Old Covenant Revisited

Status
Not open for further replies.

kceaster

Puritan Board Junior
I have a few questions about the OC references in the book of Hebrews.

1. What is the beginning of the old covenant?

2. In patriarchal terms, who would be the first members in the old covenant?

3. If faith was involved in the old covenant, how was it exercised? In other words,, How do we see faith working in the old covenant?

4. If you do not believe faith was involved, give biblical grounds for your position.

5. Who was (were) the mediator(s) of this covenant?

Try to use just the book of Hebrews in your answers, you may bolster them by using secondary references.

In Christ,

KC
 
1. What is the beginning of the old covenant?

Depends how you define the word Old Covenant, if defined based upon the exegesis of Hebrews I would say it began at Sinai (Heb 8:7-12). But defining the term systematically within the Reformed tradition then it would be Adam (Hos 6:7, I Cor 15:45, Rom 5:12-21)

2. In patriarchal terms, who would be the first members in the old covenant?

Based of the former definition Moses and the people of Israel(Heb 3:2-6) based upon the latter definition then it would be Adam

3. If faith was involved in the old covenant, how was it exercised? In other words,, How do we see faith working in the old covenant?

Faith as the means of receiving the blessings of the covenant is not found within the Old Covenant itself because it is a Covenant of Works (Heb 8:7-12, Gal 3:10-12)

4. If you do not believe faith was involved, give biblical grounds for your position.

The reason I do not believe faith was the means in which one would receive the blessings of the covenant is because it is a Covenant of Works ...Do this and you shall live (Gal 3:10-12).

5. Who was (were) the mediator(s) of this covenant?

Based the former definition it would be Moses (Heb 3:2-6) then the priests of Levi (Heb 5:1-4, 7:11). Based on definition of the Old Covenant as theological concept then I would say Adam.

Also I do believe that salvation has always been by faith in Christ (Heb 11) but this was based upon the promise Gal 3:17-20 not obedience to the Old Covenant.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by VanVos]
 
1. What is the beginning of the old covenant?

The covenant cut at Sinai (Heb 8:7-12).

2. In patriarchal terms, who would be the first members in the old covenant?

The then newly constituted nation of Israel and not their fathers who had come before them (Heb 3:2-6; Deut 5:3).

3. If faith was involved in the old covenant, how was it exercised? In other words,, How do we see faith working in the old covenant?

Faith is demonstrated through faithfulness to God; unbelief through disobedience. (Heb 3:15-19)

5. Who was (were) the mediator(s) of this covenant?

Moses was the mediator representing the nation (Heb 3:2-6; Gal 3:19; Deut 5:5) then the priests of Levi (Heb 5:1-4, 7:11).

Originally posted by VanVos
Also I do believe that salvation has always been by faith in Christ (Heb 11) but this was based upon the promise Gal 3:17-20 not obedience to the Old Covenant.

:amen:
 
What was the condition of the covenant at Sinai at least according to Ex. 19?

And, Did obedience obtain the covenant or was obedience a result of the covenant?
 
A follow on question....

What were the sacraments/ordinances of the Old Covenant?

In Christ,

KC
 
What about Genesis 15 - the Covenant cut with Abraham? Notice that the covenant is ratified by YHWH by His saying "I will, I will, you shall" and Abraham is asleep during the whole ritual. The sacrament of circumcision was instituted here. Circumcision is a "sign" not a work....Abraham believed God - and it was counted as faith as he looked forward to the Promise (Christ.)

R.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Robin]
 
Perhaps to stimulate more discussion on this, what do we do with Abel? The Hebrew writer features Abel on two occasions, and to my thinking, this would be inexplicable without a connection between the old covenant and the second from Adam.

Why do you think Abel is mentioned? What is the significance of Abel's blood of sprinkling?

In Christ,

KC
 
Originally posted by kceaster
Perhaps to stimulate more discussion on this, what do we do with Abel? The Hebrew writer features Abel on two occasions, and to my thinking, this would be inexplicable without a connection between the old covenant and the second from Adam.

Why do you think Abel is mentioned? What is the significance of Abel's blood of sprinkling?

In Christ,

KC

I would say that Abel was a priest in the Old Covenant order in the order of Melchizedek Gen 4:4. I know Abel predates Melchizedek but I believe the Sons of God were priest to the entire world before the flood Gen 4:25-26. Where as the Levite priesthood was only to the Jewish nation as a type of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Heb 7:1-13. I know this is speculation but it's something to consider.

