# -



## jw

-


----------



## fredtgreco

Here is BDAG on  kaino,j :




> 852  kaino,j
> "¢  kaino,j, h,, o,n  (Aeschyl., Hdt.+; ins, pap, LXX, TestSol; TestAbr A 7 p. 84, 27 [Stone p. 16]; Test12Patr; JosAs 14:13 and 15; Philo, Joseph., Just., Mel.) comp.  kaino,teroj ; prim. sense "˜new´.
> 
> 1. pert. to being in existence for a relatively short time, new, unused (X., Hell. 3, 4, 28; PGM 36, 265; Judg 15:13; 2 Km 6:3; 4 Km 2:20)  avskoi , wineskins (Josh 9:13) Mt 9:17; Mk 2:22; Lk 5:38.  i`ma,tion  (Artem. 2, 3 p. 86, 3; 3 Km 11:29f) vs. 36. mnhmei/on Mt 27:60; J 19:41 (w. evn w-| ouvde,pw ouvdei.j h=n teqeime,noj added). to. k. the new piece= plh,rwma  Mk 2:21; Lk 5:36. kaina.  kai. palaia , Mt 13:52 (perh. with ref. to coins; cp. PGrenf II, 74, 9; 77, 7f).
> 
> 2. pert. to being not previously present, unknown, strange, remarkable, also w. the connotation of the marvelous or unheard-of (Pla., Apol. 24c; X., Mem. 1, 1, 1  e[tera kai. kaina. daimo,nia ; Just., A I, 15, 9; Orig., C. Cels. 1 58, 15) didach, Mk 1:27; Ac 17:19.  evntolh , (k. no,moj: Menand., fgm. 238, 3 KÃ¶.; Diod. S. 13, 34, 6) J 13:34; 1J 2:7f (Polyaenus 2, 1, 13 ouv kainou.j no,mouj "¦ avlla. t. palaiou,j); 2J 5.  o;noma  (Is 62:2; 65:15) Rv 2:17 (here w. o]  ouvdei.j oi=den eiv mh. o` lamba,nwn , perh. as antidote to adversarial magic); 3:12. wv|dh, 5:9 (Ps 143:9; cp. Is 42:10; Ps 32:3; 39:4."”Philo, Vi. Cont. 80 u[mnoj k. [opp. avrcai/oj]); 14:3. glw/ssai Mk 16:17. k. ge,noj of Christians Dg 1. qew,rhma AcPl Ox 6, 1f (dih,ghma Aa I, 241, 11). qe,ama GJs 19:2f (Mel., P. 19, 127). Christ as o` k. a;nqrwpoj the new kind of human being IEph 20:1. h' le,gein ti h' avkou,ein ti kaino,teron either to hear or to say someth. quite new (="˜the latest thing´) Ac 17:21 (s. KÃ¼hner-G. II 306f; Norden, Agn. Th. 333ff [but s. HAlmqvist, Plutarch u. d. NT ´46, 79f, w. ref. to Plut.]; B-D-F Â§244, 2; Rdm. 70 and s. Demosth. 4, 10 w= a;ndrej VAqhnai/oi "¦ le,getai, ti kaino,n* ge,noitV a;n ti kaino,teron "¦ * also Theophr., Char. 8, 2; BGU 821, 6 [II AD] o[tan h=| ti kaino,teron, euvqe,wj soi dhlw,sw; Simplicius, Coroll. De Tempore, in Aristot., Phys. p. 788, 36ff kainote,ran evba,disen o`do,n=he traveled a rather new road [of interpretation]; Jos., Ant. 14, 104; Iren. 1, 18, 1 [Harv. I 169, 3]).
> 
> 3. pert. to that which is recent in contrast to someth. old, new
> 
> a. w. no criticism of the old implied (Herodas 4, 57 kainh. VAqhnai,h; Lucian, M. Peregr. 12 k. Swkra,thj): of the Son of God or Logos, who is old and new at the same time Hs 9, 12, 1ff; Dg 11:4.
> 
> b. in the sense that what is old has become obsolete, and should be replaced by what is new. In such a case the new is, as a rule, superior in kind to the old h` k. diaqh,kh the new covenant or declaration (Jer 38:31; Just., D. 11, 4 al.; Did., Gen. 46, 4; 156, 5) Mt 26:28 v.l.; Mk 14:24 v.l.; Lk 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25; 2 Cor 3:6; Hb 8:8 (Jer 38:31), 13; 9:15. k. no,moj (Timocles Com. [IV BC] fgm. 32, 4 kata. to.n no,mon t. kaino,n; Just., D. 12, 3; Mel., P. 7, 46) B 2:6. lao.j k. 5:7; 7:5; cp. 15:7."”Esp. in eschatol. usage k. ouvranoi,, k. gh/ (Is 65:17; 66:22) 2 Pt 3:13; Rv 21:1; VIerousalh.m kainh, vs. 2; 3:12. kaina. pa,nta poiei/n 21:5. kaino.n pi,nein to. ge,nhma th/j avmpe,lou Mt 26:29; Mk 14:25."”Of the renewing of a pers. who has been converted k. a;nqrwpoj Eph 4:24; Dg 2:1. k. kti,sij a new creature 2 Cor 5:17a; cp. 17b (Ps.-Pla., Axioch. 11 p. 370e evk th/j avsqenei,aj evmauto.n sunei,legmai kai. ge,gona kaino,j=out of weakness I have brought myself together and become new; cp. Orig., C. Cels. 6, 67, 33); Gal 6:15; cp. B 16:8. All the Christians together appear as k. a;nqrwpoj Eph 2:15."”RHarrisville, The Concept of Newness in the NT, ´60; GSchneider, Kainh. Kti,sij (Paul and background), diss. Trier, ´59, NeuschÃ¶pfung oder Wiederkehr? ´61. Qumran: DSwanson, A Covenant Just Like Jacob´s, The Covenant of 11QT 29 and Jeremiah´s New Covenant: New Qumran Texts and Studies, ed. GBrooke/FMartÃ­nez ´94, 273-86."”B. 957. Schmidt, Syn. II 94-123. DELG. M-M. EDNT. TW. S. neo,.


----------



## Steve Owen

Some exerpts from Lous Berkhof's _Principles of Biblical Interpretation_ (Baker Book House. ISBN 0-8010-0549-3 ), pages 68-70.


> *'THE CURRENT USE OF THE WORDS.* The current signification of a word is of *far more importance* for the interpreter than its etymological meaning........Now it may be thought that this is easily done by consulting some good Lexicon......and in most cases this is perfectly true. At the same time it is necessary to bear in mind that the Lexicons are not absolutely reliable, and that they are least so when they descend to particulars...... It is quite possible, and in some cases perfectly evident, that the choice of a meaning was determined by dogmatical bias........ .
> 
> If an interpreter has any reason to doubt the meaning of a word as given by the Lexicon, he will have to investigate for himself. Such labours are undoubtedly very fruitful, but they are also extremely difficult.......But.....this may not deter the interpreter. If necessary, he must make a thorough study of a word for himself..........It will be incumbent on him to ascertain....where the word is found [and] to determine the meaning of the word in each one of the connections in which it occurs.......'


In other words, you need to do an internet word search on _Chadash_ or look it up in _Young's Analytical Concordance_ and see what each occurrence of the word signifies. When you do this, you will find that its almost invariable meaning is *NEW*, in the sense of replacing something old (Heb 8:13 ), not *RENEW* in the sense of taking something old and repairing it. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-2-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Larry Hughes

Hey Josh,

Something Matt pointed out to me helped a lot concerning "Chadash" as a verb Vs. adjective. Not being a language expert it finally clicked with me. Because if you look up the word in its verb form which is its root from which the adjective derives it is refreshed, renewed and so forth. But if you look up the adjective form (the more frequent use) it says new. So, what gives?

Here's where some basic parts of speech re-studying help out. What you have to remember is that adjectives are not only modifiers but more correctly restrictive modifiers. So, if I move from "car" to "blue car" I've restricted by modification what I mean, yet the category of car remains the same. That's one thing to kind of hold on to. Now, when the adjective form of Chadash derives from the verb form of Chadash what does that mean. The verb, an action, is the root word. And it is always refreshed or renewed. So that when the verb action is taken on a thing it is a refreshing or renewing action. AFTER the fact of the action taken by the verb form we can now say with a limiting adjective it is new. Yet the action bringing it to "newness" if you will, was a renewing action. 

Thus every day can be spoken of as new, but in reality it is renewed or refreshed for the logical class or category of day previously existed it was just refreshed.

That may or may not help and some of the other guys here who are gifted with languages can help much more than I.

Larry

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Larry Hughes]


----------



## just_grace

*...*

I go for 'brand new' but as fulfilment of the promise made to Abraham centuries before the Law, anybody else see the Abram to Abraham change? h = 'Life'...breath of...

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by just_grace]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> I'm requesting that this be more of an informational, as opposed to a debating, thread concerning the meaning of "New" in both Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8.
> 
> There are those who say _new_ means brand new, then those who say it means renewed. Which is it?


Let me set up this thought you can use for target practice.

When I think of the word new, especially as its used in Hebrews, I don't think of either brand new or renewed. I think more along the lines of a synonym that's given for new - fresh. Here's how Webster defines it:

Fresh
1 a : having its original qualities unimpaired: as (1) : full of or renewed in vigor : REFRESHED <rose fresh from a good night's sleep> (2) : not stale, sour, or decayed <fresh bread> (3) : not faded <the lessons remain fresh in her memory> (4) : not worn or rumpled <a fresh white shirt> b : not altered by processing <fresh vegetables>

Heb 8:13 In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away. 

The first covenant decayed and waxed old and was ready to vanish away. In contrast, the new covenant is ever fresh, having its original qualities unimpaired, full of vigor, not stale, sour, decayed, faded, worn, or crumpled. 

<Ducking as you open fire>

Bob


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> Why would you be ducking from me?


I had written "Let me set up this thought you can use for target practice." Generally, when half the people think one thing (new=brand new) and the other half think another (new=renewed), and I think something different, I entertain the possibility that I may be wrong, and that the thought would be shot down by some sound reasoning.


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia

The Abrahamic Covenant is made new in Christ.


----------



## Dan....

I'm curious what is meant by "new" the following verse:

Deut 24:5 - 
When a man hath taken a *new* wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken. 

(Per Strong, the word "New" in Deut 24:5 is the same word as "new" in Jer 31:31)

What exactly is a "renewed" wife????

Anyway, I fell to see why it is of necessity to determine whether "new" in Jer 31:31 must be understood as "brand new" renewed" "fill-in-the-blank new", etc...


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I am now looking at saying that the promise concerning Abraham's Seed is fulfilled in the NEW Covenant. I am just wondering if the Covenant of Grace finds it's fulfilment in the New Covenant or in the Eternal State. Same question to the Covenant of Redemption.


----------



## Steve Owen

If I say that I've bought a new car, I don't mean that I've had the old one re-sprayed and put a sun-roof in. I mean a new car. They both have four wheels and an engine, but they are different vehicles with different wheels and different engines. The old one was a Ford; the new one is a Toyota. The old one had a petrol motor; the new one is a diesel. The old one was an estate; the new one is a saloon. The old one had a manual gear box; the new one is automatic etc., etc.

Keep that thought in mind as we look at some texts.

