# Covenant of Grace



## Smeagol

Curious on feedback for the below article. I am relatively new to the Reformed Faith and to Covenant Theology (CT).

The below article advocates the 1689 Federalism View of CT. Their argument seems to be decent, but it defines the COG as only including the New Covenant.

https://pilgrimandshire.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/covenant-theology-presbyterian-or-baptist/

1. For my Westminster brothers...what are your thoughts? What is a simple yet solid argument that the COG consist of all of the Post Fall covenants? I must admit when I fist began to study CT as outlined in the Westminster Standards...my biggest hurtle (as a former Baptist) was the language of Old Covenant and New Covenant in the book of Hebrews. I know that in the context of the book of Hebrews "Old Covenant" referred to the Mosaic and not the whole OT. So the word "New" has been tougher to wrestle with. I do hold to CT as outlined in the Westminster Standards, but I am still trying to further solidify my mind on the matter. Any help my Presbyterian brothers can provide on this matter would be much appreciated.

2. CT Baptist Brothers...is this (the linked article) an accurate representation of your view of CT?

3. Hit up the Poll

P.S. I do NOT hold the view that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the COW, so if you hold that view, please make that clear if your post.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Curious on feedback for the below article. I am relatively new to the Reformed Faith and to Covenant Theology (CT).
> 
> The below article advocates the 1689 Federalism View of CT. Their argument seems to be decent, but it defines the COG as only including the New Covenant.
> 
> https://pilgrimandshire.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/covenant-theology-presbyterian-or-baptist/
> 
> 1. For my Westminster brothers...what are your thoughts? What is a simple yet solid argument that the COG consist of all of the Post Fall covenants? I must admit when I fist began to study CT as outlined in the Westminster Standards...my biggest hurtle (as a former Baptist) was the language of Old Covenant and New Covenant in the book of Hebrews. I know that in the context of the book of Hebrews "Old Covenant" referred to the Mosaic and not the whole OT. So the word "New" has been tougher to wrestle with. I do hold to CT as outlined in the Westminster Standards, but I am still trying to further solidify my mind on the matter. Any help my Presbyterian brothers can provide on this matter would be much appreciated.
> 
> 2. CT Baptist Brothers...is this (the linked article) an accurate representation of your view of CT?
> 
> 3. Hit up the Pole
> 
> P.S. I do NOT hold the view that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the COW, so if you hold that view, please make that clear if your post.


This article has been helpful to me in clearing up the distinction between how Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists view this issue.
http://www.rbap.net/the-particular-baptist-understanding-of-the-new-covenant-pascal-denault/

Reactions: Sad 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Grant.Jones said:


> I know that in the context of the book of Hebrews "Old Covenant" referred to the Mosaic and not the whole OT.



Read the same passages in the book of Hebrews with the mindset that the Mosaic is a gracious covenant and tell me how you land.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TheOldCourse

I would quibble that the various historical covenants are not components of the covenant of grace, as if the CoG is the sum total of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc., but rather that the historical covenants are _administrations_ of the covenant of grace as the confessions states.

Reactions: Like 7 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

On the language of Old versus New covenants and the meaning of Jeremiah 31, see: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/sinai-part-2 (click on "Full lecture notes" and see especially "Effect" on page 11; but the whole section of pp6-13 should be beneficial, as they deal with the different "differences in administration" between the old and new covenants). Hope this helps.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> This article has been helpful to me in clearing up the distinction between how Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists view this issue.
> http://www.rbap.net/the-particular-baptist-understanding-of-the-new-covenant-pascal-denault/


Thanks for sharing brother.


----------



## Smeagol

Scott Bushey said:


> Read the same passages in the book of Hebrews with the mindset that the Mosaic is a gracious covenant and tell me how you land.


Uh.... landed in the same spot... haha to the vault of my own intellect I am sure.


----------



## Smeagol

JTB.SDG said:


> On the language of Old versus New covenants and the meaning of Jeremiah 31, see: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/sinai-part-2 (click on "Full lecture notes" and see especially "Effect" on page 11; but the whole section of pp6-13 should be beneficial, as they deal with the different "differences in administration" between the old and new covenants). Hope this helps.


Thanks .. this looks like a great resource.... hopefully I will get some down time today to begin to read. Do you happen to also have a link to Part 1?


----------



## Steve Curtis

Grant.Jones said:


> Do you happen to also have a link to Part 1?


https://www.ruinandredemption.com/sinai-part-1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Grant.Jones said:


> Uh.... landed in the same spot... haha to the vault of my own intellect I am sure.



The landing should place you in the mindset that the author is speaking directly about those in the external side of the C of G; that being, those who remain in the C of W's. The C of W's brings only 'death'. Since the Mosaic is an admin of the C of G, how can he be speaking of those in that?

The Mosaic is NOT a republication as the C of W's is much more than just the decalogue.


----------



## Dachaser

Dachaser said:


> This article has been helpful to me in clearing up the distinction between how Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists view this issue.
> http://www.rbap.net/the-particular-baptist-understanding-of-the-new-covenant-pascal-denault/


Why sad?


----------



## Dachaser

JTB.SDG said:


> On the language of Old versus New covenants and the meaning of Jeremiah 31, see: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/sinai-part-2 (click on "Full lecture notes" and see especially "Effect" on page 11; but the whole section of pp6-13 should be beneficial, as they deal with the different "differences in administration" between the old and new covenants). Hope this helps.


the Covenant Jeremiah was prophesy on was the new Covenant, which had a new relationship between God and lost sinners come to pass.


----------



## Dachaser

TheOldCourse said:


> I would quibble that the various historical covenants are not components of the covenant of grace, as if the CoG is the sum total of the Abrahamic, Mosaic, Davidic, etc., but rather that the historical covenants are _administrations_ of the covenant of grace as the confessions states.


The new Covenant is the full administration of the CoG.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Read the same passages in the book of Hebrews with the mindset that the Mosaic is a gracious covenant and tell me how you land.


The Mosaic Covenant was a temporal relationship, that was works related, as the people would be under either its blessings or cursing based upon how well they observed the law of God.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Thanks for sharing brother.


You are welcome. what did you think on what was stated there?


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> the Covenant Jeremiah was prophesy on was the new Covenant, which had a new relationship between God and lost sinners come to pass.


I think Hebrews 11 presents a very strong case against your statement
Hebrews 11 is a solid case that the "relationship" as you say was indeed NOT different....since the fall we have always needed perfect obedience and faith in the promised one......
now Christ has satisfied the perfect obedience and our faith (god given) brings about the imputation of that righteousness to us.

OT Saint and NT saint were both saved BY FAITH. I do highly recommend the article already posted

I have 10 pages left and it has been very helpful.
https://www.ruinandredemption.com/sinai-part-2

There is not 1 OT saint who obeyed the law perfectly. Yet there are some who are said to have still pleased God, who desires perfect obedience. So how can a God requiring perfect obedience be pleased.....? According to Hebrews 11, this was accomplished by their Faith. That sounds a lot like what we still need today...Faith.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> The Mosaic Covenant was a temporal relationship, that was works related, as the people would be under either its blessings or cursing based upon how well they observed the law of God.


The relationship was not temporal in one since because Moses still pointed people to Christ and satisfaction of perfect obedience was still required. Today in the NC we still need perfect obedience to satisfy God, but we can only obtain this in Christ because we are unable in ourselves just like the people in the OT.

Look at 2 verses:
*Deuteronomy 30:11-14 English Standard Version (ESV)*
*The Choice of Life and Death*
11 “For this commandment that I command you today is not too hard for you, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend to heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’14 But the word is very near you. It is in your mouth and in your heart, so that you can do it.

*John 5:46 English Standard Version (ESV)*
46 For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> You are welcome. what did you think on what was stated there?


I enjoyed the briefness of it considering how much reading I have been doing today..haha..

I appreciated the article because I want to continue to make sure I understand the position of my CT Baptist brothers. I see the argument, but I still see too much continuity between all the post-fall covenants to accept the 1689 Baptist CT view. Law and faith are woven in all of them...the Law points us to Christ in every post-fall covenant. Christ is our only hope in every post-fall covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> The Mosaic Covenant was a temporal relationship



WRONG. The Mosaic covenant is a gracious covenant. No covenant is abrogated.



> that was works related, as the people would be under either its blessings or cursing based upon how well they observed the law of God.



WRONG. As mentioned all men, outside of the C of G are 'cursed'. There are no real blessings being apart from Christ. The only people, blessed in the Mosaic time were believers; that being from the same Gospel that was preached to you or I.


----------



## Smeagol

JTB.SDG said:


> On the language of Old versus New covenants and the meaning of Jeremiah 31, see: https://www.ruinandredemption.com/sinai-part-2 (click on "Full lecture notes" and see especially "Effect" on page 11; but the whole section of pp6-13 should be beneficial, as they deal with the different "differences in administration" between the old and new covenants). Hope this helps.


I just finished the article. I again would like to say thanks! This really helped me to clear a lot of questions up and the summary charts were very helpful.

Side note: I learned from the article also that I needed some theological correction regarding the three forms of the Moral Law....I had never been taught that view before (growing up a baptist). This new (reformed) understanding will be very helpful as I teach through some of Paul's letters to my family and teaching opportunities at my church.

A picture quote from the "ruinandredepmtion" article that was very edifying..hopefully it will be for all your brothers as well:


----------



## Jonathan R

With regard to the original question about the blog article, Brandon Burks, the author, is a solid source for RB Covenant Theology. He often emphasizes the differences of the Old and New Covenants stronger than others. If I recall, he does not often emphasize the effect of the Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament (as it existed in a promissory form first being given in Gen3:15 and then progressively revealed in each historical covenant). But that is most likely merely because he often deals with other covenantal positions where the differences must be emphasized.

With regard to the link from RBAP and Pascal Denault, it should be noted that the quote from Benjamin Keach was a minority position among the Particular Baptists and that then and now we predominantly hold the understanding the the Covenant of Redemption is distinct from the Covenant of Grace, each having their proper means and ends. The CoR being the mediator's covenant of works for the accomplishment of redemption and the CoG being the outworking of that.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Grant.Jones said:


> 1. For my Westminster brothers...what are your thoughts?


The opening quotation in the article (Denault) correctly identifies a theological divide—which I might call a hermeneutical divide—as the locus of separation between those of a Presbyterian persuasion and those of the Baptist, even if both have staked out much common ground on subjects of salvific importance, and confess much in concert. The practice of baptism is an expression of one's covenant theology, formed according to particular hermeneutical a prioris. One should not change his practice of baptism as he changes his shirt: because it goes better with his new outfit.

Regardless of the side, baptism has deep roots, in spite of any notions to the contrary such as: baptism is a "surface" matter, an external presentation, a habit. Don't pull yourself up by your baptism, or you may end up a ship unmoored and adrift.

The article offers one Baptist-covenant perspective within the range. It may be the one best suited to the 2LBC, I am no judge of that; but it represents the views of convinced Baptists who, wishing to remain Baptist and keep other Baptists from straying toward Presbyterian pasture, aim at justifying their position theologically. Convinced also of a unifying covenant-motif in Scripture, it becomes critical for the Baptist to possess a way of tracing that concept _not tending toward_ an embrace of classic covenant-theology.

A full identification of Moses (Sinai) with the Covenant of Works will tend to support this form of Baptist-covenantalism. The article presents the whole OT as the Old Covenant, including back to Abraham and later expression in David, and so sees it all as Covenant of Works _in essence._ I do not say this view alleges any were saved thereby; but always salvation was _by virtue of _an essentially gracious covenant that was promised, but never present before the days of the New Covenant.

The position of the WCF and of the 3FU and classic covenant theology generally is: substantive presence of the covenant of grace in the OT, including the days of the Old Covenant (which properly is Sinai, and not prior), along with its administration; which as to its human agents is external and fallible, but as to spiritually agency is internal and ideal.

This distinction is fairly represented in the article's first two "differences" between the WCF and LBC. If the first difference shows the belief that WCF paints the OC with too much NC, the second difference shows the belief that the WCF paints the NC with too much OC. These differences thus mirror one another, the article seeming to recognize that classic covenant theology stresses the idea that there is one religion for the saints from Gen. to Rev., having merely different expressions. The third difference is a case of a divergent theological and practical consequence resulting from the effects of a chosen hermeneutic.

The article's last point, treating baptismal mode, does not relate (in my opinion) to the purpose of the article (unless offered to bolster the assertion that "of course" baptism is only for those who can rationally comprehend their duty to hold their breath under water).



Grant.Jones said:


> What is a simple yet solid argument that the COG consist of all of the Post Fall covenants?


The simple argument is that there's no other way for fallen sinners to be in fellowship with God than by grace. Covenant is God's chosen instrument by which he teaches and mediates grace to men. Gracious-covenant and promise are synonymous, promise set in contrast to any form of bilateral contract or quid pro quo. Therefore, if a man be in communion with God since the fall, it is unquestionably purely on the basis of divine grace, and no other.

The NT has answered the question (if there was one) if God's covenant with Abraham was grace or works: it was the former, and the later covenant at Sinai which included an element of human consent and commitment is treated by Paul (Gal.3:17) as an effective contrast. Classic CT wrestles with the difficulties of Sinai; and in a variety of ways has concluded--in a mixed but stable consensus since the days of the Reformation--that grace is "in, with, and under" Sinai.

It is before it, inasmuch as "_I am the Lord thy God who brought you out of the land of Egypt_." It is in the heart of it, for merciful forgiveness is the very essence of the sacrificial system. It is after it, inasmuch as Israel breaks the covenant still in the shadow of the shaking, noisome mountain; but the Lord accepts Moses' mediation instead of wiping them out no sooner than they had begun. And the Lord continues to forgive them (not holding their sin against them) for century after century of straying. Grace is the core reality, under the glory-overlay that expressed the Old Covenant. For without grace, there can be no true religion.

So, in one way or another CT teaches that Moses gave Israel a covenant that had characteristics of grace and works; and a lot of what we argue about in-house is the best way to speak about and represent the curious, intricate reality that Scripture presents us. But the Baptist position the article presents goes in a different direction. That Baptist position holds that it is with Abraham that two distinct covenants are made, one with a works-character and another of a promissory sort. Then, later in time these two covenants receive full and administrative expression in Moses (works) and in Christ (grace).

I believe I'm being fair to the Baptists represented by the article, setting forth their position. So far as that is the case, I think it is possible to see accurately and compare the two perspectives in those respects demonstrated. I don't see Scripture teaching multiple covenants with Abraham; I do see the NT pointing to one character of covenant with respect to him, and showing us how to get a handle on the nature and purposes that were bound up in Moses' covenant, which was destined to expire and fade away (yet leaving behind things that never need change).

I also think the NT teaches us that we aren't in heaven yet; which means that there is still an earthly, human, and therefore imperfect administration of the New Covenant. I believe I'm entirely fair to the Baptist's self-expression to say he does not think there is an earthly administration (strictly speaking) of the NC, but one wholly Spiritual. And this contributes to a significant contrast between a Presbyterian and a Baptist expectation of the church's makeup.

Is there a more "simple-solid" argument than this for regarding all post-fall covenants as expressions of the Covenant of Grace? The fundamental perspective is the germ of the idea that apart from the grace of God man has no true religion; the entire Bible is marshaled for fleshing it out. The "great" argument for classic CT is the unity of the Covenant of Grace across the Testaments, a single faith of one religion presented in stages until mature fulfillment (yet still not fully realized before this world is done).

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Smeagol

Contra_Mundum said:


> I also think the NT teaches us that we aren't in heaven yet; which means that there is still an earthly, human, and therefore imperfect administration of the New Covenant. I believe I'm entirely fair to the Baptist's self-expression to say he does not think there is an earthly administration (strictly speaking) of the NC, but one wholly Spiritual.


Thanks for taking the time to read the article and write your post.
Can you explain your above quote a little more? At first reading it did raise concerns, but I assume I am misunderstanding you.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> I think Hebrews 11 presents a very strong case against your statement
> Hebrews 11 is a solid case that the "relationship" as you say was indeed NOT different....since the fall we have always needed perfect obedience and faith in the promised one......
> now Christ has satisfied the perfect obedience and our faith (god given) brings about the imputation of that righteousness to us.
> 
> OT Saint and NT saint were both saved BY FAITH. I do highly recommend the article already posted
> 
> I have 10 pages left and it has been very helpful.
> https://www.ruinandredemption.com/sinai-part-2
> 
> There is not 1 OT saint who obeyed the law perfectly. Yet there are some who are said to have still pleased God, who desires perfect obedience. So how can a God requiring perfect obedience be pleased.....? According to Hebrews 11, this was accomplished by their Faith. That sounds a lot like what we still need today...Faith.


I agree that there has always been but one basis of salvation, the Cross of Christ, and that sinners received that salvation by Grace alone thry faith alone, but the OT saints did not as not yet experience under the old Covenant the fullness of the blessings of salvation as we now do under the New covenant relationship with God.
God did give to them Promises for health and wealth, material blessings instead, for those remaining obedient unto Him under the Old Covenant, but we now have all spiritual blessings in Jesus under new One now.


----------



## Jonathan R

One note that I was reminded of after reading Rev. Buchanan's post was some often lack of specificity among some RBs regarding the relation of the Covenant of Works with Adam and the work principle in the Old Covenant. We do not maintain that the Old Covenant was as it its essence the Covenant of Works. The CoW with Adam is in effect, broken, and cursing those are still in him. Rather the Mosaic maintained a similar form to the CoW as "do this and live" to the earthly experience of its ends. Hence there is often a multiplication of words discussing "republication" and the many definitions that it owns. I do not have much heart for that debate as it tends to go nowhere. Suffice to say, the CoW and OC are two distinct and separate covenants in RB thought, but merely have a resemblance in the work principle which they both embody.


----------



## Smeagol

Jonathan R said:


> One note that I was reminded of after reading Rev. Buchanan's post was some often lack of specificity among some RBs regarding the relation of the Covenant of Works with Adam and the work principle in the Old Covenant. We do not maintain that the Old Covenant was as it its essence the Covenant of Works. The CoW with Adam is in effect, broken, and cursing those are still in him. Rather the Mosaic maintained a similar form to the CoW as "do this and live" to the earthly experience of its ends. Hence there is often a multiplication of words discussing "republication" and the many definitions that it owns. I do not have much heart for that debate as it tends to go nowhere. Suffice to say, the CoW and OC are two distinct and separate covenants in RB thought, but merely have a resemblance in the work principle which they both embody.


But you must agree that the "work principle" is still in COG.....right?
It is still the works of Christ that permit us entry into the COG, which still technically is sustained by the WORKS of Christ. And when we as Christians strive for obedience (works from our new life not for new life) to the Moral Law (as the law of Christ), we are still reminded of our need of Christ's Perfect works when we fall into sin. That line of thought is what holds me to Westminster understanding of the COG.