VanVos
 
Rev. Goundry....

Would you say, then, that Abel is one of the first members of the old covenant, since you believe him to be priest?

Further, would you be stating that the old covenant, even if in infancy, began with the first family?

In Christ,

KC
 
Originally posted by kceaster
Would you say, then, that Abel is one of the first members of the old covenant, since you believe him to be priest?

Further, would you be stating that the old covenant, even if in infancy, began with the first family?

In Christ,

KC

Yes, I would say that the Old Covenant in some form began with the first family. Although I know I can't conclusively prove it. I believe that after the death of Abel the Covenant was given to the line of Seth to be a priesthood on earth (Gen 4:25-26), as they waited for the promised seed to fulfill the Covenant (Gen 3:15).

VanVos

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VanVos]
 
Rev. Goundry....

Do you believe now that faith is operative, then, in Abel who according to you, was a priest of the old covenant?

Would you also say that in Abel, the blessings he received was not of works, but of faith?

In Christ,

KC
 
Originally posted by kceaster
Do you believe now that faith is operative, then, in Abel who according to you, was a priest of the old covenant?

Yes he had faith in the promise seed (Heb 11:4). Just as Moses did (Heb 11:24-26) even though he was a mediator of the Old Covenant (Heb 3:2-6)

Would you also say that in Abel, the blessings he received was not of works, but of faith?

Yes he received blessings by faith Heb 11:4.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VanVos]
 
Rev. Goundry....

So, would you agree that faith is operative in the old covenant? Would you also agree that the sacraments/ordinances of the old covenant were the means, by faith, for blessings in that covenant?

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by kceaster]
 
Originally posted by kceaster
So, would you agree that faith is operative in the old covenant? Would you also agree that the sacraments/ordinances of the old covenant were the means, by faith, for blessings in that covenant?

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by kceaster]

Yes if they placed their faith in the promised seed, like Abel did. I'd be happy to expound on this if you like.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VanVos]
 
Rev. Goundry....

So, just from the book of Hebrews, we see the following parallels:

In the Old Covenant,

1) Faith in God (through the promised Messiah) was operative, and was the beginning point of receiving blessings by God's grace.

2) Sacraments and/or ordinances were the means by which, through faith, the OT saint received blessings by God's grace.

3) The law regulated life, was another means, which, when obeyed by faith, brought blessings to the OT saint by God's grace.

In the New Covenant,

1) Faith in the Revealed Christ is operative and is the beginning point of receiving blessings by God's grace.

2) Sacraments and/or ordinances are the means by which, through faith, the NT saint receives blessings by God's grace.

3) The law regulates life and is another means by which, when obeyed by faith, brings blessings to the NT saint by God's grace.

Would you agree to these parallels?

In Christ,

KC
 
Originally posted by kceaster
So, just from the book of Hebrews, we see the following parallels:

In the Old Covenant,

1) Faith in God (through the promised Messiah) was operative, and was the beginning point of receiving blessings by God's grace.

Yes, but only if they had faith in the the promise seed, who was to fulfill the Covenant. Matt 5:17

2) Sacraments and/or ordinances were the means by which, through faith, the OT saint received blessings by God's grace.

Only if they had faith in the the promised seed. The Old Covenant in it self condemned. 2 Cor 3:7-10.


3) The law regulated life, was another means, which, when obeyed by faith, brought blessings to the OT saint by God's grace.

Yes as the typological Kingdom of God on earth. But the national blessings in the Old Covenant (Mosiac Covenant) came by obedience not faith (Deut 28:1-2) Gal 3:12.

In the New Covenant,

1) Faith in the Revealed Christ is operative and is the beginning point of receiving blessings by God's grace.

Yes

2) Sacraments and/or ordinances are the means by which, through faith, the NT saint receives blessings by God's grace.

Yes if adminstrated after or with the Word of God (Rom 10:17)

3) The law regulates life and is another means by which, when obeyed by faith, brings blessings to the NT saint by God's grace.

Yes but I would call it the Law of Christ Rom 7:1-6.

Hope this helps.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VanVos]
 
Rev. Goundry....