Exod 1:8. *'Now there arose a new king over Egypt.'* The old king and the new king both shared certain 'kingly' qualities. They were both men and they ruled. But the new king is a different person. He is not the old king resuscitated or necromanced in some way! The old king was good; the new king was bad.

Lev 23:16. *'Then you shall offer a new grain offering to the Lord.'* Not the old grain offering with added vitamins and the mould scraped off, but a brand new offering with completely different grain.

Deut 22:8. *'When you build a new house.'* Not the old house with PVC windows and air-conditioning, but a brand new house.

Deut 24:8. *'When a man has taken a new wife.'* Not the old wife with a face lift, liposuction and breast implants, but a different woman.

Isaiah 62:2. *'You shall be called by a new name.'* Not 'Salem' instead of Jerusalem', but 'Married' and 'My delight is in her' instead of 'Forsaken' and 'Desolate.' Not 'Marty baby' instead of 'Martin' but an utterly different name. 'Archibald', maybe :bigsmile:

Jeremiah 31:31.*'....That I will make a new covenant.'* Not therefore the Old (Mosaic) covenant titivated slightly, but a covenant that is, *'Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers....'*. The Old and New Covenants have this in common- they are both covenants; but there the similarities end. The Old Covenant was made with Israel after the flesh; the New Covenant is made with Israel after the Spirit (vs 32-33 ).

The covenant with Abraham should be seen as an adumbration of the New Covenant, not as the NC in miniature (Col 1:26 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> If I say that I've bought a new car, I don't mean that I've had the old one re-sprayed and put a sun-roof in. I mean a new car. They both have four wheels and an engine, but they are different vehicles with different wheels and different engines. The old one was a Ford; the new one is a Toyota. The old one had a petrol motor; the new one is a diesel. The old one was an estate; the new one is a saloon. The old one had a manual gear box; the new one is automatic etc., etc.
> 
> Keep that thought in mind as we look at some texts.



These thoughts about the contrast between the words old and new seem very applicable when comparing the new covenant and the old (Mosaic) covenant. Do you think these thoughts are just as applicable when comparing the new covenant and the covenant God made with Abraham? (I'm guessing you wouldn't)


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> The covenant with Abraham should be seen as an adumbration of the New Covenant, not as the NC in miniature (Col 1:26 ).


Thinking about your car analogy, I'm wondering if this car analogy rightly describes the connection between God's covenant with Abraham and the new covenant.

A father promised his son that he would buy him a new car, but the only problem was that the boy was only 15 years old and the driving age in his state was 17. So the father bought the car and put the car in the garage without the boy seeing it. In the morning, the father handed the keys to the boy, telling him these were the keys to the new car he had promised. "You can't look at or drive the car until you're 17th birthday, but here are the keys that you'll use when you turn 17"

When the boy was 15 1/2, the father told the boy that the car had shag carpetting inside. At 16, the father told him it had four seats, two in the front and two in the back. When the boy was 16 1/2, the father told the boy that the car had air conditioning, with separate controls in the front and back.

When the boy turned 17, the father brought the boy, keys in hand, into the garage to take possession of his new car. The car was better than the father had described, with its nice mag wheels, convertible top, awesome stereo, racing flames on the sides, and the biggest, most powerful engine that model of car came with.

God promised Abraham that in His seed all nations would be blessed (the keys). The new covenant (the car) is the fulfilment of that promise.


[Edited on 9-3-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 
> These thoughts about the contrast between the words old and new seem very applicable when comparing the new covenant and the old (Mosaic) covenant. Do you think these thoughts are just as applicable when comparing the new covenant and the covenant God made with Abraham? (I'm guessing you wouldn't)



Hello Bob,
You are correct. The New covenant is called 'New' in respect of the 'First' (Heb 8:7, 13 ) or 'Old' Covenant. The Abrahamic Covenant is something quite different; it is a _covenant of promise_ (Eph 2:12 ). The analogies you make about the promised car are very good and illustrate the developement of the Promise of the Seed through Adam (Gen 3:15 ), Noah, Abraham and David until it reaches its realization in Christ.

Some of the promises apply only to Abraham and his physical offspring. God has not promised to make a great nation out of me, nor that my descendants will occupy the land of Canaan. These promises were made to the _physical_ seed of Abraham, who carried a physical sign, and they have been fulfilled in every particular (Josh 21:43-45; 23:14 ).

But it is we who are the _spiritual_ seed of Abraham by faith (Gal 3:9 ) who inherit the eternal promises (Heb 11:16 ), who are the children of promise by the free woman (Isaiah 54:1ff; Gal 4:21-31 ), who carry the inward, spiritual sign (Phil 3:3; Col 2:11 ) and are part of that true Israel where neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation (Gal 6:15 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen

I posted this on another thread a while ago. Perhaps it may be helpful here. I had previously asked why the writer to the Hebrews refers to the 'Old' Covenant as the 'First':-


> To look for a single linear progression of the covenants does not therefore seem to work. I suggest that we need to look rather at three sets of covenants:-
> 
> 1. The Covenants of Works and Grace. These covenants were made with a federal Head, who acted on behalf of all his seed.
> 
> 2. The Covenants of Promise (Eph 2:12 ).. These are the 'Adamic' covenant of Gen 3:15 & 21, the Noahic, the Abrahamic and the Davidic. These were made with individuals and their seed; not their physical descendants but their spiritual offspring (Isaiah 55:3; Gal 3:7 ). The promise is that of Christ and the New Covenant. These covenants are not the New Covenant, but promises, foreshadowings and adumbrations of it (Luke 1:69-70; Rom 1:1-3; Col 1:26-27 ). Each Covenant of promise adds to the information of the previous one. When the prophet Abel (Luke 11:50-51 ), knowing nothing of circumcision or baptism, sacrificed to God the finest lamb of his flock, he was looking forward by faith to the Seed promised in Gen 3:15 and the covering of sin foreshadowed in Gen 3:21; in other words to that first Covenant of promise revealed in the garden which spoke of the Covenant of Grace made in eternity, and the coming New Covenant.
> 
> 3. The 'Old' and New Covenants. These are made with a people through a mediator. The OC was made with the physical descendants of the Patriarchs (the 'Children of Israel'); the NC was made with their spiritual descendants. The whole purpose of the OC was to produce a people amongst whom the Messiah could be born. Having served its purpose it has now passed away (Heb 8:13 ). The New Covenant is revealed to be none other than the realization in time of the Covenant of Grace, therefore it is called the Everlasting Covenant (Heb 13:20 ).
> 
> Therefore it can be said that there is but one covenant by which God saves His elect. Determined in eternity (Eph 1:3ff), foreshadowed to the saints (John 8:56; 1Peter 1:10-12 ) and revealed in due time (Rom 3:21-22 etc) it is of Christ from first to last, 'That in all things He might have the preeminence' (Col 1:18 ).
> 
> I'll be interested to get everyone's reaction to all this.



Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## brymaes

> Galatians 3:15-17 _Brethren, I speak after the manner of men; Though it be but a man's covenant, yet if it be confirmed, no man disannulleth, or addeth thereto. (16) Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ. (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._



I vote "renewed." And I'm a credo.

[Edited on 9-3-2005 by SharperSword]


----------



## Dan....

> _Originally posted by joshua_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Dan...._
> I'm curious what is meant by "new" the following verse:
> 
> Deut 24:5 -
> When a man hath taken a *new* wife, he shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken.
> 
> (Per Strong, the word "New" in Deut 24:5 is the same word as "new" in Jer 31:31)
> 
> What exactly is a "renewed" wife????
> 
> Anyway, I fell to see why it is of necessity to determine whether "new" in Jer 31:31 must be understood as "brand new" renewed" "fill-in-the-blank new", etc...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it's not of necessity, I just see most reformed baptists arguing from the passage.
Click to expand...


in my opinion, the "new" vs. "renewed" argument is a red herring, diverting attention from the real issues between the baptismal positions, such as the position of offspring in _every_ covenant between God and man.




> Ok...feel free to further reply PAEDOS (and more credos).



I vote that "new" means "new".


----------



## JonathanHunt

Okayyyyy

So a credo just voted 'renewed', and a paedo voted 'new'.

This board is freaking me out. Too much wierdness going on people. Will you please get back in your pigeonholes and tow your respective party lines for goodness sakes?


----------



## Larry Hughes

Dan,

I see your point. Hounds loosing the scent and after fish on this one. That happens sometimes.

Thanks,

Larry


----------



## RamistThomist

New with respect to a more powerful application of redemption and the lack of typological shadows which had indeed pointed to Christ.

Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.


----------



## Steve Owen

Jer 31 does actually tell you in what way the New Covenant is 'new':-



> 'Not according to the covenant I made with their fathers........but this is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the LORD; I will put My law in their minds and write it on their hearts; and I will be their God and they shall be My people. No more shall every man teach his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, "Know the LORD." For they shall all know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD. For I will forgive their iniquity, and their sin I will remember no more.'
> Jer 31:32-34



cf. also: Isaiah 54; John 1:13, 3:1-15, 6:45; Rom 2:28-29; 2Cor 3; Gal 3:7 etc; Phil 3:2-8; 1John 2:20, 27 ).

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-4-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## Steve Owen

Dan wrote:-


> in my opinion, the "new" vs. "renewed" argument is a red herring, diverting attention from the real issues between the baptismal positions, such as the position of offspring in every covenant between God and man.


I'd be interested to know just what you think the position is of the offspring in every covenant between God and man.

If you could work Gen 4:4; Jer 9:24-26, and Gal 3:7 into your reply, that would be great.

Thanks,

Martin


----------



## biblelighthouse

First of all, what is the "Old Covenant"? It is the Mosaic Covenant. And compared to it, the "New Covenant" looks pretty new. However, the New Covenant does not look brand new in comparison to the Abrahamic Covenant. 

Galatians makes it clear that we should not conflate the Abrahamic and Mosaic administrations. They are distinct, even though the Abrahamic administration continued running concurrently during the Mosaic administration.

The Old (Mosaic) Covenant has passed away, and we are now under a "New Covenant" that is not the Mosaic Covenant.

But what happened to the Abrahamic covenant? It was never abrogated, and Scripture never says that it passes away. It continues to this day. Once the Old (Mosaic) Covenant faded away, the Abrahamic Covenant was refreshed and renewed. It had never ceased even during the Mosaic administration. And once the Mosaic administration was gone, the fulfilled Abrahamic Covenant shined (and continues to shine) with greater glory.


Brief outline:
1) The Abrahamic Covenant is cut
2) 400 years later, the Mosaic Covenant (Old Covenant) is cut, and does not nullify the already-existing Abrahamic Covenant.
3) A number of years later, the Old Covenant passes away, and the Abrahamic Covenant continues in a refreshed, renewed state.

The Abrahamic Covenant was not a "smaller" New Covenant, nor was it an "adumbration" of the New Covenant. 

The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.


----------



## biblelighthouse

By the way, if my above post is correct, then I think the entire "brand new" versus "renewed" debate is rather academic. Why? Because:

1) If the comparison is between the Mosaic Covenant and the New Covenant, then "brand new" may not be such a bad thought. It IS radically different from the Mosaic administration.

2) If the comparison is between the Abrahamic Covenant and the New Covenant, then "renewed" is definitely the sense we should accept. The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.

