What's "NEW" about the New Covenant?

[PuritanCovenanter]

I thought there were a number of Presbyterians who argued the Mosaic wasn't an administration of the Covenant of Grace. But, most 1689 LBCF Reformed Baptists I've come across believe it was a gracious covenant. Sam Waldron argues the confession teaches it.

The Particular Baptist teaching is that the Mosaic Covenant is a mixture of both the Covenant of Grace and Works. It is a stand alone Covenant that ministers both on some level. Some believe it is neither but subservient to both Covenants. I believe that is John Owen's understanding per his Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8.

 

[steadfast7]

If I may offer some thoughts, with the help of a debate that Tom Schreiner and Dave VanDrunen had about baptism. I don't think that Baptists would ever deny that we congregate together as churches of Christ, and that these churches make up what we know (to the best of our ability) as the covenant community. Schreiner makes the analogy of us not knowing for sure the precise texts that make up the infallible scriptures, but we still affirm that they exist and that we live our lives reading it and abiding by it. In the same way, we may not be infallibly sure of the election of those around us, but we can be confident that it exists and can still live confessing one catholic and apostolic Church. Our ignorance of the details does not need to impede living our lives according to the big picture, and I think that is the major stumbling block to our Presbyterian brethren WRT to our view.

Having said that, there are many instances in Acts when the apostles speak of the community around them as having received the Spirit. The Jerusalem council made their judgment based on hearsay testimony of Paul and Barnabas that the Gentiles had certainly received the Spirit. Acts 8:17 and 10:47 would be other accounts where someone other than the person testified of another's receiving of the Spirit. Of course, these were apostles, who presumably had an authoritative knowledge to judge these things aright. Also, the conversions in Acts were dramatic and evidenced with signs that confirmed them. Perhaps there is a huge break between their time and ours. My point is that the Scriptures do not leave us floundering in total ignorance of what could and should make up a covenant community of believers. Yes, the secret things belong to the Lord and we are not trying to seize that knowledge. But the scriptures do provide us with sufficient example that internal realities are not discarded, but considered.

One more helpful thing that Schreiner said is that the warning passages of Hebrews do not describe covenant members who have already fallen away and were lost. The warning passages are the means that the true believers will certainly heed to press on to commitment and faith. He cites Acts 27 as support. God had already assured Paul that he and the crew would be spared in the shipwreck, yet Paul warns them that unless the sailors stay in the boat, they will perish. The warning, then, served as the means to save the crew - the warning is always successful onto the believers. This is apparently the view of Herman Bavinck as well (says Schreiner).

As I've pointed before, if one looks at the warning passages, in almost all instances, they are immediately followed by a surge of confidence on the author's part, that the church will not be lost in the manner described by the warning. If false professors do fall away, then they were never a part of us, and yes, they will have in a sense crucified the Son of God again, but not actually, as this would be impossible. I think that's a thing to be noted. It's impossible to crucify him again. Perhaps this hyperbole is meant to convey the impossibility of the covenant member to fall away? thoughts?

 

[Peairtach]

Dennis

Quote Originally Posted by Peairtach

There are conditional aspects to the New Covenant arrangement, although it is true that it will not be finally dispensed with, as was the Old Covenant.

I don't see how this can be true if one takes the wording of the NC seriously. "They will ALL know me, from the least to the greatest." How could there be a dropping out of its members? The Presbyterian understanding is that the NC has only been inaugurated at the cross, but will reach its final and pure membership in the end. Now, there is a mixed membership, conditional aspects, and an outward administration, but eventually the membership will be weeded out like a Navy Seals selection course.

You're interpreting Jeremiah 31:34

And no longer shall each one teach his neighbor and each his brother, saying, 'Know the LORD,' for they shall all know me, from the least of them to the greatest, declares the LORD. (Jer 31:34, ESV)

without reference to such New Testament passages as these below which show that someone can be outwardly in the New Covenant without having the internal reality of the new birth:

Therefore we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, lest we drift away from it.For since the message declared by angels proved to be reliable, and every transgression or disobedience received a just retribution,how shall we escape if we neglect such a great salvation? It was declared at first by the Lord, and it was attested to us by those who heard, (Heb 2:1-3)

Take care, brothers, lest there be in any of you an evil, unbelieving heart, leading you to fall away from the living God.But exhort one another every day, as long as it is called "today," that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. For we have come to share in Christ, if indeed we hold our original confidence firm to the end. (Heb 3:12-14)

For if we go on sinning deliberately after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a fearful expectation of judgment, and a fury of fire that will consume the adversaries.Anyone who has set aside the law of Moses dies without mercy on the evidence of two or three witnesses. How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has spurned the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? (Heb 10:26-29)

Remember therefore from where you have fallen; repent, and do the works you did at first. If not, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place, unless you repent. (Rev 2:5)

Remember, then, what you received and heard. Keep it, and repent. If you will not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come against you. (Rev 3:3)

There are numerous other passages that show that there is a conditional relationship established between Christ and those who are outwardly in the New Covenant, where true faith is lacking.

Those who are truly in the New Covenant have their eternal salvation secured, but there are still conditions associated with progress in sanctification and chastisement.

Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline, so be zealous and repent. (Rev 3:19)

Peairtach

It would be wrong of God to try to encourage them to save themselves in any sense.

Someone wished an explanation of the above statement.

I mean that since the Fall, Man is a sinner, and indeed the Israelites were sinners. It would be wrong of the Lord to encourage the Israelites to seek spiritual and eternal salvation by good works without saving grace and the Mediator. It would also be wrong of the Lord to encourage the Israelites to seek to do good works in their own fallen strength/weakenness in order to remain in the Land of the Israel. The only way Israel was going to remain in the Land was if she sought salvation by grace through faith, and thus produced truly good works.

Adam didn't depend on a salvific Mediator to fulfil the CoW. Israel depended on the Mediatorial work of Christ as revealed in the ceremonial - particularly the sacrificial - law, not only for their individual eternal salvation, but also in order to live and prosper in the Land.

