# The Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace?



## Pergamum (Aug 7, 2017)

I am trying to evaluate this quote:

"Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism says the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace."

Up until recently I had never heard anyone (credo or paedobaptist) who said that the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. Was this ever a view represented among any of the Reformed?


----------



## jomawh (Aug 7, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Up until recently I had never heard anyone (credo or paedobaptist) who said that the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. Was this ever a view represented among any of the Reformed?



Even Owen held that the Abrahamic was the Covenant of Grace, according to Dr. McMahon.

http://www.apuritansmind.com/covena...venant-of-redemption-by-dr-c-matthew-mcmahon/

To be frank the whole proposition that the Abrahamic promised, but was not itself, the Covenant of Grace, is enough to make me seriously question the 1689 Federalist articulation of Covenant theology. The Abrahamic covenant *bled *grace. Abraham, and all OT saints for that matter, saw through the "scaffolding" to the substance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 7, 2017)

McMahon has very severely misunderstood Owen.
https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/mcmahons-misrepresentation-of-john-owen/



jomawh said:


> Abraham saw through the typological "scaffolding" and believed in the promise of the Holy Spirit.



1689 Federalism doesn't say otherwise.


----------



## jomawh (Aug 7, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> 1689 Federalism doesn't say otherwise


I've since updated my post, but to be sincere I'm not interested in interacting with someone willing to speak false witness against a believer by accusing them of holding to Federal Vision and then not even attempt an apology.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 8, 2017)

Mason,

I tried to PM you, but the system said I am not allowed to start a conversation with you. I would be happy to continue the discussion with you if possible.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 8, 2017)

jomawh said:


> Abraham, and all OT saints for that matter, saw through the "scaffolding" to the substance.



1689 Federalism doesn't say otherwise.


----------



## brandonadams (Aug 8, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Was this ever a view represented among any of the Reformed?



This was a view held by the vast majority of particular baptists. So it depends on whether or not you consider them Reformed. I believe Owen held this as well, though he made other statements that appear to contradict it.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 8, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Was this ever a view represented among any of the Reformed?



To say that the Abrahamic covenant _is_ the covenant of grace is to equate the two. It would be more accurate to say the Abrahamic covenant _was an administration_. To answer your question: I haven't found any reformed authors to say such. Calvin, Witsius, Ursinus, Ball, Ussher, the Westminster Assembly all call the Abrahamic Covenant an administration of the covenant of Grace.

If you can get your hands on it, I'd recommend Andrew Woolsey's book _Unity_ and _Continuity in Covenantal Thought_. It goes over the issues of covenant theology as held in history and the unity/continuity between the reformers, puritans, and even previous.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 8, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> To say that the Abrahamic covenant _is_ the covenant of grace is to equate the two. It would be more accurate to say the Abrahamic covenant _was an administration_. To answer your question: I haven't found any reformed authors to say such. Calvin, Witsius, Ursinus, Ball, Ussher, the Westminster Assembly all call the Abrahamic Covenant an administration of the covenant of Grace.
> 
> If you can get your hands on it, I'd recommend Andrew Woolsey's book _Unity_ and _Continuity in Covenantal Thought_. It goes over the issues of covenant theology as held in history and the unity/continuity between the reformers, puritans, and even previous.


Okay, just bought the book on Kindle. Thanks.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> This was a view held by the vast majority of particular baptists. So it depends on whether or not you consider them Reformed. I believe Owen held this as well, though he made other statements that appear to contradict it.


Would this be due to reformed Baptists on the whole seeing the CoG as actually being the NC itself?


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 8, 2017)

brandonadams said:


> McMahon has very severely misunderstood Owen.
> https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2010/09/20/mcmahons-misrepresentation-of-john-owen/
> 1689 Federalism doesn't say otherwise.



No, I haven't. I've just been kind to Owen in reading ALL of Owen, not the misuse of saying "consider his more mature thoughts", as if to delete 40 years of his work previous to a few passages that deal with the Abrahamic Covenant.
Unless one has read ALL of Owen, then they ought not to weigh in. (Like the fellow who wrote that article missing much of Owen throughout his works.)

Its as if one would say, once you get to Calvin's commentaries, written after the Institutes, disregard his less mature thoughts in the _Institutes_. The commentaries are his more "mature thoughts." Ug. Yeah, except when Calvin says, if you want to know my mind, go read the _Institutes_. The purpose of theologians writing things down is so they don't have to continually reproduce the same info over and over. Owen is quite voluminous. He should be thoroughly read, and everything considered.

Owen says,
"§36. It is added, seventhly, concerning the person here spoken of, and whose coming is foretold, 'he shall confirm,' or strengthen, ' *the covenant *unto many.' *The covenant *spoken of *absolutely, *can be none but *that everlasting covenant *which God made *with his elect, *in the promised seed ; the great promise whereof was *the foundation of the covenant with Abraham. *And hence God says, that he will ' give *him *for *a covenant *unto the people,' Isa. xlii. 6; chap. xlix. 8. And the salvation which they looked for through him, God promiseth through the blood of *the covenant, *Zech. ix. 11. *This covenant *he *strengthened *unto many in the week wherein he suffered, even unto all that believed in him. *This everlasting covenant *was ratified in his blood, Heb. ix. 15, and after he had declared it in his own ministry, he caused *it *to be proclaimed *in and by his gospel. *At the time here determined, the especial covenant with Israel and Judah was broken, Zech. xi. 10, and they were thereon cast off from being a church or people. Nor was there at that season any other ratification of the covenant, but only what was made in the death of the Messiah." -Owen, J. (n.d.). _An Exposition of the Epistle to the Hebrews_ by John Owen (Vol. 1).
​Owen, "God is present or with any in respect of the covenant of grace. He is with them *to be their God in covenant.*" Owen, J. (n.d.). The Works of John Owen (Vol. 8). That sure does sound familiar. Where did God ever say that....? 