3) Personally, I don't even think Jeremiah 31 and Hebrews 8 fit neatly into one or the other of the above categories. From what I can see, there may actually be a sort of double entendre going on. Hebrews certainly seems to be comparing the new administration with the Mosaic administration. But even though the New Covenant may be considered rather "brand new" in comparison with the Mosaic administration, the fact still remains that it is NOT brand new . . . after all, the Abrahamic Covenant has been around for thousands of years. So, I think the word "New" looks a little fuzzy here for a reason. It IS brand new in comparison with the Old Covenant, but at the end of the day, it is the renewed Abrahamic Covenant. Thus the word choices in these texts are excellent. We don't have to pin down the authors as if they were using strict definitions from a systematic theology textbook.


----------



## Scott Bushey

This seems to be the stumbling block that I see most anti-paedobaptists tripping over:

Niell writes:
Internal religion has been a precious reality throughout redemptive history. To assert that what is new about the New Covenant is that now matters of religion and faith are internal rather than external is simply not true. Once again, the influence of dispensationalism has infected proper Biblical interpretation. The Shema[2] is clear: "Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! And you shall love the Lord your God "with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart" (Deuteronomy 6:4-6). Internal, "heart" religion is not new in the New Covenant era, yet MacArthur comments upon the text of Hebrews 8 as if the newness of the New Covenant pertains to the internal. He wrote,

The New Covenant will have a different sort of law-an internal not an external law. Everything under the old economy was primarily external. Under the Old Covenant obedience was primarily out of fear of punishment"¦. Even when the old law was given, of course, it was intended to be in His people's hearts (Deut. 6:6). But the people could not write it on their hearts like they could write it on their doorposts. And at this time the Holy Spirit, the only changer of hearts, was not yet given to believers"¦. In the New Covenant true worship is internal, not external, real, not ritual.[3]

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Excellent paper. Very simple to understand. Direct and to the point.


----------



## Steve Owen

I admire John MacArthur greatly in many respects, but I wouldn't want him to argue my corner for me on this matter. He walks a fine line between 'Reformed' and 'Dispensational', and sometimes he falls off on the wrong side!

For a Reformed Baptist critique of Niell's arguments, I recommend James White's articles in 'Reformed Baptist Theological Review' (July 2004 & Jan 2005 ).

www.rbtr.org

Martin


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> I admire John MacArthur greatly in many respects, but I wouldn't want him to argue my corner for me on this matter. He walks a fine line between 'Reformed' and 'Dispensational', and sometimes he falls off on the wrong side!
> 
> For a Reformed Baptist critique of Niell's arguments, I recommend James White's articles in 'Reformed Baptist Theological Review' (July 2004 & Jan 2005 ).
> 
> www.rbtr.org
> 
> 
> Martin




Martin,
Apparently, there are no links to these issues.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is a portion to the first part.The Newness of the New Covenant.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

It doesn't appear that Rich is keeping up on the Web site. I can't get to the other Journals.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I find it funny that White says:

"If we approach the topic backwards, beginning with traditions regarding covenant membership, signs, or a particular view of apostasy, we run a great danger of turning the direct and plain exegesis of the text of Hebrews upon its head."

and Neill says:

"From the outset, note that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews inserts the entire quotation of Jeremiah 31:31-34 to assert the truths of the New Covenant. The entire quotation is concerned with the "œnewness," not just verse 11, so whatever interpretation is derived from this text must be applied to the entire quotation. One cannot come to a single verse and declare, "œThis is what is new!" without regard for the other phrases and realities; the author is making a point about the newness of the New Covenant, and the quotation from Jeremiah corroborates that point. Let us now begin to consider some specific matters that are not new in the New Covenant.

The passage does not teach a radical separation between the peoples of the Old and New Testaments

I will effect a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. (8:8)

For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. (8:10)

The passage is clear: this new covenant will be made with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. The Church of this New Covenant era is referred to as Judah and Israel, the people of God. This fact is in perfect consonance with the teaching of the New Testament. The Apostle Paul writes to the Church in Galatia and refers to the saints as "œthe Israel of God" (6:16) and refers to himself and the disciples in Philippi as members of "œthe circumcision" (3:2). The Church in the New Covenant era is frequently described in the same terms used to refer to the people of God during the Old Covenant administration (1 Peter 2:9-10; Romans 9:24-26). Additionally, note that God did not initiate a new standard of conduct for His people in the New Covenant era. The text is clear: "œI will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts" (8:10). God´s law, the transcript of His holiness and expectation for His people, being upon the hearts of His people is not part of the newness of the New Covenant."

It looks to me like White hasalready turned the plain exegesis of the Hebrews passage on it's ear...........first paragraph!


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> It doesn't appear that Rich is keeping up on the Web site. I can't get to the other Journals.



Rich said, "The website is under construction. It could be messed up and we have not updated the site in some time. We have a new one coming soon."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _ Scott Bushey _
> The text is clear: "œI will put my laws into their minds, and I will write them upon their hearts" (8:10). God´s law, the transcript of His holiness and expectation for His people, being upon the hearts of His people is not part of the newness of the New Covenant."



This is applicable to all of the New Covenant members as it is not applicable to all those under the Covenant given in Moses or Abraham. This has to do with a heart that is circumcised or regenerate. Not all of the Old Covenant members were circumcised in their hearts. Neither were all those circumcised in Abraham circumcised in their hearts.
All New Covenant members have the law written on there New hearts unlike the other covenants who only had some regenerates in the covenants.



[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Dan....

Excellent articles! 

But unfortunately, he stops just when it is getting to the meat of it. He only has one paragraph on the newness of the law written on the heart in the New Covenant (i.e., the ceremonial). One paragraph? Please tell me there is a part IV that you didn't link to. Why did Part III end in a cliff-hanger?? Is part IV in the book _The Case for Covenantal Infant Baptism_ ? Or is the thought continued at all in the book?

[Edited on 9-5-2005 by Dan....]


----------



## blhowes

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> The Newness of The New Covenant
> Part I
> Part II
> Part III


Very interesting reading.

The last paragraph reads:


> What is new is for the ceremonial law to be written on the hearts of God´s people. Prior to the New Covenant, inaugurated by Jesus Christ, the command to obey the ceremonies was not an optional matter for the follower of the Lord. Since the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ, those ceremonies are no longer in effect and, thus, cannot be observed and any attempt to revert to them is a falling from grace, a severance from Christ (Galatians 5:4).



Does this change anything with regards to who is and who isn't in the covenant? If the ceremonial law is written in one's heart, doesn't that assume a changed heart. Can a 'covenant child' who proves himself to be unregenerate be said to have the law (whether moral or ceremonial) written in their heart?


[Edited on 9-6-2005 by blhowes]


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> This is applicable to all of the New Covenant members as it is not applicable to all those under the Covenant given in Moses or Abraham. This has to do with a heart that is circumcised or regenerate. Not all of the Old Covenant members were circumcised in their hearts. Neither were all those circumcised in Abraham circumcised in their hearts.



Are you sure that's what the text is getting at? Look at what God told Israel long ago, long before their return from Babylonian captivity:

*Deuteronomy 30:*
*4* Even if you have been banished to the most distant land under the heavens, from there the LORD your God will gather you and bring you back.
*5* He will bring you to the land that belonged to your fathers, and you will take possession of it. He will make you more prosperous and numerous than your fathers. 
*6* The LORD your *God will circumcise your hearts* and the hearts of your descendants, so that you may love him with all your heart and with all your soul, and live.


Before the Israelites were dispersed, God promised to bring them back, and to circumcise their hearts, and the hearts of their descendants. And yet after the return from Babylonian captivity, covenant members still proved to be apostate. So, did God break His promise the first time? If not, then neither did He break His promise this time.

Rather, you are reading the incorrect meanings into God's promises. 


God promised to circumcise Israel's hearts in Deuteronomy 30, in anticipation of their return to Israel from Babylon.

God promised to circumcise Israel's hearts in Jeremiah 31, in anticipation of their second recovery from dispersion (cf. Acts 2).



You cannot apply a different standard to Jeremiah 31 than you do to Deuteronomy 30.



[Edited on 9-6-2005 by biblelighthouse]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Are you suggesting that everyones heart was regenerate? If you examine the text a little closer you will see conditions laid upon this promise. This is a perfomance based promise. Unlike the New Covenant Promise. The New Covenant is without conditions as is the Promise of God to Noah that He wouldn't destroy the earth again with a flood. No condition was set upon that. The Isrealites in Deuteronomy 30 have an obedience clause attached to what you are trying to show me. Read verse 2.

Deu 30:1-2 And it shall come to pass, when all these things are come upon thee, the blessing and the curse, which I have set before thee, and thou shalt call them to mind among all the nations, whither the LORD thy God hath driven thee, And shalt return unto the LORD thy God, and shalt obey his voice according to all that I command thee this day, thou and thy children, with all thine heart, and with all thy soul; 

Jeremiah doesn't have an obedience clause.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "¢ Acts 3:25 "It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'
Click to expand...


*Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.*


----------



## kceaster

*I see a hinge...*

Tell me if you see it, too. In Jer. 31:34b, the author begins the clause with a "for" (therefore, because, since, so that, etc.) If the New Covenant is new (brand new), is it new because God will forgive the iniquities and sins of both houses, whereas before He didn't?

Has anyone commented on this before? It seems a most important little word that cannot be overlooked, but also should not be overstated. What is the therefore, there for?

If we look at the Jeremiah prophecy plainly, it seems to me that Jeremiah may be looking back to the covenant made on the plain of Moab. But it would also seem that the Hebrew writer wouldn't have seen it that way.

This verse is perplexing because we have to use Hebrews to understand it. Yet we can't ignore the rest of Scripture.

Remember that both the original prophecy and the book of Hebrews were written to Jews. There is significance in talking about the house of Israel and Judah. With Israel, it is easy for us to spiritualize it. But with Judah... exactly who is spiritual Judah? Jeremiah is obviously pointing to the divided kingdoms here. What do we do with Judah? How is the new covenant in Christ's blood made also with Judah?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kevin,
I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of. 
Matthew 28:19 and Acts 1:8 testifies that this covenant is to be world wide. According to the Acts passage starting with Jerusalem, then going to Judea, Samaria, and the to rest of the world.

It isn't just physical in Isreal and Judea. It is to all who are children of Abraham by faith, the inward jew of Romans 2.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Kevin,
> I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.



Randy,
Was Christ NOT the mediator for the OT saint?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Kevin,
> I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy,
> Was Christ NOT the mediator for the OT saint?
Click to expand...


Yes He was but not all of Isreal was Isreal. He is the mediator of all that are given to him in the COR.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Kevin,
> I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Randy,
> Was Christ NOT the mediator for the OT saint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes He was but not all of Isreal was Isreal. He is the mediator of all that are given to him in the COR.
> 
> [Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Click to expand...


Randy,
The COR was decided outside of time; it was the covenant between God the father & God the Son. In this covenant, Christ has always been mediator. I'm not following you..........


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The Passage of Hebrews 8 is speaking of Christ Priesthood and mediation

Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens; 
Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises. 

In what way is Christ mediator Scott? Is it not in the fact that he offered an offering on behalf of the elect? Is this not how he is the mediator of a better Covenant.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> The Passage of Hebrews 8 is speaking of Christ Priesthood and mediation
> 
> Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
> Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
> 
> In what way is Christ mediator Scott? Is it not in the fact that he offered an offering on behalf of the elect? Is this not how he is the mediator of a better Covenant.



