# So what exactly is new in the New Covenant?



## lynnie

This question is strictly about Hebrews 8 talking about a new covenant where we have a change inside in our hearts and mind. This question is not talking about the fulfillment of the ceremonial law and doing away with the sacrificial system.

Heb 8 refers to Jer 31 where God promises this to his Covenant people. We are given a new heart; our heart of stone is taken away and we have a heart of flesh when we are born again/regenerated/saved. This promise as you know is also in Ezek 11 and 36 with a promise of this new heart and new spirit. 

We got into a conversation with a staunch Calvinist who grew up Dispensational. He said that growing up they would say the Holy Spirit was with OT saints but they were not exactly sure how, but it wasn't like the new covenant and what we have with the Holy Spirit now. I can see how reading Hebrews a person can conclude that the new heart and new spirit is for the New Covenant, and the Dispensationalists make sense.

However, every Reformed person I know (including me) and the commentaries I looked at say the OT saints were truly regenerated as we understand the term. They were born again. So they had a new heart and new spirit under the Old Covenant. Salvation for them was by grace through faith, and that faith included a real holy spirit new heart and mind. They were indwelt by the HS just as much as we are. They didn't believe just because the HS was sort of hanging around and influencing them in the Dispensational way of understanding. They were truly born again.

My husband said that one of his systematic theology professors at Westminster (TS- PA) used to say that one of the most difficult questions to answer in theology is “What’s new about the new covenant?” And hub didn't think the prof ever really answered the question, except to say that (in his opinion) you can’t explain the difference between old and new in terms of the subjective experience of the individual believer. Their subjective experience could be just as wonderful as ours.

So anyway, what do you do with Hebrews 8 and the new heart? If that is New Covenant, how did it differ from the Old? I know it did in terms of the vast numbers of people saved world wide, but I am referring to the actual change in what happens to the Covenant people of God. If they were saved by grace through faith and regenerated before Christ, what's new? Why is that part called new?

Thanks for any insight!! I find myself missing Patrick as I write and feeling sad he is gone.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Chad Hutson

The Spirit was active in O.T., but not in the same way as N.T. Jesus must be glorified before the Holy Spirit could be poured out at Pentecost so that the Spirit could come as the “Spirit of a glorified Savior.” In the course of redemptive history, the Spirit has always been active and working. In the Old Testament economy, the Father was plainly shown while the Spirit was promised and hinted at being “poured out.” During the Incarnation/Gospel period, He was present with and in Jesus. However, after Christ’s ascension, the Spirit of Christ was sent to continue the presence, the work, and the instruction of Christ with His people during the Apostolic and Church age. The Spirit continues the presence of Christ with us in a way that the Incarnate Christ could not, i.e. in resurrection power (Ephesians 1:17-20); and in revelation of the Father *and* the Son.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Scott Bushey

lynnie said:


> So anyway, what do you do with Hebrews 8 and the new heart? If that is New Covenant, how did it differ from the Old?



I for one, hold to the NC and C of G being an interchangeable term. in my opinion, this interchangeability seems to ease the tension you're experiencing. Hence, the NC started in Gen 3; consummated at Christ's ascension. 




Chad Hutson said:


> The Spirit was active in O.T., but not in the same way as N.T. Jesus must be glorified before the Holy Spirit could be poured out at Pentecost so that the Spirit could come as the “Spirit of a glorified Savior.”



This is no more than an amplification of the HS in the NT age for kingdom business. Similar to theocratic anointings in the OT.




Chad Hutson said:


> During the Incarnation/Gospel period, He was present with and in Jesus. However, after Christ’s ascension, the Spirit of Christ was sent to continue the presence, the work, and the instruction of Christ with His people during the Apostolic and Church age.



Make the distinction between the paraklete and pneuma hagion (which all believers have if in Christ).

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.

No different in either epoch. The paraklete, promised of Christ, i.e. I must go away so the helper (amplification) can come.....


----------



## Contra_Mundum

In simple terms--and I realize that one can quite easily get a whole lot more in-depth and all that--but just as a matter of _context,_ note that Heb.8 is deeply embedded in a much longer passage not *about* new hearts and Holy Spirit ministry; but *about* the new, superior High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.