Owen, "It is not in my purpose to handle _the nature _of *the covenant of grace, *but only briefly to look into it, so far as it hath influence into the truth in hand. The covenant of grace, then, as it inwraps the *unchangeable love and favour *of God towards those who are taken into *the bond thereof, *is that which lieth under our present consideration. The other great branch of it (upon the account of the same faithfulness of God), communicating *permanency or perseverance in itself unto the saints, *securing their continuance with God, shall, the Lord assisting, more peculiarly be explained when we arrive to the head of our discourse, unless enough to that purpose may fall in occasionally in the progress of this business. For our present purpose, the producing and vindicating of one or two texts of Scripture, being unavoidably expressive towards the end aimed at, shall suffice. *The first of these is Gen. xvii. 7, *" I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee." *This is that which God engageth himself unto in this covenant of grace, that he will for everlasting be a God to him*. Owen, J. (n.d.). The Works of John Owen (Vol. 11).

Owen, "This argument may be thus further cleared and improved: — *Christ is " the messenger of the covenant," *Mai. iii. 1, — *that is, the covenant of God with Abraham, *Gen. xvii. 7 ; for, — 1. That covenant was with and unto Christ mystical, Gal. iii. 16; and he was the messenger of no covenant but that which was made with himself and his members. 2. He was sent, or was God's messenger, to perform and accomplish *the covenant and oath made with Abraham, *Luke i. 72, 73. 3. The end of his message and of his coming was, that those to whom he was sent might be "blessed *with faithful Abraham," *or that
"the blessing *of Abraham" promised in the covenant, *" might come upon them," Gal. iii. 9, 14. Owen, J. (n.d.). The Works of John Owen (Vol. 16).

Owen must not have read Owen, or misunderstood himself. (??)

And so LISTEN all my dispensational friends....

Owen, "*To deny this* [_i.e. what is posted above_], *overthrows the whole relation between the old testament and the new, *the *veracity of God in his promises, *and *all the properties of the covenant of grace, *mentioned 2 Sam. xxiii. 5. Owen, J. (n.d.). The Works of John Owen (Vol. 16).

At the same time, I want to be gracious to my dispensational friends. We are often captive to our circumstances. If we are not widely and thoroughly well read, (like really well read) on the topic of CT, it is going to be a bear to try and figure out what everyone said and what everyone means. There are far too many armchair theologians out there who irresponsibly "post" things on the internet without considering everything to be considered. There is simply not enough time in the day to deal with it all. The internet is a monster in that regard.

With that said, I have too much on my plate to systematically untwist so much current dispensational thought on the board. I've taken on too many other responsibilities. Just read ALL of Owen. Or Witsius. Or Turretin. Or Ball. Or Calvin. Or Bridges. Or Sibbes. Or Perkins. Or Blake. Or Strong. Or....well, you get the point. Blessings.

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## Joseph Noah Gagliardi (Aug 8, 2017)

The problem with covenant theology is that we are idiots, in general, and we have to have our heads knocked a bit to put some sense into them. Also, labels tend to get in the way of our natural way of thinking. I hope to clear up a little confusion.
1. Genesis 12:1-3. "Now the Lord had said unto Abram, Get thee out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and from thy father’s house, unto a land that I will shew thee: 2 and I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: 3 and I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed." Moreover, "Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness." Romans 4:3 Sounds like grace to me, considering, "_there is_ none that doeth good, no, not one." Psalm 14:3.
2. "For thou _art_ an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto himself, above all people that _are_ upon the face of the earth. The Lord did not set his love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye _were_ the fewest of all people: but because the Lord loved you, and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt." Deuteronomy 7:6-8. "the Lord loved you", sounds like grace to me.
3. 1 Corinthians 10:1-4. "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea; and were all baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea; and did all eat the same spiritual meat; and did all drink the same spiritual drink: for they drank of that spiritual Rock that followed them: and that Rock was Christ." The elect Israelites in the wilderness believed in Christ, they had faith, and it was counted to them as righteousness, or are they inferior to their father Abraham? They partook of Christ. Sounds like grace to me.
4. Now why do we call the New Covenant a "better" covenant? Because we have liberty in Christ, freed from the burden of keeping the ceremonial laws, which were a picture of our duty of perfect obedience, as well as, the Church being but in its infancy, they had more rules, if you will, just as a younger child has greater restrictions placed upon them than do their older siblings, that they may learn how to carry themselves through life, while they are yet young and tender.
Also, we do not look forward, awaiting the coming of our Messiah, for He has come, and fulfilled the law and the promises. We trust in Christ as the elect Jews did, for so says Paul. We now look back upon the work completed, we no longer await a suitor, wondering when He shall make an offer of engagement, for He has, and He sealed it by His death, and we look to His return, the marriage supper of the Lamb, when we will be untied with our Heavenly husband for all eternity. The Old Covenant believers did indeed believe, but they had not the thing, they had not Christ yet come, so they waited for Him to declare His love, but would we say they did not await their love, and look to His coming? Certainly not! But the bride was young and tempestuous, she must mature and grow, until she was of age. Then at the proper time, Christ entered the world, to make true His promise to be wed. No all we await is the marriage supper and the consummation of our union with Him. While there are undeniable differences in the dispensations of the Covenant, we may rightly call it the Covenant of Grace, for what else should we call it when the LORD Almighty chooses out a people to be wed to His Son, but grace? There are distinctions to be drawn, but it is also a matter of how it is looked at, and I think in context of our marriage to Christ, we really see more fully the true nature of the covenant. "for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church." Ephesian 5:30-32.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 8, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> To say that the Abrahamic covenant _is_ the covenant of grace is to equate the two. It would be more accurate to say the Abrahamic covenant _was an administration_. To answer your question: I haven't found any reformed authors to say such. Calvin, Witsius, Ursinus, Ball, Ussher, the Westminster Assembly all call the Abrahamic Covenant an administration of the covenant of Grace.
> 
> If you can get your hands on it, I'd recommend Andrew Woolsey's book _Unity_ and _Continuity in Covenantal Thought_. It goes over the issues of covenant theology as held in history and the unity/continuity between the reformers, puritans, and even previous.


