Waldron’s Sermons on Covenant Theology

Pastor Sam Waldron recently gave a series of lectures at the Deep South Founder’s Conference on baptist covenant theology. He also participated in a moderated debate with a dispensationalist. You can find the lectures here: http://deepsouthfounders.com/previous-conferences/2013-christ-our-mediator/ I’ve had the pleasure of hearing Dr Waldron speak on several occasions and have always enjoyed it. He’s got a booming, authoritative voice and knows how to use it – which means its fun to hear him when he’s on your side, and maybe not so much when you disagree 😉

Whatever Happened to the Covenant of Works?

  • I thought this was a great lecture. He took a solid stand for the absolute necessity of a covenant of works if we are to understand the gospel properly. He discusses his appreciation for Murray’s writings but explains that he is willing to call “the Adamic Administration” the Covenant of Works (while Murray was not). Additionally he answers or deals with several reservations or lingering questions I had, such as whether or not Adam had eaten of the tree of life before being banished from the garden (seemed to me like that was a distinct possibility). I haven’t been able to find these answers before and they satisfied my questions. (Though I’m still not convinced that Scripture teaches that Adam could have earned eternal life for his offspring – but he didn’t address objections to this point). He refers to Nehemiah Coxe as one among several reasons why the LBCF is in full agreement with WCF on this point. All in all, this is a great sermon!

Should You Believe in the Covenant of Grace?

  • Point 1: “The theological concept of the covenant of grace cannot be strictly identified with any particular biblical covenant… The covenant of grace is often identified with one or another of the biblical covenants. But unless one adopts the view that all of the divine covenants are really one and the same (you wouldn’t want to do that), then the identification of the covenant of grace with any one of the biblical covenants is, in my view, naive. The reason I say that is, as defined by both the 1689 and the Westminster, the covenant of grace is an overarching covenant embracing all of history after the fall. That’s what it is, as I’ll show you in a second. That’s what they mean by the covenant of grace. Therefore it is seen as encompassing the several divine covenants of Scripture. In other words, all of the divine covenants of Scripture come into being at a certain point in history… But the covenant of grace, as we’ll see, defined by the confessions, is a covenant that is overarching of all history after the fall. The 1689 7.3… The Westminster also makes this point, but is even more clearly made in the Westminster Chapter 7 paragraph 5… Both of those statements make clear that the covenant of grace includes, for the Westminster, both its administration under the old covenant and its administration under the new covenant, what the Westminster calls there the law and the gospel. And the baptist confession makes clear, this covenant is first revealed to Adam. Now, beyond all doubt I think it’s clear to say the theological concept of the covenant of grace cannot be strictly identified with any particular biblical covenant... Unless one is willing, against the testimony of Scripture, to meld all the biblical covenants together, the covenant of grace cannot be identified with any one divine covenant.”
    • “The New Covenant is often identified as the covenant of grace, sometimes, I think Spurgeon does this, actually. Hebrews 13:20-21 it is identified as the covenant of grace because it’s the everlasting covenant. Yes, but the point of the everlasting there in Hebrews 13 is that once it begins, it never ends, but the New Covenant begins with the advent of Christ…”

I found this lecture to be rather frustrating, especially in light of reading Denault’s work (which shows that the prevailing view of the signers of the confession was precisely the view that Waldron says cannot be – strictly identifying the covenant of grace with the new covenant, to the exclusion of all other biblical covenants). Of course, that book was published after Waldron’s lecture, so he doesn’t mention or interact with it. But Nehemiah Coxe’s work has been published for several years and Waldron does mention Coxe in his lecture on the covenant of works. In fact, he argues that Coxe’s view of the covenant of works should be given special consideration because he was likely editor of the confession. So if he is familiar with Coxe’s work, why does he completely ignore it and it’s relation to the confession here? Waldron states that the LBCF and the WCF are in complete agreement on this point, while Denault argues from the glaring differences between them that they represent two very different views. If Waldron has read Coxe, he must either think Coxe did not identify the covenant of grace with the new covenant, or that Coxe’s view is not represented in the confession.

I look forward to hearing more from him on this point in the future. This is exactly the kind of confusion I pointed out in my review of Denault’s book. Waldron gave a whole series of lectures at a conference on covenant theology supposedly representing the view of the London Baptist Confession, while in fact there is reason to doubt he has correctly explained the meaning of the confession. But I’m sure this will be discussed at some point after the publication of Denault’s book.