Thanks for your answers. But, it would seem that you are not consistent all the way through. Why do you equate Abel as a priest of the OC, who was blessed in the OC through faith in the promised Messiah, who obeyed the law, by faith, and who, by faith partook of the sacraments/ordinances of the OC, as one who was bound by a law to perfect obedience which condemned him?

It would seem to me that Abel was under a gracious covenant that was a blessing to him through faith in the promised Messiah.

In Christ,

KC
 
Originally posted by kceaster
Thanks for your answers. But, it would seem that you are not consistent all the way through. Why do you equate Abel as a priest of the OC, who was blessed in the OC through faith in the promised Messiah, who obeyed the law, by faith, and who, by faith partook of the sacraments/ordinances of the OC, as one who was bound by a law to perfect obedience which condemned him?

It would seem to me that Abel was under a gracious covenant that was a blessing to him through faith in the promised Messiah.

In Christ,

KC

Inconsistent? Having a Law and Gospel distinction? Just because he was part of the Old Covenant community does not mean that he was under the curse of law Gal 3:13 in the individual salvific sense. That why I gave you the example of Moses, another person who was part Old Covenant community but still saved by faith in Christ Heb 11:26.

Yes Abel was under a gracious covenant, the covenant of promise. But that not the same as the Old Covenant, the Law. which serves as a school master to bring us to the promise Gal 3:19.

as one who was bound by a law to perfect obedience which condemned him?

Please show me where I said this about Abel as an individual?

Like I said, when it comes to first 11 Chapters of Genesis it hard to conclusively prove such an issue. I recommend Klines and Irons work at upper-register.org for further study on this issue.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-6-2005 by VanVos]
 
Rev. Goundry....

I would not argue against a gospel, law distinction. But it would seem that you're making too much a distinction when you prefer to call it the law of Christ. God's law is God's law. His standard has not changed nor has there been any change in how it is applied to man.

All I was pointing out was that Abel is the first to offer sacrifice to cover his sins. We know without the shedding of blood there is no remission. But we also know, from Hebrews, that the blood of sprinkling of Abel is a shadow of the blood of sprinkling of the Lamb. Shadow and reality cannot be so distinct as to suggest that there is no grace on one side, and there is no law on the other. I think you would agree.

However, with Abel, you have rightly noted that he is a member of the old covenant, but you also said that the old covenant in itself, condemned. You also said that the old covenant blessings came by obedience, not faith. If Abel is a member, just as Moses, then he is condemned because of the old covenant, and the only blessings he could hope for would come by obedience.

The writer of Hebrews has a completely different view.

Now, if you claim that Abel is actually a new covenant member, then you are forced to say that the new covenant was in force when he lived. We know that Abraham was already in the Lord's bosom before Christ had completed what was necessary for the new covenant. So, it would seem, that old covenant saints were present with the Lord, before redemption was actually accomplished in time. You would force the effect of the new covenant back in time. Whereas it is best to view the covenants as beginning in the garden with blessings and salvation tied to them all along redemptive history.

Now, were they saved by obedience? You say that they received national blessings because of obedience. Yet time after time the Lord says to His people that He desires mercy, not sacrifice. The sacrifices were a stench in His nostrils because there was no faith. Abel's sacrifice was accepted because of faith. So we see, then, that your obedience unto life is impossible, because God is not pleased with man's obedience apart from the work of His Spirit through His Son.

Man could never obey God as He is to be obeyed. If this is the case, then the old covenant was not a real promise of God, because there is no way for man to please God with his obedience. In this way, God extended to Israel a covenant He never intended to keep, because there was no way for them to obey it. Everything must be by faith because without faith it is impossible to please God.

This leaves us with the old covenant being kept by faith, not by obedience. The old covenant promised life in the land as well, and there is no living in this life or the next without righteousness and faith. The Israelites could not attain righteousness in and of themselves. It is impossible for all but one, the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, they had to live by faith. They had to claim the promises of the old covenant by faith. This is why the Reformed rightly state that the old covenant is not a restatement of the covenant of works. Israel could never attain anything being fallen. They must embrace any blessing by faith in the promised Messiah.

I would pose this to you. The covenants made after the garden do not condemn, because man, in his state of depravity, is dead already. The covenants, because they are all of grace that must be entered into by faith, are the only life that man can hope for. The sanctions for disobedience are the same upon all who "break" the covenant. They are relegated to the covenant which, for them, brought death. The same covenant that Adam broke once and for all.