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> The opening quotation in the article (Denault) correctly identifies a theological divide--which I might call a hermeneutical divide--as the locus of separation between those of a Presbyterian persuasion and those of the Baptist, even if both have staked out much common ground on subjects of salvific importance, and confess much in concert. The practice of baptism is an expression of one's covenant theology, formed according to particular hermeneutical a prioris. One should not change his practice of baptism as he changes his shirt: because it goes better with his new outfit.
> 
> Regardless of the side, baptism has deep roots, in spite of any notions to the contrary such as: baptism is a "surface" matter, an external presentation, a habit. Don't pull yourself up by your baptism, or you may end up a ship unmoored and adrift.
> 
> The article offers one Baptist-covenant perspective within the range. It may be the one best suited to the 2LBC, I am no judge of that; but it represents the views of convinced Baptists who, wishing to remain Baptist and keep other Baptists from straying toward Presbyterian pasture, aim at justifying their position theologically. Convinced also of a unifying covenant-motif in Scripture, it becomes critical for the Baptist to possess a way of tracing that concept _not tending toward_ an embrace of classic covenant-theology.
> 
> A full identification of Moses (Sinai) with the Covenant of Works will tend to support this form of Baptist-covenantalism. The article presents the whole OT as the Old Covenant, including back to Abraham and later expression in David, and so sees it all as Covenant of Works _in essence._ I do not say this view alleges any were saved thereby; but always salvation was _by virtue of _an essentially gracious covenant that was promised, but never present before the days of the New Covenant.
> 
> The position of the WCF and of the 3FU and classic covenant theology generally is: substantive presence of the covenant of grace in the OT, including the days of the Old Covenant (which properly is Sinai, and not prior), along with its administration; which as to its human agents is external and fallible, but as to spiritually agency is internal and ideal.
> 
> This distinction is fairly represented in the article's first two "differences" between the WCF and LBC. If the first difference shows the belief that WCF paints the OC with too much NC, the second difference shows the belief that the WCF paints the NC with too much OC. These differences thus mirror one another, the article seeming to recognize that classic covenant theology stresses the idea that there is one religion for the saints from Gen. to Rev., having merely different expressions. The third difference is a case of a divergent theological and practical consequence resulting from the effects of a chosen hermeneutic.
> 
> The article's last point, treating baptismal mode, does not relate (in my opinion) to the purpose of the article (unless offered to bolster the assertion that "of course" baptism is only for those who can rationally comprehend their duty to hold their breath under water).
> 
> 
> The simple argument is that there's no other way for fallen sinners to be in fellowship with God than by grace. Covenant is God's chosen instrument by which he teaches and mediates grace to men. Gracious-covenant and promise are synonymous, promise set in contrast to any form of bilateral contract or quid pro quo. Therefore, if a man be in communion with God since the fall, it is unquestionably purely on the basis of divine grace, and no other.
> 
> The NT has answered the question (if there was one) if God's covenant with Abraham was grace or works: it was the former, and the later covenant at Sinai which included an element of human consent and commitment is treated by Paul (Gal.3:17) as an effective contrast. Classic CT wrestles with the difficulties of Sinai; and in a variety of ways has concluded--in a mixed but stable consensus since the days of the Reformation--that grace is "in, with, and under" Sinai.
> 
> It is before it, inasmuch as "I am the Lord thy God who brought you out of the land of Egypt." It is in the heart of it, for merciful forgiveness is the very essence of the sacrificial system. It is after it, inasmuch as Israel breaks the covenant still in the shadow of the shaking, noisome mountain; but the Lord accepts Moses' mediation instead of wiping them out no sooner than they had begun. And the Lord continues to forgive them (not holding their sin against them) for century after century of straying. Grace is the core reality, under the glory-overlay that expressed the Old Covenant. For without grace, there can be no true religion.
> 
> So, in one way or another CT teaches that Moses gave Israel a covenant that had characteristics of grace and works; and a lot of what we argue about in-house is the best way to speak about and represent the curious, intricate reality that Scripture presents us. But the Baptist position the article presents goes in a different direction. That Baptist position holds that it is with Abraham that two distinct covenants are made, one with a works-character and another of a promissory sort. Then, later in time these two covenants receive full and administrative expression in Moses (works) and in Christ (grace).
> 
> I believe I'm being fair to the Baptists represented by the article, setting forth their position. So far as that is the case, I think it is possible to see accurately and compare the two perspectives in those respects demonstrated. I don't see Scripture teaching multiple covenants with Abraham; I do see the NT pointing to one character of covenant with respect to him, and showing us how to get a handle on the nature and purposes that were bound up in Moses' covenant, which was destined to expire and fade away (yet leaving behind things that never need change).
> 
> I also think the NT teaches us that we aren't in heaven yet; which means that there is still an earthly, human, and therefore imperfect administration of the New Covenant. I believe I'm entirely fair to the Baptist's self-expression to say he does not think there is an earthly administration (strictly speaking) of the NC, but one wholly Spiritual. And this contributes to a significant contrast between a Presbyterian and a Baptist expectation of the church's makeup.
> 
> Is there a more "simple-solid" argument than this for regarding all post-fall covenants as expressions of the Covenant of Grace? The fundamental perspective is the germ of the idea that apart from the grace of God man has no true religion; the entire Bible is marshaled for fleshing it out. The "great" argument for classic CT is the unity of the Covenant of Grace across the Testaments, a single faith of one religion presented in stages until mature fulfillment (yet still not fully realized before this world is done).


There just seems to me to be really substantial differences between how the 2 positions understand Covenant Theology, would it be better to have reformed Baptists redefined as particular Baptists, as Calvinist baptists at one time regarded ourselves as beiong?
Doesn't there seem to be really 2 main differing CT on this issue?


----------



## Jonathan R

Grant.Jones said:


> But you must agree that the "work principle" is still in COG.....right?
> It is still the works of Christ that permit us entry into the COG, which still technically is sustained by the WORKS of Christ. And when we as Christians strive for obedience (works from our new life not for new life) to the Moral Law (as the law of Christ), we are still reminded of our need of Christ's Perfect works when we fall into sin. That line of thought is what holds me to Westminster understanding of the COG.



Regarding the works of Christ, I would refer back to my first post here. RBs and Presbyterians maintain the distinction between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption. Plus the "works principle" would be better located in the Covenant of Redemption, as therein it is that Christ's labor and promised glory are enumerated. The Covenant of Grace then is the result of the Covenant of Redemption. I may need to be careful in my phrasing here, but it would be improper to consider Christ a member of the Covenant of Grace, as he is its head. 

Regarding our works, all the orthodox reject that the works of the faithful are contributory/meritorious to the entry or completion of the Covenant of Grace. Thus we must say that the works of believers do not function the same as Adam's did in the CoW, nor, as I maintain, the works of Israel in the OC. [Edit] Hence, what is termed a "works principle" would be improper or at least misleading in the CoG.


----------



## Dachaser

Jonathan R said:


> Regarding the works of Christ, I would refer back to my first post here. RBs and Presbyterians maintain the distinction between the Covenant of Grace and the Covenant of Redemption. Plus the "works principle" would be better located in the Covenant of Redemption, as therein it is that Christ's labor and promised glory are enumerated. The Covenant of Grace then is the result of the Covenant of Redemption. I may need to be careful in my phrasing here, but it would be improper to consider Christ a member of the Covenant of Grace, as he is its head.
> 
> Regarding our works, all the orthodox reject that the works of the faithful are contributory/meritorious to the entry or completion of the Covenant of Grace. Thus we must say that the works of believers do not function the same as Adam's did in the CoW, nor, as I maintain, the works of Israel in the OC. [Edit] Hence, what is termed a "works principle" would be improper or at least misleading in the CoG.


There though does seem to be some type of function of works/obedience under the Mosaic Administration of God's plan.


----------



## Jonathan R

Dachaser said:


> There though does seem to be some type of function of works/obedience under the Mosaic Administration of God's plan.



Yes, which I refer to in that second paragraph there.


----------



## Smeagol

Jonathan R said:


> I may need to be careful in my phrasing here, but it would be improper to consider Christ a member of the Covenant of Grace, as he is its head.


Strange indeed. I am the head of my family and I am a member of my family. A "Head" is a "member" of a body.

Maybe you are trying to convey that we are not equal to Christ? I would agree with that.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Jonathan R said:


> The Covenant of Grace then is the result of the Covenant of Redemption. I may need to be careful in my phrasing here, but it would be improper to consider Christ a member of the Covenant of Grace, as he is its head.


Are you implying the CoR (_pactum_ _salutis_) is a different covenant than the CoG made with the elect? Was not the CoR made with Our Lord and with those _in Him_ (the elect)?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Are you implying the CoR (_pactum_ _salutis_) is a different covenant than the CoG made with the elect? Was not the CoR made with Our Lord and with those _in Him_ (the elect)?



Technically speaking, wasn’t the C of R made between the Godhead and the C of G the result- the C of G, to include the elect.


----------



## Smeagol

Scott Bushey said:


> Technically speaking, wasn’t the C of R made between the Godhead and the C of G the result- the C of G, to include the elect.


I believe that is my view. I see the CoR as being strictly between the trinity.

And the CoW and the CoG flowing from it.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Technically speaking, wasn’t the C of R made between the Godhead and the C of G the result- the C of G, to include the elect.


What scriptures would be used to differentiate between the CoR and theCoG then?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Scott Bushey said:


> Technically speaking, wasn’t the C of R made between the Godhead and the C of G the result- the C of G, to include the elect.


I find no Scripture—which only speaks of two covenants—that would establish an _independent_ CoR. Else how can we reconcile imputation? We do not say a covenant was made with Adam and an independent covenant was made with His progeny. We do not say, at least we should not say, an independent covenant was made with Christ and an independent covenant was made with the elect.

I think the CoR and CoG are one and the same arrangement from eternity, having one aspect concerning the Mediator and another concerning the elect. Which is to say, the covenant of grace with the elect is the same covenant made with Christ. I cannot draw distinctions of a covenant being made with Christ to that made with the elect. I simply see the CoR as the CoG made with Christ.


Spoiler: Thomas Boston on CoR and CoG



Thomas Boston, _Works _1:333-334:

"*The covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are not two distinct covenants, but one and the same covenant*. I know some great and good men have taught otherwise, alleging the covenant of redemption to have been made with Christ, and the covenant of grace to be made with believers; though they were far from designing or approving the ill use some have made of that principle. However, the doctrine of this church, in the Larger Catechism, is in express words, '_The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed_.' From whence it necessarily follows, that the covenant made with Christ and with believers, or the covenant of grace and redemption, are one and the same covenant. *Only, in respect of Christ, it is called the covenant of redemption*, forasmuch as in it he engaged to pay the price of our redemption; *but in respect of us, the covenant of grace*, forasmuch as the whole of it is of free grace to us, God himself having provided the ransom, and thereupon made over life and salvation to poor sinners, his chosen by free promise, without respect to any work of theirs to entitle them thereto."​


Boston identifies the salient issue, that is, _when was the CoG made with the elect and how do the elect enter therein_? To say the CoG was made with the elect in Christ from eternity and that the elect, upon formal belief in Christ, enter therein, then essentially one is simply saying that the CoR and CoG are the one and same covenant.


Spoiler: Theology and Theologians of Scotland - Walker



James Walker, _Theology and Theologians of Scotland_, pp. 44-45:

"I may add, though I have not time to enter into the subject, that in the Scottish doctrine of the Covenants you note some differences. Dickson and Rutherford spoke of both the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace or reconciliation: by the former, they meant the covenant between the Father and the Son; by the latter, a distinct and subordinate covenant based on the former between God and His people, under which, in fact, the blessings of redemption are administered: the former, so far as man was concerned, absolute; the latter having as its condition faith. Boston and Gib refused the distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, asserting that there is no such distinction in the Bible, — the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace in their view being only two names of the same thing, '_which in respect of Christ may be called a covenant of redemption, for He alone engaged to pay the price; while in respect of man, it is a covenant of grace, as all to us comes freely_.'

The later divines saw some tendency in the earlier doctrine to Neonomianism, or, as the covenant of reconciliation was external in the visible church, even a sort of bar to immediate dealing with the Saviour, and entrance by an appropriating faith into living union with Him. It is perhaps a difference in the same line when the earlier theologians say: '_The covenant was made with Christ, not as a public person representing many, but as an eminent chosen person, chosen out from among His brethren;_' and the later teachers: '_Jesus Christ, the party contracting on man's side in the covenant of grace, is to be considered as the last or second Adam, head and representative of a seed_.' The question is sufficiently intricate, and *I do not believe there is any real difference between the two*; only in the one case the vicarious was brought more distinctly out, in the other the representative."​


I am not denying a counsel of peace (CoR). What I do deny is the CoR to be separated from the CoG with the elect. So, the fundamental question becomes,

_Is there an independent covenant made with Christ that is distinct from the covenant made with the elect?_

I answer, *no*.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Contra_Mundum said:


> I also think the NT teaches us that we aren't in heaven yet; which means that there is still an earthly, human, and therefore imperfect administration of the New Covenant. I believe I'm entirely fair to the Baptist's self-expression to say he does not think there is an earthly administration (strictly speaking) of the NC, but one wholly Spiritual.





Grant.Jones said:


> Thanks for taking the time to read the article and write your post.
> Can you explain your above quote a little more? At first reading it did raise concerns, but I assume I am misunderstanding you.


Classic CT considers that in the ages prior to Christ, as well as in the penultimate age in which we live (not in the final state of glory yet) which is the New Covenant age (but not yet perfect), to mean that there are, and always have been, two ways to relate to the one Covenant of Grace--one is purely administrative (human administration), the other is substantive (in the Spirit, with divine administration) that ordinarily has an historical relation to one or another of the earthly administrations.

It is what we mean when we say that ordinarily there is no salvation outside the church. There's a robust relation of analogy that belongs between the visible and the invisible, the church's ministry is actually acting in Christ's stead and carrying out spiritually effective work. So, there was in the OT the administration of covenant by men appointed to that function. In the beginning, there were heads of families (such as Abraham) who fulfilled this administrative role mediating (externally) for the covenant of grace. I can point you to clear instances of his history when Abraham exercises the offices of king, of prophet, and of priest for the covenant he has been given to lead.

Later, that role is fulfilled in three separate offices in Israel, sometimes two held by one man, but never three; and never a king and a priest in one, until the Christ who is the Mediator--Prophet, Priest, and King. But in the NT age, a classic covenant theologian still understands the role of the ministry as office-holders, as successors of the apostles (in doctrine and service, not in an unbroken chain), and thus administrators of the covenant in its present form.

The King has a kingdom and a government with servants to run it, to administrate its affairs on his behalf and for the good of his citizens. But as in the earlier ages, both the men of the present ministry, as well as the current citizens, are human, are sinners, and some are completely false.

I want to be careful not to claim to speak for every Baptist; so let my language be understood as consistent with the counsels I have received (mostly) from Baptist brothers here on the PB. That's what I mean when I say I feel confident I'm speaking in a way I think many will agree with. I could have no higher praise than if someone I disagree with appreciates a faithful expression of his view in my words.

So, that Baptist who thinks the NC is _only _and _always _perfectly administered, does not--cannot--agree that the NC is administered (strictly speaking) through the church and its officers. They are not perfect, all agree on that. Nor is a congregation on earth free in its members (infallibly) from anyone but the elect. And the NC is (Jer.31:34) on the Baptist reading comprised exclusively of the saved.

The Baptist will affirm there are undoubtedly "ministers of the new covenant," 2Cor.3:6; but they are not _administering _the covenant in an imperfect, down-to-earth way analogous to the Spirit's administration, but unto all its members irrespective of elect or saved status. Baptists understand that something like that was in effect in OT Israel (but only in a typological and imitative fashion).

But even there, as that covenant was not (strictly) an _administration _of the Covenant of Grace, but merely a pointer to it, those officers were not doing duty as servants/ministers of the Grace/New Covenant. They rehearsed imperfectly the perfect future work of the One Servant and his Spirit for an illustration and witness to those living at the time. But their work did not go further into functional CoG administration.

Again, for the Baptist there is *either *man's administration of earthly covenants, *or *divine administration of the spiritual covenant. There is no ongoing (neither then nor now) analogous and parallel human-and-divine activity, not in the strict sense. I'm waiting now for one of the brothers to come forward with a protest to my characterization. I'm happy to have it stated better or in a more nuanced manner. But please accept that my aim here is a clean, unambiguous representation of the line of differentiation.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I find no Scripture— which only speaks of two covenants—that would establish an _independent_ CoR. Else how can we reconcile imputation? We do not say a covenant was made with Adam and an independent covenant was made with His progeny. We do not say, at least we should not say, an independent covenant was made with Christ and an independent covenant was made with the elect.
> 
> I think the CoR and CoG are one and the same arrangement from eternity, having one aspect concerning the Mediator and another concerning the elect. Which is to say, the covenant of grace with the elect is the same covenant made with Christ. I cannot draw distinctions of a covenant being made with Christ to that made with the elect. I simply see the CoR as the CoG made with Christ.


Carl Bogue's "Jonathan Edwards and the Covenant of Grace" has a very helpful discussion on this. I am reading it now and trying to work through its implications.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> What scriptures would be used to differentiate between the CoR and theCoG then?


You might consider Psalm 110, John 17, or Hebrews 7, wherein something describing the relationship between the persons of the Trinity, especially Father and Son is described.


----------



## Smeagol

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> I find no Scripture—which only speaks of two covenants—that would establish an _independent_ CoR. Else how can we reconcile imputation? We do not say a covenant was made with Adam and an independent covenant was made with His progeny. We do not say, at least we should not say, an independent covenant was made with Christ and an independent covenant was made with the elect.
> 
> I think the CoR and CoG are one and the same arrangement from eternity, having one aspect concerning the Mediator and another concerning the elect. Which is to say, the covenant of grace with the elect is the same covenant made with Christ. I cannot draw distinctions of a covenant being made with Christ to that made with the elect. I simply see the CoR as the CoG made with Christ.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Thomas Boston on CoR and CoG
> 
> 
> 
> Thomas Boston, _Works _1:333-334:
> 
> "*The covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace are not two distinct covenants, but one and the same covenant*. I know some great and good men have taught otherwise, alleging the covenant of redemption to have been made with Christ, and the covenant of grace to be made with believers; though they were far from designing or approving the ill use some have made of that principle. However, the doctrine of this church, in the Larger Catechism, is in express words, '_The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed_.' From whence it necessarily follows, that the covenant made with Christ and with believers, or the covenant of grace and redemption, are one and the same covenant. *Only, in respect of Christ, it is called the covenant of redemption*, forasmuch as in it he engaged to pay the price of our redemption; *but in respect of us, the covenant of grace*, forasmuch as the whole of it is of free grace to us, God himself having provided the ransom, and thereupon made over life and salvation to poor sinners, his chosen by free promise, without respect to any work of theirs to entitle them thereto."​
> 
> 
> Boston identifies the salient issue, that is, _when was the CoG made with the elect and how do the elect enter therein_? To say the CoG was made with the elect in Christ from eternity and that the elect, upon formal belief in Christ, enter therein, then essentially one is simply saying that the CoR and CoG are the one and same covenant.
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Theology and Theologians of Scotland - Walker
> 
> 
> 
> James Walker, _Theology and Theologians of Scotland_, pp. 44-45:
> 
> "I may add, though I have not time to enter into the subject, that in the Scottish doctrine of the Covenants you note some differences. Dickson and Rutherford spoke of both the covenant of redemption, and the covenant of grace or reconciliation: by the former, they meant the covenant between the Father and the Son; by the latter, a distinct and subordinate covenant based on the former between God and His people, under which, in fact, the blessings of redemption are administered: the former, so far as man was concerned, absolute; the latter having as its condition faith. Boston and Gib refused the distinction between the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace, asserting that there is no such distinction in the Bible, — the covenant of redemption and the covenant of grace in their view being only two names of the same thing, '_which in respect of Christ may be called a covenant of redemption, for He alone engaged to pay the price; while in respect of man, it is a covenant of grace, as all to us comes freely_.'
> 
> The later divines saw some tendency in the earlier doctrine to Neonomianism, or, as the covenant of reconciliation was external in the visible church, even a sort of bar to immediate dealing with the Saviour, and entrance by an appropriating faith into living union with Him. It is perhaps a difference in the same line when the earlier theologians say: '_The covenant was made with Christ, not as a public person representing many, but as an eminent chosen person, chosen out from among His brethren;_' and the later teachers: '_Jesus Christ, the party contracting on man's side in the covenant of grace, is to be considered as the last or second Adam, head and representative of a seed_.' The question is sufficiently intricate, and *I do not believe there is any real difference between the two*; only in the one case the vicarious was brought more distinctly out, in the other the representative."​
> 
> 
> I am not denying a counsel of peace (CoR). What I do deny is the CoR to be separated from the CoG with the elect. So, the fundamental question becomes,
> 
> _Is there an independent covenant made with Christ that is distinct from the covenant made with the elect?_
> 
> I answer, *no*.


My understanding in Classic reformed CT is that there are basically 3 separate (using that word loosely) covenants (though they are all tied together in a sense as well).

I have been taught and understand that there are 3 main covenants: CoR (among the Godhead) as the umbrella over the CoW (Pre-fall with man) and the CoG (Post-Fall covenants with man). Is that view in line or out of line with the most common view of Classical CT?

My overall CT view is most briefly described here:
https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/worksgraceredmpt.html

As always I am open to correction.


----------



## Jonathan R

Grant.Jones said:


> Strange indeed. I am the head of my family and I am a member of my family. A "Head" is a "member" of a body.
> 
> Maybe you are trying to convey that we are not equal to Christ? I would agree with that.



Granted - hence my hesitancy in speaking that way. Perhaps a better manner of speaking would be to say that Christ is not a member of the CoG in the same manner as we are, he being the founder and we being those who enter in.



Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Are you implying the CoR (_pactum_ _salutis_) is a different covenant than the CoG made with the elect? Was not the CoR made with Our Lord and with those _in Him_ (the elect)?



This seems to have been answered above to some degree, but in short, yes. As was pointed out, the difference in membership is one thing (intra-Trinitarian vs. God and man), but also the purpose. Where the CoR is the accomplishment and securing of redemption while the CoG is the application of it. Not that there is a great divide between these two things, but it seems proper to consider them two separate covenants so that we do not confuse the matter.



Contra_Mundum said:


> I want to be careful not to claim to speak for every Baptist; so let my language be understood as consistent with the counsels I have received (mostly) from Baptist brothers here on the PB. That's what I mean when I say I feel confident I'm speaking in a way I think many will agree with. I could have no higher praise than if someone I disagree with appreciates a faithful expression of his view in my words.
> [.....]
> So, that Baptist who thinks the NC is _only _and _always _perfectly administered, does not--cannot--agree that the NC is administered (strictly speaking) through the church and its officers. They are not perfect, all agree on that. Nor is a congregation on earth free in its members (infallibly) from anyone but the elect. And the NC is (Jer.31:34) on the Baptist reading comprised exclusively of the saved.
> [.....]
> The Baptist will affirm there are undoubtedly "ministers of the new covenant," 2Cor.3:6; but they are not _administering _the covenant in an imperfect, down-to-earth way analogous to the Spirit's administration, but unto all its members irrespective of elect or saved status. Baptists understand that something like that was in effect in OT Israel (but only in a typological and imitative fashion).