As would be all Covenants until the coming of the NC, which is the CoG, correct?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 8, 2017)

These two excerpts are helpful:



> John von Rohr has persuasively argued that to “speak of the nature of the covenant of grace in Puritan thought is to speak actually of its two natures.… In the terminology of the Puritans the covenant of grace is both conditional and absolute.”2 Reformed theologians typically insisted on the covenant as both “one-sided” (monopleuron) and “two-sided” (dipleuron).3 In this way Puritan writings on the covenant presented a powerful polemic against other theological traditions, particularly that of Roman Catholicism and the seventeenth-century Antinomians. John Flavel (1628–1691) explains the issues involved by noting, first, that the question of “whether the covenant of grace be conditional or absolute, was moved (as a learned Man observes) in the former Age, by occasion of the Controversy about Justification, betwixt the Protestants and Papists.”4 Flavel also addresses the reasons why Protestants did not always agree on whether conditions were required for salvation. Some Protestants denied conditionality “for fear of mingling Law and Gospel, Christ’s righteousness and Man’s, as the Papists had wickedly done before.”5 However, those who affirmed conditionality “did so out of fear also; lest the necessity of Faith and Holiness being relaxed, Libertinism should be that way introduced.”6 In Flavel’s mind, if certain necessary distinctions are agreed upon, there is no reason to deny that the covenant of grace is conditional.
> This chapter will focus less on the covenant considered as absolute or unconditional, and more on the conditions of the covenant as understood by Reformed theologians in Britain during the seventeenth century. These conditions, or requirements, fall under three principal headings: (1) the necessity of faith, (2) the necessity of evangelical obedience, and (3) the necessity of good works for salvation. With these three conditions in mind, the idea arises concerning a judgment according to works. Far from being Roman Catholic errors, these conditions of the covenant of grace were frequently discussed in the writings of Reformed theologians from the Reformation onward. This chapter aims to provide insight into the “two-sided” nature of the covenant of grace.
> 
> 
> ...


And Muller:



> foedus dipleuron or foedus δίπλευρον: two-sided or two-way covenant; at the point at which man enters into God’s covenant, receives the terms established by God and, in effect, becomes a partner in covenant with God, the foedus operum (q.v.) and foedus gratiae (q.v.) can be termed two-sided covenants. Foedus dipleuron, therefore, indicates, not the covenant in itself or in its underlying requirements, but rather the further relationship of God and man together in covenant, and particularly the free acceptance on the part of man of the promise of God and of the obedience required by the covenant. When man is faithful and obedient under covenant he, in effect, binds God to the promises, according to God’s own ordination. The contrast between foedus monopleuron (q.v.), one-sided covenant, and foedus dipleuron is particularly clear in the instance of the covenant of grace (foedus gratiae). Since the covenant is ordained by God alone and cannot be entered by fallen humanity unless God provides the grace necessary to regenerate the will and draw man into covenant, the covenant is initially one-sided; but once an individual is drawn into the covenant and his will is regenerated, responsibility under covenant and, specifically, faithful obedience to the will of God are required of him—and the covenant appears as two-sided. It is thus an error to oppose foedus monopleuron and foedus dipleuron as if there were two Reformed covenant theologies, the one predestinarian and the other voluntaristic; the language of monopleuron and dipleuron describes the same covenant from different points of view. SEE ex pacto; ex parte Dei; potentia ordinata.
> 
> foedus gratiae: covenant of grace; also foedus gratiae gratuitum: gracious or graciously given covenant of grace; and foedus gratiae evangelicum: covenant of grace concerning the gospel or evangelical covenant of grace; considered, first, as a foedus monopleuron (q.v.), or one-sided covenant, the covenant of grace is the pact (pactum, pactio) made by God beginning with the protevangelium (q.v.), confirmed and revealed more fully in Abraham, and finally fulfilled in Christ. It is a foedus monopleuron because it stands as a gracious promise of salvation given to fallen man apart from any consideration of man’s ability to respond to it or fulfill it and apart from any human initiative. Human beings are drawn into covenant by the grace of God alone. Once they enter covenant, however, and become parties to the divine offer of salvation, they take on responsibilities, under the covenant, before God. The foedus gratiae, therefore, also appears as a mutual pact and agreement between God and man, a foedus dipleuron (q.v.). Following Calvin, the Reformed speak of one foedus gratiae in substance (substantia), which can be divided or distinguished into several dispensations (SEE dispensatio), or temporal administrations. Thus, the covenant of grace does not alter in the substance of its promised salvation from the first announcement of grace to Adam and Eve, to the fuller promise of grace to Abraham and his seed, to the gift of the law in the Mosaic form of the covenant, to the modification of its administration under the Israelite monarchy and during the age of prophets, to its final dispensation begun in Christ and continuing to the end of the world. Viewed in this way, the Reformed doctrine of the foedus gratiae has the effect of drawing the Old and New Testaments together and of explaining the moral law (SEE lex moralis; lex Mosaica) as belonging to the divine promise of salvation rather than to the abrogated foedus operum (q.v.), or covenant of works. The entire biblical history of gracious promise, obedience under covenant, and saving fulfillment in Christ thus becomes a part—a central structure—of theological system and a pattern of salvation directly applicable to the life of God’s people in the present. Now, as in all previous dispensations, God requires faith and repentance of those in covenant with him.
> The administratio foederis gratiae, or administration of the covenant of grace, is described both historically and dogmatically by the scholastics. (1) Historically, the scholastics argue either a dichotomous division into the Old and New Testaments or a trichotomous division into the prelegal dispensatio from the protevangelium to Moses, the legal dispensatio from Moses to Christ, and the evangelical dispensatio from Christ to the end of time. The covenant can thus be described as ante legem (before the law), sub lege (under the law), and post legem (after the law). Earlier covenant theology further divided the covenant into Noachic and Abrahamic periods before Moses. (2) Dogmatically, the covenant can be considered in terms of its promulgation (promulgatio foederis, q.v.), its legal foundation, the stipulatio, nomothesia (q.v.), or sanctio foederis (q.v.), and its confirmation in and through covenant signs and seals (confirmatio foederis, q.v.). SEE usus legis.
> ...



