Hello Ron,<br><br>I appreciate your patience brother. I am trying to distill my thoughts as clearly as possible here, so please bear with me as I struggle to do so.<br><br>What I think is worth debating here is whether or not the concept of covenant should be properly conceived of as that eternal decree of God to save the elect or if it is also appropriate (or even better) to contemplate the covenant as the actual physical and historical dealings with men, through which that eternal decree is realized only with the elect.<br><br>To use terms that are familiar to us, it seems to me that there are two fundamental paradigms at work here, with one of them comprehending the covenant in terms of the “Promises” and the latter comprehending the covenant in terms of the outward “Administration”. Since they each choose to view the covenant in different contexts, it can be difficult to debate the issue without talking past each other. The reason why I think a careful and thoughtful debate on the matter is edifying is because each one of these paradigms emphasizes a biblical truth, though it must also be the case that one of them comes closer to representing the idea of “covenant” in Scripture. My desire then, is to sort out the elements of truth contained in each emphasis and then adopt terminology that is most consistent with the Scriptural appearances of God’s covenants in Scripture.<br><br>That being the case, it seems to me a worthwhile question to ask if we would be better served in association the idea of covenant with the “covenant administration” and distinguishing the Promises of the covenant from the covenant itself. For instance, when God speaks to Abraham in Genesis 17 He says:<br><br>7 "And I will establish My covenant between Me and you and your descendants after you in their generations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and your descendants after you.<br>8 "Also I give to you and your descendants after you the land in which you are a stranger, all the land of Canaan, as an everlasting possession; and I will be their God."<br>9 And God said to Abraham: "As for you, you shall keep My covenant, you and your descendants after you throughout their generations.<br>10 "This is My covenant which you shall keep, between Me and you and your descendants after you: Every male child among you shall be circumcised;<br><br>Without going into great exegetical detail, I would suggest that the promise to be God to Abraham and his descendents is just that, the promised blessings of the covenant, but not necessarily the covenant itself. The covenant is identified with circumcision (what we have called the external administration of the covenant). Later on in Genesis 17 we read, "He who is born in your house and he who is bought with your money must be circumcised, and My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. And the uncircumcised male child, who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin, that person shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant.” Again, the covenant is more closely connected with the outward administration here, though I would agree with you that the establishment of the covenant, or the realization of the promise connected with the covenant are only fulfilled in the elect. There are other places in Scripture where the covenant would be closely associated with the outward administration, such that God is said to make a covenant with a group of people that is clearly mixed with elect and non-elect, for instance:<br><br>"The LORD our God made a covenant with us in Horeb. The LORD did not make this covenant with our fathers, but with us, those who are here today, all of us who are alive. (Deuteronomy 5:2-3)<br><br>Again, I think you would agree with the terminology that the covenant was administered to these people, and I agree. But the point I am driving at is this: It seems to me that in the vast majority of cases we have to insert “administered with” in places where the covenant is made. For instance, this would be the case anytime someone broke the covenant or transgressed the covenant. I obviously cannot reproduce all the instances here, but if you simply look up all the references to covenant I think you would find this to be the case. So my question is, if this is the way in which the covenant is most often addressed in Scripture, why not associate the covenant most closely with the idea of the covenant administration, and make a distinction between that and the promises of the covenant, which are only realized in the elect or intended for them. I believe there is not only Scriptural warrant for identifying the outward administration of the covenant with the covenant itself, but in making such a distinction between the covenant and its promises. For instance:<br><br>Hebrews 9:15 And for this reason He is the Mediator of the new covenant, by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions under the first covenant, that those who are called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance.<br><br>Acts 2:39 "For the promise is to you and to your children, and to all who are afar off, as many as the Lord our God will call."<br><br>Ephesians 2:12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. <br><br>In these texts, I believe there is a subtle distinction between the covenant itself and the promises signified in the covenant. These promises are only for the elect, those whom the Lord will call. Similarly Romans 9:8, Romans chapter 4, etc. would be quite agreeable to this emphasis of the promise being only for the elect.<br><br>All this to say that I find some compelling reasons to associate the idea of the covenant more closely with the physical and historical administration of God’s redemptive plan and making a distinction between this and the promises of the covenant, which are made and realized only with the elect. The physical “objectivity” to the covenant is that to which I find appealing in of the “Boothian” paradigm. I think by going that way you have to insert fewer shims in Scripture when dealing with God’s covenants. At the same time, the unconditional character of the promises is something I have come to learn and appreciate through my interactions with you, and an important part of what I think is severely lacking in the articulation of the “Boothian” paradigm. Hence, I find the discussion valuable because I find myself learning things from both parties who tend to emphasize particular aspects associated with the covenant. I think the primary difference we would have here really boils down to something as subtle as a preference over whether or not we should call “the outward administration” of the covenant simply “the covenant” and make a distinction between it and the promises of the covenant which are only promised to and realized in the elect.<br><br>Does that make any sense whatsoever? [img]http://www.the-highway.com/w3timages/icons/dizzy.gif" alt="dizzy" title="dizzy[/img]<br><br>Sincerely yours in Christ,<br><br>~Jason<br><br>