I do not find anything objectionable in your description, though it is my own need to study into the term "administration" more to understand your use of it, especially in a baptist context. It has been a while since I was in discussions like this.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Patrick,
The camp is split on this one. I side with Rutherford, Owen and a few others on the matter. I disagree with Boston. I hold to a two covenant theology (in time); the C of G and the C of W's.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## JTB.SDG

Grant.Jones said:


> I just finished the article. I again would like to say thanks! This really helped me to clear a lot of questions up and the summary charts were very helpful.
> 
> Side note: I learned from the article also that I needed some theological correction regarding the three forms of the Moral Law....I had never been taught that view before (growing up a baptist). This new (reformed) understanding will be very helpful as I teach through some of Paul's letters to my family and teaching opportunities at my church.
> 
> A picture quote from the "ruinandredepmtion" article that was very edifying..hopefully it will be for all your brothers as well:
> View attachment 5673 View attachment 5674


So glad it was helpful Grant.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

JTB.SDG said:


> So glad it was helpful Grant.


Jon, I have been seriously thinking about doing the course (as a 'backsliding' Reformed Baptist  ) but thought it makes good sense to start it after you post your "Introduction to Covenant Theology" lesson onto the webpage.

A very gentle hint  I am actually greatly looking forward to learning from it.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Stephen L Smith said:


> Jon, I have been seriously thinking about doing the course (as a 'backsliding' Reformed Baptist  ) but thought it makes good sense to start it after you post your "Introduction to Covenant Theology" lesson onto the webpage.
> 
> A very gentle hint  I am actually greatly looking forward to learning from it.



Stephen,

I'm planning on writing on David first and maybe also the new covenant before I edit through the first lesson; so I suspect it will be a while (a year?) before I get the first one up. But if you PM me your email I can send you the unedited version of the first lesson.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

_This is extremely basic and very straight forward:_

Wilhelmus à Brakel, The Christian’s Reasonable Service, Vol. 4, pp. 402-408

After Israel had arrived at Horeb, Moses ascended the mountain. God commanded Moses to ask the people on His behalf if they wished to remain in the covenant and be obedient to Him (Exod 19:8). Moses relayed the message, and the people responded at once: “All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exod 19:8). Thus, we truly have a covenant transaction here: God proposed the covenant and added a promise, upon which the people accepted it.

This raises the following question: Is the covenant made at Horeb the covenant of grace itself, or is it a national, external, and typical covenant, having as its only promise the inheritance of Canaan—and is thus the point at which the Old Testament commences?

We answer as follows:

(1) It is the covenant of grace itself. This transaction is but a solemn renewal of that covenant of which all believers since Adam have been partakers. God renewed this covenant with Abraham and his seed, confirming it with the sacrament of circumcision.

(2) The sound of the term national covenant is such, that it sometimes causes confusion for those who are not well-informed. It is, however, the covenant of grace which had previously been established with believers, but since the time of Abraham had been restricted to the posterity of Abraham. Only in that respect, and in none other, may it be referred to as a national covenant. The word “national” is not to be found in the Bible.

(3) An external covenant, consisting in temporal promises contingent upon external obedience, had never been established. There can be no such covenant between God and man. We have dealt with this extensively in volume one (chapter 16, pp. 457-463).

(4) The covenant of grace is a typical covenant, and therefore can be referred to as such, since it was administered by types which pointed to Christ. The administration of the covenant is therefore occasionally denominated as the covenant (Gen 17:3; Jer 31:31). In designating this covenant as a typical covenant, one is not to imply that it did not have an inherent spiritual promise; that is, that the covenant was only typical of spiritual benefits—particularly those of the New Testament. There is not one trace of evidence in God‟s Word that this is so. Such a notion is thus to be rejected as quickly as it is stated.

(5) The Old Testament is the very embodiment of the covenant of grace, administered in the old fashion by way of shadows—and nothing other than that. If the Old Testament were other than the covenant of grace, the death of a testator other than Jesus Christ would be necessary, for no testament is confirmed except in the death of the testator (Heb 9:16-17). Furthermore, the Old Testament neither began at Horeb, having been in existence since the time of Adam, nor consisted in the inheritance of Canaan, as we have shown in detail in the previous chapter.

We have stated all this by way of general introduction.

Since the Old Testament neither began at Horeb, but rather with Adam and neither consists in the inheritance of Canaan nor is an external covenant, it remains that the covenant made at Horeb is the covenant of grace itself. This is evident for the following reasons:

First, the covenant made at Horeb is not a new covenant, but a renewal of a covenant previously established. This is evident from Exod 19 and from all God‟s dealings with Israel during their stay at Horeb. Nothing is stated there which even resembles the establishment of a new covenant—a covenant which previously had not existed. Rather, the covenant dealt with is consistently the covenant which existed previously. Observe this at the beginning of the chapter: “Now therefore, if ye will obey My voice indeed, and keep My covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people: for all the earth is Mine: and ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel. And all the people answered together, and said, All that the Lord hath spoken we will do” (Exod 19:5-6,8). Here we have the solemn confirmation of the covenant. God proposes His requirements and makes promises, and all of Israel acquiesces. God neither speaks a word about Canaan nor of anything new. In His proposition He speaks of My covenant as a covenant that already existed and of which Israel knew. It is this covenant to which they simultaneously and solemnly agreed. Thus, the covenant was already in existence.

On the basis of and following this proceeded 1) the giving of the law of the ten commandments by God as their God (if this law were a formula of the covenant of grace, it would powerfully confirm the matter) and 2) the institution of an orderly worship, by way of types of Jesus Christ. Therefore, this covenant was not first established at Horeb, but existed prior to it. The transaction there pertained to a covenant that already existed. Prior to this there was, however, no other covenant than the covenant of grace. Thus, the covenant at Horeb is the covenant of grace.

Secondly, the covenant established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob was the covenant of grace. The covenant at Horeb was, however, the same covenant as was established with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. Thus, the covenant established at Horeb is the covenant of grace.

It is evident that the covenant with Abraham is the covenant of grace for the following reasons:

(1) It had Christ as its Mediator (Gen 12:2-3; Gal 3:17).

(2) It had God as a God who was a shield and a great reward (Gen 15:1; Gen 17:8).

(3) By it Abraham was established as the father of all believers (Gen 17:2,4; Rom 4:11).

(4) It had to be embraced by faith (Gen 25:6; Gen 17:3; Rom 4:18-20).

(5) It had circumcision as a seal of the righteousness of faith (Rom 4:11).

That the covenant made at Horeb was the same covenant made with Abraham is first of all evident from the fact that it contained the same promises, had the same rule of life, and had the same manner of worship.

(1) It contained the same spiritual and temporal promises. The spiritual promise was that God would be their God, and that they would belong to God. “I am the Lord thy God” (Exod 20:2); “And I will dwell among the children of Israel, and will be their God” (Exod 29:45); “Ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto Me above all people” (Exod 19:6). That this is the essence of the covenant of grace is evident from 2 Cor 6:16: “I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” Furthermore, they were a royal priesthood and a holy nation: “And ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation” (Exod 19:6); “But ye are … a royal priesthood, an holy nation” (1 Pet 2:9).

The temporal promises were also the same—as for instance, the promise of Canaan. God gave this land to Abraham. “And I will give unto thee … the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession” (Gen 17:8); “The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it” (Gen 28:13). Thus, Canaan belonged to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob successively, and their descendants inherited it as an inheritance received from their father. The possessions of the parents are for the children.

(2) It had the same rule of life—the will of God to love the Lord, and to fear, believe, and trust Him. All this is comprehended in the command: “Walk before Me, and be thou perfect” (Gen 17:1). At Mount Horeb, God gave the identical command to Israel by way of the law of the ten commandments annunciated there.

(3) There was the same manner of worship—by way of shadows. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob made altars of earth, and also offered sacrifices as Cain, Abel, and Noah did before them. They had  (mishmor),  (mitsvah),  (chakkah), and  (thorah). These are words which are generally expressive of laws—both moral and ceremonial. “Because that Abraham obeyed My voice, and kept My charge, My commandments, My statutes, and My laws” (Gen 26:5). They had circumcision as a sacrament of the covenant. Israel had the same ordinance—the same sacrament. Since everything was identical, Israel had the same covenant which was established with Abraham.

Secondly, it is evident that the covenant established with Israel was identical to the covenant God established with Abraham from the fact that when mention is made of the covenant with Israel, reference is continually made to the covenant with Abraham, the declaration being that they are one and the same. “Thou shalt therefore keep the commandments, and the statutes, and the judgments, which I command thee this day, to do them. Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers” (Deut 7:11-12); “Keep therefore the words of this covenant, and do them. … Ye stand this day all of you before the Lord your God. … That thou shouldest enter into covenant with the Lord thy God, and into His oath, which the Lord thy God maketh with thee this day: that He may establish thee to day for a people unto Himself, and that He may be unto thee a God, as He hath said unto thee, and as He hath sworn unto thy fathers, to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob” Deut 29:9-10,12-13.

Thus, the covenant which God established with Israel, along with the promises and the benefits, is the same; it is none other than the covenant God made with Abraham—and is thus the covenant of grace itself.

Evasive Argument: In these texts it is indeed stated that God swore to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob that the covenant He made with Israel at Horeb would be established with their seed; but not that it is the same covenant.

Answer (1) This is merely conjecture and its conclusion can be answered with a denial.

(2) It expressly contradicts those texts which declare that God has established this covenant with Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and that God would confirm that identical covenant with Israel, their seed.

(3) It contradicts Gen 17:7 where the Lord enters into covenant with Abraham, and in him with his seed—it being declared to be one and the same covenant. Furthermore, regarding Canaan, it was given to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; it was their land. “And I will give unto thee … all the land of Canaan” (Gen 17:8); “The land whereon thou liest, to thee will I give it” (Gen 28:13). Israel received it from their father as an inheritance. Abraham had the property rights, and Israel, by reason of those rights, came into its possession in accordance with the Lord‟s promise made to Abraham that He would do so.

Thirdly, not one person who is of Reformed persuasion will deny (no one can deny it!) that the covenant which has Christ as its Surety and Mediator is the covenant of grace. Such is true, however, for the covenant of Horeb, for it does have Christ as its Mediator, which is evident from the fact that it was ratified with blood. “And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you” (Exod 24:8); “Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood. For when Moses had spoken every precept to all the people according to the law, he took the blood of calves and of goats, with water, and scarlet wool, and hyssop, and sprinkled both the book, and all the people” (Heb 9:18-19).

God had given the blood to make atonement for man. “For the life of the flesh is in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul” (Lev 17:11).

The blood of animals was not capable of reconciling man with God. “For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats should take away sins” (Heb 10:4).

This efficacy is, however, to be found in the blood of the Lord Jesus: “Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood” (Rom 3:25); “In whom we have redemption through His blood” (Eph 1:7). The blood of animals sacrificed in the Old Testament was a type of the blood of Christ—just as the entire law of shadows pointed to future benefits and was not the essence of the matter itself (Heb 10:1). This is particularly to be observed in Heb 9 where the apostle continually compares the blood of bullocks and goats with the blood of the Lord Jesus, that is, the type with the antitype (vss. 12-14,20,25). Speaking of this in verse 23, he says, “It was therefore necessary that the patterns of things in the heavens should be purified with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these” (Heb 9:23). Therefore, just as Moses sprinkled the book and the people, the blood of Christ is called the blood of sprinkling (Heb 12:24; 1 Pet 1:2). It is thus both certain and obvious that the sprinkling of the book of the covenant and of the people pointed to the sprinkling of the blood of Christ (that is, the appropriation and application thereof), confirming the covenant of grace. Thus, the covenant of Sinai had Christ as its Mediator, and consequently was the covenant of grace.

Fourthly, that covenant is the covenant of grace itself which has as its sacraments the sacraments of grace. A seal confirms a covenant—and then only that covenant of which it is a seal. To sever a seal from one covenant and to attach it to another covenant of an entirely different content is the height of infidelity. However, the covenant of Sinai has as its seals the seals of the covenant of grace. It was confirmed by circumcision and the Passover, both of which the children of Israel were commanded to strictly observe upon the threat of excommunication; that is, expulsion from the congregation of God and the covenant. It has been confirmed in the previous chapter that circumcision and the Passover were the seals of the covenant of grace. Both were instituted prior to the covenant at Horeb. The disputants admit that nothing but the covenant of grace existed previously. Both sealed the covenant of grace: Circumcision was the seal of the righteousness of faith Rom 4:11, and the Passover was Christ (1 Cor 5:7).

Along with the three previous proofs, this proves that the covenant of Horeb was the covenant of grace.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 2


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> My understanding in Classic reformed CT is that there are basically 3 separate (using that word loosely) covenants (though they are all tied together in a sense as well).
> 
> I have been taught and understand that there are 3 main covenants: CoR (among the Godhead) as the umbrella over the CoW (Pre-fall with man) and the CoG (Post-Fall covenants with man). Is that view in line or out of line with the most common view of Classical CT?
> 
> My overall CT view is most briefly described here:
> https://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/worksgraceredmpt.html
> 
> As always I am open to correction.


My understanding has been that there are mainly 2 Covenants in the scriptures, the first being one of Works, which Adam was under originally, and the one of grace now.


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> Classic CT considers that in the ages prior to Christ, as well as in the penultimate age in which we live (not in the final state of glory yet) which is the New Covenant age (but not yet perfect), to mean that there are, and always have been, two ways to relate to the one Covenant of Grace--one is purely administrative (human administration), the other is substantive (in the Spirit, with divine administration) that ordinarily has an historical relation to one or another of the earthly administrations.
> 
> It is what we mean when we say that ordinarily there is no salvation outside the church. There's a robust relation of analogy that belongs between the visible and the invisible, the church's ministry is actually acting in Christ's stead and carrying out spiritually effective work. So, there was in the OT the administration of covenant by men appointed to that function. In the beginning, there were heads of families (such as Abraham) who fulfilled this administrative role mediating (externally) for the covenant of grace. I can point you to clear instances of his history when Abraham exercises the offices of king, of prophet, and of priest for the covenant he has been given to lead.
> 
> Later, that role is fulfilled in three separate offices in Israel, sometimes two held by one man, but never three; and never a king and a priest in one, until the Christ who is the Mediator--Prophet, Priest, and King. But in the NT age, a classic covenant theologian still understands the role of the ministry as office-holders, as successors of the apostles (in doctrine and service, not in an unbroken chain), and thus administrators of the covenant in its present form.
> 
> The King has a kingdom and a government with servants to run it, to administrate its affairs on his behalf and for the good of his citizens. But as in the earlier ages, both the men of the present ministry, as well as the current citizens, are human, are sinners, and some are completely false.
> 
> I want to be careful not to claim to speak for every Baptist; so let my language be understood as consistent with the counsels I have received (mostly) from Baptist brothers here on the PB. That's what I mean when I say I feel confident I'm speaking in a way I think many will agree with. I could have no higher praise than if someone I disagree with appreciates a faithful expression of his view in my words.
> 
> So, that Baptist who thinks the NC is _only _and _always _perfectly administered, does not--cannot--agree that the NC is administered (strictly speaking) through the church and its officers. They are not perfect, all agree on that. Nor is a congregation on earth free in its members (infallibly) from anyone but the elect. And the NC is (Jer.31:34) on the Baptist reading comprised exclusively of the saved.
> 
> The Baptist will affirm there are undoubtedly "ministers of the new covenant," 2Cor.3:6; but they are not _administering _the covenant in an imperfect, down-to-earth way analogous to the Spirit's administration, but unto all its members irrespective of elect or saved status. Baptists understand that something like that was in effect in OT Israel (but only in a typological and imitative fashion).
> 
> But even there, as that covenant was not (strictly) an _administration _of the Covenant of Grace, but merely a pointer to it, those officers were not doing duty as servants/ministers of the Grace/New Covenant. They rehearsed imperfectly the perfect future work of the One Servant and his Spirit for an illustration and witness to those living at the time. But their work did not go further into functional CoG administration.
> 
> Again, for the Baptist there is *either *man's administration of earthly covenants, *or *divine administration of the spiritual covenant. There is no ongoing (neither then nor now) analogous and parallel human-and-divine activity, not in the strict sense. I'm waiting now for one of the brothers to come forward with a protest to my characterization. I'm happy to have it stated better or in a more nuanced manner. But please accept that my aim here is a clean, unambiguous representation of the line of differentiation.


The main division seems to be around the concept of just how really new is the New Covenant, and how Baptists see as you correctly stated here, just how all under the new Covenant are the elect only now ion Christ Jesus. That view leads to how Baptists view water baptism as the signto be applied towards saved only now.


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You might consider Psalm 110, John 17, or Hebrews 7, wherein something describing the relationship between the persons of the Trinity, especially Father and Son is described.


I do see that in the CoW and the CoG, but where is that third One spoken to of in the scriptures?


----------



## TylerRay

Jonathan R said:


> I may need to be careful in my phrasing here, but it would be improper to consider Christ a member of the Covenant of Grace, as he is its head.


I prefer the Larger Catechism's formulation:


> *Q. 31. With whom was the covenant of grace made?*
> A. The covenant of grace was made with Christ as the second Adam, and in him with all the elect as his seed.



Christ is a party to the covenant of Grace, and the elect are parties to the covenant only insofar as they are in Christ, who acts as their representative.

To be clear: I reject the idea of a Covenant of Redemption separate from the Covenant of Grace. Christ stands in the same place in the Covenant of Grace as Adam did in the Covenant of Works.

Here's a good lecture on the debate over a two-covenant scheme vs three-covenant scheme: Stephen Myers - The Cov. of Redemption in Post–Reformation Scottish Theology

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## Smeagol

TylerRay said:


> I prefer the Larger Catechism's formulation:
> 
> 
> Christ is a party to the covenant of Grace, and the elect are parties to the covenant only insofar as they are in Christ, who acts as their representative.
> 
> To be clear: I reject the idea of a Covenant of Redemption separate from the Covenant of Grace. Christ stands in the same place in the Covenant of Grace as Adam did in the Covenant of Works.
> 
> Here's a good lecture on the debate over a two-covenant scheme vs three-covenant scheme: Stephen Myers - The Cov. of Redemption in Post–Reformation Scottish Theology


Thanks for the video. The first 5 minutes helped me to see the difference more clearly. At least Today, I would classify myself as tri-covenantal..not looking to change the thread topic, so I will leave it at that.


----------



## Scott Bushey

TylerRay said:


> I reject the idea of a Covenant of Redemption separate from the Covenant of Grace. Christ stands in the same place in the Covenant of Grace as Adam did in the Covenant of Works.



Hi Tyler,
How does holding to a separate C of R, affect Christ 'standing in the same place'?


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> I do see that in the CoW and the CoG, but where is that third One spoken to of in the scriptures?


For my curiosity, if you see the CoG as only including the NC.....then how do you only see 2 covenants? In other words how do you divide/categorize the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic?

Do you see them as falling under the CoW?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> I do see that in the CoW and the CoG, but where is that third One spoken to of in the scriptures?


You won't find the CoR (council of peace) found explicitly in Scripture. Rather it was teased out by early church divines from the full counsel of Scripture.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You won't find the CoR (council of peace) found explicitly in Scripture. Rather it was teased out by early church divines from the full counsel of Scripture.


The traditional way to see it would be the main 2 Covenants though, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> For my curiosity, if you see the CoG as only including the NC.....then how do you only see 2 covenants? In other words how do you divide/categorize the Noahic, Abrahamic, Mosaic, and Davidic?
> 
> Do you see them as falling under the CoW?


No, as after the fall, I see it just being the CoG forward, but different administrations of it, and the fullest and complete version of it is the New Covenant now, as only the saved of God are actually under it.
So water baptism just applies towards those now under it, those who have been saved now.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I see it just being the CoG forward, but different administrations of it, and the fullest and complete version of it is the New Covenant now, as only the saved of God are actually under it.



Say this back to yourself a few times and see if you hiccup... 

God's plan of salvation has always included internal and external sides; for thousands of years, it worked. Then in the NT time period, after Christ is, 'in the fullness of time', physically manifested, the inclusion changes as if that perfected something or it gave the creature a better estimator of true believers or something.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Say this back to yourself a few times and see if you hiccup...
> 
> God's plan of salvation has always included internal and external sides; for thousands of years, it worked. Then in the NT time period, after Christ is, 'in the fullness of time', physically manifested, the inclusion changes as if that perfected something or it gave the creature a better estimator of true believers or something.


We are now under the newer and better, more sure Covenant, correct?


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> No, as after the fall, I see it just being the CoG forward, but different administrations of it, and the fullest and complete version of it is the New Covenant now, as only the saved of God are actually under it.
> So water baptism just applies towards those now under it, those who have been saved now.


Curious...... what was your vote in the poll?


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Curious...... what was your vote in the poll?


The one where it was the CoG after the CoW was ended.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> The one where it was the CoG after the CoW was ended.


So you selected the first choice........hmmmm

Dachaser..I think you might be VERY close to becoming a Presbyterian ..muahahaha

I say this because my understanding of 1689 LBC vs. Westminster Standards is depicted below (this is from www.1689federalism.com):

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> We are now under the newer and better, more sure Covenant, correct?


Yes, but that 'better' covenant is the C of G. Christ dying was the consummating moment in time, i.e. "it is finished", i.e. It has begun (back in Gen 3).


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> You won't find the CoR (council of peace) found explicitly in Scripture. Rather it was teased out by early church divines from the full counsel of Scripture.


Purely for clarification...

Zech.6:13 makes a reference to "the counsel of peace between them both;" so it's probably fair to say that the theological choice of terms by some party was made specifically with this sort of terminology close in the background, to connect it to biblical language. 

