# Old Covenant Revisited



## kceaster

I have a few questions about the OC references in the book of Hebrews.

1. What is the beginning of the old covenant?

2. In patriarchal terms, who would be the first members in the old covenant?

3. If faith was involved in the old covenant, how was it exercised? In other words,, How do we see faith working in the old covenant?

4. If you do not believe faith was involved, give biblical grounds for your position.

5. Who was (were) the mediator(s) of this covenant?

Try to use just the book of Hebrews in your answers, you may bolster them by using secondary references.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

> 1. What is the beginning of the old covenant?



Depends how you define the word Old Covenant, if defined based upon the exegesis of Hebrews I would say it began at Sinai (Heb 8:7-12). But defining the term systematically within the Reformed tradition then it would be Adam (Hos 6:7, I Cor 15:45, Rom 5:12-21)



> 2. In patriarchal terms, who would be the first members in the old covenant?



Based of the former definition Moses and the people of Israel(Heb 3:2-6) based upon the latter definition then it would be Adam



> 3. If faith was involved in the old covenant, how was it exercised? In other words,, How do we see faith working in the old covenant?


 
Faith as the means of receiving the blessings of the covenant is not found within the Old Covenant itself because it is a Covenant of Works (Heb 8:7-12, Gal 3:10-12)



> 4. If you do not believe faith was involved, give biblical grounds for your position.



The reason I do not believe faith was the means in which one would receive the blessings of the covenant is because it is a Covenant of Works ...Do this and you shall live (Gal 3:10-12).



> 5. Who was (were) the mediator(s) of this covenant?



Based the former definition it would be Moses (Heb 3:2-6) then the priests of Levi (Heb 5:1-4, 7:11). Based on definition of the Old Covenant as theological concept then I would say Adam.

Also I do believe that salvation has always been by faith in Christ (Heb 11) but this was based upon the promise Gal 3:17-20 not obedience to the Old Covenant.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-4-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## doulosChristou

> 1. What is the beginning of the old covenant?



The covenant cut at Sinai (Heb 8:7-12). 



> 2. In patriarchal terms, who would be the first members in the old covenant?



The then newly constituted nation of Israel and not their fathers who had come before them (Heb 3:2-6; Deut 5:3).



> 3. If faith was involved in the old covenant, how was it exercised? In other words,, How do we see faith working in the old covenant?


 
Faith is demonstrated through faithfulness to God; unbelief through disobedience. (Heb 3:15-19)



> 5. Who was (were) the mediator(s) of this covenant?



Moses was the mediator representing the nation (Heb 3:2-6; Gal 3:19; Deut 5:5) then the priests of Levi (Heb 5:1-4, 7:11). 



> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Also I do believe that salvation has always been by faith in Christ (Heb 11) but this was based upon the promise Gal 3:17-20 not obedience to the Old Covenant.


----------



## pastorway

yep...what they said!


----------



## Puritan Sailor

What was the condition of the covenant at Sinai at least according to Ex. 19? 

And, Did obedience obtain the covenant or was obedience a result of the covenant?


----------



## kceaster

*A follow on question....*

What were the sacraments/ordinances of the Old Covenant?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Robin

What about Genesis 15 - the Covenant cut with Abraham? Notice that the covenant is ratified by YHWH by His saying "I will, I will, you shall" and Abraham is asleep during the whole ritual. The sacrament of circumcision was instituted here. Circumcision is a "sign" not a work....Abraham believed God - and it was counted as faith as he looked forward to the Promise (Christ.)

R.

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by Robin]


----------



## kceaster

Perhaps to stimulate more discussion on this, what do we do with Abel? The Hebrew writer features Abel on two occasions, and to my thinking, this would be inexplicable without a connection between the old covenant and the second from Adam.

Why do you think Abel is mentioned? What is the significance of Abel's blood of sprinkling?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Perhaps to stimulate more discussion on this, what do we do with Abel? The Hebrew writer features Abel on two occasions, and to my thinking, this would be inexplicable without a connection between the old covenant and the second from Adam.
> 
> Why do you think Abel is mentioned? What is the significance of Abel's blood of sprinkling?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



I would say that Abel was a priest in the Old Covenant order in the order of Melchizedek Gen 4:4. I know Abel predates Melchizedek but I believe the Sons of God were priest to the entire world before the flood Gen 4:25-26. Where as the Levite priesthood was only to the Jewish nation as a type of the Melchizedek Priesthood. Heb 7:1-13. I know this is speculation but it's something to consider.

VanVos


----------



## kceaster

*Rev. Goundry....*

Would you say, then, that Abel is one of the first members of the old covenant, since you believe him to be priest?

Further, would you be stating that the old covenant, even if in infancy, began with the first family?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Would you say, then, that Abel is one of the first members of the old covenant, since you believe him to be priest?
> 
> Further, would you be stating that the old covenant, even if in infancy, began with the first family?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Yes, I would say that the Old Covenant in some form began with the first family. Although I know I can't conclusively prove it. I believe that after the death of Abel the Covenant was given to the line of Seth to be a priesthood on earth (Gen 4:25-26), as they waited for the promised seed to fulfill the Covenant (Gen 3:15).

VanVos

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## kceaster

*Rev. Goundry....*

Do you believe now that faith is operative, then, in Abel who according to you, was a priest of the old covenant?

Would you also say that in Abel, the blessings he received was not of works, but of faith?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Do you believe now that faith is operative, then, in Abel who according to you, was a priest of the old covenant?



Yes he had faith in the promise seed (Heb 11:4). Just as Moses did (Heb 11:24-26) even though he was a mediator of the Old Covenant (Heb 3:2-6) 



> Would you also say that in Abel, the blessings he received was not of works, but of faith?



Yes he received blessings by faith Heb 11:4. 

VanVos

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## kceaster

*Rev. Goundry....*

So, would you agree that faith is operative in the old covenant? Would you also agree that the sacraments/ordinances of the old covenant were the means, by faith, for blessings in that covenant?

In Christ,

KC

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by kceaster]


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> So, would you agree that faith is operative in the old covenant? Would you also agree that the sacraments/ordinances of the old covenant were the means, by faith, for blessings in that covenant?
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> [Edited on 4-5-2005 by kceaster]



Yes if they placed their faith in the promised seed, like Abel did. I'd be happy to expound on this if you like.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## kceaster

*Rev. Goundry....*

So, just from the book of Hebrews, we see the following parallels:

In the Old Covenant,

1) Faith in God (through the promised Messiah) was operative, and was the beginning point of receiving blessings by God's grace.

2) Sacraments and/or ordinances were the means by which, through faith, the OT saint received blessings by God's grace.

3) The law regulated life, was another means, which, when obeyed by faith, brought blessings to the OT saint by God's grace.

In the New Covenant,

1) Faith in the Revealed Christ is operative and is the beginning point of receiving blessings by God's grace.

2) Sacraments and/or ordinances are the means by which, through faith, the NT saint receives blessings by God's grace.

3) The law regulates life and is another means by which, when obeyed by faith, brings blessings to the NT saint by God's grace.

Would you agree to these parallels?

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> So, just from the book of Hebrews, we see the following parallels:
> 
> In the Old Covenant,





> 1) Faith in God (through the promised Messiah) was operative, and was the beginning point of receiving blessings by God's grace.



Yes, but only if they had faith in the the promise seed, who was to fulfill the Covenant. Matt 5:17



> 2) Sacraments and/or ordinances were the means by which, through faith, the OT saint received blessings by God's grace.



Only if they had faith in the the promised seed. The Old Covenant in it self condemned. 2 Cor 3:7-10. 




> 3) The law regulated life, was another means, which, when obeyed by faith, brought blessings to the OT saint by God's grace.



Yes as the typological Kingdom of God on earth. But the national blessings in the Old Covenant (Mosiac Covenant) came by obedience not faith (Deut 28:1-2) Gal 3:12.



> In the New Covenant,
> 
> 1) Faith in the Revealed Christ is operative and is the beginning point of receiving blessings by God's grace.



Yes



> 2) Sacraments and/or ordinances are the means by which, through faith, the NT saint receives blessings by God's grace.



Yes if adminstrated after or with the Word of God (Rom 10:17) 



> 3) The law regulates life and is another means by which, when obeyed by faith, brings blessings to the NT saint by God's grace.



Yes but I would call it the Law of Christ Rom 7:1-6. 

Hope this helps.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-5-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## kceaster

*Rev. Goundry....*

Thanks for your answers. But, it would seem that you are not consistent all the way through. Why do you equate Abel as a priest of the OC, who was blessed in the OC through faith in the promised Messiah, who obeyed the law, by faith, and who, by faith partook of the sacraments/ordinances of the OC, as one who was bound by a law to perfect obedience which condemned him?

It would seem to me that Abel was under a gracious covenant that was a blessing to him through faith in the promised Messiah.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Thanks for your answers. But, it would seem that you are not consistent all the way through. Why do you equate Abel as a priest of the OC, who was blessed in the OC through faith in the promised Messiah, who obeyed the law, by faith, and who, by faith partook of the sacraments/ordinances of the OC, as one who was bound by a law to perfect obedience which condemned him?
> 
> It would seem to me that Abel was under a gracious covenant that was a blessing to him through faith in the promised Messiah.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Inconsistent? Having a Law and Gospel distinction? Just because he was part of the Old Covenant community does not mean that he was under the curse of law Gal 3:13 in the individual salvific sense. That why I gave you the example of Moses, another person who was part Old Covenant community but still saved by faith in Christ Heb 11:26. 

Yes Abel was under a gracious covenant, the covenant of promise. But that not the same as the Old Covenant, the Law. which serves as a school master to bring us to the promise Gal 3:19. 



> as one who was bound by a law to perfect obedience which condemned him?



Please show me where I said this about Abel as an individual?

Like I said, when it comes to first 11 Chapters of Genesis it hard to conclusively prove such an issue. I recommend Klines and Irons work at upper-register.org for further study on this issue.

VanVos

[Edited on 4-6-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## kceaster

*Rev. Goundry....*

I would not argue against a gospel, law distinction. But it would seem that you're making too much a distinction when you prefer to call it the law of Christ. God's law is God's law. His standard has not changed nor has there been any change in how it is applied to man.

All I was pointing out was that Abel is the first to offer sacrifice to cover his sins. We know without the shedding of blood there is no remission. But we also know, from Hebrews, that the blood of sprinkling of Abel is a shadow of the blood of sprinkling of the Lamb. Shadow and reality cannot be so distinct as to suggest that there is no grace on one side, and there is no law on the other. I think you would agree.

However, with Abel, you have rightly noted that he is a member of the old covenant, but you also said that the old covenant in itself, condemned. You also said that the old covenant blessings came by obedience, not faith. If Abel is a member, just as Moses, then he is condemned because of the old covenant, and the only blessings he could hope for would come by obedience.

The writer of Hebrews has a completely different view.

Now, if you claim that Abel is actually a new covenant member, then you are forced to say that the new covenant was in force when he lived. We know that Abraham was already in the Lord's bosom before Christ had completed what was necessary for the new covenant. So, it would seem, that old covenant saints were present with the Lord, before redemption was actually accomplished in time. You would force the effect of the new covenant back in time. Whereas it is best to view the covenants as beginning in the garden with blessings and salvation tied to them all along redemptive history.

Now, were they saved by obedience? You say that they received national blessings because of obedience. Yet time after time the Lord says to His people that He desires mercy, not sacrifice. The sacrifices were a stench in His nostrils because there was no faith. Abel's sacrifice was accepted because of faith. So we see, then, that your obedience unto life is impossible, because God is not pleased with man's obedience apart from the work of His Spirit through His Son.

Man could never obey God as He is to be obeyed. If this is the case, then the old covenant was not a real promise of God, because there is no way for man to please God with his obedience. In this way, God extended to Israel a covenant He never intended to keep, because there was no way for them to obey it. Everything must be by faith because without faith it is impossible to please God.

This leaves us with the old covenant being kept by faith, not by obedience. The old covenant promised life in the land as well, and there is no living in this life or the next without righteousness and faith. The Israelites could not attain righteousness in and of themselves. It is impossible for all but one, the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, they had to live by faith. They had to claim the promises of the old covenant by faith. This is why the Reformed rightly state that the old covenant is not a restatement of the covenant of works. Israel could never attain anything being fallen. They must embrace any blessing by faith in the promised Messiah.

I would pose this to you. The covenants made after the garden do not condemn, because man, in his state of depravity, is dead already. The covenants, because they are all of grace that must be entered into by faith, are the only life that man can hope for. The sanctions for disobedience are the same upon all who "break" the covenant. They are relegated to the covenant which, for them, brought death. The same covenant that Adam broke once and for all.

All of the covenants after the garden held out for hope of life. And that life can only be obtained by faith in Christ. Otherwise, there is more than one life other than Christ. NO. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by Me.

If the old covenant held out life either in the land or the land that is afar off, that life is through Christ and may only be obtained by faith. Any other view diminishes what God was accomplishing through the patriarchs, and exalts the efforts of man. You may think, "exalts! but the Israelites were covenant breakers." This is true. But you imply that God extended to them a covenant they could keep by obedience and rewards He would give them if they did. Because of original sin, there is no way for them to obey perfectly and thus, gain the reward. Therefore, God made them a promise He did not intend to keep.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I would not argue against a gospel, law distinction. But it would seem that you're making too much a distinction when you prefer to call it the law of Christ. God's law is God's law. His standard has not changed nor has there been any change in how it is applied to man.



Concerning Law of Christ I would refer you to Lee Irons work called Married to another http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/married_to_another.html 




> All I was pointing out was that Abel is the first to offer sacrifice to cover his sins. We know without the shedding of blood there is no remission. But we also know, from Hebrews, that the blood of sprinkling of Abel is a shadow of the blood of sprinkling of the Lamb. Shadow and reality cannot be so distinct as to suggest that there is no grace on one side, and there is no law on the other. I think you would agree.



I agree but the Old Testament sacrifices were still ceremonially efficacious Heb 9:13 but they only temporally covered certain sins Heb 7:27



> However, with Abel, you have rightly noted that he is a member of the old covenant, but you also said that the old covenant in itself, condemned. You also said that the old covenant blessings came by obedience, not faith. If Abel is a member, just as Moses, then he is condemned because of the old covenant, and the only blessings he could hope for would come by obedience.



Again no. They received blessings by believing the promised seed, but the were still members of the Old Covenant. The Old Covenant was not an individual salvific covenant but an epoch of redemptive history.



> The writer of Hebrews has a completely different view.
> 
> Now, if you claim that Abel is actually a new covenant member, then you are forced to say that the new covenant was in force when he lived. We know that Abraham was already in the Lord's bosom before Christ had completed what was necessary for the new covenant. So, it would seem, that old covenant saints were present with the Lord, before redemption was actually accomplished in time. You would force the effect of the new covenant back in time. Whereas it is best to view the covenants as beginning in the garden with blessings and salvation tied to them all along redemptive history.


 Where did I say Abel was a new covenant member? He believed in this promise, the Adamic Covenant.



> Now, were they saved by obedience? You say that they received national blessings because of obedience. Yet time after time the Lord says to His people that He desires mercy, not sacrifice. The sacrifices were a stench in His nostrils because there was no faith. Abel's sacrifice was accepted because of faith. So we see, then, that your obedience unto life is impossible, because God is not pleased with man's obedience apart from the work of His Spirit through His Son.



Again I do not see the Old Covenant as individual salvific covenant but a schoolmaster that brings us to Christ.



> Man could never obey God as He is to be obeyed. If this is the case, then the old covenant was not a real promise of God, because there is no way for man to please God with his obedience. In this way, God extended to Israel a covenant He never intended to keep, because there was no way for them to obey it. Everything must be by faith because without faith it is impossible to please God.


 Just because man is depraved doesn't change what God demands of us. But once again I do not see the Old covenant as means of receiving salvation but a school master. The Old Covenant was given to Israel corperately as a Nation, not to individuals for salvation.



> This leaves us with the old covenant being kept by faith, not by obedience. The old covenant promised life in the land as well, and there is no living in this life or the next without righteousness and faith. The Israelites could not attain righteousness in and of themselves. It is impossible for all but one, the Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, they had to live by faith. They had to claim the promises of the old covenant by faith. This is why the Reformed rightly state that the old covenant is not a restatement of the covenant of works. Israel could never attain anything being fallen. They must embrace any blessing by faith in the promised Messiah.



They claimed the promises of the Adamic, and Abrahamic not the Old Covenant the Law. 



> I would pose this to you. The covenants made after the garden do not condemn, because man, in his state of depravity, is dead already. The covenants, because they are all of grace that must be entered into by faith, are the only life that man can hope for. The sanctions for disobedience are the same upon all who "break" the covenant. They are relegated to the covenant which, for them, brought death. The same covenant that Adam broke once and for all.


 The Old Covenant always condemned 2 Cor 3:3-9 because we can not keep it. That's why it a schoolmaster to brings us to Christ.



> All of the covenants after the garden held out for hope of life. And that life can only be obtained by faith in Christ. Otherwise, there is more than one life other than Christ. NO. I am the way, the truth, and the life. No man comes to the Father, but by Me.



Yes I agree John 14:6 But that doesn't mean all the covenants after the garden promised a Messiah. But all Covenants after the garden served the purpose of the coming Messiah



> If the old covenant held out life either in the land or the land that is afar off, that life is through Christ and may only be obtained by faith. Any other view diminishes what God was accomplishing through the patriarchs, and exalts the efforts of man. You may think, "exalts! but the Israelites were covenant breakers." This is true. But you imply that God extended to them a covenant they could keep by obedience and rewards He would give them if they did. Because of original sin, there is no way for them to obey perfectly and thus, gain the reward. Therefore, God made them a promise He did not intend to keep.



Exactly, that´s why it served as a schoolmaster to bring them to Christ. 

Here's an excerpt from Irons that best summarizers my postion:

The Law was given through Moses, but grace and truth were realized through Jesus Christ (John 1:17)

For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from the works of the Law (Romans 3:28)

But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works, otherwise grace is no longer grace (Romans 11:6)

These women are two covenants: one proceeding from Mount Sinai bearing children who are slaves ... but the Jerusalem above is free (Galatians 4:24, 26)

For if the first covenant had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second ... When he said, 'A new covenant,' he made the first obsolete (Hebrews 8:7, 13) 

The above quoted passages demonstrate the the Law-Gospel contrast must be understood as a contrast between two covenants, the old and the new. The Law is not the timeless moral will of God (whatever God demands of us). The Gospel is not the timeless grace of God (whatever God promises us). Rather, the Law is the Sinai covenant, given in the form of a typological republication of the Adamic covenant of works. The Gospel is the underlying substratum of the covenant of grace, first revealed in the promise concerning the Seed to come in Genesis 3:15, later ratified by oath to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, and finally fulfilled in the incarnation, obedience, and exaltation of the Son of God, by which the new covenant was established. 

VanVos


[Edited on 4-9-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Robin

KC,

Adam was the Covenant Vassal-priest over God's Temple Garden...God's particular grace towards the treason of Adam played out in: declaring "I will put emnity" between satan and Adam - this was merciful since Adam had fallen to be a servant of satan a moment before. God clothed Adam in a slaughtered animal skin. Abel, was in the Covenant and obeyed by offering the right sacrifice (blood) as priest -- only to become the first type of Christ, slain by the first anti-Christ, Cain.