Is not the efficacy provisional to the OT saint?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> The Passage of Hebrews 8 is speaking of Christ Priesthood and mediation
> 
> Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
> Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
> 
> In what way is Christ mediator Scott? Is it not in the fact that he offered an offering on behalf of the elect? Is this not how he is the mediator of a better Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is not the efficacy provisional to the OT saint?
Click to expand...


Why? Who implied it wasn't.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Didn't we have this discussion a bit back in another thread?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> The Passage of Hebrews 8 is speaking of Christ Priesthood and mediation
> 
> Heb 8:1 Now of the things which we have spoken this is the sum: We have such an high priest, who is set on the right hand of the throne of the Majesty in the heavens;
> Heb 8:6 But now hath he obtained a more excellent ministry, by how much also he is the mediator of a better covenant, which was established upon better promises.
> 
> In what way is Christ mediator Scott? Is it not in the fact that he offered an offering on behalf of the elect? Is this not how he is the mediator of a better Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is not the efficacy provisional to the OT saint?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why? Who implied it wasn't.
Click to expand...


Here's what you said:



> Kevin,
> I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.



Why would you need to point out that Christ is mediator of the NC?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In the New Covenant Sin is removed by the propitiating act of Messiah. All sin is forgiven based upon this offering. It encompasses the OC saint who is an object of the COR as well as those who are redeemed after the Propitiating death of Christ. All of Isreal will be saved.
Kevins question was in relation to a hinge. That hinge seemed to be relative in the names of Isreal and Judah. In the NC this encompasses more than ancestoral heritage according to the Priesthood of Christ and His charge of going to all of the world. The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> In the New Covenant Sin is removed by the propitiating act of Messiah. All sin is forgiven based upon this offering. It encompasses the OC saint who is an object of the COR as well as those who are redeemed after the Propitiating death of Christ. All of Isreal will be saved.
> Kevins question was in relation to a hinge. That hinge seemed to be relative in the names of Isreal and Judah. In the NC this encompasses more than ancestoral heritage according to the Priesthood of Christ and His charge of going to all of the world. The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.



Would this statement be also true?
In the old Covenant Sin is removed by the propitiating act of Messiah.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

(Heb 8:7-10) *For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.* For finding fault with them, he saith, Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah: *Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;* because they continued not in my covenant, and I regarded them not, saith the Lord. For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:


What does this passage say Scott?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Randy,
The passage is irrelevent to the question: For the OT saint, is sin removed by the propitiation of Christ?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Randy,
> The passage is irrelevent to the question: For the OT saint, is sin removed by the propitiation of Christ?



You were typing while I posted.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.



I wonder is Kevin got answered. I am going to go take a pipe break. To bad you couldn't join me Scott. We could have some fun.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.
Click to expand...


So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> To answer your question. The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC. He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?
Click to expand...


His justification was based upon what Christ would do for Him. I guess he went to Abrahams bossom and his sin was placed in the Messiah who is Eternal.

Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance. 

Does this passage say anything to this?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> The New Covenant IS the Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "¢ Acts 3:25 "It is you who are the sons of the prophets, and of the covenant which God made with your fathers, saying to Abraham, 'AND IN YOUR SEED ALL THE FAMILIES OF THE EARTH SHALL BE BLESSED.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Gal 3:16 Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> we still partake, Randy
> 
> Ephesians 3:6 to wit, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs, and fellow-members of the body, and fellow-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus through the gospel,
Click to expand...


I agree. In fact I hold to the position of the scriptures that we are one. A holy nation. The Spiritual Isreal. But there are some promises to Abraham and his children that are not attributed to the Saviour. Even though Ishmael was circumcised he was not a child of the promise. 

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> To answer your question. *The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC.* He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His justification was based upon what Christ would do for Him. I guess he went to Abrahams bossom and his sin was placed in the Messiah who is Eternal.
> 
> Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
> 
> Does this passage say anything to this?
Click to expand...


So, was Moses sin _propitiated_ ? (See your previous quote above that is bolded).


----------



## biblelighthouse

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.




The full scope of the Abrahamic Covenant was worldwide, just as much as the New Covenant. (And this makes sense, since they are one and the same.)

The Abrahamic Covenant was inaugurated to bless not only His physical descendants, but people of all nations, worldwide (cf. Genesis 12:3, 17:5).

The Abrahamic Covenant was not restricted to the borders of Israel. Rather, God promised the entire world to Abraham (cf. Romans 4:13).


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> To answer your question. *The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC.* He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His justification was based upon what Christ would do for Him. I guess he went to Abrahams bossom and his sin was placed in the Messiah who is Eternal.
> 
> Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
> 
> Does this passage say anything to this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, was Moses sin _propitiated_ ? (See your previous quote above that is bolded).
Click to expand...


See the underlined next to the bold.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by biblelighthouse_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The full scope of the Abrahamic Covenant was worldwide, just as much as the New Covenant. (And this makes sense, since they are one and the same.)
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant was inaugurated to bless not only His physical descendants, but people of all nations, worldwide (cf. Genesis 12:3, 17:5).
> 
> The Abrahamic Covenant was not restricted to the borders of Israel. Rather, God promised the entire world to Abraham (cf. Romans 4:13).
Click to expand...


Just off the top of my head it seems there where parts of the promises to Abraham that applied to his descendents and not the Church.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> To answer your question. *The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC.* He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His justification was based upon what Christ would do for Him. I guess he went to Abrahams bossom and his sin was placed in the Messiah who is Eternal.
> 
> Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
> 
> Does this passage say anything to this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, was Moses sin _propitiated_ ? (See your previous quote above that is bolded).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the underlined next to the bold.
Click to expand...


Is it effectual in time in the old?


----------



## kceaster

Just so we don't lose the hinge. Why is it now that the sins will be forgiven? We know that David and Jeremiah are a few centuries apart. Why is this new covenant that Jeremiah prophecies of that sins will be forgiven, when David knows that if God does not forgive him, he will truly perish. The sins of the people were forgiven every year at Yom Kippur. This is under the auspices of the first or old covenant. What is new about forgiving sins?

Also, how can we spiritualize this prophecy to the full? If we do, then there is another branch in the covenantal tree, that of the house of Judah. Is there now a spiritual Judah?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Here is Calvin on Hebrews 9:15 Scott. I am not sure where you are trying to lead me. But I am trying to follow.

He further records the virtue and efficacy of his death by saying that he paid the price for sins under the first covenant or testament, which could not be blotted out by the blood of beasts; by which words he was seeking to draw away the Jews from the Law to Christ. *For, if the Law was so weak that all the remedies it applied for expiating sins did by no means accomplish what they represented, who could rest in it as in a safe harbor? * This one thing, then, ought to have been enough to stimulate them to seek for something better than the law; for they could not but be in perpetual anxiety. On the other hand, when we come to Christ, as we obtain in him a full redemption, there is nothing which can any more distress us. Then, in these words he shows that the Law is weak, that the Jews might no longer recumb on it; and he teaches them to rely on Christ, for in him is found whatever can be desired for pacifying consciences. *Now, if any one asks, whether sins under the Law where remitted to the fathers, we must bear in mind the solution already stated, "” that they were remitted, but remitted through Christ. Then notwithstanding their external expiations, they were always held guilty. For this reason Paul says, that the Law was a handwriting against us. * (Colossians 2:14.) For when the sinner came forward and openly confessed that he was guilty before God, and acknowledged by sacrificing an innocent animal that he was worthy of eternal death, what did he obtain by his victim, except that he sealed his own death as it were by this handwriting? In short, even then they only reposed in the remission of sins, when they looked to Christ. But if only a regard to Christ took away sins, they could never have been freed from them, had they continued to rest in the Law. David indeed declares, that blessed is the man to whom sins are not imputed, (Psalm 32:2) but that he might be a partaker of this blessedness, it was necessary for him to leave the Law, and to have his eyes fixed on Christ; for if he rested in the Law, he could never have been freed from guilt.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Is it effectual in time in the old?



Yes, but the old is not the Covenant that removed or propitiated sin.



[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Just so we don't lose the hinge. Why is it now that the sins will be forgiven? We know that David and Jeremiah are a few centuries apart. Why is this new covenant that Jeremiah prophecies of that sins will be forgiven, when David knows that if God does not forgive him, he will truly perish. The sins of the people were forgiven every year at Yom Kippur. This is under the auspices of the first or old covenant. What is new about forgiving sins?
> 
> Also, how can we spiritualize this prophecy to the full? If we do, then there is another branch in the covenantal tree, that of the house of Judah. Is there now a spiritual Judah?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC





> _ posted by Randy_
> Kevin,
> I think I understand your question (maybe not) but Hebrews 8 definitely relates this passage to the New Covenant which is a better Covenant to which Messiah is the mediator of.
> Matthew 28:19 and Acts 1:8 testifies that this covenant is to be world wide. According to the Acts passage starting with Jerusalem, then going to Judea, Samaria, and the to rest of the world.
> 
> It isn't just physical in Isreal and Judea. It is to all who are children of Abraham by faith, the inward jew of Romans 2.



This was a response to Scott.


> _ posted by Randy_
> In the New Covenant Sin is removed by the propitiating act of Messiah. All sin is forgiven based upon this offering. It encompasses the OC saint who is an object of the COR as well as those who are redeemed after the Propitiating death of Christ. All of Isreal will be saved.
> Kevins question was in relation to a hinge. That hinge seemed to be relative in the names of Isreal and Judah. In the NC this encompasses more than ancestoral heritage according to the Priesthood of Christ and His charge of going to all of the world. The full scope of the NC is world wide. Not just physical heritage.





> _ posted by Kevin_
> What is new about forgiving sins?



The newness is that now their sin is propitiated in the New Covenant by Messiah the Prince.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> To answer your question. *The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC.* He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His justification was based upon what Christ would do for Him. I guess he went to Abrahams bossom and his sin was placed in the Messiah who is Eternal.
> 
> Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
> 
> Does this passage say anything to this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, was Moses sin _propitiated_ ? (See your previous quote above that is bolded).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the underlined next to the bold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it effectual in time in the old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the old is not the Covenant that removed or propitiated sin.
> 
> [Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Click to expand...


Randy,
You have me chasing my tail. Are you saying that the old covenant did not have Christ as propitiation?


----------



## Steve Owen

Perhaps it may be helpful to give an excerpt from Niell's article and append White's response.

Niell wrote:-


> To state the matter as simply as possible, the writing of the law of God on the hearts of the people is not new in the new covenant, nor are the internal operations of God's Holy Spirit upon the hearts and minds of His people in the new covenant. These were precious realities for the old covenant saints as well.



To which White replies:-


> We agree that the Old Covenmant SAINT experienced the writing of God's law upon his heart. Obviously, Ps. 119 gives eloquent testimony to this reality. But the point is not the presence of the elect as a sub-group in the Old Covenant anymore than it would be that the elect are a mere sub-group in the New Covenant. Ahab was an Old Covenant member but God's law was not written upon his heart so that he delighted in it. The newness of the New Covenant, as we have seen exegetically, is that ALL of these divine actions are true for ALL in it. ALL who receive forgiveness of sins (8:12 ) likewise have God's law written on their hearts, for there is no textual disruption of the audience in view from v10 to v12. For Niell's thesis to be established, the text would have to DEMAND a break in audience through 8:10-12, but it does not.