There is an interpretive debate as to whether "the two of them" are 1) a reference to concord and eventual union in Messiah of the throne (monarchy, Zerubbabel) and the miter (priesthood, Joshua); or 2) converse between Jehovah as King and his Messiah-Branch (cf. Is.49:1-13, which is I think a fair description of the CoR).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Yes, but that 'better' covenant is the C of G. Christ dying was the consummating moment in time, i.e. "it is finished", i.e. It has begun (back in Gen 3).


We have all spiritual blessings now in Christ, as those were not all there for the OT saints who had been saved by the Lord.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> So you selected the first choice........hmmmm
> 
> Dachaser..I think you might be VERY close to becoming a Presbyterian ..muahahaha
> 
> I say this because my understanding of 1689 LBC vs. Westminster Standards is depicted below (this is from www.1689federalism.com):View attachment 5677


I have gone form being a Charismatic baptist, to a Dispensational one, to being a preMil Reformed Baptist person, but water baptism and the question on just how new is the New Covenant prevents me from going over all of the way.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> We have all spiritual blessings now in Christ, as those were not all there for the OT saints who had been saved by the Lord.



What might those be?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> What might those be?


Direct access to God, Jesus being our High Priest, having the intercession of the Holy Spirit for us in our prayers to God, straight path to heaven at death, for some of those!


----------



## TheOldCourse

Dachaser said:


> Direct access to God, Jesus being our High Priest, having the intercession of the Holy Spirit for us in our prayers to God, straight path to heaven at death, for some of those!



King David, and the rest of the OT saints, would demur.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Direct access to God, Jesus being our High Priest, having the intercession of the Holy Spirit for us in our prayers to God, straight path to heaven at death, for some of those!



David,
You’re kidding, right?


----------



## Scott Bushey

In many ways the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints: we have the scriptures, they had real prophets, God speaking directly to His people, theophanies, etc. Christ was the same for them. There has only been one mediator to God, for all time.


----------



## Smeagol

Scott Bushey said:


> In many ways the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints: we have the scriptures, they had real prophets, God speaking directly to His people, theophanies, etc. Christ was the same for them. There has only been one mediator to God, for all time.


Uh.....I am thankful to be a NT saint....For one: can you imagine being an adult male convert in the OT (the OT sign/seal)..

Hopefully it is obvious why in other ways as well.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

TheOldCourse said:


> King David, and the rest of the OT saints, would demur.


The Holy Spirit came and went upon those such as prophets and Kings correct? They had to go through the sacrificial system and the priest, not straight to throne of Grace, correct? They had no high priest in heaven, as there was just the one upon the earth. correct?


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> In many ways the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints: we have the scriptures, they had real prophets, God speaking directly to His people, theophanies, etc. Christ was the same for them. There has only been one mediator to God, for all time.


They did not have the empowerment of the Holy Spirit as we do today, did not have the full scriptures, they did not have direct and immediate access to God, so glad to be under the NC.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Both your posts above are theologically flawed and tainted with dispensationalism. 

Consider the elect person of the OT, regenerated and converted, yet did not have the HS in dwelling them. They would immediately apostatize the faith.

All believers have to had have the HS indwelling- never mind the time period. The time of Acts, described in the book of Joel is an amplification only. 

If the OT saint did not have Christ as mediator, they all perished.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Scott Bushey said:


> Yes, but that 'better' covenant is the C of G. Christ dying was the consummating moment in time, i.e. "it is finished", i.e. It has begun (back in Gen 3).


Could you elaborate? What Covenants do you think the writer of Hebrews was contrasting?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Doulos McKenzie said:


> Could you elaborate? What Covenants do you think the writer of Hebrews was contrasting?



Let me ask u a question: How is it that on one hand the Mosaic is a gracious covenant, i.e. men were saved under gospel preaching during that age, yet the Apostle Paul calls the decalogue a "ministration of death". How can it be both?


*2 Corinthians 3:7 *

7 But if the ministration of death, written _and_ engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which _glory_ was to be done away: 



_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 2 Co 3:7.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Scott Bushey said:


> Let me ask u a question: How is it that on one hand the Mosaic is a gracious covenant, i.e. men were saved under gospel preaching during that age, yet the Apostle Paul calls the decalogue a "ministration of death". How can it be both?
> 
> 
> *2 Corinthians 3:7 *
> 
> 7 But if the ministration of death, written _and_ engraven in stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not stedfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of his countenance; which _glory_ was to be done away:
> 
> 
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), 2 Co 3:7.


Because the outward administration of the Mosaic Covenant involved works in regard to how the nation should act. But I think you probably have a better answer. What is the answer? Help a younger brother out.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

I believe the writer of Hebrews and the Apostle Paul are speaking specifically to those people who are in the external side of the C of G and the internal side of the C of W's. Trying to get justification by law keeping will surely kill you.


----------



## Doulos McKenzie

Scott Bushey said:


> I believe the writer of Hebrews and the Apostle Paul are speaking specifically to those people who are in the external side of the C of G and the internal side of the C of W's. Trying to get justification by law keeping will surely kill you.


That makes sense. I'll try rereading them with that in mind and see where it goes. Thx

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Yea, it's not the Mosaic or decalogue per se, but those trying to get justified by the work; because the Mosaic is a graceful covenant.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> In many ways the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints: we have the scriptures, they had real prophets, God speaking directly to His people, theophanies, etc. Christ was the same for them. There has only been one mediator to God, for all time.


Scott, you have stated that some on the PuritanBoard are guilty of a form of dispensationalism but I don't think this statement is any better. Read Hebrews 1. "Long ago, at many times and in many ways, God spoke to our fathers by the prophets, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son". In light of this statement contrasting the Fathers to 'today', I cannot see how you can claim 'the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints'.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Stephen L Smith said:


> I cannot see how you can claim 'the OT saint had a hands up on us NT saints'.



'Hands up' was probably a bad description; they did however, have a benefit that we don't. That being, what I've said above.

The 1st chapter of Hebrews has to be read in it's proper light; Did the OT saint have communication w/ Christ? I am confident they did. It's an interesting statement for sure. I believe much of what the writer is saying is now we have the physical manifestation of the son in human form as well as the actual words of Christ to reflect upon, whereas in times past, it was theophanies only. But then again, Christ is God, right?

In regards to dispensationalism; I am confident that you know the difference between biblical dispensations and dispensationalism. I was not referring to the former, which is acceptable.

All epochs of time had special benefits; one is not truly better than the other. Compare the canon to God speaking directly to His people or that they actually had prophets. There are special blessings attached to each time period.


----------



## TheOldCourse

Dachaser said:


> The Holy Spirit came and went upon those such as prophets and Kings correct? They had to go through the sacrificial system and the priest, not straight to throne of Grace, correct? They had no high priest in heaven, as there was just the one upon the earth. correct?



Read the Psalms (hence my reference to King David), was his communion with God, his pleas he laid before the throne of grace, any less intimate than ours? If they had no high priest in heaven, how were their sins atoned for? We know it was not by the blood of beasts. It's true that, temporally speaking, Jesus had not consummated his priestly office yet, however Christ was their high priest no less. The temple apparatus was a shadow of heavenly things. How can things which did not exist for them cast shadows? While we see the reality behind those shadows more clearly with greater revelation, the reality was still present for the OT saints.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Grant.Jones said:


> So you selected the first choice........hmmmm
> 
> Dachaser..I think you might be VERY close to becoming a Presbyterian ..muahahaha
> 
> I say this because my understanding of 1689 LBC vs. Westminster Standards is depicted below (this is from www.1689federalism.com):View attachment 5677


Sorry to jump in so late in the thread; I've been away most of the week. I just had to chime in, though, and say that "1689 Federalism" is NOT the view of most of us Reformed Baptists. A lot of the differences between what we began to call "Vanilla RB" and Federalism (for the sake of distinction) were hashed out in great detail over the course of several threads almost a year ago. If I were more computer savvy I'd find the links, but I'm helpless in that regard.
I might not have piped up at all, but I do not care to be tarred with the same brush as the 1689 Federalists. So, simply put:
Salvation has always been of grace. So the CoG began the moment God declared a savior from sins in Gen 3. All grace is found in Christ, to whom all the covenants were leading up. But the covenants were administered differently in different ages as God saw fit: He was painting pictures, as it were: physical pictures of spiritual realities. The New Covenant is new because it is the culmination, the apex, the glorious pinnacle that all the OT types and shadows were leading up to. But in all ages salvation was all of grace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> Sorry to jump in so late in the thread; I've been away most of the week. I just had to chime in, though, and say that "1689 Federalism" is NOT the view of most of us Reformed Baptists. A lot of the differences between what we began to call "Vanilla RB" and Federalism (for the sake of distinction) were hashed out in great detail over the course of several threads almost a year ago. If I were more computer savvy I'd find the links, but I'm helpless in that regard.
> I might not have piped up at all, but I do not care to be tarred with the same brush as the 1689 Federalists. So, simply put:
> Salvation has always been of grace. So the CoG began the moment God declared a savior from sins in Gen 3. All grace is found in Christ, to whom all the covenants were leading up. But the covenants were administered differently in different ages as God saw fit: He was painting pictures, as it were: physical pictures of spiritual realities. The New Covenant is new because it is the culmination, the apex, the glorious pinnacle that all the OT types and shadows were leading up to. But in all ages salvation was all of grace.


Ben,

Thanks for contributing. No apology needed, this has been a great thread. I agree I have come across two different types of reformed baptist with very different CT.

The 1689federalism site used to have a chart comparing 1689 federalism and the other RB view(of which you speak) of CT, but i cannot find it on there site anymore, nor can i recall what they entitled it.
But what I do remember is that the only (using loosely so everyone calm down) difference between the “vanilla RB” and Westminster CT is the visible church membership (children of believing parents) and the sign application.

To which I say.... “Your almost there!!”...haha respectfully

As a former baptist and when I held to the 2LBC I held your view of CT and disagreed with the 1689federalist. However, those guys seem to claim to have the more historical RB view.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Both your posts above are theologically flawed and tainted with dispensationalism.
> 
> Consider the elect person of the OT, regenerated and converted, yet did not have the HS in dwelling them. They would immediately apostatize the faith.
> 
> All believers have to had have the HS indwelling- never mind the time period. The time of Acts, described in the book of Joel is an amplification only.
> 
> If the OT saint did not have Christ as mediator, they all perished.


Hebrews 10:16 seems to show to us that the NC was indeed a new work of God, in which ALL of the saved under it now would receive the promised Holy Spirit inwardly.
I have also read reformed authors who seem to think that OT believers were regenerated by God, but not all indwelt, as that was reserved for prophets/priests and Kings.


----------



## Dachaser

TheOldCourse said:


> Read the Psalms (hence my reference to King David), was his communion with God, his pleas he laid before the throne of grace, any less intimate than ours? If they had no high priest in heaven, how were their sins atoned for? We know it was not by the blood of beasts. It's true that, temporally speaking, Jesus had not consummated his priestly office yet, however Christ was their high priest no less. The temple apparatus was a shadow of heavenly things. How can things which did not exist for them cast shadows? While we see the reality behind those shadows more clearly with greater revelation, the reality was still present for the OT saints.


Prophets/priests and the Kings had the presence of the Holy Spirit, but he did seem to come upon them when needed, and not be sealed in them.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Ben,
> 
> Thanks for contributing. No apology needed, this has been a great thread. I agree I have come across two different types of reformed baptist with very different CT.
> 
> The 1689federalism site used to have a chart comparing 1689 federalism and the other RB view(of which you speak) of CT, but i cannot find it on there site anymore, nor can i recall what they entitled it.
> But what I do remember is that the only (using loosely so everyone calm down) difference between the “vanilla RB” and Westminster CT is the visible church membership (children of believing parents) and the sign application.
> 
> To which I say.... “Your almost there!!”...haha respectfully
> 
> As a former baptist and when I held to the 2LBC I held your view of CT and disagreed with the 1689federalist. However, those guys seem to claim to have the more historical RB view.


Their viewpoint is said to agree more with the 1689 LBCF.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> 'Hands up' was probably a bad description; they did however, have a benefit that we don't. That being, what I've said above.
> 
> The 1st chapter of Hebrews has to be read in it's proper light; Did the OT saint have communication w/ Christ? I am confident they did. It's an interesting statement for sure. I believe much of what the writer is saying is now we have the physical manifestation of the son in human form as well as the actual words of Christ to reflect upon, whereas in times past, it was theophanies only. But then again, Christ is God, right?
> 
> In regards to dispensationalism; I am confident that you know the difference between biblical dispensations and dispensationalism. I was not referring to the former, which is acceptable.
> 
> All epochs of time had special benefits; one is not truly better than the other. Compare the canon to God speaking directly to His people or that they actually had prophets. There are special blessings attached to each time period.


The author of Hebrews though would see the NC as transcending the OC, being much superior to any prior workings between God and man.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> Hebrews 10:16 seems to show to us that the NC was indeed a new work of God, in which ALL of the saved under it now would receive the promised Holy Spirit inwardly.
> I have also read reformed authors who seem to think that OT believers were regenerated by God, but not all indwelt, as that was reserved for prophets/priests and Kings.





Dachaser said:


> Prophets/priests and the Kings had the presence of the Holy Spirit, but he did seem to come upon them when needed, and not be sealed in them.



I have some questions for you:
1- How did the O.T. saint come to believe in the promise? Was it his own will? When the H.S. "left" (oh, I don't know, to go on vacation or to check up on someone else?!?), how did that saint continue to believe? Did sanctification cease for that period of time? 
2- How does your church treat people in the pew that you don't deem "saved" (what if someone accidentally forgot the regeneration goggles next to the coffee pot at home?)?


----------



## Smeagol

Gforce9 said:


> I have some questions for you:
> 1- How did the O.T. saint come to believe in the promise? Was it his own will? When the H.S. "left" (oh, I don't know, to go on vacation or to check up on someone else?!?), how did that saint continue to believe? Did sanctification cease for that period of time?
> 2- How does your church treat people in the pew that you don't deem "saved" (what if someone accidentally forgot the regeneration goggles next to the coffee pot at home?)?


What is strange is that I think you both probably voted the same way on the Poll.



Dachaser said:


> The author of Hebrews though would see the NC as transcending the OC, being much superior to any prior workings between God and man.


David I do think you are seeing too much discontinuity (at least if you voted for the first option in the Poll), which would very easy for us all to do if we ONLY had the book of Hebrews (even though I feel Hebrews helps tremendously for having a biblical CT), but we don’t. The CoG and the benefits thereof can be traced through all Post-Fall covenants in some form or fashion.... in the N.C. we just see all of the realities revealed and on display much more clearly. We also obtain a much less painful (physically) covenantal sign (#whenisthelasttimeyousharpenedyourcircumcissuonrock).


----------



## Scott Bushey

It is very frustrating having to repeat biblical truth to someone who can’t see passed their own thoughts. #poor_dialog


----------



## Smeagol

Scott Bushey said:


> It is very frustrating having to repeat biblical truth to someone who can’t see passed their own thoughts. #poor_dialog


Well let’s still try to be gracious to one another. After all I am sure we all, just like the early disciples, do not see things that seem clear to others. Jesus repeatedly taught of his death and resurrection but the disciples always missed it for a time. I am not saying that David is acting like Peter prior to the rooster crow!, but rather I am lovingly reminding us all that as frustrated we might or can be... God is the only one who can be perfectly frustratedBecause of our stiff necks . So let’s extend more patience with each other, even when WE may think it is not deserved.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Grant,
For the record, this is not a new issue and I have been more than gracious. It is painful having a person constantly mucking up the discussion, time and time again with things that have been discussed, ad infinitum in the past. It clogs the threads up. Constant derails. No interactions w/ things posed-just responses. This is a discussion board; dialog is the exchanging of thoughts w/ responses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Scott Bushey said:


> Grant,
> For the record, this is not a new issue and I have been more than gracious. It is painful having a person constantly mucking up the discussion, time and time again with things that have been discussed, ad infinitum in the past. It clogs the threads up. Constant derails. No interactions w/ things posed-just responses. This is a discussion board; dialog is the exchanging of thoughts w/ responses.


 Duly noted.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Cymro

David, it was necessary that the OT believer had the indwelling Spirit in order to be quickened into life, and His continuing presence for sanctification and perseverance. Otherwise, he would live independently of the Spirit of God, which is an impossibility, and also would make him an Arminian! And He would also need a High Priest not a shadow of one, and Melchizedek who was both Priest and King was an O.T. manifestation of Christ. “Without father or mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God: abideth a Priest continually.” There had to be a real Highpriest in the heavenlies, for the the priests according to the law “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Representations of the reality, the substance not the shadow.


----------



## Dachaser

Cymro said:


> David, it was necessary that the OT believer had the indwelling Spirit in order to be quickened into life, and His continuing presence for sanctification and perseverance. Otherwise, he would live independently of the Spirit of God, which is an impossibility, and also would make him an Arminian! And He would also need a High Priest not a shadow of one, and Melchizedek who was both Priest and King was an O.T. manifestation of Christ. “Without father or mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God: abideth a Priest continually.” There had to be a real Highpriest in the heavenlies, for the the priests according to the law “serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things.” Representations of the reality, the substance not the shadow.


Jesus was not andinstarting in that capacity though as the High priest until he had come as the Messiah first, accomplished salvation work, and then on the ascension started to work as the High Priest. There was something fundementally different and better under the NC relationship with God we now all experience, as the OT believers were looking to that time of messiah coming. Matthew 13:17.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> What is strange is that I think you both probably voted the same way on the Poll.
> 
> 
> David I do think you are seeing too much discontinuity (at least if you voted for the first option in the Poll), which would very easy for us all to do if we ONLY had the book of Hebrews (even though I feel Hebrews helps tremendously for having a biblical CT), but we don’t. The CoG and the benefits thereof can be traced through all Post-Fall covenants in some form or fashion.... in the N.C. we just see all of the realities revealed and on display much more clearly. We also obtain a much less painful (physically) covenantal sign (#whenisthelasttimeyousharpenedyourcircumcissuonrock).


I tend to see the Mosaic Covenant as being mainly rooted in the Land promises and to having physical blessings based upon conditional obedience of the people. Would that actually make me more of the third answer to the survey?


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Well let’s still try to be gracious to one another. After all I am sure we all, just like the early disciples, do not see things that seem clear to others. Jesus repeatedly taught of his death and resurrection but the disciples always missed it for a time. I am not saying that David is acting like Peter prior to the rooster crow!, but rather I am lovingly reminding us all that as frustrated we might or can be... God is the only one who can be perfectly frustratedBecause of our stiff necks . So let’s extend more patience with each other, even when WE may think it is not deserved.


Galatians 6:2 comes to mind here.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> I tend to see the Mosaic Covenant as being mainly rooted in the Land promises and to having physical blessings based upon conditional obedience of the people. Would that actually make me more of the third answer to the survey?


I may not be the best equipped to answer that, but In my humble opinion based on your comments on this thread.... I would say your current vote (option 1) does harmonize with your posts on this thread. So number 2 or 3 would be a better fit unless you fully come to the Dark side (“David....*15 second smokers cough*....I am your father”).
But remember, we have NT evidence that Moses preached Christ to the OT saints and therefore they needed faith in Christ and fruit bearing (works) of their faith in the CoG. That is the same thing NT saints were called to do. One difference being OT saints called to look forward and NT saints called to backwards.


----------



## Dachaser

The Mosaic Covenant to me seems to be mainly though works related and driven, as in obey the commands of God, and He will make sure to bless you physically and financially, but disobey Him, and He allows the Devour into your life then.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> 'Hands up' was probably a bad description; they did however, have a benefit that we don't. That being, what I've said above.


Scott, I am sympathetic to your concern that some want to see a major discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. But it is hard to read Heb 1 and the whole of Hebrews without seeing that the major benefit we have is that Christ has now come *in all His blessd fullness*. Even Witsius' beloved Enconomy of the Covenants has a chapter "the defects of the Old Covenant".


----------



## Dachaser

Stephen L Smith said:


> Scott, I am sympathetic to your concern that some want to see a major discontinuity between the Old and New Covenants. But it is hard to read Heb 1 and the whole of Hebrews without seeing that the major benefit we have is that Christ has now come *in all His blessd fullness*. Even Witsius' beloved Enconomy of the Covenants has a chapter "the defects of the Old Covenant".


We are now placed under a more sure, and superior Covenant relationship, as Jesus stated that would happen right then as he shed His blood, and the rest of the NT sets forth how much more glorious the NC is when contrasted to the old One.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> without seeing that the major benefit we have is that Christ has now come *in all His blessd fullness*.



Stephen,
First of all, I never said we don't have a 'major benefit' in Christ. In post 66 w/ David, he said:

"We have all spiritual blessings now in Christ, as those were not all there for the OT saints who had been saved by the Lord."

I asked him, 'what might those be?'

My point being, we have the reality, for sure. But in our age, we have a very similar circumstance as the OT saint before the manifestation-them looking forward and us, now looking back. As far as the spiritual blessings go, I don't see too much of a difference.

I asked in an earlier reply to someone:
"Let me ask u a question: How is it that on one hand the Mosaic is a gracious covenant, i.e. men were saved under gospel preaching during that age, yet the Apostle Paul calls the decalogue a "ministration of death". How can it be both?"