God was the first to make the sacrifice of blood;clothing the royal couple in slain animal skins; sparing their existence (when He would have been right to wipe them out ); mercifully promising ultimate redemption; mercifully putting emnity between them and satan and satan's seed --- until that moment, Adam and Eve were slaves to satan's will once they thought about doubting God.

The use of the word "grace" must be tightly understood...it is the opposite of justice in Gen. 3:15, Btw. (As you know...) But we're not merely referring to God's good gifts to Adam and Eve when we speak of grace in the Covenant. The gracious covenant (of blood) begins with God as He had mercy.....



Robin

[Edited on 4-6-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

So many semantics........

Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?


----------



## kceaster

*Rev. Goundry....*

I do not agree with Irons and Kline, neither does Witsius or Turretin, to my knowledge.

And, I agree with you that the law is a tutor. But that does not mean that the law is abrogated in Christ. Irons says that the law is not a timeless moral will of God, and yet, Paul says in Galatians that the law still binds all to perfect obedience. If we obey one, we must obey all. This does not make us antinomians, as if to say, "Well, we can't obey them all perfectly, so we may as well not start." God still calls us to obey perfectly, but only by faith in Christ as the One who obeys for us, as the One whose righteousness is imputed to us, while our disobedience is laid to His account.

If the law is laid aside, by what are we condemned? Only original sin? No. We are accountable to God for all sins. Sin is any want of conformity unto or transgression of the law of God (WSC, Q13). Which law? The law of Christ? The law of grace? The law of Moses? I shudder at the fact that anyone could claim immunity on any of the laws written in Scripture that have not been clearly abrogated (ie, dietary, ceremonial). God is all of these laws. To say that one does not apply to us, diminishes the very One who set it in place. To say that one does not apply to us, we shed the authority of God over us and claim sovereignty that is His alone. If law is abrogated, God is satisfied in its replacement. In other words,, the ceremonial laws have been satisfied in Christ's once offering up of Himself, a sacrifice to satisfy divine justice and reconcile us to God (WSC, Q26). But in this one sacrifice, is the decalogue done away with? Absolutely not.

I would caution you in reading and siding with Irons. The OPC rightly censured him for his views.

I would also challenge you to find references to the Mosaic covenant being a restatement of the covenant of works. I don't believe you'll find any in traditional CT.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

Who said anything about the Law been abrogated. I was saying the Law as a Covenant of Works has been fulfilled. The Law as it enshrines God's moral character is binding upon all people at all times even the Christian. Also I believe that the Law of Christ is the Decalogue, but it's not to been seen by the Christian as a Covenant of works or as a means of getting a right standing with. That´s why Paul endorsers the Law in Rom 13. In other words the Law at it's ethical core still stands, which is summed up in Love your neighbor. The Law of Christ is Loving people in light of justification. In other words be like Christ John 13:33-34. I love God´s Law so away with this idea that I'm abrogating it.

Also concerning the Law as a Covenant of Works here's a good article:
http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/works_in_mosaic_cov.html

VanVos

P.S. By the way I'm not siding with anyone, I just think Lee Irons has a lot of good things to say. That does not mean agree with everything he says.



[Edited on 4-6-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## kceaster

*Rev. Goundry....*



> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> Who said anything about the Law been abrogated. I was saying the Law as Covenant of Works has been fulfilled.



Lee Irons does. You need to know this about him. I assumed that you thought as he did on that since you quoted him. I apologize for jumping to conclusions.




> The Law as it enshrines God moral character is binding upon all people at all times even the Christian. Also I believe that the Law of Christ is the Decalogue, but it's not to been seen by the Christian as a Covenant of works or as a means of getting a right standing with. That´s why Paul endorsers the Law in Rom 13. In other words the Law at it ethical core still stands, which is summed up in Love your neighbor. The Law of Christ is Loving people in light of justification. In other words be like Christ John 13:33-34.



More importantly, the law has never been seen rightly as a covenant of works. Moses did not consider it a covenant of works when he tells them that they must have their hearts circumcised, or that they must have faith in the one to come. Neither is Christ, when upholding Moses, showing forth the old covenant as a covenant of works. Without faith it is impossible to please God. This is as true in the old as it is in the new. Therefore, the blessings of the covenant you choose to call a restatement of the covenant of works, are only poured out on those who have faith. They did not reach the land and have prosperity because of their work, they conquered and prospered because of their faith. And yes, it was both communal faith and individual faith. But it was not a result of works, because faith is not of works.



> I love God´s Law so away with this idea that I'm abrogating it.



Again, sorry for the jump to conclusions. But please do understand my caution with Irons. His teachings are errant on the law according to the church to which I am in submission.



> Also concerning the Law as a Covenant of Works here's a good article:
> http://www.upper-register.com/mosaic_law/works_in_mosaic_cov.html



Again, I am not going to read these because Iron's views are aberrant.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## VanVos

> More importantly, the law has never been seen rightly as a covenant of works. Moses did not consider it a covenant of works when he tells them that they must have their hearts circumcised, or that they must have faith in the one to come. Neither is Christ, when upholding Moses, showing forth the old covenant as a covenant of works. Without faith it is impossible to please God. This is as true in the old as it is in the new. Therefore, the blessings of the covenant you choose to call a restatement of the covenant of works, are only poured out on those who have faith. They did not reach the land and have prosperity because of their work, they conquered and prospered because of their faith. And yes, it was both communal faith and individual faith. But it was not a result of works, because faith is not of works.



Like I said I believe it was a Covenant of works Gal 3:10-11,17-18. The regenerated person within Israel Rom 2:29, 9:6 would have believed the promise and walked in good works Eph 2:10 in the Old testament economy. But the old covenant it self was a Covenant of Works for Israel as a Nation. Anyway I've enjoyed the discussion, may the Lord bless your studies.

VanVos

P.S. I really like your website www.federaltheology.org.

[Edited on 4-6-2005 by VanVos]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> So many semantics........
> 
> Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?



Still awaiting an answer. I think we could build some agreement if we started here.


----------



## VanVos

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> So many semantics........
> 
> Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still awaiting an answer. I think we could build some agreement if we started here.
Click to expand...


Hi Patrick

Yes, salvation was revealed in the Adamic and Abrahamic Covenant.

VanVos


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> So many semantics........
> 
> Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still awaiting an answer. I think we could build some agreement if we started here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick
> 
> Yes, salvation was revealed in the Adamic and Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> VanVos
Click to expand...

That's not what I asked. What covenant was that salvation obtained by?


----------



## Robin

Christ obtained satisfaction by obeying the Covenant of Works.

He's the only One Who could. God could NOT go back on His demand to Adam; nor the consequences if he failed -- which Adam did. However, God did something interesting...

God sent a Covenant keeper that could finally suceed: Christ.

All of the OT from Gen. 3:15 through up to Matthew is about man's failure to keep the Covenant of Works...and yet also revealed the coming (genelogical heir) Covenant keeper. That's why Matthew explains Christ's geneology, Btw. The Christ HAD to be a descendent of Adam - a true human/vassal under the rule of YHWH. (Not the seed of Hagar.)

No one's yet commented upon my other post...so I won't repeat...

R.


----------



## pastorway

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> So many semantics........
> 
> Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still awaiting an answer. I think we could build some agreement if we started here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick
> 
> Yes, salvation was revealed in the Adamic and Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> VanVos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. What covenant was that salvation obtained by?
Click to expand...


The New Covenant.

Compared to the Old Covenant it was a better covenant with a better sacrifice and a better mediator. The Old Covenant (Law) cannot justofy anyone, only in the New Covenant is once for all atonement made for the sins of the elect.

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by VanVos_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> So many semantics........
> 
> Was salvation in the OT by way of covenant? If so, then by what covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still awaiting an answer. I think we could build some agreement if we started here.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick
> 
> Yes, salvation was revealed in the Adamic and Abrahamic Covenant.
> 
> VanVos
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's not what I asked. What covenant was that salvation obtained by?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The New Covenant.
> 
> Compared to the Old Covenant it was a better covenant with a better sacrifice and a better mediator. The Old Covenant (Law) cannot justofy anyone, only in the New Covenant is once for all atonement made for the sins of the elect.
> 
> Phillip
Click to expand...


Phillip,
How can it be a _better_ covenant (in the way you are implying) if Christ mediated the OT saint in like manner as the NT saint? The law was never justifier, it was simply a teacher.



[Edited on 4-7-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## pastorway

Excuse me, but the Book of Hebrews tells us specifically that the NEW Covenant is better and more glorious than the OLD. So does 2 Cor 3. So you are arguing against Scripture by asserting that the Old and New are the same without distinction.

*Hebrews 8*
6But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 

*2 Cor 3*
7But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious. 

Phillip


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> Excuse me, but the Book of Hebrews tells us specifically that the NEW Covenant is better and more glorious than the OLD. So does 2 Cor 3. So you are arguing against Scripture by asserting that the Old and New are the same without distinction.
> 
> *Hebrews 8*
> 6But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises.
> 
> *2 Cor 3*
> 7But if the ministry of death, written and engraved on stones, was glorious, so that the children of Israel could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of the glory of his countenance, which glory was passing away, 8how will the ministry of the Spirit not be more glorious? 9For if the ministry of condemnation had glory, the ministry of righteousness exceeds much more in glory. 10For even what was made glorious had no glory in this respect, because of the glory that excels. 11For if what is passing away was glorious, what remains is much more glorious.
> 
> Phillip



Phillip,
I do not reject wjhat scripture states; I disagree with your interpretation of it:bigsmile:
How is the OT saint justified. Based upon your premise, it was different-no?


----------



## pastorway

The OT saint was justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as the coming Messiah, just as we now are justified by grace alone through faith alone oin Christ alone, the Mnessiah who has come.

NO difference. Both OT and NT saints are SAVED as members of the NEW Covenant, for a covenant in the blood of bulls and goats cannot save anyone.

The Old pointed to the New, it was shadow where the New is the substance, and by faith OT saints were justified - by faith in the Messiah who would come and save them, by faith in the Substance of the shadow that was yet to be revealed.

Phillip


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> The OT saint was justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as the coming Messiah, just as we now are justified by grace alone through faith alone oin Christ alone, the Mnessiah who has come.
> 
> NO difference. Both OT and NT saints are SAVED as members of the NEW Covenant, for a covenant in the blood of bulls and goats cannot save anyone.
> 
> The Old pointed to the New, it was shadow where the New is the substance, and by faith OT saints were justified - by faith in the Messiah who would come and save them, by faith in the Substance of the shadow that was yet to be revealed.
> 
> Phillip



So then was the gospel preached in the Old Covenant?


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> The OT saint was justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as the coming Messiah, just as we now are justified by grace alone through faith alone oin Christ alone, the Mnessiah who has come.
> 
> NO difference. Both OT and NT saints are SAVED as members of the NEW Covenant, for a covenant in the blood of bulls and goats cannot save anyone.
> 
> The Old pointed to the New, it was shadow where the New is the substance, and by faith OT saints were justified - by faith in the Messiah who would come and save them, by faith in the Substance of the shadow that was yet to be revealed.
> 
> Phillip
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then was the gospel preached in the Old Covenant?
Click to expand...


Yes....the saints in the OT were saved the same way the NT saints are.

There is ONE Gospel - one people of God. One plan of salvation. One.

R.


----------



## Robin

The Covenant of Grace and Works are connected in a special way:

G. Vos (1862-1949). According to the Reformed view the covenant of works is something more than the natural bond which exists between God and man. The Westminster Confession puts this in such a pointedly beautiful way (7.1) ...If we are not mistaken, the instinctive aversion which some have to the covenant of works springs from a lack of appreciation for this wonderful truth [i.e., God's voluntary condescension]. ("The Doctrine of the Covenant in Reformed Theology," 1891, Selected Shorter Writings, 244).

Louis Berkhof (1873-1957). All the elements of covenant [of works] are indicated in Scripture, and if the elements are present, we are not only warranted but, in a systematic study of the doctrine, also in duty bound to relate them to one another, and to give the doctrine so construed an appropriate name (Systematic Theology, [Grand Rapids, 4th edn. 1941], 213).

Louis Berkhof. There was [in the covenant of works] a promise of eternal life....Now it is perfectly true that no such promise is explicitly recorded, but it is clearly implied in the alternative of death as the result of disobedience (Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology, [Grand Rapids, 4th edn. 1941], 214).

Meredith G. Kline. The active obedience of Jesus is his fulfilling the demands of the covenant probation. By the passive obedience of his atoning sacrifice he secures for us the forgiveness of sins. But he does more than clear the slate and reinstate us in Adams original condition, still facing probation and able to fail. Jesus, the second Adam, accomplishes the probationary assignment of overcoming the devil, and by performing this one decisive act of righteousness he earns for us Gods promised reward. By this achievement of active obedience he merits for us a position beyond probation, secure forever in Gods love and the prospect of God's eternal home. This grand truth is a fruit of covenant theology. It grows out of the soil of the Reformed doctrine of federal representation, which is based on the biblical teaching about the two Adams whose responses under covenant probation are imputed to those they represent. Thus, God imputes to those whom Christ represents the righteousness of the victory of his active obedience in his probationary battle against Satan. Here was Machen's strong comfort in death. He knew that the meritorious work performed by his Savior had been reckoned to his account as if he had performed it. God must certainly bestow on him the glorious heavenly reward, for Jesus had earned it for him and Gods name is just ("Covenant Theology Under Attack", 1994). 

Let's think about clarifying HOW the two covenants are related....the concept of "covenant" is quite mis-understood in our times.

R.


----------



## Robin

And again....more Reformers noted that Adam was the first to be under a covenant of works that transcended the Garden...



John Calvin (1509-64). We must, therefore, look deeper than sensual intemperance. The prohibition to touch the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil was a trial of obedience (obedientiae examen), that Adam, by observing it, might prove his willing submission to the command of God (Institutes, 2.1.4)

John Calvin. The promise, which gave him hope of eternal life as long as he should eat of the tree of life (arbore vitae), and, on the other hand, the fearful denunciation of death the moment he should taste of the Tree of Knowledge of of good and evil, were meant to test and exercise his faith (Institutes, 2.1.4).

John Calvin. There is no obscurity in the words, "As by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous." (Institutes, 2.1.6).

Zacharias Ursinus (1534-83) What does the divine law teach? The sort of covenant which God began with man, in creation; by which man should have carried himself in serving God; and what God would require from him after beginning with him a new covenant of grace; that is, how and for what [end] man was created by God; and to what state he might be restored; and by which covenant one who has been reconciled to God ought to arrange his life (Larger Catechism [1561] Q. 10)

Hmmmm....

Robin


----------



## Canadian Baptist

I am rather new to Covenant Theology so correct me where I am wrong here:
Jesus Christ fulfilled the Covenant of Works and obeyed as the second Adam, earning righteousness for the elect as their represenatative in that covenant. His death then satisfied the justice of God in regard to our sin. This is the covenant where salvation was aquired. Christs perfect obedience is the condition of that covenant. The Covenant of Grace is where that earned righteousness is dispensed to poor sinners. The condition is faith (which itself is provided by Him). The New Covenant is the supreme expression of this as the encumberances of being a child under guardianship are now gone. (Gal. 4:1-6) 
All ethnic and geographical barriers are gone. All types and shadows are gone. However, the New Covenant is not where the achievement of these blessings occurred, but the NC is the final and fullest dispensing to unworthy sinners the blessings merited under the Covenant of Works.

[Edited on 4-7-2005 by Canadian Baptist]


----------



## Robin

More interesting still....

Johannes Wollebius (1586-1629). I. God made a double covenant with man, the one of works and the other of grace; the former before, the latter after the fall. II. The covenant of works was confirmed by a double sacrament, to wit, the Tree of Life, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil both being planted in the midst of paradise. III. They had a double use. 1. That man´s obedience might be tried, by using of the one, and abstaining from the other. 2. That the Tree of Life might ratify eternal happiness to those that should obey, but the Tree of Knowledge should signify to the disobedient, the loss of the greatest happiness and the possession of the greatest mercy. IV. Therefore the Tree of Life was so called, not from any innate faculty it had to give life, but from a sacramental signification. V. Likewise the Tree of Knowledge of good and evil, had this denomination from signifying the chief good and evil and from the event. VI. The happiness of man being yet in his integrity, consisted chiefly in the image of God. XIV. Man even in respect of his body was immortal, but not simply, as though his body being composed of the elements could not be resolved into its principles, but by Divine Covenant; not as thought it could not die, but because it had a possibility not to die (posse non peccare). (Compendium of Christian Theology, 1626).

John Preston (1587-1628). It is said, "the promise is made to the Seed," yet the promise is made to us, and yet again the covenant is made with Abraham: How can all these stand together? Answer: The promises that are made to the Seed, that is to Christ himself are these: You shall sit on that throne; you shall be a prince of peace, and the government shall be upon your shoulders; likewise, you shall be a prophet to my people....These are the promises that are made to the Seed. The promises that are made to us, though they be of the same covenant, nevertheless differ in this respect: the active part is committed to the Messiah, to the Seed himself, but the passive part consists of the promises made to us.... So the promise is made to us.....The meaning is that they are derivative promises. They primary and original promises were made to Jesus Christ (The New Covenant, 1639; 374-75).




R.


----------



## Robin

CB,

Think about this, then come at it again. Covenants have to do with legal relationships - not emotional qualities, Btw.

Caspar Olevian. Q: 4 Why is the redemption or reconciliation of humanity with God presented to us in the form of a covenant, indeed a covenant of grace? A: God compares the means of our salvation to a covenant, indeed an eternal covenant, so that we might be certain and assured that a lasting, eternal peace and friendship between God and us has been made through the sacrifice of His son. After a bitter quarrel, the disputants have peace of mind first and foremost when they commit and bind themselves to each other with a promise and sworn oath that on such-and-such a matter they wont peace. God acts in the same way toward us: in order that we might have rest and peace in our consciences, God was willing our of His great goodness and grace, to bind himself to us, His enemies, with His promise and His oath. He promised that He would have his only begotten Son become human and die for us, and that through the sacrifice of his Son He would establish a lasting reconciliation and eternal peace....He would be our God and bless us, that is, forgive our sins and impart to us the Holy Spirit and eternal life -- and all this without any merit on our part. All we would have to do is accept the Son -- promised and sent -- by faith (A Firm Foundation).

Caspar Olevian. Q. 5: But how did Jesus Christ make the covenant between the Father and us? That is, how did he reconcile us to the Father so that our sins are eternally forgotten and the Holy Spirit and eternal life are bestowed on us? A: By his sacrifice on the cross He completely reconciled us to the Father with an eternal covenant. The Son himself cried out on the cross that the covenant was completely ratified ("It is finished!" [Jn 19:30] and the Holy Spirit says in Heb. 10[:14], "By one offering he has perfected forever those who are being sanctified." (A Firm Foundation).

Caspar Olevian. The Son of God, having been appointed by God as Mediator of the covenant, becomes the guarantor on two counts: 1) He shall satisfy for the sins of all those whom the Father has given him; 2) He shall also bring it to pass that they, being planted in him, shall enjoy freedom in their consciences and from day to day be renewed in the image of God (De substantia, 1585; 1.2.1).

