Converts from credo to pedobaptism like myself all need to catch up on the language of covenants at some point. Credobaptist theology cannot comply with classic covenant theology because it denies that infants may receive baptism or that water baptism is in any way efficacious. Converts like me often are convinced on the issue of the proper subjects or the efficacy of baptism before they grasp clearly the system of covenant theology. This is the explanation I wish someone gave to me.
A covenant is an arrangement with parties and terms.
Ursinus' Commentary:
A Mediator is one who reconciles parties that are at variance, as God and men. This reconciliation is called in the Scriptures a Covenant, which has particular reference to the Mediator, inasmuch as every mediator is the mediator of some covenant, and the reconciler of two opposing parties.
There are several distinct covenants with God in the bible.
Adamic: Also called the Covenant of Works or Creation. This was God's initial arrangement with humanity in the Garden of Eden. Whether this is properly identified as a covenant or simply as a probationary state for man is a long running debate. This is denied by the Federal Vision camp.
Parties: God and Adam (acting as the representative for all humanity).
Terms: A conditional arrangement based on obedience. Perfect obedience to God's command (specifically, not eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil) results in continued life and blessing; disobedience results in death.
References: Genesis 2:15–17 (also possibly Hosea 6:7, but this may be a geographic reference).
Noahic: God’s promise to the world following the flood.
Parties: God, Noah, his descendants, and every living creature on earth.
Terms: An unconditional promise from God that He will never again destroy the earth and all flesh with a worldwide flood. The rainbow serves as the visible sign of this enduring promise.
Reference: Genesis 9:8–17.
Mosaic: or Siniatic. The agreement made at Mount Sinai that formed the foundational laws for the nation of Israel.
Parties: God and the nation of Israel (with Moses acting as the mediator).
Terms: A conditional agreement centered on the Law (including the Ten Commandments). If Israel obeys God's laws, they will be His treasured possession, a kingdom of priests, and a holy nation. Disobedience brings curses and judgment.
References: Exodus 19:5–8; Exodus 24:3–8.
New: The final and ultimate covenant. Identified with Jesus, especially in the words of institution. Called "new" with reference to the Mosaic "old" or "first" covenant (see 2 Cor 3).
Parties: God and His people—all who believe in Him (with Jesus Christ acting as the mediator).
Terms: An unconditional promise of grace. God promises to grant absolute forgiveness of sins, provide the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, and write His law directly onto the hearts of His people, rather than on tablets of stone.
References: Foretold in Jeremiah 31:31–34; established in Luke 22:20; explained in Hebrews 8:6–13.
There are more minor covenants in the Bible between men or nations. The New Testament mostly speaks of the "old" and "new."
What is the nature of the relationship between the categories of covenants? This is where I have my complaints. Speaking casually, many Presbyterians do notalways distinguish between categories leading to implied contradictions. One classic way to distinguish between the categories is in substance and form.
Ursinus' Commentary:
This covenant is one in substance, but two-fold in circumstances; or it is one as it respects the general conditions upon which God enters into an engagement with us, and we with him; and it is two as it respects the conditions which are less general, or as some say, as it respects the mode of its administration.
The Covenant is one in substance.
Because there is but one God, one Mediator between God and man, Jesus Christ, one way of reconciliation, one faith, and one way of salvation for all who are and have been saved from the beginning.
It is a great question, and one that has been much debated, whether the ancient fathers were saved in a different way from that in which we are saved, which, unless it be correctly explained, throws much obscurity and darkness around the gospel. The following passages of Scripture teach us what we are to believe in relation to this subject:
"Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to-day, and forever."
"And God gave him to be Head over all things to the Church."
"From whom the whole body fitly joined together," &c.
"No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him."
"There is none other name under heaven given whereby we must be saved."
"No one knoweth the Father but the Son, and he to whom," &c. "
No one cometh to the Father but by me."
"I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life;" he means, I am the way by which even Adam obtained salvation.
"Many kings and prophets desired to see the things which ye see," &c.