How would u answer this question as it will show me how you understand (even) what Witsius meant?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> We are now placed under a more sure, and superior Covenant relationship



The NC is an admin of the C of G. All men, under the C of G are saved in the same fashion-all are filled w/ the HS, else they apostatize the faith (immediately). W/out the HS, there can be no sanctification. The NC is the result of the C of R (in it's fullness). Christ dying is not a watershed per se; The blood of Christ washes over all the OT saints from Gen 3. If you struggle with this truth, you are struggling with God. When Christ proclaimed, 'it is finished', He was referring to that which He started in the gospel after the fall. To deny this is to deny the gospel.



> Jesus stated that would happen right then as he shed His blood



This is to be seen as the consuming moment in time, when the C of R and the C of G, are fulfilled. 'It is finished', in contrast to that which began thousands of years earlier.



> NT sets forth how much more glorious the NC is when contrasted to the old One.



The 'old' is referring to those who were remaining in the internal side of the C of W's and the external side of the C of G, i.e. the local church. The law brings death! How can a law bring death, (consider all those under the Mosaic), if the sum of that part were elect, regenerated people who were in Christ (in the C of G)?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Grant.Jones said:


> Ben,
> 
> Thanks for contributing. No apology needed, this has been a great thread. I agree I have come across two different types of reformed baptist with very different CT.
> 
> The 1689federalism site used to have a chart comparing 1689 federalism and the other RB view(of which you speak) of CT, but i cannot find it on there site anymore, nor can i recall what they entitled it.
> But what I do remember is that the only (using loosely so everyone calm down) difference between the “vanilla RB” and Westminster CT is the visible church membership (children of believing parents) and the sign application.
> 
> To which I say.... “Your almost there!!”...haha respectfully
> 
> As a former baptist and when I held to the 2LBC I held your view of CT and disagreed with the 1689federalist. However, those guys seem to claim to have the more historical RB view.


They do claim to have the more historical view, but it is common for people in desperate struggle for an untenable position to try to round up dead guys to support them. I just read a book by a dispensationalist who cited several church fathers to support the claim that dispensationalism was the orthodox view of the early church!...good grief, as Charlie Brown would have said.
However, there are more differences between the Vanilla RB position and Westminster CT than just visible church membership--or rather, that one goes deeper than just "who is a member". It has to do with "Who is in covenant with God?" RBs believe that in the New Covenant (the final expression of the CoG), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. While covenant inclusion was by physical birth in the OT, it is by spiritual birth in the NT. The Nation of Israel, you see, while being God's chosen people, was an imperfect representation of what God's chosen people would look like later, when physical birth and nationality mattered not at all; when the New Birth, and to be the spiritual progeny of Abraham is what matters.
Of course, even in the OT, it was the circumcision of the heart that mattered; faith was required for regeneration, and saints were indwelt by God's spirit. But in the NT, the types and shadows--even the type of covenant inclusion by physical birth, which did not avail if God did not grant repentance and faith, have been abrogated. The covenantal sign is now given to infants in Christ--those who have just been Born Again, and are adopted into God's family, the Israel of God.
As to mode, I think immersion is best, but whether to dip, sprinkle or douse with a hose is immaterial. If mode could make or break the sign, then we could really get tied up in knots about the Lord's Supper! (which I understand some people do.....but that's for another thread).
A blessed Lord's Day to you.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> The Mosaic Covenant to me seems to be mainly though works related and driven, as in obey the commands of God, and He will make sure to bless you physically and financially, but disobey Him, and He allows the Devour into your life then.


David, do you not see that the Mosaic Law was telling God's people how to live? It was God graciously giving them instructions for how to behave, before Him and before others. And can you not see how full of grace it is? How many times in the Law do you read, "...and if a man sin, and commit a trespass..." followed by a solution--a way to make peace with God, and not only that, but a way that illustrated the real sacrifice that was to come, Messiah himself. All though the OT, more than just offering temporal calamities and temporal blessings for good or bad behavior, Jehovah is offering eternal life, is promising grace unmerited, is telling them of the glories that lie in store. The Temple, the sacrifices, the feasts, the land itself, were all pictures of better things to come--a once for all sacrifice; God's presence with His people in all assemblies, not just in Jerusalem; a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens; freedom from sin and its corruption--what glory the OT saints had! It was about far more than just rewarding good behavior and punishing bad.


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> They do claim to have the more historical view, but it is common for people in desperate struggle for an untenable position to try to round up dead guys to support them. I just read a book by a dispensationalist who cited several church fathers to support the claim that dispensationalism was the orthodox view of the early church!...good grief, as Charlie Brown would have said.
> However, there are more differences between the Vanilla RB position and Westminster CT than just visible church membership--or rather, that one goes deeper than just "who is a member". It has to do with "Who is in covenant with God?" RBs believe that in the New Covenant (the final expression of the CoG), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. While covenant inclusion was by physical birth in the OT, it is by spiritual birth in the NT. The Nation of Israel, you see, while being God's chosen people, was an imperfect representation of what God's chosen people would look like later, when physical birth and nationality mattered not at all; when the New Birth, and to be the spiritual progeny of Abraham is what matters.
> Of course, even in the OT, it was the circumcision of the heart that mattered; faith was required for regeneration, and saints were indwelt by God's spirit. But in the NT, the types and shadows--even the type of covenant inclusion by physical birth, which did not avail if God did not grant repentance and faith, have been abrogated. The covenantal sign is now given to infants in Christ--those who have just been Born Again, and are adopted into God's family, the Israel of God.
> As to mode, I think immersion is best, but whether to dip, sprinkle or douse with a hose is immaterial. If mode could make or break the sign, then we could really get tied up in knots about the Lord's Supper! (which I understand some people do.....but that's for another thread).
> A blessed Lord's Day to you.


You the same brother.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> How would u answer this question as it will show me how you understand (even) what Witsius meant?


Scott, I formally agree with you about many things so no big difference. My concern was where you implied believers in the Old Covenant had better 'things' than those in the New Covenant. But Old Covenant believers would "bind the sacrifice with cords to the horns of the altar" Psalm 118:27. New Covenant believers have an advantage in that Christ has fully come; we do not need to go back to the types and shadows. But same gospel, same blessing of the Triune God, same Covenant of Grace etc.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Jesus was not andinstarting [sic] in that capacity though as the High priest until he had come as the Messiah first, accomplished salvation work, and then on the ascension started to work as the High Priest.



Psalm 110 says that Jesus has always been a Priest:


1 The Lord said unto my Lord,

Sit thou at my right hand,

Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.

2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion:

Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.

3 Thy people _shall be_ willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness

From the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.

4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,

*Thou art a priest *for ever*

After the order of Melchizedek.

5 The Lord at thy right hand

Shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.

6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill _the places_ with the dead bodies;

He shall wound the heads over many countries.

7 He shall drink of the brook in the way:

Therefore shall he lift up the head.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ps 110:1–7.

**5769*. עוֹלָם *olam* or

עֹלָם *olam* (761d); from an unused word; _long duration, antiquity, futurity_:—ages(1), all successive(1), *always*(1), ancient(13), ancient times(3), *continual*(1), days of old(1), *eternal*(2), eternity(3), ever(10), *Everlasting*(2), everlasting(110), *forever*(136), *forever and ever*(1), forever*(70), forevermore*(1), *lasting*(1), long(2), *long ago*(3), long past(1), long time(3), never*(17), old(11), *permanent*(10), *permanently*(1),* perpetual*(29), *perpetually*(1).

Robert L. Thomas, _New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition_ (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).

Then of course, there is the argument whether or not Melchisidec was a theophany:

*7* For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 7.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Stephen L Smith said:


> you implied believers in the Old Covenant had better 'things' than those in the New Covenant.



Both groups had special blessings...It all depends on how you define, 'better'. When you consider God speaking directly to His people or theophanies and actual living prophets, these things are surely blessings that we do no any longer have.


----------



## Scott Bushey

The 6 and 7th ch of Hebrews makes reference to the priestly office of Christ; that He was a "Priest forever' according to the office of Melchizedek. In ch 7 we can see:

22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament (or covenant). 23 And they truly were many priests, because they were not suffered to continue by reason of death: 24 But this _man_, because he continueth ever, hath an unchangeable priesthood. 25 Wherefore he is able also to save them gto the uttermost hthat come unto God by him, seeing he ever liveth to make intercession for them.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 7:22–25.

It would seem odd if this passage were speaking of the NC and not the C of G in general.

Poole:
"22 By so much was Jesus made a surety of a better testament.

This brings in the consequent on ver. 20. _As much_ excellency as was in God’s oath constituting, _so much_ there must be in the office constituted. The Aaronical priesthood, by God’s constitution, was excellent; but Christ’s is much more so, being by God’s oath made personal and everlasting, relating to the best covenant; *so as the Hebrews had the greatest reason to renounce Aaron’s, and to cleave to Christ’s for salvation.* He being God-man, is a Surety, one that bindeth himself for another, to see something paid or performed, to give security for another; and is proper to him as a Priest, Job 17:3; Psal. 119:122: Prov. 6:1. In the Mosaical economy the priests were typical sureties, or undertakers for the people; so Aaron, as a surety, was sent by Moses to stand between the living and the dead, when God was cutting off those sinners, Numb. 16:46, 48. The Spirit interprets this _Surety_ to be a _Mediator_, chap. 8:6, which is the general comprehensive name of all his offices: as he gives all from God to us in and *by his promises*, he is _the Testator_ fulfilling them, chap. 9:15, 16; as he gives satisfaction to God for us, and returns our duty performed with the incense of his merits, he is our _Surety;_ which merit of his *resulted from his perfect obedience to the whole law and will of God,* and from *the full satisfaction he made to God by his death for our sins*, Rom. 5:19; 2 Cor. 5:21; Gal. 3:13. _A better testament;_ *the gospel covenant*, described chap. 8:10–12, and *referreth to what the Lord foretold of it*, Jer. 31:33, 34, which is better than the Mosaical for perspicuity, freeness, fulness, spirituality, and the Spirit promised in it *for its ratification by the death of Christ, and its perpetuity*: see chap. 8:8, 9, 11.

Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 3 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 840.

The gospel economy dates back to gen 3; the death of Christ was the consummating moment and 'ratification'.

11 But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; 12 Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption _for us_. 13 For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh: 14 How much more shall the blood of Christ, who *through the eternal Spirit *offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 9:11–14.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> Both groups had special blessings...It all depends on how you define, 'better'.


I define 'better' how the book of Hebrews defines better 



Scott Bushey said:


> When you consider God speaking directly to His people or theophanies and actual living prophets, these things are surely blessings that we do no any longer have.


I would be careful with this argument; it implies that our full cannon of scripture is 'inferior' to God speaking directly to His people etc. Surely not! The fact that we have a full cannon is surely the greatest blessing any saint can have. There were indeed types and shadows associated with Old Covenant saints.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Sir,
I don't quite understand your posture. You continue to speculate on things that I have said. I believe I have already made note of the comparisons. I have never said that the NT saint lacks anything, only that the OT saint has peculiar blessings that we don't have and vice versa. Both time periods are significant. I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth, speculate on what I believe, etc. It's a bit obtuse, in my opinion.

"I define 'better' how the book of Hebrews defines better"

The B of H's speaks of a 'better covenant'-I address that above in post 112. Feel free to interact with that if you like.


----------



## Scott Bushey

For clarity: I believe the tension here is rooted in the chronology of this 'better covenant'. I believe that the NC is almost synonymous with the C of G; I believe that the 'better' started in Gen 3; Christ was Priest (even) then. I believe the reference to the opposite of better is rooted in the writer of Hebrews railing against those in the external side of the C of G and the internal side of the C of W's still. The Mosaic is a gracious covenant; surely the writer is not railing against those justified by faith alone, in Christ alone, etc. etc.

Having said that, how is it 'better'? Yes, we have the canon! Yes, Christ was manifested and consummated that which was ordained in the C of R; yes He is seated at the r/ hand of the Father-even now ruling. The reality has arrived. But, the 'better' really is the fact that we are justified by faith alone and that was relevant even back to Adam.


----------



## Smeagol

I hope all of you have had/and are having a blessed Lord’s Day. Now let’s try to get back to the OP if we can......
Stephen and a Scott I think both of you are arguing for the same view of CT (mostly) but rather each is defending going into the ditch on the right and/or left of Option 1 in the Oringal Poll. I suspect you both probably voted the same way.

No let’s see if we can steer back slightly....

Truthfully....I have not studied much of Charles Spurgeon, a question for some you you more well read in the man (I am curious).... How do you think Spurgeon would of have voted on the original poll?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> I would appreciate it if you would not put words in my mouth


I deny I did this. I was simply replying to an earlier comment:


Scott Bushey said:


> Both groups had special blessings...It all depends on how you define, 'better'. When you consider God speaking directly to His people or theophanies and actual living prophets, these things are surely blessings that we do no any longer have.


You do imply the Old Covenant saints have better blessings which was why i raised the concern.

But I agree with your clarification that we need to define 'blessings'.


----------



## Smeagol

Stephen L Smith said:


> I deny I did this. I was simply replying to an earlier comment:
> 
> You do imply the Old Covenant saints have better blessings which was why i raised the concern.
> 
> But I agree with your clarification that we need to define 'blessings'.


Stephen can we put this to rest already? All of your comments on this thread (with the exception of 1 which was still not about the OP I think) have been in taking issue with Scott......so can your quibble be Put to rest...please sir.

Since you hold to a baptist CT do you have any insight in Spurgeon’s view On CT?


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Grant.Jones said:


> so can your quibble be Put to rest...please sir.


A concern had been raised about me personally so I did a brief response. But very happy to leave the matter there.


Grant.Jones said:


> Since you hold to a baptist CT


Now you have started a quibble  Who says I now hold to a Baptist CT? I have posted a few posts recently "questioning" my Baptist CT (I have only made recent defences when some have 'equated' Baptist CT with a form of dispensationalism - I did this to clarify a matter only). I removed the term Reformed Baptist from my signature some time ago.


Grant.Jones said:


> do you have any insight in Spurgeon’s view On CT?


This might help https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/


----------



## Smeagol

Stephen L Smith said:


> A concern had been raised about me personally so I did a brief response. But very happy to leave the matter there.
> 
> Now you have started a quibble  Who says I now hold to a Baptist CT? I have posted a few posts recently "questioning" my Baptist CT (I have only made recent defences when some have 'equated' Baptist CT with a form of dispensationalism - I did this to clarify a matter only). I removed the term Reformed Baptist from my signature some time ago.
> 
> This might help https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/


Thanks for sharing. This article does showcase the 1689federlaism vs. what they call “modern Baptist covinenet theology”. I have been looking for that diagram... because I think it was removed from the 1689federalism site.

Brother.....I merely state that you hold to a baptist CT because from your personal information on your profile you claim to hold to the LBC ....so no I really have no quibble just noted something from your profile info.... if your profile would have listed Westminster, I would have said Presbyterian CT. I assume one who holds to the LBC (first or second for that matter) is a baptist with some form of CT... if the assumption is wrong... then i stand corrected.

But again thank you for that Wordpress article... I could no longer find the diagram used in the 1689federlalist site, and it was helpful.


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> They do claim to have the more historical view, but it is common for people in desperate struggle for an untenable position to try to round up dead guys to support them. I just read a book by a dispensationalist who cited several church fathers to support the claim that dispensationalism was the orthodox view of the early church!...good grief, as Charlie Brown would have said.
> However, there are more differences between the Vanilla RB position and Westminster CT than just visible church membership--or rather, that one goes deeper than just "who is a member". It has to do with "Who is in covenant with God?" RBs believe that in the New Covenant (the final expression of the CoG), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. While covenant inclusion was by physical birth in the OT, it is by spiritual birth in the NT. The Nation of Israel, you see, while being God's chosen people, was an imperfect representation of what God's chosen people would look like later, when physical birth and nationality mattered not at all; when the New Birth, and to be the spiritual progeny of Abraham is what matters.
> Of course, even in the OT, it was the circumcision of the heart that mattered; faith was required for regeneration, and saints were indwelt by God's spirit. But in the NT, the types and shadows--even the type of covenant inclusion by physical birth, which did not avail if God did not grant repentance and faith, have been abrogated. The covenantal sign is now given to infants in Christ--those who have just been Born Again, and are adopted into God's family, the Israel of God.
> As to mode, I think immersion is best, but whether to dip, sprinkle or douse with a hose is immaterial. If mode could make or break the sign, then we could really get tied up in knots about the Lord's Supper! (which I understand some people do.....but that's for another thread).
> A blessed Lord's Day to you.


Ben,

The diagram I was speaking of earlier is on the below site.

The 1689federlist call your view “modern”
I am sure you rightly disagree. Anyways just wanted you to see (I like diagrams).
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/


----------



## Ben Zartman

Grant.Jones said:


> Ben,
> 
> The diagram I was speaking of earlier is on the below site.
> 
> The 1689federlist call your view “modern”
> I am sure you rightly disagree. Anyways just wanted you to see (I like diagrams).
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/


Thanks for the link, Grant.
I know a dispensationalist whose master's dissertation was an effort to prove that Spurgeon was also a dispensationalist....point being, quotes can be cherry-picked from almost anybody to prove something. Strangely, they call my view modern, and admit that John Gill held to it. But no amount of dead guys on either side can compare to the witness of Scripture.
I will say in charity to my Federalism friends, that there is a lot of "do this and receive temporal blessings" language in the OC. But what they miss is that the temporal blessings, the land promises, all those things, are types and shadows of the reality. The Mosaic law was a schoolmaster to show them (and us) the need for an alien righteousness--no one could ever hope to be justified by the works of the law. Did God chastise temporal law breaking with temporal curses? sure! But even that was illustrating the principle we still have today: that the way of the transgressor is hard, and that whom the Lord loves He chastens.

It could even be said that the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled, that everywhere his foot trod would be given to his descendants. It was, and more, during the reigns of David and Solomon. But David and Solomon were only shadows of Messiah, and the peace and prosperity they brought were only shadows of the better peace, the better-the _spiritual_-prosperity that were coming with Christ. So though it was fulfilled in a way, the land of Palestine was only a shadow of what the promise to Abraham was really about. Abraham by faith was seeking a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens.

While they recoil in horror at the term, the 1689 federalists insistence upon temporal land and temporal blessings being the point of the OC is dangerously close to being dispensational. Someone should make a Venn Diagram showing how similar those two positions have become.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> They do claim to have the more historical view, but it is common for people in desperate struggle for an untenable position to try to round up dead guys to support them. I just read a book by a dispensationalist who cited several church fathers to support the claim that dispensationalism was the orthodox view of the early church!...good grief, as Charlie Brown would have said.
> However, there are more differences between the Vanilla RB position and Westminster CT than just visible church membership--or rather, that one goes deeper than just "who is a member". It has to do with "Who is in covenant with God?" RBs believe that in the New Covenant (the final expression of the CoG), only those who are regenerate are in covenant with God. While covenant inclusion was by physical birth in the OT, it is by spiritual birth in the NT. The Nation of Israel, you see, while being God's chosen people, was an imperfect representation of what God's chosen people would look like later, when physical birth and nationality mattered not at all; when the New Birth, and to be the spiritual progeny of Abraham is what matters.
> Of course, even in the OT, it was the circumcision of the heart that mattered; faith was required for regeneration, and saints were indwelt by God's spirit. But in the NT, the types and shadows--even the type of covenant inclusion by physical birth, which did not avail if God did not grant repentance and faith, have been abrogated. The covenantal sign is now given to infants in Christ--those who have just been Born Again, and are adopted into God's family, the Israel of God.
> As to mode, I think immersion is best, but whether to dip, sprinkle or douse with a hose is immaterial. If mode could make or break the sign, then we could really get tied up in knots about the Lord's Supper! (which I understand some people do.....but that's for another thread).
> A blessed Lord's Day to you.


The Pauline sign of one now being included into the NC would not be the physical sign of water baptism, but of one having been baptized in the the true Body of Christ by the Spirit when redeemed.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Thanks for the link, Grant.
> I know a dispensationalist whose master's dissertation was an effort to prove that Spurgeon was also a dispensationalist....point being, quotes can be cherry-picked from almost anybody to prove something. Strangely, they call my view modern, and admit that John Gill held to it. But no amount of dead guys on either side can compare to the witness of Scripture.
> I will say in charity to my Federalism friends, that there is a lot of "do this and receive temporal blessings" language in the OC. But what they miss is that the temporal blessings, the land promises, all those things, are types and shadows of the reality. The Mosaic law was a schoolmaster to show them (and us) the need for an alien righteousness--no one could ever hope to be justified by the works of the law. Did God chastise temporal law breaking with temporal curses? sure! But even that was illustrating the principle we still have today: that the way of the transgressor is hard, and that whom the Lord loves He chastens.
> 
> It could even be said that the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled, that everywhere his foot trod would be given to his descendants. It was, and more, during the reigns of David and Solomon. But David and Solomon were only shadows of Messiah, and the peace and prosperity they brought were only shadows of the better peace, the better-the _spiritual_-prosperity that were coming with Christ. So though it was fulfilled in a way, the land of Palestine was only a shadow of what the promise to Abraham was really about. Abraham by faith was seeking a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens.
> 
> While they recoil in horror at the term, the 1689 federalists insistence upon temporal land and temporal blessings being the point of the OC is dangerously close to being dispensational. Someone should make a Venn Diagram showing how similar those two positions have become.