The _passage _that the writer appeals to, Jer.31, in support of his larger argument, mentions both new hearts and the Spirit within. But that passage is drawn upon for _support _of the Hebrews author's purpose in the passage. The New Covenant is better *because *it gives in Christ everything that the Old Covenant (Moses/Aaron) only hinted at, only offered in reference to what was yet to come.

What's *new* about the New Covenant (as Jer. says) is in comparison with the Old Covenant, or in other words (as the writer amplifies his own point) "the one I made with the people when they came out of Egypt." That was a covenant with an _inferior _priesthood. It was inferior on account of the natural weakness of men, a weakness illustrated in the fact that nothing outward (and the Mosaic Covenant had massive outward typological exhibits) can repair the inward damage of the heart.

There is nothing in Jer. or in Heb. that says OT saints were not affected inwardly by the ministry of the Holy Spirit and given the heart to believe the promises of God. It is speaking of the quality of the ministry that the people had in virtue of the actual covenant arrangement under which they operated.

The saints under Moses and the Old Covenant (together with all OT saints) were being saved by the virtue of the Covenant of Grace, operative since Gen.3 and the protoevangelium, inaugurated formally in history with Abraham. They were regenerated by the Holy Spirit--the only possible Agent of such change.

It is the case that the New Covenant is marked by a massive and "popular" _outpouring_ of the Holy Spirit, which largess was previously restricted to Messianic types--prophets, priests, and kings--all whom pointed to the One on whom the Spirit was poured out "without measure." So also, this general dispensation of the Spirit is something "new" for this penultimate age (before the consummate, eternal age). But that is somewhat of an effect of what makes this time truly New.

Again, the newness has everything to do with flowering of the covenant of grace, and the setting aside of the Old Mosaic Covenant types. We have the reality in Christ as High Priest, and no longer are reliant on sub-perfect mediators ministering under an externals-heavy, shadowy portrayal of a coming kingdom and a once-for-all final sacrifice.

There is still a not-yet aspect to be observed in the New Covenant, relative to the promise found in Jer. There is still a need for teachers and witnessing: "Know the Lord!"; but there will not be in the eschaton, when there will be no one present who is not a full-fledged member of the Kingdom. In the age to come, there will be no sin or other obstacle to knowing God. In principle this is a reality; but in terms of the time-between the Advents, it is something we have yet to encounter.

Reactions: Like 3 | Edifying 4 | Amen 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

What is the purpose of Hebrews? The main doctrine of point is that Christ is Superior to what they have lived under concerning Moses. The Messiah is a Better Testator, Mediator, and above all the focal point of Fulfillment. The Gospel was proclaimed in the Old as well as the New Testament. That is plainly proclaimed by the Gospels and the book of Hebrews. 


Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

(Heb 4:2)
For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3)
For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

I thank Matthew Winzer for helping me see this in old discussions on the Puritanboard. 




> https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...ovenant-a-better-mediator-of-the-word-of-god/
> 
> The more I read Hebrews 8 the more I think I understand about how the shadows have passed away (v. 5) and how a lot of the modern Church is not reading this text or Jeremiah 31 correctly. There is a Priesthood that is being extinguished here and one that is being exalted. We no longer need the shadows or Levitical Priesthood to mediate or teach Covenant Members as mediators since Christ (the substance) has become the High Priest and removed the shadows. The Substance is here and we can approach God directly through Christ by His Holy Spirit. The veil was torn from top to bottom. As the text repeated from Jeremiah 31 states, we all shall know God from the least to the greatest. His Law will be placed in all of our hearts without the need for a Levitical Priest to mediate His word to us. That is the part that is being missed. This is about the transference of priesthood from the shadows and types to Christ our High Priest and antitype. The Old Covenant was given a Priesthood as a type that would show us the way to the real thing. We have a better Covenant with a better Priest who is in heaven now. Christ is the minister of the sanctuary, and of the true tabernacle, which the Lord pitched, and not man. We no longer will tell our neighbor to go seek out the local Priest to mediate God’s word for us. For it has now been fulfilled as it was written and is mediated differently since Christ our High Priest has come..
> 
> (1 Timothy 2:5,6) For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.
> 
> Rom 3:23 For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
> Rom 3:24 Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus:
> Rom 3:25 Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past, through the forbearance of God;
> Rom 3:26 To declare, I say, at this time his righteousness: that he might be just, and the justifier of him which believeth in Jesus.
> Rom 3:27 Where is boasting then? It is excluded. By what law? of works? Nay: but by the law of faith.
> Rom 3:28 Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith without the deeds of the law.
> Rom 3:29 Is he the God of the Jews only? is he not also of the Gentiles? Yes, of the Gentiles also:
> Rom 3:30 Seeing it is one God, which shall justify the circumcision by faith, and uncircumcision through faith.
> Rom 3:31 Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
> 
> My point about this is that I read the text saying that the New Covenant is about a regenerate Church membership when the text isn’t about that but about how the Word of God is mediated and about how we have a better High Priest and Covenant now that the shadows are done away with. Does that make sense?