 

[steadfast7]

Richard, I do hear those solemn warnings and they are grave indeed. I see them as operating in the context of the church where discipline needs to be exercised - and I wish I were brought up in churches that practiced discipline. But my view of things is to take what we know and have always believed about the blood of Christ and about the indwelling Spirit (of definite atonement) and then move to its application to the New Covenant member. We both agree that the NC member is sprinkled with the blood and indwelt by the Spirit ultimately. It is apparently the view of some Presbyterians that a person can come into the covenant, be indwelt by the Spirit, and fall away, as this would be taking it to its logical end. I don't think we can conclude that from Hebrews at all. I totally believe we can become members of a Christian church made up of a mixture of people. But the covenant? The New Covenant, in the Baptist view, is where God's saves his people surely and definitely. The blood of Christ and the Spirit is all over the New Covenant, sealing members in. That's our view anyway. How does someone enter into an administration with the blood of Christ and fall out of favor through moral failure? In the Old Covenant the blood of bulls and goats was obviously weak to save. The newness of the NC, to my mind, is that blood of Christ is completely efficacious to save all who come under it.

 

[toddpedlar]

Richard, I do hear those solemn warnings and they are grave indeed. I see them as operating in the context of the church where discipline needs to be exercised - and I wish I were brought up in churches that practiced discipline. But my view of things is to take what we know and have always believed about the blood of Christ and about the indwelling Spirit (of definite atonement) and then move to its application to the New Covenant member. We both agree that the NC member is sprinkled with the blood and indwelt by the Spirit ultimately. It is apparently the view of some Presbyterians that a person can come into the covenant, be indwelt by the Spirit, and fall away, as this would be taking it to its logical end.

Can you point to anything that anyone has said or written that makes you believe this? I don't think you've heard a word that has been said. There is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit without regeneration and salvation. I'm amazed that you think anyone is saying this.

 

[Peairtach]

Richard, I do hear those solemn warnings and they are grave indeed. I see them as operating in the context of the church where discipline needs to be exercised - and I wish I were brought up in churches that practiced discipline. But my view of things is to take what we know and have always believed about the blood of Christ and about the indwelling Spirit (of definite atonement) and then move to its application to the New Covenant member. We both agree that the NC member is sprinkled with the blood and indwelt by the Spirit ultimately. It is apparently the view of some Presbyterians that a person can come into the covenant, be indwelt by the Spirit, and fall away, as this would be taking it to its logical end. I don't think we can conclude that from Hebrews at all. I totally believe we can become members of a Christian church made up of a mixture of people. But the covenant? The New Covenant, in the Baptist view, is where God's saves his people surely and definitely. The blood of Christ and the Spirit is all over the New Covenant, sealing members in. That's our view anyway. How does someone enter into an administration with the blood of Christ and fall out of favor through moral failure? In the Old Covenant the blood of bulls and goats was obviously weak to save. The newness of the NC, to my mind, is that blood of Christ is completely efficacious to save all who come under it.

You can't have church discipline for people who are in no sense in covenant with the Lord.

 

[Pilgrim]

Richard, I do hear those solemn warnings and they are grave indeed. I see them as operating in the context of the church where discipline needs to be exercised - and I wish I were brought up in churches that practiced discipline. But my view of things is to take what we know and have always believed about the blood of Christ and about the indwelling Spirit (of definite atonement) and then move to its application to the New Covenant member. We both agree that the NC member is sprinkled with the blood and indwelt by the Spirit ultimately. It is apparently the view of some Presbyterians that a person can come into the covenant, be indwelt by the Spirit, and fall away, as this would be taking it to its logical end.

Can you point to anything that anyone has said or written that makes you believe this? I don't think you've heard a word that has been said. There is no indwelling of the Holy Spirit without regeneration and salvation. I'm amazed that you think anyone is saying this.

Dennis,

I agree with Todd here. The reference to the "common operations of the Spirit" in the confession is not a reference to saving faith. A man can go a long way in religion and yet be unsaved.

With the exception of the "Federal Vision" proponents (which have been condemned by every confessional Presbyterian & Reformed denomination) I don't know of anyone among those who want to claim the title Reformed who would say that non-regenerate members of the covenant (i.e. those in its outward administration vs. the inward reality of real Christians--or in other words objective vs. subjective) is regenerate in any sense. Now one may wish to say that the Presbyterian understanding here is unbiblical, impossible, ridiculous, inconsistent or whatever, but we should attempt to represent our opponents accurately.

I don't think you're attempting to misrepresent them. But I do think that if you want to know what Presbyterians think about infant baptism and covenant theology, rather than asking all these questions here and getting answers from a number of different people, (with some of the answers perhaps not being as clear as one would like) I think you would do better to read some books like John Murray's "Christian Baptism" or the Pierre Marcel book about infant baptism. O. Palmer Robertson's "Christ of the Covenants" is a standard work on covenant theology that will be more readily accepted by a wider number of people compared to Horton. Or if you cannot obtain those easily where you are, at least look at the pertinent texts of systematic theologians on the issue. Ollder works like Calvin's Institutes, the Systematic Theologies of Charles Hodge, R.L. Dabney (just to name two) and A.A. Hodge's "Outlines of Theology" are available online, among a legion of others. Google Books has scans of the originals of just about any book you'd want prior to the early 1920's. There are tons of online articles linked on Monergism as well.

All of the above, especially the more lengthy written treatments, are going to lay out the issue in a more systematic way than you're going to get in an online forum. Baptist materials on covenant theology have been linked and mentioned on this thread as well. I do think that reading and pondering at least one work of that kind (and maybe one classic work from each side) would help you in a shorter amount of time than asking these questions here that seem to be generating diminishing returns.

I will say that while your posts seem to have generated more bewilderment than light among some of the brethren, at least they have not generated unnecessary heat. Often posts on this issue generate more heat than light, and that includes a number of my own!

 

[Peairtach]

Chris

A man can go a long way in religion and yet be unsaved.

An unsaved Israelite was in a different position to an unsaved Philistine,etc, and an unsaved "Christian" is in a different position to an unsaved Muslim, etc.

The Church is a covenantal institution. As well as being signs and seals of who is in and is not in the CoG, baptism and the Lord's Supper are signs and seals of who is in and is not in the Church ("The Israel of God"/"The Commmonwealth of Israel"). The Church of course has visible and invisible aspects, which can only be completely known to God's mind.