John Ball (1585-1640). The Covenant of Grace is that free and gracious Covenant which God of his mere mercy in Jesus Christ made with man a miserable and wretched sinner, promising unto him pardon of sin and eternal happiness, if he will return from his iniquity, embrace mercy reached forth, by faith unfeigned, and walk before God in sincere, faithful and willing obedience, as becomes such a creature lifted up unto such enjoyment, and partaker of such precious promises. This covenant is opposite to the former in kind, so that at one and the same time, man cannot be under the Covenant of works and the Covenant of grace. For he cannot hope to be justified by his perfect and exact obedience, that acknowledging himself to be a miserable and lost sinner, does expect pardon of the free mercy of God in Jesus Christ embraced by faith. (A Treatise of the Covenant of Grace. London, 1645, 14-15).

R.


----------



## Scott Bushey

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> The OT saint was justified by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone as the coming Messiah, just as we now are justified by grace alone through faith alone oin Christ alone, the Mnessiah who has come.
> 
> NO difference. Both OT and NT saints are SAVED as members of the NEW Covenant, for a covenant in the blood of bulls and goats cannot save anyone.
> 
> The Old pointed to the New, it was shadow where the New is the substance, and by faith OT saints were justified - by faith in the Messiah who would come and save them, by faith in the Substance of the shadow that was yet to be revealed.
> 
> Phillip



Phillip,
You previously wrote:



> The New Covenant.
> 
> Compared to the Old Covenant it was a better covenant with a better sacrifice and a better mediator. The Old Covenant (Law) cannot justofy anyone, only in the New Covenant is once for all atonement made for the sins of the elect.
> 
> Phillip



Is Christ the same sacrifice to the OT saint; how is it truly better? Does the NT saint have a hand up on the old? Is Christ the same mediator? Didn't the mediation of Christ in the old covenant atone for sins 'once for all?


----------



## The Lamb

The letter to the Hebrew Christians was written to prove that the new covenant under Jesus is better than the old covenant under Moses. The author of Hebrews argues that Jesus is greater and the covenant through Him is better because of: 

A BETTER REVELATION:
In the past God spoke through the prophets but now speaks to us through His Son, Jesus. Jesus is greater because He:
Was appointed heir of all things,
Created the world,
Reflects the glory of God,
Bears the very stamp of God´s nature,
Upholds the universe by His word of power,
Purged our sins,
Sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high.
Has a more excellent name than the angels. (See Hebrews 1:1-4) 

Jesus is called the "œWord of God." He brought God´s message of a new and better hope. The message of the old covenant was how to identify sin. The new covenant was how to find a solution for sin, which solution is in the sacrifice of Jesus for our sins. 

A BETTER HOPE:
The old covenant was set aside because of its weakness and uselessness for it did not make anyone perfect. Therefore, a better hope was introduced through which hope we draw near to God. (See Hebrews 7:18,19) 

A BETTER PRIESTHOOD:
Under the old covenant there were many priests because they died and had to be replaced. Because Jesus lives for ever He holds His priesthood permanently and so is able for all time to save those who draw hear to God through Him. He is always there to make intercession for us.

God appointed His Son, who has been made perfect for ever, as our highpriest. Because He is holy, blameless, unstained, separated from sinners, exalted above the heavens, He does not need to offer sacrifices daily, first for his own sins and then for those of the people. He did this once for all when he offered up Himself. Jesus died once for the sins of the world and it is a great wrong to put Him to death again and again. 

A BETTER COVENANT ESTABLISHED ON BETTER PROMISES:
"œBut now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he said, "Behold, the days come," says the Lord, "That 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 that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; for they didn't continue in my covenant, and I disregarded them," says the Lord. "For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel. After those days, says the Lord; "I will put my laws into their mind, I will also write them on their heart. I will be to them a God, and they will be to me a people. They will not teach every man his fellow citizen, Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' For all will know me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness. I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more." In that he says, "A new covenant," he has made the first old. But that which is becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away." (Hebrews 8:6-13 WEB) 

A BETTER SACRIFICE:
"œIt was necessary therefore that the copies of the things in the heavens should be cleansed with these; but the heavenly things themselves with better sacrifices than these. For Christ hasn't entered into holy places made with hands, which are representations of the true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us; nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest enters into the holy place year by year with blood not his own, or else he must have suffered often since the foundation of the world. But now once at the end of the ages, he has been revealed to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself. Inasmuch as it is appointed for men to die once, and after this, judgment, so Christ also, having been once offered to bear the sins of many, will appear a second time, without sin, to those who are eagerly waiting for him for salvation." (Hebrews 9:23-28 WEB) 

BETTER POSSESSIONS:
The Christians this letter was written to had been persecuted and the author encourages them to remember they have a better place in heaven.

"œBut remember the former days, in which, after you were enlightened, you endured a great struggle with sufferings; partly, being exposed to both reproaches and oppressions; and partly, becoming partakers with those who were treated so. For you both had compassion on me in my chains, and joyfully accepted the plundering of your possessions, knowing that you have for yourselves a better possession and an enduring one in the heavens. Therefore don't throw away your boldness, which has a great reward. For you need endurance so that, having done the will of God, you may receive the promise. "In a very little while, he who comes will come, and will not wait. but the righteous will live by faith. If he shrinks back, my soul has no pleasure in him."" (Hebrews 10:32-39 WEB) 

A BETTER COUNTRY:
The saints under the old covenant looked for the redeemer but they were told He would come later. We have the privilege of knowing Jesus as our redeemer, but like the saints of old we must also look for a better country.

"œThese all died in faith, not having received the promises, but having seen them and embraced them from afar, and having confessed that they were strangers and pilgrims on the earth. For those who say such things make it clear that they are seeking after a country of their own. If indeed they had been thinking of that country from which they went out, they would have had enough time to return. But now they desire a better country, that is, a heavenly one. Therefore God is not ashamed of them, to be called their God, for he has prepared a city for them." (Hebrews 11:13-16 WEB) 
Women received their dead by resurrection. Others were tortured, not accepting their deliverance, that they might obtain a better resurrection. (Hebrews 11:35 WEB) 

A BETTER RESURRECTION:
We also must have faith to know that regardless of the suffering we go through here on earth we look for a resurrection to eternal life with Jesus. This is the hope we have as believers in Jesus the Son of God who died that we might have eternal life. (Hebrews 11:35) 

CONCLUSION:
"œBut now he has obtained a more excellent ministry, by so much as he is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises. For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. For finding fault with them, he said,

"Behold, the days come," says the Lord,
"That 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 that I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt;
For they didn't continue in my covenant,
And I disregarded them," says the Lord.
"For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel.
After those days," says the Lord;
"I will put my laws into their mind,
I will also write them on their heart.
I will be to them a God,
And they will be to me a people.
They will not teach every man his fellow citizen,
Every man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,'
For all will know me,
From the least of them to the greatest of them.
For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness.
I will remember their sins and lawless deeds no more." 

In that he says, "A new covenant," he has made the first old. But that which is becoming old and grows aged is near to vanishing away." (Hebrews 8:6-13 )




[Edited on 4-7-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## kceaster

I think Joseph hit the nail on the head. The thing we need to keep in mind about Hebrews is always the audience to whom it was written. If we cannot see the Jewish perspective (and this was not the pharisaical tradition Jesus spoke against, but the legitimate Hebrew religion), then we may have difficulty deciphering these words.

Hebrews is not so much a comparison between bad theology and good theology. Because everything the Hebrew writer mentions is legitimate in the OT economy. It is good theology. However, because of the fuller revelation of Christ, to go back to that good theology is to forsake the better theology that replaced it.

This is so misunderstood by a lot of folks today, especially when Jesus is teaching. He is not overthrowing the OT, rather, He is fulfilling it. He's not trying to show how deficient OT theology is, He is trying to show how much better the theology of the NT is now that He is revealed.

The other misunderstanding is when Jesus is clearly teaching against the new orthodoxy of the Pharisees, He is not trying to undermine the real theology of the OT. He blasts against the innovations on OT theology with vigor, but some take this to mean that He is blasting the OT theology proper. To this, I exclaim, "How could He! He is OT theology. He spoke OT theology into existence."

Therefore, Hebrews does not cast off the OT because it was bad theology, he casts it off because it is not the fuller revelation of Christ.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> I think Joseph hit the nail on the head. The thing we need to keep in mind about Hebrews is always the audience to whom it was written. If we cannot see the Jewish perspective (and this was not the pharisaical tradition Jesus spoke against, but the legitimate Hebrew religion), then we may have difficulty deciphering these words.
> 
> Hebrews is not so much a comparison between bad theology and good theology. Because everything the Hebrew writer mentions is legitimate in the OT economy. It is good theology. However, because of the fuller revelation of Christ, to go back to that good theology is to forsake the better theology that replaced it.
> 
> This is so misunderstood by a lot of folks today, especially when Jesus is teaching. He is not overthrowing the OT, rather, He is fulfilling it. He's not trying to show how deficient OT theology is, He is trying to show how much better the theology of the NT is now that He is revealed.
> 
> The other misunderstanding is when Jesus is clearly teaching against the new orthodoxy of the Pharisees, He is not trying to undermine the real theology of the OT. He blasts against the innovations on OT theology with vigor, but some take this to mean that He is blasting the OT theology proper. To this, I exclaim, "How could He! He is OT theology. He spoke OT theology into existence."
> 
> Therefore, Hebrews does not cast off the OT because it was bad theology, he casts it off because it is not the fuller revelation of Christ.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



Well said, Kevin. Christ is the True Jew --- when He condemned the Pharisees - He was telling them they were not Jewish!

R.


----------



## The Lamb

Kevin:

One issue may be that ones own presuppositions of a certain systematic will cause them to read through those lenses.

"Well if CT is 100% truth, then their cannot be anything new" The COG is eternal, The string woven through eternity. Or whatever cliche one holds to.

Mr. Bushy presents valid questions that should not be thrown out without careful consideration.

When God says "I will make a NEW covenant.... This is a NEW commandment, a BETTER covenant. I believe it exactly as it is written. If it causes an issue with my CT understanding so be it, I would throw out my understanding of CT in a hearbeat if aspects of His Word present a deeper understanding.

Perhaps one fears they will be labeled a Dispensational if they admit there are an old covenant and a new covenant. I could care less because it is the truth.

How they relate within the supernatural revelation is very plain according to the writer of Hebrews and Paul.


----------



## The Lamb

The commandments of the Old Testament were given with the same intent as those of the New Testament. However, the theocracy of the time kept adding manmade rules to "clarify" and embellish the commandments. Which still happens today. The emphasis was placed on obedience through human willpower. The problem with human willpower is that there is no power in the human will.

The "new" part of the commandment is the means by which the commandment is carried out. It is not through human willpower, but by abiding in "the light." This light is none other than Jesus Christ , the source of all power. If you have tried loving others through your own ability to be nice, you have probably discovered that there are certain people who are "impossible" to love.


----------



## pastorway

According to Hebrews (Spirit inspired Scripture) the Old Covenant was flawed!

Hebrews 8:7-8

That fault, or flaw, was that no one could keep the Mosaic Covenant. Not the Covenant of Works, but the Covenant of Sinai! That is the Old, the first covenant talked about in Hebrews. And no one could be saved by being a part of that Old Covenant because of this fault - NO ONE could keep the covenant requirements. So the Old has been replaced by the New. The Old has passed away. The New gives us Christ, who did keep all of the Law of God, thus imputing to us the perfect rightesouness necessary for salvation.

And to note - I have never argued that anyone in the OT was saved any differently that anyone in the NT. The point is that no one was saved by adherence to the Old Covenant, because no one could adhere to it. So those who in faith trusted in the coming Christ were made part of the New Covenant (even before it was ratified by the blood of Christ), and the is the only covenant in Scripture that provides the atonement for sin necessary for salvation.

Phillip

[Edited on 4-7-05 by pastorway]


----------



## kceaster

One's understanding of new is the all important question. According to the Theological dictionary of the New Testament, "Of the two most common words for "œnew" since the classical period, namely, â†’ Î½Î­Î¿Ï‚ and ÎºÎ±Î¹Î½ÏŒÏ‚,ï»¿1ï»¿ the former signifies "œwhat was not there before," "œwhat has only just arisen or appeared," the latter "œwhat is new and distinctive" as compared with other things, Î½Î­Î¿Ï‚ is new in time or origin, i.e., young, with a suggestion of immaturity or of lack of respect for the old (â†’ Î½Î­Î¿Ï‚ for examples). ÎºÎ±Î¹Î½ÏŒÏ‚ is what is new in nature, different from the usual, impressive, better than the old, superior in value or attraction."

Now, I'm quite sure the Hebrew writer knew the difference. He could have used Î½Î­Î¿Ï‚, but he didn't. This suggests to me that the "newness" of the new covenant is what is distinctive from the old, not that it is completely different and recent in time. An analogy might be like an improved product line that added 33 percent more product for the same price, and enhanced the formula so that it works better. The product in the package is of the same type as before, but now there is more and it works better.

In this type of scenario, the identification is not lost, nor is the foundation that has already been laid.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by pastorway_
> According to Hebrews (Spirit inspired Scripture) the Old Covenant was flawed!
> 
> Hebrews 8:7-8
> 
> That fault, or flaw, was that no one could keep the Mosaic Covenant. Not the Covenant of Works, but the Covenant of Sinai! That is the Old, the first covenant talked about in Hebrews. And no one could be saved by being a part of that Old Covenant because of this fault - NO ONE could keep the covenant requirements. So the Old has been replaced by the New. The Old has passed away. The New gives us Christ, who did keep all of the Law of God, thus imputing to us the perfect rightesouness necessary for salvation.
> 
> And to note - I have never argued that anyone in the OT was saved any differently that anyone in the NT. The point is that no one was saved by adherence to the Old Covenant, because no one could adhere to it. So those who in faith trusted in the coming Christ were made part of the New Covenant (even before it was ratified by the blood of Christ), and the is the only covenant in Scripture that provides the atonement for sin necessary for salvation.


So then there is no gospel in the Old Covenant?


----------



## The Lamb

> So then there is no gospel in the Old Covenant?




Patrick:

Phillip nor myself, nor Kevin are denying this. 

There is way too much evidence presented in the writ to dispute the fact that the covenants are different and distinct. Is your concern that perhaps this breaks the continuity between the 2? That if there is a difference God becomes mutable? 

The New Far exceedes the Old. Do we say, "Moses is the final authority on morals and ethics, listen to him? or do we listen to God when He commands us to listen to Christ. I vote for the "But I say unto you camp" There is presented a complete contrast between the old and the New, the Law and grace, and most importantly Christ and moses/Elijah.

Paul said the Gospel was preached to Abraham. What this consisted of we can only guess, but it certainly was centerd around the promise of Christ, of which Abraham saw far off and died before experiencing it.

To insist that there is a prevailiant revelation of the Gospel of Grace from beginning to end is also presumptuious. And one has to wear a "certain" type of lenses to see it.

Was the Mosaic Covenant a covenant of works or grace? Many CTers talk out of both sides of their mouth on this issue. "It appears to be a COW, but actually it is a COG.

Heidegger - "That by the same covenant of grace which he had previously made with Abraham, renewed at Sinaidonning the appearance of a covenant of works" 

Riissen - "it is the same as the covenant entered into with Abraham clothed as to outward administration in the form of a covenant of works" 

Alting - "The covenant of Sinai is of grace, the same as that With Abraham" 

Witsius himself made the staggering statement that in this pre-fall covenant of works, "there was no room for redemption, yet there was for salvation and eternal life" (p. 64). Is it Biblical to assert that Adam would have "earned" his own "salvation" by works had he obeyed God?



I believe the remarks of Geerhardus Vos are appropriate and insightful.

It is evident that there are two distinct points of view from which the content of the old dispensation can be regarded. When considered in comparison with the final unfolding and rearranged structure of the N. T., negative judgments are in place. When, on the other hand, the O. T. is taken as an entirety by itself and as rounded off provisionally in itself, and looked at, as it were, with the eyes of the O. T. itself, we find it necessary to take into account the positive element by which it prefigured and anticipated typically the N. T. (Biblical Theology. p. 144).


To say their is both continuity and discontinuity is Biblical. To stand on either or is man made. In my humble opinion



Joseph


----------



## Robin

Does anyone want to address these points?

The nature of covenant must be understood rightly.

Covenant: a bond of blood, sovereignly established.

The covenant of works that Adam failed HAD to stand fast - it was YHWH's decree. When Adam received judgment (covenant sanctions applied) a totally undeserved event occurred: God mercifully proclaimed the _proto evangelion_ --- Patrick, THERE is the first proclamation of the Gospel in the OT....at this time also, God slaughtered animals to clothe A & E (pointing towards our being clothed by Christ's righteousness -- get it?) God declares He will put enmity against Satan and man (v. 15) --- this is GOOD because before that, Adam was a servant to Satan. This is a picture of what the Holy Spirit does to wicked hearts --- healing our fallen-will, from death to life (making us enemies of Satan - when we were formerly enemies of God.) Adam shows evidence of his faith in Christ (YHWH's v. 15 proclamation) by naming his wife Eve ("mother of all living"); Eve exhibits evidence of faith by calling her child "The Man" -- mistakenly thinking her firstborn is the Messiah --- sadly, he was the first anti-Christ. 

Does anyone here think there is continuity to God's covenants?

Just wondering....

R.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Lamb

> Does anyone here think there is continuity to God's covenants?
> 
> Just wondering....
> 
> R.



I believe that Scripture attests to both a continuity and discontinuity. There is definately a woven thread of the promise. But there is also a clear discontinuity between The Law and Grace, Christ and Moses. 

I also believe in a cov of redemption within the triune Godhead in eternity.

THis is not to be confused with a historical "CUT" covenant in time.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> So then there is no gospel in the Old Covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick:
> 
> Phillip nor myself, nor Kevin are denying this.
> 
> There is way too much evidence presented in the writ to dispute the fact that the covenants are different and distinct. Is your concern that perhaps this breaks the continuity between the 2? That if there is a difference God becomes mutable?
> 
> The New Far exceedes the Old. Do we say, "Moses is the final authority on morals and ethics, listen to him? or do we listen to God when He commands us to listen to Christ. I vote for the "But I say unto you camp" There is presented a complete contrast between the old and the New, the Law and grace, and most importantly Christ and moses/Elijah.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt at all that my baptist brothers here believe the Gospel was preached in the OT. My question is, where??? All the OT had was the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. The "New Covenant" had not yet been revealed until Jer. 31, and even then not fully revealed until Christ. 

Furthermore, the Mosaic covenant was firmly based on the promise to Abraham (Ex. 1). It was a covenant of grace (Ex. 19) because Israel did nothing to obtain God's favor. The law was not given to them until after God bore them on eagles wings and redeemed them from Egypt and they trusted the promises of God, made also to Abraham. To interpret Hebrews and Gal. to be saying that the whole Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works makes Scripture contradict. Obedience was not new with Moses. Abraham was required to be blameless as well. And Exodus clearly plants the Mosaic administration upon the shoulders of Abraham. Hebrews 11 and 1 Cor. 10:4 clearly indicate they trusted in Christ. 

Everyone thus far has conceded the Mosaic law pointed to Christ, but no one has really dealt with how. The law exposed their sin sure. The law taught them there need of Christ, sure. But how? Here is where Hebrews comes in. All those OT types were the way God preached Christ to Israel. The whole cermonial system was the preaching of the Gospel in their age in conjunction with the repeating and building of the Abrahamic promise. How else would David understand that his sins were not imputed to Him? Could it be he was taught that through Moses? 