Most people read Jeremiah without reading Jeremiah 32. I believe it was Paul Manata that use to challenge me with that over a decade ago.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

BTW, I did a study on the Holy Spirit a few decades ago and found that he did indwell believers in the Old Testament. In fact I believe that 1 Corinthians 2 proves that no one who knew God in the Old Covenant as well as the New could discern anything apart from the Spirit of God. That passage is about how we know and live and believe. 


1Co 2:11 For who knows a person's thoughts except the spirit of that person, which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 
1Co 2:12 Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. 
1Co 2:13 And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. 
1Co 2:14 *The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. 
*
That is true for everyone from the beginning of time.


----------



## lynnie

Thank you for the thoughtful replies. Much appreciated and I'm thinking about it all.

So whatever is new essentially has nothing to do with the OT promise that God will make a new Covenant and change our hearts?

I agree that salvation was always the same before and after the incarnation. The heart always had to changed by grace through faith. But it still doesn't make sense that scripture seems to speak of it as a new Covenant regarding the gift of a new heart and spirit...unless Scott is correct that the new covenant started in Gen 3? But Jer and Ezek make it sound future.

Do you guys agree with Scott that the NC started with Gen 3?

It's late and I'm really tired so will read this over again tomorrow. Thanks again.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lynnie said:


> So whatever is new essentially has nothing to do with the OT promise that God will make a new Covenant and change our hearts?


Wasn't that a concern, need, and desire for the Saints before Christ fulfilled the law and reconciled us to Himself and His will?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

lynnie said:


> So whatever is new essentially has nothing to do with the OT promise that God will make a new Covenant and change our hearts?


You're speaking roughly here, but I think it has to do with the way the gears of our respective thinking are not meshing smoothly. Doesn't the Priesthood of Christ have everything to do with the change of heart of everyone? Here is the most essential question: _The new covenant is NEW in relation to what, exactly?
_
For all the importance it holds to the history of redemption, the OLD covenant had great weaknesses. "For finding fault with THEM..." Heb.8:8. THEM refers to whom? In the larger sense it can encompass the nation (houses Judah and Israel mentioned later in this v) bound with promises they made through their fathers that they could not keep. But in the narrower pre-contextual reference, v4 has just spoken of the category of Levitical priests. The people's fault on the whole could conceivably have been handled _if they had a faultless priest.
_
A superior priest is necessary, one who will not exhibit the faults of the other order, faults they shared with the people they represented. Sinful people need a faultless (sinless) Priest. Now, it should be evident that if the same judgment were passed on NT Christians, we too would be found faulty. Furthermore, it cannot be said that having been bound in covenant we are faultless in ourselves. Therefore, that which makes us holy must proceed from the benefit of the perfect Mediator.

The new covenant isn't new _because _the members have the law written in their hearts. The members have the law written in their hearts _as a consequence of their being in a new covenant _(relative to the old imperfect one), which they have because of their faultless Mediator. Saints under the old covenant would not have had the law in their hearts _strictly consequent to _the old covenant. They would have that law in their hearts as _consequent to the covenant of grace _that had Abraham for its principal; and the Seed of Promise as its surety. Those of faith (and they alone) have always had Abraham for their father.

The promise of Jer.31 is that the Mosaic covenant will eventually be disregarded as "old," and a better "new" covenant will replace it; which we know from the NT is the Abrahamic covenant fully realized. Unlike Sinai's covenant, with its weak elements and struggling priesthood--that could not write a law on men's hearts--the new covenant promise of heart-writing pointed to this conclusion: that it would deliver to the people an ideal Priest. He would be able to write his/Jehovah's law in their hearts.



lynnie said:


> Do you guys agree with Scott that the NC started with Gen 3?