 

[brandonadams]



Originally Posted by steadfast7 
... is this the Reformed Baptistic understanding of the covenant, in distinction to the Presbyterian view, which views the Mosaic as completely an administration of the CoG?

I don't think you will find this "new covenant" teaching in the antipaedobaptist revision of Westminster-Savoy. Quite the opposite, following Westminsterian theology the antipaedobaptist revision continues to maintain the offer of the gospel is an administration of the covenant of grace, in which there are some only outwardly called, in which there continues to be temporary believers, and also chastisements and temporal judgements for true believers. On the subject of Christ the Mediator and justification it is maintained that salvation is the same for Old and New Testament believers alike. As there is no revision of Westminster-Savoy on these subjects there is no basis for alleging there is a distinct "Reformed antipaedobaptist" position as over against a Reformed paedobaptist position.

I appreciate your input Rev. Winzer, but you're not telling the whole story. There is in fact a revision of Westminster when it comes to the Mosaic covenant as an administration of the Covenant of Grace. Owen explicitly rejected the WCF view and Nehemiah Coxe (the likely editor of the LBC) explicitly agreed with that rejection. As the Kerux review of explained rather well:

"Let the reader note carefully what Owen has just told you: even though I know that my position is in disagreement with the Reformed position, and in substantial agreement with Lutheranism, I still maintain that Scripture teaches that the Mosaic covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace, but was rather a distinct covenant. This is an honest (and honorable) admission on Owen’s part that he is departing from the Reformed consensus, represented in Calvin, Bullinger, Bucanus, and a whole host of others.

Interestingly, Owen himself apparently recognized the tension between his unique view and that of the Reformed confessions of his day. As an Independent, he refused to accept the Westminster Confession of Faith, and instead had a hand in writing the Savoy Declaration. A comparative analysis of these two documents can be found below (pp. 88ff.), to which we direct the reader. Suffice it to say that the two documents have significantly different declarations regarding the historical administrations of the covenant of grace."

http://www.kerux.com/pdf/Kerux.24.03.pdf

"On the subject of Christ the Mediator and justification it is maintained that salvation is the same for Old and New Testament believers alike."

And yet, Owen taught that Christ was not the mediator of the Old Covenant. He said Moses was the mediator of the Old Covenant and that Christ was the mediator of the New Covenant. Yes, Owen believed that "salvation is the same for Old and New Testament believers alike" because he believed that "No man was ever saved but by virtue of the new covenant, and the mediation of Christ in that respect." He believe the bible taught the idea of what the Renihan paper calls a "retro-active New Covenant."

"If this is so, then both the Presbyterian and Baptistic historic Reformed would agree that the new-ness is only in the administration of the same covenant of grace."

Dennis, that is a big "if". I would encourage you to read Owen's commentary of Hebrews 8:6-13. He argues that the Old Covenant was not an administration of the Covenant of Grace, and he lists 17 ways in which the new covenant is different from the old. You can view an outline of Owen's argument here: John Owen’s Commentary on the Old and New Covenants (Outline) « Contrast

I also highly recommend the paper that Chris recommended from Sam & Micah Renihan.

"There is no basis for the appeal which is being made to this Confession as if it sets forth ANOTHER Reformed soteriology. It doesn't. If you call yourself "Reformed" -- paedobaptist or antipaedobaptist -- you are bound to acknowledge the teaching of both Confessions that there are conditions in the administration of the covenant of grace even under the New Testament."

Again, let's be a little more clear in what is being said. Please see here: Petto: Conditional New Covenant? « Contrast
Petto, a signer to the Savoy, says:

"There is no such condition of the new covenant to us, as there was in the old to Israel. For, the apostle comparing them together; and, in opposition to the old, he gives the new altogether in absolute promises, and that to Israel, Heb. viii.; and, showing that the new is not according to the old, he discovers wherein the difference lay, verse 9.Because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not; saith the Lord;and, Jer. xxxi. 32. which covenant they broke, &c."

"this was sort of what I was getting at with my comment in another thread about union with Christ being retro-actively applied to Old Testament saints. That concept didn't go over very well on the thread. Perhaps I first need to get my PhD before making those suggestions!"

Don't let them bully you into conformity with their thoughts. You don't need a PhD, you just need to read Owen, who agrees entirely with your view.

"I thought there were a number of Presbyterians who argued the Mosaic wasn't an administration of the Covenant of Grace. But, most 1689 LBCF Reformed Baptists I've come across believe it was a gracious covenant. Sam Waldron argues the confession teaches it."

You need to re-read Waldron's commentary. He does not actually argue that the confession teaches it. He is arguing for his personal view at that point. He notes "The New Covenant has sometimes been equated with the covenant of grace." I emailed him to ask who articulated that view, and his response was: "See the RBAP publication Covenant Theology from Adam to Christ. I think both Coxe and Owen would tend to closely relate the covenant of grace with the New Covenant as does the 1689."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I would encourage you to read Owen's commentary of Hebrews 8:6-13. He argues that the Old Covenant was not an administration of the Covenant of Grace

Where is the evidence of this in the Savoy?

Chapter 7
Of God's Covenant with Man

1. The distance between God and the creature is so great, that although reasonable creatures do owe obedience unto him as their Creator, yet they could never have attained the reward of life, but by some voluntary condescension on God's part, which he hath been pleased to express by way of covenant.

2. The first covenant made with man, was a covenant of works, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience.
Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the Covenant of Grace; wherein he freely offereth unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life, his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe.

3. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the dcath of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

4. Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; upon the account of which various dispensations, it is called the Old and New Testament.

 

[brandonadams]

Rich,

My statement was about Owen's commentary on Hebrews, so I'm not certain why you're asking for proof from the Savoy declaration. Do you think I am misrepresenting Owen? Or do you think the Savoy does not reflect Owen's view?