All of the covenants after the garden held out for hope of life. And that life can only be obtained by faith in Christ. Otherwise, there is more than one life other than Christ. NO. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by Me.

If the old covenant held out life either in the land or the land that is afar off, that life is through Christ and may only be obtained by faith. Any other view diminishes what God was accomplishing through the patriarchs, and exalts the efforts of man. You may think, "exalts! but the Israelites were covenant breakers." This is true. But you imply that God extended to them a covenant they could keep by obedience and rewards He would give them if they did. Because of original sin, there is no way for them to obey perfectly and thus, gain the reward. Therefore, God made them a promise He did not intend to keep.

In Christ,

KC
 
Originally posted by kceaster
I would not argue against a gospel, law distinction. But it would seem that you're making too much a distinction when you prefer to call it the law of Christ. God's law is God's law. His standard has not changed nor has there been any change in how it is applied to man.

Concerning Law of Christ I would refer you to Lee Irons work called Married to another http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/married_to_another.html


All I was pointing out was that Abel is the first to offer sacrifice to cover his sins. We know without the shedding of blood there is no remission. But we also know, from Hebrews, that the blood of sprinkling of Abel is a shadow of the blood of sprinkling of the Lamb. Shadow and reality cannot be so distinct as to suggest that there is no grace on one side, and there is no law on the other. I think you would agree.

I agree but the Old Testament sacrifices were still ceremonially efficacious Heb 9:13 but they only temporally covered certain sins Heb 7:27

However, with Abel, you have rightly noted that he is a member of the old covenant, but you also said that the old covenant in itself, condemned. You also said that the old covenant blessings came by obedience, not faith. If Abel is a member, just as Moses, then he is condemned because of the old covenant, and the only blessings he could hope for would come by obedience.

Again no. They received blessings by believing the promised seed, but the were still members of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was not an individual salvific covenant but an epoch of redemptive history.

The writer of Hebrews has a completely different view.

Now, if you claim that Abel is actually a new covenant member, then you are forced to say that the new covenant was in force when he lived. We know that Abraham was already in the Lord's bosom before Christ had completed what was necessary for the new covenant. So, it would seem, that old covenant saints were present with the Lord, before redemption was actually accomplished in time. You would force the effect of the new covenant back in time. Whereas it is best to view the covenants as beginning in the garden with blessings and salvation tied to them all along redemptive history.
Where did I say Abel was a new covenant member? He believed in this promise, the Adamic Covenant.

Now, were they saved by obedience? You say that they received national blessings because of obedience. Yet time after time the Lord says to His people that He desires mercy, not sacrifice. The sacrifices were a stench in His nostrils because there was no faith. Abel's sacrifice was accepted because of faith. So we see, then, that your obedience unto life is impossible, because God is not pleased with man's obedience apart from the work of His Spirit through His Son.

Again I do not see the Old Covenant as individual salvific covenant but a schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.

Man could never obey God as He is to be obeyed. If this is the case, then the old covenant was not a real promise of God, because there is no way for man to please God with his obedience. In this way, God extended to Israel a covenant He never intended to keep, because there was no way for them to obey it. Everything must be by faith because without faith it is impossible to please God.
Just because man is depraved doesn't change what God demands of us. But once again I do not see the Old covenant as means of receiving salvation but a school master. The Old Covenant was given to Israel corperately as a Nation, not to individuals for salvation.

This leaves us with the old covenant being kept by faith, not by obedience. The old covenant promised life in the land as well, and there is no living in this life or the next without righteousness and faith. The Israelites could not attain righteousness in and of themselves. It is impossible for all but one, the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, they had to live by faith. They had to claim the promises of the old covenant by faith. This is why the Reformed rightly state that the old covenant is not a restatement of the covenant of works. Israel could never attain anything being fallen. They must embrace any blessing by faith in the promised Messiah.

They claimed the promises of the Adamic, and Abrahamic not the Old Covenant the Law.

I would pose this to you. The covenants made after the garden do not condemn, because man, in his state of depravity, is dead already. The covenants, because they are all of grace that must be entered into by faith, are the only life that man can hope for. The sanctions for disobedience are the same upon all who "break" the covenant. They are relegated to the covenant which, for them, brought death. The same covenant that Adam broke once and for all.
The Old Covenant always condemned 2 Cor 3:3-9 because we can not keep it. That's why it a schoolmaster to brings us to Christ.