Again, the question here seems to be revolving around just how new is really the NC, as from that perspective follows who is to be included under it, what baptism to administer, etc.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Psalm 110 says that Jesus has always been a Priest:
> 
> 
> 1 The Lord said unto my Lord,
> 
> Sit thou at my right hand,
> 
> Until I make thine enemies thy footstool.
> 
> 2 The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion:
> 
> Rule thou in the midst of thine enemies.
> 
> 3 Thy people _shall be_ willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of holiness
> 
> From the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
> 
> 4 The Lord hath sworn, and will not repent,
> 
> *Thou art a priest *for ever*
> 
> After the order of Melchizedek.
> 
> 5 The Lord at thy right hand
> 
> Shall strike through kings in the day of his wrath.
> 
> 6 He shall judge among the heathen, he shall fill _the places_ with the dead bodies;
> 
> He shall wound the heads over many countries.
> 
> 7 He shall drink of the brook in the way:
> 
> Therefore shall he lift up the head.
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Ps 110:1–7.
> 
> **5769*. עוֹלָם *olam* or
> 
> עֹלָם *olam* (761d); from an unused word; _long duration, antiquity, futurity_:—ages(1), all successive(1), *always*(1), ancient(13), ancient times(3), *continual*(1), days of old(1), *eternal*(2), eternity(3), ever(10), *Everlasting*(2), everlasting(110), *forever*(136), *forever and ever*(1), forever*(70), forevermore*(1), *lasting*(1), long(2), *long ago*(3), long past(1), long time(3), never*(17), old(11), *permanent*(10), *permanently*(1),* perpetual*(29), *perpetually*(1).
> 
> Robert L. Thomas, _New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries : Updated Edition_ (Anaheim: Foundation Publications, Inc., 1998).
> 
> Then of course, there is the argument whether or not Melchisidec was a theophany:
> 
> *7* For this Melchisedec, king of Salem, priest of the most high God, who met Abraham returning from the slaughter of the kings, and blessed him; 2 To whom also Abraham gave a tenth part of all; first being by interpretation King of righteousness, and after that also King of Salem, which is, King of peace; 3 Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life; but made like unto the Son of God; abideth a priest continually.
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Heb 7.


I would see that being fulled at the Ascension of Jesus, and also to be applied towards the preMil reign of Him over the earth.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> The Pauline sign of one now being included into the NC would not be the physical sign of water baptism, but of one having been baptized in the the true Body of Christ by the Spirit when redeemed.


Brother this is a dangerous post you have made. The covenant sign in the Old Testament and the New Testament were both physical signs that are required , Not in the sense that the physical sign saves but rather they are required for a Christian to be obedient to. Read your confession on the matter. Both of the physical signs point to spiritual realities.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Brother this is a dangerous post you have made. The covenant sign in the Old Testament and the New Testament were both physical signs that are required , Not in the sense that the physical sign saves but rather they are required for a Christian to be obedient to. Read your confession on the matter. Both of the physical signs point to spiritual realities.


I do recognize the 1689 LBCF that water baptism is the external sign to be done to the believer now in Christ, but my point was more that the NC would indeed now involve, especially to Paul, the sealing of the person now by the Holy Spirit of Christ. No Spirit, not seen as being in the NC.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> The Pauline sign of one now being included into the NC would not be the physical sign of water baptism, but of one having been baptized in the the true Body of Christ by the Spirit when redeemed.


The sign of water baptism is to be applied to those who are now in union with Christ. Are you claiming that Paul disagreed with Jesus and the other of his apostles?


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> I do recognize the 1689 LBCF that water baptism is the external sign to be done to the believer now in Christ, but my point was more that the NC would indeed now involve, especially to Paul, the sealing of the person now by the Holy Spirit of Christ. No Spirit, not seen as being in the NC.


Certainly those who do not have the Spirit do not have union with Christ, but what has that to do with a physical sign? The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not a "sign," it is an everyday reality.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> I would see that being fulled at the Ascension of Jesus, and also to be applied towards the preMil reign of Him over the earth.


Can you explain what you mean by "the preMil reign"? I've never heard that phrase before.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> The sign of water baptism is to be applied to those who are now in union with Christ. Are you claiming that Paul disagreed with Jesus and the other of his apostles?


No, I fully agree that water baptism is tobe dome to one based upon the confession of now being saved by Jesus, but to Paul, the indwelling of the Holy spirit would be the true sign.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "the preMil reign"? I've never heard that phrase before.





Ben Zartman said:


> Can you explain what you mean by "the preMil reign"? I've never heard that phrase before.


I meant the Historical pre millennium viewpoint concerning Jesus Second Coming.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Certainly those who do not have the Spirit do not have union with Christ, but what has that to do with a physical sign? The indwelling of the Holy Spirit is not a "sign," it is an everyday reality.


The water is a sign to us externally of what the Spirit has done internally to them.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> No, I fully agree that water baptism is tobe dome to one based upon the confession of now being saved by Jesus, but to Paul, the indwelling of the Holy spirit would be the true sign.


 not just Paul but to every other Saint in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament God required the physical sign of circumcision for obedience but what God was really after and what Moses really proclaimed is that God desired that their hearts would be circumcised .

In the New Testament God commanded a physical sign of baptism. But just like in the Old Testament God really desires the spiritual sign .


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> not just Paul but to every other Saint in both the Old Testament and the New Testament. In the Old Testament God required the physical sign of circumcision for obedience but what God was really after and what Moses really proclaimed is that God desired that their hearts would be circumcised .


Which was not happening until the NC, as that was then the external law of God was to be written now upon their hearts.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> Which was not happening until the NC, as that was then the external law of God was to be written now upon their hearts.


 Your post implies that there was no one in the old testament, prior to Jesus physically inhabiting the earth, Who had a circumcised heart, nor were there any who were filled with the Holy Spirit.

This is madness And I believe quite unbiblical. David, I do not say that lightly either. The logic of your post is very worrisome.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Your post implies that there was no one in the old testament, prior to Jesus physically inhabiting the earth, Who had a circumcised heart, nor were there any who are filled with the Holy Spirit.
> 
> This is madness And I believe quite unbiblical. David, I do not say that lightly either. The logic of your post is very worrisome.


I do not hold to either, but the prophet Jeremiah did state that there was coming a NC to israel, and to us as the spiritual heirs of Abraham, who had received Jesus as the Messiah and Lord. The Holy Spirit activity in the OC seemed to be mainly involved with coming upon and using prophets/priest/ and the various Kings in the OT.
I am just saying that we now have a far more glorious Covenant than any of the OT believers did, as we are in relationship with God post Pentecost.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Jer 31 is a now and not yet passage; as was Ezekiel:

*Ezekiel 11:19 *

19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh: 

*Ezekiel 36:26 *

26 A new heart also will I give you, and fa new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. 

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Eze 11:19–36:26.

Jer 31:
33 But this _shall be_ the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;

After those days, saith the Lord,

fI will put my law in their inward parts,

And write it in their hearts;

And will be their God,

And they shall be my people.

34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying,

Know the Lord:

For they shall all know me,

From the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord:

For I will forgive their iniquity,

And I will remember their sin no more.

_The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Je 31:33–34.

Poole:

Rom. 7:22. But some may object, How was this a new covenant? Did not God of old write his law in the hearts of his people? Did not David, and other the servants of God, (of whom we read in the Old Testament,) serve God out of a principle of love and delight in his law? _Answ_. Undoubtedly David and others did so, and the law of God was wrote in their hearts, but it was by virtue of this _new covenant_, from the free and efficacious grace of God. Mr. Calvin, I think, judgeth right, that the prophet’s design here is to express the difference betwixt the _law_ and the _gospel_. The first showeth duty; the latter bringeth along with it the _grace of regeneration_, by which the heart is changed, fitted, and enabled for and unto duty. All under the time of the law that came to salvation were saved, not from the law, or by that, but by the gospel, and this new covenant; but this was not evidently exhibited, neither was the regenerating grace of God so common, under the time of the law, as it hath been under the gospel, which maketh it look like _a new covenant_ with men, though it was the same covenant which God was always in with his people;

Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 592.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> Jer 31 is a now and not yet passage; as was Ezekiel:
> 
> *Ezekiel 11:19 *
> 
> 19 And I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within you; and I will take the stony heart out of their flesh, and will give them an heart of flesh:
> 
> *Ezekiel 36:26 *
> 
> 26 A new heart also will I give you, and fa new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh.
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Eze 11:19–36:26.
> 
> Jer 31:
> 33 But this _shall be_ the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel;
> 
> After those days, saith the Lord,
> 
> fI will put my law in their inward parts,
> 
> And write it in their hearts;
> 
> And will be their God,
> 
> And they shall be my people.
> 
> 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying,
> 
> Know the Lord:
> 
> For they shall all know me,
> 
> From the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the Lord:
> 
> For I will forgive their iniquity,
> 
> And I will remember their sin no more.
> 
> _The Holy Bible: King James Version_, Electronic Edition of the 1900 Authorized Version. (Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., 2009), Je 31:33–34.
> 
> Poole:
> 
> Rom. 7:22. But some may object, How was this a new covenant? Did not God of old write his law in the hearts of his people? Did not David, and other the servants of God, (of whom we read in the Old Testament,) serve God out of a principle of love and delight in his law? _Answ_. Undoubtedly David and others did so, and the law of God was wrote in their hearts, but it was by virtue of this _new covenant_, from the free and efficacious grace of God. Mr. Calvin, I think, judgeth right, that the prophet’s design here is to express the difference betwixt the _law_ and the _gospel_. The first showeth duty; the latter bringeth along with it the _grace of regeneration_, by which the heart is changed, fitted, and enabled for and unto duty. All under the time of the law that came to salvation were saved, not from the law, or by that, but by the gospel, and this new covenant; but this was not evidently exhibited, neither was the regenerating grace of God so common, under the time of the law, as it hath been under the gospel, which maketh it look like _a new covenant_ with men, though it was the same covenant which God was always in with his people;
> 
> Matthew Poole, _Annotations upon the Holy Bible_, vol. 2 (New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1853), 592.


I take Jeremiah and Ezekiel were talking of the time when Messiah, lord Jesus actually showed up.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> I take Jeremiah and Ezekiel were talking of the time when Messiah, lord Jesus actually showed up.


Yikes!

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> I take Jeremiah and Ezekiel were talking of the time when Messiah, lord Jesus actually showed up.


Matthew Henry's Commentary (always great in my opinion) offers helpful clarity on this section of Jeremiah as well. David you may find it helpful to read this as well.

From Matthew Henry's Commentary:

That God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Heb. 8:8, Heb. 8:9 , etc.), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made—with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Gal. 6:16 ), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. Judah and Israel had been two separate kingdoms, but were united after their return, in the joint favours God bestowed upon them; so Jews and Gentiles were in the gospel church and covenant. 2. *What is the nature of this covenant in general: it is a new covenantand not according to the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt; not as if that made with them at Mount Sinai were a covenant of nature and innocency, such as was made with Adam in the day he was created; no, that was, for substance, a covenant of grace, but it was a dark dispensation of that covenant in comparison with this in gospel times. Sinners were saved by that covenant upon their repentance, and faith in a Messiah to come, whose blood, confirming that covenant, was typified by that of the legal sacrifices, Ex. 24:7, Ex. 24:8 . *Yet this may upon many accounts be called new, in comparison with that; the ordinances and promises are more spiritual and heavenly, and the discoveries much more clear. That covenant God made with them when he took them by the hand, as they had been blind, or lame, or weak, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke. Observe, It was God that made this covenant, but it was the people that broke it; for our salvation is of God, but our sin and ruin are of ourselves. It was an aggravation of their breach of it that God was a husband to them, that he had espoused them to himself; it was a marriage-covenant that was between him and them, which they broke by idolatry, that spiritual adultery. It is a great aggravation of our treacherous departures from God that he has been a husband to us, a loving, tender, careful husband, faithful to us, and yet we false to him. 3. What are the particular articles of his covenant. They all contain spiritual blessings; not, "I will give them the land of Canaan and a numerous issue,’’ but, "I will give them pardon, and peace, and grace, good heads and good hearts.’’ He promises, (1.) *That he will incline them to their duty; I will put my law in their inward part and write it in their heart; not, I will give them a new law (as Mr. Gataker well observes), for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; but the law shall be written in their hearts by the finger of the Spirit as formerly it was written in the tables of stone. God writes his law in the hearts of all believers, makes it ready and familiar to them, at hand when they have occasion to use it, as that which is written in the heart, Prov. 3:3 . He makes them in care to observe it, for that which we are solicitous about is said to lie near our hearts. He works in them a disposition to obedience, a conformity of thought and affection to the rules of the divine law, as that of the copy to the original. This is here promised, and ought to be prayed for, that our duty may be done conscientiously and with delight. *

(2.) That he will take them into relation to himself: I will be their God, a God all-sufficient to them, and they shall be my people, a loyal obedient people to me. God’s being to us a God is the summary of all happiness; heaven itself is no more, Heb. 11:16 ; Rev. 21:3 . Our being to him a people may be taken either as the condition on our part (those and those only shall have God to be to them a God that are truly willing to engage themselves to be to him a people) or as a further branch of the promise that God will by his grace make us his people, a willing people, in the day of his power; and, whoever are his people, it is his grace that makes them so. (3.) That there shall be an abundance of the knowledge of God among all sorts of people, and this will have an influence upon all good: for those that rightly know God’s name will seek him, and serve him, and put their trust in him (v. 34): All shall know me; all shall be welcome to the knowledge of God and shall have the means of that knowledge; his ways shall be known upon earth, whereas, for many ages, in Judah only was God known. Many more shall know God than did in the Old Testament times, which among the Gentiles were times of ignorance, the true God being to them an unknown God. The things of God shall in gospel times be made more plain and intelligible, and level to the capacities of the meanest, than they were while Moses had a veil upon his face. There shall be such a general knowledge of God that there shall not be so much need as had formerly been of teaching. Some take it as a hyperbolical expression (and the dulness of the Jews needed such expressions to awaken them), designed only to show that the knowledge of God in gospel times should vastly exceed that knowledge of him which they had under the law. Or perhaps it intimates that in gospel times there shall be such great plenty of public preaching, statedly and constantly, by men authorized and appointed to preach the word in season and out of season, much beyond what was under the law, that there shall be less need than there was then of fraternal teaching, by a neighbour and a brother. The priests preached but now and then, and in the temple, and to a few in comparison; but now all shall or may know God by frequenting the assemblies of Christians, wherein, through all parts of the church, the good knowledge of God shall be taught. Some give this sense of it (Mr. Gataker mentions it), That many shall have such clearness of understanding in the things of God that they may seem rather to have been taught by some immediate irradiation than by any means of instruction. In short, the things of God shall by the gospel of Christ be brought to a clearer light than ever (2 Tim. 1:10 ), and the people of God shall by the grace of Christ be brought to a clearer sight of those things than ever, Eph. 1:17, Eph. 1:18 . (4.) That, in order to all these blessings, sin shall be pardoned. This is made the reason of all the rest: For I will forgive their iniquity, will not impute that to them, nor deal with them according to the desert of that, will forgive and forget: I will remember their sin no more. It is sin that keeps good things from us, that stops the current of God’s favours; let sin betaken away by pardoning mercy, and the obstruction is removed, and divine grace runs down like a river, like a mighty stream.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Let's keep courteous as maybe our post may serve to challenge David (as many of the post on this site have served to challenge me)..maybe we would be so blessed as to serve to aid (as a vessel) in sanctification as iron sharpens iron.
After all "A Wizard is never early or late, but arrives precisely when he means to"

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Yikes!


Why Yikes? Jesus had to actually come and die by shedding His blood to provide to us at that time in history the NC inaugurated in his blood, correct?


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Matthew Henry's Commentary (always great in my opinion) offers helpful clarity on this section of Jeremiah as well. David you may find it helpful to read this as well.
> 
> From Matthew Henry's Commentary:
> 
> That God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Heb. 8:8, Heb. 8:9 , etc.), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made—with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Gal. 6:16 ), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. Judah and Israel had been two separate kingdoms, but were united after their return, in the joint favours God bestowed upon them; so Jews and Gentiles were in the gospel church and covenant. 2. *What is the nature of this covenant in general: it is a new covenantand not according to the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt; not as if that made with them at Mount Sinai were a covenant of nature and innocency, such as was made with Adam in the day he was created; no, that was, for substance, a covenant of grace, but it was a dark dispensation of that covenant in comparison with this in gospel times. Sinners were saved by that covenant upon their repentance, and faith in a Messiah to come, whose blood, confirming that covenant, was typified by that of the legal sacrifices, Ex. 24:7, Ex. 24:8 . *Yet this may upon many accounts be called new, in comparison with that; the ordinances and promises are more spiritual and heavenly, and the discoveries much more clear. That covenant God made with them when he took them by the hand, as they had been blind, or lame, or weak, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke. Observe, It was God that made this covenant, but it was the people that broke it; for our salvation is of God, but our sin and ruin are of ourselves. It was an aggravation of their breach of it that God was a husband to them, that he had espoused them to himself; it was a marriage-covenant that was between him and them, which they broke by idolatry, that spiritual adultery. It is a great aggravation of our treacherous departures from God that he has been a husband to us, a loving, tender, careful husband, faithful to us, and yet we false to him. 3. What are the particular articles of his covenant. They all contain spiritual blessings; not, "I will give them the land of Canaan and a numerous issue,’’ but, "I will give them pardon, and peace, and grace, good heads and good hearts.’’ He promises, (1.) *That he will incline them to their duty; I will put my law in their inward part and write it in their heart; not, I will give them a new law (as Mr. Gataker well observes), for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; but the law shall be written in their hearts by the finger of the Spirit as formerly it was written in the tables of stone. God writes his law in the hearts of all believers, makes it ready and familiar to them, at hand when they have occasion to use it, as that which is written in the heart, Prov. 3:3 . He makes them in care to observe it, for that which we are solicitous about is said to lie near our hearts. He works in them a disposition to obedience, a conformity of thought and affection to the rules of the divine law, as that of the copy to the original. This is here promised, and ought to be prayed for, that our duty may be done conscientiously and with delight. *
> 
> (2.) That he will take them into relation to himself: I will be their God, a God all-sufficient to them, and they shall be my people, a loyal obedient people to me. God’s being to us a God is the summary of all happiness; heaven itself is no more, Heb. 11:16 ; Rev. 21:3 . Our being to him a people may be taken either as the condition on our part (those and those only shall have God to be to them a God that are truly willing to engage themselves to be to him a people) or as a further branch of the promise that God will by his grace make us his people, a willing people, in the day of his power; and, whoever are his people, it is his grace that makes them so. (3.) That there shall be an abundance of the knowledge of God among all sorts of people, and this will have an influence upon all good: for those that rightly know God’s name will seek him, and serve him, and put their trust in him (v. 34): All shall know me; all shall be welcome to the knowledge of God and shall have the means of that knowledge; his ways shall be known upon earth, whereas, for many ages, in Judah only was God known. Many more shall know God than did in the Old Testament times, which among the Gentiles were times of ignorance, the true God being to them an unknown God. The things of God shall in gospel times be made more plain and intelligible, and level to the capacities of the meanest, than they were while Moses had a veil upon his face. There shall be such a general knowledge of God that there shall not be so much need as had formerly been of teaching. Some take it as a hyperbolical expression (and the dulness of the Jews needed such expressions to awaken them), designed only to show that the knowledge of God in gospel times should vastly exceed that knowledge of him which they had under the law. Or perhaps it intimates that in gospel times there shall be such great plenty of public preaching, statedly and constantly, by men authorized and appointed to preach the word in season and out of season, much beyond what was under the law, that there shall be less need than there was then of fraternal teaching, by a neighbour and a brother. The priests preached but now and then, and in the temple, and to a few in comparison; but now all shall or may know God by frequenting the assemblies of Christians, wherein, through all parts of the church, the good knowledge of God shall be taught. Some give this sense of it (Mr. Gataker mentions it), That many shall have such clearness of understanding in the things of God that they may seem rather to have been taught by some immediate irradiation than by any means of instruction. In short, the things of God shall by the gospel of Christ be brought to a clearer light than ever (2 Tim. 1:10 ), and the people of God shall by the grace of Christ be brought to a clearer sight of those things than ever, Eph. 1:17, Eph. 1:18 . (4.) That, in order to all these blessings, sin shall be pardoned. This is made the reason of all the rest: For I will forgive their iniquity, will not impute that to them, nor deal with them according to the desert of that, will forgive and forget: I will remember their sin no more. It is sin that keeps good things from us, that stops the current of God’s favours; let sin betaken away by pardoning mercy, and the obstruction is removed, and divine grace runs down like a river, like a mighty stream.


The new Covenant was a future event to come for Israel, not national Israel of the flesh, but Spiritual Israel , both Jews/gentiles, who received Jesus as the Lord. Jesus stated that he MUST fulfill all things, and that His blood was shed for the full remission of sins, and to have the NC now established between God and man, correct?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Grant.Jones said:


> A Wizard



Witchcraft


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> Let's keep courteous as maybe our post may serve to challenge David (as many of the post on this site have served to challenge me)..maybe we would be so blessed as to serve to aid (as a vessel) in sanctification as iron sharpens iron.
> After all "A Wizard is never early or late, but arrives precisely when he means to"


I actually do learn from what my brethren are teaching me from the scriptures, just maybe not fast enough for some.