Evidence of Owen's view from his commentary:

The judgment of most reformed divines is, that the church under the old testament had the same promise of Christ, the same interest in him by faith, remission of sins, reconciliation with God, justification and salvation by the same way and means, that believers have under the new… The Lutherans, on the other side, insist on two arguments to prove that there is not a twofold administration of the same covenant, but that there are substantially distinct covenants and that this is intended in this discourse of the apostle…

…Having noted these things, we may consider that the Scripture does plainly and expressly make mention of two testaments, or covenants, and distinguish between them in such a way as can hardly be accommodated by a twofold administration of the same covenant…Wherefore we must grant two distinct covenants, rather than merely a twofold administration of the same covenant, to be intended. We must do so, provided always that the way of reconciliation and salvation was the same under both. But it will be said, and with great pretence of reason, for it is the sole foundation of all who allow only a twofold administration of the same covenant, ’That this being the principal end of a divine covenant, if the way of reconciliation and salvation is the same under both, then indeed they are the same for the substance of them is but one.’ And I grant that this would inevitably follow, if it were so equally by virtue of them both. If reconciliation and salvation by Christ were to be obtained not only under the old covenant, but by virtue of it, then it must be the same for substance with the new. But this is not so; for no reconciliation with God nor salvation could be obtained by virtue of the old covenant, or the administration of it, as our apostle disputes at large, though all believers were reconciled, justified, and saved, by virtue of the promise, while they were under the old covenant.

Having shown in what sense the covenant of grace is called “the new covenant,” in this distinction and opposition to the old covenant, so I shall propose several things which relate to the nature of the first covenant, which manifest it to have been a distinct covenant, and not a mere administration of the covenant of grace.

-

This covenant [Sinai] thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration of it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was “the ministry of condemnation,” 2 Cor. iii. 9; for “by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified.” And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brandon,

One of your quotes stated this:

Interestingly, Owen himself apparently recognized the tension between his unique view and that of the Reformed confessions of his day. As an Independent, he refused to accept the Westminster Confession of Faith, and instead had a hand in writing the Savoy Declaration. A comparative analysis of these two documents can be found below (pp. 88ff.), to which we direct the reader. Suffice it to say that the two documents have significantly different declarations regarding the historical administrations of the covenant of grace."

As Owen had a "significant hand" in writing the Savoy Declaration, what is the "significant difference" regarding the historical administrations of the Covenant of Grace between the WCF and the Savoy?

WCF:

IV. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ, the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

V. This covenant was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all fore-signifying Christ to come, which were for that time sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation, and is called the Old Testament.

Savoy:

3. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in the Scripture by the name of a Testament, in reference to the dcath of Jesus Christ the testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.

4. Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same; upon the account of which various dispensations, it is called the Old and New Testament.

If anything it seems that the Savoy is more precise in saying that the Covenant of Grace - to all its spritual and saving ends - is one and the same.

 

[Pilgrim]

At first glance the Savoy appears to me to be saying the same thing that the LBCF does using different words.

I recall reading a blog post by OPC minister Patrick Ramsey in which he noted that the Presbyterians and Congregationalists sometimes if not always had different conceptions of covenant theology. He contrasted the views of a Presbyterian with Jeremiah Burroughs, if I'm not mistaken. Other than that, I got nothing. I don't know to what degree Owen's views are representative of his fellow congregationalists. Was his Hebrews commentary published before or after the Savoy?

Edit:

I think it should also be noted that some New Covenant Theologians have, on the basis of quotes like what Brandon posted, attempted to claim Owen for their camp despite the fact that he remained a paedobaptist. While I have the Coxe/Owen volume on Covenant Theology, unfortunately I haven't read it. After this discussion I've got to put it at the top of my list. But this tug of war over Owen is noted in the preface by James Renihan. The quote posted by Brandon is no doubt the type of thing the NCT men seize upon. Dr. Renihan states that Coxe and Owen saw no contradiction between these expressed views and the confessions. But I will have to read them to fully understand how these ideas can be reconciled.

Brandon, I've been meaning to ask you why you (and others) have touted Jeffrey Johnson's Fatal Flaw as being a great exposition of Covenantal Baptist views. I think it's a helpful book in many ways. But it seems to me that his statement says that the Mosaic Covenant IS a Covenant of Works and not that the COW has been merely republished contradicts what I have always understood to be covenant theology. Many RB's including Waldron reject this idea and see it as an administration of the covenant of Grace. Ostensibly the Renihans would reject it too since they stipulate their agreement with Klineanism, which in my understanding doesn't ultimately teach that the Mosaic Covenant was a covenant of works. (But I haven't read The Law is Not of Faith either.) I'd be very surprised to learn that Fred Malone thinks that the Mosaic is a covenant of works. That the Mosaic Covenant is an administration of the covenant of grace ("by farther steps") also seems to be clearly taught in the LBCF. We have RB's on this board that reject that idea of the Mosaic Covenant being a covenant of works too. I do see that it has gracious provisions (which Jeffrey acknowledges in at least one place) and "works" or conditional provisions (i.e. "do this and live") but I don't see that equaling viewing it as a Covenant of Works.

Yet we have these quotes by Owen. I will need to at least read his commentary on that part of Hebrews through, but this passage is very interesting to say the least. I'm not sure at this point that it's just a case of using terminology in a different way.

Early on in my Christian life, I was taught by NCT people that seeing the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the COG is what makes one a covenant theologian. (In other words, one covenant, two administrations.) Unless I got it completely backwards, Jeffrey Johnson also has stated to me that his view is not fully covenantal because he rejects the Mosaic Covenant as being an administration of the covenant of Grace. (But he upholds the perpetuity of the Moral Law, which no NCT man will do and also teaches one covenant of grace, albeit the Mosaic not being an administration of it.) It looks to me like that's one foot in the CT camp and another in the NCT camp. Admittedly I am not all that knowledgeable in the various nuances and differences regarding covenant theology, particularly from the Baptist side. But given recent discussions here evidently I'm not alone among Baptists in my understanding of this issue.

As for just what is or isn't considered confessional on the board on this particular point, well, of course that's not my call. But if I may, I would very much like to see the Owen issue hashed out here by some of the Owen scholars, hoping of course that the discussion will generate more light than heat.