All of the covenants after the garden held out for hope of life. And that life can only be obtained by faith in Christ. Otherwise, there is more than one life other than Christ. NO. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by Me.

Yes I agree John 14:6 But that doesn't mean all the covenants after the garden promised a Messiah. But all Covenants after the garden served the purpose of the coming Messiah

If the old covenant held out life either in the land or the land that is afar off, that life is through Christ and may only be obtained by faith. Any other view diminishes what God was accomplishing through the patriarchs, and exalts the efforts of man. You may think, "exalts! but the Israelites were covenant breakers." This is true. But you imply that God extended to them a covenant they could keep by obedience and rewards He would give them if they did. Because of original sin, there is no way for them to obey perfectly and thus, gain the reward. Therefore, God made them a promise He did not intend to keep.

Exactly, that´s why it served as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ.

Here's an excerpt from Irons that best summarizers my postion:

The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ (John 1:17)

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28)

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

These women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are slaves ... but the Jerusalem above is free (Galatians 4:24, 26)

For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13)

The above quoted passages demonstrate the the Law-Gospel contrast must be understood as a contrast between two covenants, the old and the new. The Law is not the timeless moral will of God (whatever God demands of us). The Gospel is not the timeless grace of God (whatever God promises us). Rather, the Law is the Sinai covenant, given in the form of a typological republication of the Adamic covenant of works. The Gospel is the underlying substratum of the covenant of grace, first revealed in the promise concerning the Seed to come in Genesis 3:15, later ratified by oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and finally fulfilled in the incarnation, obedience, and exaltation of the Son of God, by which the new covenant was established.

VanVos


[Edited on 4-9-2005 by VanVos]
 
KC,

Adam was the Covenant Vassal-priest over God's Temple Garden...God's particular grace towards the treason of Adam played out in: declaring "I will put emnity" between satan and Adam - this was merciful since Adam had fallen to be a servant of satan a moment before. God clothed Adam in a slaughtered animal skin. Abel, was in the Covenant and obeyed by offering the right sacrifice (blood) as priest -- only to become the first type of Christ, slain by the first anti-Christ, Cain.

God was the first to make the sacrifice of blood;clothing the royal couple in slain animal skins; sparing their existence (when He would have been right to wipe them out ); mercifully promising ultimate redemption; mercifully putting emnity between them and satan and satan's seed --- until that moment, Adam and Eve were slaves to satan's will once they thought about doubting God.

The use of the word "grace" must be tightly understood...it is the opposite of justice in Gen. 3:15, Btw. (As you know...) But we're not merely referring to God's good gifts to Adam and Eve when we speak of grace in the Covenant. The gracious covenant (of blood) begins with God as He had mercy.....

:2cents:

Robin

[Edited on 4-6-2005 by Robin]
 
Rev. Goundry....

I do not agree with Irons and Kline, neither does Witsius or Turretin, to my knowledge.

And, I agree with you that the law is a tutor. But that does not mean that the law is abrogated in Christ. Irons says that the law is not a timeless moral will of God, and yet, Paul says in Galatians that the law still binds all to perfect obedience. If we obey one, we must obey all. This does not make us antinomians, as if to say, "Well, we can't obey them all perfectly, so we may as well not start." God still calls us to obey perfectly, but only by faith in Christ as the One who obeys for us, as the One whose righteousness is imputed to us, while our disobedience is laid to His account.

If the law is laid aside, by what are we condemned? Only original sin? No. We are accountable to God for all sins. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God (WSC, Q13). Which law? The law of Christ? The law of grace? The law of Moses? I shudder at the fact that anyone could claim immunity on any of the laws written in Scripture that have not been clearly abrogated (ie, dietary, ceremonial). God is all of these laws. To say that one does not apply to us, diminishes the very One who set it in place. To say that one does not apply to us, we shed the authority of God over us and claim sovereignty that is His alone. If law is abrogated, God is satisfied in its replacement. In other words,, the ceremonial laws have been satisfied in Christ's once offering up of Himself, a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God (WSC, Q26). But in this one sacrifice, is the decalogue done away with? Absolutely not.

I would caution you in reading and siding with Irons. The OPC rightly censured him for his views.

I would also challenge you to find references to the Mosaic covenant being a restatement of the covenant of works. I don't believe you'll find any in traditional CT.