----------



## Smeagol

Scott Bushey said:


> Witchcraft


Come on your anti LOTR?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> The new Covenant was a future event to come for Israel, not national Israel of the flesh, but Spiritual Israel , both Jews/gentiles, who received Jesus as the Lord. Jesus stated that he MUST fulfill all things, and that His blood was shed for the full remission of sins, and to have the NC now established between God and man, correct?


I think I can generally agree with those statements yes, but none of that takes away from the NC being the consummation (It is finished) of the overall CoG.

Read the Matthew Henry commentary. It helped me at least. OT (elect) and NT (elect) have always been saved the same way in my opinion, by faith in Christ alone and by the grace of God alone (redemption applied by the HS in OT and NT)..that is the formula of the CoG..made most fully clear in the NC. If the OT saints only needed to do law (which was impossible since the fall on their own), but needed not redemption by grace alone, then none of our dead OT brothers/sisters could have ever been saved....less you believe there is more than 1 way of salvation after the fall. Job/David/ Moses did not enter the CoG after Christ stated "it is finished"...no they were apart of the CoG before the 12 apostles (minus Judas) were a part of the CoG.

I hope this helps. As always I am open to corrections.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

To be accurate, both Ezekiel and Jeremiah are a now and not yet prophesy-much like the book of Revelation.

Ezekiel was written in the 5th century BC and Jer 6th BC.

John Owen writes on the HS and believers:

“Sixthly, Wherefore, God’s sealing of believers with the Holy Spirit is his gracious communication of the Holy Ghost unto them, so to act his divine power in them as to enable them unto all the duties of their holy calling; evidencing them to be accepted with him both unto themselves and others, and asserting their preservation unto eternal salvation. The effects of this sealing are gracious operations of the Holy Spirit in and upon believers; but the sealing itself is the communication of the Spirit unto them. They are sealed with the Spirit. And farther to evidence the nature of it, with the truth of our declaration of this privilege, we may observe, — 1. That when any persons are so effectually called as to become true believers, they are brought into many new relations, — as, to God himself, as his children; unto Jesus Christ, as his members; unto all saints and angels in the families of God above and below, as brethren; and are called to many new works, duties, and uses, which before they knew nothing of.

They are brought into a new world, erected by the new creation; and which way soever they look or turn themselves, they say, “Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” So it is with every one that is made a new creature in Christ Jesus, 2 Corinthians 5:17. In this state and condition, wherein a man hath new principles put within him, new relations contracted about him, new duties presented unto him, and a new deportment in all things required of him, how shall he be able to behave himself aright, and answer the condition and holy station wherein he is placed? This no man can do of himself, for “who is sufficient for these things?” Wherefore, — 2. In this stateGod owns them, and communicates unto them his Holy Spirit, to fit them for their relations, to enable them unto their duties, to act their new principles, and every way to discharge the work they are called unto, even as their head, the Lord Christ, was unto hia God doth not now give unto them “the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind,” 2 Timothy 1:7. And hereby cloth God seal them; for, — (1.) Hereby he gives his testimony unto them that they are his, owned by him, accepted with him, his sons or children, — which is his seal; for if they were not so, he would never have given his Holy Spirit unto them.”

Without the Holy Spirit continuously in and at work in our hearts, we will immediately apostatize.

You must think about total depravity; if the Holy Spirit doesn’t indwell a man, they cannot be NOT totally depraved. If one is totally depraved, they WILL apostatize immediately.



If you believe Old Testament saints believed by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit but kept believing without the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit then saints in the OT were not as depraved as we are, as they did not need the ongoing indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. This discussion really then is a debate about the nature of total human depravity in the Old Testament. Nothing less than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit keeps a true believer believing, repenting, and obeying. To deny that the Old Testament saint had the benefit of the indwelling Spirit of God redefines total depravity, is sick with dispensationalism and rejects a biblical perseverance of the saint.



B.B. Warfield wrote, “shall we say that only in the New Testament times men are dead in sin, and only in these days of the completed Gospel and of the New Covenant do men need the almighty power of God to raise them from their spiritual death? Certainly the Bible lends no support to such a notion.”

John Owen writes on the state of men outside of the indwelling of the Spirit:

“All men by nature, not enlightened, not renewed in their minds by the saving, effectual operation of the Holy Spirit, are in a _state of darkness _and _blindness _with respect unto God and spiritual things, with the way of pleasing him and living unto him. Be men otherwise and in other things never so wise, knowing, learned, and skillful, in spiritual things they are dark, blind, ignorant, unless they are renewed in the spirit of their minds by the Holy Ghost. This is a matter which the world cannot endure to hear of, and it is ready to fall into a tumult upon its mention. They think it but an artifice which some weak men have got up, to reflect on and condemn them who are wiser than themselves On the like occasion did the Pharisees ask of our Savior that question with pride and scorn, “Are we blind also?” John 9:40. But as he lets them know that their presumption of light and knowledge would serve only to aggravate their sin and condemnation, verse 41; so he plainly tells them, that notwithstanding all their boasting, “they had neither heard the voice of God at any time, nor seen his shape,” chapter 5:37.

Some at present talk much about the power of the _intellectual faculties _of our souls, as though they were neither debased, corrupted, impaired, nor depraved. All that disadvantage which is befallen our nature by the entrance of sin is but in “the disorder of the affections and the inferior sensitive parts of the soul, which are apt to tumultuate and rebel against that pure untainted light which is in the mind!” And this they speak of it without respect unto its renovation by the Holy Spirit; for if they include that also, they are in their discourses most notorious confused triflers.

Indeed, some of them write as if they had never deigned once to consult with the Scriptures, and others are plainly gone over into the tents of the Pelagians. But, setting aside their modern artifices of confident boasting, contemptuous reproaches, and scurrilous railings, it is no difficult undertaking so to demonstrate the depravation of the minds of men by nature, and their impotency thence to discern spiritual things in a spiritual manner, without a saving, effectual work of the Holy Spirit in their renovation, as that the proudest and most petulant of them shall not be able to return anything of a solid answer thereunto. And herein we plead for nothing but the known doctrine of the ancient catholic church, declared in the writings of the most learned fathers and determinations of councils against the Pelagians, whose errors and heresies are again revived among us by a crew of Socinianized Arminians.”


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> To be accurate, both Ezekiel and Jeremiah are a now and not yet prophesy-much like the book of Revelation.
> 
> Ezekiel was written in the 5th century BC and Jer 6th BC.
> 
> John Owen writes on the HS and believers:
> 
> “Sixthly, Wherefore, God’s sealing of believers with the Holy Spirit is his gracious communication of the Holy Ghost unto them, so to act his divine power in them as to enable them unto all the duties of their holy calling; evidencing them to be accepted with him both unto themselves and others, and asserting their preservation unto eternal salvation. The effects of this sealing are gracious operations of the Holy Spirit in and upon believers; but the sealing itself is the communication of the Spirit unto them. They are sealed with the Spirit. And farther to evidence the nature of it, with the truth of our declaration of this privilege, we may observe, — 1. That when any persons are so effectually called as to become true believers, they are brought into many new relations, — as, to God himself, as his children; unto Jesus Christ, as his members; unto all saints and angels in the families of God above and below, as brethren; and are called to many new works, duties, and uses, which before they knew nothing of.
> 
> They are brought into a new world, erected by the new creation; and which way soever they look or turn themselves, they say, “Old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.” So it is with every one that is made a new creature in Christ Jesus, 2 Corinthians 5:17. In this state and condition, wherein a man hath new principles put within him, new relations contracted about him, new duties presented unto him, and a new deportment in all things required of him, how shall he be able to behave himself aright, and answer the condition and holy station wherein he is placed? This no man can do of himself, for “who is sufficient for these things?” Wherefore, — 2. In this stateGod owns them, and communicates unto them his Holy Spirit, to fit them for their relations, to enable them unto their duties, to act their new principles, and every way to discharge the work they are called unto, even as their head, the Lord Christ, was unto hia God doth not now give unto them “the spirit of fear, but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind,” 2 Timothy 1:7. And hereby cloth God seal them; for, — (1.) Hereby he gives his testimony unto them that they are his, owned by him, accepted with him, his sons or children, — which is his seal; for if they were not so, he would never have given his Holy Spirit unto them.”
> 
> Without the Holy Spirit continuously in and at work in our hearts, we will immediately apostatize.
> 
> You must think about total depravity; if the Holy Spirit doesn’t indwell a man, they cannot be NOT totally depraved. If one is totally depraved, they WILL apostatize immediately.
> 
> 
> 
> If you believe Old Testament saints believed by the regenerating work of the Holy Spirit but kept believing without the indwelling work of the Holy Spirit then saints in the OT were not as depraved as we are, as they did not need the ongoing indwelling work of the Holy Spirit. This discussion really then is a debate about the nature of total human depravity in the Old Testament. Nothing less than the indwelling of the Holy Spirit keeps a true believer believing, repenting, and obeying. To deny that the Old Testament saint had the benefit of the indwelling Spirit of God redefines total depravity, is sick with dispensationalism and rejects a biblical perseverance of the saint.
> 
> 
> 
> B.B. Warfield wrote, “shall we say that only in the New Testament times men are dead in sin, and only in these days of the completed Gospel and of the New Covenant do men need the almighty power of God to raise them from their spiritual death? Certainly the Bible lends no support to such a notion.”
> 
> John Owen writes on the state of men outside of the indwelling of the Spirit:
> 
> “All men by nature, not enlightened, not renewed in their minds by the saving, effectual operation of the Holy Spirit, are in a _state of darkness _and _blindness _with respect unto God and spiritual things, with the way of pleasing him and living unto him. Be men otherwise and in other things never so wise, knowing, learned, and skillful, in spiritual things they are dark, blind, ignorant, unless they are renewed in the spirit of their minds by the Holy Ghost. This is a matter which the world cannot endure to hear of, and it is ready to fall into a tumult upon its mention. They think it but an artifice which some weak men have got up, to reflect on and condemn them who are wiser than themselves On the like occasion did the Pharisees ask of our Savior that question with pride and scorn, “Are we blind also?” John 9:40. But as he lets them know that their presumption of light and knowledge would serve only to aggravate their sin and condemnation, verse 41; so he plainly tells them, that notwithstanding all their boasting, “they had neither heard the voice of God at any time, nor seen his shape,” chapter 5:37.
> 
> Some at present talk much about the power of the _intellectual faculties _of our souls, as though they were neither debased, corrupted, impaired, nor depraved. All that disadvantage which is befallen our nature by the entrance of sin is but in “the disorder of the affections and the inferior sensitive parts of the soul, which are apt to tumultuate and rebel against that pure untainted light which is in the mind!” And this they speak of it without respect unto its renovation by the Holy Spirit; for if they include that also, they are in their discourses most notorious confused triflers.
> 
> Indeed, some of them write as if they had never deigned once to consult with the Scriptures, and others are plainly gone over into the tents of the Pelagians. But, setting aside their modern artifices of confident boasting, contemptuous reproaches, and scurrilous railings, it is no difficult undertaking so to demonstrate the depravation of the minds of men by nature, and their impotency thence to discern spiritual things in a spiritual manner, without a saving, effectual work of the Holy Spirit in their renovation, as that the proudest and most petulant of them shall not be able to return anything of a solid answer thereunto. And herein we plead for nothing but the known doctrine of the ancient catholic church, declared in the writings of the most learned fathers and determinations of councils against the Pelagians, whose errors and heresies are again revived among us by a crew of Socinianized Arminians.”


I take it to be referring to time of Christ, and also dealing with time of his Second Coming.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> I think I can generally agree with those statements yes, but none of that takes away from the NC being the consummation (It is finished) of the overall CoG.
> 
> Read the Matthew Henry commentary. It helped me at least. OT (elect) and NT (elect) have always been saved the same way in my opinion, by faith in Christ alone and by the grace of God alone (redemption applied by the HS in OT and NT)..that is the formula of the CoG..made most fully clear in the NC. If the OT saints only needed to do law (which was impossible since the fall on their own), but needed not redemption by grace alone, then none of our dead OT brothers/sisters could have ever been saved....less you believe there is more than 1 way of salvation after the fall. Job/David/ Moses did not enter the CoG after Christ stated "it is finished"...no they were apart of the CoG before the 12 apostles (minus Judas) were a part of the CoG.
> 
> I hope this helps. As always I am open to corrections.


All saved in either Covenant would be due to the Cross of Christ, and saved by Faith alone, through grace alone, but the 2 Covenants are not the same, as there is some discontinuity between the 2 of them, not as much as Dispensational see it, but not as little as Presbyterians would see it.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> I take it to be referring to time of Christ, and also dealing with time of his Second Coming.



We fully understand how you 'take it'. Absolutely, no one in the historic church held to this belief; this is classic, pre-mil dispensationalism, i.e. Scofield, Ryrie et. al., which is slightly more that a century old.

John Macarthur, who is a classic dispensationalist, even he, disagrees with you.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Grant.Jones said:


> Thanks for sharing. This article does showcase the 1689federlaism vs. what they call “modern Baptist covinenet theology”. I have been looking for that diagram... because I think it was removed from the 1689federalism site.


Yes, I am not sure if a full study has been done on Spurgeon's Baptist CT. You may find it a worthwhile exercise to read all Spurgeon's sermons on the covenants and related topics, and see if you can establish Spurgeon's particular view on this.



Grant.Jones said:


> Brother.....I merely state that you hold to a baptist CT because from your personal information on your profile you claim to hold to the LBC ....so no I really have no quibble just noted something from your profile info.... if your profile would have listed Westminster, I would have said Presbyterian CT. I assume one who holds to the LBC (first or second for that matter) is a baptist with some form of CT... if the assumption is wrong... then i stand corrected.


Apologies! I stand corrected. I had changed my signature but not my profile.



Grant.Jones said:


> But again thank you for that Wordpress article... I could no longer find the diagram used in the 1689federlalist site, and it was helpful.


The 1689 Federalism website used to have a video on "1689 Federalism" and another on "modern day Reformed Baptist theology" as a contrast. They appear to have removed the latter perhaps because of some debates within USA RB churches.


----------



## Smeagol

Stephen L Smith said:


> Yes, I am not sure if a full study has been done on Spurgeon's Baptist CT. You may find it a worthwhile exercise to read all Spurgeon's sermons on the covenants and related topics, and see if you can establish Spurgeon's particular view on this.
> 
> 
> Apologies! I stand corrected. I had changed my signature but not my profile.
> 
> 
> The 1689 Federalism website used to have a video on "1689 Federalism" and another on "modern day Reformed Baptist theology" as a contrast. They appear to have removed the latter perhaps because of some debates within USA RB churches.


Yes it is strange that both have been taken down from the site.... perhaps a PR move haha


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> No, I fully agree that water baptism is tobe dome to one based upon the confession of now being saved by Jesus, but to Paul, the indwelling of the Holy spirit would be the true sign.


Once again, the indwelling of the Spirit is not a sign. Not to Paul, not to anyone. A sign is something people do to symbolize something. The indwelling of the HS is a sovereign work of Himself.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> I meant the Historical pre millennium viewpoint concerning Jesus Second Coming.


That viewpoint is Dipensational, no matter how you slice it....


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> That viewpoint is Dipensational, no matter how you slice it....


Agreed....

David maybe it would be good to re-consider your end time theology.... this might also help you nail down a consistent CT.


----------



## Pilgrim

Ben Zartman said:


> I know a dispensationalist whose master's dissertation was an effort to prove that Spurgeon was also a dispensationalist



Who might that be?


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> Thanks for the link, Grant.
> I know a dispensationalist whose master's dissertation was an effort to prove that Spurgeon was also a dispensationalist....point being, quotes can be cherry-picked from almost anybody to prove something. Strangely, they call my view modern, and admit that John Gill held to it. But no amount of dead guys on either side can compare to the witness of Scripture.
> I will say in charity to my Federalism friends, that there is a lot of "do this and receive temporal blessings" language in the OC. But what they miss is that the temporal blessings, the land promises, all those things, are types and shadows of the reality. The Mosaic law was a schoolmaster to show them (and us) the need for an alien righteousness--no one could ever hope to be justified by the works of the law. Did God chastise temporal law breaking with temporal curses? sure! But even that was illustrating the principle we still have today: that the way of the transgressor is hard, and that whom the Lord loves He chastens.
> 
> It could even be said that the promise to Abraham has been fulfilled, that everywhere his foot trod would be given to his descendants. It was, and more, during the reigns of David and Solomon. But David and Solomon were only shadows of Messiah, and the peace and prosperity they brought were only shadows of the better peace, the better-the _spiritual_-prosperity that were coming with Christ. So though it was fulfilled in a way, the land of Palestine was only a shadow of what the promise to Abraham was really about. Abraham by faith was seeking a city not made with men's hands, eternal in the heavens.
> 
> While they recoil in horror at the term, the 1689 federalists insistence upon temporal land and temporal blessings being the point of the OC is dangerously close to being dispensational. Someone should make a Venn Diagram showing how similar those two positions have become.


Ben,

You may also find this article interesting. The 1689 crew further explaining the choice to use the label "20th Century Reformed Baptist". I don't agree with the label, but I thought you might find interesting.

https://contrast2.wordpress.com/cat...ederalism/20th-century-reformed-baptist-view/


----------



## Ben Zartman

Pilgrim said:


> Who might that be?


A distant relation, unknown to the world otherwise.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Grant.Jones said:


> Ben,
> 
> You may also find this article interesting. The 1689 crew further explaining the choice to use the label "20th Century Reformed Baptist". I don't agree with the label, but I thought you might find interesting.
> 
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/cat...ederalism/20th-century-reformed-baptist-view/


I have a hard time reading much of their stuff, because they are so wordy, and quote at such length. They should prob'ly stick to Venn Diagrams for attention spans as brief as mine. But thanks for the link! I'd rather they succinctly expounded the scriptures rather than quote reams of dead-guy notes.


----------



## Smeagol

Ben Zartman said:


> I have a hard time reading much of their stuff, because they are so wordy, and quote at such length. They should prob'ly stick to Venn Diagrams for attention spans as brief as mine. But thanks for the link! I'd rather they succinctly expounded the scriptures rather than quote reams of dead-guy notes.


Haha... I did not fully read either, but skimmed.


----------



## JTB.SDG

Grant.Jones said:


> Matthew Henry's Commentary (always great in my opinion) offers helpful clarity on this section of Jeremiah as well. David you may find it helpful to read this as well.
> 
> From Matthew Henry's Commentary:
> 
> That God will renew his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. But this covenant refers to gospel times, the latter days that shall come; for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Heb. 8:8, Heb. 8:9 , etc.), where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made—with the house of Israel and Judah, with the gospel church, the Israel of God on which peace shall be (Gal. 6:16 ), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob. Judah and Israel had been two separate kingdoms, but were united after their return, in the joint favours God bestowed upon them; so Jews and Gentiles were in the gospel church and covenant. 2. *What is the nature of this covenant in general: it is a new covenantand not according to the covenant made with them when they came out of Egypt; not as if that made with them at Mount Sinai were a covenant of nature and innocency, such as was made with Adam in the day he was created; no, that was, for substance, a covenant of grace, but it was a dark dispensation of that covenant in comparison with this in gospel times. Sinners were saved by that covenant upon their repentance, and faith in a Messiah to come, whose blood, confirming that covenant, was typified by that of the legal sacrifices, Ex. 24:7, Ex. 24:8 . *Yet this may upon many accounts be called new, in comparison with that; the ordinances and promises are more spiritual and heavenly, and the discoveries much more clear. That covenant God made with them when he took them by the hand, as they had been blind, or lame, or weak, to lead them out of the land of Egypt, which covenant they broke. Observe, It was God that made this covenant, but it was the people that broke it; for our salvation is of God, but our sin and ruin are of ourselves. It was an aggravation of their breach of it that God was a husband to them, that he had espoused them to himself; it was a marriage-covenant that was between him and them, which they broke by idolatry, that spiritual adultery. It is a great aggravation of our treacherous departures from God that he has been a husband to us, a loving, tender, careful husband, faithful to us, and yet we false to him. 3. What are the particular articles of his covenant. They all contain spiritual blessings; not, "I will give them the land of Canaan and a numerous issue,’’ but, "I will give them pardon, and peace, and grace, good heads and good hearts.’’ He promises, (1.) *That he will incline them to their duty; I will put my law in their inward part and write it in their heart; not, I will give them a new law (as Mr. Gataker well observes), for Christ came not to destroy the law, but to fulfil it; but the law shall be written in their hearts by the finger of the Spirit as formerly it was written in the tables of stone. God writes his law in the hearts of all believers, makes it ready and familiar to them, at hand when they have occasion to use it, as that which is written in the heart, Prov. 3:3 . He makes them in care to observe it, for that which we are solicitous about is said to lie near our hearts. He works in them a disposition to obedience, a conformity of thought and affection to the rules of the divine law, as that of the copy to the original. This is here promised, and ought to be prayed for, that our duty may be done conscientiously and with delight. *
> 
> (2.) That he will take them into relation to himself: I will be their God, a God all-sufficient to them, and they shall be my people, a loyal obedient people to me. God’s being to us a God is the summary of all happiness; heaven itself is no more, Heb. 11:16 ; Rev. 21:3 . Our being to him a people may be taken either as the condition on our part (those and those only shall have God to be to them a God that are truly willing to engage themselves to be to him a people) or as a further branch of the promise that God will by his grace make us his people, a willing people, in the day of his power; and, whoever are his people, it is his grace that makes them so. (3.) That there shall be an abundance of the knowledge of God among all sorts of people, and this will have an influence upon all good: for those that rightly know God’s name will seek him, and serve him, and put their trust in him (v. 34): All shall know me; all shall be welcome to the knowledge of God and shall have the means of that knowledge; his ways shall be known upon earth, whereas, for many ages, in Judah only was God known. Many more shall know God than did in the Old Testament times, which among the Gentiles were times of ignorance, the true God being to them an unknown God. The things of God shall in gospel times be made more plain and intelligible, and level to the capacities of the meanest, than they were while Moses had a veil upon his face. There shall be such a general knowledge of God that there shall not be so much need as had formerly been of teaching. Some take it as a hyperbolical expression (and the dulness of the Jews needed such expressions to awaken them), designed only to show that the knowledge of God in gospel times should vastly exceed that knowledge of him which they had under the law. Or perhaps it intimates that in gospel times there shall be such great plenty of public preaching, statedly and constantly, by men authorized and appointed to preach the word in season and out of season, much beyond what was under the law, that there shall be less need than there was then of fraternal teaching, by a neighbour and a brother. The priests preached but now and then, and in the temple, and to a few in comparison; but now all shall or may know God by frequenting the assemblies of Christians, wherein, through all parts of the church, the good knowledge of God shall be taught. Some give this sense of it (Mr. Gataker mentions it), That many shall have such clearness of understanding in the things of God that they may seem rather to have been taught by some immediate irradiation than by any means of instruction. In short, the things of God shall by the gospel of Christ be brought to a clearer light than ever (2 Tim. 1:10 ), and the people of God shall by the grace of Christ be brought to a clearer sight of those things than ever, Eph. 1:17, Eph. 1:18 . (4.) That, in order to all these blessings, sin shall be pardoned. This is made the reason of all the rest: For I will forgive their iniquity, will not impute that to them, nor deal with them according to the desert of that, will forgive and forget: I will remember their sin no more. It is sin that keeps good things from us, that stops the current of God’s favours; let sin betaken away by pardoning mercy, and the obstruction is removed, and divine grace runs down like a river, like a mighty stream.