It is a bit of an anachronism to speak of the new covenant before Jesus' own inauguration of it, or prior to the pages of the Gospels. We should try to use the nomenclature of Scripture in accordance with its own presentation, as far as possible. However...

We should not misunderstand that the good news promise (first proclaimed in Gen.3) has any ultimate reference beside Christ. The death hinted at in Gen.3:15 is the same death that produces the shed blood which Jesus announces as "the new covenant in my blood" Lk.22:20. The new covenant is the Christ covenant fulfilled.

I think it is better generally to use the stock phrase "covenant of grace" to unite all the covenant exhibits and advancements, culminating in the Christ-covenant or new covenant. I understand the intent behind saying, "the NC started with Gen 3," is to emphasize that the effects of the finished work historically realized in the new covenant reach all the way back to its inception, to the germination of the seed. But sometimes applying names outside of their context only muddies the water, rather than clarifying.

Reactions: Like 2 | Edifying 3


----------



## Scott Bushey

Not that I disagree w/ Bruce:


“The New Covenant is taken either broadly or strictly.

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

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

In essence, the C of G and NC are interchangeable

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

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

Rev BB- That was really beautiful. New in relation to a faultless priest. That's a perspective I've never heard before. Must go to church now, but thanks.


----------



## Dachaser

lynnie said:


> This question is strictly about Hebrews 8 talking about a new covenant where we have a change inside in our hearts and mind. This question is not talking about the fulfillment of the ceremonial law and doing away with the sacrificial system.
> 
> Heb 8 refers to Jer 31 where God promises this to his Covenant people. We are given a new heart; our heart of stone is taken away and we have a heart of flesh when we are born again/regenerated/saved. This promise as you know is also in Ezek 11 and 36 with a promise of this new heart and new spirit.
> 
> We got into a conversation with a staunch Calvinist who grew up Dispensational. He said that growing up they would say the Holy Spirit was with OT saints but they were not exactly sure how, but it wasn't like the new covenant and what we have with the Holy Spirit now. I can see how reading Hebrews a person can conclude that the new heart and new spirit is for the New Covenant, and the Dispensationalists make sense.
> 
> However, every Reformed person I know (including me) and the commentaries I looked at say the OT saints were truly regenerated as we understand the term. They were born again. So they had a new heart and new spirit under the Old Covenant. Salvation for them was by grace through faith, and that faith included a real holy spirit new heart and mind. They were indwelt by the HS just as much as we are. They didn't believe just because the HS was sort of hanging around and influencing them in the Dispensational way of understanding. They were truly born again.
> 
> My husband said that one of his systematic theology professors at Westminster (TS- PA) used to say that one of the most difficult questions to answer in theology is “What’s new about the new covenant?” And hub didn't think the prof ever really answered the question, except to say that (in his opinion) you can’t explain the difference between old and new in terms of the subjective experience of the individual believer. Their subjective experience could be just as wonderful as ours.
> 
> So anyway, what do you do with Hebrews 8 and the new heart? If that is New Covenant, how did it differ from the Old? I know it did in terms of the vast numbers of people saved world wide, but I am referring to the actual change in what happens to the Covenant people of God. If they were saved by grace through faith and regenerated before Christ, what's new? Why is that part called new?
> 
> Thanks for any insight!! I find myself missing Patrick as I write and feeling sad he is gone.


We now have in the NC the fullness of the promised Holy Spirit, as now all have Him indwellng them, not just coming upon certain ones in the OC. We also have now direct access to throne of God, and now have the very power of Him to enable us to live for Lord as we ought to now.All spiritual blessings ours in Christ, things only spoken to inThe OC, and giving in partial form until Messiah came to do His work at the cross and in Hus resurrection and ascension.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Is this not true for those who were justified by faith in the Old as in the New Covenant. 

Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. 

How can anyone discern and obey spiritual things correctly if the Spirit doesn't indwell them.

1Co 2:9 But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. 
1Co 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God. 
1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God. 
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God. 
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual. 
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 

How could Job know the following things and have a heart for God if the Spirit didn't regenerate and indwell him?

