# "Faith was not the condition of the Mosaic Covenant"?



## Pergamum

What do I make of the statements, ""Faith was not the condition of the Mosaic Covenant"?

The fuller quote by a defender of 1689 Federalism is:

"...faith was not the condition of the MC. In fact, Paul contrast the difference between faith and works in Romans 10. The MC said do and live while they NC says believe and live.

No member of the CoG can be eternally condemned as a covenant breaker because the federal head of the covenant of grace has promised he will loose none of those given to him by His Father. The MC, however, is completely characterized by covenant breakers, and this was why there was the need for a new and better covenant (Heb. 8)."


----------



## Herald

Faith may not have been a condition of the Mosaic Covenant, but it was implied that faith will be an integral part of it. A look at the Decalogue brings this to light. Faith is implied to have no other gods but the LORD, because faith will result in willing worship of God. Faith is implied to honor the Sabbath properly (especially the Sabbath).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JTB.SDG

Pergamum, read this carefully if you can, because it really helps to explain a lot of things about all your questions.

Faith was the condition/requirement of the Mosaic Covenant. You saw this in your study of Romans 10:6ff, and how when Paul wants to talk about the righteousness which is based on faith, he actually quotes Deuteronomy 30 to describe it. IE, Paul is quoting THE LAW to teach us about the righteousness that is BY FAITH. Conclusion: The Law actually commanded faith. This is the historical Puritan/Reformed Covenantal view of that text. I ALSO believe you see this same principle in other passages in the Law. Deuteronomy 4:1 says: "listen. . .so that you may live." This is echoed in other places in Deuteronomy as well. Compare that language with Isaiah 55:3, which is speaking of the Covenant of Grace: "Incline your ear and come to Me. Listen, that you may live, and I will make an everlasting covenant with you, according to the faithful mercies shown to David." Compare it also to what Paul says in Galatians 3: "This is the only thing I want to find out from you: did you receive the Spirit by the works of the Law, or by the hearing of faith?" I take Deuteronomy 4:1 and many other places in Deuteronomy as GOSPEL COMMANDS: Listen and live = Believe and be saved. THIS is why (among other reasons) we can say that the Mosaic Covenant belonged to the Covenant of Grace.

Having said that, what do you do with passages like later in Galatians 3, 3:10-12 which definitely contrasts two very different systems and ways to life: 1) obedience, and 2) faith? Or, we pointed out how in Romans 10 Paul actually goes back to a passage in the Law to prove the righteousness that is by faith; fine and dandy, but at the end of the day you still have a definite contrast there between the two ways of obtaining life. Here's what you do with it. I referred to this in another post but I'll repeat it here. This is really, really, really important for understanding the Law and the Mosaic Covenant. The Law can (and ought to be) understood in two very different ways: 1) largely taken; 2) strictly taken. Largely taken includes the promises of Christ that are in the Decalogue; and ALSO includes the requirement of FAITH that is in the Decalogue. But STRICTLY taken, it includes none of those things, and only refers to the Moral Law as repeated at Sinai IN THE FORM of the Covenant of Works: Do this and live. Again, the best example of this is Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law [STRICTLY TAKEN], the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law [LARGELY TAKEN] and the prophets." Even the Law itself testifies that the righteousness of God comes to us apart from the Law--that is--apart from the Law as completely abstracted from it's natural, organic gracious context (which is why again we take the Mosaic Covenant as belonging to the Covenant of Grace). Does this make sense?

So why does the Law in its strict sense (Lev.18; Deut.29 etc) tell us "Do this and live" while at the same time in the background there is also the command given in the Law: "Believe and live"? God is not trying to confuse us. There is a purpose to it all. The whole purpose of the STRICT abstracted commanded in the Law (Do and live) is MEANT to drive us to the Law as LARGELY taken--that is, as it reveals Christ in the ceremonies and the sacrifices, and beckons us, since we are totally unable to do and live, to come to Christ as revealed in the Law largely taken, that we might truly BELIEVE and live. Hope this makes sense and helps. I can further clarify anything if needed.


----------



## brandonadams

In your search for an answer to this question, make Lev 18:5; Gal 3:12; Rom 10:5 central to your studies. See this thread as well: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/understanding-specific-passages-in-deuteronomy.93066/


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Faith may not have been a condition of the Mosaic Covenant, but it was implied that faith will be an integral part of it. A look at the Decalogue brings this to light. Faith is implied to have no other gods but the LORD, because faith will result in willing worship of God. Faith is implied to honor the Sabbath properly (especially the Sabbath).



Agreed. Consider the preface to the 10 Commandments: "_I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage_."

Maybe one could say that faith is a 'pre-condition'. 

Waldron distinguishes between 'conditions' and 'required responses'. Maybe one could say that faith is not a 'required response' of the Mosaic Covenant, but how can it not be a condition?


----------



## brandonadams

KMK said:


> which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt



That was a typological redemption that did not require saving faith on the part of the one being redeemed. Thus nothing can be concluded from that about saving faith in the Mosaic Covenant.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> That was a typological redemption that did not require saving faith on the part of the one being redeemed. Thus nothing can be concluded from that about saving faith in the Mosaic Covenant.


God was at work among His Covenant people of Israel not in the exact sane fashion as he was/is now with his church, correct?


----------



## KMK

brandonadams said:


> That was a typological redemption that did not require saving faith



What do you mean by 'require'?


----------



## brandonadams

Saving faith was not a condition either to be in the Mosaic covenant or to receive its blessings, as it is in the New.

Of course, all men everywhere are "required" to repent and believe.


----------



## Douglas P.

Pergamum said:


> What do I make of the statements, ""Faith was not the condition of the Mosaic Covenant"?
> 
> The fuller quote by a defender of 1689 Federalism is:
> 
> "...faith was not the condition of the MC. In fact, Paul contrast the difference between faith and works in Romans 10. The MC said do and live while they NC says believe and live.
> 
> No member of the CoG can be eternally condemned as a covenant breaker because the federal head of the covenant of grace has promised he will loose none of those given to him by His Father. The MC, however, is completely characterized by covenant breakers, and this was why there was the need for a new and better covenant (Heb. 8)."



Perg,

I've enjoyed reading through all of your recent threads on this topic, its created some good discussion!

To your question, Paul seems to make it very clear in Gal 3 (amongst other places as well) that the defining characteristic of the Law (mosaic covenant) is that it is a works covenant not a faith covenant. I'm curious to know the problem you have with the 'defenders' quote is, if you do have one?


----------



## brandonadams

To elaborate, here is A.W. Pink quoting Thomas Scott (a popular 18th century commentator)


> A National Covenant
> “The national covenant with Israel was here (Ex. 19:5) meant; the charter upon which they were incorporated, as a people, under the government of Jehovah. It was an engagement of God, to give Israel possession of Canaan, and to protect them in it: to render the land fruitful, and the nation victorious and prosperous, and to perpetuate His oracles and ordinances among them; so long as they did not, as a people, reject His authority, apostatize to idolatry, and tolerate open wickedness. These things constitute a forfeiture of the covenant; as their national rejection of Christ did afterwards. True believers among them were personally dealt with according to the Covenant of Grace, even as true Christians now are; and unbelievers were under the Covenant of Works, and liable to condemnation by it, as at present: yet, the national covenant was not strictly either the one or the other, but had something in it of the nature of each.
> 
> “The national covenant did not refer to the final salvation of individuals: nor was it broken by the disobedience, or even idolatry, of any number of them, provided this was not sanctioned or tolerated by public authority. It was indeed a type of the covenant made with true believers in Christ Jesus, as were all the transactions with Israel; but, like other types, it ‘had not the very image,’ but only ‘a shadow of good things to come.’ When, therefore, as a nation, they had broken this covenant, the Lord declared that He would make ‘a new covenant with Israel, putting His law,’ not only in their hands, but ‘in their inward parts’; and ‘writing it,’ not upon tables of stone, ‘but in their hearts; forgiving their iniquity and remembering their sin no more’ (Jer. 31:32-34; Heb. 8:7-12; 10:16, 17). The Israelites were under a dispensation of mercy, and had outward privileges and great advantages in various ways for salvation: yet, like professing Christians, the most of them rested in these, and looked no further. The outward covenant was made with the Nation, entitling them to outward advantages, upon the condition of outward national obedience; and the covenant of Grace was ratified personally with true believers, and sealed and secured spiritual blessings to them, by producing a holy disposition of heart, and spiritual obedience to the Divine law. In case Israel kept the covenant, the Lord promised that they should be to Him ‘a peculiar treasure.’ ‘All the earth’ (Ex. 19:5) being the Lord’s, He might have chosen any other people instead of Israel: and this implied that, as His choice of them was gratuitous, so if they rejected His covenant, He would reject them, and communicate their privileges to others; as indeed He hath done, since the introduction of the Christian dispensation” (Thomas Scott, The Holy Bible with Explanatory Notes).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The above quotation contains the most lucid, comprehensive, and yet simple analysis of the Sinaitic covenant which we have met with in all our reading. It draws a clear line of distinction between God’s dealings with Israel as a nation, and with individuals in it. It shows the correct position of the everlasting covenant of grace and the Adamic covenant of works in relation to the Mosaic dispensation. All were born under the condemnation of their federal head (Adam), and while they continued unregenerate and in unbelief, were under the wrath of God; whereas God’s elect, upon believing, were treated by Him then, as individuals, in precisely the same way as they are now. Scott brings out clearly the character, the scope, the design, and the limitation of the Sinaitic covenant: its character was a supplementary combination of law and mercy; its scope was national; its design was to regulate the temporal affairs of Israel under the divine government; its limitation was determined by Israel’s obedience or disobedience. The typical nature of it—the hardest point to elucidate—is also allowed. We advise the interested student to reread the last four paragraphs.
Click to expand...


----------



## Scott Bushey

Douglas Padgett said:


> Perg,
> 
> I've enjoyed reading through all of your recent threads on this topic, its created some good discussion!
> 
> To your question, Paul seems to make it very clear in Gal 3 (amongst other places as well) that the defining characteristic of the Law (mosaic covenant) is that it is a works covenant not a faith covenant. I'm curious to know the problem you have with the 'defenders' quote is, if you do have one?



You are quite right. Gal's and Hebrews both make this distinction that the Mosaic covenant *was* a part of the Covenant of Works-at least, in my opinion, their language is consistent in that. However, technically speaking, it is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, hence, it is a gracious covenant and not a works based covenant. It cannot be both!

My personal opinion is that the decalogue was a part of the C of W's. I describe this this way:

Just like the Noahic Covenant is more than the ark, the Covenant of Works is more than the 10 commandments. Think of the C of W’s as a car; The commandments were the engine and gas of the covenant of works. The fall was the proverbial pothole that rendered the axel inoperative, making the whole of it inoperative. God took the engine and gas and gave that portion to Moses, leaving the defunct chassis behind. The spirit of the C of W’s was in the law. God gave that to Israel. He did not republish the C of W’s; why would He need to do that?

The Mosaic is a gracious covenant, to attempt to press into the decalogue an idea of republication is like trying to say an 1958 Edsel is the same as a 911 Carrera. Yea, they are both cars, but completely different in so many ways.

It seems as if Westminster uses the same rationale as they refer to the decalogue as a 'covenant of works'.

Westminster uses language that helps in their confession and catechism:

In Ch 7:2 "II. The first covenant made with man was *a covenant of works*, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."

Ch 19: I. God gave to Adam a law, *as a covenant of works*, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.

Ch 19:6 VI. *Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works*, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.

In the Larger catechism: Q. 97. _What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?_
A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.

I reject republication.



brandonadams said:


> Saving faith was not a condition either to be in the Mosaic covenant or to receive its blessings, as it is in the New.
> 
> Of course, all men everywhere are "required" to repent and believe.




Brandon,
If I am unsderstanding you, do you believe that the Mosaic is a free standing covenant-neither an administration of the C of W's or the C of G?


----------



## brandonadams

Scott Bushey said:


> do you believe that the Mosaic is a free standing covenant-neither an administration of the C of W's or the C of G?



Correct. This is known as the subservient covenant view.

(Note: be careful to understand precisely in what sense I mean it was not an administration of the CoG: I mean that it was not the CoG. It did reveal the CoG and place the gospel before people in types and shadows.)


----------



## Scott Bushey

brandonadams said:


> Correct. This is known as the subservient covenant view.
> 
> (Note: be careful to understand precisely in what sense I mean it was not an administration of the CoG: I mean that it was not the CoG. It did reveal the CoG and place the gospel before people in types and shadows.)



So, do u hold to the idea that there are more than 2 covenants in time? The reformed view is that there are 2 covenants in time-C of W's and C of G.


----------



## brandonadams

Yes, that is the whole point. I believe Westminster is incorrect to claim there are only 2 covenants. Once again, the subservient covenant view was a rejection of that idea. It argued the Mosaic Covenant was neither the Adamic Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. Samuel Bolton has a good discussion of the issue here https://www.monergism.com/true-bounds-christian-freedom-ebook-samuel-bolton

See also John Owen's defense of the subservient covenant view in his Hebrews 8 commentary.


----------



## brandonadams

Here are two other papers on the subservient covenant view that you may find useful:

http://www.upper-register.com/papers/subservient_cov.pdf

https://sites.google.com/site/mosaiccovenant/Ramsey In-defense-of-moses.pdf?attredirects=0


----------



## Scott Bushey

What is the Mosaic subservient to? The term implies a larger scope that it is related to. Like a son is subservient to his father.

I will look at the links later....just asking.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Yes, that is the whole point. I believe Westminster is incorrect to claim there are only 2 covenants. Once again, the subservient covenant view was a rejection of that idea. It argued the Mosaic Covenant was neither the Adamic Covenant of Works nor the Covenant of Grace. Samuel Bolton has a good discussion of the issue here https://www.monergism.com/true-bounds-christian-freedom-ebook-samuel-bolton
> 
> See also John Owen's defense of the subservient covenant view in his Hebrews 8 commentary.


How would the term Administrations of grace tie into the different Covenants in the Bible then?


----------



## brandonadams

Scott Bushey said:


> What is the Mosaic subservient to?



The gospel/Covenant of Grace.



Dachaser said:


> How would the term Administrations of grace tie into the different Covenants in the Bible then?



When Westminster and the reformed speak of the Mosaic or any other covenant being an "administration of the covenant of grace" what they mean is that the Mosaic covenant _is _the covenant of grace. It is the covenant of grace as it was administered during a certain period of time.

