Shea Stacy’s Reviews > The Mystery of Christ, His Covenant, and His Kingdom > Status Update

What would be the implications of the one over against the other?

So the particular baptist wants to emphasize federal headship and someone having to be in represented by that head. If I understand more Westminsterian covenant theology they are more concerned with how covenants work.

Renihan is saying that the Abrahamic covenant is fundamentally different than the covenant of grace and points forward because the blessing to the nations is in the seed (the federal head Christ). Therefore there would be a lack of continuity between the covenants regarding our children, specifically that they would not be included.

But if the nations are blessed in Abraham doesn't that make it more plausible to say that this is an administration of the covenant of grace? If the Abrahamic covenant is the covenant of grace then in some sense the nations are blessed in Abraham (typologically in Christ) and there offspring would be included in continuity with this covenant.

Covenants always include children and generations except in Christ according to us baptists. That is the circle I'm still trying to square in my mind.
Am I wrong in reading that Renihan doesn't see the Abrahamic covenant as the covenant of grace?

In brevity one seems like it leans more towards one covenant of grace with different administrations.

I thought this was a well written book. I disagreed with the author that the Abrahamic Covenant is a two parts (work/grace) covenant and that the Covenant of works is continued in the Mosaic Covenant while the Covenant of grace gets picked back up again with Christ. That's the foundation of his covenant structure from that point on. If you don't agree with that, the rest doesn't fit.