We agree of course that a David, a Jehosaphat and many others knew God's forgiveness and had the law written on theire hearts. But the fact is that unfaithfulness to God's commands, the rejection of His truth and the experience of His wrath were normative experiences for the large majority of Old Covenant people (Isaiah 1:9 ). The newness of the New Covenant is seen in its extensiveness. 'For they shall ALL know Me from the least of them to the greatest of them, says the LORD' (Jer 31:34 ). The words, 'My covenant which they broke' (v32 ) cannot be said of the New Covenant and the people in it. We do not say, as Niell suggests elsewhere, that there were none in the OC who experienced God's grace. The glory of the New Covenant in the blood of Christ is that all who are in it know the Lord savingly, reflecting the power of the blood by which it was sealed.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> To answer your question. *The OC saint didn't find propitiation in the OC.* He finds it in the NC. The old was a shadow. The New is the image the shadow comes from.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, when Moses died, what happened to his sin?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His justification was based upon what Christ would do for Him. I guess he went to Abrahams bossom and his sin was placed in the Messiah who is Eternal.
> 
> Heb 9:15 And for this cause he is the mediator of the new testament, that by means of death, for the redemption of the transgressions that were under the first testament, they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance.
> 
> Does this passage say anything to this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, was Moses sin _propitiated_ ? (See your previous quote above that is bolded).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> See the underlined next to the bold.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is it effectual in time in the old?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but the old is not the Covenant that removed or propitiated sin.
> 
> [Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Randy,
> You have me chasing my tail. Are you saying that the old covenant did not have Christ as propitiation?
Click to expand...


I am saying that the elect of the Old covenant have their propitiation paid for by Christ in the New Covenant. I think the Calvin quote covered this. Propitiation was something the Old Covenant saints (and before) look forward to. We are beholding it from the other direction.


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _ posted by Kevin_
> What is new about forgiving sins?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The newness is that now their sin is propitiated in the New Covenant by Messiah the Prince.
> 
> [Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]
Click to expand...


If their sins were propitiated at all, in any time, past, present, or future, they would be propitiated by Messiah the Prince.

How is regeneration new? So how is propitiation new? How is justification new? How is adoption new? How is sanctification new? It's been happening since Gen. 3:15.

If the new covenant is new, as in, never before, then forgiveness of sins was not possible under the old covenant.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey

Randy,
I am again having problems tying down what you mean:



> Propitiation was something the Old Covenant saints (and before) look forward to.



"Looked forward to....."

Does this mean that their sins were not propitiated until Christ was crucified?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _ posted by Kevin_
> What is new about forgiving sins?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The newness is that now their sin is propitiated in the New Covenant by Messiah the Prince.
> 
> [Edited on 9-6-2005 by puritancovenanter]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If their sins were propitiated at all, in any time, past, present, or future, they would be propitiated by Messiah the Prince.
> 
> How is regeneration new? So how is propitiation new? How is justification new? How is adoption new? How is sanctification new? It's been happening since Gen. 3:15.
> 
> If the new covenant is new, as in, never before, then forgiveness of sins was not possible under the old covenant.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Regeneration is only different in the New Covenant in that it is true of every New Covenant Member as Martin showed in his above quote. All will Know Me. 
Propitiation is New in the fact that Christ Died once for sins. This hadn't happened until Christ paid the penalty.
I'm not sure adoption is different except for the fact that Christ's inheritance became predominately gentile who are being grafted in to be His Holy nation.
If your last statement is true than maybe that is why Paul said they where held under the law as a schoolmaster till Christ came in Galatians. Maybe their forgiveness was based upon faith in what God was going to do. Sorta like a credit card. God gave them a credit card of expiation. Boy do I sound stupid or what?

Examine the Calvin quote and tell me what you think. And examine Hebrews 9:15.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Randy,
> I am again having problems tying down what you mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propitiation was something the Old Covenant saints (and before) look forward to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Looked forward to....."
> 
> Does this mean that their sins were not propitiated until Christ was crucified?
Click to expand...


When did Christ become a propitiation for sin Scott?


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Randy,
> I am again having problems tying down what you mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propitiation was something the Old Covenant saints (and before) look forward to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Looked forward to....."
> 
> Does this mean that their sins were not propitiated until Christ was crucified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Christ become a propitiation for sin Scott?
Click to expand...


_Actually_, in time. Propitiatorially, outside of time. It would have to be, or else the OT saint did not experience forgiveness of sins.

Randy, 
For some reason, you seem to be applying Christs propitiation in time. If you do this, then you must deal with the idea that men before the cross were not justified until the cross, hence they were not saved until Calvary. 

I reread the Calvin quote. I don't see any conflict.

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Randy,
> I am again having problems tying down what you mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propitiation was something the Old Covenant saints (and before) look forward to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Looked forward to....."
> 
> Does this mean that their sins were not propitiated until Christ was crucified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Christ become a propitiation for sin Scott?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Actually_, in time. Propitiatorially, outside of time. It would have to be, or else the OT saint did not experience forgiveness of sins.
> 
> Randy,
> For some reason, you seem to be applying Christs propitiation in time. If you do this, then you must deal with the idea that men before the cross were not justified until the cross, hence they were not saved until Calvary.
> 
> I reread the Calvin quote. I don't see any conflict.
> 
> [Edited on 9-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]
Click to expand...


Just to clear up my thinking... amuse me a bit. 

Couldn't God declare someone justified by faith in a future event? You sound as if Christ's physical death in time wasn't necessary. It is something that happened in eternity. I am saying that it is eternal in scope as far as it's application to propitiate sin before the cross, during the cross, and after the cross. Christ paid for sin in space and time. He fullfilled the Covenant of Works in space and time. Your thoughts are strange to me. Do you have any scripture to back yourself up. Hebrews 9:15 points to space and time in which Christ died for those sins committed under the first covenant. In other words he died after these sins were committed under the old Covenant. Propitiation didn't take place before.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Randy,
> I am again having problems tying down what you mean:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Propitiation was something the Old Covenant saints (and before) look forward to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Looked forward to....."
> 
> Does this mean that their sins were not propitiated until Christ was crucified?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Christ become a propitiation for sin Scott?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Actually_, in time. Propitiatorially, outside of time. It would have to be, or else the OT saint did not experience forgiveness of sins.
> 
> Randy,
> For some reason, you seem to be applying Christs propitiation in time. If you do this, then you must deal with the idea that men before the cross were not justified until the cross, hence they were not saved until Calvary.
> 
> I reread the Calvin quote. I don't see any conflict.
> 
> [Edited on 9-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just to clear up my thinking... amuse me a bit.
> 
> Couldn't God declare someone justified by faith in a future event? You sound as if Christ's physical death in time wasn't necessary. It is something that happened in eternity. I am saying that it is eternal in scope as far as it's application to propitiate sin before the cross, during the cross, and after the cross. Christ paid for sin in space and time. He fullfilled the Covenant of Works in space and time. Your thoughts are strange to me. Do you have any scripture to back yourself up. Hebrews 9:15 points to space and time in which Christ died for those sins committed under the first covenant. In other words he died after these sins were committed under the old Covenant. Propitiation didn't take place before.
Click to expand...


Christs physical death _ in time_ was necessary. I have no idea where you got that. In fact, if you will reread my previous post, that should clear it up.

WCF ch 11
I. Those whom God effectually calleth, he also freely justifieth:[1] not by infusing righteousness into them, but by pardoning their sins, and by accounting and accepting their persons as righteous; not for anything wrought in them, or done by them, but for Christ's sake alone; nor by imputing faith itself, the act of believing, or any other evangelical obedience to them, as their righteousness; but by imputing the obedience and satisfaction of Christ unto them,[2] they receiving and resting on him and his righteousness, by faith; which faith they have not of themselves, it is the gift of God.[3]

1. Rom. 3:24; 5:15-16; 8:30
2. Rom. 3:22-28; 4:5-8; 5:17-19; II Cor. 5:19, 21; Titus 3:5, 7; Eph. 1:7; Jer. 23:6; I Cor. 1:30-31
3. John 1:12; 6:44-45, 65; Acts 10:43; 13:38-39; Phil. 1:29; 3:9; Eph. 2:7-8

II. Faith, thus receiving and resting on Christ and his righteousness, is the alone instrument of justification:[4] yet is it not alone in the person justified, but is ever accompanied with all other saving graces, and is no dead faith, but worketh by love.[5]

4. John 3:18, 36; Rom. 3:28; 5:1
5. James 2:17, 22, 26; Gal. 5:6

III. Christ, by his obedience and death, did fully discharge the debt of all those that are thus justified, and did make a proper, real, and full satisfaction to his Father's justice in their behalf.[6] Yet, inasmuch as he was given by the Father for them;[7] and his obedience and satisfaction accepted in their stead;[8] and both, freely, not for anything in them; their justification is only of free grace;[9] that both the exact justice and rich grace of God might be glorified in the justification of sinners.[10]

6. Mark 10:45; Rom. 5:8-10, 18-19; Gal. 3:13; I Tim. 2:5-6; Heb. 1:3; 10:10, 14; Dan. 9:24, 26; see Isa. 52:13-53:12

7. Rom. 8:32; John 3:16
8. II Cor. 5:21; Eph. 5:2; Phil. 2:6-9; Isa. 53:10-11
9. Rom. 3:24; Eph. 1:7
10. Rom. 3:26; Eph. 2:7; Zech. 9:9; Isa. 45:21

IV. God did, from all eternity, decree to justify all the elect,[11] and Christ did, in the fullness of time, die for their sins, and rise again for their justification:[12] nevertheless, they are not justified, until the Holy Spirit doth, in due time, actually apply Christ unto them.[13]

11. Rom. 8:29, 30; Gal. 3:8; I Peter 1:2, 19-20
12. Gal. 4:4; I Tim. 2:6; Rom. 4:25
13. Eph. 2:3; Titus 3:3-7; Gal. 2:16; cf. Col. 1:21-22

V. God doth continue to forgive the sins of those that are justified;[14] and, although they can never fall from the state of justification,[15] yet they may, by their sins, fall under God's fatherly displeasure, and not have the light of his countenance restored unto them, until they humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance.[16]

14. Matt. 6:12; I John 1:7, 9; 2:1-2
15. Rom. 5:1-5, 8:30-39; Heb. 10:14; cf. Luke 22:32; John 10:28
16. Psa. 32:5; ch. 51; 89:30-33; Matt. 26:75; Luke 1:20; I Cor. 11:30, 32

VI. *The justification of believers under the old testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the new testament.[17]*

17. Gal. 3:9, 13-14; Rom. 4:6-8, 22-24; 10:6-13; Heb. 13:8

Justification cannot take place without propitiation.........