In Christ,

KC
 
Who said anything about the Law been abrogated. I was saying the Law as a Covenant of Works has been fulfilled. The Law as it enshrines God's moral character is binding upon all people at all times even the Christian. Also I believe that the Law of Christ is the Decalogue, but it's not to been seen by the Christian as a Covenant of works or as a means of getting a right standing with. That´s why Paul endorsers the Law in Rom 13. In other words the Law at it's ethical core still stands, which is summed up in Love your neighbor. The Law of Christ is Loving people in light of justification. In other words be like Christ John 13:33-34. I love God´s Law so away with this idea that I'm abrogating it.

Also concerning the Law as a Covenant of Works here's a good article:
http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/works_in_mosaic_cov.html

VanVos

P.S. By the way I'm not siding with anyone, I just think Lee Irons has a lot of good things to say. That does not mean agree with everything he says.



[Edited on 4-6-2005 by VanVos]
 
Rev. Goundry....

Originally posted by VanVos
Who said anything about the Law been abrogated. I was saying the Law as Covenant of Works has been fulfilled.

Lee Irons does. You need to know this about him. I assumed that you thought as he did on that since you quoted him. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.


The Law as it enshrines God moral character is binding upon all people at all times even the Christian. Also I believe that the Law of Christ is the Decalogue, but it's not to been seen by the Christian as a Covenant of works or as a means of getting a right standing with. That´s why Paul endorsers the Law in Rom 13. In other words the Law at it ethical core still stands, which is summed up in Love your neighbor. The Law of Christ is Loving people in light of justification. In other words be like Christ John 13:33-34.

More importantly, the law has never been seen rightly as a covenant of works. Moses did not consider it a covenant of works when he tells them that they must have their hearts circumcised, or that they must have faith in the one to come. Neither is Christ, when upholding Moses, showing forth the old covenant as a covenant of works. Without faith it is impossible to please God. This is as true in the old as it is in the new. Therefore, the blessings of the covenant you choose to call a restatement of the covenant of works, are only poured out on those who have faith. They did not reach the land and have prosperity because of their work, they conquered and prospered because of their faith. And yes, it was both communal faith and individual faith. But it was not a result of works, because faith is not of works.

I love God´s Law so away with this idea that I'm abrogating it.

Again, sorry for the jump to conclusions. But please do understand my caution with Irons. His teachings are errant on the law according to the church to which I am in submission.

Also concerning the Law as a Covenant of Works here's a good article:
http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/works_in_mosaic_cov.html

Again, I am not going to read these because Iron's views are aberrant.

In Christ,

KC
 
More importantly, the law has never been seen rightly as a covenant of works. Moses did not consider it a covenant of works when he tells them that they must have their hearts circumcised, or that they must have faith in the one to come. Neither is Christ, when upholding Moses, showing forth the old covenant as a covenant of works. Without faith it is impossible to please God. This is as true in the old as it is in the new. Therefore, the blessings of the covenant you choose to call a restatement of the covenant of works, are only poured out on those who have faith. They did not reach the land and have prosperity because of their work, they conquered and prospered because of their faith. And yes, it was both communal faith and individual faith. But it was not a result of works, because faith is not of works.

Like I said I believe it was a Covenant of works Gal 3:10-11,17-18. The regenerated person within Israel Rom 2:29, 9:6 would have believed the promise and walked in good works Eph 2:10 in the Old testament economy. But the old covenant it self was a Covenant of Works for Israel as a Nation. Anyway I've enjoyed the discussion, may the Lord bless your studies.

VanVos

P.S. I really like your website www.federaltheology.org.

[Edited on 4-6-2005 by VanVos]
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
So many semantics........

Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?

Still awaiting an answer. I think we could build some agreement if we started here.
 
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by puritansailor
So many semantics........

Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?

Still awaiting an answer. I think we could build some agreement if we started here.

Hi Patrick

Yes, salvation was revealed in the Adamic and Abrahamic Covenant.

VanVos
 
Originally posted by VanVos
Originally posted by puritansailor
Originally posted by puritansailor
So many semantics........

Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?

Still awaiting an answer. I think we could build some agreement if we started here.

Hi Patrick

Yes, salvation was revealed in the Adamic and Abrahamic Covenant.

VanVos
That's not what I asked. What covenant was that salvation obtained by?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top