@curiousdannii What do you see as the fundamental elements of Reformed theology? Certainly most, if not all historic Reformed theologians thought that a covenant of works was a necessary implication of the doctrine of the Fall, federal headship, and the atonement.

There are at least inklings if not outright support of a covenant of works in the early church fathers, too.

I'm not sure if the phrase was new during the Reformation, but the concept is not.

@PeterTurner @KorvinStarmast christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/62323/… might be up your alley

@Birdie I'd say the fundamental elements would include its soteriology, marks of the church, and a covenant based Biblical Theology.

But if we hold to Semper Reformanda then I think there's no place for a blanket exclusion of theologians who make well intentioned and well reasoned arguments for progressing out understanding of these topics.

for progressing our understanding of these topics.

@curiousdannii Sure, and there are (often somewhat subtle) distinctions in thought in covenant theology among the Reformed. But because of the way the covenants fill the whole Bible, there are serious ramifications for the rest of our theology if we throw out or drastically alter our understanding of covenant theology. Such that I would say that Reformed covenant theology underpins vast swathes of Reformed doctrine generally.

I would argue that at some level, the implications of massive changes in Reformed covenant theology result in no-longer-Reformed doctrine elsewhere, such as by throwing out the covenant of works. The implications are greater than just the corner titled "covenant theology".

It would be akin to saying that part of Scripture isn't part of the history of redemption, another concept that underpins much of Reformed theology.

Do you think that "Reformed Baptists" who hold to New Covenant Theology are no longer truly reformed then?

@Birdie What do you see as depending on the CoW?

@Birdie I have to strongly disagree. It's much more akin to saying that the CC's magisterium isn't part of scripture. CT is a model and construct to help us make sense of what God revealed to us. It can't be the main deal itself.

@curiousdannii Depends what you mean by "truly reformed", but I would say that they have diverged from the body of Reformed orthodoxy for sure.

@curiousdannii The CoW affects our understanding of federal headship, Christ's atonement, the Fall, our understanding of how God interacts with humanity as a whole, what the covenant of grace means, what the content of the covenant of redemption is, and probably more that I can't think of off the top of my head.

@curiousdannii The history of redemption is a model as well. It isn't a universal concept.

@Birdie Can you explain how? How do any of them depend on there being a CoW, rather than God instructing Adam to obey and promising death to him and his own if he did not?

@curiousdannii It might help if you could explain in brief where you disagree with the CoW, so I can be sure I'm not preaching to the choir over a matter of definition.

@Birdie But definitions matter. The CoW is the least controversial of CT's covenants, but also, as far as I can tell, the least necessary.

@Birdie Well I answered as best I could, but I might be speaking a completely different language because I don't understand what you and curiousdannii are talking about much.

@PeterTurner Cheers. If I want to know "official" RCC teaching, where can I go besides the RCCCatechism?

@Birdie A covenant is an act of condescension by God, where beyond his good nature, beyond his declarations of goodwill to humanity, beyond his promises, he binds himself to his word to reassure fallible man (Hebrews 6:13-18). As a kind of promise, a covenant is a specific speech act made between two concrete parties with concrete terms.

@curiousdannii Right. Do you hold that when God told Adam "you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die." that this was not a specific speech act made between two concrete parties with concrete terms?

@Birdie ccel.org and newadvent.org has church councils, the vatican website has papal encyclicals. The Catechism is the best though, there's also a supplement to the catechism amazon.com/Companion-Catechism-Catholic-Church-Compendium/dp/… which has all the footnotes expanded. and this book tanbooks.com/index.php/fundamentals-of-catholic-dogma.html has all the specifics

@Birdie I do, but I wouldn't say that it's a covenant, because covenantal vocabulary is not used. (Hosea 6:7 probably doesn't count.) Now if someone wants to call God's relationship with Adam covenantal so as to match the covenantal relationships he had with Noah, Abraham, Israel, David etc, that's fine.

@PeterTurner Thanks. Are they all equally authoritative?