It would also be helpful for Rich Barcellos to weigh in here if he has the time. I know he is working on planting a church in California. But he's already "weighed in" with his essay on Owen's covenant theology that was originally published in RBTR and was later republished in Covenant Theology From Adam to Christ. I hope to read that soon but it may be a few days if not longer.

 

[brandonadams]

Thanks for clarifying Rich.

1. Do you agree that my quotation from Owen clearly rejects WCF 7.6?
2. Do you believe the Savoy Declaration reflects Owen's view?
3. If not, why do you believe Owen would have signed it?

In your comparison of the two confessions above, you conveniently left off the very paragraph in question (WCF 7.6). This is what Owen rejected and what the Savoy omitted.

6. Under the gospel, when Christ the substance was exhibited, the ordinances in which this covenant is dispensed, are the preaching of the Word, and the administration of the sacraments of Baptism and the Lord's Supper; which, though fewer in number, and administered with more simplicity and less outward glory, yet in them it is held forth in more fulness, evidence, and spiritual efficacy, to all nations, both Jews and Gentiles; and is called the New Testament. There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

I would consider that a significant difference, though maybe you do not.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

In your comparison of the two confessions above, you conveniently left off the very paragraph in question (WCF 7.6).

I don't know what you think you are accusing me of but this is a sure way to lose your privileges here if you continue in this vein. I did not conveniently leave out anything and nobody is bullying people into a view. Your attitude is unbecoming.

I need to read Owen on this more carefully prior to coming to a conclusion and I'm not familiar enough with the formation of the Savoy to come to a conclusion as to why WCF 7.6 was left off. I would say that this conclusion in WCF 7.6:

There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

is precisely the same as:

Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same...

The prior portion of 7.6 which has to do with the number of Sacraments seems to me to be immaterial to the issue as to whether, in substance, that Savoy and WCF agree. All the WCF is stating is that there are only two Sacraments under the gospel and I don't see how the omission of this part has any bearing upon whether the WCF and Savoy agree that there is only one CoG. Perhaps the authors of the Savoy intended to communicate something by leaving out the "...fewer in number..." clause and denied that there were no Sacraments of the CoG in the OC but, again, I don't know the history.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brandon: Do you hold to New Covenant Theology?

 

[brandonadams]

Brandon: Do you hold to New Covenant Theology?

No I do not.

I would say that this conclusion in WCF 7.6:

There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

is precisely the same as:

Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same..

I prefer to lean upon the understanding of the author/editors of the Savoy, rather than my own reading. Owen has argued at great length why he rejected the language of WCF 7.6. I therefore believe it would be most appropriate to understand Savoy 7.5 as saying something different than WCF 7.6

 

[MW]

First, Owen's exegesis of Hebrews is one thing and his overall covenant theology is another. An examination of all his writings will reveal that he was in perfect harmony with the Westminster-Savoy declarations on the points I have alluded to. His view of Sinai is unique and technical but I don't believe it affects his overall commitment to a single covenant of grace differently administered.

Secondly, even if Owen were at variance with what I have said, it would not affect the point that was made respecting the Westminster-Savoy declarations. They still maintain exactly what I claimed they maintain. One would be required to account for the difference between Owen and a document with which he assisted, but it would not alter the material point that the document teaches this.

 

[Pilgrim]

This appears to be entire essay to which I referred above. JOHN OWEN AND NEW COVENANT THEOLOGY: Owen on the Old and New Covenants and the Functions of the Decalogue in Redemptive History in Historical and Contemporary Perspective

[Owen] has left the Christian Church a legacy few have equaled in volume, fewer yet in content. In saying this, however, we must also recognize that some things Owen said are difficult to understand. Some statements may even appear contradictory if he is not followed carefully and understood in light of his comprehensive thought and the Reformation and Post-Reformation Protestant Scholastic world in which he wrote.

I found this list to be helpful:

When understood in context, with Owen’s own qualifications, and in light of his statements on related matters, and in light of the historical/theological nomenclature of his day, Owen can be understood to teach the same thing throughout the Hebrews commentary about the perpetuity of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. His views were somewhat standard in his day, though with their own nuances. They were neither novel nor those of NCT. Wells’ claims have been referenced throughout this discussion and proven wrong, or at least in need of crucial qualifications. What are those qualifications? Here is a suggested list of agreements between John Owen and NCT and some necessary qualifications:

1. Both Owen and NCT believe that “the first covenant” in the book of Hebrews is a reference to the Old or Mosaic Covenant.
2. Both Owen and NCT believe that the Old Covenant was a distinct and temporary covenant for Israel in the land of Canaan, abolished by Christ and replaced by the New Covenant. But Owen did not believe that Christ fulfilled the terms of the Old Covenant in itself for believers; NCT, at least Reisinger, does believe this.
3. Both Owen and NCT believe that the Old Covenant was not merely an administration of the covenant of grace. But Owen believes it was not a covenant of works in itself but revived the original Adamic covenant of works; NCT, at least Reisinger, believes it was a covenant of works in itself.
4. Both Owen and NCT believe that the Bible contains a legal covenant or covenant of works. But Owen equates this covenant with the Adamic economy; NCT, at least Reisinger, equates it with the Old Covenant.
5. Both Owen and NCT believe that the New Covenant is an effectual covenant, securing all of the promised blessings of it for all in the covenant.
6. Both Owen and NCT believe in the abrogation of the Decalogue under the New Covenant. But Owen believes in it relatively, as it was “compacted” with the rest of the Old Covenant’s law; NCT believes in its abrogation absolutely.
7. Owen believes in the multi-functional utility of the entire Decalogue; NCT does not.
8. Owen believes that the New Covenant includes the perpetuity of the Sabbath and not just because the Sabbath is a creation ordinance; NCT does not. In fact, as we have seen above, Wells claims that the only difference between Owen and Reisinger (and NCT) on the Mosaic and New Covenants is Owen’s creation ordinance view of the Sabbath. This, indeed, is not the case and an oversimplification of Owen’s view.

When Owen and NCT are examined side by side, they appear to be farther apart on these matters than a surface approach may reveal.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Brandon: Do you hold to New Covenant Theology?

No I do not.