This is helpful to understand when Puritans are talking about the CoG _absolutely_ they are talking about the CoG in one manner even if, from another manner, you could say that the fullness has yet to be enacted historically.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Aug 8, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> I am trying to evaluate this quote:
> 
> "Paedobaptism rests upon the belief that the Abrahamic Covenant was the Covenant of Grace. 1689 Federalism says the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace."
> 
> Up until recently I had never heard anyone (credo or paedobaptist) who said that the Abrahamic Covenant was not the Covenant of Grace. Was this ever a view represented among any of the Reformed?



Does the definite article before "Covenant of Grace" help qualify the 1689 position on its relationship to the Abrahamic Covenant?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 8, 2017)

Herald said:


> Does the definite article before "Covenant of Grace" help qualify the 1689 position on its relationship to the Abrahamic Covenant?


I am sorry to be so empty headed here Bill but what do you mean by definite article?


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 8, 2017)

_the_ Covenant of Grace where the word "the" is the definite article.

The point is that _the_ Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect (this is straight from our Confession). the Promise made to Abraham is a dispensation of it but not its full historical reality.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 8, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> As would be all Covenants until the coming of the NC, which is the CoG, correct?



I'm not sure "until" is the proper word. The NC is the consummation of the CoG. It is the finality of the CoG until the _consummatio saeculi._

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 8, 2017)

Are these threads both now on the same topic? 
https://puritanboard.com/threads/wh...-1689-and-modern-rb.93344/page-5#post-1140289


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 8, 2017)

Herald said:


> Does the definite article before "Covenant of Grace" help qualify the 1689 position on its relationship to the Abrahamic Covenant?



I think their speaking of "a covenant of works" after THE Covenant of Works was broken is unhelpful. There was only 1 Covenant of Works and only 1 Covenant of Grace and these two encompass all of mankind and all of history. So I get confused when I hear them say that Moses (or now Abraham) was a covenant of works. The Covenant of Works is unrepeated. 

But of course, Jesus fulfilled the law perfectly and many say our Covenant of Grace was based on what was a Covenant of Works for Jesus, so I don't know how to fit that in there.


----------



## Herald (Aug 8, 2017)

Semper Fidelis said:


> _the_ Covenant of Grace where the word "the" is the definite article.
> 
> The point is that _the_ Covenant of Grace is made with Christ and, in Him, all the elect (this is straight from our Confession). the Promise made to Abraham is a dispensation of it but not its full historical reality.


Rich,

I may be wrong on my understanding of 1689 Federalism on this point, but I believe its proponents will say they are not far off from this definition. They believe the CoG was promised in Genesis 3:15, and further revealed in successive covenants (types and shadows?) until consummated/inaugurated at Christ's resurrection. Denault writes, "The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it; however, the Covenant of Grace was revealed under these various covenants"*. Denault uses Hebrews 9:15 as support for this view. 

*_The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, page 71_.


----------



## Herald (Aug 8, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am sorry to be so empty headed here Bill but what do you mean by definite article?


Randy,

_the _Covenant of Grace. "the" is the definite article. It differentiates from other mentions of the Covenant of Grace, and focuses on this manifestation of it above all others. 1689 Federalists believe the New Covenant _is _the Covenant of Grace. They are one in the same. Maybe Brandon will correct me here, but any mention to the CoG in the OT is its promise, not its substance.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 8, 2017)

Herald said:


> Rich,
> 
> I may be wrong on my understanding of 1689 Federalism on this point, but I believe its proponents will say they are not far off from this definition. They believe the CoG was promised in Genesis 3:15, and further revealed in successive covenants (types and shadows?) until consummated/inaugurated at Christ's resurrection. Denault writes, "The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it; however, the Covenant of Grace was revealed under these various covenants"*. Denault uses Hebrews 9:15 as support for this view.
> 
> *_The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, page 71_.


Then I have to go back and ask again, "What covenant are OT believers participating in?" If they are participating in the Cov of Grace even in the OT, why is the 1689 Federalist view so "distinctive" as Denault claims it is? Practically there is no difference that I see. All of mankind is still encompassed under 1 of 2 covenants, either the Cov of Works or the Cov of Grace.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Rev. Todd Ruddell (Aug 8, 2017)

C. Matthew McMahon said:


> With that said, I have too much on my plate to systematically untwist so much current dispensational thought on the board. I've taken on too many other responsibilities. Just read ALL of Owen. Or Witsius. Or Turretin. Or Ball. Or Calvin. Or Bridges. Or Sibbes. Or Perkins. Or Blake. Or Strong. Or....well, you get the point. Blessings.



...or especially Francis Roberts

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald (Aug 8, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Then I have to go back and ask again, "What covenant are OT believers participating in?" If they are participating in the Cov of Grace even in the OT, why is the 1689 Federalist view so "distinctive" as Denault claims it is? Practically there is no difference that I see. All of mankind is still encompassed under 1 of 2 covenants, either the Cov of Works or the Cov of Grace.


Perg,

Perhaps their reasoning is that it is consistent with the Baptist view of the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. I do not want to exhaust Denault on this point, but he makes a cautionary distinction between the 17th century Particular Baptist view of the discontinuity of the Covenants, while not falling into the Socinian error. Denault writes, "In agreement with the Presbyterians against the Socinians, the Baptists affirmed the unity of substance of the Covenant of Grace from Genesis to Revelation. However, just like the Socinians, against the Presbyterians, he affirmed the discontinuity of substance between the Old and New Covenants."* Another way of putting it is that 17th century Particular Baptists recognized a discontinuity in the covenants, but not a discontinuity in God's redemptive plan. 

*_The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, page 39_.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 9, 2017)

Herald said:


> Perg,
> 
> Perhaps their reasoning is that it is consistent with the Baptist view of the discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant. I do not want to exhaust Denault on this point, but he makes a cautionary distinction between the 17th century Particular Baptist view of the discontinuity of the Covenants, while not falling into the Socinian error. Denault writes, "In agreement with the Presbyterians against the Socinians, the Baptists affirmed the unity of substance of the Covenant of Grace from Genesis to Revelation. However, just like the Socinians, against the Presbyterians, he affirmed the discontinuity of substance between the Old and New Covenants."* Another way of putting it is that 17th century Particular Baptists recognized a discontinuity in the covenants, but not a discontinuity in God's redemptive plan.
> 
> *_The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, page 39_.