I'm not saying there is no discontinuity. But my baptist brothers here have not answered my question yet which is where I think the heart of the issue is as to the nature of that discontinuity. Was the gospel preached by Moses? Hebrews is saying YES! The issue in Hebrews is clearly that the types and shadows are NO LONGER needed to preach Christ, since Christ is fully revealed now. They have served their transient purpose. Their glory has faded just as the glory of Moses face had faded, but not faded because of failure, but faded in comparison to the greater glory revealed in Christ. God did not fail in the Mosaic covenant. The whole point was to teach men their own failure and need of propitiation and grace. Yet, at the same time, grace was truly offered them in those types. They are after all types of Christ. Through them Christ was offering Himself to Israel as their Savior.


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> I don't doubt at all that my baptist brothers here believe the Gospel was preached in the OT. My question is, where??? All the OT had was the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. The "New Covenant" had not yet been revealed until Jer. 31, and even then not fully revealed until Christ.



The Old Covenant is not a "where." The preaching of the gospel is transcovenantal. Its foundation and essence is the cutting of the New Covenant at the cross (1Cor 1:17-18).



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_Furthermore, the Mosaic covenant was firmly based on the promise to Abraham (Ex. 1).



This Baptist agrees with you here.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_It was a covenant of grace (Ex. 19)



Much agreed.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_Everyone thus far has conceded the Mosaic law pointed to Christ, but no one has really dealt with how.



Not only Sinai, but everthing preceding and following Sinai pointed to Christ and preached the gospel. The Israelite clans in bondage in Egypt points to the elect's initial bondage to sin. The Passover and Exodus event point to God's sovereign act of salvation that is by grace through faith. The drowning of the Egyptians points to the fact that the faithless will ultimately die in their sins. The giving of the law was a gracious act that revealed the Master's will to His people, and it pointed to the law written on the heart that accompanies regeneration and allows the elect to obey Christ. The constituting of the former slave clans as a nation points to the spiritual nation of priests, the bride of Christ. The entering the promised land points to that heavenly country to which Abraham looked (Heb 11). Exodus, Leviticus and Deuteronomy are particularly filled with gospel preaching.



> _Originally posted by puritansailor_Was the gospel preached by Moses? Hebrews is saying YES! The issue in Hebrews is clearly that the types and shadows are NO LONGER needed to preach Christ, since Christ is fully revealed now. They have served their transient purpose. Their glory has faded just as the glory of Moses face had faded, but not faded because of failure, but faded in comparison to the greater glory revealed in Christ. God did not fail in the Mosaic covenant. The whole point was to teach men their own failure and need of propitiation and grace. Yet, at the same time, grace was truly offered them in those types. They are after all types of Christ.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> So then there is no gospel in the Old Covenant?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick:
> 
> Phillip nor myself, nor Kevin are denying this.
> 
> There is way too much evidence presented in the writ to dispute the fact that the covenants are different and distinct. Is your concern that perhaps this breaks the continuity between the 2? That if there is a difference God becomes mutable?
> 
> The New Far exceedes the Old. Do we say, "Moses is the final authority on morals and ethics, listen to him? or do we listen to God when He commands us to listen to Christ. I vote for the "But I say unto you camp" There is presented a complete contrast between the old and the New, the Law and grace, and most importantly Christ and moses/Elijah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't doubt at all that my baptist brothers here believe the Gospel was preached in the OT. My question is, where??? All the OT had was the Old Covenant, not the New Covenant. The "New Covenant" had not yet been revealed until Jer. 31, and even then not fully revealed until Christ.
> 
> Furthermore, the Mosaic covenant was firmly based on the promise to Abraham (Ex. 1). It was a covenant of grace (Ex. 19) because Israel did nothing to obtain God's favor. The law was not given to them until after God bore them on eagles wings and redeemed them from Egypt and they trusted the promises of God, made also to Abraham. To interpret Hebrews and Gal. to be saying that the whole Mosaic covenant was a covenant of works makes Scripture contradict. Obedience was not new with Moses. Abraham was required to be blameless as well. And Exodus clearly plants the Mosaic administration upon the shoulders of Abraham. Hebrews 11 and 1 Cor. 10:4 clearly indicate they trusted in Christ.
> 
> Everyone thus far has conceded the Mosaic law pointed to Christ, but no one has really dealt with how. The law exposed their sin sure. The law taught them there need of Christ, sure. But how? Here is where Hebrews comes in. All those OT types were the way God preached Christ to Israel. The whole cermonial system was the preaching of the Gospel in their age in conjunction with the repeating and building of the Abrahamic promise. How else would David understand that his sins were not imputed to Him? Could it be he was taught that through Moses?
> 
> I'm not saying there is no discontinuity. But my baptist brothers here have not answered my question yet which is where I think the heart of the issue is as to the nature of that discontinuity. Was the gospel preached by Moses? Hebrews is saying YES! The issue in Hebrews is clearly that the types and shadows are NO LONGER needed to preach Christ, since Christ is fully revealed now. They have served their transient purpose. Their glory has faded just as the glory of Moses face had faded, but not faded because of failure, but faded in comparison to the greater glory revealed in Christ. God did not fail in the Mosaic covenant. The whole point was to teach men their own failure and need of propitiation and grace. Yet, at the same time, grace was truly offered them in those types. They are after all types of Christ. Through them Christ was offering Himself to Israel as their Savior.
Click to expand...


Patrick,

I am not a Baptist (due respect to my Baptist brothers) ---- I am a Presbyterian, United Reformed, Augustinian, Calvinist.......Amillinerian....

All I'm trying to say is, the understanding of what really (historically) took place in Eden with Covenant --- will set you up for how you read all of Scripture. The most important verse (we think) is Gen. 3:15. It is ground zero for what comes next -- how The Gospel travels throughout all of the OT (in type-shadow) up to when the Reality appears in Matthew. Also, this is why Jesus says "the Kingdom is at hand" because the Kingdom is the "theme" of all Scripture. "The Kingdom is Coming." (Gasp)

I don't have too much time right now...but Iwould love to share with you guys the fascinating-majestic story of the Gospel (the ONE Gospel) that travels from Gen. 3:15 ------is restated to the Patriarchs via the covenants in OT history, though Israel fails---is finally realized in Christ's first advent-when the Covenant-Vassal, succeeds & obeys the demands of the Great-Creator-King, YHWH---the same Gospel is upheld, as Christ (Prince of Peace) reigns in the hearts of His people -- as they war against the world, the flesh and the devil, until The Return of the King -- when He will consummate His original Promise to Adam. Though He has already conquered death -- death, sin and His enemies will finally and forever be conquered at His appearing.

There's much more to it...but frankly, this story is The Greatest Story Ever Told! What do you suppose Christ told the disciples on the road to Emmaus (Lk 24)? Didn't their hearts burn -- as He explained the OT to them? 

Joseph, there is _diversity_ in God's continuity, rather. There can be NO discontinuity in a Perfect Being.

Talk about PURPOSE --- there are important reasons why God says something and things happen in certain ways. Why all that blood, cutting, and anger in the OT? Why the rituals? Why???

More --- if you guys care....(I'm off for a while now...)

In Honor to the Warrior-King; the Faithful and True,

R.

[Edited on 4-8-2005 by Robin]


----------



## The Lamb

Does not a covenant have be be cut historically? I believe it does. To say that Sinai was a Covenant of Grace is a far stretch as I pointed out above. Then where is the covenant of works? THis double talk has plagued many CTers forever.

There is not a strong biblical evidence that the COG was cut at any specific time.

You can say it does, but that does not make it true.

Where does it say Moses, elijah preached grace? I am much happier with Christ, than Moses or Elijah. There is no comparrison. TO elevate the OC this high blends the prophets as almost equal to the Gopel Christ and Paul preached. Since Paul received the last and final revelation of the full Gospel, his teaching on this should be the bar.


The Mosaic Covenant was only for Israel, Not for the Gentiles.

I think it is significant to observe what happened in John Murray's booklet, The Covenant of Grace. His biblical-theological study led him to see in Scripture a plurality of covenants (p.26) culminating in the finality of the New Covenant (pp.28,31-32). He nowhere found in the Bible "one covenant of grace" variously administered. To be sure, in his other writings he states that such a covenant exists. But he did not find it in his Scriptural study with the title The Covenant of Grace. He uses only the phrase "covenant grace," but never "the covenant of grace." This again suggests the propriety of seeing "covenants" as historical manifestations, and of avoiding a "one covenant of grace" which stands above history. If we stick with the Biblical presentation of one "purpose" in Christ, and a plurality of covenants in history, we will avoid the confusion of Dispensationalism's earthly-purpose-for-Israel, heavenly-purpose-for-church theory, and the unnecessary assumptions of Covenant Theology


In His Grace


Joseph

[Edited on 4-8-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> ... This again suggests the propriety of seeing "covenants" as historical manifestations, and of avoiding a "one covenant of grace" which stands above history. If we stick with the Biblical presentation of one "purpose" in Christ, and a plurality of covenants in history, we will avoid the confusion of Dispensationalism's earthly-purpose-for-Israel, heavenly-purpose-for-church theory, and the unnecessary assumptions of Covenant Theology


----------



## kceaster

*Joseph....*

Don't go too far, brother. You are making a dichotomy where none exists. Are we comparing Jesus to Moses as men? Not at all. There is no comparison. However, when dealing with the Scriptures, we are not talking about the comparison between two personalities, but two truths that must align, if they are true.

This is a fundamental flaw of some people these days. They want to make it all about law and grace, or Moses and Christ, as if these things are separate. But since God wrote all of our theology, and not Moses or Paul, we have to assume that He is continuous in what He is revealing to us.

In other words,, some have claimed that Jesus, in His sermon on the mount, is disagreeing with Moses, or somehow showing the deficiency in Moses' message. But this cannot be, since Christ voiced them both. Moses is not some theologian preaching uninspired words. What Moses brings to us is the very Word of God, which is Christ.

So, for there to be a dichotomy, it would mean that Jesus is speaking out of both sides of His mouth. We know this is not the case. It is difficult at times to keep this in the center of our memory, but we must see it. The whole of Scripture is one. It is not divided between poor theology and rich theology.

Moses instructions in the OT are Christ speaking those words. If we claim anything else but this, we denigrate the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## doulosChristou

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> The whole of Scripture is one. It is not divided between poor theology and rich theology. Moses' instructions in the OT are Christ speaking those words. If we claim anything else but this, we denigrate the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures.



Yes, I have come more than ever to see that this is true. Very well said, Kevin.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> This is a fundamental flaw of some people these days. They want to make it all about law and grace, or Moses and Christ, as if these things are separate. But since God wrote all of our theology, and not Moses or Paul, we have to assume that He is continuous in what He is revealing to us.
> 
> In other words,, some have claimed that Jesus, in His sermon on the mount, is disagreeing with Moses, or somehow showing the deficiency in Moses' message. But this cannot be, since Christ voiced them both. Moses is not some theologian preaching uninspired words. What Moses brings to us is the very Word of God, which is Christ.
> 
> So, for there to be a dichotomy, it would mean that Jesus is speaking out of both sides of His mouth. We know this is not the case. It is difficult at times to keep this in the center of our memory, but we must see it. The whole of Scripture is one. It is not divided between poor theology and rich theology.
> 
> Moses instructions in the OT are Christ speaking those words. If we claim anything else but this, we denigrate the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



 Plus, the Ten Commandments are re-instated in the New Testament, Btw. They are not done away with --- but under Christ's mediation, we love God's Law (written on our hearts) and desire to do them. In fact, when we fail to do them, we are clothed in Christ's rightousness --- and to God, it is a though we did fulfill them perfectly, because we are IN Christ.

The Sermon on the Mount took the Law to the highest requirement -- to drive the hearers to despair and thus to Christ.

r.


----------



## The Lamb

Kevin:

Thank you for slowing me up alowing my mind to catch up with my hands.

My intention was not to imply the old is bad and the new is good. The old is from God, so how dare I say something like that. I was sent the following and perhaps it may help.


The Lord Jesus is the grand theme of both the New and Old Testament Scriptures which unifies all of the Bible as evidenced in Ephesians 1:7-10: 

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God's grace that he lavished on us with all wisdom and understanding. And he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, to be put into effect when the times will have reached their fulfillment--to bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even Christ.

the New Covenant as mediated by Christ is a brand NEW covenant, which totally replaces the Old Covenant: 

But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. But God found fault with the people and said "The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they did not remain faithful to my covenant, and I turned away from them, declares the Lord. This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time, declares the Lord. I will put my laws in their minds and write them on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, `Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest. For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more." By calling this covenant "new," he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear. 
(Hebrews 8:6-13) 

The Old Covenant was a covenant that God established with the ancient Nation of Israel only. The terms of this covenant were the Ten Commandments: 

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Write down these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel." Moses was there with the LORD forty days and forty nights without eating bread or drinking water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant--the Ten Commandments. 
(Exodus 34:27-28) 

Moses summoned all Israel and said: Hear, O Israel, the decrees and laws I declare in your hearing today. Learn them and be sure to follow them. The LORD our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. It was not with our fathers that the LORD made this covenant, but with us, with all of us who are alive here today. 
(Deuteronomy 5:1-3) 

The primary function of the Old Covenant was a ministry of death: 

He has made us competent as ministers of a new covenant--not of the letter but of the Spirit; for the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. Now if the ministry that brought death, which was engraved in letters on stone, came with glory, so that the Israelites could not look steadily at the face of Moses because of its glory, fading though it was, will not the ministry of the Spirit be even more glorious? If the ministry that condemns men is glorious, how much more glorious is the ministry that brings righteousness! For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts! 
(2 Corinthians 3:6-9) 


The Old Covenant was historically time-bound that the Israelites were obligated to obey perfectly until the promised seed of Abraham (Jesus Christ) would arrive: 

So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law. 
(Galatians 3:24-25) 

The New Covenant is a new and better covenant. Jesus Christ is the mediator of the New Covenant, which is founded on better promises: 

But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. 
(Hebrews 8:6) 

The New Covenant is made up of a totally regenerate membership since Christ has died only for His people (the elect) who receive the complete benefits of His reconciling work on the cross (Heb. 8:10-12; Heb. 7:25). Jesus Christ kept the terms of the Old Covenant perfectly, qualifying Him to be the substitutionary atonement and the spotless Lamb of God on behalf of the elect: 

But when the time had fully come, God sent his Son, born of a woman, born under law, to redeem those under law, that we might receive the full rights of sons. Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, "Abba, Father." So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir. 
(Galatians 4:4-7) 

All who rely on observing the law are under a curse, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who does not continue to do everything written in the Book of the Law." Clearly no one is justified before God by the law, because, "The righteous will live by faith." The law is not based on faith; on the contrary, "The man who does these things will live by them." Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us, for it is written: "Cursed is everyone who is hung on a tree." He redeemed us in order that the blessing given to Abraham might come to the Gentiles through Christ Jesus, so that by faith we might receive the promise of the Spirit. 
(Galatians 3:10-14) 

Since Jesus is the mediator of the New Covenant, He is the new Lawgiver and Lord of the church: 

If perfection could have been attained through the Levitical priesthood (for on the basis of it the law was given to the people), why was there still need for another priest to come--one in the order of Melchizedek, not in the order of Aaron? For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. 
(Hebrews 7:11-12) 

In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 
(Hebrews 1:1-3) 


The Old Covenant has been perfectly fulfilled in Christ and done away. God's law is still binding on the believer in the New Covenant era, but God´s righteous standards are contained in the Law of Christ, not the Law of Moses: 

To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God's law but am under Christ's law), so as to win those not having the law. 
(1 Corinthians 9:20-21) 

Carry each other's burdens, and in this way you will fulfill the law of Christ. (Galatians 6:2) 

We would agree that God had a gracious purpose in placing the nation of Israel under the law as a covenant. However, this does not make the Old Covenant a covenant of grace. Scripture indicates that the purpose of the Mosaic Law was to bring deep conviction of sin to those under the Old Covenant: 

What, then, was the purpose of the law? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come. 
(Galatians 3:19a) 

But those sacrifices are an annual reminder of sins, because it is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. 
(Hebrews 10:3-4) 

The Old Covenant (Mosaic Covenant, also called the First Covenant) is a legal, conditional covenant, not another administration of the Covenant of Grace. Although God had a gracious purpose for giving the Mosaic Covenant the covenant itself is a legal covenant that was intended to show the Israelites their sin. 


The nation of Israel is the "œunbelieving" people of God. Israel was a picture of the real people of God (the Church) that are fully revealed in the New Covenant era. Only a remnant of Israel were believers. 


The Abrahamic Covenant is a revealing of God´s plan of salvation through Abraham and his physical descendants. The true seed of Abraham is Jesus Christ and the believers are the true children of Abraham. 

The Law of Christ is the law in the New Covenant era. The issue is not whether or not believers in the New Covenant era are under law. The issue is which law are the believers under in this present era. 



Bunyan is also vedry interesting in the following

http://www.johnbunyan.org/text/bun-lawgrace.txt


----------



## VanVos

Well said Joseph.

VanVos


----------



## The Lamb

Well, Like I said, those were not my words, but they sounded very good to me. 

:bigsmile:


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The Law of Christ is the law in the New Covenant era. The issue is not whether or not believers in the New Covenant era are under law. The issue is which law are the believers under in this present era.



Wouldn't this issue of the role of the law also apply to OT believers? Were they not under the law of Christ?


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> The Law of Christ is the law in the New Covenant era. The issue is not whether or not believers in the New Covenant era are under law. The issue is which law are the believers under in this present era.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wouldn't this issue of the role of the law also apply to OT believers? Were they not under the law of Christ?
Click to expand...



I do not know what you are asking Patrick. Could you explain more please?

The LAw in the OT, is not the same is the Law intepreted through Christ in the NT is it?


----------



## kceaster

*Joseph....*

If we serve a God who has no shadow of turning, if Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, then how can the law in the NT be different from that of the old?

We do not disagree that part of the law was abrogated, i.e., the ceremonial, and priestly. But this is not because of a change in the law, but because Christ has fulfilled them.

The moral law, the law that is expounded in Deuteronomy and the decalogue, is a constant, never changing law that will never be abrogated because it is tied to the attribute of God. God will never allow these laws to be of no effect, nor allow breakers of this law to go unpunished.

When you hear people talk about the law of Christ, what they want to say is that Christ superceded the law of the old covenant and gave new standards. This is not true. Even though they would never admit this, the reason that they want to believe in a law of Christ, is because they see it as easier to obey and thus, be more righteous than the OT saint. Nothing could be further from the truth. If one takes the summary of the law in the two great commandments and think that they can obey them perfectly (or at least better than everyone else), then it is no different than the rich young ruler. He thought he had fulfilled the requirements of the law, but he missed the part about no one being righteous according to the law.

Be careful with this thinking. Just keep in mind that God never changes, nor does His attribute, nor does His holiness. If this is the case, the creature must obey the constant law of God.