"Abraham rejoiced to see my day, and he saw it, and was glad." (Heb. 13:8. Eph. 1:22; 4:16. John 1:18. Acts 4:12. Matt. 11:27. John 14:6. Luke 10:24. John 8:56.)
All those, therefore, who have been saved, those under the law as well as those under the gospel, had respect to Christ, who is the only Mediator, through whom alone they were reconciled to God and saved. Hence, there is but one covenant.
There is but one covenant, because the principal conditions, which are called the substance of the covenant, are the same before and since the incarnation of Christ; for in each testament God promises to those that repent and believe, the remission of sin; whilst men bind themselves, on the other hand, to exercise faith in God, and to repent of their sins.
But there are said to be two covenants, the old and the new, as it respects the circumstances and conditions which are less general, which constitute the form, or the mode of administration, contributing to the principal conditions, in order that the faithful, by their help, may obtain those which are general.
To summarize: the old and new covenants are one in substance, two in form. There is an obvious analogy to our terminology of the trinity; one in essence, three in person.
A third general covenant developed in later Reformed Orthodoxy, the covenant of redemption. This is a speculative off-page covenant related to God's decree to elect some and not others.
Only the covenant of grace is said to have a plurality of forms.
(Singular)
(Singular)
Old & New
This category distinction is necessary to keep from contradicting the bible. God says after the time of Moses "The days are coming, when I will make a new covenant" (Jer 31). The new covenant is by definition not the old one, and it was "made" some time after Jeremiah.
The Westminster standards prefer the term "administration" instead of "form." This is an admission of the author's own ignorance, but to baptist ears this often sounds like a category error. All benadryl is identical, whether administered orally or by injection. This leads to a misunderstanding that the Presbyterian is saying "the old covenant is the new covenant", without qualification.
These are two ideas for avoiding this category confusion.
This distinction may have existed in English theology in the past, but raises two new problems today:
Modern Bible translations prefer translating the term "covenant" as in Heb. 9:15:
NKJV: "He is the Mediator of the new covenant"
KJV: 'he is the mediator of the new testament"
The "New Testament" is understood to mean the canon of inspired greek books, not the covenant for which it was named. Same for the Hebrew OT. We would have to explain the concept of synecdoche, ask a student to keep this in mind, then explain this already complex topic as in WLC 34:
Q 34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
Answer: The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises,1 prophecies, 2 sacrifices,3 circumcision,4 the passover,5 and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,6 by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.
Be honest: you read "testament" and thought about the books, not the mediated arrangement between god and man.
This solution exploits the presence of several translations of the same concept. Foedus is Latin for covenant. For some reason, the covenant of redemption is given a third term "pactum" (pactum salutis) as in, "pact."
Instead of referring to a covenant of grace, we would just refer to Adam as the first "federal head", and Christ as the new "federal head." This solution seems to reconcile opponents over the existence of the "covenant of works." This reconciliation is either a weakness or a strength based on whether you think there is a real disagreement between the Federal Vision and NAPARC.
"For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor 15:22). Paul did not need to explain the relationship in terms of covenant. Do we have to?
This option is even less specific than the last and would allow for more views of what it means to be "in adam" or "in christ." I tentatively accept this challenge over the challenge of explaining that I say "covenant" in a sense that is logically deduced but not ever used by the Biblical authors
Objection. The doctrine of the trinity is never named in scripture, it's deduced. Why not deduce the "covenant of grace?"
Answer. "Trinity" is a term never used in scripture whatsoever. It is a term invented for the doctrine synthesized by the relevant passages. The "covenant of grace" is a concept requiring a student to remember two different definitions of the one term "covenant", already a foreign legal concept from the ancient world.
We may note that the Heidelberg Catechism uses only the formal categories of old and new covenant, never the substantial "covenant of works" or "covenant of grace", let alone "covenant of redemption." Heidelberg is just more pastoral and practical than the dry and technical Westminster catechisms.
Preach and catechize using the bible's own language. Make peace with the system in your systematics book. Understand the category distinction and don't get them conflated in your expla