The Heidelcast is working through The Marrow of Modern Divinity (1645). Last time we began looking at the doctrine of the covenant of grace. We saw that the principle of the covenant of grace is fundamentally different from that of the covenant of works. Both covenants promise something but they do so on different grounds. The covenant of works offers blessing on condition of our perfect, personal obedience to God’s law. The covenant of grace offers blessing to sinners, freely, on the basis of Christ’s obedience for his people and that righteousness received through faith alone. In light of those differences, the question comes from both the nomist and the antinomian: what use is the law in the covenant of grace? Our pastor gives the classic Reformed answer. There are three uses, the pedagogical, the civil, and the normative. He also addresses the ways in which both the nomist and the antinomian deny the law and the gospel, even though the nomist thinks of himself as master of the law and the antinomian thinks of himself as master of the gospel.
Here’s episode 63:
If you benefit from the Heidelcast please share it with your friends. Leave a rating on iTunes so that others find it.
Subscribe to the Heidelcast in iTunes or another podcast app (e.g., Podcruncher is working well for me).
Send us a note and we may read it on the show and remember, when the coin in the coffer clinks…
Thanks for your support.
When you’ve said that the Covenant of Grace is freely offered to all, without any condition, could it be argued that the condition is dictated by God’s pre-determination? Or put it in another way, what has such Covenant to do with those who were predestined to be the vessels of God’s wrath? I am looking for help to define the proper doctrine on the limited atonement, that is, is the gift of salvation available to all but effective to some, or if both the invitation and efficacy are limited only to the elect?
There’s quite a bit on the HB re the administration of the covenant of grace. Start with these: