----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John Reisinger" <24jreisinger26@...>
> We believe that Genesis 3:15 cannot be
> made to teach that God made a covenant of grace with Adam simply because
> such an idea cannot be exegeted out of the text..

It can if "I will" is a covenantal formula (Kline says "I will" was typical
of Ancient Near Eastern treaties... probably perversions of the original)
that is used throughout the rest of the canon.  If the "I will"'s of Gen.
3:15 are a covenantal formula, it is exegesis.

> BTW, what do you mean by a  covenant is "in the making". That is a new
> phrase to me?

The "I will" formula found in Genesis 3:15 is a covenantal formula repeated
throughout the rest of the canon.  It is probably (I haven't decided whether
or not I believe a covenant to exist in Gen. 3:15... only that those who
insist that there is one have good grounds to do so) a "tip" from Moses that
God is making a covenant with Adam.

>Are you saying that just as Gen 3:15 is the protoevangelium of
> the gospel it is also the protocovenant of the covenant of grace?

I don't know.  I think it is highly likely that it is a protocovenant
because elsewhere, the canon speaks of an eternal covenant (for example:
Psalm 105:8, 111:5, 9; and in Psalm 89, the Davidic covenant itself is
spoken of as if it were eternal).  Like this author you quoted, I have not
found the baptist apologetic to be sufficient in explaining just *what* the
eternal covenant is (IOW, a covenant that doesn't die with the Old Covenant,
a Covenant that the OT authors understood to be in existence in their day...
i.e. it wasn't futuristic), let alone *why* a glimpse of that eternal
covenant isn't in Genesis 3:15.  It seems to me that the existence of an
eternal covenant necessitates we at least grant the covenantalist that the
Mosaic Covenant was not the only covenant in existence before Christ... that
there is another covenant that "parallelled" the other covenants we see in
the text... i.e. we have multiple covenants in existence "at the same time".
The apologetic I've seen for these explanations almost always insists on
dismissing biblical theological interpretation rather than actually dealing
with the texts (which is why our English bro. suggests the end result is
atomistic).

Chad Bresson
Xenia, OH