But discontinuity in one seems to lead to a discontinuity in the other. History is, after all, God's plan in action.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Aug 9, 2017)

Rev. Todd Ruddell said:


> ...or especially Francis Roberts



Ah yes, most assuredly, Mr. Roberts is most excellent.

"Hence finally, the *same Gospel was preached, the same blessed Messiah was in that Gospel Revealed, and the same justification and salvation of sinners by faith in that Messiah was tendered, in those former, as well as in these latter ages of the world. *For in this Covenant, the *Gospel was preached to Abraham, *the Messiah was Promised to him as his Seed according to the flesh, and faith was imputed to him unto righteousness. The *self-same *Evangelical blessings for *substance, *that we have, he had; yea and Noah, and Adam  had the same before him: but all of them beheld, and had these things far more imperfectly, darkly and obscurely, then we now. *So that, though now we have a New Testament; yet we have not a New Gospel, or a New Christ, or a New way of Justification, *but the *same *that was from the beginning, _ever since the fall of Adam. _Hence, the Gospel is described, the *EVERLASTING *Gospel; Jesus Christ the Messiah is said to be _yesterday, and to day, and for ever, the same: _And the fathers of old are said to obtain a good report through faith, and to die in faith. They then, that fancy to themselves, that the Fathers of old, or elders towards the beginning of the world, were fed only with the husks of temporal promises: or, that they entered not into heaven till Christ's ascension thither; or, that there is no Gospel in the Bible, but only in the Books of the New Testament; or, that the saints of old had another kind of justification and salvation, then the Saints since Christ: do sufficiently discover themselves _*to be mere infants in apprehending Gods saving dispensations, *_and *through ignorance great strangers to the Holy Scriptures. *The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, is our God: Their Messiah, is our Christ: Their Gospel, is our Gospel: Their Covenant, is our Covenant, (only our Covenant-Charter is more cleared, enlarged, and explained Their way of justification and salvation, is our way of justification and salvation: And at last both they, and we, and all the faithful in all ages, shall together make up one complete body of Christ, and be ever with the Lord in full immediate vision and fruition of him with ineffable ravishments TO ALL ETERNITY. (Francis Roberts, Mystery and Marrow of the Bible, 648).

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald (Aug 9, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> But discontinuity in one seems to lead to a discontinuity in the other. History is, after all, God's plan in action.



Not quite sure I agree with you on that. I do hold to a discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, although I am not where the 1689 Federalists are at the present time.


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 9, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I'm not sure "until" is the proper word. The NC is the consummation of the CoG. It is the finality of the CoG until the _consummatio saeculi._


Why would it not though be seen as actually being the CoG itself though?


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 9, 2017)

Someone somewhere in these threads recommended John Colquhoun; I've been reading him at archive.org. and found this a helpful quote, (though it concerns the Mosaic covenant) from his "A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel," page 54-55 etc., https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonlawgos00colq#page/54/mode/2up:

The covenant of grace, both in itself, and in the intention of God, was the principal part of the Sinai transaction. It was therefore published first; as it appears from these words, "I am the Lord _thy_ God." These gracious words, in which Jehovah exhibited himself to the Israelites as their God, were spoken to them, as his peculiar people, the natural seed of Abraham and as typical of all his spiritual seed. To this gracious offer or grant, which Jehovah made of himself to them, as their God and Redeemer, the ten commandments were annexed, as a rule of duty to them as his professed people, and especially, to true believers among them as his spiritual seed. In virtue of his having engaged to answer for them all the demands of the law as a covenant of works, he repeats and promulgates it to them as a rule of life in the covenant of grace. Instead of saying to them, "Keep my commandments, that I may become your God"; he, on the contrary, said to each of them, "I am the Lord thy God," therefore keep my commandments. This is not the form of the law as it is in the covenant of works, but the form of it only as the law of Christ, and as standing in the covenant of grace." ​
Colquhoun goes on to expound on how in the Sinai transaction the covenant of grace, with the law annexed to it as a rule of life, was repeated and delivered to the Israelites: 

"The ten commandments are _founded_ on these words of the preface, 'I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the house of bondage.' The inestimable privilege here exhibited is made the foundation of the duty required."​

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 9, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> The NC is the consummation of the CoG. It is the finality of the CoG until the _consummatio saeculi._


Andrew there are still promises to be fulfilled even in the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace does have some finality that is fulfilled in the various Administrations as Abraham has some finality found in Moses. The phrase, "until the consummatio saeculi," I believe proves my point. There is a final consummation of the Covenant of Grace to happen. I may be mistaken but that is how I am understanding the situation. 
WCF 
7.4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, *and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed*.


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 9, 2017)

It seems to me that perhaps we are being foolish to get steamed up about the definition of a term (Covenant of Grace) that is not spelled out in the Bible. How can we precisely define from the Scripture something that does not appear therein by that name? All the covenants are leading to Christ, pointing to Christ, promising Christ--He alone is the savior of the elect in all ages, and salvation is all of grace.
To say "people could break the CoG in OT times but no longer can," or "The CoG can still be broken by failing to paedobaptize," you have to closely define what you mean by Covenant of Grace, and methinks we are working with various definitions of it here. With which I return to the difficulty to making everyone agree with exactly WHAT the CoG is.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 9, 2017)

Dachaser said:


> Why would it not though be seen as actually being the CoG itself though?



There are a few factors, but I'll name two:

1) if the NC is the CoG, then that negates the other covenant administrations by necessity.

2) if the NC is the CoG, then it fundamentally denies Christ as mediator in the previous covenants.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 9, 2017)

Ben Zartman said:


> How can we precisely define from the Scripture something that does not appear therein by that name?