Thankfully, God in His grace, has provided the One who obeyed perfectly on our behalf.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## Puritan Sailor

My point Joseph, as KC has well noted, is that salvation of OT believers is the same as the NT. If NT believers are under the law of Christ, then that also applies to the OT believers. Unless you are arguing that the OT believers were somehow saved in a different way or have a seperate salvation status, like some form of dispensationalism. Salvation has always been by way of the covenant of grace in Christ. The conditions and benefits have always been the same, though the detailed knowledge of that covenant has not always been the same.


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> My point Joseph, as KC has well noted, is that salvation of OT believers is the same as the NT. If NT believers are under the law of Christ, then that also applies to the OT believers. Unless you are arguing that the OT believers were somehow saved in a different way or have a seperate salvation status, like some form of dispensationalism. Salvation has always been by way of the covenant of grace in Christ. The conditions and benefits have always been the same, though the detailed knowledge of that covenant has not always been the same.




I believe they are part of the Conveant of redemption, which is gracious. But their daily acceptance on God was determined by their obedience to the Law. 

IF we say it is the same then and now, then how come we are not under the Law as Paul states?


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> If we serve a God who has no shadow of turning, if Christ is the same, yesterday, today, and forever, then how can the law in the NT be different from that of the old?
> 
> We do not disagree that part of the law was abrogated, i.e., the ceremonial, and priestly. But this is not because of a change in the law, but because Christ has fulfilled them.
> 
> The moral law, the law that is expounded in Deuteronomy and the decalogue, is a constant, never changing law that will never be abrogated because it is tied to the attribute of God. God will never allow these laws to be of no effect, nor allow breakers of this law to go unpunished.
> 
> When you hear people talk about the law of Christ, what they want to say is that Christ superceded the law of the old covenant and gave new standards. This is not true. Even though they would never admit this, the reason that they want to believe in a law of Christ, is because they see it as easier to obey and thus, be more righteous than the OT saint. Nothing could be further from the truth. If one takes the summary of the law in the two great commandments and think that they can obey them perfectly (or at least better than everyone else), then it is no different than the rich young ruler. He thought he had fulfilled the requirements of the law, but he missed the part about no one being righteous according to the law.
> 
> Be careful with this thinking. Just keep in mind that God never changes, nor does His attribute, nor does His holiness. If this is the case, the creature must obey the constant law of God.
> 
> Thankfully, God in His grace, has provided the One who obeyed perfectly on our behalf.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



God is immutible. I will never deny that. What I question is if God in eternity, decreed an event that appears to differ, is that the same as being immutible?


I am also not erring on the side of Antinomianism. Just like the rich young ruler, it did not matter to Christ that he said he did those things since he was youg, what mattered is that he had his faith in that and his possessions and not Christ.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> My point Joseph, as KC has well noted, is that salvation of OT believers is the same as the NT. If NT believers are under the law of Christ, then that also applies to the OT believers. Unless you are arguing that the OT believers were somehow saved in a different way or have a seperate salvation status, like some form of dispensationalism. Salvation has always been by way of the covenant of grace in Christ. The conditions and benefits have always been the same, though the detailed knowledge of that covenant has not always been the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are part of the Conveant of redemption, which is gracious. But their daily acceptance on God was determined by their obedience to the Law.
> 
> IF we say it is the same then and now, then how come we are not under the Law as Paul states?
Click to expand...


No. Their daily "acceptance" was a result of grace not obedience. The book of Exodus makes that plain as day. Israel was brought into the covenant not because of anything they had done, but because God was faithful to Abraham. God chose to love them and deliver them and then to give them the law. 

Perhaps you are not clearly defining "acceptance." I understand it to be accepted in God's sight, which can only be done with the imputed righteousness of Christ. If you mean by obedience or disobedience we can incur the Father's pleasure or discipline, then I would agree. 

When Paul states we are not under law, he is refering to the law as a means of justification (Gal. 3).


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> My point Joseph, as KC has well noted, is that salvation of OT believers is the same as the NT. If NT believers are under the law of Christ, then that also applies to the OT believers. Unless you are arguing that the OT believers were somehow saved in a different way or have a seperate salvation status, like some form of dispensationalism. Salvation has always been by way of the covenant of grace in Christ. The conditions and benefits have always been the same, though the detailed knowledge of that covenant has not always been the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are part of the Conveant of redemption, which is gracious. But their daily acceptance on God was determined by their obedience to the Law.
> 
> IF we say it is the same then and now, then how come we are not under the Law as Paul states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. Their daily "acceptance" was a result of grace not obedience. The book of Exodus makes that plain as day. Israel was brought into the covenant not because of anything they had done, but because God was faithful to Abraham. God chose to love them and deliver them and then to give them the law.
> 
> Perhaps you are not clearly defining "acceptance." I understand it to be accepted in God's sight, which can only be done with the imputed righteousness of Christ. If you mean by obedience or disobedience we can incur the Father's pleasure or discipline, then I would agree.
> 
> When Paul states we are not under law, he is refering to the law as a means of justification (Gal. 3).
Click to expand...



Yes Patrick.

It is all gracious. I am speaking of after being chosen. The "changing" of Gods attitude towrds His people was dependant upon the blessings and curses in Deut.

I agree with Paul then!!!!!!!!!!!

We obey out of Love. Israel had to obey out of fear.


----------



## Canadian Baptist

Not exactly sure about this, and don't have a bible with me, but Galatians says that the Law was our tutor to bring us to Christ and that once faith came there was no need for that tutor any more. Now this could not fully apply under the Sinai covenant which David was under even though the Law drove him to "the one who does not impute sin" because of His grace. David was still required to carry out all the "tutor" commanded whether ceremonial or not, yet he was under grace and was not looking to the Law for justification. In the New Covenant it changes in this regard. They are not exactly the same. The Law drives us to Christ and then the blessings are ours by the same faith as David yet our covenant is definitely different in its expression and fulfilment. David was not threatened with judgment during that Old covenant even when he failed to do "all that was in the book of the Law" without fault. However, the unbelieving Jews in that same period could not receive the same blessing without faith. The Covenants of Works and Grace seem to run concurrently throughout the ages. If you are not in Christ, then you are in Adam and expected to render sinless perfection. 
Soli Deo Gloria,
Darrin


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> My point Joseph, as KC has well noted, is that salvation of OT believers is the same as the NT. If NT believers are under the law of Christ, then that also applies to the OT believers. Unless you are arguing that the OT believers were somehow saved in a different way or have a seperate salvation status, like some form of dispensationalism. Salvation has always been by way of the covenant of grace in Christ. The conditions and benefits have always been the same, though the detailed knowledge of that covenant has not always been the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are part of the Conveant of redemption, which is gracious. But their daily acceptance on God was determined by their obedience to the Law.
> 
> IF we say it is the same then and now, then how come we are not under the Law as Paul states?
Click to expand...


Joseph,

Paul does not mean we are anti-nomians --- Lawless. Paul means as we are IN Christ - Christ kept the Law for us. So, we too, share in Christ's perfection. If we are truly His -- we will desire to keep the Law and obey Christ (out of gratitude) - and be really upset when we fail. Actually (and I know it doesn't look like it) we are given the ability to "keep the Law" IN Christ - resting, trusting in His merits. Think about His works, Joseph. Cease looking inward (navel-gazing), my brother! Look away from yourself and look to Christ!

Joseph, our horrible, pitiful, weak, wicked, conceited, God-hating behavior continues -- though we are IN Christ! But the eyes of Faith (believing the Gospel) sees beyond our wretchedness---as we cling to Christ.

As said before, Christ re-instates the Law in the NT up to the 'enth degree! For those reprobate, hearing this will make them think they are keeping the Law just fine...or that it's possible to keep it (Sermon on the Mount.) But for the elect, their response will be like Peter's (as in Matthew 19:25- rich young ruler.)

R.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joseph,
Do a search for the word law in the NT. You will assuredly see that that is not what Paul meant. The OT saint was not saved by adhering or keeping the law. It has always been by justification by Christs blood, else there is 2 ways of salvation.

[Edited on 4-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> My point Joseph, as KC has well noted, is that salvation of OT believers is the same as the NT. If NT believers are under the law of Christ, then that also applies to the OT believers. Unless you are arguing that the OT believers were somehow saved in a different way or have a seperate salvation status, like some form of dispensationalism. Salvation has always been by way of the covenant of grace in Christ. The conditions and benefits have always been the same, though the detailed knowledge of that covenant has not always been the same.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe they are part of the Conveant of redemption, which is gracious. But their daily acceptance on God was determined by their obedience to the Law.
> 
> IF we say it is the same then and now, then how come we are not under the Law as Paul states?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph,
> 
> Paul does not mean we are anti-nomians --- Lawless. Paul means as we are IN Christ - Christ kept the Law for us. So, we too, share in Christ's perfection. If we are truly His -- we will desire to keep the Law and obey Christ (out of gratitude) - and be really upset when we fail. Actually (and I know it doesn't look like it) we are given the ability to "keep the Law" IN Christ - resting, trusting in His merits. Think about His works, Joseph. Cease looking inward (navel-gazing), my brother! Look away from yourself and look to Christ!
> 
> Joseph, our horrible, pitiful, weak, wicked, conceited, God-hating behavior continues -- though we are IN Christ! But the eyes of Faith (believing the Gospel) sees beyond our wretchedness---as we cling to Christ.
> 
> As said before, Christ re-instates the Law in the NT up to the 'enth degree! For those reprobate, hearing this will make them think they are keeping the Law just fine...or that it's possible to keep it (Sermon on the Mount.) But for the elect, their response will be like Peter's (as in Matthew 19:25- rich young ruler.)
> 
> R.
Click to expand...



Robin:

If I may interject something here. From reading the tone or your response here and other places, it appears to me as if you "think" I am in some early, milk fed predicamant about these issues.

I am far from a scholar, but this is not my first week with these subjects. Did you read my post above in reference to the outline presented about the Law and Grace?

May I also asked why everyone that elevates grace above the Law, which BTW is perfectly correct to do, are we cast as antinomians?

If you can please show me where I have in any way proposed lawlessness, I will repent immediately.

Let me attempt to represent the position I believe is warranted by the Writ.


1. With a change in the priesthood, from Levitical to Melchizedek, there must also be a change in the law. Hebrews 7:12 

2. The Mosaic Law was weak and useless. Hebrews 7:18 

3. The New Covenant is a better covenant and is made on better promises. Hebrews 7:22, Hebrews 8:6 

4. The tabernacle of the Israelites was a copy and shadow of what was in heaven. Hebrews 8:5 

5. The first covenant, Mosaic Covenant, was faulty. Hebrews 8:7 

6. God found fault with the Israelites. Hebrews 8:8 

7. The New Covenant guarantees a new heart. Hebrews 8:10-11 

8. Everyone who is a recipient of the New Covenant receives its benefits. Hebrews 8:11 

9. The Old Covenant is obsolete and will disappear. Hebrews 8:13 




Hebrews 3:7- 4:2 
1. The redemption that Israel experienced by crossing through the Red Sea was only a picture of true redemption. They were, as a whole, rejected for their unbelief. 

2. The Israelites under Moses had the gospel preached to them and they rejected it. 


2 Corinthians 3:7-18 
1. The Mosaic Covenant is described as the ministry that brought death. 

2. The Israelites are described as having the veil of unbelief over their faces whenever they read the Old Covenant (Mosaic Law). 


Romans 11 
1. Only a small portion (remnant) of the nation of Israel were really believers. 

2. It was prophesied that Israel would never, except for the remnant, be a believing people. 

Isaiah 6:8-13 (quoted in Matthew 13), Deuteronomy 39:1-4 (quoted in Romans 11) 


The Elects State Is Not One Of Lawlessness 

In emphasizing the important truth that the believer is not under the Law, because, if a Jew he was delivered from the yoke of the Law by the death of Christ, and if a Gentile he was never under the Law at all, must not obscure the important fact that the state of the believer is not one of lawlessness - far from it. What is spoken of in Romans 7 as "the Law" is the Law given to the Israelites through Moses. That Law was by no means a complete statement of God's requirements, though it was quite sufficient for the purpose of revealing the presence of sin in the flesh, for demonstrating the utter corruption of human nature, and for making manifest the exceeding sinfulness of sin. The teachings of Jesus Christ showed that the full requirements of God's holiness and righteousness are far above those of the Law of Moses. "You have heard that it was said by (or to) them of old, You shall not kill...But I say to you, Whoever is angry with his brother without a cause, etc." (Matt. 5:21-48). 

The believer of this dispensation is not living under the Law of Moses. That law was given for the regulation of the conduct of men in the flesh. The believer is "not in the flesh, but in the Spirit." (Rom. 8:9). He is not, therefore, in the sphere in which the Law of Moses was effective. 

The child of God, though not under the Law of Moses, is "not without Law to God, but in-law to Christ" (ennomous Christou, 1 Cor. 9:21). He owns the risen Christ as His Lord, and judges that his entire life in the body is to be lived no longer unto himself, but unto Him who died for him and rose again (2 Cor. 5:15). Being in the Spirit he is to be governed by "the law of the Spirit" (Rom. 8:2). Being in Christ he is to "fulfill the law of Christ" (Gal. 6:2). This is a condition very different from that of the Israelite under the Law of Moses, and on a much higher plane. The life of the child of God is not a life hedged about by constraints and prohibitions, but a life of liberty in which he is free to follow all the leadings of the Spirit, and all the inclinations of the new nature which the Spirit imparts to those whom He quickens. It is a life of freedom - not freedom to sin, but freedom not to sin. He who practices sin is the slave of sin; only the free man can refuse obedience to the demands of sin, and yield himself to God as one who is alive from the dead. The Word of God abounds in directions addressed to the children of God, by which their walk, while yet in the body, is to be guided and controlled. These directions are found in the commandments of Christ, and in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul, whom the risen Lord empowered to be the channel for the revelation of His special communications to and concerning the Church. And these directions are illustrated by all the holy Scriptures, the things which happened to the Israelites having been written, not for our imitation, but for our admonition (1 Cor. 10:11). 

The believer has been called into liberty; and he is exhorted to stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made him free (Gal. 5:1). Yet he is not to use his liberty so as to furnish occasions for gratifying the desires of his old nature (Gal. 5:13). Having been brought, through the resurrection of Christ, into the sphere of the Spirit, the believer is commanded to remain there; that is, to be occupied with and interested in the things of the Spirit. While so engaged he cannot at the same time be fulfilling the desires of the flesh. "This I say then, walk in [or by] the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the desires of the flesh" (Gal. 5:16). "If you be led of the Spirit you are not under the Law" (Gal. 5:18). 

Ephesians, which especially reveals the position of believers as quickened together with Christ, raised up (i.e. ascended) together with Him, and seated together in the heavenlies in Christ, abounds in practical directions for the believer's guidance in all his earthly relations. We...call attention to them in order to guard against the supposition that, because the believer of this dispensation is not under the Law of Moses, he is therefore in a state of lawlessness. 




Again let me present these facts as presented to me by a fellow believer.

1. That the sufferings of Christ were incurred for the sins of His people, that is to say, the sins of those whom God justifies upon the principle of faith. 
2. That the death of Christ delivers the believing sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, rom the servitude of sin. 

3. That the death of Christ also brought the economy of the Law to an end, and delivered all converted Israelites from the yoke of the Law. 

4. That the resurrection of Christ brings all believers into the sphere of a new humanity, where there is a new life, whose Source is the risen Christ, which life is imparted by the Spirit of God to the believer while the later is yet in the mortal body. 

5. That believers, though not under the Law of Moses, are governed by the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and are required to "fulfill the law of Christ."


----------



## Scott Bushey

Joe,
The issue of contention here is when one believes the new covenant began..............The CT believes it happened far before the cross. Jesus' emphasis is not on the word new as you believe it to be.

[Edited on 4-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## The Lamb

The Blessed William Cunningham, who was portrayed by some as antinomian, was far from it. Al he did was elevate Grace, which cannot be elevated to high, while leaving the Law in its place.

Here are some exccerpts from him...


"I come now to make a modest inquiry, whether the decalogue of itself, exclusive of the promises and other parts of scripture, be a sufficient, and a scriptural rule for the real Christian's life, walk, and conversation."


The word "rule" in scripture chiefly means two things; first, dominion, government, or authority, either given of God, or usurped; "by me princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth," Prov. viii. 16; and again, "as for my people, women rule over them," Isa. iii. 12. But the law as a covenant of works is not to reign and rule over a believer, no; "Sin shall not have dominion over you; for ye are not under the law, but under grace," Rom. vi. 14, we are under the law in no other sense than to Christ, 1 Cor. ix. 21. Christ is the believer's supreme head and ruler"“"Out of thee shall he come forth unto me, that is to be the Ruler in Israel, whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting," Mich. v. 2.


the decalogue can never be; for life comes not by working, or walking; life is the gift of God, a blessing of the covenant of grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus, before the world began, and so before there was any law at all;. nor is spiritual life kept up, either by working, or walking, but by believing; nor is it treasured up in the law; for Christ is our life, and we "live by the faith of the Son of God; he that believeth, hath everlasting life; he that liveth and believeth, shall never die." The decalogue is neither the fountain nor the rule of divine life to a Christian; for the law quickens none; divine life came from another fountain, and is kept up by another rule.


As it is not a rule of divine life, let us try it as a rule of direction for a believer to lay all that he does, and all that befals him in this life too. We will, in the first place, bring some of the actions of former saints, and some of our own also, and lay them to the decalogue, as the only rule, and see how they will fit.

I believe there are any ministers who labour often at the law, for fear that the pure liberty of the Spirit of God (which David calls a free spirit) should lead to licentiousness. But if the Spirit of love is not sufficient to constrain, the terrors of hell will not be sufficient to deter; and if the spirit of love will not produce good fruits, the pains of hell will never extort them; he that feels the most law terrors; feels also the most enmity to God.


And that minister that is always setting the law of Moses as a rule of life before all ranks of Christians, young and old, goes the ready way to bring them, whom God has justified, a second time to judgment, by setting the terrors of the judge before the child, instead of the bowels of the Father.


I have often observed, when I have been hearing a sermon, and the power of God has attended the pure truth that has been delivered, so that the dew of heaven seemed to drop upon every branch, Job, xxix. 19, when the conclusion has drawn near, a word of caution to the just, a word of warning to the wicked, has been sufficient to dry up all the dew that fell on the floor, Judges, vi. 39, and to wither all the budding hopes that moved in the weakling's heart; we cannot call this keeping the best wine till the last. This is more like the profuse cow that gives a pailful of milk and then kicks it over the milkmaid.

This is a method of preaching, rarely to be found in the ministry of Christ, the apostles, and the prophets: where you have one instance of this, you have five of another method: they generally described the saint and the sinner, gave the promise to the one, and the judgment as a warning to the other, and applied as they went on; and either concluded with exhortation, or finished abruptly, and left the dew where it fell. Hence it is, that we often find through many of the prophets, here an unconditional promise, and there is a dreadful judgment denounced: thus they are intermixed, and scattered up and down throughout the Bible; and the new-born heir of promise will be sure as soon as he feels the use of the hand of faith, to go after the good old reapers, and glean them up.

Therefore God does not always awaken sinners by the application of a law sentence; so far from it, that it is visibly seen to a demonstration that those who deal most in law terrors, have the least success and the foulest church; for the broken hearted fly from the storm, and embrace the rock for the want of a shelter, Job, xxiv. 8, while the eye-servant, the refined pharisee, the hardened hypocrite, and the sleepy formalist stand it out; having no more sensation than a woolpack. We may compare these to a troop of horse, or a blacksmith's dog, they are not afraid of fire. There is no domestic animal more in the way than a fire spaniel, and no greater plague to a preacher than an hardened hypocrite.

Nor can I call it faithful preaching in any sense; for if the law be preached to incline, reform, amend, convert, and bring to Christ, it is set about a work that it never was intended to do. God turns the sinner, makes him willing, puts his fear in his heart, and draws him to Christ, and by love unites him with him. This power is promised in the gospel, hence the gospel is called the power of God to salvation. And if such a preacher takes a gospel text, and delivers it in his accustomed law spirit, it is still the same; for though the text be a part of the word of the Lord that went forth from Jerusalem, yet the earthquake, the wind, and the fire is still from Horeb. Whereas, if the Spirit, as well as the text, had been from Jerusalem, we might hope that the same wind and fire (that once shook the apostles house, and inflamed their hearts) would have attended it more or less.


Nor is such preaching dealing faithfuly with poor sinners, for such "are but ministers of the letter, and the letter killeth," 2 Cor. iii. 6. The man that sounds an alarm from Sinai, should plainly point out the door of hope, Hos. ii. 15, and he that thunders from the storm, should never forget to clear the road to the refuge.


Legal preaching supports the fear of a criminal, and has a tendency to stir up an unbearable malice against God himself. This may be seen with a witness among the arminians, who have obscured the light of the gospel, and confounded and blinded their hearers with the smoke of the law, till the effects of their ministry is seen conspicuous on the faces of the hearers; poor souls have been rallied with the tempest, till the thunder is fixed on their visages. Not long ago this excellent paragraph was delivered from one of their pulpits, "Up and be doing; now is the time to get your names written in the Lamb's Book of Life; no decree, no eternal decree! no Lord, that be far from thee; that be far from thee, Lord."


No encouragement here; poor comfort, and worse, establishment: such are like the wool culver [or wild pigeon] whose perpetual note is doo, doo; and any country boy that is noted for rifling birds' nest, will tell you, that they are the worst builders in all the wood; or, as the Saviour says, they say, and do not. I hope God will serve them as he did Job, who wrapped himself up so secure in his own merit, that he hoped to die in it. "I was a father to the poor, and the cause which I knew not, I searched out; and I broke the jaws of the wicked, and plucked the spoil out of his teeth, [these were good fruits, but no Saviour]; then I said I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand," Job, xxix. 16, 17, 18. But God sent a storm that tore all his nest to pieces; and when he was illuminated more clearly, he forsook the tree, and built in the rock, and made a better nest at the end than at the beginning.

Therefore cleave thou to Christ, and let his whole revealed mind and will be thy rule. Moses and his legal works; Elijah and his fiery zeal, willingly withdrew [as good servants ought] from the mount, while the disciples were with Jesus, Matt. xvii. 1. And when you hear men pointing the hardened and impenitent sinner to the blood of Christ, and sending happy souls to Moses' law for a rule, and a yoke, regard not every "lo here, and ho there," Matt. xxiv. 23, but go to Christ for both your rule and your yoke. If thou art a believer, go not to Sinai, but cleave to another mount, as Isaiah tells you in his vision; "And it shall come to pass in the last days [mark that], that the mountain of the Lord's house [that is Christ, compare with Dan. ii. 35,] shall be established in the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills; and all nations shall flow unto it. And many people shall go and say, come ye and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob, and he will teach us of his ways, and we will walk in his paths. For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem," Isa. ii. 1, 2, 3. There is your rule Christian [the law and the word]; see thou that ye go not to Moses for a yoke; stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has "made you free, and be not again entangled with the yoke of bondage," Gal. v. 1, but take your yoke and rule from your only master and ruler, as he commands thee. "Come unto me all ye that labour [under the legal yoke] and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest; take my yoke upon you, and learn of me, for I am meek and lowly in heart, and ye shall find rest unto your souls, for my yoke is easy , and my burden is light," Matt. xi. 29, 30.


When you hear men telling you, that they know of no other, rule than the decalogue, nor of any other assured hope of salvation, than that "those who endure to the end shall he saved," tell them to take their bibles and look again. A heart-felt union kept up by faith, prayer, and watchfulness, is the only way to be fruitful. If thou sufferest thyself to be beguiled out of this, and art led to Moses, thou wilt soon get the yoke of bondage on thy neck; and when that is fixed by legal preaching, thy heart will get hard; thy spirit will get narrow and contracted, 2 Cor. vi. 12; thou wilt be racked with cruel jealousy, inwardly galled at the happiness, prosperity, or success of another; you will then be a prating about good works being meritorious, while thy own soul is secretly led captive by the devil at his will, and thy own conscience will accuse thee for it; but being hardened, thou wilt not regard conscience. Thou wilt then hold the closest communion with those who are bound in the spirit of bondage with thee; and all thy conversation will be railing at those who are more happy in the Lord than thyself Yea, thou wilt at times obscure plain truth; or even dare to pervert the word of God, in order to entangle others in thy own bondage; because their heavenly frames will gall your bitter spirits; thus a company of Moses' advocates pull one another into the bush together I have been through all these blind straits, and know them as well as any one that shoots in secret at me. And I know that "this is the foolishness of him that perverteth his way, and his heart fretteth against the Lord," Prov. xix. 3.


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Joe,
> The issue of contention here is when one believes the new covenant began..............The CT believes it happened far before the cross. Jesus' emphasis is not on the word new as you believe it to be.
> 
> [Edited on 4-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]




To a CTER that is true Scott. But for a Covenant to begin, there has to be historical evidence of it being cut. And none exists. 

Jesus' emphasis is on Him. And His grace alone, not the Law.

To blend the old and elevate to something that was never intended is to make the cross and His blood none effect in my humble opinion.

IT is NEw, it is glorious and it is far better.

The Law does not awaken a sinner, Gods grace does. 

I am much more comfortable with biblical language. And Scripture presents and eternal purpose in Christ. Not necesarily a cov of Grace from eternity.

Yes they were saved exactly the same, but the Law was intended only for Israel. and the promise to Abraham was for the gentiles and Abraham saw this and rejoiced.


The New Covenant is the pivotal point in redemptive history. From the saying of Christ, "it is finished," we must observe something very important. The earthly accomplishment of redemption by the Messiah is both the culmination of (1) the eternal purpose (1 Pet.1:20), and (2) the historic process (Gal.4:4). In other words, the ordained plan prior to history, and redemptive history itself come to focus and fulfillment only by Christ sealing the New Covenant with His blood. This "blood" was both "foreordained" in eternity and typified in the sacrificial blood of the Mosaic era.


----------



## Robin

Hello, Joseph,

I did not mean to imply I thought you were anti-nomian, brother...nor a novice. Please excuse me, if you felt hurt...I certainly did not intend any harm. (Your signature says you are struggling.)

I do differ with you on some crucial points, though. Things may be better served by posing a couple rather pointed questions to all of us....

When we encounter a fellow Christian struggling with on-going sin (whatever it is)...do we speak the Law to them or the Gospel? Do they need to hear the Law or the Gospel? 

What incites advancing levels of sanctification in the Christian life? Law or Gospel?

I think these are important questions.

R.


----------



## Poimen

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> This is a fundamental flaw of some people these days. They want to make it all about law and grace, or Moses and Christ, as if these things are separate. But since God wrote all of our theology, and not Moses or Paul, we have to assume that He is continuous in what He is revealing to us.
> 
> In other words,, some have claimed that Jesus, in His sermon on the mount, is disagreeing with Moses, or somehow showing the deficiency in Moses' message. But this cannot be, since Christ voiced them both. Moses is not some theologian preaching uninspired words. What Moses brings to us is the very Word of God, which is Christ.
> 
> So, for there to be a dichotomy, it would mean that Jesus is speaking out of both sides of His mouth. We know this is not the case. It is difficult at times to keep this in the center of our memory, but we must see it. The whole of Scripture is one. It is not divided between poor theology and rich theology.
> 
> Moses instructions in the OT are Christ speaking those words. If we claim anything else but this, we denigrate the inspiration and inerrancy of the Scriptures.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plus, the Ten Commandments are re-instated in the New Testament, Btw. They are not done away with --- but under Christ's mediation, we love God's Law (written on our hearts) and desire to do them. In fact, when we fail to do them, we are clothed in Christ's rightousness --- and to God, it is a though we did fulfill them perfectly, because we are IN Christ.
> 
> The Sermon on the Mount took the Law to the highest requirement -- to drive the hearers to despair and thus to Christ.
> 
> r.
Click to expand...


Amen!


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Hello, Joseph,
> 
> I did not mean to imply I thought you were anti-nomian, brother...nor a novice. Please excuse me, if you felt hurt...I certainly did not intend any harm. (Your signature says you are struggling.)
> 
> I do differ with you on some crucial points, though. Things may be better served by posing a couple rather pointed questions to all of us....
> 
> When we encounter a fellow Christian struggling with on-going sin (whatever it is)...do we speak the Law to them or the Gospel? Do they need to hear the Law or the Gospel?
> 
> What incites advancing levels of sanctification in the Christian life? Law or Gospel?
> 
> I think these are important questions.
> 
> R.





The gospel is the answer to both.


IF the LAw is presented as the cure it will only cause more dispair.

I am struggling also Robin. With my faith and sin. Thank you for noticing.




Joseph

[Edited on 4-12-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: ) 
Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains: 
Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house: 
Mat 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes. 
Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days! 
Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day: 




[Edited on 4-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by Scott Bushey_
> Mat 5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
> 
> Mat 24:15 When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand: )
> Mat 24:16 Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
> Mat 24:17 Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
> Mat 24:18 Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
> Mat 24:19 And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
> Mat 24:20 But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 4-12-2005 by Scott Bushey]





Scott:

Scott. It has been fulfilled. By our glorious Savior.

The LAw had and has its place, but because of Gods Glorious plan, it is now Grace and Grace Alone.

Nomiano Christo is not part of the 5 Solas!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## kceaster

*Joseph...*

Our contention is that it has always been grace. Look at the faith chapter of Hebrews. If faith is there and is the reason for justification, then it is grace that has brought that faith.

Abel is the first mentioned. Did his sacrifice please God because he obeyed the law, YES, but he obeyed the law because of the faith God gave him.

The law may not be obeyed by any after Adam. It cannot justify anyone. Therefore, those who are justified are justified by faith. And faith is a gift of God, lest anyone should boast.

Also, our tutor would be most ineffective if it were not for faith. The law can point out all of our sin and show us our need for a savior, but without faith, we cannot embrace that Savior.

Wherever faith is, grace is. And faith has been since the beginning.

So stating as you have that law is no longer, but grace is, you are actually creating another salvation in the OT, and a salvation without law in the NT.

No one is arguing that we keep the law in order to be saved. We are arguing that grace does not place us outside of law. God's grace helps us to keep it, not perfectly, and certainly not savingly, but nonetheless, God's standard is that we be holy, set apart for good works that He created for us beforehand.

So, grace is not devoid of law. You need to understand that. Grace would not be grace without the law, because without the law, we are not condemned. Where there is no law, there is no sin.

The grace you espouse is a grace that infuses righteousness. The grace that you espouse makes men to be without sin. And this is incorrect. We are sinners, and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, while our sin is imputed to Him. Law must figure in here somewhere, because without law there is no sin.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> Our contention is that it has always been grace. Look at the faith chapter of Hebrews. If faith is there and is the reason for justification, then it is grace that has brought that faith.
> 
> Abel is the first mentioned. Did his sacrifice please God because he obeyed the law, YES, but he obeyed the law because of the faith God gave him.
> 
> The law may not be obeyed by any after Adam. It cannot justify anyone. Therefore, those who are justified are justified by faith. And faith is a gift of God, lest anyone should boast.
> 
> Also, our tutor would be most ineffective if it were not for faith. The law can point out all of our sin and show us our need for a savior, but without faith, we cannot embrace that Savior.
> 
> Wherever faith is, grace is. And faith has been since the beginning.
> 
> So stating as you have that law is no longer, but grace is, you are actually creating another salvation in the OT, and a salvation without law in the NT.
> 
> No one is arguing that we keep the law in order to be saved. We are arguing that grace does not place us outside of law. God's grace helps us to keep it, not perfectly, and certainly not savingly, but nonetheless, God's standard is that we be holy, set apart for good works that He created for us beforehand.
> 
> So, grace is not devoid of law. You need to understand that. Grace would not be grace without the law, because without the law, we are not condemned. Where there is no law, there is no sin.
> 
> The grace you espouse is a grace that infuses righteousness. The grace that you espouse makes men to be without sin. And this is incorrect. We are sinners, and Christ's righteousness is imputed to us, while our sin is imputed to Him. Law must figure in here somewhere, because without law there is no sin.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



I do not believe I am espousing anything of the sort. In romans Paul explains without the Law, the Gentiles were still sinners.

Kevin. There is no other way of salvation. The imputed righteoussness of Christ.. Period. THe same in the OT as the NT.

How can we be both under the law and not under the law?

Perhaps we need to determine what purpose the Law now serves.


----------



## The Lamb

Again let me present these facts as presented to me by a fellow believer.

1. That the sufferings of Christ were incurred for the sins of His people, that is to say, the sins of those whom God justifies upon the principle of faith. 
2. That the death of Christ delivers the believing sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, rom the servitude of sin. 

3. That the death of Christ also brought the economy of the Law to an end, and delivered all converted Israelites from the yoke of the Law. 

4. That the resurrection of Christ brings all believers into the sphere of a new humanity, where there is a new life, whose Source is the risen Christ, which life is imparted by the Spirit of God to the believer while the later is yet in the mortal body. 

5. That believers, though not under the Law of Moses, are governed by the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and are required to "fulfill the law of Christ."



that minister that is always setting the law of Moses as a rule of life before all ranks of Christians, young and old, goes the ready way to bring them, whom God has justified, a second time to judgment, by setting the terrors of the judge before the child, instead of the bowels of the Father

[Edited on 4-12-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## kceaster

*Joseph...*

If I might, I'll deal with these one by one.



> 1. That the sufferings of Christ were incurred for the sins of His people, that is to say, the sins of those whom God justifies upon the principle of faith.



Yes, Christ is the propitiation of our sins. And we receive this pardon and His righteousness is imputed to us when received only by faith in Him.



> 2. That the death of Christ delivers the believing sinner, whether Jew or Gentile, rom the servitude of sin.



Yes, we are no longer servants of sin, but bondslaves of Jesus Christ. Now, what is required of us as bondslaves? It is obedience to His revealed will. We merit nothing by this obedience. We are unprofitable servants whose duty it is to obey the will of God. 



> 3. That the death of Christ also brought the economy of the Law to an end, and delivered all converted Israelites from the yoke of the Law.



In stating this, you automatically imply that the yoke was a means of being right with God and His law. However, covenant faithfulness has always been by means of a mediator, that is, Christ. The grace during the law is no different than the grace after Christ. It is fully revealed, to be sure. But grace made the unrighteous, righteous. Grace made the unjustified, justified. There is no end to the law. This is why Christ said that He came not to destroy it, but to fulfill it. The law does not annul the promise of grace, it establishes it.

Now, just because it is fulfilled does not mean that it is abrogated for the believer. The yoke you speak of has always been on our necks. But because of Christ, we do not chafe at it, it is not a burden we cannot bear. But again, we do not bear it for salvation's sake and neither did the Jews.



> 4. That the resurrection of Christ brings all believers into the sphere of a new humanity, where there is a new life, whose Source is the risen Christ, which life is imparted by the Spirit of God to the believer while the later is yet in the mortal body.



Agreed, as long as the OT saints are not excluded from this company who have new life in Christ imparted by the Spirit. 



> 5. That believers, though not under the Law of Moses, are governed by the Law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus, and are required to "fulfill the law of Christ."



There is no dichotomy between the law of Moses and the law of Christ. They are one in the same. The law delivered by Moses is the law written with the finger of God. It is the Word of God, and as we now know, the Word became flesh and dwelt among us. Christ spoke all the words of the OT, as well as all the words of the NT. Since there is no contradiction, then the law is the same.

Therefore, the law that governs the Christian is the same law delivered in the garden, delivered to Abraham, delivered to Moses, delivered to David, delivered to Peter, delivered to Paul.



> that minister that is always setting the law of Moses as a rule of life before all ranks of Christians, young and old, goes the ready way to bring them, whom God has justified, a second time to judgment, by setting the terrors of the judge before the child, instead of the bowels of the Father



No. No. And No. Our rule for faith and practice is found in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments. It is not misuse of the law of the OT that brings terror and judgment. It is the misinterpretation of required obedience that brings the terror and judgment. We do not save ourselves by keeping the law. The Reformed have never believed this. But we would say that the Scriptures are the rule because God has called us to be holy and perfect. A royal priesthood. We do not do as the Galatian church, nor are we preaching righteousness by works.

Obedience to law is not the problem. Thinking that we can please God without faith is the problem.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## The Lamb

Kevin:

You truley are a gracious brother. The last part was not an implication to you or anyone here. I have concurred with this observation of Cunningham. The elevation of the law, this constant law preaching of the Puritans led to a legalism, a conditionalism, that was never intended.


You state: The law does not annul the promise of grace, it establishes it.


Of course it doesnt Kevin. But grace fullfills the Law. The 10, the tablets of stone were for the Israelites only. I do not believe this was from the beginning. Scripture says it was "added".

Anyway, we are not that far off. I perhaps have not been clear


In His grace

Joseph

[Edited on 4-12-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## Robin

.....As once, a wise teacher, put it to me...

Does God require Works to attain salvation?

*Yes*---God requires works to earn salvation! (gasp)

Only the works of Christ obtained salvation.



Robin


----------



## The Lamb

Here are 2 more questions.

1) Does the Law justify? 

2) If not, then why would Christs keeping it completely merit anything for our salvation?


Joseph


----------



## kceaster

*Joseph....*



> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Here are 2 more questions.
> 
> 1) Does the Law justify?



Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.

No, the law does not justify. The law is a standard of conduct. One's conduct before a Holy God is either righteous, meaning He adjudges that you have not transgressed the law, or unrighteous, meaning that you have violated it in some way. So, to be justified in the sight of God means that your conduct is in keeping with the standard of the law. But, the law didn't justify you, you were justified by your own conduct towards God. As sinners, we can never be justified by our conduct before God, because we are fallen. Therefore, God must pardon our sins and accept us as righteous in order to justify us. In His grace, and as a one time act, He pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone. 



> 2) If not, then why would Christs keeping it completely merit anything for our salvation?



Because the righteousness of God is in Christ. The unrighteousness of the world came through Adam, and the righteousness of the elect comes through faith in Christ.