  • Point 2: “The 1689 confession regards the new covenant as the definitive revelation of the covenant of grace… Notice the confession does not say the New Testament is the covenant of grace. It is the revelation, the definitive revelation of the covenant of grace. I think that that’s an important distinction.”
  • Point 3: “The terminology of the covenant of grace is not as important as the underlying theology.”
  • “The __ God to Israel was, according to Exodus 30:12-13, due to the Abrahamic Covenant. While on the other hand, conversely, the blessings of the Abrahamic Covenant were dependent upon obedience to the Mosaic Covenant. To inherit the land, they had to obey. But this is the promise of the Abrahamic Covenant… How wrong it is, symplistically at least, to call the Abrahamic Covenant a covenant of grace and the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of works… these covenants are inseparable.”
    • I agree
  • Thematic unity of the covenants: Ephesians 2:12: the covenants of the promise (plural covenants, singular promise). Though other translations are possible (the covenants of promise). Waldron leans heavily upon this to argue for his overarching covenant with one substance, differently administered view. Benjamin Keach agreed with Waldron’s translation, but not his interpretation:
    • The Baptists believed that no covenant preceding the New Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. Before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was at the stage of promise. According to Benjamin Keach, the expression “the covenants of the promise” that can be found in Ephesians 2:12 refers back to the Covenant of Grace. The promise in question was the Covenant of Grace. If we are talking about a promise, this implies that it was not yet accomplished and was not yet in the form of a testament or a covenant. The Baptists believed that the New Covenant was the accomplishment of the promise, or in other words, the accomplishment of the Covenant of Grace.
      The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, Pascal Denault, 63

  • Conclusion of Point 1: “We must not too quickly simply identify the Covenant of Grace with the New Covenant. We must not be guilty of that.” I don’t think the seventeenth century baptists did so quickly or simply, but I do think they did so.

Are the New and the Old Covenants Really One And the Same?

  • I really enjoyed this lecture. It’s basically a summary of certain parts of the Reformed Baptist Manifesto. I thought he did a great job of showing the problems with the paedobaptist interpretation of Jeremiah 31. His use of John 6 was tremendous. Definitely recommend giving it a listen.
  • There was one section that I found particularly interesting in light of the previous lecture (re: overarching covenant of grace with different administrations). “There is a clear difference between old covenant adoption and new covenant adoption. There was an old covenant adoption and there is a new covenant adoption and they are strikingly different. In Romans 8:14-16, to be an adopted son of God means that you’re led by the Spirit of God and an heir of glory. Whereas Romans 9:3-5 teaches that many were adopted in the old covenant sense who knew nothing of the Spirit of God… Romans 8:14-16… That’s clear, isn’t it? To be a child of God, to be adopted, is to be saved, to be an heir of glory, as v17 goes on to say. Romans 9:3-5… But Paul, you just prayed for their salvation! You just said that they were lost and separated from Christ? How can they be adopted sons of God? Well they can’t be, and they aren’t, in the New Covenant sense. But they were in the Old Covenant sense. There’s a difference between old covenant adoption and new covenant adoption. Becoming one of God’s people in the Old Testament was based on the flesh, but becoming one of God’s adopted sons in the New Covenant sense is based on the work of the Spirit. This is the difference between the old and the new covenant.”
    • I think this is an excellent point! But I fail to see how it is consistent with the rest of what he believes about the old and new covenants. Were Abraham, Moses, or David adopted sons of glory, led by the Spirit? If so, then they must have been members of the New Covenant, because as Waldron says, that was not true of Old Covenant adoption. To be adopted in the New Covenant sense is to be saved. To be adopted in the Old Covenant sense is outward and of the flesh. So if any old testament saint was an heir of glory, led by the Spirit, saved, they must have been so by virtue of the New Covenant and not the Old Covenant. I would be very curious to hear how Dr. Waldron explains that in light of his view.