By the same logic, we cannot any longer use the word trinity.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 9, 2017)

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Andrew there are still promises to be fulfilled even in the New Covenant. The Covenant of Grace does have some finality that is fulfilled in the various Administrations as Abraham has some finality found in Moses. The phrase, "until the consummatio saeculi," I believe proves my point. There is a final consummation of the Covenant of Grace to happen. I may be mistaken but that is how I am understanding the situation.
> WCF
> 7.4. This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in Scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, *and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed*.



I don't necessarily disagree with this. Although, I'd be hesitant to say "Abraham has some finality found in Moses". Paul argues against this point to some degree:

"the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul" (Gal. 3:17).


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> There are a few factors, but I'll name two:
> 
> 1) if the NC is the CoG, then that negates the other covenant administrations by necessity.
> 
> 2) if the NC is the CoG, then it fundamentally denies Christ as mediator in the previous covenants.



Turretin:

“The New Covenant is taken either broadly or strictly.

V The New covenant is also taken in a twofold manner either broadly, inasmuch as it stands for the covenant of grace in general made with sinners , which existed under the Old Testament as well before Christ appeared as under the New after he had been manifested; or strictly, for the covenant of grace promulgated after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh, which should continue to the end of the World”

Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology Vol 2, pg 234

In essence, the C of G and NC are interchangeable

More here: http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/


----------



## Semper Fidelis (Aug 9, 2017)

Herald said:


> Rich,
> 
> I may be wrong on my understanding of 1689 Federalism on this point, but I believe its proponents will say they are not far off from this definition. They believe the CoG was promised in Genesis 3:15, and further revealed in successive covenants (types and shadows?) until consummated/inaugurated at Christ's resurrection. Denault writes, "The Abrahamic Covenant, the Sinaitic Covenant and the Davidic Covenant were not the Covenant of Grace, nor administrations of it; however, the Covenant of Grace was revealed under these various covenants"*. Denault uses Hebrews 9:15 as support for this view.
> 
> *_The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology, page 71_.


Whether or not that's the case, my main point in this thread is responding to the claim that "For the paedobaptist, the Abrahamic Covenant is the Covenant of Grace."

One needs to look at the distinctions made. Considered _absolutely_ there is only one CoG. Considered historically you have to consider the ways in which certain dispensations more or less had elements that couldn't properly be said to be the realization of the CoG. This is why Owen continually says that the Mosaic is not a _mere_ administration of the CoG. It's not that it is, in no way, an administration of the COG but there are a number or worship and other elements that are mutable and the historical inauguration of the fullness of the CoG has not happened so you can't just look at the Mosaic (or even the Abrahamic) and say "one for one": that's the CoG. The NC, on the other hand, aligns perfectly with the nature of the CoG because it has historically realized what was promised.

These qualification are important provided we don't obsess so much about discontinuity so as to call into question whether or not mankind was saved by one other than Christ. I would prefer men err on the side of understanding that Christ was the Mediator of the OT elect and maybe be a bit more precise than to have things die the death of a thousand qualifications so that the simple are left wondering whether the OT saints were saved in some other fashion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 9, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> for the covenant of grace promulgated after the manifestation of Christ in the flesh




This particular quote seems to demonstrate how they can't be interchangeable. The NC announces the CoG, but the CoG has been around longer then its adminstration.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Aug 9, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> I don't necessarily disagree with this. Although, I'd be hesitant to say "Abraham has some finality found in Moses". Paul argues against this point to some degree:
> 
> "the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul" (Gal. 3:17).



Just a small thing here but I could post more. 

Under the Mosaic covenant, God makes huge strides toward realizing the promises He made to Abraham (Gen. 12:1–3). A large number of families are constituted as a nation during the exodus from Egypt and brought to Canaan, *which begins the first major fulfillment of God’s promise to the patriarch.* The Lord is present among Israel in the tabernacle as He keeps His word to bless Israel. All the nations of the earth begin to find blessing as the Law is written and later proclaimed to the nations (Jonah 3).
http://www.ligonier.org/learn/devotionals/mosaic-covenant/

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 9, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> This particular quote seems to demonstrate how they can't be interchangeable. The NC announces the CoG, but the CoG has been around longer then its adminstration.



It would depend on whether you take the broad or strict view....
Andrew,
Did u click on the hyperlink in my post as I cite westminster and the OPC on the idea as well.


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 9, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Someone somewhere in these threads recommended John Colquhoun; I've been reading him at archive.org. and found this a helpful quote, (though it concerns the Mosaic covenant) from his "A Treatise on the Law and the Gospel," page 54-55 etc., https://archive.org/stream/treatiseonlawgos00colq#page/54/mode/2up:
> 
> The covenant of grace, both in itself, and in the intention of God, was the principal part of the Sinai transaction. It was therefore published first; as it appears from these words, "I am the Lord _thy_ God." These gracious words, in which Jehovah exhibited himself to the Israelites as their God, were spoken to them, as his peculiar people, the natural seed of Abraham and as typical of all his spiritual seed. To this gracious offer or grant, which Jehovah made of himself to them, as their God and Redeemer, the ten commandments were annexed, as a rule of duty to them as his professed people, and especially, to true believers among them as his spiritual seed. In virtue of his having engaged to answer for them all the demands of the law as a covenant of works, he repeats and promulgates it to them as a rule of life in the covenant of grace. Instead of saying to them, "Keep my commandments, that I may become your God"; he, on the contrary, said to each of them, "I am the Lord thy God," therefore keep my commandments. This is not the form of the law as it is in the covenant of works, but the form of it only as the law of Christ, and as standing in the covenant of grace." ​
> Colquhoun goes on to expound on how in the Sinai transaction the covenant of grace, with the law annexed to it as a rule of life, was repeated and delivered to the Israelites:
> ...


Thanks. Great stuff. 

By the way, did you become a Presbyterian and leave Jim Gables' church, or are you still down near Hueytown?


----------



## Ben Zartman (Aug 9, 2017)

Andrew P.C. said:


> By the same logic, we cannot any longer use the word trinity.


I'm not saying we shouldn't use the term; I just say that we're having a issue defining it so that we're all talking about the same thing.