Rom. 5:17-19 17 For if by the one man´s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man´s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man´s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man´s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man´s obedience many will be made righteous.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by kceaster_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Here are 2 more questions.
> 
> 1) Does the Law justify?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rom. 3:20 Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
> 
> No, the law does not justify. The law is a standard of conduct. One's conduct before a Holy God is either righteous, meaning He adjudges that you have not transgressed the law, or unrighteous, meaning that you have violated it in some way. So, to be justified in the sight of God means that your conduct is in keeping with the standard of the law. But, the law didn't justify you, you were justified by your own conduct towards God. As sinners, we can never be justified by our conduct before God, because we are fallen. Therefore, God must pardon our sins and accept us as righteous in order to justify us. In His grace, and as a one time act, He pardons our sins and accepts us as righteous in His sight on account of the righteousness of Christ imputed to us and received by faith alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2) If not, then why would Christs keeping it completely merit anything for our salvation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because the righteousness of God is in Christ. The unrighteousness of the world came through Adam, and the righteousness of the elect comes through faith in Christ.
> 
> Rom. 5:17-19 17 For if by the one man´s offense death reigned through the one, much more those who receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness will reign in life through the One, Jesus Christ.) Therefore, as through one man´s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man´s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life. For as by one man´s disobedience many were made sinners, so also by one Man´s obedience many will be made righteous.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC
Click to expand...


Is this obedience to the LAw or to His cross?

I do nto believe this answers the question though KC.

If the Law doesnot justify and could never justify, even if kept perfectly by us, then why was it necessary for Christ to keep it?


----------



## kceaster

*Joseph....*



> Is this obedience to the LAw or to His cross?



I'm not sure what you're asking, and I'm not sure if you are making a dichotomy that is unnecessary.

I believe it is crystal clear that we will not be justified by our deeds in the flesh. We are justified by faith in Christ.

That said, we are required to walk in the works God create for us beforehand. This naturally has law and obedience attached to it. This obedience is not justifying, but is a byproduct of God's grace on our lives.



> If the Law doesnot justify and could never justify, even if kept perfectly by us, then why was it necessary for Christ to keep it?



It was necessary for Christ because He is the second Adam. In Adam, we all die, because he broke the law for everyone. But Christ, being the second Adam, must do what the first Adam could not do. There is still the requirement hanging over Adam's sons to obey perfectly. Since they cannot, God's grace provided the second Adam to fulfill the stipulations of the covenant He made with the first Adam.

In Christ,

KC


----------



## seansgame

Interesting subject. The argument over where the lines of continuity and discontinuity are between the 2 testaments has long been the point of contention between credo and paedo baptists and to be fair to the credo baptists, those of us who are paedo baptists, can't agree on it anymore. John Murray's recasting put an end (modern day) to any sort of uniformity of the issue. To clarify the understanding of the non-Murrayite brand of reformed; we hold to a strict covenant of works in the edenic situation, from Gen 3:15 onward we recognize the establishment(in a bt sense, no need to confuse the issue by engaging in the intratrinitarian covenant of redemption) of a covenant of grace, brought into bold relief with the ratification ceremony with Abraham. All OT saints were saved as members of said Abrahamic covenant, to which was added the Siniatic covenant, as a subservient covenant of works, which came 430 years after the Abrahamic covenant and which terminated with the incarnation and death of Christ, and the subsequent destruction of the temple in 70 a.d. This Siniatic covenant, though part of the administration of the covenant of grace was not in and of itself gracious in an "ordo salutis" sense, nor in an "historia salutis" sense, nor was it meant to be . The siniatic covenant strictlly speaking, was informed by a works principle, "do this and live". The siniatic covenant functioned on a typological(ceremonial law) and historical level(promises to the land granted upon fidelity to the covenant), as a covenant of works, within and under which Jesus was born, and as the second Adam, fulfilled. The Siniatic covenant was "evangelical" in that it both typified the future reign of the Kingdom of God on earth, and harkened back to the edenic situation where righteousness was to govern the land. But in a fallen world and on an individual level, the Law functioned, "evangelically", as a "ministry of condemnation and death" from which we flee, to Christ, our second Adam, our lawkeeper in our stead. To say that the siniatic covenant was not merit or works based is to deny the very work of Christ, as the second Adam, to accomplish what the first Adam failed to do. The siniatic covenant was a republication of the edenic covenant in a fallen world, given to provide context for the "One" who would come and do what the first Adam failed to do, and "crush the head of the Serpent." (Christus victor). All believers have some "thing" namely "merit" credited to our account by virtue of the second adam actually accomplishing someTHING, namely the righteous requirements of the LAW. To deny the meritorious and work-orientation of the siniatic covenant is to deny even the "Possibility" of this happening and makes nonsense of the incarnation and the cross. Pharisiacal jews saw the law not as condemning them but instead as the means by which they laid hold of the righteous requirements demanded of them by God. The Law was never gracious, indeed it could not be, instead it demanded conformity and condemned failure, that is until Jesus came and quieted the curses and bellowing of Sinai by fulfilling it's righteous demands. Now, we are no longer under the law(read Sinai) but under grace(read new covenant with Christ as our head which in fact is the same covenant as the Abrahamic, read rom 4). Sinai had a specific beginning 430 years after Abraham, and a specific end the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ. All the other issues attached to this argument are secondary and inconsequential. The ten commandments are not an EXHAUSTIVE revelation of God's moral will, (i.e. the seventh day sabbath was done away with, and no Pipa's "one day in seven principle" isn't the creation mandate but rather a seventh day sabbath which we in the new covenant have "already" entered into by faith in Christ and look forward to in glorification in the "not yet" Heb 4:1-11. Additionally, promises to the land of palestine are no longer promised upon fidelity to Sinai's statutes, etc..) This in no way challenges God's immutability and to make the connection is a "red herring". Christ gives a NEW commandment, Jn13:34-"Love one another as I have Loved you." Sinai is NOT our direct reference for ethical standards but rather Christ is, and He has given us a new commandment that up until that time was not known, for Christ had not yet come to give the example and provide the benchmark. If the law speaks to me as "ethical standard" it ONLY does so mediated to me by Christ. This Law of Christ is delivered to me in the "Indicative-imperative" of the didactic epistles, and the illumination of my mind by the Holy Spirit. It is no longer "do this and live" but rather "it has been done for you, now go live." We indeed have a new and better covenant. Did the OT saints understand the law in a similar way? Certainly. The OT saints are the very ones who despaired of their own attempts at righteousness and by faith were joined to the same head as we share being the true Israel, the spiritual seed of Abraham. There's much more that could be said, but there are others who are more capable of expounding on the subject.

[Edited on 4-13-2005 by seansgame]


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Here are 2 more questions.
> 
> 1) Does the Law justify?
> 
> 2) If not, then why would Christs keeping it completely merit anything for our salvation?
> 
> Joseph



Dear Joseph...

There is N O T H I N G wrong with the Law. (Meaning the 10 commandments.) Yes - it does justify! To anyone thinking they can be justified by it -- they are right. But good luck - the mark is 100% perfection.

The issue is with the keeper of the Law - be they creatures or Christ.

Creatures, after the Fall, ever-fail to keep the Law.

Christ kept the Law perfectly-(living a sinless life) then obediently suffered the cross (wrath of God towards traitors.) The cross is the ratification of the covenant posed by YHWH in Gen. 15...where he swears the self-maledictory (self-cursing) oath...Notice that Abraham was asleep during that rite. Here is where the Cov of Promise overlaps with the Cov of Works: Gen. 15:12- 16

As the sun was going down, a deep sleep fell on Abram. And behold, dreadful and great darkness fell upon him. Then the LORD said to Abram, "Know for certain that your offspring will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs and will be servants there, and they will be afflicted for four hundred years. But I will bring judgment on the nation that they serve, and afterward they shall come out with great possessions. As for yourself, you shall go to your fathers in peace; you shall be buried in a good old age. And they shall come back here in the fourth generation, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete." 

Robin

Remember to read the entire story of this episode. Don't take verses out of context. 

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Robin]


----------



## Robin

Romans 3:30-32 

since God is one. He will justify the circumcised *by* faith and the uncircumcised *through* faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law. 



R.


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Romans 3:30-32
> 
> since God is one. He will justify the circumcised *by* faith and the uncircumcised *through* faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
> 
> 
> 
> R.



So if one could keep the Law perfectly, they could be saved? That is what i am asking!!!!!!!!!

Kevin Says no, you say yes...



[Edited on 4-14-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## The Lamb

[quote
I'm not sure what you're asking, and I'm not sure if you are making a dichotomy that is unnecessary.[/quote]

In Romans 5, the one act of obedience. Is this His obedience to the Law, or is the ONE act His cross?



> I believe it is crystal clear that we will not be justified by our deeds in the flesh. We are justified by faith in Christ.



I agree, so how does Christs obedience to the law merit anything for believers?



> That said, we are required to walk in the works God create for us beforehand. This naturally has law and obedience attached to it. This obedience is not justifying, but is a byproduct of God's grace on our lives.



I agree



> It was necessary for Christ because He is the second Adam. In Adam, we all die, because he broke the law for everyone. But Christ, being the second Adam, must do what the first Adam could not do. There is still the requirement hanging over Adam's sons to obey perfectly. Since they cannot, God's grace provided the second Adam to fulfill the stipulations of the covenant He made with the first Adam.
> 
> In Christ,
> 
> KC



This is the root brother. Adam still needed an alien righteousness, ie Christs. This is Gods plan. So in effect, even if Adam obeyed perfectly, this still would not have merited eternal life for him not the elect posterior.

So When aperson was decalred righteous in the OT. And Christ had not fulfilled the law yet, it was their faith in the promised Messiah, not the Law.


Joseph


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Romans 3:30-32
> 
> since God is one. He will justify the circumcised *by* faith and the uncircumcised *through* faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
> 
> 
> 
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if one could keep the Law perfectly, they could be saved? That is what i am asking!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Kevin Says no, you say yes...
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by The Lamb]
Click to expand...



If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Romans 3:30-32
> 
> since God is one. He will justify the circumcised *by* faith and the uncircumcised *through* faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
> 
> 
> 
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if one could keep the Law perfectly, they could be saved? That is what i am asking!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Kevin Says no, you say yes...
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by The Lamb]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]
Click to expand...



Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.

SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain. 

Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could inherit life by obeying the law? Was He lying?


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could inherit life by obeying the law? Was He lying?




Where did He say that?

He knew that this man was looking for a way to earn his salvation on his own terms. He may have thought that the teacher would give him a specific task or work to carry out once, and that would confirm to him eternal life. But Jesus gave him something that required him to humble himself and bring his life under the authority of Christ.


Jesus wasn´t implying that salvation can actually be earned by a good deed of helping the poor. he was self-righteous! And like all self-righteous people he had lowered the standard of good to the level of his own imagined attainments.

Jesus' answer was not intended as a plan of salvation but as proof of the young man's condemnation. The law does not save (Romans 3:28), but it does condemn (Romans 3:19). The "law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). Jesus was trying to demonstrate to the young man that he stood condemned before the law. His unwillingness to give his money to the poor revealed that he had not even kept the first great commandment to love God more than his money or anything else 

one does not "do" anything to get an inheritance of any kind, including eternal life. An "inheritance" is a gift. Indeed, eternal life is presented throughout the Bible as a gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:36; 5:24; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). And one cannot work for a gift. As Paul said, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:45).



In His Grace


Joseph


----------



## seansgame

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Romans 3:30-32
> 
> since God is one. He will justify the circumcised *by* faith and the uncircumcised *through* faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
> 
> 
> 
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if one could keep the Law perfectly, they could be saved? That is what i am asking!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Kevin Says no, you say yes...
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by The Lamb]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.
> 
> SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain.
> 
> Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam.
Click to expand...


Adam had the opportunity to inherit eternal life of his own accord. This was the promise held out to him in the never-ending seventh day sabbath, which we now enter into in the "already-not yet" eschatological tension of the new covenant, this is explicated in Heb 4:1-11. Here's another way to think of it, if eternal death was the JUST REWARD of Adam's failure, what else could be the JUST REWARD of his faithful obedience but, eternal life. If Adam couldn't REALLY merit eternal life, than Adam didn't REALLY deserve eternal death.


----------



## The Lamb

> Adam had the opportunity to inherit eternal life of his own accord. This was the promise held out to him in the never-ending seventh day sabbath, which we now enter into in the "already-not yet" eschatological tension of the new covenant, this is explicated in Heb 4:1-11. Here's another way to think of it, if eternal death was the JUST REWARD of Adam's failure, what else could be the JUST REWARD of his faithful obedience but, eternal life. If Adam couldn't REALLY merit eternal life, than Adam didn't REALLY deserve eternal death.




Sean: I just do not see the promise of to live= eternal life.

I believe scripture points to an alien righteousness even for adam, even if he did obey. 

More to come. at work


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Romans 3:30-32
> 
> since God is one. He will justify the circumcised *by* faith and the uncircumcised *through* faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
> 
> 
> 
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if one could keep the Law perfectly, they could be saved? That is what i am asking!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Kevin Says no, you say yes...
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by The Lamb]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.
> 
> SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain.
> 
> Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam.
Click to expand...


First of all, Adam was created righteous. Did he have a "salvific" righteousness? No. BUT...he didn't need SAVING. The idea of salvation necessitates saving from SOMETHING. Adam didn't need saving, what he needed was to obey the covenant conditions. 

If Adam is our representative head in that when he disobeyed, we all are counted as disobeying, would not it follow logically that if he obeyed, we would have been counted as if we obeyed? He was our representatvie head either way. It is inconsistent to say that we get his consequences if he is disobdient, but we don't get his rewards if he IS obedient. In this same regard, Christ (the 2nd Adam) is our representative head.


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Jeff_Bartel_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Romans 3:30-32
> 
> since God is one. He will justify the circumcised *by* faith and the uncircumcised *through* faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
> 
> 
> 
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if one could keep the Law perfectly, they could be saved? That is what i am asking!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Kevin Says no, you say yes...
> 
> 
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by The Lamb]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> If Adam would have kept the law, everyone would be eternally just in God's sight. The 2nd Adam kept the law (only he does not represent all men, but his elect) and those whom he represents will be justified by that obedience. The righteousness of Christ = His complete obedience to the law, culminating in his obedience to death, even death on the cross.
> 
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.
> 
> SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain.
> 
> Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, Adam was created righteous. Did he have a "salvific" righteousness? No. BUT...he didn't need SAVING. The idea of salvation necessitates saving from SOMETHING. Adam didn't need saving, what he needed was to obey the covenant conditions.
> 
> If Adam is our representative head in that when he disobeyed, we all are counted as disobeying, would not it follow logically that if he obeyed, we would have been counted as if we obeyed? He was our representatvie head either way. It is inconsistent to say that we get his consequences if he is disobdient, but we don't get his rewards if he IS obedient. In this same regard, Christ (the 2nd Adam) is our representative head.
Click to expand...



Where is it implied he was created righteouss? And if not a slavific righteousness, what kind then?


----------



## seansgame

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by Jeff_Bartel] [/quote]


Then this would mean that Adam had a salvific Rightoeousness in him. I do not see this in scripture. There is no promise made to Adam in this regard Jeffery.

SO in Romans 5, when it says ONE act. this means more than one? Please explain. 

Adam needed the righteousness of Christ in order to advance to any other than an earthly estate. He would not have been able to advance to glory apart from the righteousness of Christ. However, he did have a personal righteousness of his own. Since the fall, we do not have a personal righteousness. We are totally depraved -- i.e. not even a "smidgeon" of righteousness remains for us. So, since the fall, there is no other righteousness available to man. Prior to the fall, there was an earthly, losable, righteousness in Adam. [/quote]

First of all, Adam was created righteous. Did he have a "salvific" righteousness? No. BUT...he didn't need SAVING. The idea of salvation necessitates saving from SOMETHING. Adam didn't need saving, what he needed was to obey the covenant conditions. 

If Adam is our representative head in that when he disobeyed, we all are counted as disobeying, would not it follow logically that if he obeyed, we would have been counted as if we obeyed? He was our representatvie head either way. It is inconsistent to say that we get his consequences if he is disobdient, but we don't get his rewards if he IS obedient. In this same regard, Christ (the 2nd Adam) is our representative head. [/quote]


Where is it implied he was created righteouss? And if not a slavific righteousness, what kind then? [/quote]

God is righteous, He looked upon what He created and called it good. There is no neutrality with God, positive righteousness is required to stand before God, God made Adam in his own image and declared Adam as good, plus the fact that with God you are either for Him (positive righteousness) or against Him(wickedness), establishes Adam's position of being made "upright" what Adam lacked was immutability as it regarded his standing before God. Adam was on probation in the Garden, if he obeyed he would procure to himself and his progeny, eternal life (sabbath rest) if he failed he would bear the judgment of God (eternal death) for himself and his progeny. Adam EARNED death. He fell fm his upright condition. This is one of the great mysteries of the faith; how did a creature who only knew righteous motivation fall into sin? Well, we know he was disobedient and that Eve was deceived and disobedient, but from whence did the "evil" motivation come? If anyone knows the answer, I'm listening.

[Edited on 4-14-2005 by seansgame]


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> Where is it implied he was created righteouss? And if not a slavific righteousness, what kind then?



Ecc. 7:29 teaches that man was made upright. Adam was created good, after God's own image. He had what the Westminster Standards call "original righteousness." Adam was not created a sinner. He was a good creature who obeyed God without sin. Before Adam sinned he was righteous according to the moral law. The law has always been our standard of righteousness. 

This is all elementary to the Reformed Faith Joseph. With this topic and with your earlier arguments for eternal justification, this shows you do not seem to understand that yet. I would encourage you to read the Westminster Standards or even the London Baptist Confession, one of which you agreed to hold to when you joined the Board. After studying those, with their related Scripture references, and then have questions, then bring them forward. We have already dealt with Adam's original state in detail on another thread recently. You could read that one too.


----------



## The Lamb

My point of contention is if Adam did not have any inclination to sin, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear with the snake?


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> My point of contention is if Adam did not have any inclination to sin, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear with the snake?



That is the mystery Scripture never reveals to us. We must leave that secret thing with the Lord. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. Adam was upright. Adam was tempted. Adam freely chose to sin. This is what is revealed. To speculate a defect in Adam makes God the author of sin. To argue God made Adam sin makes God the author of sin. Here we must humbly bow before the Lord and be thankful that even though we don't understand how Adam fell, He has yet given us the Second Adam who did not fall, but inherited the rewards of eternal life, for Himself and for us, by His obedience.


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> My point of contention is if Adam did not have any inclination to sin, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear with the snake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the mystery Scripture never reveals to us. We must leave that secret thing with the Lord. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. Adam was upright. Adam was tempted. Adam freely chose to sin. This is what is revealed. To speculate a defect in Adam makes God the author of sin. To argue God made Adam sin makes God the author of sin. Here we must humbly bow before the Lord and be thankful that even though we don't understand how Adam fell, He has yet given us the Second Adam who did not fall, but inherited the rewards of eternal life, for Himself and for us, by His obedience.
Click to expand...


Well Patrick, I do not want to leave it as a mystery. And read Deut 29;29!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joseph


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> My point of contention is if Adam did not have any inclination to sin, where did it come from? Did it just magically appear with the snake?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is the mystery Scripture never reveals to us. We must leave that secret thing with the Lord. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. Adam was upright. Adam was tempted. Adam freely chose to sin. This is what is revealed. To speculate a defect in Adam makes God the author of sin. To argue God made Adam sin makes God the author of sin. Here we must humbly bow before the Lord and be thankful that even though we don't understand how Adam fell, He has yet given us the Second Adam who did not fall, but inherited the rewards of eternal life, for Himself and for us, by His obedience.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Patrick, I do not want to leave it as a mystery. And read Deut 29;29!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Joseph
Click to expand...