If, on the other hand, someone is using the phrase "administration of grace" to simply mean that the gospel was revealed to OT saints so that they could place their faith in it, then as 2LBCF confesses in 8.6 


> _Although the price of redemption was not actually paid by Christ till after his incarnation, yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefit thereof were communicated to the elect in all ages, successively from the beginning of the world, in and by those promises, types, and sacrifices wherein he was revealed, and signified to be the seed which should bruise the serpent’s head; and the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, being the same yesterday, and to-day and for ever._ (1 Corinthians 4:10; Hebrews 4:2; 1 Peter 1:10, 11; Revelation 13:8; Hebrews 13:8)



For a longer explanation, please see the "Long Reply" section here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/re-did-the-covenant-of-grace-begin-in-the-new-covenant/


----------



## Douglas P.

Scott Bushey said:


> You are quite right. Gal's and Hebrews both make this distinction that the Mosaic covenant *was* a part of the Covenant of Works-at least, in my opinion, their language is consistent in that. However, technically speaking, it is an administration of the Covenant of Grace, hence, it is a gracious covenant and not a works based covenant. It cannot be both!
> 
> My personal opinion is that the decalogue was a part of the C of W's. I describe this this way:
> 
> Just like the Noahic Covenant is more than the ark, the Covenant of Works is more than the 10 commandments. Think of the C of W’s as a car; The commandments were the engine and gas of the covenant of works. The fall was the proverbial pothole that rendered the axel inoperative, making the whole of it inoperative. God took the engine and gas and gave that portion to Moses, leaving the defunct chassis behind. The spirit of the C of W’s was in the law. God gave that to Israel. He did not republish the C of W’s; why would He need to do that?
> 
> The Mosaic is a gracious covenant, to attempt to press into the decalogue an idea of republication is like trying to say an 1958 Edsel is the same as a 911 Carrera. Yea, they are both cars, but completely different in so many ways.
> 
> It seems as if Westminster uses the same rationale as they refer to the decalogue as a 'covenant of works'.
> 
> Westminster uses language that helps in their confession and catechism:
> 
> In Ch 7:2 "II. The first covenant made with man was *a covenant of works*, wherein life was promised to Adam, and in him to his posterity, upon condition of perfect and personal obedience."
> 
> Ch 19: I. God gave to Adam a law, *as a covenant of works*, by which he bound him and all his posterity to personal, entire, exact, and perpetual obedience; promised life upon the fulfilling, and threatened death upon the breach of it; and endued him with power and ability to keep it.
> 
> Ch 19:6 VI. *Although true believers be not under the law as a covenant of works*, to be thereby justified or condemned; yet is it of great use to them, as well as to others; in that, as a rule of life, informing them of the will of God and their duty, it directs and binds them to walk accordingly; discovering also the sinful pollutions of their nature, hearts, and lives; so as, examining themselves thereby, they may come to further conviction of, humiliation for, and hatred against sin; together with a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, and the perfection of his obedience.
> 
> In the Larger catechism: Q. 97. _What special use is there of the moral law to the regenerate?_
> A. Although they that are regenerate, and believe in Christ, be delivered from the moral law as a covenant of works, so as thereby they are neither justified nor condemned; yet besides the general uses thereof common to them with all men, it is of special use, to show them how much they are bound to Christ for his fulfilling it, and enduring the curse thereof in their stead, and for their good; and thereby to provoke them to more thankfulness, and to express the same in their greater care to conform themselves thereunto as the rule of their obedience.
> 
> I reject republication.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Brandon,
> If I am unsderstanding you, do you believe that the Mosaic is a free standing covenant-neither an administration of the C of W's or the C of G?



Scott,

Thanks for the reply. To be clear, I don't think the Mosaic Covenant was of the same substance of the covenant of works. The mosaic covenant was _a _covenant of works, not a republication of _the_ covenant of works (I would still call myself a republicationist though, of the subservient kind). The Covenant of Works was only with Adam and had an eschatological aim. The covenant of works with Moses was sub-eschatological and had a Christo-typological aim (to try and coin a phrase).

From what I can tell, I'm very much in agreement with Brandon here, at least on this point. However, still very much a paedobaptist.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Doug,
If u read what I've posted I agree that the Mosaic is NOT of the 'same substance', it was the juice in the C of W's I.e. The Decalogue. Brandon's view is contra-reformed and anti-Westminster. * No disrespect Brandon


----------



## Douglas P.

Scott Bushey said:


> the Covenant of Works is more than the 10 commandments. Think of the C of W’s as a car; The commandments were the engine and gas of the covenant of works.



Scott I'm not much of a car guy so I don't know if I'm really following the analogy, but when/where is the 10 commandments part of the covenant of works? Are you referring to 19.1-2?

(I'm assuming the Covenant of Works you're speaking of is the covenant that God made with Adam.)


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> The gospel/Covenant of Grace.
> 
> 
> 
> When Westminster and the reformed speak of the Mosaic or any other covenant being an "administration of the covenant of grace" what they mean is that the Mosaic covenant _is _the covenant of grace. It is the covenant of grace as it was administered during a certain period of time.
> 
> If, on the other hand, someone is using the phrase "administration of grace" to simply mean that the gospel was revealed to OT saints so that they could place their faith in it, then as 2LBCF confesses in 8.6
> 
> 
> For a longer explanation, please see the "Long Reply" section here https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/06/15/re-did-the-covenant-of-grace-begin-in-the-new-covenant/


So God was saving them based upon the coming Messiah, so he was able to "credit the Cross" towards them , even though to us messiah had not actually come yet in the flesh?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Douglas Padgett said:


> Scott I'm not much of a car guy so I don't know if I'm really following the analogy, but when/where is the 10 commandments part of the covenant of works? Are you referring to 19.1-2?
> 
> (I'm assuming the Covenant of Works you're speaking of is the covenant that God made with Adam.)



The law is eternal and was given to Adam in the garden.... see the WCF

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> So God was saving them based upon the coming Messiah, so he was able to "credit the Cross" towards them , even though to us messiah had not actually come yet in the flesh?




One gospel.


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> So God was saving them based upon the coming Messiah, so he was able to "credit the Cross" towards them , even though to us messiah had not actually come yet in the flesh?



Yes.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Scott Bushey said:


> Brandon's view is contra-reformed and anti-Westminster. * No disrespect Brandon


Well Scott me thinks you are a closet Baptist. I note in your signature that the forerunner to our Lord was John the Baptist, not John the Presbyterian.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## KMK

brandonadams said:


> Saving faith was not a condition either to be in the Mosaic covenant or to receive its blessings, as it is in the New.



Does the 1689 Federalist believe that the Mosaic Covenant IS the Covenant of Works?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Stephen L Smith said:


> Well Scott me thinks you are a closet Baptist. I note in your signature that the forerunner to our Lord was John the Baptist, not John the Presbyterian.



Well, to be accurate, John's baptism was not Christian baptism but a Jewish washing-as well, JTB was circumcised and a covenanter. Most likeley, if he had been born in the day, would have been a Presbyterian.


----------



## brandonadams

KMK said:


> Does the 1689 Federalist believe that the Mosaic Covenant IS the Covenant of Works?



No. (Some have made imprecise statements). We believe it was _a _covenant of works, but certainly not _the _Covenant of Works. Its reward was not eschatological life but rather life and blessing in the land of Canaan. Note Owen:



> The covenant of works had its promises, but they were all remunerative, respecting an antecedent obedience in us; (*so were all those which were peculiar unto the covenant of Sinai*). They were, indeed, also of grace, in that the reward did infinitely exceed the merit of our obedience; but yet they all supposed it, and the subject of them was formally reward only.





> Now this is no other but the covenant of works revived. Nor had this covenant of Sinai any promise of eternal life annexed to it, as such, but only the promise inseparable from the covenant of works which it revived, saying, “Do this, and live… Therefore it is, that when our apostle disputes against justification by the law, or by works of the law, he does not intend the works peculiar to the covenant of Sinai, such as were the rites and ceremonies of the worship then instituted; but he intends also the works of the first covenant, which alone had the promise of life annexed to them.





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





> (2.) It becomes not the wisdom, holiness, and sovereignty of God, to call any people into an especial relation unto himself, to do them good in an eminent and peculiar manner, and then to suffer them to live at their pleasure, without any regard unto what he hath done for them. Wherefore, having granted unto this people those great privileges of the land of Canaan, and the ordinances of worship relating unto the great end mentioned, he moreover prescribed unto them laws, rules, and terms of obedience, whereon they should hold and enjoy that land, with all the privileges annexed unto the possession thereof. And these are both expressed and frequently inculcated, in the repetition and promises of the law. But yet in the prescription of these terms, God reserved the sovereignty of dealing with them unto himself. For had he left them to stand or fall absolutely by the terms prescribed unto them, they might and would have utterly forfeited both the land and all the privileges they enjoyed therein. And had it so fallen out, then the great end of God in preserving them a separate people until the Seed should come, and a representation thereof among them, had been frustrated. Wherefore, although he punished them for their transgressions, according to the threatenings of the law, yet would he not bring the μr,je, or “curse of the law,” upon them, and utterly cast them off, until his great end was accomplished, Malachi 4:4-6. (101)





> And the whole of this system of laws is called a “command,” because it consisted in “arbitrary commands” and precepts, regulated by that maxim, “The man that doeth these things shall live by them,” Romans 10:5. And therefore the law, as a command, is opposed unto the gospel, as a promise of righteousness by Jesus Christ, Galatians 3:11, 12. Nor is it the whole ceremonial law only that is intended by “the command” in this place, but the moral law also, so far as it was compacted with the other into one body of precepts for the same end; for with respect unto the efficacy of the whole law of Moses, as unto our drawing nigh unto God, it is here considered…
> 
> By all these ways was the church of the Hebrews forewarned that the time would come when the whole Mosaical law, as to its legal or covenant efficacy, should be disannulled, unto the unspeakable advantage of the church…
> 
> It is therefore plainly declared, that the law is “abrogated,” “abolished… disannulled.”
> 
> (Hebrews 7:18)


----------



## Pergamum

Douglas Padgett said:


> Perg,
> 
> I've enjoyed reading through all of your recent threads on this topic, its created some good discussion!
> 
> To your question, Paul seems to make it very clear in Gal 3 (amongst other places as well) that the defining characteristic of the Law (mosaic covenant) is that it is a works covenant not a faith covenant. I'm curious to know the problem you have with the 'defenders' quote is, if you do have one?


Thanks for your comments. Yes, it has been a good discussion.

I believe faith in a coming Messiah was always a requirement. Moses promised that God would raise up a Prophet like unto him and Abraham saw Christ's day and was glad for it. The Mosaic sacrifices pointed to the coming Sacrifice.

Do you believe faith was NOT a requirement for OT Israel? Moses pointed to Christ. To say that faith was not a requirement seems to miss one of the main purposes of the Mosaic Covenant, to lead to Christ and give the people a further hunger and thirst for a sacrifice that did not need repeated.

Am I wrong in this?


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> Correct. This is known as the subservient covenant view.
> 
> (Note: be careful to understand precisely in what sense I mean it was not an administration of the CoG: I mean that it was not the CoG. It did reveal the CoG and place the gospel before people in types and shadows.)



This view is disturbing to me. 

If the Mosaic Covenant was a free-standing covenant, this appears to mean that it does not push forward God's redemptive plan, but seems more like a side-show that interrupts the flow of the narrative of the One Story of Redemption. 

It introduces needless discontinuity and makes a large portion of the OT merely about physical things. When I come to the Bible I see it as one book about spiritual things, not a book about physical things.


----------



## brandonadams

Pergumum, the name subservient itself means it is not "a side-show" but that it is subservient to the CoG, though distinct from it. Its entire point was to typologically reveal the gospel and the Covenant of Grace. Once again, you're judging way too rashly. Slow down and read the position first.


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> Pergumum, the name subservient itself means it is not "a side-show" but that it is subservient to the CoG, though distinct from it. Its entire point was to typologically reveal the gospel and the Covenant of Grace. Once again, you're judging way too rashly. Slow down and read the position first.


So it still advances the plan of salvation? It reveals the gospel and yet many say it is merely a covenant of works? Do you admit that there are gracious elements in it?


----------



## JTB.SDG

There are 4 Classical Views of these things that are held by those whom the Puritans referred to as "the learned": IE, there are 4 credible views one can hold. That's not to say that all of them are advocated by the WCF. First is that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works; second is that it was a Mixed covenant--partly a covenant of works, partly a covenant of grace; third is that it was a subservient covenant (this is Brandon's view), and fourthly that it was a covenant of grace. The great majority of the Puritans took the fourth view as their own and rejected the others, though there are a few exceptions; as Brandon pointed out, Samuel Bolton advocated the Subservient View, and John Owen seems to as well. (Note: for more on these things see also the OPC Report here on Republication as Bruce has alluded to before, a lot of good info).

The Fourth View is the view articulated in the WCF. It also has a number of SUB-views. For instance, some tend to, it seems, deny any presence of a legal component in the Mosaic Covenant; saying that Rom.10; Gal.3; and 2 Cor.3 are basically Paul quoting his opponents view (that the Law taught "do this and live") but then disagreeing with that. That is something the Puritans would throw out here and there, but it was never the majority consensus on these texts. The majority of the Puritans understood that there was indeed a legal component to Moses. They recognized this; they struggled with it. How did they resolve it? How can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace when it tells us: "Do this and live" (IE, obey FOR life)? Isn't the requirement of the Covenant of Grace faith? So how can Moses require obedience and be part of the Covenant of Grace?

The way the vast majority of 4th view Puritans (IE, the majority of the Puritans in general) resolved this was to understand the Law in two different ways. I've posted about this now several times, but it is really, really important to understand, especially since this truth seems to have been lost to our present generation (I felt like Josiah when I started reading about it--then saw it again and again in the writings of the Puritans). You have to understand the Mosaic Covenant from TWO perspectives: 1) LARGELY taken: this includes everything about how Christ is revealed; this is why it is part of the Covenant of Grace; and even commands faith--Rom.10:6ff). 2) STRICTLY taken: the Law, in and of itself, "abstracted" from the Mosaic Covenant, is indeed a *repetition* (not republication) of the Covenant of Works. How so? Because it commands perfect, personal, perpetual obedience as the cause of life and curses any and all who fall short. This is NOT a republication of the Covenant of Works, because the Covenant of Works itself is non-repeatable; it happened in Genesis 2; it was broken, the covenant was shattered and there was no going back. We're all born under the curse. BUT it was a repetition of the Covenant of Works. IE, it was the same CONTENT as the Covenant of Works. Hence, Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law. . ." The righteousness that is by FAITH is manifested in and witnessed by the Law--Christ is in the Law. This is the Law Largely taken. Yet, this same righteousness is apart from the Law. How so? It's apart from the Law as strictly taken; IE, it's a completely different system than the bare command of the Law: "do and live".

So, how can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace but tell us "Do and live"? We don't water down the "do and live" component. Rather, we present it there in all its rigor. And we say that is indeed the content of the Covenant of Works. That is the Law strictly taken, as abstracted from the grace revealed in the Mosaic Covenant. But the Law strictly taken, the whole purpose of it, was to lead us to the Law largely taken; that is, to Christ and the gospel. The whole point of God telling us "Do and live" in the Mosaic Covenant is to break us and draw us to the grace of "believe and live" revealed elsewhere in the Mosaic Covenant. That's how it all fits together. The thing is: Law and Covenant are not equal. That's where I see a lot of folks go wrong. Rather, Law is SUBSERVIENT to Covenant (Note: not talking about the 3rd view; no disrespect Brandon). The Law serves the Covenant. The bare law, the law in and of itself, says "do and live"; this is why it is a repetition of the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works. But that same Law serves and submits and is subservient to the Covenant, which we would call the Law as largely taken, which is why we take the Mosaic Covenant to belong to the Covenant of Grace. The Puritans wrote extensively about all of this, but I never got this at seminary; I had to dig.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Pergamum said:


> So it still advances the plan of salvation?



Yes.



Pergamum said:


> It reveals the gospel and yet many say it is merely a covenant of works?



Yes.



Pergamum said:


> Do you admit that there are gracious elements in it?



Yes.


----------



## timfost

From Fesko on diversity of opinion of Westminster divines:

"Calamy identifies the fourfold scheme with “M. Sympson,”a likely reference to Sydrach Simpson (ca. 1600–1655), one of the divines. Simpson’s view entailed four covenants: a covenant of works with Adam, a covenant of grace with Abraham, a covenant of works with Israel, and another covenant of grace, which was the new covenant. Calamy connects a second position with Jeremiah Burroughs (ca. 1600–1646), another Westminster divine. According to Calamy, Burroughs held a threefold scheme involving a covenant of works with Adam, another covenant of works with Israel, and a covenant of grace through Christ. Calamy identifies a third position with James Pope (fl. 1675) as its chief advocate. 79 According to Calamy, Pope believed that there were only two covenants: a covenant of works with Israel (with no previous covenant with Adam) and a covenant of grace. The fourth position Calamy associates with Westminster divine Anthony Burgess, who supposedly held a threefold view. In this view there was a covenant of works with Adam, a covenant of grace with Israel, and a second covenant of grace beyond that made with Israel. The fifth and last position Calamy claims as his own, which was the more common twofold view: covenants of works and grace. These taxonomies are very important as they represent historically contextual analyses, not those of modern historians, of the various views present among the members of the assembly and beyond."