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Aug 9, 2017)

Pergamum said:


> Thanks. Great stuff.
> 
> By the way, did you become a Presbyterian and leave Jim Gables' church, or are you still down near Hueytown?



I was never actually in Pastor Gables' church, just in an ongoing Bible study he teaches (that is still ongoing!) He politely ignores my confessions of now being Presbyterian.  He is retired now from the pastorate; what wonderful people he and Carolyn are! Love them dearly. (They think highly of you, by the way!)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum (Aug 10, 2017)

Jeri Tanner said:


> I was never actually in Pastor Gables' church, just in an ongoing Bible study he teaches (that is still ongoing!) He politely ignores my confessions of now being Presbyterian.  He is retired now from the pastorate; what wonderful people he and Carolyn are! Love them dearly. (They think highly of you, by the way!)
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Ok, great. I am glad you can benefit from brother. Jim. He has been very influential in my life and is closely tied to my sending church in Saint Louis. Maybe the news of your Presbyterianism is too shocking for him to hear...ha ha.


----------



## Andrew P.C. (Aug 10, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> It would depend on whether you take the broad or strict view....
> Andrew,
> Did u click on the hyperlink in my post as I cite westminster and the OPC on the idea as well.



Yes I did. Thank you for the link.

So are you saying that, before the NC, the CoG wasn't around?


----------



## Scott Bushey (Aug 10, 2017)

No, the way I am reading Turretin is that he is saying that the NC, in it's stricter sense, started in the OT (I assume Gen 3:15) and in it's broader, at Christ's passion.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 10, 2017)

Herald said:


> Not quite sure I agree with you on that. I do hold to a discontinuity of the Abrahamic Covenant, although I am not where the 1689 Federalists are at the present time.



Bill, I'm sure you have probably addressed this somewhere else, but I would be curious as to your interpretation of Galatians 3. If the Abrahamic Covenant is discontinuous, then how do you read Paul's exposition of the Abrahamic covenant, where he says that the seed (singular) is Christ (3:16), and that therefore if we belong to Christ, we are Abraham's offspring (3:29)? Would this not seem to point in a continuous direction rather than discontinuous? How can we be heirs according to the promise if it is not the Abrahamic promises Paul is referring to there?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timotheos (Aug 10, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Bill, I'm sure you have probably addressed this somewhere else, but I would be curious as to your interpretation of Galatians 3. If the Abrahamic Covenant is discontinuous, then how do you read Paul's exposition of the Abrahamic covenant, where he says that the seed (singular) is Christ (3:16), and that therefore if we belong to Christ, we are Abraham's offspring (3:29)? Would this not seem to point in a continuous direction rather than discontinuous? How can we be heirs according to the promise if it is not the Abrahamic promises Paul is referring to there?


I'm not sure how Herald will respond, but I know how I would (dichotomy of the Abrahamic Covenant as laid out in Genesis and Gal. 4; yes we disagree w/ both the concept and interpretation). Hopefully, you understand how 1689 federalism answers this very issue.


----------



## BG (Aug 10, 2017)

Scott Bushey said:


> No, the way I am reading Turretin is that he is saying the the NC, in it's stricter sense, started in the OT (I assume Gen 3:15) and in it's broader, at Christ's passion.




Good stuff


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 10, 2017)

Tim, yes, I am aware of the 1689 federalist answer, which I don't find plausible at all. To my mind, it is impossible to make a connection from "Sinai" to "Abraham" in Galatians 4. Sinai would mean the giving of the law in the Mosaic economy to any Jew, or anyone versed in the OT. It would NOT mean the Abraham covenant. Sinai means either the Mosaic economy, or a twisted understanding of the Mosaic economy. This is born out by verse 10's "days, months, seasons and years" which cannot possibly refer to anything in the Abrahamic covenant, but MUST refer to the Mosaic festivals. In verse 21, Paul says "under the law." This phrase makes no sense in the Abrahamic administration. It only makes sense under the Mosaic, in which the law was officially given. Conclusive is verse 24, wherein Paul says "bearing children for slavery," referring to Mount Sinai. This cannot possibly be a reference to the Abrahamic, about which slavery was never mentioned as an element either of the covenant itself, or a twisting of the covenant, and yet makes perfect sense of the Mosaic (or a twisting thereof). 

These are far clearer indications than the reference to Ishmael in verses 29-30, wherein another interpretation than the 1689 federalist position is quite possible: Paul simply brings in Ishmael as an example of how the people of the promise are always persecuted by the line of the serpent. Verse 28 says we are children of Abraham, like Isaac.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 10, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> I'm not sure how Herald will respond, but I know how I would (dichotomy of the Abrahamic Covenant as laid out in Genesis and Gal. 4; yes we disagree w/ both the concept and interpretation). Hopefully, you understand how 1689 federalism answers this very issue.


The NC was not in operation in its fullest and final sense until the Coming of Jesus, and His death/resurrection/ascension, and the Church at Pentecost being founded, correct?


----------



## Timotheos (Aug 10, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Tim, yes, I am aware of the 1689 federalist answer, which I don't find plausible at all. To my mind, it is impossible to make a connection from "Sinai" to "Abraham" in Galatians 4. Sinai would mean the giving of the law in the Mosaic economy to any Jew, or anyone versed in the OT. It would NOT mean the Abraham covenant. Sinai means either the Mosaic economy, or a twisted understanding of the Mosaic economy. This is born out by verse 10's "days, months, seasons and years" which cannot possibly refer to anything in the Abrahamic covenant, but MUST refer to the Mosaic festivals. In verse 21, Paul says "under the law." This phrase makes no sense in the Abrahamic administration. It only makes sense under the Mosaic, in which the law was officially given. Conclusive is verse 24, wherein Paul says "bearing children for slavery," referring to Mount Sinai. This cannot possibly be a reference to the Abrahamic, about which slavery was never mentioned as an element either of the covenant itself, or a twisting of the covenant, and yet makes perfect sense of the Mosaic (or a twisting thereof).
> 
> These are far clearer indications than the reference to Ishmael in verses 29-30, wherein another interpretation than the 1689 federalist position is quite possible: Paul simply brings in Ishmael as an example of how the people of the promise are always persecuted by the line of the serpent. Verse 28 says we are children of Abraham, like Isaac.