I would say that this conclusion in WCF 7.6:

There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations.

is precisely the same as:

Although this covenant hath been differently and variously administered in respect of ordinances and institutions in the time of the law, and since the coming of Christ in the flesh; yet for the substance and efficacy of it, to all its spiritual and saving ends, it is one and the same..

I prefer to lean upon the understanding of the author/editors of the Savoy, rather than my own reading. Owen has argued at great length why he rejected the language of WCF 7.6. I therefore believe it would be most appropriate to understand Savoy 7.5 as saying something different than WCF 7.6

Does Owen actually state somewhere that he rejects the whole of WCF 7.6 or is this your own inference? Do you agree that the Savoy and WCF state there is one Covenant of Grace?

 

[Pilgrim]

There must be some reason why WCF 7.6 was omitted from the Savoy and the LBCF. When comparing the confessions recently it was a question that came to mind when looking into the covenant theology of the LBCF. Typically material was carried over unless there was a disagreement with it or maybe because there was a division among the framers of the particular document over it. (I think this happened one or more times with the LBCF.)

However, not having read the contemporary literature on the issue, I have no clue why it was omitted. Perhaps they just didn't like the wording and didn't feel the need to replace it with something else? Perhaps "by farther steps" was good enough for the LBCF and the statement in the Savoy in 7.4 was good enough for them with regard to a statement on covenant theology?

 

[brandonadams]

Chris,

As to The Fatal Flaw, I don't want to suggest I agree with every jot and tittle of it. I think it is helpful in many ways. I would have to revisit it to be more precise in what I disagree with.

As to the issue of whether or not the Mosaic Covenant operated on a works principle... I have more to study/consider. At the very least I agree with Owen that the Old Covenant is not the New Covenant, and they are not administrations of the same covenant. For what it's worth, Samuel Petto articulates a view very similar to Jeremy Johnson in his book The Great Mystery of the Covenant of Grace.

I'm not sure at this point that it's just a case of using terminology in a different way.

Please do read him. It is very much not simply a matter of semantics.

Early on in my Christian life, I was taught by NCT people that seeing the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the COG is what makes one a covenant theologian. (In other words, one covenant, two administrations.) Unless I got it completely backwards, Jeffrey Johnson also has stated to me that his view is not fully covenantal because he rejects the Mosaic Covenant as being an administration of the covenant of Grace.

Obviously that comes down to how you define covenant theology. People have argued that Jonathan Edwards was a dispensationalist because he argued that the nation of Israel was a type of the church. Again, it comes down to definitions. If you choose to define covenant theology as those who see the Mosaic Covenant as an administration of the COG, then you will have to say that Owen is not a covenant theologian - which means you need to come up with a new label. The more you study covenant theology, the more you will see that there are many various views of it. Patrick Ramsey's article "In Defense of Moses" does a good job of showing that there were several other views of covenant theology at the time of WCF that WCF rejected.

But if I may, I would very much like to see the Owen issue hashed out here by some of the Owen scholars, hoping of course that the discussion will generate more light than heat.

That would be great. McMahon’s Misrepresentation of John Owen « Contrast
Iron Can’t Sharpen Iron Without Honesty « Contrast

 

[Semper Fidelis]

My larger issue is the speculation. It reminds me of those who read works by signatories of the WCF that disagree with clear portions of the WCF and conclude that, because the WCF was a "consensus document", that the individual work controls the reading of the WCF.

Assuming that Owen's view is that the OC is not an administration of the CoG there is much more work to be done then wondering why Owen would have signed the Savoy. Perhaps, like many men of his day, he was willing to submit to others even if his view differed on a point.

 

[brandonadams]

Does Owen actually state somewhere that he rejects the whole of WCF 7.6 or is this your own inference?

He doesn't quote 7.6 in full. He quotes "There are not, therefore, two covenants of grace differing in substance, but one and the same under various dispensations", says it is the view of reformed divines, and then rejects it. Please see the Kerux article already referenced for a fuller treatment of this issue. I suppose I infer the rest of 7.6 as well, by its omission in Savoy - but the specific phrase regarding the Mosaic Covenant is what I am interested in.

Do you agree that the Savoy and WCF state there is one Covenant of Grace?

Yes, as does LBC. Whether or not they interpret the Covenant of Grace in the same way is the question.

First, Owen's exegesis of Hebrews is one thing and his overall covenant theology is another. An examination of all his writings will reveal that he was in perfect harmony with the Westminster-Savoy declarations on the points I have alluded to. His view of Sinai is unique and technical but I don't believe it affects his overall commitment to a single covenant of grace differently administered.

I would greatly appreciate a reference for where this argument is fleshed out. I would expect it to take account of progress in Owen's views over the years, with his commentary on Hebrews being his most mature. In that commentary he says the Mosaic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace, and he also says the Abrahamic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace... so I'm not certain how that leaves him in perfect harmony with WCF and your own view.

When we speak of the “new covenant,” we do not intend the covenant of grace absolutely, as though it were not before in existence and effect, before the introduction of that which is promised here. For it was always the same, substantially, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and effectiveness, unalterable, “everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.” All who contend about these things, the Socinians only excepted, grant that the covenant of grace, considered absolutely, — that is, the promise of grace in and by Jesus Christ, —was the only way and means of salvation to the church, from the first entrance of sin.

But for two reasons, it is not expressly called a covenant, without respect to any other things, nor was it called a covenant under the old testament. When God renewed the promise of it to Abraham, he is said to make a covenant with him; and he did so, but this covenant with Abraham was with respect to other things, especially the proceeding of the promised Seed from his loins. But absolutely, under the old testament, the covenant of grace consisted only in a promise; and as such only is proposed in the Scripture,

Owen on Hebrews 8:6

 

[Semper Fidelis]

This is all very interesting but I see this as being a new thread. At best, even if you have established that Owen rejects that there were administrations of the CoG in the Old Covenant, you have not shown that it is the view of the WCF or the LBCF or even the Savoy for that matter. We can start a new thread about Owen's view but you have to first establish more than a speculative connection to an actual Reformed Confession when the plain reading of even the Savoy clearly calls the time of the law an administration of the one CoG.