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 1


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.


It does not seem that our views are all that very far apart. Thanks for the clarifications.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> There are 4 Classical Views of these things that are held by those whom the Puritans referred to as "the learned": IE, there are 4 credible views one can hold. That's not to say that all of them are advocated by the WCF. First is that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works; second is that it was a Mixed covenant--partly a covenant of works, partly a covenant of grace; third is that it was a subservient covenant (this is Brandon's view), and fourthly that it was a covenant of grace. The great majority of the Puritans took the fourth view as their own and rejected the others, though there are a few exceptions; as Brandon pointed out, Samuel Bolton advocated the Subservient View, and John Owen seems to as well. (Note: for more on these things see also the OPC Report here on Republication as Bruce has alluded to before, a lot of good info).
> 
> The Fourth View is the view articulated in the WCF. It also has a number of SUB-views. For instance, some tend to, it seems, deny any presence of a legal component in the Mosaic Covenant; saying that Rom.10; Gal.3; and 2 Cor.3 are basically Paul quoting his opponents view (that the Law taught "do this and live") but then disagreeing with that. That is something the Puritans would throw out here and there, but it was never the majority consensus on these texts. The majority of the Puritans understood that there was indeed a legal component to Moses. They recognized this; they struggled with it. How did they resolve it? How can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace when it tells us: "Do this and live" (IE, obey FOR life)? Isn't the requirement of the Covenant of Grace faith? So how can Moses require obedience and be part of the Covenant of Grace?
> 
> The way the vast majority of 4th view Puritans (IE, the majority of the Puritans in general) resolved this was to understand the Law in two different ways. I've posted about this now several times, but it is really, really important to understand, especially since this truth seems to have been lost to our present generation (I felt like Josiah when I started reading about it--then saw it again and again in the writings of the Puritans). You have to understand the Mosaic Covenant from TWO perspectives: 1) LARGELY taken: this includes everything about how Christ is revealed; this is why it is part of the Covenant of Grace; and even commands faith--Rom.10:6ff). 2) STRICTLY taken: the Law, in and of itself, "abstracted" from the Mosaic Covenant, is indeed a *repetition* (not republication) of the Covenant of Works. How so? Because it commands perfect, personal, perpetual obedience as the cause of life and curses any and all who fall short. This is NOT a republication of the Covenant of Works, because the Covenant of Works itself is non-repeatable; it happened in Genesis 2; it was broken, the covenant was shattered and there was no going back. We're all born under the curse. BUT it was a repetition of the Covenant of Works. IE, it was the same CONTENT as the Covenant of Works. Hence, Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law. . ." The righteousness that is by FAITH is manifested in and witnessed by the Law--Christ is in the Law. This is the Law Largely taken. Yet, this same righteousness is apart from the Law. How so? It's apart from the Law as strictly taken; IE, it's a completely different system than the bare command of the Law: "do and live".
> 
> So, how can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace but tell us "Do and live"? We don't water down the "do and live" component. Rather, we present it there in all its rigor. And we say that is indeed the content of the Covenant of Works. That is the Law strictly taken, as abstracted from the grace revealed in the Mosaic Covenant. But the Law strictly taken, the whole purpose of it, was to lead us to the Law largely taken; that is, to Christ and the gospel. The whole point of God telling us "Do and live" in the Mosaic Covenant is to break us and draw us to the grace of "believe and live" revealed elsewhere in the Mosaic Covenant. That's how it all fits together. The thing is: Law and Covenant are not equal. That's where I see a lot of folks go wrong. Rather, Law is SUBSERVIENT to Covenant (Note: not talking about the 3rd view; no disrespect Brandon). The Law serves the Covenant. The bare law, the law in and of itself, says "do and live"; this is why it is a repetition of the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works. But that same Law serves and submits and is subservient to the Covenant, which we would call the Law as largely taken, which is why we take the Mosaic Covenant to belong to the Covenant of Grace. The Puritans wrote extensively about all of this, but I never got this at seminary; I had to dig.


Thank you. That was helpful.


----------



## Pergamum

JTB.SDG said:


> There are 4 Classical Views of these things that are held by those whom the Puritans referred to as "the learned": IE, there are 4 credible views one can hold. That's not to say that all of them are advocated by the WCF. First is that the Mosaic Covenant was a republication of the Covenant of Works; second is that it was a Mixed covenant--partly a covenant of works, partly a covenant of grace; third is that it was a subservient covenant (this is Brandon's view), and fourthly that it was a covenant of grace. The great majority of the Puritans took the fourth view as their own and rejected the others, though there are a few exceptions; as Brandon pointed out, Samuel Bolton advocated the Subservient View, and John Owen seems to as well. (Note: for more on these things see also the OPC Report here on Republication as Bruce has alluded to before, a lot of good info).
> 
> The Fourth View is the view articulated in the WCF. It also has a number of SUB-views. For instance, some tend to, it seems, deny any presence of a legal component in the Mosaic Covenant; saying that Rom.10; Gal.3; and 2 Cor.3 are basically Paul quoting his opponents view (that the Law taught "do this and live") but then disagreeing with that. That is something the Puritans would throw out here and there, but it was never the majority consensus on these texts. The majority of the Puritans understood that there was indeed a legal component to Moses. They recognized this; they struggled with it. How did they resolve it? How can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace when it tells us: "Do this and live" (IE, obey FOR life)? Isn't the requirement of the Covenant of Grace faith? So how can Moses require obedience and be part of the Covenant of Grace?
> 
> The way the vast majority of 4th view Puritans (IE, the majority of the Puritans in general) resolved this was to understand the Law in two different ways. I've posted about this now several times, but it is really, really important to understand, especially since this truth seems to have been lost to our present generation (I felt like Josiah when I started reading about it--then saw it again and again in the writings of the Puritans). You have to understand the Mosaic Covenant from TWO perspectives: 1) LARGELY taken: this includes everything about how Christ is revealed; this is why it is part of the Covenant of Grace; and even commands faith--Rom.10:6ff). 2) STRICTLY taken: the Law, in and of itself, "abstracted" from the Mosaic Covenant, is indeed a *repetition* (not republication) of the Covenant of Works. How so? Because it commands perfect, personal, perpetual obedience as the cause of life and curses any and all who fall short. This is NOT a republication of the Covenant of Works, because the Covenant of Works itself is non-repeatable; it happened in Genesis 2; it was broken, the covenant was shattered and there was no going back. We're all born under the curse. BUT it was a repetition of the Covenant of Works. IE, it was the same CONTENT as the Covenant of Works. Hence, Romans 3:21: "But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law. . ." The righteousness that is by FAITH is manifested in and witnessed by the Law--Christ is in the Law. This is the Law Largely taken. Yet, this same righteousness is apart from the Law. How so? It's apart from the Law as strictly taken; IE, it's a completely different system than the bare command of the Law: "do and live".
> 
> So, how can Moses be part of the Covenant of Grace but tell us "Do and live"? We don't water down the "do and live" component. Rather, we present it there in all its rigor. And we say that is indeed the content of the Covenant of Works. That is the Law strictly taken, as abstracted from the grace revealed in the Mosaic Covenant. But the Law strictly taken, the whole purpose of it, was to lead us to the Law largely taken; that is, to Christ and the gospel. The whole point of God telling us "Do and live" in the Mosaic Covenant is to break us and draw us to the grace of "believe and live" revealed elsewhere in the Mosaic Covenant. That's how it all fits together. The thing is: Law and Covenant are not equal. That's where I see a lot of folks go wrong. Rather, Law is SUBSERVIENT to Covenant (Note: not talking about the 3rd view; no disrespect Brandon). The Law serves the Covenant. The bare law, the law in and of itself, says "do and live"; this is why it is a repetition of the CONTENT of the Covenant of Works. But that same Law serves and submits and is subservient to the Covenant, which we would call the Law as largely taken, which is why we take the Mosaic Covenant to belong to the Covenant of Grace. The Puritans wrote extensively about all of this, but I never got this at seminary; I had to dig.


Thank you. That was helpful.


----------



## KMK

If faith was not a condition of the Mosaic, then what was?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

From Abraham forward most of the members of the church came into it as infants showing us that God is a covenant keeping God who primarily works through families. Are we to believe that they preformed these religious acts required by God even though they didn't believe in him?

Some outsiders or foreigners unbelievers came in through the sacrament of circumcision, this made them full
members of the church consequently they were assimilated into the tribes of Israel and treated as one born in the land in other words full Israelites. It is highly unlikely that they entered into the Covenant without any faith , i'm thinking it took a great deal of faith to undergo the procedure.

Biblical circumcision allowed a person entrance into the church whether young or old but faith kept you there if you did not have faith you were to be put out.

Deuteronomy chapter 6 is a good example of what God required of all circumcised members of the church.

4Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God _is_ one LORD: 5And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might


Some would have us believe that external obedience to God is not a sign of faith.

I freely admit that a person can be externally obedient and yet not have faith but from a human standpoint it's all we have to go on,as James says you show me your faith I will show you my works unfortunately faith is invisible.


One of the problems I see with dispensationalism is the tendency to believe that the theology of stiffnecked unbelieving dead branch Israelites is in fact orthodox biblical theology this is a real mistake a stumbling block for them.


----------



## KMK

brandonadams said:


> No. (Some have made imprecise statements). We believe it was _a _covenant of works, but certainly not _the _Covenant of Works. Its reward was not eschatological life but rather life and blessing in the land of Canaan. Note Owen:



Thanks. The answer from your website says this:

While holding that the Mosaic Covenant was _a _covenant of works, meaning it operated upon the works principle, 17th century particular baptists varied on what reward was offered by the Mosaic Covenant. Nehemiah Coxe agreed with John Owen that the Mosaic Covenant was only about temporal life in the land of Canaan, not eternal life. This is the view articulated in the videos on this site. Others said it potentially offered eternal life for perfect obedience. This is the view articulated by Jeffery Johnson.

Is this an area where there is latitude within the movement?


----------



## Dachaser

KMK said:


> Thanks. The answer from your website says this:
> 
> While holding that the Mosaic Covenant was _a _covenant of works, meaning it operated upon the works principle, 17th century particular baptists varied on what reward was offered by the Mosaic Covenant. Nehemiah Coxe agreed with John Owen that the Mosaic Covenant was only about temporal life in the land of Canaan, not eternal life. This is the view articulated in the videos on this site. Others said it potentially offered eternal life for perfect obedience. This is the view articulated by Jeffery Johnson.
> 
> Is this an area where there is latitude within the movement?


There were two aspects to the Mosaic Covenant between God and Israel, as there were indeed grace elements within it, as the Covenant of Grace would have always the coming/promise Messiah in mind, but there were also conditional promises made based upon how well they kept the commands and ways of God, as much of Gods dealing with them was centered on the physical aspects of health, land, protection etc.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Yes.


So that would be the CoG elements within it, but the primary premise and promise was temporal promises rooted in the Land, health, wealth, etc. based upon their obedience, correct?


----------



## brandonadams

KMK said:


> If faith was not a condition of the Mosaic, then what was?



Obedience to the Mosaic law (Lev 18:5; Gal 3:12). Bolton summarizes


> The subservient covenant, which was called the old covenant, was that whereby God required obedience from the Israelites in respect of the moral, ceremonial, and judicial laws. Blessings in the possession of Canaan were promised to obedience, and curses and miseries to those who broke the covenant, and all to this end, that God might thus encourage their hearts in the expectation of the Messiah to come...
> 
> 2. They [the CoG and the Old Cov] differ in the stipulation or condition attached to each: that in the old covenant runs, ‘Do this and live’; that in the new, ‘Believe and thou shalt be saved’



Note also my several quotes from Owen to this effect in comment #30 in this thread.


----------



## brandonadams

KMK said:


> Is this an area where there is latitude within the movement?



Yes and no. At this point the focus is on just making people aware of the view, rather than hammering out who's in and who's not. Johnson's view needs to be pressed and ironed out. It contradicts 2LBCF 19.6 insofar as it believes Moses was a) saved, and b) under the Mosaic covenant of works for eternal life. Per the most recent discussion, Johnson seems to now see this problem. That said, Keach uses language that seems to say the same thing, though he qualifies it elsewhere to affirm that only temporal life was in view. Spurgeon, following Bunyan, does seem to identify the Mosaic with the Adamic Covenant of Works https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2015/07/17/did-spurgeon-hold-to-1689-federalism/

For further comments on your question, see http://www.1689federalism.com/2015-founders-conference-w-commentary/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> So that would be the CoG elements within it, but the primary premise and promise was temporal promises rooted in the Land, health, wealth, etc. based upon their obedience, correct?



Not quite what I meant.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Not quite what I meant.


Would you mind elaborating what you hold with on this area then?


----------



## brandonadams

BG said:


> From Abraham forward most of the members of the church came into it as infants showing us that God is a covenant keeping God who primarily works through families. Are we to believe that they preformed these religious acts required by God even though they didn't believe in him?



Note that you are merely assuming what is being discussed: that Abraham's offspring and members of the covenant of circumcision were the church - that the Abrahamic Covenant instituted the church. We are to believe that they were circumcised because if they were not, they would be killed (Ex 4:24) and without it they would not have God's temporal blessing.



BG said:


> Some outsiders or foreigners unbelievers came in through the sacrament of circumcision, this made them full
> members of the church consequently they were assimilated into the tribes of Israel and treated as one born in the land in other words full Israelites. It is highly unlikely that they entered into the Covenant without any faith , i'm thinking it took a great deal of faith to undergo the procedure.



1) Again, you're assuming what is debated re: the church
2) I never denied that people had faith. I merely said that saving faith in Jesus Christ was not a condition of the Mosaic Covenant.



BG said:


> Biblical circumcision allowed a person entrance into the church whether young or old but faith kept you there if you did not have faith you were to be put out.



1) Again, you're assuming what is debated re: the church
2) The term you are looking for is "cut off" and that meant put to death, and that occurred for disobedience to Mosaic law. It was not the same procedure as excommunication from the church.

Rutherford makes it clear that what is required for participation in the Lord's Supper today was not required by circumcised adults in the Old Covenant. They were not put out for lack of faith. He says they were "known unbelievers" and retained every right to Old Covenant membership.



> For the question is: what is it to be externally within the covenant?
> It is not to see all known sins, to be a chosen people, a people taught of God [inwardly], as this argument would say.
> 
> 1. For then God would not have commanded Joshua (Josh. 5) to circumcise all Israel because their fathers were externally within the covenant.
> 
> 2. For their fathers were a generation of unbelievers who knew not God, who tempted Him, grieved his holy Spirit in the wilderness, and professed themselves by their murmuring never to be truly within the covenant [inwardly].
> Then to profess the doctrine of the covenant is but to be born Jews, avow the Lord in external profession and swear a covenant with Him (Deut. 29), [even] when the heart is blinded and hardened (Deut. 29:4). And so by this it is clear that Joshua had commandment of God to give the seal of the covenant to their children, who [the parents] were as openly wicked against the Lord, as murderers, drunkards, swearers, etc.
> [...]
> 1. The children of the most wicked were circumcised (Josh. 5:2 [see also verses 6-7]). We desire to know whom God forbade to be circumcised that were carnally descended of Abraham? Or show us example or precept thereof in the Word.
> 
> 2. What God required in the parents, whose infants the church might lawfully and without sin circumcise, was that they were born Jews. O, says Mr. Best, they were behooved [required] to be members of the church, whose infants might lawfully be circumcised. I answer: that is ignotum per ignotius [unknown per the unknown]. Show me one person being a born Jew whose child the Lord forbid to circumcise?
> 
> 3. What is it to be a member of the Jewish Church? Is it to be a visible saint and taught of God [inwardly]? I [admit this to be] true: that was required indeed to make men acceptable before God. But to make one a visible member of the visible Jewish church, nothing was required but to be a born Jew, profess God’s truth, and keep from external ceremonial pollutions.
> 
> http://reformedbooksonline.com/exclusive-books-to-rbo/on-the-baptism-of-the-children-of-adherents/


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> Would you mind elaborating what you hold with on this area then?