My point was that you made a valid contention about continuity of the spiritual seed of Abraham. This is why the distinction made in 1689 federalism seems to be (in my mind) the only viable position for baptists (I'll qualify that in a moment). The solution as seen in 1689 federalism as that there is a dual nature to the Abrahamic covenant. The Mosaic covenant is connected to the AC through its physical and typological promises (Promised Land, numerous people, etc.), i.e. the physical seed. But the continuity that we find in Gal. 3 and Abraham is the *spiritual seed* and thus the spiritual and antitypical promises of the AC leading to the NC.

So your questions are wonderful and valid: "If the Abrahamic Covenant is discontinuous, then how do you read Paul's exposition of the Abrahamic covenant, where he says that the seed (singular) is Christ (3:16), and that therefore if we belong to Christ, we are Abraham's offspring (3:29)? Would this not seem to point in a continuous direction rather than discontinuous? How can we be heirs according to the promise if it is not the Abrahamic promises Paul is referring to there?"

And we answer that in the dichotomous nature of the AC, the spirutual/anti-typical part of the AC is the continuous direction wherein we can be heirs according to the promise of the AC.

Now for my qualification. The advantage of the 1689 federalism in baptist covenant theology is that if baptists take a 2 administrations view of the CoG, then I don't see how one can remain a baptist. That is not to say that I allow my credo-baptism stance force my view of the CoG. I'm simply saying that if reformed baptists not in the 1689 federalism camp took their covenant theology to its logical conclusion, then I am not entirely sure what keeps them in the credo-baptist camp at all. The other thread on the newness of the NC is making that apparent. However, I don't want to delegitmize those RB who hold to a 2 administration view or posit that 1689 federalism is the only view and all other views be anathema. That is to say that 1689 federalism is the best and most consistent view with baptist covenant theology and credo-baptistism.


----------



## greenbaggins (Aug 10, 2017)

Tim, what I hear you saying (and this is consistent with what I've seen in the past) is that the connection between Abrahamic and Mosaic is physical/typological promises, whereas the connection between Abraham and New is spiritual seed. 

However, I don't see why the connection between Abrahamic and Mosaic is not spiritual seed as well. Just because, in Moses' time, Israel was Abraham's physical seed does not mean that the spiritual seed idea is absent. For instance, a mixed multitude went with Israel out of Egypt. Almost universally, that is interpreted of _Egyptians _who went with Israel and joined with them. They became part of spiritual Israel, and yet were not of the physical seed. The same can be said of Ruth, and any other foreigners who joined Israel. Nor do I accept that the physical/typological can be so easily divorced from the spiritual seed idea. The spiritual seed of Abraham starts with Jesus Christ, who is BOTH the physical AND spiritual seed of Abraham. 

Conversely, it makes no sense to exclude the physical/typological in the connection between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant. Christ is the physical seed of Abraham, and yet also the foundation of the New Covenant. The physical/typological/spiritual all join together in Christ. The new covenant promised in Jeremiah was originally said to be with a _physical _seed. This understanding was broadened in Hebrews to include the spiritual seed. Furthermore, the incident with Isaac in Genesis 22 is surely typological of the New Covenant. 

In short, your distinction between these two aspects, while helpful in one sense (Presbyterians would agree that distinctions among physical, spiritual, typological aspects of covenant theology can be helpful in themselves), in your application of them does not make sense.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Timotheos (Aug 11, 2017)

greenbaggins said:


> Tim, what I hear you saying (and this is consistent with what I've seen in the past) is that the connection between Abrahamic and Mosaic is physical/typological promises, whereas the connection between Abraham and New is spiritual seed.
> 
> However, I don't see why the connection between Abrahamic and Mosaic is not spiritual seed as well. Just because, in Moses' time, Israel was Abraham's physical seed does not mean that the spiritual seed idea is absent. For instance, a mixed multitude went with Israel out of Egypt. Almost universally, that is interpreted of _Egyptians _who went with Israel and joined with them. They became part of spiritual Israel, and yet were not of the physical seed. The same can be said of Ruth, and any other foreigners who joined Israel. Nor do I accept that the physical/typological can be so easily divorced from the spiritual seed idea. The spiritual seed of Abraham starts with Jesus Christ, who is BOTH the physical AND spiritual seed of Abraham.
> 
> ...


I have much sermon prep to do today, so I won't be able to elaborate better until next week. I do enjoy our exchanges, Lane. 

So to the points you raised, answered in reverse order b/c I like chiasmus 

Appealing to Jer. 31 and the physical seed of the New Covenant sounds awfully dispensational. If the NT doesn't give the thicker meaning of the house of Israel and house of Judah as the spiritual seed but also include the physical seed as well, then this is a strong case for a restoration of the physical seed and the nation of Israel. 

The reason for "excluding the physical/typological in the connection between the Abrahamic and the New Covenant" is based on the dichotomy of the seeds in the AC. The connection between the AC and the NC is through the physical seed, as I think Hebrews makes clear. The connection between the AC and the MC is through the physical seed. This seems best expressed in the Gal. 4 and the allegory. 

And I readily believe that there was a spiritual seed among the physical seed during the OC era. Paul is clear that such a distinction is certain in Rom. 9:6b, "For not all who are descended from Israel [physical seed] belong to Israel [spiritual seed]." So if I conveyed that there was an absence of the spiritual seed among the physical seed (a remnant), then forgive my miscommunication. However, I never intended to say such. 

I feel like I am not answering you very well. Perhaps Brandon can chime in here. I am over-run with other pressing things. 

To be continued...


----------



## Dachaser (Aug 11, 2017)

Timotheos said:


> I have much sermon prep to do today, so I won't be able to elaborate better until next week. I do enjoy our exchanges, Lane.
> 
> So to the points you raised, answered in reverse order b/c I like chiasmus
> 
> ...


This is the real distinction to mere on this issue, as while there were both lost and saved as part of the OC, only those who are saved are under and part of the NC.


----------