WCF ch 8

VI. Although the work of redemption was not actually wrought by Christ till after his incarnation, *yet the virtue, efficacy, and benefits thereof were communicated unto 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 of the woman which should bruise the serpent's head; and the Lamb slain from the beginning of the world; being yesterday and today the same, and forever.[36]

36. Gal. 4:4-5; Gen. 3:15; I Cor. 10:4; Rev. 13:8; Heb. 9:15; 13:8; see Rom. 3:25

Question 55 of the Larger cat:

Q55: How doth Christ make intercession?
A55: Christ maketh intercession, by his appearing in our nature continually before the Father in heaven,[1] in the merit of his obedience and sacrifice on earth,[2] declaring his will to have it applied to all believers;[3] answering all accusations against them,[4] and procuring for them quiet of conscience, notwithstanding daily failings,[5] access with boldness to the throne of grace,[6] and acceptance of their persons [7] and services.[8]

1. Heb. 9:12, 24
2. Heb. 1:3
3. John 3:16; 17:9, 20, 24
4. Rom. 8:33-34
5. Rom. 5:1-2; I John 2:1-2
6. Heb. 4:16
7. Eph. 1:6
8. I Peter 2:5

Question 34

Q34: How was the covenant of grace administered under the Old Testament?
A34: *The covenant of grace was administered under the Old Testament, by promises,[1] prophecies, [2] sacrifices,[3] circumcision,[4] the passover,[5] and other types and ordinances, which did all foresignify Christ then to come, and were for that time sufficient to build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah,[6] by whom they then had full remission of sin, and eternal salvation.[7]*

1. Rom. 15:8
2. Acts 3:20, 24
3. Heb. 10:1
4. Rom. 4:11
5. I Cor. 5:7
6. Heb. ch. 8-10; 11:13
7. Gal. 3:7-9, 14

LBC ch 11

VI. The justification of believers under the Old Testament was, in all these respects, one and the same with the justification of believers under the New Testament.[18]

18. Gal. 3:9; Rom. 4:22-24

Rom 3:21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets; 
Rom 3:22 Even the righteousness of God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference: 
Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God; 
Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: 
Rom 3:25 *Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God; *

Calvin writes:
"A propitiatory through faith in his blood, etc. I prefer thus literally to retain the language of Paul; for it seems indeed to me that he intended, by one single sentence, to declare that God is propitious to us as soon as we have our trust resting on the blood of Christ; for by faith we come to the possession of this benefit. "
Calvin Commnentary on Romans

Heb 11:24 By faith Moses, when he was come to years, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter; 
Heb 11:25 Choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God, than to enjoy the pleasures of sin for a season; 
Heb 11:26 Esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt: for he had respect unto the recompence of the reward. 

Rev 13:7 And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. 
Rev 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. 

Psa 130:7 Let Israel hope in the LORD: for with the LORD there is mercy, and with him is plenteous redemption. 

How were these OT saints redeemed if not by Christs propitiation?

Octavious Winslow writes:
"The blood of Jesus is also the life of our pardon and acceptance: *"Whom God has set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood,* to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God," *that is, the transgressions of the Old Testament saints; the life-giving blood of Jesus extending its pardoning efficacy back to the remotest period of time, and to the greatest sinner upon earth, even to him "by whom sin entered into the world, and death by sin"- such is the vitality of the atoning blood of God's dear Son.* And if the pardoning blood thus bore an antecedent virtue, has it less a present one?"

[Edited on 9-6-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scott, This seems to be confirming what I am saying. I don't find anything I am in disagreement with. I do believe in the death effective toward all the elect of the old testament. It wasn't paid for until He laid down his life though. These quotes are saying what I am saying.


----------



## Scott Bushey

I believe this is where the confusion comes in:



> Yes, but the old is not the Covenant that removed or propitiated sin.



What I am saying is that the OT saint was justified by faith. if they were justified by faith, they must have a mediator. Justification cannot occur without mediation. That mediator is propitiator. That propitiation is effectual in the OT to the OT saint. It didn't become effectual at Calvary, it became a reality.

Do you agree with this statement?



[Edited on 9-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> the life-giving blood of Jesus extending its pardoning efficacy *back* to the remotest period of time, and to the greatest sinner upon earth, even to him "by whom sin entered into the world, and death by sin"- such is the vitality of the atoning blood of God's dear Son. And if the pardoning blood thus bore an antecedent virtue, has it less a present one?"



It's efficacy goes back to the remotest period of time.


----------



## Scott Bushey

OK. Sounds like we are in agreement. 

Wanna arm wrestle now?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> I believe this is where the confusion comes in:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but the old is not the Covenant that removed or propitiated sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am saying is that the OT saint was justified by faith. if they were justified by faith, they must have a mediator. Justification cannot occur without mediation. That mediator is propitiator. That propitiation is effectual in the OT to the OT saint. It didn't become effectual at Calvary, it became a reality.
> 
> Do you agree with this statement?
Click to expand...


Now we are speaking the same language. It has been effectual from the beginning.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I liken it to this passage.

(Rom 4:17) (As it is written, I have made thee a father of many nations,) before him whom he believed, even God, who quickeneth the dead, and calleth those things which be not as though they were.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> OK. Sounds like we are in agreement.
> 
> Wanna arm wrestle now?



No. It is time for a strong drink and nice cigar.


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Regeneration is only different in the New Covenant in that it is true of every New Covenant Member as Martin showed in his above quote. All will Know Me.



I don't accept this interpretation. I don't believe that the New Covenant does not have internal and external members, just as the old covenant did. The visible and invisible church distinction is just as important in the new as it was in the old.

The ultimate conclusion of this thinking is that we may only interact experientially with the elect of God, which leads to inconsistency at best and hypercalvinism at worst. The elect aren't tatooed or have signs above their head. So without such, we must live our lives before God and men knowing that there will be some who say "Lord, Lord," who we thought were "in like Flynn".

I'll agree that only the internal members of the new covenant all know the Lord and are in fact regenerate. But until we get some kind of membership card in the elect of God, we must see that the New Covenant members are made up of external goats and internal sheep, which is no drastic difference from the Old Covenant.



> Propitiation is New in the fact that Christ Died once for sins. This hadn't happened until Christ paid the penalty.



I look at OT propitiation like I look at NT glorification... Already, not yet. The Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, so propitiation had already taken place, but it wasn't consumated until the cross. OT - Grace promised; NT - Grace applied.



> I'm not sure adoption is different except for the fact that Christ's inheritance became predominately gentile who are being grafted in to be His Holy nation.



If we are sons, we are sons because of faith in Christ. Since Abraham is the father of all who believe, adoption has to be the same under both covenants.



> If your last statement is true than maybe that is why Paul said they where held under the law as a schoolmaster till Christ came in Galatians. Maybe their forgiveness was based upon faith in what God was going to do. Sorta like a credit card. God gave them a credit card of expiation. Boy do I sound stupid or what?



I think in some sense you have to see the sacraments of the Old Covenant to see how God supplied what was required. When Abraham called the place Jehovah Jireh, he meant that God provides salvation. How did He do so at the time? He sent a ram. How was that ram effectual for the sacrifice for sins? Because it represented Christ. The blood of the sacrifice represented Christ in every way, and was only effectual to the believer by faith, just as we appropriate grace in the revealed Christ only by faith. Both covenants are mixed with faith which is why both covenants must be seen as one entire covenant. If both receive the same salvation, and both require faith, then what we are left with is administration of grace, which is why the Reformed believe that there is one covenant of grace with various administrations.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Let's talk over Lunch. We are talking around each other.


----------



## just_grace

> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> New with respect to a more powerful application of redemption and the lack of typological shadows which had indeed pointed to Christ.
> 
> Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.



Is your life going to be committed to complicating the Gospel?


----------



## Me Died Blue

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> New with respect to a more powerful application of redemption and the lack of typological shadows which had indeed pointed to Christ.
> 
> Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your life going to be committed to complicating the Gospel?
Click to expand...


Does Scripture then "complicate the Gospel," as you say of Jacob's statements? For we are told in 2 Corinthians 3:12-13, "Since we have such a hope, we are very bold, not like Moses, who would put a veil over his face so that the Israelites might not gaze at the outcome of what was being brought to an end." That sounds interestingly similar to Jacob's first statement above, talking about the _difference_ in the prophetic nature of Christ, revelation and faith for Old Covenant believers versus the fulfilled nature of Christ, revelation and faith for New Covenant believers; and Jacob's second statement, talking about the _commonality_ of the goals of the covenants and the means of entering and keeping them, bears a strange resemblance in substance to Romans 4:3, 9-11: "Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness...Is this blessing then only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised? We say that faith was counted to Abraham as righteousness. How then was it counted to him? Was it before or after he had been circumcised? It was not after, but before he was circumcised. He received the sign of circumcision as a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised."

Trying to look at the various facets of Christ's redemption is not a vain "complication of the Gospel," but a joyful and passionate desire to see more and more of its implications for our lives, for as we are told, "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways" (Romans 11:33)!

As James White said when Dave Hunt accused Calvinism itself as being a "complication of the Gospel," his small child can understand the Gospel, and yet at the same time seminary graduates such as himself never stop marveling at the new implications and facets they see of it each day. I personally savingly understood the Gospel at a very young age, yet I still did not understand the concept of sovereign regeneration that I now hold dear as being central to its content.

So please do not be so quick to dismiss thoughts on the nature of redemption as vain complications of the Gospel just because they use extra-biblical words to describe biblical concepts - especially without thinking through the logical outcome of that classification, and what it would mean even for so many sentences and concepts in Scripture itself that are difficult for the mind to penetrate.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Randy,
Okeee dokeee


----------



## RamistThomist

> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> New with respect to a more powerful application of redemption and the lack of typological shadows which had indeed pointed to Christ.
> 
> Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your life going to be committed to complicating the Gospel?
Click to expand...


Yes.


----------



## Scott Bushey




----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Randy,
> Okeee dokeee



Now you have to vacation and come up here for a cigar, and imbibing. I will get out one of those nasty things you sent me and repent from pipe smoking for a day. Just kidding. I liked some of those expensive cigars. I actually like Astals.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Astral. yuk Yuk Yuk.

Ahem....you pipe-heads.


----------



## Larry Hughes

Chris,

"complication of the Gospel"

You are right on the money. It is not complicating it but growing richer and richer and richer in the depths of THE Gospel. When Paul said you should be off of the milk and on to the meat he did not mean some elusive "more spiritual" doctrine or even a more intellectual acumen. NO, but a richer and deeper and richer and deeper understanding and afresh refreshment of the Gospel, that is Good News of Christ crucified and risen.

E.g. it is one thing to know that Christ died for my sin. Deeper that all His righteousness is also imputed to me. Deeper still that this was set forth in eternity. Deeper still and specific that when Christ resisted the Devil's temptation in the wilderness that - THAT has been imputed to me and you and all of His...and so forth.

Ldh


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon

> Is your life going to be committed to complicating the Gospel?



What is the uncomplicated Gospel?

Remember - 

The unity of the Biblical message is structural, historic, and personal. It has a certain archetypal, architectural plan. The two Testaments are built on the same general scheme. Each is in three parts: historic, didactic, prophetic; looking to the past, the present, and the future. Its organic unity demonstrates three things: first, that all parts are necessary to a complete whole; secondly, that all are necessary to complement each other; and thirdly, that all are pervaded by one life-principle.

Think about it - 
The Biblical Message was written over a period of some 1500 years, has 66 Books, 40 Writers (of differing vocations, education, sophistication), was penned across 3 continents (Europe, Asia, Africa), it was written in 3 Languages (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek), and yet is in agreement about one central story line: The Glory of the Living God.

Its a bit more complicated that Jesus loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life. 


[Edited on 9-8-2005 by webmaster]


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by just_grace_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Draught Horse_
> New with respect to a more powerful application of redemption and the lack of typological shadows which had indeed pointed to Christ.
> 
> Renewed with respect to its goal and entrance therein.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is your life going to be committed to complicating the Gospel?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well, he could commit it to constantly posting esoteric one-liners on Christian message boards...
Click to expand...