I would recommend reading Pascal Denault's book first.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> I would recommend reading Pascal Denault's book first.


Were you from the start a Reformed Baptist, or did you come into that position from more of a non confessional Baptist position?


----------



## BG

Brandon, I am not assuming anything I am simply stating the facts, Faith was a requirement to remain in the covenant in the Old Testament, just Because the church leaders in the old testament were derelict in their duty to excommunicate people does not negate the fact that that was clearly their duty. By the way you do know the position you're taking is placing you at the heart of dispensational theology... just saying


----------



## KMK

Brandon, it sounds like you are saying that the condition of the Mosaic was bare obedience without faith or that which flows from faith like glory and thanksgiving. Is that correct? 

Do you disagree with Thomas Boston when he writes...

"All true obedience to the ten commandments now must run in the channel of the covenant of grace, being directed to God as our God in that covenant, Deuteronomy 28:58 . This is to fear that glorious and fearful name, The Lord thy God . And so legal obedience is no obedience at all. This obedience is performed not for righteousness, but to testify our love to the Lord our Righteousness; not in our own strength, but in that of our Lord God and Redeemer; not to be accepted for its own worth, but for the sake of a Redeemer's merits; not out of fear of hell, or hope to purchase heaven, but out of love and gratitude to him who has delivered us from hell, and purchased heaven and everlasting happiness for us." Works, Vol. 2, On the Preface to the 10 Commandments

Is this true for those only in the New Covenant but not in the Mosaic? If so, how do you explain the many times God rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?

I appologize if you have answered this question before, but there are several threads floating around and it is hard to keep up.


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> Were you from the start a Reformed Baptist, or did you come into that position from more of a non confessional Baptist position?



I was raised non-denominational but was saved in college in a confessional baptist church.


----------



## brandonadams

BG said:


> Brandon, I am not assuming anything I am simply stating the facts, Faith was a requirement to remain in the covenant in the Old Testament, just Because the church leaders in the old testament were derelict in their duty to excommunicate people does not negate the fact that that was clearly their duty.



Please see my previous response, particularly the quote from Rutherford.



BG said:


> By the way you do know the position you're taking is placing you at the heart of dispensational theology... just saying



No, that is incorrect. Please see previous thread on that point.


----------



## brandonadams

KMK said:


> Brandon, it sounds like you are saying that the condition of the Mosaic was bare obedience without faith or that which flows from faith like glory and thanksgiving. Is that correct?



Outward obedience to the Mosaic law is what the Mosaic blessings and curses were conditioned upon. That obedience often flowed from a regenerate heart, but not always. (Consider the Israelites in Egypt who obeyed by sacrificing the paschal lamb, and thereby escaped death, and yet died in the wilderness for lack of faith & obedience). Regarding Boston's quote, keep in mind that the Mosaic covenant was a typological overlay that function over the top of the underlying Adamic Covenant of Works and New Covenant of Grace. So every Israelite, as an image bearer, was required to obey the law perfectly, though the terms of the Mosaic law were less demanding. See comment #11 above for a quote from Pink & Scott to this effect https://puritanboard.com/threads/fa...on-of-the-mosaic-covenant.93271/#post-1137740

I would encourage you to read John Erskine's essay on this question: https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2014/10/16/john-erskines-the-nature-the-sinai-covenant/

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## brandonadams

Dachaser said:


> Would you mind elaborating what you hold with on this area then?



As mentioned, I would really recommend reading Denault to grasp the overall concept. But I suppose I can briefly say, with regards to graciousness as it relates to the Mosaic Covenant:

1) Even though the Adamic Covenant was a Covenant of Works, God may be considered "gracious" to have offered Adam the reward of eternal life for obedience that he already owed (WCF/2LBCF 7.1). In a similar way, God could be considered gracious in revealing himself to Israel and dwelling in their midst, etc. Yet the covenant was still a covenant of works.

2) God was gracious in redeeming Israel out of Egypt. However, this was not, strictly speaking, a gracious blessing of the Mosaic Covenant. Rather, it was a blessing earned by Abraham's obedience. God's promise to Abraham made God longsuffering towards Israel. He did not pour out the full covenant curse until Christ came. So in this sense he was gracious.

3) The Mosaic Covenant did not demand perfect obedience like the Adamic Covenant. There was provision within the covenant to repair the relationship (the ceremonial system). In this sense God was gracious (note, however, that it was still the work of earthly priests, not Christ - see Hebrews).


----------



## BG

Brandon the fact that you say something is not true does not make it so.
Do you even hear what you're saying in some of these post: they were to *outwardly *love God with their whole heart *outwardly, just fake it, *it just doesn't make sense .
How could a Holy and righteous God enter into a Covenant with sinful and rebellious man. If they were expected to obey God then why aren't they still in Egypt ?


----------



## Pergamum

KMK said:


> Brandon, it sounds like you are saying that the condition of the Mosaic was bare obedience without faith or that which flows from faith like glory and thanksgiving. Is that correct?
> 
> Do you disagree with Thomas Boston when he writes...
> 
> "All true obedience to the ten commandments now must run in the channel of the covenant of grace, being directed to God as our God in that covenant, Deuteronomy 28:58 . This is to fear that glorious and fearful name, The Lord thy God . And so legal obedience is no obedience at all. This obedience is performed not for righteousness, but to testify our love to the Lord our Righteousness; not in our own strength, but in that of our Lord God and Redeemer; not to be accepted for its own worth, but for the sake of a Redeemer's merits; not out of fear of hell, or hope to purchase heaven, but out of love and gratitude to him who has delivered us from hell, and purchased heaven and everlasting happiness for us." Works, Vol. 2, On the Preface to the 10 Commandments
> 
> Is this true for those only in the New Covenant but not in the Mosaic? If so, how do you explain the many times God rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?
> 
> I appologize if you have answered this question before, but there are several threads floating around and it is hard to keep up.


Ken,

Can you list some of those many times that the Lord rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?


----------



## Afterthought

brandonadams said:


> Rutherford makes it clear that what is required for participation in the Lord's Supper today was not required by circumcised adults in the Old Covenant. They were not put out for lack of faith. He says they were "known unbelievers" and retained every right to Old Covenant membership.


Rutherford argues that circumcised adults in the Old Testament are the same as baptized adults in the NT. Hence, children born in the visible church of wicked parents are to be baptized because children born of wicked circumcised adults were to be circumcised. His "known unbelievers" in the quoted section is referring to those in the NT who are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. Rutherford elsewhere argues in _Due Right of Presbyteries_ that the right partaking of the Passover required the same self-examination that is required in the Lord's Supper, including heart preparation.


----------



## Afterthought

Pergamum said:


> Can you list some of those many times that the Lord rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?


Isaiah 29:13 "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near _me_ with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:"

And, related to that, an example of unbelief producing wickedness...(they could not enter into the land because of unbelief, according to Hebrews 3)

Psalm 106:24-25 "Yea, they despised the pleasant land, they believed not his word: But murmured in their tents, and hearkened not unto the voice of the Lord."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## KMK

Sticking with Isaiah from above:

Isa 1:10-14; 19
Isa 7:9
Isa 66:3

What about Deut 28:15? 'Hearken' means to 'hear' AND 'obey'.



Pergamum said:


> Ken,
> 
> Can you list some of those many times that the Lord rebukes Israel for obedience without faith?


----------



## brandonadams

BG said:


> Brandon the fact that you say something is not true does not make it so.



Right back at you, brother.



BG said:


> Do you even hear what you're saying in some of these post: they were to *outwardly *love God with their whole heart *outwardly, just fake it, *it just doesn't make sense .



First, that is a caricature of the position. Second, I have quoted numerous reformed paedobaptists making these same points, which you are conveniently ignoring.



BG said:


> How could a Holy and righteous God enter into a Covenant with sinful and rebellious man.



Good question. Why don't you ask the reformed paedobaptists who share my position? Or are they Dispensationalists too just because you disagree and don't understand them? See https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2016/10/01/a-post-fall-covenant-of-works/


----------



## brandonadams

Afterthought said:


> Rutherford argues that circumcised adults in the Old Testament are the same as baptized adults in the NT. Hence, children born in the visible church of wicked parents are to be baptized because children born of wicked circumcised adults were to be circumcised. His "known unbelievers" in the quoted section is referring to those in the NT who are not to be admitted to the Lord's Supper. Rutherford elsewhere argues in _Due Right of Presbyteries_ that the right partaking of the Passover required the same self-examination that is required in the Lord's Supper, including heart preparation.



Thank you. I am aware. None of this changes anything I have said.


----------



## brandonadams

I haven't been on this forum in a long time. I peaked in and noticed that there were a lot of questions about 1689 Federalism that could use some clarification. I believe I have provided that clarification and provided you all with many resources for further study if you are interested. I will be bowing out at this point due to time constraints and because I believe the answers to questions/challenges that are being repeated are available for those interested. In addition to the various links I have provided, please see also the topical list here: http://contrast2.wordpress.com

In Christ,


----------



## Pergamum

brandonadams said:


> I haven't been on this forum in a long time. I peaked in and noticed that there were a lot of questions about 1689 Federalism that could use some clarification. I believe I have provided that clarification and provided you all with many resources for further study if you are interested. I will be bowing out at this point due to time constraints and because I believe the answers to questions/challenges that are being repeated are available for those interested. In addition to the various links I have provided, please see also the topical list here: http://contrast2.wordpress.com
> 
> In Christ,


Thank you for your answers. They are much appreciated. I am now reading your website quite a bit.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## BG

Brandon anyone who believes that Israel and the church are two different things is a dispensationalist Whether they are Presbyterian or Baptist it does not matter that's dispensationalism


----------



## BG

Another good example of faith being required is in the fifth chapter of the book of Joshua because of unbelief God would not allow the children of Israel to circumcise their children in the wilderness they had no faith therefore they had no right to circumcise their children. God waited for all the unbelievers to die off so that the land would not be polluted, then had Joshua preform believers circumcision.


----------



## Andrew P.C.

brandonadams said:


> He says they were "known unbelievers"



Your Rutherford quote says no such thing.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Brandon the fact that you say something is not true does not make it so.
> Do you even hear what you're saying in some of these post: they were to *outwardly *love God with their whole heart *outwardly, just fake it, *it just doesn't make sense .
> How could a Holy and righteous God enter into a Covenant with sinful and rebellious man. If they were expected to obey God then why aren't they still in Egypt ?


God could do that due to the fact that in His mind, the Cross was already an accomplished fact, so He was able to deal with them on the "credit" that was to yet be purchased on their behalf at the Cross of Christ.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> Brandon anyone who believes that Israel and the church are two different things is a dispensationalist Whether they are Presbyterian or Baptist it does not matter that's dispensationalism


The question is really when does one see the actual Church being instituted by God, back in the wilderness, or on the Day of Pentecost.


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> As mentioned, I would really recommend reading Denault to grasp the overall concept. But I suppose I can briefly say, with regards to graciousness as it relates to the Mosaic Covenant:
> 
> 1) Even though the Adamic Covenant was a Covenant of Works, God may be considered "gracious" to have offered Adam the reward of eternal life for obedience that he already owed (WCF/2LBCF 7.1). In a similar way, God could be considered gracious in revealing himself to Israel and dwelling in their midst, etc. Yet the covenant was still a covenant of works.
> 
> 2) God was gracious in redeeming Israel out of Egypt. However, this was not, strictly speaking, a gracious blessing of the Mosaic Covenant. Rather, it was a blessing earned by Abraham's obedience. God's promise to Abraham made God longsuffering towards Israel. He did not pour out the full covenant curse until Christ came. So in this sense he was gracious.
> 
> 3) The Mosaic Covenant did not demand perfect obedience like the Adamic Covenant. There was provision within the covenant to repair the relationship (the ceremonial system). In this sense God was gracious (note, however, that it was still the work of earthly priests, not Christ - see Hebrews).


You would be bringing into point 3 the Hebrews passage concerning the OT sacrifices were bit shadows/types of the final sacrifice made for sins by Jesus on the Cross, correct?


----------



## brandonadams

BG said:


> Brandon anyone who believes that Israel and the church are two different things is a dispensationalist Whether they are Presbyterian or Baptist it does not matter that's dispensationalism



Ignorance abounds. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/


----------



## NaphtaliPress

Moderating: 
A reminder.
"Before you send the latest jab, punch, tweak, etc into cyberspace, take a minute (or two, or five) to make sure that you are doing so in a spirit of Christian maturity (cf. #4 below). Study first, pray, post after."
https://www.puritanboard.com/help/terms
When venturing into the forums go through the following sort of _pilot checklist_ before you weigh in:

1. Will it edify or significantly inform a useful conversation (Mark 12:29–31; 1 Cor. 14:26)?

2. Will it be easily misunderstood (John 13:7; 16:12)?

3. Will it reach the right audience (Mark 4:9)?

4. Will it help your evangelism (Col. 1:28–29)?

5. Will it bring about unnecessary and unhelpful controversy (Titus 3:9)?

6. Will it embarrass or offend (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

7. Will it convey care (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

8. Will it make people better appreciate someone else (1 Cor. 12:21–26)?

9. Is it boasting (Prov. 27:2)?

10. Is the tone appropriate (2 John 1, 12; Col. 4:6; Eph. 4:29; 2 Tim. 2:24–25)?

11. Is it wrong to say nothing (Rom. 1:14)?

12. What do others advise (Prov. 11:14; 15:22; 24:6)?

See also:
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...derator-rules-of-behavior.93287/#post-1137921



brandonadams said:


> Ignorance abounds. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

brandonadams said:


> Ignorance abounds. https://contrast2.wordpress.com/2017/05/31/is-1689-federalism-dispensational/


I have now read through that very helpful link. My understanding after reading that would be that the 1689 Confession has the Church as being now instituted in NT times, and that the saved under the OC were to be seen as being part of it?


----------



## Afterthought

An interesting quotation of Turretin (from https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/re-publication-covenant-of-works-question.49840/#post-640989)


"To say that this covenant subserved the covenant of grace is really to say that it is not a covenant, but a dispensation. A covenant properly so called has the power of binding by itself the contracting parties, nor is it directed to another. If therefore that dispensation had respect to another (as it really did), it is a proof that it was not a different covenant in species, but only a different mode of economy, adapted to the time, place and state of the persons. _XII.XII.XVII"_


----------



## Herald

brandonadams said:


> Obedience to the Mosaic law (Lev 18:5; Gal 3:12).



I agree with this. I wrote earlier (in another thread perhaps?) that faith is implied in the Mosaic Law, but it is not a condition. Obedience to the Mosaic Law could have been motivated by faith, but not necessarily.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> I agree with this. I wrote earlier (in another thread perhaps?) that faith is implied in the Mosaic Law, but it is not a condition. Obedience to the Mosaic Law could have been motivated by faith, but not necessarily.