Debate: Covenant Theology vs Dispensationalism

  • Overall I thought this was a decent debate. I wish they had gotten into it a bit more, had more examination time. But that’s usually the case with most debates. Give it a listen!
  • One interesting question came during the cross-examination when Dr. Johnson was pressing Dr. Waldron on the use of a theological covenant in distinction from the biblical covenants. He said, “What do I lose by not calling Gen 3:15 a covenant?” Dr. Waldron’s answer was basically “Nothing, if you retain the meaning of the covenant of grace.” That question is central to the view of seventeenth century baptists. Nehemiah Coxe said (regarding Gen 3:15) “It must also be noted that although the covenant of grace was revealed this far to Adam, yet we see in all this there was no formal and express covenant transaction with him.” (57) Coxe and his contemporary baptists held to a revealed/concluded view of the covenant of grace instead of a substance/administration view. The covenant of grace was revealed as a promise prior to Christ, and then it was formally concluded as the New Covenant.
  • One last note: I’m excited to hear 1689 federalism enter the dialogue with NCT and Dispensationalism

5 thoughts on “Waldron’s Sermons on Covenant Theology

  1. Regarding the debate with Dr. Elliot, while I don’t necessarily have a problem with Dr. Waldron’s insistence that the church IS Israel (“new and true”), I would personally emphasize the manner in which this is true: the church is the anti-type of which Israel is the type. Without this emphasis, I think it’s too easy to confuse the covenants (and therefore covenant communities) in exactly the same way Dispensationalists accuse us, and in the way Paedobaptists actually do.

    Regarding the lecture on the Covenant of Works, I thought it was exceptional, particularly toward the end.

    Regarding the lecture contrasting the old and new covenants, I thought it was extremely clear. Excellent stuff. A couple of observations, however.

    Toward the end, he critiques some reasons why Paedobaptists baptize infants, and one of them is presumptive regeneration. Personally, I’ve always thought this was the strongest reason for Paedobaptism. Anyway, he said the reason Paedos presume infants are regenerate is because infants in Israel were presumed regenerate (and thus circumcised). But I have never heard a Paedobaptist argue this way. In fact, every one I’ve heard or talked to readily admits that OT circumcision had nothing to do with the individual’s being presumed regenerate. Rather, the argument always is that we are to train our children up in the faith with the assumption and hope (but obviously not certainty) that they believe what they are being taught. (My view on the image of God, propositions, regeneration, and faith allows for regeneration in utero, but I don’t want to get off topic…yet.) The point was that I felt that perhaps Dr. Waldron has misunderstood the reasoning behind Paedobaptist presumptive regeneration.

    Secondly, the whole time I was listening to this, I kept wondering how on earth Dr. Waldron could possibly hold to a substance/administration view in light of this lecture. I was originally going to just skip the lecture on the covenant of grace, knowing I’d disagree, but now I’m too curious as to how he could possibly harmonize the two.

    I also listened to the lecture by Dale Crawford on the Eternal Covenant Transaction, which was mostly very good, although he seems to hold a different view than I do on the nature of eternity and divine volition, so I found some of the language distracting.


    1. I agree with your comments about emphasizing the anti-typical nature of the church (not just saying the church IS Israel.

      I’m not sure what to make of his comments about presumptive regeneration with regards to circumcision. I don’t think he has misunderstood the position though. Crampton discusses and quotes paedos on presumptive regeneration on pp114-117. Maybe if you could unpack your concern a bit more I could comment more, but I’m having trouble giving any kind of firm feedback.

      I agree that everything he says tends away from the substance/administration view. I suppose it’s the same way Kline’s view tends away from paedobaptism, but he still finds a way to retain it.

      Sorry for the delay!


      1. Just saw this reply. Regarding presumptive regeneration:

        Waldon argues that in the old covenant, circumcision was given to infants because they were presumed regenerate. But I’ve never heard that before, and I’ve never heard a paedobaptist using that as a reason for presumptive regeneration today.

        Every paedo I’ve ever heard of readily admits that circumcision had nothing to do with presumptive regeneration, but was given to children simply because they were children of Abraham (and thus in the covenant of circumcision). I’ve never heard anyone say regeneration (even presumed) was a pre-requisite for circumcision. Anyway, not trying to be a nitpick as it’s a minor point; just want to make sure we accurately understand paedobaptist reasoning.


  2. Pingback: Did A.W. Pink Agree w/ 1689 Federalism? | Contrast

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s