Joseph, that verse is exactly what I had in mind for you. It simply has not been revealed to us why Adam chose to sin. We must leave it there in God's hands and trust Him.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could inherit life by obeying the law? Was He lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did He say that?
Click to expand...

Sorry I didn't see this post. 

Matt. 19
16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?" 
17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. _But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments._" 

Mark 10
17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?" 
18 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 
19 _You know the commandments:_..."

Luke 18
18Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?" 
19So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. 
20_ You know the commandments:_..."





> He knew that this man was looking for a way to earn his salvation on his own terms. He may have thought that the teacher would give him a specific task or work to carry out once, and that would confirm to him eternal life. But Jesus gave him something that required him to humble himself and bring his life under the authority of Christ.
> 
> 
> Jesus wasn´t implying that salvation can actually be earned by a good deed of helping the poor. he was self-righteous! And like all self-righteous people he had lowered the standard of good to the level of his own imagined attainments.
> 
> Jesus' answer was not intended as a plan of salvation but as proof of the young man's condemnation. The law does not save (Romans 3:28), but it does condemn (Romans 3:19). The "law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). Jesus was trying to demonstrate to the young man that he stood condemned before the law. His unwillingness to give his money to the poor revealed that he had not even kept the first great commandment to love God more than his money or anything else
> 
> one does not "do" anything to get an inheritance of any kind, including eternal life. An "inheritance" is a gift. Indeed, eternal life is presented throughout the Bible as a gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:36; 5:24; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). And one cannot work for a gift. As Paul said, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:45).



Joseph what you fail to understand is that eternal life is a gift _to us_ because of the obedience of Christ to the law. Jesus is simply answerig the mans question. What can this young man _do_ to inherit life? Jesus tells him to keep the commandments. Obviously, Jesus is using the law to teach him, but teach him of what? That he can't earn eternal life anymore by his own obedience. One sin makes you fall short of the glory of God. He must be counted righteous by another Man's obedience in order to obtain the inheritance.


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by puritansailor_
> Why did Jesus tell the rich young ruler that he could inherit life by obeying the law? Was He lying?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did He say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry I didn't see this post.
> 
> Matt. 19
> 16 Now behold, one came and said to Him, "Good Teacher, what good thing shall I do that I may have eternal life?"
> 17 So He said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God. _But if you want to enter into life, keep the commandments._"
> 
> Mark 10
> 17 Now as He was going out on the road, one came running, knelt before Him, and asked Him, "Good Teacher, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life?"
> 18 So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
> 19 _You know the commandments:_..."
> 
> Luke 18
> 18Now a certain ruler asked Him, saying, "Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
> 19So Jesus said to him, "Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.
> 20_ You know the commandments:_..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He knew that this man was looking for a way to earn his salvation on his own terms. He may have thought that the teacher would give him a specific task or work to carry out once, and that would confirm to him eternal life. But Jesus gave him something that required him to humble himself and bring his life under the authority of Christ.
> 
> 
> Jesus wasn´t implying that salvation can actually be earned by a good deed of helping the poor. he was self-righteous! And like all self-righteous people he had lowered the standard of good to the level of his own imagined attainments.
> 
> Jesus' answer was not intended as a plan of salvation but as proof of the young man's condemnation. The law does not save (Romans 3:28), but it does condemn (Romans 3:19). The "law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24). Jesus was trying to demonstrate to the young man that he stood condemned before the law. His unwillingness to give his money to the poor revealed that he had not even kept the first great commandment to love God more than his money or anything else
> 
> one does not "do" anything to get an inheritance of any kind, including eternal life. An "inheritance" is a gift. Indeed, eternal life is presented throughout the Bible as a gift (Romans 6:23; John 3:36; 5:24; 20:31; 1 John 5:13). And one cannot work for a gift. As Paul said, "Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness" (Romans 4:45).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Joseph what you fail to understand is that eternal life is a gift _to us_ because of the obedience of Christ to the law. Jesus is simply answerig the mans question. What can this young man _do_ to inherit life? Jesus tells him to keep the commandments. Obviously, Jesus is using the law to teach him, but teach him of what? That he can't earn eternal life anymore by his own obedience. One sin makes you fall short of the glory of God. He must be counted righteous by another Man's obedience in order to obtain the inheritance.
Click to expand...


Christ pointed out the man missed the mark ie :sin of the First and greatest commandment. 

here is a great writing done in regards to things we are talkign about

Is anyone familiar with Stephen Clarke? He wrote it..

{Link to heretical arrogant garbage removed - FTG}


Joseph

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by The Lamb]

[Edited on 4/15/2005 by fredtgreco]


----------



## wsw201

Joseph,

I read parts of the article and found it less than compelling and really don't see the point as to how the article fits in with this discussion. Second, as Jeff has stated, Adam did not need to be saved! There is nothing in our Creeds or Confessions that even come close to saying the Adam needed to be saved. 

One point that needs to be made regarding Adam and Eve is that yes they were made righteous but they were not made immutable. That is why they could sin. Immutablity is an incommutable attribute of God.


----------



## seansgame

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Joseph,
> 
> I read parts of the article and found it less than compelling and really don't see the point as to how the article fits in with this discussion. Second, as Jeff has stated, Adam did not need to be saved! There is nothing in our Creeds or Confessions that even come close to saying the Adam needed to be saved.
> 
> One point that needs to be made regarding Adam and Eve is that yes they were made righteous but they were not made immutable. That is why they could sin. Immutablity is an incommutable attribute of God.



The immutability point was already made, but nobody ever listens to me.  I may start sucking my thumb if I get any more insecure.


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Joseph,
> 
> I read parts of the article and found it less than compelling and really don't see the point as to how the article fits in with this discussion. Second, as Jeff has stated, Adam did not need to be saved! There is nothing in our Creeds or Confessions that even come close to saying the Adam needed to be saved.
> 
> One point that needs to be made regarding Adam and Eve is that yes they were made righteous but they were not made immutable. That is why they could sin. Immutablity is an incommutable attribute of God.




The article speaks of the condition of Adam. IT goes into detail in regards to the theme of this thread has taken.

Then the creeds and confessions are wrong on this point. Adam had no need to be saved? There was no purpose in Gods mind? This probationary period is mere specualtion. I believe he had an eartly righteousness, but not a spiritual righteoiussness.. 

How does immutability factor in? If adam was sinless, then that includes him with Christ. 


Adam was made upright - but his uprightness was not like that of Christ's. Adam was perfectly righteous according to the laws which he was aware of in my opinion. But he was lacking a Divine Righteousness. He had no communion with the Lord in this sense. Adam did not worship the Lord, nor does the Bible ever say that he did!

I believe he was made with a proclivity to rebel when the circumstances were made available. Before eve was deceived by Adam, he did not see or desire to rebel against God as his environment was perfect from his perspective. When he saw eve's deception by Satan, his love for her (being greater than his "love" for God) motivated him to plunge himself into rebellion against God for her sake. It was at this point which the "fall" took place, but this fall was not a fall as the traditionalists tend to describe. This fall was a fall from his natural or earthy righteousness and it was more a revealing to Adam the condition of his heart than anything. It was at or shortly after this moment he was quickened and the restoration process (which was far more than a return to his original state) on the part of God was begun in Adam's life.

Man's creation in the 'image of God' cannot refer to an ontological or sinless perfection of man, precisely because after the flood man still retained the image of God (see Gen. 9). This is the very reason the death penalty was instituted by God as the just punishment for pre-meditated murder in all of human creation. Man was still in the image of God at that juncture, as he always has been since. So the 'image of God' means something else.


The gospel is intended to redeem man, so if Adam was created sinless then the gosple would not apply to him until he sinned.

He was naked but was ignorant of this fact. He had need of the righteouness of Christ if he was going to have eternal life, and when he rebelled against God in the garden, his nakedness, this recognition of sin and need for clothing had been revealed to him. God in His Grace not only covered Adam with the shedding of an animal, but He also revealed to Adam the righteousness of Christ and He clothed Adam with it as well.






Joseph


----------



## Arch2k

> _Originally posted by seansgame_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Joseph,
> 
> I read parts of the article and found it less than compelling and really don't see the point as to how the article fits in with this discussion. Second, as Jeff has stated, Adam did not need to be saved! There is nothing in our Creeds or Confessions that even come close to saying the Adam needed to be saved.
> 
> One point that needs to be made regarding Adam and Eve is that yes they were made righteous but they were not made immutable. That is why they could sin. Immutablity is an incommutable attribute of God.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The immutability point was already made, but nobody ever listens to me.  I may start sucking my thumb if I get any more insecure.
Click to expand...


----------



## wsw201

Sorry Sean!

This thread is so long I forgot you made that point! But it is a good one and goes to the crux of Adam's original state.

[Edited on 4/15/2005 by wsw201]


----------



## wsw201

> The article speaks of the condition of Adam. IT goes into detail in regards to the theme of this thread has taken.
> 
> Then the creeds and confessions are wrong on this point. Adam had no need to be saved? There was no purpose in Gods mind? This probationary period is mere specualtion. I believe he had an eartly righteousness, but not a spiritual righteoiussness..



First off the creeds and confessions are not wrong. That´s right, Adam did not need salvation prior to the fall. No the probationary period is not speculation it is actual. God´s command not to eat was real and the consequences are real.

What is the difference between earthly vs spiritual righteousness? There is only one type of righteousness before God, not 2.




> Adam was made upright - but his uprightness was not like that of Christ's.



Then Romans 5 falls apart!




> Adam was perfectly righteous according to the laws which he was aware of in my opinion. But he was lacking a Divine Righteousness. He had no communion with the Lord in this sense. Adam did not worship the Lord, nor does the Bible ever say that he did!



What part of Scripture are you basing this on?




> I believe he was made with a proclivity to rebel when the circumstances were made available. Before eve was deceived by Adam, he did not see or desire to rebel against God as his environment was perfect from his perspective. When he saw eve's deception by Satan, his love for her (being greater than his "love" for God) motivated him to plunge himself into rebellion against God for her sake. It was at this point which the "fall" took place, but this fall was not a fall as the traditionalists tend to describe. This fall was a fall from his natural or earthy righteousness and it was more a revealing to Adam the condition of his heart than anything. It was at or shortly after this moment he was quickened and the restoration process (which was far more than a return to his original state) on the part of God was begun in Adam's life.



Then God made Adam with a sin nature (a proclivity to rebel) and Adam was not really responsible for what he did. You are making God the author of sin.




> Man's creation in the 'image of God' cannot refer to an ontological or sinless perfection of man, precisely because after the flood man still retained the image of God (see Gen. 9). This is the very reason the death penalty was instituted by God as the just punishment for pre-meditated murder in all of human creation. Man was still in the image of God at that juncture, as he always has been since. So the 'image of God' means something else.



Man has been made in the image of God and everyone who is born is made in the image of God. Because of sin that image has been marred, despite what the article says.




> The gospel is intended to redeem man, so if Adam was created sinless then the gosple would not apply to him until he sinned.



Correct!




> He was naked but was ignorant of this fact. He had need of the righteouness of Christ if he was going to have eternal life, and when he rebelled against God in the garden, his nakedness, this recognition of sin and need for clothing had been revealed to him. God in His Grace not only covered Adam with the shedding of an animal, but He also revealed to Adam the righteousness of Christ and He clothed Adam with it as well.



If he had eaten of the Tree of Life (which he was barred from after the fall) he would have had eternal life.

Joseph, it sounds like you are moving toward a Pelagian view of man.


----------



## Robin

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by Robin_
> Romans 3:30-32
> since God is one. He will justify the circumcised *by* faith and the uncircumcised *through* faith. Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.
> R.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if one could keep the Law perfectly, they could be saved? That is what i am asking!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Kevin Says no, you say yes...
> [Edited on 4-14-2005 by The Lamb]
Click to expand...


Hypotheticals are not good to pursue....

YES -- if (I-F) a person kept the Law perfectly they could be saved BUT that's only half of the equation. That person would also have bear the weight of the curse already exacted upon humanity. Their nature could not endure it because they would have to be God--

I agree with Kevin, as I'm sure he is meaning what is said below. There is more to Redemption than keeping the Law perfectly:

The Heidelberg Catechism:
(Regarding the Savior)

Question 16. Why must he be very man, and also perfectly righteous?

Answer: Because the justice of God requires that the same human nature which has sinned, should likewise make satisfaction for sin; (a) and one, who is himself a sinner, cannot satisfy for others. (b)

(a) Ezek.18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die. Ezek.18:20 The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him. Rom.5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: Rom.5:15 But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. Rom.5:18 Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life. 1 Cor.15:21 For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. Heb.2:14 Forasmuch then as the children are partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself likewise took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is, the devil; Heb.2:15 And deliver them who through fear of death were all their lifetime subject to bondage. Heb.2:16 For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham. 1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: Isa.53:3 He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him; he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Isa.53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa.53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa.53:10 Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (b) Heb.7:26 For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens; Heb.7:27 Who needeth not daily, as those high priests, to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the people's: for this he did once, when he offered up himself. Ps.49:7 None of them can by any means redeem his brother, nor give to God a ransom for him: Ps.49:8 (For the redemption of their soul is precious, and it ceaseth for ever 1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit:

Question 17. Why must he in one person be also very God?

Answer: That he might, by the power of his Godhead (a) sustain in his human nature, (b) the burden of God's wrath; (c) and might obtain for, and restore to us, righteousness and life. (d)

(a) Isa.9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace. Isa.63:3 I have trodden the winepress alone; and of the people there was none with me: for I will tread them in mine anger, and trample them in my fury; and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment. (b) Isa.53:4 Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. (c) Deut.4:24 For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. Nah.1:6 Who can stand before his indignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger? his fury is poured out like fire, and the rocks are thrown down by him. Ps.130:3 If thou, LORD, shouldest mark iniquities, O Lord, who shall stand? (d) Isa.53:5 But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. Isa.53:11 He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities. Acts 2:24 Whom God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death: because it was not possible that he should be holden of it. 1 Pet.3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Acts 20:28 Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to all the flock, over the which the Holy Ghost hath made you overseers, to feed the church of God, which he hath purchased with his own blood. John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.

(I fear this will be misunderstood...please read the whole progression of the questions in the HC.) 

Kevin is right -- it's not a simple as merely keeping the Law perfectly.

R.


----------



## fredtgreco

Joseph,

Consider this an official warning to cease promoting the heretical material such as was included in the book link you gave.

You will not get a second warning.


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> Consider this an official warning to cease promoting the heretical material such as was included in the book link you gave.
> 
> You will not get a second warning.




Ok Fred:

May I ask what is heretical about it specifically? And am I to run by posting a link with a moderator? I apologize and did not know this was the proper procedure. I personally did not find anything heretical in the article. SO if you coud please point em to what is, I can look deeper and perhaps understand.

With all due respect to you and this forum. Who determines what is heretical? 



In His Grace


Joseph

[Edited on 4-15-2005 by The Lamb]


----------



## The Lamb

Wayne, I am far from Pelagian, believe me. How you reached that conclusion is beyond me. There is NOTHING that hints of man centered thoughts in my post.

IT is all for the Glory of God. I will reply after my meeting to your specifics

In HIs Grace

Joseph


----------



## fredtgreco

> _Originally posted by The Lamb_
> 
> 
> 
> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Joseph,
> 
> Consider this an official warning to cease promoting the heretical material such as was included in the book link you gave.
> 
> You will not get a second warning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok Fred:
> 
> May I ask what is heretical about it specifically? And am I to run by posting a link with a moderator? I apologize and did not know this was the proper procedure. I personally did nto find anything heretical in the article. SO if you coud please point em to what is, I can look deeper and perhaps understand.
> 
> With all due respect to you and this forum. Who determines what is heretical?
> 
> 
> 
> In His Grace
> 
> 
> Joseph
Click to expand...


Joseph,

It is heretical in that it denies the teaching of not only the Board's Confessions (WCF and 1689), but the doctrine of the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics concerning the creation of Adam and the Fall.

It also is subversive, as the author (who worships at home with his wife - _surprise, surprise!_) directs all Christians to work for the change of Biblical doctrine of Creation and the Fall in their churches.

You do not need to run all links by a moderator, but you when signed up to the board you acknowledged agreement with the WCF/1689 LBCF. This book clearly contradicts fundamental tenets of those Confessions (and as I have said, not just those, but the ubiquitous doctrine of all Western churches). You also stated that the book sets forth "great writing done in regards to things we are talkign about"

You have been repeatedly rebuked for that on this thread by no less than two moderators. You have been rebuked for unorthodox statements and arguments on no less than a half dozen occasions. This does not occur in a vacuum. Please cease and desist.


----------



## wsw201

Joseph,

I didn't say you had a Pelagian view but were moving towards it. I am basing it on the article you posted (assuming you buy into his argument) that stated that the image of God was not affected by the fall plus the dichotomy you alluded to with the idea of an earthly vs spiritual righteousness. If the image of God, which is in general defined as the communicable attributes (which are apart of man's nature) communicated by God to Man, was not marred by sin, then man is still in a righteous state before God (there is only one type of righteousness before God not 2). The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is not true and Adam's sin is his own (Pelagius's view).

[Edited on 4/15/2005 by wsw201]


----------



## The Lamb

> _Originally posted by wsw201_
> Joseph,
> 
> I didn't say you had a Pelagian view but were moving towards it. I am basing it on the article you posted (assuming you buy into his argument) that stated that the image of God was not affected by the fall plus the dichotomy you alluded to with the idea of an earthly vs spiritual righteousness. If the image of God, which is in general defined as the communicable attributes (which are apart of man's nature) communicated by God to Man, was not marred by sin, then man is still in a righteous state before God (there is only one type of righteousness before God not 2). The imputation of Adam's sin to his posterity is not true and Adam's sin is his own (Pelagius's view).
> 
> [Edited on 4/15/2005 by wsw201]



I perhaps do not see it through your lenses w. The image of God is Christ. And this could not have been marred from the fall, since God, In my humble opinion purposed the fall. The righteoussnes spoken about in certain people in the OT was not sinlessness was it? No it was not.

I just do not see how for one second Adam did not have need for a savior. And This by no means destroys Romans 5.

Again, saying the image of God was not marred is being based on Genesis 9. WHich is a "recreation" almost exactly like Gen 1.

That is why I believe the image of God consists of somethign different than what is traditionally understood. IT has those ideas, but is something that is distinct.

Joseph


----------



## The Lamb

> Joseph,
> 
> It is heretical in that it denies the teaching of not only the Board's Confessions (WCF and 1689), but the doctrine of the Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Anglicans, and even Roman Catholics concerning the creation of Adam and the Fall.



Perhaps, but why not discuss it instead of immediately dismissing it? What are the difference you see Fred?



> It also is subversive, as the author (who worships at home with his wife - _surprise, surprise!_) directs all Christians to work for the change of Biblical doctrine of Creation and the Fall in their churches.



I do not agree with this part either.





> You have been repeatedly rebuked for that on this thread by no less than two moderators. You have been rebuked for unorthodox statements and arguments on no less than a half dozen occasions. This does not occur in a vacuum. Please cease and desist.



I have not recalled many rebukes at all Fred. I have engaged in very edifing conversations with many. Perhaps I differ on certain aspects, but your statement here is false. In fact, some have agred with what I have said in some places. 



In His Grace


Joseph

I will cease and dismiss posting links that are not "orthodox tradition".


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon




----------