If obedience and not faith was the condition, what about those verses that say that Israel confesses with their lips but their heart is far from Me. The condition of the heart seemed vital even in the OT.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> Brandon, I am not assuming anything I am simply stating the facts, Faith was a requirement to remain in the covenant in the Old Testament, just Because the church leaders in the old testament were derelict in their duty to excommunicate people does not negate the fact that that was clearly their duty. By the way you do know the position you're taking is placing you at the heart of dispensational theology... just saying



BG, I am in agreement with Brandon that faith was not a requirement to remain in covenant (i.e. part of the covenant community) in the Old Testament. Faith was required for the new birth under the Old Covenant, just as it is under the New Covenant, but one could be a member of the Old Covenant community (and follow its commands) without having faith. The Levitical priests had no way of knowing for certain if an individual was of faith, unless you are making a distinction between saving faith and another type of faith (which I do not believe the Bible teaches).


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> If obedience and not faith was the condition, what about those verses that say that Israel confesses with their lips but their heart is far from Me. The condition of the heart seemed vital even in the OT.


Perg, my point is that an Israelite could follow the outward requirements of the Law (obedience), but do so for pragmatic reasons, not because they possessed faith. Indeed, Isaiah 29:13 seems to support this:

*Isaiah 29:13* Then the Lord said,“Because this people draw near with their wordsAnd honor Me with their lip service,But they remove their hearts far from Me,And their reverence for Me consists of tradition learned _by rote,_

Their reverence (or outward conformity) was not because of a regenerate heart, but because of tradition, and also societal reasons. The threat of being cut off from the covenant community was a strong deterrent.


----------



## BG

Herald said:


> BG, I am in agreement with Brandon that faith was not a requirement to remain in covenant (i.e. part of the covenant community) in the Old Testament. Faith was required for the new birth under the Old Covenant, just as it is under the New Covenant, but one could be a member of the Old Covenant community (and follow its commands) without having faith. The Levitical priests had no way of knowing for certain if an individual was of faith, unless you are making a distinction between saving faith and another type of faith (which I do not believe the Bible teaches).



Herald, would you say that one of the requirements of the OT was that they keep the Ten Commandments?


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> Herald, would you say that one of the requirements of the OT was that they keep the Ten Commandments?


Of course. How do you think the average Jew did in keeping them? I think the answer is found in the eventual destruction of Israel and Judah. The curse of the Law (Deut. 28) was on full display.

Now, I have said earlier that faith was _implied _in the Law, but it was not a requirement of it. The word of our Lord has some application here:

*Matthew 7:13-14* 13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it."

The majority of people lack faith. It was no different during the Old Testament than it is today. Knowing that there are none righteous, faith was lacking from most people during the time of the Law.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> BG, I am in agreement with Brandon that faith was not a requirement to remain in covenant (i.e. part of the covenant community) in the Old Testament. Faith was required for the new birth under the Old Covenant, just as it is under the New Covenant, but one could be a member of the Old Covenant community (and follow its commands) without having faith. The Levitical priests had no way of knowing for certain if an individual was of faith, unless you are making a distinction between saving faith and another type of faith (which I do not believe the Bible teaches).


If they did not have faith they were not "true Israel" according to Paul in Romans 9 and Galatians 3 right? They were missing the point of God's dealings with them.

Also, obeying the Ten Commandments necessitates faith, right?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Herald said:


> Levitical priests had no way of knowing for certain if an individual was of faith



Are you distinguishing the OC with the NC in this regard? If so, are you implying that ministers can know a man intrinsically in the NC?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> If they did not have faith they were not "true Israel" according to Paul in Romans 9 and Galatians 3 right? They were missing the point of God's dealings with them.



Correct. 



Pergamum said:


> Also, obeying the Ten Commandments necessitates faith, right?



Truly keeping them (to the extent that any child of God can do so)? Yes. But how many Jews gave the Decalogue lip service?


----------



## BG

If the Ten Commandments were a requirement why is it God did not bring judgment upon them one minute later, in light of the fact that there is non righteous no not one, no one except Christ has ever kept the Ten Commandments? What was it about these sinful people that made God love and favor them so much? If God is holy and hates sin why were they the apple of his eye. How could God view them as holy and righteous? I think that saying that faith was not a requirement for membership in the old administration of the CoG leaves us with more questions than answers. I have a feeling we will need to rethink a lot of passages the we previously thought were Calvinistic if we view the ot requirement as a bare naked obedience with indifference to and even possibly a loathing of the God and the laws that they had to obey. I'm a little surprised by a theology that says the church in the ot .did not believe in God but was just fearful that the civil magistrate would put them to death. They did not believe in God but still tryed to obey, I'm sorry it just seems odd to me and unbiblical.


----------



## Herald

Andrew P.C. said:


> Are you distinguishing the OC with the NC in this regard? If so, are you implying that ministers can know a man intrinsically in the NC?


Andrew, no. I am saying that the Levitical priests had no way of distinguishing between a Jew who kept the outward observance of the Law for pragmatic reasons from a Jew who kept it because of faith. My whole point is that the Mosaic Law was not conditioned by faith on the part of the one observing it. All Jews were obligated to keep the Law, regardless of whether they were true believers or not.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> BG, I am in agreement with Brandon that faith was not a requirement to remain in covenant (i.e. part of the covenant community) in the Old Testament.



I can see your point. But, what about commands like Deut 13:4, "Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him." Are you saying this was never an OT Command at all? It was always a NC 'implication'?


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> If the Ten Commandments were a requirement why is it God did not bring judgment upon them one minute later, in light of the fact that there is non righteous no not one, no one except Christ has ever kept the Ten Commandments? What was it about these sinful people that made God love and favor them so much? If God is holy and hates sin why were they the apple of his eye. How could God view them as holy and righteous? I think that saying that faith was not a requirement for membership in the old administration of the CoG leaves us with more questions than answers. I have a feeling we will need to rethink a lot of passages the we previously thought were Calvinistic if we view the ot requirement as a bare naked obedience with indifference to and even possibly a loathing of the God and the laws that they had to obey. I'm a little surprised by a theology that says the church in the ot .did not believe in God but was just fearful that the civil magistrate would put them to death. They did not believe in God but still tryed to obey, I'm sorry it just seems odd to me and unbiblical.



BG, please read my words in a more charitable light. I have said more than once that faith is implied in the Mosaic Law, but it is not a condition of it. I will come back to this in a moment.

I do not believe there is anything about the people of the nation of Israel that obligated God to lavish them with his love, mercy, and grace. How often did they turn their back on God (c.f. Jer. 2:13)? How often did God overlook their sin and restore them after they repented? When God did forgive and restore them, it was not based on the repentance of any one individual; instead it was a forgiveness and restoration based on the corporate repentance of the nation (2 Chr. 7:14). I will gladly confess that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Unfortunately the Mosaic Law, and the Old Covenant in general, made many of its blessings contingent on corporate obedience by the nation of Israel. That obedience was lacking. Why was it lacking? I think you and I will agree that it was because of lack of circumcised hearts. Eventually this lead to the dissolution of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.

If I am reading your words correctly, you give the impression that most Jews of the time were true believers. In light of the many failings of the people (followed by God's chastening), where was this wholesale faith that allowed them to keep the Law? The truth is that the people failed miserably in keeping the Law, and suffered miserably because of it. Of course, no one could keep the Law perfectly, even if they having saving faith. The Law was holy, but it was unable to be kept perfectly. God knew this when He gave it Moses, and Moses certainly knew it when he delivered it to the people. Things became a lot clearer under the New Covenant when God's blessings on His covenant people became contingent on faith. Faith is no longer implied, it is required.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> I can see your point. But, what about commands like Deut 13:4, "Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him, and cleave unto him." Are you saying this was never an OT Command at all? It was always a NC 'implication'?


It was a command that was disobeyed. It was a command given to the nation, and they failed miserably at keeping it. The interesting part of this command is that if it was taken seriously by the nation, then outward obedience to the Law would have been superseded by an inward desire to obey the Law as a result of faith. We see glimpses of that in the Bible, but ultimately we see failure.


----------



## BG

Herald said:


> BG, please read my words in a more charitable light. I have said more than once that faith is implied in the Mosaic Law, but it is not a condition of it. I will come back to this in a moment.
> 
> I do not believe there is anything about the people of the nation of Israel that obligated God to lavish them with his love, mercy, and grace. How often did they turn their back on God (c.f. Jer. 2:13)? How often did God overlook their sin and restore them after they repented? When God did forgive and restore them, it was not based on the repentance of any one individual; instead it was a forgiveness and restoration based on the corporate repentance of the nation (2 Chr. 7:14). I will gladly confess that without faith it is impossible to please God (Heb. 11:6). Unfortunately the Mosaic Law, and the Old Covenant in general, made many of its blessings contingent on corporate obedience by the nation of Israel. That obedience was lacking. Why was it lacking? I think you and I will agree that it was because of lack of circumcised hearts. Eventually this lead to the dissolution of both the Northern and Southern Kingdoms.
> 
> If I am reading your words correctly, you give the impression that most Jews of the time were true believers. In light of the many failings of the people (followed by God's chastening), where was this wholesale faith that allowed them to keep the Law? The truth is that the people failed miserably in keeping the Law, and suffered miserably because of it. Of course, no one could keep the Law perfectly, even if they having saving faith. The Law was holy, but it was unable to be kept perfectly. God knew this when He gave it Moses, and Moses certainly knew it when he delivered it to the people. Things became a lot clearer under the New Covenant when God's blessings on His covenant people became contingent on faith. Faith is no longer implied, it is required.



It seems to me that you are making a distinction without a difference. Everything you have said about the old testament church can be said about the New Testament church.

Faith was a requirement for the MC just as it is in the NC, there are just as many false converts in the NC as the MC. The two administrations are substantially the same.
God lavishes his mercy and grace upon us and yet we turn our backs on him , God over looks our sin and then restores us when we repent, God also sometimes blesses nations when his people that live in the nation repent. I would imagine that as a pastor you have quoted second chronicles 7:14 to your congregation and said the very same thing


----------



## Herald

BG said:


> It seems to me that you are making a distinction without a difference. Everything you have said about the old testament church can be said about the New Testament church.
> 
> Faith was a requirement for the MC just as it is in the NC, there are just as many false converts in the NC as the MC. The two administrations are substantially the same.
> God lavishes his mercy and grace upon us and yet we turn our backs on him , God over looks our sin and then restores us when we repent, God also sometimes blesses nations when his people that live in the nation repent. I would imagine that as a pastor you have quoted second chronicles 7:14 to your congregation and said the very same thing



BG,

We fundamentally disagree. I don't how else to say what I've already said. 

Blessings!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Herald said:


> My whole point is that the Mosaic Law was not conditioned by faith on the part of the one observing it. All Jews were obligated to keep the Law, regardless of whether they were true believers or not.



The Mosaic Law? Is this the ceremonial? Judicial? Or Moral? "The moral law doth forever bind all" (WCF 19.5). All men are obligated to obey the law. Also, all people in the NT church are to obey, regardless of whether they are believers or not. What one ought to do doesn't differentiate between believer or non-believer. 

Question: is church discipline done by instrisic knowledge of a man? Or by outward actions?


----------



## Herald

Andrew P.C. said:


> The Mosaic Law? Is this the ceremonial? Judicial? Or Moral? "The moral law doth forever bind all" (WCF 19.5). All men are obligated to obey the law. Also, all people in the NT church are to obey, regardless of whether they are believers or not. What one ought to do doesn't differentiate between believer or non-believer.
> 
> Question: is church discipline done by instrisic knowledge of a man? Or by outward actions?


The moral law of God is binding on all people, everywhere, since the moral law of God existed before the Mosaic Law (c.f. Gen. 1:27). The moral law of God (based on God's holy nature) should have been the motivation for an Old Testament Jew to keep all aspects of the Law; but even if the moral condition of an individual was fallen, they were still obligated to keep the aspects of the Law that could be witnessed (i.e. sacrifices and the Sabbath et. al). If these things were done out of obligation, and not faith, there would be no blessing on the part of the person doing them (other than the blessing of living under God's protection in the covenant community). 

As to your last question, the former may give insight into the latter, but we take a lot upon ourselves if we start implementing church discipline based solely on our knowledge of a man's character or past actions. I am not sure what you are driving at. Will you please clarify as to what your point is? Thank you.


----------



## Dachaser

BG said:


> It seems to me that you are making a distinction without a difference. Everything you have said about the old testament church can be said about the New Testament church.
> 
> Faith was a requirement for the MC just as it is in the NC, there are just as many false converts in the NC as the MC. The two administrations are substantially the same.
> God lavishes his mercy and grace upon us and yet we turn our backs on him , God over looks our sin and then restores us when we repent, God also sometimes blesses nations when his people that live in the nation repent. I would imagine that as a pastor you have quoted second chronicles 7:14 to your congregation and said the very same thing


Saving faith was not a requirement though to be under the OC, as being a part of the Covenant nation with God, as in the NC church, saving faith must be made to be part of it. Those with saving faith under the OC were to be seen as being included in the NC church now then, is my understanding of this issue.


----------



## Dachaser

Andrew P.C. said:


> The Mosaic Law? Is this the ceremonial? Judicial? Or Moral? "The moral law doth forever bind all" (WCF 19.5). All men are obligated to obey the law. Also, all people in the NT church are to obey, regardless of whether they are believers or not. What one ought to do doesn't differentiate between believer or non-believer.
> 
> Question: is church discipline done by instrisic knowledge of a man? Or by outward actions?


Church discipline should be based upon the observable outward acts of sin and disobedience.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> It was a command that was disobeyed. It was a command given to the nation, and they failed miserably at keeping it.





Herald said:


> they were still obligated to keep the aspects of the Law *that could be witnessed*



Are you saying that this command (as well as all other 'inward' commands of the heart) flows from the CoG even though it was revealed to (and perhaps 'overlayed upon') Israel under the Mosaic? But, it is not a part of the _substance_ of the Mosaic?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Herald said:


> but one could be a member of the Old Covenant community (and follow its commands) without having faith. The Levitical priests had no way of knowing for certain if an individual was of faith



My point is trying to understand some *seemingly* conflicting statements. You say here that one could be a member of the Old Covenant community without faith. As compared to what? The NC? You further this thought by saying the priests had no insight into the man. As compared to some change in the NC? Ministers and elders have no insight into the man just the the priests didn't. So I'm still confused by your point here.




Herald said:


> The moral law of God (based on God's holy nature) should have been the motivation for an Old Testament Jew to keep all aspects of the Law



Except for all the passages that talk about removing the foreskin of their hearts or how God wants the hearts of Israel more than obedience (psalm 51 is a great example among many). 

Jeremiah 4:4 and Deut. 10:16 are just two examples that come to mind. Would you say that those passages are just to those who believe? Or the entire Israelite community?



Herald said:


> If these things were done out of obligation, and not faith, there would be no blessing on the part of the person doing them (other than the blessing of living under God's protection in the covenant community).



Same goes for the NC. There are outward blessings of those who are false professors in the church. Those who are not truly of the faith yet they are in the church have many blessings while living in this covenant community. 

I think overall, you seem to be making a distinction where the OT community was merely external. The comment with the priests, for example, demonstrate this point. However, you really haven't made a distinct point regarding the NC and how it's changed. Are ministers and elders more insightful in the NC community because of some change?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Dachaser said:


> Church discipline should be based upon the observable outward acts of sin and disobedience.



So what has changed then? It seems to me that some have made a point to try and make a distinction between the OC and NC here. How does one know if a man is truly regenerate? If they profess faith outwardly and are obedient, then what distinguishes them from other professing members? Are they not apart of the visible church? The covenant community? 