Well, here I go again. I have to look up another word. Who says a vocabulary stops growing when you are younger.

E S O T E R I C.

*esÂ·oÂ·terÂ·ic * ( P ) Pronunciation Key (s-trk)
adj. 

Intended for or understood by only a particular group: an esoteric cult. See Synonyms at mysterious. 
Of or relating to that which is known by a restricted number of people. 

Confined to a small group: esoteric interests. 
Not publicly disclosed; confidential. 


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Greek esterikos, from ester, comparative of es, within. See en in Indo-European Roots.]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
esoÂ·teriÂ·calÂ·ly adv.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Kevin. You wrote in answer to Randy:-


> Regeneration is only different in the New Covenant in that it is true of every New Covenant Member as Martin showed in his above quote. All will Know Me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't accept this interpretation. I don't believe that the New Covenant does not have internal and external members, just as the old covenant did. The visible and invisible church distinction is just as important in the new as it was in the old.
Click to expand...


Well, it's your privilege in ths life not to accept it, but it is the clear and plain teaching of Jer 31 and Heb 8, and I cited several supporting Scriptures. The difference between the First and New Covenants is that in the NC, everyone will know the Lord. They may not know all ABOUT Him, but they all know Him. The question is, are you and others prepared to follow the Scriptures wherever they lead you, or will you cling to your position because 'it's in the confession'?


> The ultimate conclusion of this thinking is that we may only interact experientially with the elect of God, which leads to inconsistency at best and hypercalvinism at worst. The elect aren't tatooed or have signs above their head. So without such, we must live our lives before God and men knowing that there will be some who say "Lord, Lord," who we thought were "in like Flynn".



Who says 'we may only interact experientially with the elect of God'? Read 1Cor 5:9ff. We interact all our lives with the non-elect, being, 'Children of God, without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life' (Phil 2:15-16 ).

You are quite right that there will be those who appear to be 'in like Flynn', but whom events will prove not to be in at all. These were never in covenant with the Lord. 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out THAT THEY MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST THAT NONE OF THEM WERE OF US' (1John 2:19 ). And the Lord will say to them on the Last Day, 'I NEVER knew you!' (Matt 7:23). Not when the Minister was splashing you with water; not while you were in Sunday School; not while you were listening to the service or taking the Lord's Supper. Not even while you were in Seminary. NEVER! Because you never saw yourself as a lost sinner so as to fly to Me for salvation.'

Those who are not trusting Christ for salvation have nother whatever to do with Him. 

Martin


----------



## kceaster

*Martin...*



> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Well, it's your privilege in ths life not to accept it, but it is the clear and plain teaching of Jer 31 and Heb 8, and I cited several supporting Scriptures. The difference between the First and New Covenants is that in the NC, everyone will know the Lord. They may not know all ABOUT Him, but they all know Him. The question is, are you and others prepared to follow the Scriptures wherever they lead you, or will you cling to your position because 'it's in the confession'?



Actually the plain and clear teaching of Jer 31 and Heb 8 is that the covenant will be made with the house of Israel and Judah. These are the ones who will know the Lord. These are also the same ones the old covenant was made with, except now, the house of Judah (because of the divided kingdom) is included separately. Shouldn't this tell you something? The old covenant was made with Israel (Judah included) the new covenant is made with Judah and Israel. Is God trying to be obtuse? You can't literalize one and not the other. Likewise you can't spiritualize both. You must gather from this, then, that the covenant is made with people who belong, but some only externally, and some really and truly. 

My father knew the Lord. I know that He asked God to forgive his sins many times in his life. But I also know that my father will cry out "Lord, Lord," because his heart is not right and he will die in his sins with no hope of salvation. That is the way he's living now.

Look to Hebrews. My father was in seeming covenant with God many of his days, yet the warnings of Hebrews are true of him. He is apostate. He has tasted, yet not imbibed. He has seen the goodness of the Lord and yet walked away.

Where your belief is leading you is a place Scripture doesn't go because we do not know the soul-state of everyone we see. If you maintain that the new covenant is peopled with all the elect and none other, then you must believe that everyone you go to church with are elect. Everyone that you have seen baptized is elect. And that is simply not true. The visible/invisible church distinction must be upheld for our theories to become our practice. And that is largely what you espouse. If the new covenant is made up of only the elect, yours is a theoretical or academic theology. If you were to become a pastor, your work would be confounded by this.

The practical nature of the new covenant is that there are those members who to us seem to be in covenant with God and we have no right to exclude them from the Table or the community of faith, yet they are not known by Christ. This is the reality of the new covenant. It was the reality of the old covenant. There is no way of getting around this unless you know the mind of God in the salvation of every individual, which is not given you to know.

Of course we reject this notion that the new covenant is of two houses only, but we can spiritualize Israel. What do we do with Judah? Why is this covenant made with the house of Judah? Who is this historically? Who is it going forward in the new covenant?

If you can answer that from Scripture, you may begin to see that it can neither be spiritualized fully, nor can it be literalized fully. In that case we have to look at covenants historically and it turns us to the one covenant of grace that has internal and external members.

Questions like these really make us think so that we cannot practice vacuum theology. You're accusing me of parroting a confession. That's okay. I am. I depend upon someone elses interpretation of these verses because they are not so simple and plain.



> Who says 'we may only interact experientially with the elect of God'? Read 1Cor 5:9ff. We interact all our lives with the non-elect, being, 'Children of God, without fault in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine as lights in the world, holding fast the word of life' (Phil 2:15-16 ).



Are the non-elect part of your covenant community? If you say yes, then you are not being consistent in your interpretation of Jer. 31 and Heb 8. If you say no, you must be able to see the invisible church.



> You are quite right that there will be those who appear to be 'in like Flynn', but whom events will prove not to be in at all. These were never in covenant with the Lord. 'They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would have continued with us; but they went out THAT THEY MIGHT BE MADE MANIFEST THAT NONE OF THEM WERE OF US' (1John 2:19 ). And the Lord will say to them on the Last Day, 'I NEVER knew you!' (Matt 7:23). Not when the Minister was splashing you with water; not while you were in Sunday School; not while you were listening to the service or taking the Lord's Supper. Not even while you were in Seminary. NEVER! Because you never saw yourself as a lost sinner so as to fly to Me for salvation.'



I can take it from this that you would answer no to the above question. If they are in your new covenant community, then they are elect. So you must, of necessity, have been give the sight to see the invisible church.

BTW, I am not arguing, nor would I ever argue, that the external members (all in the visible church who are non-elect) are truly in covenant with God. They are, even though seeming members of the new covenant, relegated to the covenant of works through their unbelief. But again, are you (or your church) going to keep the Table from someone who comes, but who unbeknownst to you are not elect? Are you (or your church) not going to baptize someone unless you know for a fact they're elect? No. You wouldn't do this. So here is where your interpretation of these Scriptures breaks down. You can't have it both ways.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Steve Owen

Hello Kevin,
You wrote:-


> Of course we reject this notion that the new covenant is of two houses only, but we can spiritualize Israel. What do we do with Judah? Why is this covenant made with the house of Judah? Who is this historically? Who is it going forward in the new covenant?



I think you are making too much of this, but I can tell you who Judah is in the New Covenant.

The Greek word for 'Judah' is 'Ioudas'. The word for an inhabitant of Judah is 'Ioudaios.' In Rom 2:28-29, we read:-


> 'For he is not a Jew ('Ioudaios') who is one outwardly; nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew ('Ioudaios') who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.'



Such are the members of the New Covenant, and such therefore are the proper subjects for baptism. The fact that we cannot always distinguish them from false believers does not make this any less true, and is no excuse whatsoever for making void the word of God by admitting all and sundry into the Ekklesia of God by infant baptism. 

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Kevin,
> You wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we reject this notion that the new covenant is of two houses only, but we can spiritualize Israel. What do we do with Judah? Why is this covenant made with the house of Judah? Who is this historically? Who is it going forward in the new covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are making too much of this, but I can tell you who Judah is in the New Covenant.
> 
> The Greek word for 'Judah' is 'Ioudas'. The word for an inhabitant of Judah is 'Ioudaios.' In Rom 2:28-29, we read:-
> 
> 
> 
> 'For he is not a Jew ('Ioudaios') who is one outwardly; nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew ('Ioudaios') who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.'
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


So, the new covenant was made with inhabitants of Judah? How does house of Judah equivocate to inhabitant of Judah? The Romans occupied Judah, was the new covenant made with them?

As for making too much of this, the new covenant is made with an entity that is the house of Judah. We need to know what this means. You take it nowhere which is a mistake. God has certain people in mind when He talks about this house. In order for someone to be included in the covenant, they have to be connected to this house. So my question to you is, who is this talking about?



> Such are the members of the New Covenant, and such therefore are the proper subjects for baptism. The fact that we cannot always distinguish them from false believers does not make this any less true, and is no excuse whatsoever for making void the word of God by admitting all and sundry into the Ekklesia of God by infant baptism.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin



We make void the Word of God? Really? How? By our baptizing disciples? We are commanded to do so. We don't go out of our way to baptize any child. We are baptizing only those children whose parents are trusting in God for their child's salvation and who will be raised as disciples. How is that making the Word of God void?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Kevin,

Is the New Covenant Church Isreal?


----------



## kceaster

*Randy...*



> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> Kevin,
> 
> Is the New Covenant Church Isreal?



Yes, to the extent that Israel describes it. I think it would be better to use Paul's description of an olive tree in Romans 11. The root is holy. Some branches have been cut off, some have been grafted in. But in the final analysis, the whole olive tree contains branches that do belong and those that do not belong. God will prune all those who do not belong and continue to care for those who do. This shows that there is an internal and external aspect of those in the new covenant. All are included in the olive tree, but not all will be spared. Some have already been cut off, some have yet to be cut off.

But the whole olive tree is the church.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

So does God graft in dead branches? That just doesn't seem correct by the passage.

[Edited on 9-8-2005 by puritancovenanter]


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So does God graft in dead branches? That just doesn't seem correct by the passage.



Well, I hope He grafts in dead branches, because otherwise the Gentile has no hope.

Were you meaning to ask are cutoff branches grafted back in?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So does God graft in dead branches? That just doesn't seem correct by the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I hope He grafts in dead branches, because otherwise the Gentile has no hope.
> 
> Were you meaning to ask are cutoff branches grafted back in?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


I was infering that Christ only grafted in regenerate branches.


----------



## Steve Owen

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Hello Kevin,
> You wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> Of course we reject this notion that the new covenant is of two houses only, but we can spiritualize Israel. What do we do with Judah? Why is this covenant made with the house of Judah? Who is this historically? Who is it going forward in the new covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you are making too much of this, but I can tell you who Judah is in the New Covenant.
> 
> The Greek word for 'Judah' is 'Ioudas'. The word for an inhabitant of Judah is 'Ioudaios.' In Rom 2:28-29, we read:-
> 
> 
> 
> 'For he is not a Jew ('Ioudaios') who is one outwardly; nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh; but he is a Jew ('Ioudaios') who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the Spirit, not in the letter; whose praise is not from men but from God.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, the new covenant was made with inhabitants of Judah? How does house of Judah equivocate to inhabitant of Judah? The Romans occupied Judah, was the new covenant made with them?
> 
> As for making too much of this, the new covenant is made with an entity that is the house of Judah. We need to know what this means. You take it nowhere which is a mistake. God has certain people in mind when He talks about this house. In order for someone to be included in the covenant, they have to be connected to this house. So my question to you is, who is this talking about?
Click to expand...