 

[MW]

I would greatly appreciate a reference for where this argument is fleshed out. I would expect it to take account of progress in Owen's views over the years, with his commentary on Hebrews being his most mature. In that commentary he says the Mosaic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace, and he also says the Abrahamic Covenant was not an administration of the covenant of grace... so I'm not certain how that leaves him in perfect harmony with WCF and your own view.

I am happy to discuss references one by one but since you have quoted the Hebrews commentary it will need to be properly understood. The reference you have provided is a fairly good example of the kind of technicality evident in Owen. Yet even here there is one covenant of grace differently administered. The very fact that he uses the word "absolutely" shows that he regards the new covenant as relatively connected with the covenant of grace which was "before in existence and effect, before the introduction of that which is promised here. For it was always the same, substantially, from the beginning. It passed through the whole dispensation of times before the law, and under the law, of the same nature and effectiveness, unalterable, 'everlasting, ordered in all things, and sure.'"

A part of the problem with our reading of Owen now is the fact that the theological disciplines are not incorporated the way they used to be and we also use different terms to the expressions which were common then. In brief, divines would speak one way dogmatically and another way exegetically. "Covenant of grace" is a dogmatic category and "new covenant" is an exegetical category. Dogmatically, the covenant of grace has promises and conditions. Exegetically, a covenant in Scripture consists only of promises. Another kind of difference is the polemical and the dogmatic. The polemical often concedes points for the sake of the argument even though that concession is not a part of the dogmatic framework of the theologian. A further difference is the traditional and exegetical. Many times a theologian will defend his tradition and categorise it as speaking broadly to an issue, but his own contribution to exegesis seeks to sharpen and narrow the tradition's understanding of particular passages. These kinds of technicalities need to be understood when examining and evaluating Owen's statements. A study of Owen must incorporate a study of his overall method.

 

[brandonadams]

you have not shown that it is the view of the WCF

It was never my intention to show that it was the view of WCF. The only reason I brought it up is because it is a fairly obvious explanation for why Savoy omitted WCF 7.6, and as the Kerux article explains, is a good reason to believe Savoy at least allowed for views of covenant theology different from WCF.

We can start a new thread about Owen's view but you have to first establish more than a speculative connection to an actual Reformed Confession when the plain reading of even the Savoy clearly calls the time of the law an administration of the one CoG.

I don't think the language of Savoy is necessarily contrary to anything I have quoted from Owen.

 

[Semper Fidelis]

I don't think the language of Savoy is necessarily contrary to anything I have quoted from Owen.

Whether it is contrary to Owen is unclear but your assertion is that Owen believed that the Old Covenant was not an administration of the CoG where the Savoy clearly states that one of the administrations of the CoG includes the Law, you deny this. I will leave it to those who have read Owen and understand the technical language of the Puritans.

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I quote Owen here and tell why I disagree with him in the following comments.

http://www.puritanboard.com/blogs/puritancovenanter/mosaic-covenant-same-substance-new-724/

 

[PuritanCovenanter]

I guess I can repost it here but it is kind of redundant.

You can skip over the first two links and view them later. I have tried to discuss this topic before on the Puritanboard but the discussion died out.
http://www.puritanboard.com/f30/kline-karlburg-not-confessional-concerning-mosaic-69258/

I was trying to get some feedback concerning this article which was published in the Westminster Theological Journal. VL. 66.2 Fall

PDF download.
https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...S8wb55lvxHr2YNFHWc2hQFX9jR8lg=&attredirects=0

On the web.
https://d3ecc98b-a-62cb3a1a-s-sites...jnuFB2QeynHcndjH9eCrCcrkOzTzg=&attredirects=0


I use to hold to a position somewhat similar to Kline and somewhat that of John Owen concerning the Mosaic Covenant.

5). This covenant thus made, with these ends and promises, did never save nor condemn any man eternally. All that lived under the administration if it did attain eternal life, or perished for ever, but not by virtue of this covenant as formally such. It did, indeed, revive the commanding power and sanction of the first covenant of works; and therein, as the apostle speaks, was "the ministry of condemnation," 2 Corinthians 3:9; for "by the deeds of the law can no flesh be justified." And on the other hand, it directed also unto the promise, which was the instrument of life and salvation unto all that did believe. But as unto what it had of its own, it was confined unto things temporal. Believers were saved under it, but not by virtue of it. Sinners perished eternally under it, but by the curse of the original law of works.
John Owen
Commentary on Hebrews Chapter 8
pp. 85.86 Goold

I have recently been helped in understanding the Mosaic Covenant by Scripture clarification along with the help of a Pastor Patrick Ramsey. Thank You Pastor Ramsey.

The following was a post on the Puritanboard where I discussed the works paradigm in relation to how it should be understood in my ever so humble opinion. Yeah, I know you are all laughing. I can be rather opinionated sometimes. Hopefully I am humble in those opinions. For I know not as I should know as St. Paul warns me.

I have found that I disagree with Meredith Kline and others that hold to similar postions of a works paradigm in the Mosaic Covenant. I think Patrick Ramsey does a good job in revealing what Romans 10:5 and Leviticus 18:5 say when considering the whole Counsel of God. In fact when we look at Paul's references we would think that Paul is pitting Moses against Moses and the Old Testament against the Old Testament in his New Testament writings. Especially if we just lift passages out of texts without considering other passages Paul also referenced. Paul isn't pitting the OT against the OT or Moses against Moses when we look at the fuller context for understanding.

Enjoy this short read.

Paul’s Use of Lev. 18:5 in Rom. 10:5
Pastor Patrick Ramsey

The following is (I trust) a simple but not simplistic explanation of Paul’s use of Leviticus 18:5 in Romans 10:5.

In 9:30-10:5 Paul explained the reason the Jews did not attain righteousness even though they pursued it. They mistakenly pursued it by works (9:32). Hence, they stumbled over the stumbling stone (9:33). They sought to establish their own righteousness (10:3). Ignorant of the right way to righteousness, although they should have known better, they zealously pursued life on the basis of their own obedience to the law.