I think of a few passages that speak of those who have recieved the blessings of the kingdom of Christ; those who have recieved the blessings of being apart of the covenant community, yet they fell away; they apostasized. Hebrews 6 says they were enlightened and revived all these things, but fell away. Hebrews 10 says they were set apart (sanctified) but they trampled under foot the blood of Christ. Or the parable of the kingdoms: one where there were many seeds sown in different soils yet only the ones in the good soil were of true faith. Or the net that was cast into the sea and grabbed both good and bad fish (which were thrown back out).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Are you saying that this command (as well as all other 'inward' commands of the heart) flows from the CoG even though it was revealed to (and perhaps 'overlayed upon') Israel under the Mosaic? But, it is not a part of the _substance_ of the Mosaic?


Ken,

Let me go back to the passage you referenced earlier, Deut. 13:4. The context of that verse is God testing the people to see if they will shun idolatry. Indeed, in verse 3 we read, "...for the Lord your God is testing you to find out if you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul." In other words, the Lord is testing the people to see if they have faith in Him. There is no guarantee that a person who shunned idolatry did so because they had faith. They could be motivated by other reasons, such as personally avoiding the prescribed penalty for idolatry (Deut. 13:5). But the text says that Lord was testing them to see if they actually did love Him. Did the command against idolatry in Deut. 13:1-5 flow from the Covenant of Grace? Perhaps obliquely? Fleeing idolatry is part of sanctification, and progressive sanctification is the process in which we become more like Christ. Since the Holy Spirit is at work in us to make us more like Christ, we can say it is part of the Covenant of Grace.

When I look at a passage like Deut. 6:5, I see the heart of the Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament:

*Deut. 6:5* 5 You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might.

The only way to love God is by faith. The only way to obey Him faithfully is by faith. So, whether the inward command of God flows from the Covenant of Grace, or is layered in it, forensically the finger prints of the Covenant of Grace are everywhere. Am I making sense with that comment? I hope so.

My point from earlier is that there are many other commands from the Law that could be outwardly followed, but did not reveal the inward disposition of the heart. One could follow the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath but still be an unbeliever. One could avoid acts of sexual perversion, but have a perverted heart. So, in that sense, faith was not commanded for outward obedience. But on an overall basis, faith is implied even when it is not specifically stated. In the case of Deut. 6:5; 13:4 it is more than implied, it is essential.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## OPC'n

Turretin believed that "the form of the Mosaic covenant was the covenant of works, but its substance was the covenant of grace”....that's not a direct quote from him but an interpretation of what he says in his institutes. If I can find the exact quote I'll post it.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> One could follow the ceremonial aspects of the Sabbath but still be an unbeliever.



Sure, they 'could', but God rebukes them for doing so. So, when the Lord complains, "Forasmuch as this people draw near _me_ with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me..." (Isa 29:13), it is not a complaint about their Mosaic Covenant obedience, but their CoG obedience?

I have been stuck on the problem of the word 'shama', for example, which means 'hear, pay attention to, and obey'. That requires a _kind_ of faith, but not necessarily _saving_ faith. You are saying that Israel could have been blessed with earthly blessings by 'hearkening' to God without necessarily trusting in Him for heavenly blessings. Am I on the right track?


----------



## Dachaser

Andrew P.C. said:


> So what has changed then? It seems to me that some have made a point to try and make a distinction between the OC and NC here. How does one know if a man is truly regenerate? If they profess faith outwardly and are obedient, then what distinguishes them from other professing members? Are they not apart of the visible church? The covenant community?
> 
> I think of a few passages that speak of those who have recieved the blessings of the kingdom of Christ; those who have recieved the blessings of being apart of the covenant community, yet they fell away; they apostasized. Hebrews 6 says they were enlightened and revived all these things, but fell away. Hebrews 10 says they were set apart (sanctified) but they trampled under foot the blood of Christ. Or the parable of the kingdoms: one where there were many seeds sown in different soils yet only the ones in the good soil were of true faith. Or the net that was cast into the sea and grabbed both good and bad fish (which were thrown back out).


From the viewpoint of God Himself, all of those who make up the Body of Christ will be only saved under the NC, while per His viewpoint, there were saved abd lost among Israel under the OC.
The Church proper has just saved among it, as they have to have the rebirth to be numbered in it, not so under the OC.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> From the viewpoint of God Himself, all of those who make up the Body of Christ will be only saved under the NC, while per His viewpoint, there were saved abd lost among Israel under the OC.
> The Church proper has just saved among it, as they have to have the rebirth to be numbered in it, not so under the OC.



But the minister doesn't have God's viewpoint. So again we ask the same question in response to your earlier assertion:



> Church discipline should be based upon the observable outward acts of sin and disobedience.



How do you know if a man is truly regenerate?


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Sure, they 'could', but God rebukes them for doing so. So, when the Lord complains, "Forasmuch as this people draw near _me_ with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me..." (Isa 29:13), it is not a complaint about their Mosaic Covenant obedience, but their CoG obedience?



Ken, that supposes one is under the Covenant of Grace. I suppose we could say all Jews benefited from a common grace made available to all members of the covenant community, just like God makes the rain fall on the just and the unjust. In fact, that is probably sound biblical theology. Redemptively speaking, Is. 29:13 reveals the spiritual condition of the majority in Israel at that time. There was no way that Israel could game the system. While a individual may be able to meet society's level of acceptance to the Law, God's standard was perfection; perfect obedience 24/7/365.



KMK said:


> I have been stuck on the problem of the word 'shama', for example, which means 'hear, pay attention to, and obey'. That requires a _kind_ of faith, but not necessarily _saving_ faith. You are saying that Israel could have been blessed with earthly blessings by 'hearkening' to God without necessarily trusting in Him for heavenly blessings. Am I on the right track?



Partly. Had Israel heeded God's commands they would have enjoyed certain blessings, for a time. The rub is that without faith it is impossible to please God. It is like one of my favorite actors, Daniel Day-Lewis. Day-Lewis is a brilliant actor who can play almost any roll. For a time he convinces you that he is Abraham Lincoln, but as good as his acting is, he is only playing a part. Eventually he has to revert back to who he is. The same with many of the commands in the Law; they do not require overt faith in keeping them, but without faith they cannot be kept for long, or at least not with any credibility. Israel's problem was that lip service became so prominent that there were periods when the majority of the nation was lead into hypocrisy _ala_ Is. 29:13. That is why I say that faith is implied where it is not expressly commanded.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> But the minister doesn't have God's viewpoint. So again we ask the same question in response to your earlier assertion:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you know if a man is truly regenerate?


By their professing faith in Jesus to have saved then, and by observing fruit enough to warrant that to be a valid claim.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> By their professing faith in Jesus to have saved then, and by observing fruit enough to warrant that to be a valid claim.



What happens after that profession, when they go fornicate with someone other than his wife, leaves the church, renounces Christ? I've seen it happen. Was their earlier profession "really real?"


----------



## Scott Bushey

Everyone are moving forward on presumption-whether paedo or credo....no ones assessment is bullet proof.

Discipleship is not equal to regeneration and conversion. Consider demas, Aananias and his wife Sapphira, Simon Magus, Judas.


----------



## Herald

ReformedReidian said:


> What happens after that profession, when they go fornicate with someone other than his wife, leaves the church, renounces Christ? I've seen it happen. Was their earlier profession "really real?"


Jacob, "what if" questions are hard to answer. I know, having tried to answer them myself. As fallible human beings we lack perfect knowledge. We do the best we can in ascertaining the truth. Church discipline exists to help us call sinning brothers and sisters back to the fold. If church discipline is practiced, and the person has to be excommunicated, then we should treat them as an unbeliever and pray for them. Even then, could they be saved and just in a season of sin? Once again, all we can do is our best and trust in God.


----------



## KMK

Well, if the kingdom of Christ depends upon me understanding the minutia of every covenantal 'grid' within the Reformed world, then I apologize to all of you in advance.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Herald said:


> Jacob, "what if" questions are hard to answer. I know, having tried to answer them myself. As fallible human beings we lack perfect knowledge. We do the best we can in ascertaining the truth. Church discipline exists to help us call sinning brothers and sisters back to the fold. If church discipline is practiced, and the person has to be excommunicated, then we should treat them as an unbeliever and pray for them. Even then, could they be saved and just in a season of sin? Once again, all we can do is our best and trust in God.



That's starting to sound a lot like how Presbyterians view the NC. 

The person in question is presumably a member of the NC, yet for all practical purposes is living as a covenant-breaker. And it's not a hypothetical what-if question. Sadly, it happens all too often.


----------



## Herald

ReformedReidian said:


> That's starting to sound a lot like how Presbyterians view the NC.
> 
> The person in question is presumably a member of the NC, yet for all practical purposes is living as a covenant-breaker. And it's not a hypothetical what-if question. Sadly, it happens all too often.


I guess we are similar in that regard, although if a person is put out of the fellowship we consider them an unbeliever. Do we know for sure? No. However, we would rather err on the side of calling them to repentance and faith than to just consider them a wayward brother.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> Well, if the kingdom of Christ depends upon me understanding the minutia of every covenantal 'grid' within the Reformed world, then I apologize to all of you in advance.


Ken, I apologize if I am giving you that impression. Be assured that I do not believe that. I have a tendency to get into the weeds when trying to understand a given theological issue, but that does not mean I am holding hostage anyone's claim to be in kingdom of Christ.


----------



## KMK

No, Bill, I was just trying to be funny.

Reactions: Like 1 | Funny 1


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> What happens after that profession, when they go fornicate with someone other than his wife, leaves the church, renounces Christ? I've seen it happen. Was their earlier profession "really real?"


They can be restored back tot he Lord if they repent amd show that they are earnest in their desire to be received back, for was that not the example to us of the person sinning with his stepmother, but later on repented?
We have to all assume that they have been saved if they make the profession of faith, and in the end, if really saved, they will have fruit to show that off.


----------



## Dachaser

KMK said:


> No, Bill, I was just trying to be funny.





Herald said:


> Jacob, "what if" questions are hard to answer. I know, having tried to answer them myself. As fallible human beings we lack perfect knowledge. We do the best we can in ascertaining the truth. Church discipline exists to help us call sinning brothers and sisters back to the fold. If church discipline is practiced, and the person has to be excommunicated, then we should treat them as an unbeliever and pray for them. Even then, could they be saved and just in a season of sin? Once again, all we can do is our best and trust in God.


The scriptures teach us to take professions of faith in Jesus, of now being really saved, and to discipline if need be to correct someone into sinning.


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> That's starting to sound a lot like how Presbyterians view the NC.
> 
> The person in question is presumably a member of the NC, yet for all practical purposes is living as a covenant-breaker. And it's not a hypothetical what-if question. Sadly, it happens all too often.


We all sin at times, but the question is to how we are responsive to repent/confess and forsake our known sins.


----------



## Dachaser

_If I had to pass a theology exam to gain eternal life, I think would still be lost, as I am sure God exam would be a dozy._


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> We all sin at times, but the question is to how we are responsive to repent/confess and forsake our known sins.



1. Is the person elect?
2. Is he in the Covenant?


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> 1. Is the person elect?
> 2. Is he in the Covenant?


Those who have been saved by the grace of God would answer yes to both of those questions.


----------



## RamistThomist

Dachaser said:


> Those who have been saved by the grace of God would answer yes to both of those questions.



Is covenant membership in the church identical to the elect?


----------



## Dachaser

ReformedReidian said:


> Is covenant membership in the church identical to the elect?


Those in the NC relationship with God are the elect of God, and also part of the Church/Body/Bride of Christ.


----------



## Herald

ReformedReidian said:


> Is covenant membership in the church identical to the elect?


Jacob, I would re-word your question into this statement, "The Elect of all ages are members of the New Covenant." This applies to the those elect who have yet to brought into the fold or to be born. In the latter sense I am writing retroactively.


----------



## RamistThomist

Herald said:


> Jacob, I would re-word your question into this statement, "The Elect of all ages are members of the New Covenant." This applies to the those elect who have yet to brought into the fold or to be born. In the latter sense I am writing retroactively.



Fair enough. Do you see the New Covenant as a subset of the Covenant of Grace?


----------



## Herald

ReformedReidian said:


> Fair enough. Do you see the New Covenant as a subset of the Covenant of Grace?


Well, it depends on _when _you ask me that question. Two weeks ago I would have answered your question with an emphatic "Yes!". When Brandon started posting his various threads on 1689 Federalism I read them with a healthy dose of skepticism. The majority Reformed Baptist position has been "one covenant [Covenant of Grace], two administrations". Now I am not so sure. I confess that there is, indeed, a Covenant of Grace, but the question I am wrestling with is whether the Covenant of Grace is one and the same with the New Covenant. Another way of asking the questions is, "Is the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace?". You are going to have to give me some time in order to give you a fair answer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

Bill,
I have discussed this w/ Brandon and that is my position as well. There are vague differences, but I hold to one C of G/NC mentality. I have posted this in the past and it wasn't received well. I believe Westminster understood it as such also:

Forgive me for beating this dead horse if u have read this already:
http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/


----------



## Herald

Scott Bushey said:


> Bill,
> I have discussed this w/ Brandon and that is my position as well. There are vague differences, but I hold to one C of G/NC mentality. I have posted this in the past and it wasn't received well. I believe Westminster understood it as such also:
> 
> Forgive me for beating this dead horse if u have read this already:
> http://www.semperreformanda.com/201...-of-grace-and-new-covenant-interchangeably-2/



Scott,

In 2013 I purchased Pascal Denault's book, "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology". It did not challenge me then the way it is challenging me now. In chapter 2 Denault compares Presbyterian covenant theology with Particular Baptist covenant theology (distinct from 20th Century Reformed Baptist covenant theology). Pascal makes the point that the Presbyterian doctrine of succession is dependent on the "one covenant, two administrations" view of the Covenant of Grace. In other words, paedobaptism falls if the Covenant of Grace is viewed any other way. As a Presbyterian, I will leave that for you to decide if you hold to the view that the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant are one in the same, and whether the view you hold to puts you in tension with your belief in paedobaptism.

As I understand Pascal Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos they do not suggest that the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament, but rather it was a promise of the New Covenant. Since the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Pentecost, there were no New Covenant members until that time. Of course, that creates a conundrum for the Particular Baptist (i.e. 1689 Federalism) view. Into what covenant where pre-New Covenant saints a part of? For me that is *the *pivotal question on which my acceptance/rejection of Particular Baptist covenant theology hinges. I am working on an answer to that question, and I pray God will give me peace about the answer. If I were to guess, the men I mentioned earlier in this paragraph will say that pre-New Covenant believers are saved into the promise of the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant. The substance of their salvation is still the finished work of Christ on their behalf.

What are the vague differences you mentioned?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Watching. Still have a lot to be answered. Both sides. Actually all three sides. I see all three claiming Owen. Owen is an enigma. Prior Posts reveal that. I have heard Owen was a good defense. Not by me. The New Covenant looks and acts a lot like the Church and the Old Covenant to me. Antinomianism and Dispensationalism have confused a lot of this in my estimation.

And believe me Dispensationalism can't always be defined in Classical terms. DARBY is Hyper. Not sure how we would classify Johnny Mac Now Days. I quit following it. Progressive(question Mark). This is historical. I understand that. But ..... It is still what it is.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/



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


----------



## Scott Bushey

Herald said:


> I will leave that for you to decide if you hold to the view that the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant are one in the same, and whether the view you hold to puts you in tension with your belief in paedobaptism.



Bill,
I see no tension....


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Watching. Still have a lot to be answered. Both sides. Actually all three sides. I see all three claiming Owen. Owen is an enigma. Prior Posts reveal that. I have heard Owen was a good defense. Not by me. The New Covenant looks and acts a lot like the Church and the Old Covenant to me. Antinomianism and Dispensationalism have confused a lot of this in my estimation.
> 
> And believe me Dispensationalism can't always be defined in Classical terms. DARBY is Hyper. Not sure how we would classify Johnny Mac Now Days. I quit following it. Progressive(question Mark). This is historical. I understand that. But ..... It is still what it is.