Kevin, this is talking about Christians, those who are Jews inwardly as Rom 2:28f shows. Listen to Paul again:-

*'For we are the circumcision* [ie. Jews] *who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and place no confidence in the flesh'* (Phil 3:3 ). John Brown of Edinburgh wrote:-


> This "New Covenant" was not to be "according to the covenant made with their fathers;" _i.e._, it is to be of an entirely different kind. Into that covenant they were brought as the natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; into this they will be brought by walking in the steps of these patriarch's faith. That covenant was external and temporary; this is spiritual and eternal.





> Such are the members of the New Covenant, and such therefore are the proper subjects for baptism. The fact that we cannot always distinguish them from false believers does not make this any less true, and is no excuse whatsoever for making void the word of God by admitting all and sundry into the Ekklesia of God by infant baptism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We make void the Word of God? Really? How? By our baptizing disciples? We are commanded to do so. We don't go out of our way to baptize any child. We are baptizing only those children whose parents are trusting in God for their child's salvation and who will be raised as disciples. How is that making the Word of God void?
Click to expand...


*"Making the word of God of no effect* (i.e. _void_) through your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:13 ). There is no command to baptize infants and the Bible does not say that the faith of the parents saves their children (Ezek 18:20 ). The OT texts that you and Paul are so fond of must be read in the light of Gal 3:7, 26-29.

Therefore, since you are not following the Bible, which commands only the baptism of disciples, you are following tradition and making void the word of God.

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritancovenanter_
> So does God graft in dead branches? That just doesn't seem correct by the passage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I hope He grafts in dead branches, because otherwise the Gentile has no hope.
> 
> Were you meaning to ask are cutoff branches grafted back in?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I was infering that Christ only grafted in regenerate branches.
Click to expand...


If He only grafts in regenerate branches, how did some get cut off? How is it that there is a possibility that some will get cut off? The ingrafting of the gentiles is pretty broad, we can't think that this olive tree is only the invisible church. If that is so, then some, it would appear, can lose their salvation.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Kevin, this is talking about Christians, those who are Jews inwardly as Rom 2:28f shows. Listen to Paul again:-
> 
> *'For we are the circumcision* [ie. Jews] *who worship God in the Spirit, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and place no confidence in the flesh'* (Phil 3:3 ). John Brown of Edinburgh wrote:-
> 
> 
> 
> This "New Covenant" was not to be "according to the covenant made with their fathers;" _i.e._, it is to be of an entirely different kind. Into that covenant they were brought as the natural descendants of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob; into this they will be brought by walking in the steps of these patriarch's faith. That covenant was external and temporary; this is spiritual and eternal.
Click to expand...


I didn't quote this verse, you did. You made a clear inference that "spiritual Judah" is the Jew of these passages. I agree that not all who are Jews are Jews inwardly. This shows the visible/invisible church distinction.



> We make void the Word of God? Really? How? By our baptizing disciples? We are commanded to do so. We don't go out of our way to baptize any child. We are baptizing only those children whose parents are trusting in God for their child's salvation and who will be raised as disciples. How is that making the Word of God void?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"Making the word of God of no effect* (i.e. _void_) through your tradition which you have handed down" (Mark 7:13 ). There is no command to baptize infants and the Bible does not say that the faith of the parents saves their children (Ezek 18:20 ). The OT texts that you and Paul are so fond of must be read in the light of Gal 3:7, 26-29.
> 
> Therefore, since you are not following the Bible, which commands only the baptism of disciples, you are following tradition and making void the word of God.
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


I didn't say that the faith of the parent saves the child. I didn't even imply that. I said that we baptize those children whose parents are trusting in God for their child's salvation. That doesn't automatically mean that God will save them. He will save them if it is His will. But whether He does or not, we hope in Him for them. This hope doesn't save, nor is it effectual for them at all. I have faith that God will save you if it is His will to do so. How should that be any different than an infant? Because you have said so? Did you save yourself, or did God save you? If anyone is saved it is through faith in Christ. Not faith in a profession, or a baptism, or in the water, or in the minister. I have faith that God will save my children and my grandchildren's grandchildren (I hope). Why is that against Scripture? Abraham believed it and He is my father if I believe it. 

The reason we baptize our children is because we have faith that God will save them if it is His will to do so. They are disciples. We are teaching them the things the Lord wants us to teach them. They are no less a disciple than anyone else. 

God doesn't save them because of our faith. If He saves them it will be because He gave them faith to believe.

This is a fair warning, but the next time you accuse someone of making the Word of God void, especially any elders or pastors on this board, I will request the administrators to censure you. You have taken this verse out of context and it does not apply here. I don't mind honest debate, but in the 4 years I've been on this board, I have never been accused of this. I will not continue to discuss this with you if you accuse me of abusing Scripture.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Scott Bushey




----------



## Steve Owen

Kevin,
First of all, I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I should not have personalized my comments. However, let me say that I am not pursuing this question of baptism purely as an accademic exercise, or out of a love of controversy. I am doing it because I believe that infant baptism, and especially the doctrine of 'Presumptive Regeneration' is wrong and unscriptural and produces, as all wrong doctrine must, unhappy results.

You wrote;-


> You made a clear inference that "spiritual Judah" is the Jew of these passages. I agree that not all who are Jews are Jews inwardly. This shows the visible/invisible church distinction.


On the contrary, it is ONLY "spiritual Judah" who enter the New Covenant. That is the clear meaning of Jer 31 and Heb 8. Read Phil 3:3 again. The concept of a 'visible' or 'invisible' church is unhelpful.


> The reason we baptize our children is because we have faith that God will save them if it is His will to do so. They are disciples. We are teaching them the things the Lord wants us to teach them. They are no less a disciple than anyone else.


I disagree. A 'disciple' in the NT is someone who is a follower of Christ. Not all were true disciples (John 8:31 ), but they had made their own, conscious decision to follow Him.


> God doesn't save them because of our faith. If He saves them it will be because He gave them faith to believe.


It is always good to be able to end on a point of agreement. To this I can say 

Grace & Peace,

Martin


----------



## kceaster

> _Originally posted by Martin Marprelate_
> Kevin,
> First of all, I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I should not have personalized my comments. However, let me say that I am not pursuing this question of baptism purely as an accademic exercise, or out of a love of controversy. I am doing it because I believe that infant baptism, and especially the doctrine of 'Presumptive Regeneration' is wrong and unscriptural and produces, as all wrong doctrine must, unhappy results.



I'm not sure what kind of unhappy results you're referring to. Kids don't go awry because they're baptized at birth. In fact, when fathers have been faithful to bring up their children in the way they should go, there have been many happy results. Kids go awry because fathers fail to instill in their sons what the Lord requires or because sons reject the fear of the Lord because of their own sinfulness. Now you could claim that we've helped them to this, but what you're claiming is tantamount to saying that Calvinism causes Arminianism.



> On the contrary, it is ONLY "spiritual Judah" who enter the New Covenant. That is the clear meaning of Jer 31 and Heb 8. Read Phil 3:3 again. The concept of a 'visible' or 'invisible' church is unhelpful.



I am not conceding that you have proven that there is a spiritual Judah. If you're using the text you provided, it is most obscure.



> I disagree. A 'disciple' in the NT is someone who is a follower of Christ. Not all were true disciples (John 8:31 ), but they had made their own, conscious decision to follow Him.



I would encourage you to study Timothy as the 2nd generation Christian. Did he learn the things of God of his own volition?



> It is always good to be able to end on a point of agreement. To this I can say
> 
> Grace & Peace,
> 
> Martin



Yeah, I'm glad we agree on this, but I wish we could follow the same stream to this lush oasis.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## biblelighthouse

I found this great quote online:



> Just as God made a covenant with Abraham, he promised a New Covenant to come later. He made this New Covenant in the blood of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Lord Jesus consciously and specifically established "the New Covenant." The Apostle Paul said he was "a servant of the New Covenant." How can this be if there is but one Covenant of Grace? The New Covenant is new, as contrasted with Moses, but not as contrasted with Abraham or Adam.
> 
> This is the point of Galatians 3:1-29; 4:21-31, and 2 Corinthians 3:7-18 where Paul says that the glory of the Old Covenant was fading but the glory of the New Covenant is permanent. The message of Hebrews chapters 3-10 is that the Old Covenant (under Moses) was preparatory to the New Covenant. The fundamental theme of Hebrews 11 is that Abraham had a New Covenant faith, that is, he anticipated a heavenly city and to the redemption which we have in Christ.



Source


----------



## biblelighthouse

And here is more great stuff from that same article:



> *Abraham is a New Covenant Figure*
> 
> It is also important to remember that not everything which was given before Jesus is eliminated in the New Covenant. The fact that our Bibles are divided into the Old and new Testaments, gives some believers the impression that everything which occurs before Jesus' birth is part of the Old Covenant. This is not accurate.
> 
> When the Bible uses the term "Old Covenant" it refers to the period of Moses until the beginning of the New Covenant. Not everything which happens in the Bible before Jesus-namely the period of Adam to Abraham-belongs in the Old Covenant proper.
> 
> Jesus said in John 7:22 that circumcision was not from Moses, but from the Patriarchs. That means that circumcision does not belong, originally to the Old Covenant (Moses) but the Abraham.
> 
> Abraham has a very special relationship to New Covenant believers. In Romans 4:1-25, Paul says that Abraham is the "Father" of those who believe. Likewise, in Galatians 3:29 all believers are said to be "Abraham's offspring and heirs according to the promise."
> 
> In many ways, Abraham is a New Covenant figure. Believers are his spiritual descendants. He is said to have looked forward to Jesus' first coming. He is a model of faith for believers in Hebrews 11:8-19; Galatians chapters 3 and 4. So what is true of Abraham is usually true of New Covenant believers. Just as Abraham's faith in Jesus (John 8:56) sets the pattern for New Covenant believers, so also his circumcision, and that of Isaac, sets the pattern for New Covenant baptism.


----------



## Steve Owen

Hi Joseph,
Most of what's in that article is common ground between us. The writer is correct when he says that there is but one Covenant of Grace.

When he finishes


> In many ways, Abraham is a New Covenant figure. Believers are his spiritual descendants. He is said to have looked forward to Jesus' first coming. He is a model of faith for believers in Hebrews 11:8-19; Galatians chapters 3 and 4. So what is true of Abraham is usually true of New Covenant believers. Just as Abraham's faith in Jesus (John 8:56) sets the pattern [better 'a pattern'- Martin] for New Covenant believers,



I can go with him, but note that 'many ways' are not 'all ways.'

But when he says


> so also his circumcision, and that of Isaac, sets the pattern for New Covenant baptism.



He is begging several questions.

With whom was the Abrahamic Covenant made?
Which of its promises apply to Christians?
Who are/is Abraham's descendants/Seed?
Is circumcision the same as baptism?
Did Ishmael have the same promise as Isaac since they received the same sign?
Why is what we term the 'Old' Covenant actually termed the 'First' Covenant by the writer to the Hebrews? What implications are there in this to the Abrahamic Covenant?
What is the 'mystery' of Christ? Did Abraham know it?

Grace & Peace,

Martin

[Edited on 9-18-2005 by Martin Marprelate]


----------