To put it in a similar way, I think we can understand Jeremiah 31 in this way (copy/pasted from Sinai-2 Ruin and Redemption): 

You may be familiar with the theologian Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening that became associated, in part, with his ministry. It was at the height of the Great Awakening, in July 1741, that Edwards preached a sermon called, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. God spoke to the listeners of this particular sermon in such a powerful way that Edwards was interrupted several times by people audibly moaning, and crying out, “What shall I do to be saved?” But not everyone knows that this was actually the second time Edwards preached this sermon. He preached the same sermon to his own congregation earlier, and as far as we know, there wasn't nearly the same effect. Sometimes God is pleased to work more powerfully than at other times. And this is another way that Scripture seems to contrast the old and new covenants.

In Jeremiah 31:33, the Lord tells His people about the new covenant He would make with them, contrasting it with the covenant He had made with them at Sinai, saying: “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the Lord, 'I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'” This is truly an amazing promise; but it also leaves us wondering: Didn't God do the same thing in the Old Testament? Did God only begin to write His Law in the hearts of His people in the new covenant? Wasn't it David who wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against you” (Psalm 119:11)? How then are we to understand the prophecy in Jeremiah? I think in this way: God did write His Law on the hearts of His old covenant people. There were indeed many in the Old Testament, such as David, who embraced God's covenant through faith. God took His Word and applied it effectually to their hearts. But, sadly, there were also countless others who remained unchanged. Moses told his whole congregation in the wilderness: “Yet to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.” (Deuteronomy 29:4). And Isaiah cried out, “For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant within them will return. . .” (10:22). So then, though many in the old covenant embraced the message of the gospel, many more remained unchanged. Though there were periods of revival and decline in Israel, it seems on the whole that few embraced Christ.

But it would be different in the new covenant. This is the point of Jeremiah's contrast. God would write His Law on the hearts of His people on a much greater scale. So that if we think of the multitude of those whom God is now effectually drawing to himself in the new covenant Church, we have to say that those who embraced the covenant in ancient Israel were few by comparison. Just as with Edwards' sermon, the content was the same in the Old Testament; the old covenant was no less about the gospel (Hebrews 4:2,6). But the effect would be different in the new covenant, because God now applies His Word powerfully to the hearts of His people, by His Spirit, in a much greater proportion. As one writer put it: “as one star differs from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jews, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the fountain. . .”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Smeagol

Thanks everyone for making this thread a great one in my opinion. No matter where you landed or where you currently stand, I greatly appreciate your feedback and input. May the Lord bless you as Iron sharpens Iron.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> We fully understand how you 'take it'. Absolutely, no one in the historic church held to this belief; this is classic, pre-mil dispensationalism, i.e. Scofield, Ryrie et. al., which is slightly more that a century old.
> 
> John Macarthur, who is a classic dispensationalist, even he, disagrees with you.


No, not Dispensational theology, as I grew up in that full blown, and do know that a real Dispensational would see Israel and the Church as 2 separate Entity in economy of God, and I see the Church as being spiritual Israel, real reborn Israel now. The prophet Jeremiah prophecy was of a future that as to come yet unto them, and that was when Lord Jesus, messiah of God came in the flesh. I am a Historical premil, and see the Jewish people in same light as Spurgeon did, as being reborn as spiritual Israel at time of the Second Coming of Christ.
You seem to lump together all premils as being also Dispensational.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> That viewpoint is Dipensational, no matter how you slice it....


Actually, no, as there are some who hold to Covenant preMil, believe in a Presbyterian church group, and Spurgeon himself held to it also.


----------



## Dachaser

JTB.SDG said:


> To put it in a similar way, I think we can understand Jeremiah 31 in this way (copy/pasted from Sinai-2 Ruin and Redemption):
> 
> You may be familiar with the theologian Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening that became associated, in part, with his ministry. It was at the height of the Great Awakening, in July 1741, that Edwards preached a sermon called, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. God spoke to the listeners of this particular sermon in such a powerful way that Edwards was interrupted several times by people audibly moaning, and crying out, “What shall I do to be saved?” But not everyone knows that this was actually the second time Edwards preached this sermon. He preached the same sermon to his own congregation earlier, and as far as we know, there wasn't nearly the same effect. Sometimes God is pleased to work more powerfully than at other times. And this is another way that Scripture seems to contrast the old and new covenants.
> 
> In Jeremiah 31:33, the Lord tells His people about the new covenant He would make with them, contrasting it with the covenant He had made with them at Sinai, saying: “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,' declares the Lord, 'I will put My law within them and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.'” This is truly an amazing promise; but it also leaves us wondering: Didn't God do the same thing in the Old Testament? Did God only begin to write His Law in the hearts of His people in the new covenant? Wasn't it David who wrote, “Your word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against you” (Psalm 119:11)? How then are we to understand the prophecy in Jeremiah? I think in this way: God did write His Law on the hearts of His old covenant people. There were indeed many in the Old Testament, such as David, who embraced God's covenant through faith. God took His Word and applied it effectually to their hearts. But, sadly, there were also countless others who remained unchanged. Moses told his whole congregation in the wilderness: “Yet to this day the Lord has not given you a heart to know, nor eyes to see, nor ears to hear.” (Deuteronomy 29:4). And Isaiah cried out, “For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, only a remnant within them will return. . .” (10:22). So then, though many in the old covenant embraced the message of the gospel, many more remained unchanged. Though there were periods of revival and decline in Israel, it seems on the whole that few embraced Christ.
> 
> But it would be different in the new covenant. This is the point of Jeremiah's contrast. God would write His Law on the hearts of His people on a much greater scale. So that if we think of the multitude of those whom God is now effectually drawing to himself in the new covenant Church, we have to say that those who embraced the covenant in ancient Israel were few by comparison. Just as with Edwards' sermon, the content was the same in the Old Testament; the old covenant was no less about the gospel (Hebrews 4:2,6). But the effect would be different in the new covenant, because God now applies His Word powerfully to the hearts of His people, by His Spirit, in a much greater proportion. As one writer put it: “as one star differs from another in glory, thus did the Church of the Jews, from that of Christians. They had drops, but we have the fountain. . .”


The Old Covenant was with national Israel, and not all under it benefits/provisions were actually redeemed, but under the NC, all who are in it are actually redeemed/saved by God.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> That viewpoint is Dipensational, no matter how you slice it....


One can be premil, and hold to CT, see Spurgeon and others.


----------



## Gforce9

Dachaser said:


> No, not Dispensational theology, as I grew up in that full blown, and do know that a real Dispensational would see Israel and the Church as 2 separate Entity in economy of God, and I see the Church as being spiritual Israel, real reborn Israel now. The prophet Jeremiah prophecy was of a future that as to come yet unto them, and that was when Lord Jesus, messiah of God came in the flesh. I am a Historical premil, and see the Jewish people in same light as Spurgeon did, as being reborn as spiritual Israel at time of the Second Coming of Christ.
> You seem to lump together all premils as being also Dispensational.


----------



## Dachaser

Gforce9 said:


>


There are reformed who hold to premil, and even some that hold to God right at end of this Age dealing again with Jewish people, so what is the problem here?

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> There are reformed who hold to premil, and even some that hold to God right at end of this Age dealing again with Jewish people, so what is the problem here?


David,
The definition of dispensationalism does not change with what each person thinks to himself it means. If you believe that there will be a future people of Israel distinct from the church, that is one tenet of dispensationalism. You need not embrace all the fantasies of dispensationalism to believe dispensational things.
If "premil" means that Jesus returns and then reigns physically in Jerusalem for 1000 years, that is dispensational. The Chiliasts of old thought the same thing. You should see what Calvin said about them...

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

Ben Zartman said:


> David,
> The definition of dispensationalism does not change with what each person thinks to himself it means.



My same thought or theological stew.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> David,
> The definition of dispensationalism does not change with what each person thinks to himself it means. If you believe that there will be a future people of Israel distinct from the church, that is one tenet of dispensationalism. You need not embrace all the fantasies of dispensationalism to believe dispensational things.
> If "premil" means that Jesus returns and then reigns physically in Jerusalem for 1000 years, that is dispensational. The Chiliasts of old thought the same thing. You should see what Calvin said about them...


I believe the same as Spurgeon did regarding the Jewish people, as have others, that God will in some fashion be dealing with them once again right at the time of the Second Coming of Christ. Not Jesus setting up Israel to rule over all nations, as Dispensational viewed though. more like those Jews alive at that time will all be converted and saved by God.


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> My same thought or theological stew.


God still having future dealings with the Jews is not Dispensational theology per say, as there are non Dispensational who have held that same view, see Spurgeon.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> God still having future dealings with the Jews is not Dispensational theology per say, as there are non Dispensational who have held that same view, see Spurgeon.


Let us view this logically: if the belief in future dealings with ethnic Israel is a dispensational tenet, and Spurgeon belived in it, then Spurgeon believed a dispensational tenet. That didn't make him a full-blown Dispensational--it just means he had an incorrect view of eschatology. Nearly every theologian that can be named had/has a skeleton of error or two in his closet--"the best of men are men at best," as my pastor is fond of saying.
We don't throw out all the good of Arthur Pink because he became reclusive; we don't reject all of Lloyd-Jones because he had some pentecostal notions; we don't shun J.I. Packer's good literature because he's all but swum the Tiber, nor R.C. Sproul because he had 2nd commandment issues. Who else? Dabney, Luther, Wesley, even, contributed much good to christendom even while we have concerns about aspects of their belief and practice. So why would Spurgeon be any different?


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Let us view this logically: if the belief in future dealings with ethnic Israel is a dispensational tenet, and Spurgeon belived in it, then Spurgeon believed a dispensational tenet. That didn't make him a full-blown Dispensational--it just means he had an incorrect view of eschatology. Nearly every theologian that can be named had/has a skeleton of error or two in his closet--"the best of men are men at best," as my pastor is fond of saying.
> We don't throw out all the good of Arthur Pink because he became reclusive; we don't reject all of Lloyd-Jones because he had some pentecostal notions; we don't shun J.I. Packer's good literature because he's all but swum the Tiber, nor R.C. Sproul because he had 2nd commandment issues. Who else? Dabney, Luther, Wesley, even, contributed much good to christendom even while we have concerns about aspects of their belief and practice. So why would Spurgeon be any different?


My point is that holding to God converting enmasse the Jews at time of Second Coming is not Dispensational per say, as Postmils see God converting many Jews, as do Covenant and Dispensational PreMils.
Just holding to that is not only Dispensational theology.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Dachaser said:


> My point is that holding to God converting enmasse the Jews at time of Second Coming is not Dispensational per say, as Postmils see God converting many Jews, as do Covenant and Dispensational PreMils.
> Just holding to that is not only Dispensational theology.


The dogmatic "enmasse" bit is likely getting you into trouble.

We are straying from the OP and I suggest you start another thread about these views of yours. But, to wrap the matter up and to not proceed further in this thread, how about a more careful perspective, taken in the following order:

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-have-some-questions.15251/page-3#post-198486

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-5#post-658373

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-5#post-658411

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-6#post-658794

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-6#post-658844

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...-john-macarthur-here.50723/page-6#post-658874

Perhaps, after careful examination of the above and revamping what you are saying about _enmasse_, you might just be cooking on the front burner. This is a test of one's systematization skills (six detailed comments above needing to be boiled down cogently and succinctly), too.


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> My point is that holding to God converting enmasse the Jews at time of Second Coming is not Dispensational per say, as Postmils see God converting many Jews, as do Covenant and Dispensational PreMils.
> Just holding to that is not only Dispensational theology.


Converted jews is one thing... as all elect are converted in God’s timing both Jew and gentile before the 2nd coming.

So long as you are not maintaining that the gentile Church and Jews will be separate groups...with separate blessings. Christ is head of 1 body the Church. The true invisible church is made up of all elect who are converted Jew and Gentile alike.

Mr. Religion..... feel free to close the thread if you see fit. I feel the OP has been exhausted enough. Thank you sir.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

Grant.Jones said:


> Mr. Religion..... feel free to close the thread if you see fit. I feel the OP has been exhausted enough. Thank you sir.


Done.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

The major weakness I see in the article in the original post is the "covenant or grace or salvation as justification" throughout.

It is true that the only fruition that man may have with God is by His condescension but I think the breaking up of the Covenants and the notion that the CoG is not in place doesn't reckon with the issue of the corruption aspect of the Fall.

The Fall not only makes mankind guilty of Adam's sin but corrupt in his whole person (sinner) and utterly unable to obey God.

The necessity for another Mediator in Christ is not merely to deal with guilt but power over sin and death in the ultimate sense.

Before the Fall, Adam had a natural ability to not only believe God and have faith in Him but also to fulfill the commands of God.

After the Fall, mankind lost both the natural moral ability to obey God and is utterly hostile to Him.

If the COG is not operative and the COW is in place then dealing with man's guilt in Covenants before the Fall (because some aspects of Christ' redemption are worked backward) does not itself deal with the bondage to sin in which fallen humanity is incapable of obeying God's command.

The CoW is a relationship in Adam. Guilty, sinner, dead. To speak of a CoW as operative for God's people after the Fall is to say that dead people are justified. Abraham believed how? If Christ did not purchase His faith and His work did not free him from bondage to believe then he did so naturally?

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion

re: here

Thread re-opened.


----------



## Smeagol

Semper Fidelis said:


> The major weakness I see in the article in the original post is the "covenant or grace or salvation as justification" throughout.
> 
> It is true that the only fruition that man may have with God is by His condescension but I think the breaking up of the Covenants and the notion that the CoG is not in place doesn't reckon with the issue of the corruption aspect of the Fall.
> 
> The Fall not only makes mankind guilty of Adam's sin but corrupt in his whole person (sinner) and utterly unable to obey God.
> 
> The necessity for another Mediator in Christ is not merely to deal with guilt but power over sin and death in the ultimate sense.
> 
> Before the Fall, Adam had a natural ability to not only believe God and have faith in Him but also to fulfill the commands of God.
> 
> After the Fall, mankind lost both the natural moral ability to obey God and is utterly hostile to Him.
> 
> If the COG is not operative and the COW is in place then dealing with man's guilt in Covenants before the Fall (because some aspects of Christ' redemption are worked backward) does not itself deal with the bondage to sin in which fallen humanity is incapable of obeying God's command.
> 
> The CoW is a relationship in Adam. Guilty, sinner, dead. To speak of a CoW as operative for God's people after the Fall is to say that dead people are justified. Abraham believed how? If Christ did not purchase His faith and His work did not free him from bondage to believe then he did so naturally?


Thanks, I never really thought about it that way, but that seems to make the whole argument (as it is put fourth in the linked OP article) Inconsistent.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

It is possible to hold that there was a republication of the covenant of works under Moses, without holding that the Mosaic administration was a covenant of works simpliciter. I believe that the Mosaic economy was an administration of the covenant of grace, but that the covenant of works was republished during the Mosaic administration for typological and pedagogical purposes. Until I came to this position, I could make no sense of various passages of scripture. Namely, Leviticus 18:5, Romans 10:5ff, Galatians 3 and 4.

The fact that republication is often argued for by people with whom I would have some serious disagreements on other matters is #NotAnArgument against recognising that it is the teaching of scripture. Moreover, it has the added bonus of serving as a bulwark against denials of the covenant of works by Shepherdites, Barthians, Federal Visionists, Rushdoonyites, and Hoeksemites (the latter two groups still affirm justification by faith alone, but that is a happy inconsistency as far as I am concerned).


----------



## Smeagol

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is possible to hold that there was a republication of the covenant of works under Moses, without holding that the Mosaic administration was a covenant of works simpliciter. I believe that the Mosaic economy was an administration of the covenant of grace, but that the covenant of works was republished during the Mosaic administration for typological and pedagogical purposes. Until I came to this position, I could make no sense of various passages of scripture. Namely, Leviticus 18:5, Romans 10:5ff, Galatians 3 and 4.
> 
> The fact that republication is often argued for by people with whom I would have some serious disagreements on other matters is #NotAnArgument against recognising that it is the teaching of scripture. Moreover, it has the added bonus of serving as a bulwark against denials of the covenant of works by Shepherdites, Barthians, Federal Visionists, Rushdoonyites, and Hoeksemites (the latter two groups still affirm justification by faith alone, but that is a happy inconsistency as far as I am concerned).


Thanks for sharing another perspective...as the republication brothers/sisters have been virtually silent, outside of the Poll, in this thread. Though I disagree with the republication position, I was first introduced to this view by R. Scott Clark's podcast, which was very informative.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Covenanter said:


> It is possible to hold that there was a republication of the covenant of works under Moses, without holding that the Mosaic administration was a covenant of works simpliciter. I believe that the Mosaic economy was an administration of the covenant of grace, but that the covenant of works was republished during the Mosaic administration for typological and pedagogical purposes. Until I came to this position, I could make no sense of various passages of scripture. Namely, Leviticus 18:5, Romans 10:5ff, Galatians 3 and 4.
> 
> The fact that republication is often argued for by people with whom I would have some serious disagreements on other matters is #NotAnArgument against recognising that it is the teaching of scripture. Moreover, it has the added bonus of serving as a bulwark against denials of the covenant of works by Shepherdites, Barthians, Federal Visionists, Rushdoonyites, and Hoeksemites (the latter two groups still affirm justification by faith alone, but that is a happy inconsistency as far as I am concerned).


The Covenant of Grace was unconditional, but he Mosaic one seems to be limited and conditional, based up whether the party had been obedient to the laws and provisions of God given to them at that time.


----------



## Jonathan R

Stephen L Smith said:


> The 1689 Federalism website used to have a video on "1689 Federalism" and another on "modern day Reformed Baptist theology" as a contrast. They appear to have removed the latter perhaps because of some debates within USA RB churches.



Strange, I hadn't noticed that it had been taken down. It isn't on YouTube anymore either. I did find this version of it on Vimeo:


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> The Covenant of Grace was unconditional, but he Mosaic one seems to be limited and conditional, based up whether the party had been obedient to the laws and provisions of God given to them at that time.


David, how would you reconcile this?

If that were true, and the Mosaic covenant was merely what you have defined it as, then all of the OT covenant community upon death went straight to hell... because no one has ever kept the law perfectly except for Christ .

Also remember that the new covenant has a condition and that is to repent and believe by grace alone and through faith alone in Christ alone.


----------



## Dachaser

Grant.Jones said:


> David, how would you reconcile this?
> 
> If that were true, and the Mosaic covenant was merely what you have defined it as, then all of the OT covenant community upon death went straight to hell... because no one has ever kept the law perfectly except for Christ .
> 
> Also remember that the new covenant has a condition and that is to repent and believe by grace alone and through faith alone in Christ alone.


I see the salvation for all OT same as for any of us, but the Mosaic law given to israel to me was God promising physical/health blessings based upon obedience mainly.


----------