In Rom. 10:5 Paul describes this wrong way of pursuing life (righteousness) from the OT, namely Leviticus 18:5 (see also Neh. 9:29; Eze. 20:11, 13, 21): “For Moses writes about the righteousness that is based on law, that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.” Now the fact that Paul appeals to Moses to describe the wrong way, or if you will, the Pharisaical way of pursuing righteousness, is somewhat perplexing. As a result, this verse, along with its counterpart in Gal. 3, is quite controversial among commentators and theologians.

Here is the difficulty from three different perspectives. First, in 9:32, Paul had said that the law itself did not teach that righteousness was based on works or obedience to the law. The Jews pursued the law as if it led to righteousness. The Jews, as the NT says elsewhere, misread the OT. And yet Paul seems to be saying in vs. 5 that the OT did in fact teach and exhort the people to pursue life/righteousness by keeping the law. How then can Paul (or the rest of the NT) condemn the Pharisees for seeking righteousness by works if that is what Moses told them to do?

Second, in vs. 8 Paul will quote Deut. 30 and later on he will cite Isaiah and Joel in direct contrast to Lev. 18:5 to describe the right way to find life and righteousness. So then it would seem that Paul pits Moses against Moses and the OT against the OT.

Third, the context of Lev. 18:5 doesn’t seem to support the way Paul uses it in Rom. 10:5. Moses exhorts Israel to keep God’s commandments in the context of redemption and covenant. Verses 1-3 highlight the point that Israel already belongs to God as his redeemed people. These verses are very similar to the prologue to the Ten Commandments, which teaches that salvation precedes obedience. God didn’t give Israel the law so that they might be saved. He saves them so that they might keep the law. In short, the context of Lev. 18:5 speaks against the idea that it teaches legalism or a work-based righteousness. Yet, that is how Paul is using this verse!

Now some have sought to solve this difficulty by saying that there is no actual contrast between verses 5 and 6. The “but” of vs. 6 should be translated “and.” The problem with this, however, is that it doesn’t fit the context of Paul’s argument. The apostle, beginning in 9:30 is contrasting two ways of seeking righteousness—works and faith—and this contrast clearly continues in vs. 5. This is confirmed by the fact that Paul speaks of works righteousness or righteousness based on law elsewhere (Gal. 3; Phil. 3:9) in a negative way.

So then how are we to understand what Paul is saying in vs. 5 (and in Gal. 3)? Well, Paul is citing Lev. 18:5 according to how it was understood by the Jews of his day; and no doubt how he understood it before his conversion. The Jews of Paul’s day saw obedience to the law (which included laws pertaining to the atonement of sins) as the source of life and as the basis of salvation. Keeping the law was the stairway to heaven. The way to have your sins forgiven and to be accepted by God was to observe the law. Lev. 18:5 provided biblical support for this Pharisaical position. And it is not hard to see why they would appeal to this verse since it says that the person who does the commandments shall live by them.

In Rom. 10:6ff Paul refutes this works-based righteousness position including the Jewish appeal to Lev. 18:5. Now he doesn’t do it in the way you or I might think of doing it. We might tend to respond to the Pharisee and say: “Look, you have completely misunderstood what Moses is saying in Lev. 18:5. The specific and general context of that verse indicates that your interpretation is incorrect…” Instead, Paul uses a technique that was quite common in his day. He counters their interpretation of Lev. 18:5 by citing another passage: Deut. 30:12-14. In other words, Paul is saying that Deut. 30 demonstrates that the Jewish understanding of Lev. 18:5 is incorrect. We of course sometimes use this type of argument today. For example, some people today appeal to James 2 to prove that we need to obey the law in order to be justified. One way to disprove that interpretation would be to cite Paul in Romans or Galatians. So Paul is not pitting Moses against Moses in vv. 5-6 or saying that Moses taught salvation by works. Rather the apostle is using one Mosaic passage to prove that the legalistic interpretation of another Mosaic passage is wrong.

A statement was also made how the Mosaic should be viewed as an administration of death. I actually believe the above helps us answer this problem but I also saw this. We as fallen people tend to want to turn the Covenant of Grace into a Covenant of Works. Many people even do this concerning the New Covenant today when they add works to the equation of justification by faith.

In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant in.

(2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
(2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
(2Co 2:16) To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
(2Co 2:17) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

(Heb 4:2)
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, "to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death." And how do they who consider Paul and the Church to be a savour unto death? They do it by what Paul says he doesn't do in the proceeding verse, "For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God."

On another note I would mention that some say that the Mosaic was a Covenant that administered the Covenant of Grace as well as the Covenant of Works. Some differentiate that works was required in order for the Israelite's to stay in and be blessed in the Land. They stayed in the Land based upon their works. Some say that this is different from the New Covenant. I am not seeing this difference. For one thing Jesus himself said in Revelation 2 that he would remove a local Church's candlestick if they didn't repent. In 1 Corinthians 5 a man who was found to be exceedingly sinful was to be delivered to Satan and excommunicated from the Church. In Galatians 6:7 we are told that we reap what we sow.

I actually see what happened to the Church in the Old Covenant to be very gracious and just a form of discipline. It was grace that chastisement happened. It was grace that brought Israel back into the Land. They were the Church that grew from dwelling in the wilderness. If it was by works then they would have never been brought back as they were. It looks quite the same to me as the man in 1 Corinthians 5. A casting out was performed. Excommunication was evident. Restoration by God's grace was confirmed. The substance of both the Old pedagogical Covenant and the New are essentially the same. Salvation, regeneration, faith, repentance, justification, and sanctification for the Church is the same between both the old and new. It is all by God's Covenant of Grace. The substance seems to be the same to me.

Well, this is some of the stuff I am seeing now days. I do believe that works are important and a big part of our salvation. But I speak of salvation as a whole. Not in the respect of purely justification. There are no works considered in our justification. I do believe that our Union in Christ brings a twofold Grace of justification and sanctification. You can not separate them from our salvation. They are not dichotomized but are distinct in the process of salvation. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. It is all by Grace as St. Paul said. This tension seems hard to process but it is summed up in Ephesians 2:8-10 and Philippians 2:12,13.

(Eph 2:8-10) For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast. For we are his workmanship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them.

(Php 2:12,13)Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of his good pleasure.