Randy, Dispensationalism requires a certain eschatological view (pre-wrath rapture, and two returns of Christ come to mind). I see Particular Baptist covenant theology as more of a ecclesiological and soteriological issue.


----------



## Herald

Scott Bushey said:


> Bill,
> I see no tension....


Scott, that is why I used the word "whether".

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> Scott,
> 
> In 2013 I purchased Pascal Denault's book, "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology". It did not challenge me then the way it is challenging me now. In chapter 2 Denault compares Presbyterian covenant theology with Particular Baptist covenant theology (distinct from 20th Century Reformed Baptist covenant theology). Pascal makes the point that the Presbyterian doctrine of succession is dependent on the "one covenant, two administrations" view of the Covenant of Grace. In other words, paedobaptism falls if the Covenant of Grace is viewed any other way. As a Presbyterian, I will leave that for you to decide if you hold to the view that the Covenant of Grace and the New Covenant are one in the same, and whether the view you hold to puts you in tension with your belief in paedobaptism.
> 
> As I understand Pascal Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos they do not suggest that the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament, but rather it was a promise of the New Covenant. Since the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Pentecost, there were no New Covenant members until that time. Of course, that creates a conundrum for the Particular Baptist (i.e. 1689 Federalism) view. Into what covenant where pre-New Covenant saints a part of? For me that is *the *pivotal question on which my acceptance/rejection of Particular Baptist covenant theology hinges. I am working on an answer to that question, and I pray God will give me peace about the answer. If I were to guess, the men I mentioned earlier in this paragraph will say that pre-New Covenant believers are saved into the promise of the Covenant of Grace/New Covenant. The substance of their salvation is still the finished work of Christ on their behalf.
> 
> What are the vague differences you mentioned?


Bill,

You say, "As I understand Pascal Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos they do not suggest that the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament, but rather it was a promise of the New Covenant."

But that is precisely why I am suspicious of it...because they say the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. Am I reading them correctly? A promise is not the thing promised. So they DENY that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT. 

But, OT believers participated in its reality. Such that the Covenant of Grace was effective and active even in the OT, and there were Covenant of Grace participants even in the OT.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Bill,
> 
> You say, "As I understand Pascal Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos they do not suggest that the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament, but rather it was a promise of the New Covenant."
> 
> But that is precisely why I am suspicious of it...because they say the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. Am I reading them correctly? A promise is not the thing promised. So they DENY that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT.
> 
> But, OT believers participated in its reality. Such that the Covenant of Grace was effective and active even in the OT, and there were Covenant of Grace participants even in the OT.


Perg,

I may have written rashly about the Old Testament manifestation of the Covenant of Grace in my reply to Scott. Here is what Denault writes about the Covenant of Grace in his book "The Distinctiveness of Baptist Covenant Theology":

"By rejecting the notion of a covenant of grace under two administrations, the Baptists were, in fact, rejecting only half of this concept: they accepted, as we have previously seen, the notion of one single Covenant of Grace in both testaments, but they refused the idea of the two administrations. For the Baptists, there was only one Covenant of Grace which was revealed from the Fall in a progressive way until its full revelation and conclusion in the New Covenant. This model is clearly expressed in Chapter 7 paragraph 3 of the Confession of 1689: "This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament."

Denault recognizes that on face value there does not seem to be much difference between the paedobaptist view of the of the Covenant of Grace and the Baptist view, in that the Covenant is progressively revealed until the time of the New Covenant. However, he goes on to write that the Baptist understanding of the Covenant of Grace "had a meaning that was very specific and fundamentally different from the paedobaptist". Denault writes:

"The first particularity is found in the difference between the notion of administration and that of revelation. The Baptists believed that before the arrival of the New Covenant, the Covenant of Grace was not formally given, but only announced and promised (revealed)."

He then quotes Nehemiah Coxe:

"It must also be noted that although the Covenant of Grace was revealed this far to Adam, yet we see in all this there was no formal and express covenant transaction with him. Even less was the Covenant of Grace established with him as a public person or representative of any kind. But as he obtained interest for himself alone by his own faith in the grace God revealed in this way, so must those of his posterity that are saved."

Denault continues:

"This specification is highly significant and plays a determining role in Baptist federalism. For Coxe, the Covenant of Grace was not concluded when God revealed it to Adam. John Owen explains why the Covenant of Grace could not be considered a formal covenant before the establishment of the New Covenant, but was confined to the stage of a promise:"

Owen...

"It lacked its solemn confirmation and establishment, by the blood of the only sacrifice which belonged to it. Before this was done in the death of Christ, it had not the formal nature of a covenant or a testament, as our apostle proves, Heb. 9:15-23. For neither, as he shows in the place, would the law given at Sinai have been a covenant, had it not been confirmed with the blood of sacrifices. To that end the promise was not before a formal and solemn covenant."

Denault concludes this section:

"The distinction between the revelation and the administration of the Covenant of Grace finds its whole meaning when the second element of Baptist federalism is added to it, that is to say, the full revelation of the Covenant of Grace in the New Covenant. If the Westminster federalism can be summarized in "_one covenant under two administrations_," that of the 1689 would be "_one covenant revealed progressively and concluded formally under the New Covenant._"

This is a bit different than just saying Baptist federalism rejects the notion that there was no Covenant of Grace in the Old Testament.


----------



## Pergamum

To have the Covenant of Grace "revealed" and "promised" but not "enacted" seems to be a distinction without a difference if all parties agree that OT believers participated actively in the Covenant of Grace. I appears that Presbyterians could also say this. If there were active believers in the OT, then the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT (unless we posit some other mode of salvation for them). I am failing to see what is so distinctive about Baptist Covenant Theology.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Perg,

Here is what has bothered me most. I quote from a previous post in this thread:

"Since the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Pentecost, there were no New Covenant members until that time. Of course, that creates a conundrum for the Particular Baptist (i.e. 1689 Federalism) view. Into what covenant were pre-New Covenant saints a part of? For me, that is *the *pivotal question of which my acceptance/rejection of Particular Baptist covenant theology hinges. I am working on an answer to that question, and I pray God will give me peace about the answer." 

Here is how Denault answers my question:

"Benjamin Keach, one of the main Baptist theologians of the second half of the seventeenth century, ratifies this view of the Covenant of Grace when he describes its four sequences: 1. It was first decreed in past eternity, 2. It was secondly revealed to man after the fall of Adam and Eve, 3. It was executed and confirmed by Christ in His death and resurrection, 4. It becomes effective for its members when are joined to Christ through faith. The particularity of this _ordo salutis_ is the distinction between the revelation and the execution of the Covenant of Grace. Those who were saved before Christ were saved because of an oath; those who were saved after Him were saved because of a covenant."


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> Those who were saved before Christ were saved because of an oath; those who were saved after Him were saved because of a covenant.



OK, but is it confessional?

LBC Chapter 7

Paragraph 2. Moreover, man having brought himself under the curse of the law by his fall, it pleased the Lord to make *a covenant of grace*...

Paragraph 3. *This covenant *is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, and afterwards by farther steps, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> To have the Covenant of Grace "revealed" and "promised" but not "enacted" seems to be a distinction without a difference if all parties agree that OT believers participated actively in the Covenant of Grace. I appears that Presbyterians could also say this. If there were active believers in the OT, then the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT (unless we posit some other mode of salvation for them). I am failing to see what is so distinctive about Baptist Covenant Theology.



I think the difference plays out in how both sides view Old Testament saints and covenant membership. Denaut makes the point that the Presbyterian doctrine of succession depends on their more concrete view of the Covenant of Grace being announced in Genesis 3:15. Presbyterian and Baptist ecclesiology plays an integral role in this whole topic. Who are real members of the Covenant of Grace? Presbyterians include their baptized children, whereas Baptists do not. I do see a difference in how Particular Baptists viewed Covenant Theology than the way Reformed Baptists of the late 20th century view it. Chapter 7.3 of our confession does make the point that, "This covenant is revealed in the gospel; first of all to Adam in the promise of salvation by the seed of the woman, _and afterwards by farther steps_, until the full discovery thereof was completed in the New Testament." So, prima facia, it seems that the framers of the 1689 LBC saw a progressive nature of the Covenant of Grace.


----------



## Steve Curtis

In another thread, I was asking the same question Bill seems to be struggling with:_* what covenant were the OT saints really in?*_ If not the CoG, then ?? And, as Pergamum has said, a promise is not the thing promised. So, the OT saints couldn't have been in the "promise" of a covenant, they had to be in some kind of covenantal relationship with God.

I haven't read much of the material being discussed on these threads (as I am happily content with the consistency of the Presbyterian view of the covenants after spending years as a Baptist), but it seems as if the authors are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They understand that the CoG has to be operational in the OT, else those saints are left stranded only in a promise (and while a promise of God is sure, it is surely not the same thing as the thing that He promised!); yet their ecclesiology (soteriology?) demands that the Church begin at Pentecost with a clean sweep from the sacramental past and new signs that mean new things.

To say, as one author above did, that the CoG was "revealed" at the Fall and "executed" at the Cross is fine (I would agree with that). But to say that it becomes "effective" whenever someone is joined to Christ by faith is where the author's position comes unraveled. *I* would agree with that statement, of course, as a Presbyterian; for a Baptist to say that, however, he has to answer the OP in the negative. If the CoG was "effective" when OT saints were joined to Christ, then it was operational (_a la _Westminsterian theology, because we believe that they were, in fact, joined to Christ by faith). To maintain the distinction that these authors wish to maintain, however, they must put those "joined to Christ by faith" solely in the NC and leave OT saints out in the cold - either *not* joined to Christ (which they surely wouldn't say) or not joined to Him *by faith.* The authors cited posit no other qualifiers (that I can see) than those two as determinative for inclusion in the CoG: 1) being joined to Christ; and 2) being joined to Him by faith.

In the end, their theology does not allow the OT saints to be in the CoG. So, we come full circle. If the OT saints were not in the CoG, what covenant were they in? And, most significantly, if it wasn't gracious, what was it?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Herald

kainos01 said:


> In another thread, I was asking the same question Bill seems to be struggling with:_* what covenant were the OT saints really in?*_ If not the CoG, then ?? And, as Pergamum has said, a promise is not the thing promised. So, the OT saints couldn't have been in the "promise" of a covenant, they had to be in some kind of covenantal relationship with God.
> 
> I haven't read much of the material being discussed on these threads (as I am happily content with the consistency of the Presbyterian view of the covenants after spending years as a Baptist), but it seems as if the authors are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They understand that the CoG has to be operational in the OT, else those saints are left stranded only in a promise (and while a promise of God is sure, it is surely not the same thing as the thing that He promised!); yet their ecclesiology (soteriology?) demands that the Church begin at Pentecost with a clean sweep from the sacramental past and new signs that mean new things.
> 
> To say, as one author above did, that the CoG was "revealed" at the Fall and "executed" at the Cross is fine (I would agree with that). But to say that it becomes "effective" whenever someone is joined to Christ by faith is where the author's position comes unraveled. *I* would agree with that statement, of course, as a Presbyterian; for a Baptist to say that, however, he has to answer the OP in the negative. If the CoG was "effective" when OT saints were joined to Christ, then it was operational (_a la _Westminsterian theology, because we believe that they were, in fact, joined to Christ by faith). To maintain the distinction that these authors wish to maintain, however, they must put those "joined to Christ by faith" solely in the NC and leave OT saints out in the cold - either *not* joined to Christ (which they surely wouldn't say) or not joined to Him *by faith.* The authors cited posit no other qualifiers (that I can see) than those two as determinative for inclusion in the CoG: 1) being joined to Christ; and 2) being joined to Him by faith.
> 
> In the end, their theology does not allow the OT saints to be in the CoG. So, we come full circle. If the OT saints were not in the CoG, what covenant were they in? And, most significantly, if it wasn't gracious, what was it?



Steve, I have an early day in front of customers this morning, so I do not have time for a more thorough reply. I will say that I am not sure Old Testament saints were "stranded". I am also not sure why there is a problem with a promise of a Covenant of Grace or its progressive nature in the Old Testament. Ultimately all believers are in the Covenant of Grace as members of the New Covenant. I will address more this evening when I get home. If it seems as though it is occupying a lot of time recently, it is. It is a topic that interests me greatly, and once I get interested in a topic I tend to hound it to death. 

SDG!


----------



## Andrew P.C.

"17 And this I say, _that_ the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, cannot disannul, that it should make the promise of none effect. 18 For if the inheritance _be_ of the law, _it is_ no more of promise: but God gave _it_ to Abraham by promise." (Gal. 3)

I cannot fathom how this could be referring to a future covenant.

1) "God gave it to Abraham". Galatians 3 in particular demonstrates that Abraham was in possession of this promise.

2) Hebrews also reminds us that the OT saints were in possession of this promise by faith (just as Abraham in Romans 4)

3) The NC wasn't administered until after Christ appeared. ("This cup is the new covenant in my blood..." Luke 22)

The problem I see here is that baptists are saying the NC is the promised covenant. To quote from one of Bill's posts, he quotes Keach: "Those who were saved before Christ were saved because of an oath; those who were saved after Him were saved because of a covenant". This cannot be true if what scripture tells us is correct. Those "who were saved before Christ" were in possession of Christ. The covenant was already established. This is Paul's argument in Galatians 3.

"_that_ the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ...God gave _it_ to Abraham by promise".

It seems that there might be a misunderstanding of what is a covenant. WCF 7.3 says: "Man by his fall having made himself incapable of life by that covenant, the Lord was pleased to make a second, commonly called the covenant of grace: wherein he freely offered unto sinners life and salvation by Jesus Christ, requiring of them faith in him that they may be saved, and promising to give unto all those that are ordained unto life his Holy Spirit, to make them willing and able to believe." We also see this "promised" wording in 7.2 of the covenant of works: "life was promised". How can one say that God, condescending to us, promising life, is not a covenant? I'm not sure, unless there is a redefinition of the term "covenant".

Either the OT saints were in possession of Christ by faith or they were not. Either they were saved, or they were not. "for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12).


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> _and afterwards by farther steps_,



These words refer to the _revelation_ of the CoG, correct? That is the way I have always understood them. 



Herald said:


> So, prima facia, it seems that the framers of the 1689 LBC saw a progressive nature of the Covenant of Grace.



But, it sounds like you are saying that these words refer to the _nature_ of the CoG.


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> These words refer to the _revelation_ of the CoG, correct? That is the way I have always understood them.
> 
> 
> 
> But, it sounds like you are saying that these words refer to the _nature_ of the CoG.



Ken,

That is not what I am trying to communicate. The argument from the 1689 side states that the CoG was promised in Gen. 3:15, and progressively revealed throughout OT history, and finally ratified at Christ's death and resurrection. They make the case that the CoG and the NC are one in the same. So, why not buy into the Presbyterian view of "one covenant and two administrations"? Because Baptists do not accept the Abrahamic and Mosaic Covenants as defining the CoG by admission of unregenerate persons into the covenant. They also see a difference in the covenant signs. Circumcision was a sign of the Abrahamic Covenant that was not given on the basis of faith, whereas baptism is a sign intended only for believers and on the basis of faith. I'll get into this more later.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Is there more than one Everlasting Covenant(question mark)

(Gen 17:7) And 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.

(Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish *my covenant *with him for an *everlasting covenant*, and with his seed after him.

(Heb 13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the *everlasting covenant*,
(Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Well, it depends on _when _you ask me that question. Two weeks ago I would have answered your question with an emphatic "Yes!". When Brandon started posting his various threads on 1689 Federalism I read them with a healthy dose of skepticism. The majority Reformed Baptist position has been "one covenant [Covenant of Grace], two administrations". Now I am not so sure. I confess that there is, indeed, a Covenant of Grace, but the question I am wrestling with is whether the Covenant of Grace is one and the same with the New Covenant. Another way of asking the questions is, "Is the New Covenant the Covenant of Grace?". You are going to have to give me some time in order to give you a fair answer.


