
of clauses in paragraph three, and it is alone by the grace 
of this covenant that all 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 we 
have the exclusivity of the covenant of grace. It's only by that covenant 
that any of the posterity of Adam are saved. Any sinner under 
God's good heaven that is to be saved is saved by virtue of 
the covenant of grace having been fully discovered in the 
New Testament. And, of course, no one can be 
saved by that covenant of works, it having been broken, man having 
been thrusted into sin and depravity and inability with only the fact 
that the Lord Jesus Christ can set him free. And that Lord Jesus 
Christ is the covenant champion, the covenant maker, became the 
covenant keeper in his incarnation that covenant breakers might 
become the friends of God by amazing and victorious grace 
and the perfection of his work. Let's pray. Heavenly Father, 
we pray that you would help us to reflect well and fondly upon 
doctrines such as this. We thank you for what the Bible 
reveals with regards to covenant, your voluntary condescension 
to such as us to disclose and declare the Lord Jesus Christ 
and salvation by him. We pray that we would be blessed 
by a knowledge of our God today, by a knowledge of our Christ. 
We pray that you would help us as we go into worship, to worship 
you in spirit and in truth. Give us your Holy Spirit that 
we might properly hallow and worship your most high name. 
We pray.