The real problem I have is with the Covenant of Grace. To argue from the reasonableness of the CoW (though unnecessary IMO) to the CoG is bait and switch IMO.

@curiousdannii What do you mean by covenantal vocabulary? The word "covenant"?

@Birdie no, they're probably not wrong, but the most authority I believe comes from the Church Councils and Papal statements where the Pope says he's acting ex cathedra (which doesn't happen often)

@Birdie The word itself, verbs like cutting, or even more broadly things like swearing or covenant signs

If every promise God makes is a covenant, then covenant has lost any distinctiveness at all

@curiousdannii If you don't mind me saying so, that seems a little pedantic compared to your previous definition. The implicit promise of blessing in what God said is life for obedience, and the explicit promise of cursing in what God said is death for disobedience. Later passages make it clear that this was not just a promise to Adam as an individual, but that all in Adam died (federal headship).

@Birdie Right. But you can have federal headship without covenant theology.

Yes I know it derives from the word for covenant

Or maybe you can't, but you can have representative headship. I'll admit this is an area I know less about. To my knowledge representative headship would give you basically everything federal headship would though

My reading of Romans 5 is that Adam has headship over us through God's act of creation, not through covenant

I need to drive home and mow a lawn, but I'll get back to you later tonight, DV

@Birdie Thanks for the chat!

I'm working on a question which illustrates one of the big flaws I see in the CoG. Maybe you'll be able to give an answer :)

A refinement to my definition of covenant, as prompted by reading Horton: a covenant establishes a relationship. I think I want to say that the covenant establishes a relationship, rather than a covenant is a relationship, but could be persuaded to see it the other way. If the relationship is seen as primary, then I'd say it's essential that a covenantal relationship is one established by a speech act. A marriage is covenantal, a parent-child relationship is not.

@Birdie I don't want to be overly pedantic. For example, for David's covenant, covenant language is used frequently afterwards, but not at the actual time God makes the covenant! If I were persuaded to change my thoughts on Hosea 6:7, I think I'd accept the CoW.

@curiousdannii are the reformed marks of the church (1) holy (2) catholic (3) apostolic and (4) one church(aka the BodyOfChrist)? or is it different in Reformed theology?

@KorvinStarmast preaching, sacraments, and church discipline. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marks_of_the_Church

though the four marks are also recognised. But understood a little differently of course

@curiousdannii Thank you! Similar but different. thumbs up

@Birdie You know about Ludwig Ott's book, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma? It's pre-Vatican II but still helpful. PDFs of it are floating around the internet...

@PeterTurner I loved your scaling up chart/list. I am not going to put it into my answer, and I wish we'd used that in our teaching of RCIA. Great illustration.

@Birdie The history of redemption is a model as well. It isn't a universal concept I may be responding to this in a too Catholic manner, but I was under the impression that redemption (Christ as Redeemer) was the whole point of Christianity, so it is universal among Christians ... isn't it?

It was hard for me to answer your question because the Catholic Church, for all of its scholasticism that our dear Greek Orthodox friends object to, does not approach the matter of the Covenants via the same shaped lens as the Reformed Covenant Theology. Catholicism is Southern European in Character, while Reformed Theology is North of the Alps European. That's a cultural lens that has a non trivial impact on world view ... even today.

@KorvinStarmast No. There's a position known as dispensationalism which teaches that each covenant was a different attempt by God to save humanity, and the New Covenant with Christ is only the latest in the list of covenants.

In that framework, each covenant is a distinct dispensation and period.

In Reformed covenant theology, each covenant is a progressive revealing of the covenant of grace, culminating in Christ, the fulfillment of the covenant of grace.

@Birdie The Catholic Church seems to look at the whole thing as a continuum. Thanks for explaining that.

Yeah, it seems like the RCC position is not dissimilar although perhaps less fleshed out.

What place does the law of Moses have in the New Testament church according to the RCC? With Reformed covenant theology we see the law as an expression of God's character and a schoolmaster teaching us how we might obey God, although some of the specifics were tied to the land/physical nation of Israel, and others were fulfilled in Christ and not to be continued.