I think that the basic question on this would be "How new is the NC really?"


----------



## Herald

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Is there more than one Everlasting Covenant(question mark)
> 
> (Gen 17:7) And 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.
> 
> (Gen 17:19) And God said, Sarah thy wife shall bear thee a son indeed; and thou shalt call his name Isaac: and I will establish *my covenant *with him for an *everlasting covenant*, and with his seed after him.
> 
> (Heb 13:20) Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the *everlasting covenant*,
> (Heb 13:21) Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is wellpleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ; to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen.



No. The eternal and everlasting covenant is the New Covenant. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dachaser

Pergamum said:


> Bill,
> 
> You say, "As I understand Pascal Denault, Jim Renihan, Sam Renihan, and Richard Barcellos they do not suggest that the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament, but rather it was a promise of the New Covenant."
> 
> But that is precisely why I am suspicious of it...because they say the Covenant of Grace did not exist in the Old Testament. Am I reading them correctly? A promise is not the thing promised. So they DENY that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT.
> 
> But, OT believers participated in its reality. Such that the Covenant of Grace was effective and active even in the OT, and there were Covenant of Grace participants even in the OT.


My understanding is that they would support the CoG being active in the OC, but that in their mind, the CoG is not exactly the NC, as OT saints saved same way under grace as we are, but the NT church is a new thing instituted at that time.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Perg,
> 
> Here is what has bothered me most. I quote from a previous post in this thread:
> 
> "Since the New Covenant was not inaugurated until Pentecost, there were no New Covenant members until that time. Of course, that creates a conundrum for the Particular Baptist (i.e. 1689 Federalism) view. Into what covenant were pre-New Covenant saints a part of? For me, that is *the *pivotal question of which my acceptance/rejection of Particular Baptist covenant theology hinges. I am working on an answer to that question, and I pray God will give me peace about the answer."
> 
> Here is how Denault answers my question:
> 
> "Benjamin Keach, one of the main Baptist theologians of the second half of the seventeenth century, ratifies this view of the Covenant of Grace when he describes its four sequences: 1. It was first decreed in past eternity, 2. It was secondly revealed to man after the fall of Adam and Eve, 3. It was executed and confirmed by Christ in His death and resurrection, 4. It becomes effective for its members when are joined to Christ through faith. The particularity of this _ordo salutis_ is the distinction between the revelation and the execution of the Covenant of Grace. Those who were saved before Christ were saved because of an oath; those who were saved after Him were saved because of a covenant."


God was saving all of those under the OC by the grace of Calvary, by granting "credit" towards them. But the fullness of the CoG awaited the coming of Messiah and the Holy spirit at Pentecost is how I understand then saying here. There was/is something really new in the NC when it fully was ushered in by Jesus Christ.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Herald said:


> No. The eternal and everlasting covenant is the New Covenant.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


But it is said to have been established here.


----------



## KMK

Herald said:


> No. The eternal and everlasting covenant is the New Covenant.



So, the Eternal and New Covenants are the same, in some way, as the CoG?


----------



## KMK

I am struggling with the idea that OT saints were in a promise of grace but not in a covenant of grace.

(And it isn't your job, Bill, to explain it to me. I am just thinking out loud.)


----------



## Dachaser

KMK said:


> I am struggling with the idea that OT saints were in a promise of grace but not in a covenant of grace.
> 
> (And it isn't your job, Bill, to explain it to me. I am just thinking out loud.)


All under the OC were saved by the provisions of the NC yet to come, as God credited the Cross to them.
I am still working through just how new was the NC, and is it the exact same thing as the CoG?


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> So, the Eternal and New Covenants are the same, in some way, as the CoG?



Ken,

Denault believes the CoG and the NC are one in the same. Chapter 7 of the 1689 LBC can interpreted that way if you read it carefully. The CoG in the OT is promised in Gen. 3:15 and is progressively revealed until the NC was ratified. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Herald

KMK said:


> I am struggling with the idea that OT saints were in a promise of grace but not in a covenant of grace.
> 
> (And it isn't your job, Bill, to explain it to me. I am just thinking out loud.)



Explain what? My lip is zipped. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Pergamum

kainos01 said:


> In another thread, I was asking the same question Bill seems to be struggling with:_* what covenant were the OT saints really in?*_ If not the CoG, then ?? And, as Pergamum has said, a promise is not the thing promised. So, the OT saints couldn't have been in the "promise" of a covenant, they had to be in some kind of covenantal relationship with God.
> 
> I haven't read much of the material being discussed on these threads (as I am happily content with the consistency of the Presbyterian view of the covenants after spending years as a Baptist), but it seems as if the authors are trying to have their cake and eat it, too. They understand that the CoG has to be operational in the OT, else those saints are left stranded only in a promise (and while a promise of God is sure, it is surely not the same thing as the thing that He promised!); yet their ecclesiology (soteriology?) demands that the Church begin at Pentecost with a clean sweep from the sacramental past and new signs that mean new things.
> 
> To say, as one author above did, that the CoG was "revealed" at the Fall and "executed" at the Cross is fine (I would agree with that). But to say that it becomes "effective" whenever someone is joined to Christ by faith is where the author's position comes unraveled. *I* would agree with that statement, of course, as a Presbyterian; for a Baptist to say that, however, he has to answer the OP in the negative. If the CoG was "effective" when OT saints were joined to Christ, then it was operational (_a la _Westminsterian theology, because we believe that they were, in fact, joined to Christ by faith). To maintain the distinction that these authors wish to maintain, however, they must put those "joined to Christ by faith" solely in the NC and leave OT saints out in the cold - either *not* joined to Christ (which they surely wouldn't say) or not joined to Him *by faith.* The authors cited posit no other qualifiers (that I can see) than those two as determinative for inclusion in the CoG: 1) being joined to Christ; and 2) being joined to Him by faith.
> 
> In the end, their theology does not allow the OT saints to be in the CoG. So, we come full circle. If the OT saints were not in the CoG, what covenant were they in? And, most significantly, if it wasn't gracious, what was it?



Exactly Steve! You've summarized my concerns better than I did. We must hold tight to the truth that all believers (including those from the OT, too) were saved the same way. A promise of a covenant is not the thing promised. The Covenant of Grace HAD to be operational in the OT, or else we posit a different way of salvation.

A thing can be inaugurated before it comes to full consummation. Many baptists believe this with regards to "the last days" but 1689 Federalism rejects this with regards to the Covenant of Grace. OT believers participated in the Covenant of Grace, therefore, it was active even in the OT.


----------



## Herald

Pergamum said:


> Exactly Steve! You've summarized my concerns better than I did. We must hold tight to the truth that all believers (including those from the OT, too) were saved the same way. A promise of a covenant is not the thing promised. The Covenant of Grace HAD to be operational in the OT, or else we posit a different way of salvation.



The 1689 Federalist believes that salvation worked the same way in the OT as it does today. They argue that the promise of the New Covenant was actually the promise of Christ, and His finished work. How else were OT believers saved but by looking forward to what the Christ would do? 1689 Federalists do believe there was a Covenant of Grace in the OT, but it was not exactly in the same form it would become under the New Covenant. 

A leading author in the 1689 Federalist movement recently wrote to me:

"We believe that Christ is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace, which is called the New Covenant in the Scriptures, and that this covenant was effective, even before its blood was shed which secures all its blessings (c.f. Heb. 9:15). We also believe that the New Covenant was given into promised form before becoming a formal covenant, and was intertwined with the Old Covenant, and tied with it through types and shadows. Therefore, it [the Covenant of Grace] is not unconnected with the Old Covenant; the Old Covenant not administering the Covenant of Grace itself, but being a type of it."

Perg, on a side note; I am taking the defense position on 1689 Federalism for the purpose trying to prove it true or false. By arguing for the position I force myself to deal with its argumentation. I like a lot of what I see, but I still have questions.


----------



## Pergamum

Herald said:


> The 1689 Federalist believes that salvation worked the same way in the OT as it does today. They argue that the promise of the New Covenant was actually the promise of Christ, and His finished work. How else were OT believers saved but by looking forward to what the Christ would do? 1689 Federalists do believe there was a Covenant of Grace in the OT, but it was not exactly in the same form it would become under the New Covenant.
> 
> A leading author in the 1689 Federalist movement recently wrote to me:
> 
> "We believe that Christ is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace, which is called the New Covenant in the Scriptures, and that this covenant was effective, even before its blood was shed which secures all its blessings (c.f. Heb. 9:15). We also believe that the New Covenant was given into promised form before becoming a formal covenant, and was intertwined with the Old Covenant, and tied with it through types and shadows. Therefore, it [the Covenant of Grace] is not unconnected with the Old Covenant; the Old Covenant not administering the Covenant of Grace itself, but being a type of it."
> 
> Perg, on a side note; I am taking the defense position on 1689 Federalism for the purpose trying to prove it true or false. By arguing for the position I force myself to deal with its argumentation. I like a lot of what I see, but I still have questions.


So the OT believers are not actually saved by the Covenant of Grace, but only by a promise of the Covenant of Grace? And if they are saved by the Covenant and not a mere promise, then how can we not say that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Pergamum said:


> So the OT believers are not actually saved by the Covenant of Grace, but only by a promise of the Covenant of Grace? And if they are saved by the Covenant and not a mere promise, then how can we not say that the Covenant of Grace was active in the OT?



Clearly I'm not speaking for Mr. Brown here, however these are good questions. If the OT saints were saved the same way (in Christ) as we are today, and Christ being the mediator of the covenant of Grace, it necessitates that the CoG was in effect before the administration of the new covenant.

I still do not understand what they mean by "the new covenant was given into promised form before becoming a formal covenant". The second covenant made is the covnenant of Grace whereby God offers salvation and all the promises in Christ (WCF 7 & WLC 30-36). The issue is that the baptist seem to have this "holding tank" mentality with their theology. They use terms like "credit" to describe what they mean.


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> The 1689 Federalist believes that salvation worked the same way in the OT as it does today. They argue that the promise of the New Covenant was actually the promise of Christ, and His finished work. How else were OT believers saved but by looking forward to what the Christ would do? 1689 Federalists do believe there was a Covenant of Grace in the OT, but it was not exactly in the same form it would become under the New Covenant.
> 
> A leading author in the 1689 Federalist movement recently wrote to me:
> 
> "We believe that Christ is the Mediator of the Covenant of Grace, which is called the New Covenant in the Scriptures, and that this covenant was effective, even before its blood was shed which secures all its blessings (c.f. Heb. 9:15). We also believe that the New Covenant was given into promised form before becoming a formal covenant, and was intertwined with the Old Covenant, and tied with it through types and shadows. Therefore, it [the Covenant of Grace] is not unconnected with the Old Covenant; the Old Covenant not administering the Covenant of Grace itself, but being a type of it."
> 
> Perg, on a side note; I am taking the defense position on 1689 Federalism for the purpose trying to prove it true or false. By arguing for the position I force myself to deal with its argumentation. I like a lot of what I see, but I still have questions.


Their position to me seems to be that while the Lord saves by same means in both OC/NC, based upon the Cross of Christ, that the NC was somehow different from OC as regarding the CoG, and that the saved under the OC were to be seen included into the Church, but that the Church itself was instituted under the NC , Is that correct?


----------



## Steve Curtis

Dachaser said:


> Their position to me seems to be that while the Lord saves by same means in both OC/NC, based upon the Cross of Christ, that the NC was somehow different from OC as regarding the CoG, and that the saved under the OC were to be seen included into the Church, but that the Church itself was instituted under the NC , Is that correct?



David,
This and other posts strongly indicate that you are seeking validation for a view you already hold, rather than interacting with the ideas presented in these threads. Brother, I was a dyed-in-the-wool Dispensationalist and I even taught the classes in church when we had the charts on the wall of when the Church began (the "parenthetical" church, that is) and when all of the events of the eschaton would take place. I know the hold that those teachings and authors can have on one's mind. However, the views held on this Board - by Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists - are miles apart from the Dispensational stuff that I (and I think you) have/had in our blood. I would encourage you to interact and ask questions, to be sure. But above all: _listen_. Pray, study the Word, ignore the urge to challenge right now, and just listen. My heart's desire - and my prayer for you (and I am praying for you, by the way) - is that you will find truth in your seeking and, in the finding, glorify God.


----------



## Dachaser

kainos01 said:


> David,
> This and other posts strongly indicate that you are seeking validation for a view you already hold, rather than interacting with the ideas presented in these threads. Brother, I was a dyed-in-the-wool Dispensationalist and I even taught the classes in church when we had the charts on the wall of when the Church began (the "parenthetical" church, that is) and when all of the events of the eschaton would take place. I know the hold that those teachings and authors can have on one's mind. However, the views held on this Board - by Presbyterians and Reformed Baptists - are miles apart from the Dispensational stuff that I (and I think you) have/had in our blood. I would encourage you to listen and ask questions, to be sure. But above all: _listen_. Pray, study the Word, ignore the urge to challenge right now, and just listen. My heart's desire - and my prayer for you (and I am praying for you, by the way) - is that you will find truth in your seeking and, in the finding, glorify God.


When does the RB position state that the church itself was found though, as the 1689 LBC that I have been reading through seem to me to be stating that the NC is somehow a new thing in contrast to the OC, and that Jesus found the Church proper at that time?


----------



## Herald

Andrew P.C. said:


> Clearly I'm not speaking for Mr. Brown here, however these are good questions. If the OT saints were saved the same way (in Christ) as we are today, and Christ being the mediator of the covenant of Grace, it necessitates that the CoG was in effect before the administration of the new covenant.
> 
> I still do not understand what they mean by "the new covenant was given into promised form before becoming a formal covenant". The second covenant made is the covnenant of Grace whereby God offers salvation and all the promises in Christ (WCF 7 & WLC 30-36). The issue is that the baptist seem to have this "holding tank" mentality with their theology. They use terms like "credit" to describe what they mean.



Andrew,

I don't want to speak for the author I quoted (because he did not give me express permission to use his name), but the 1689 Federalist view has some other parts that have not been discussed at length in the various competing threads on the PB. One of those parts has to do with the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. The 1689 Federalists do not use the Mosaic or Abrahamic covenants to define the GoG where individuals could be part of the CoG without being regenerate. The 1689 Federalists believe this is in keeping with the Baptist confession. They would also say it's not baptism driving their covenant theology, rather it is their understanding of covenant theology that drives their view on baptism. It seems logical on the surface because Presbyterian covenant theology drives the Presbyterian view of covenant succession and baptism. 

Again, I am not an apologist for 1689 Federalism. I'm not there yet, but I see a plausible argument that deserves vetting. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Dachaser

Herald said:


> Andrew,
> 
> I don't want to speak for the author I quoted (because he did not give me express permission to use his name), but the 1689 Federalist view has some other parts that have not been discussed at length in the various competing threads on the PB. One of those parts has to do with the Mosaic and Abrahamic covenants. The 1689 Federalists do not use the Mosaic or Abrahamic covenants to define the GoG where individuals could be part of the CoG without being regenerate. The 1689 Federalists believe this is in keeping with the Baptist confession. They would also say it's not baptism driving their covenant theology, rather it is their understanding of covenant theology that drives their view on baptism. It seems logical on the surface because Presbyterian covenant theology drives the Presbyterian view of covenant succession and baptism.
> 
> Again, I am not an apologist for 1689 Federalism. I'm not there yet, but I see a plausible argument that deserves vetting.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


My understanding would be that both saved/unsaved with under the OC, but just the saved are seen included now under the NC.


----------