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 
Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 
Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I appreciate Dr. McMahon's response here concerning the indwelling and work of the Spirit of God.


> "Everyone born of the Spirit" in the NT or OT is accomplished in the same manner. Christ is exceedingly clear with Nicodemus in John 3 that "everyone" is "everyone". Regeneration/Circumcision of the Heart/Indwelling is the same in the OT as it is in the NT. It's extent is different, not His operation on believers and those entering the kingdom of heaven.
> 
> Names of people in the OT don't amass to theological doctrine, nor should they. In the OT or the NT we don't have anyone amassing all the names coming up with some theological idea as a result.
> Reading into Scripture that way will get you into all kinds of theological trouble. If I amass a number of Old Testament names of the children of believers, there are all sort of weird and strange theological ideas I could come up with if I rested on those names. Choosing a few and making theological doctrine from them in any way is BAD hermeneutics. Shall we start with Ichabod and say something about the departure of God? Or how about Isaac to prove the doctrine of laughing in the Spirit? Really? No.
> 
> THE WCF in chapter 7:
> “WCF Chapter 7
> 
> 
> 5. This covenant [i.e., the covenant of grace] was differently administered in the time of the law, and in the time of the gospel: under the law, it was administered by promises, prophecies, sacrifices, circumcision, the paschal lamb, and other types and ordinances delivered to the people of the Jews, all foresignifying Christ to come; which were, for that time, sufficient and efficacious, through the operation of the Spirit, to instruct and build up the elect in faith in the promised Messiah, by whom they had full remission of sins, and eternal salvation; and is called the old testament."
> 
> Essentially, the operation of the Spirit in the Old and New is the same. His extent is not limited to the sprinkling he did in the OT with the Jews. It extends further. Which is Jesus' rebuke to Nicodemus in John 3:10.
> 
> If you started with the Gospel of John 14:7, and you listen to Jesus, then listen to him all through that one Gospel. John 3 (Jesus' time) and John 14 (Jesus' time) is not only the same time, but Jesus rebukes Nicodemus for not understanding this in OT times. Same operation.


 
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...s-nt-pentecost-and-beyond.89723/#post-1106305


----------



## lynnie

Puritan Covenanter-

I am not questioning that or disagreeing, nor could I find anything Reformed that would question that. Salvation under the OC was by grace through faith and the inner working of the Holy Spirit. They were new creations with new hearts, same as post Pentecost. The quantity and number went global after Pentecost, but the actual regeneration didn't change for an individual. That is the Covenantal Theology position, right?

(By the way the sermon today was on Jeremiah 32 and they read the entire thing. So 31, which got this discussion started for me, did get followed by 32, lol. It wasn't about this but it was a great sermon.)

But my question was, what's new with the New Cov, looking at Hebrews 8, which is quoting Jer 31. If the salvation is the same, what is new? :

"He is also the mediator of a better covenant, which has been enacted on better promises.

For if that first _covenant_ had been faultless, there would have been no occasion sought for a second.
.......
“I will put My laws into their minds,
And I will write them on their hearts.
And I will be their God,
And they shall be My people."

If the new Covenant is about an inside change of heart, what's new? That was my question.

Now Rev BB takes Hebrews 8 in the bigger context of the new Priesthood. I have to tell you Rev that my husband loved your post, and he said he hasn't understood this since his Westminster prof mid 1970s expressed not really understanding it either, but he said your response makes sense in context.

So if you don't mind, I want to make sure I am articulating and understanding this properly in your opinion. Is the following accurate? :

Jeremiah and Ezekiel fit this verse in Peter: "Concerning this salvation, the Spirit of Christ in them was indicating when he predicted the sufferings of Christ and the subsequent glories."

Prophecy can be veiled and figurative and so when they spoke these prophecies about a new heart and new spirit and things written on our mind, it was not intended to mean anything about a change in the salvation experience itself, but the Holy Spirit within them was pointing to a perfect priesthood and perfect sacrifice that would save perfectly, unlike the OT system?

It was to be a double fulfillment in part, both God turning a remnant back to him in the OC before the incarnation, plus others in the NC? But the Hebrews chapter in context is to be understood as not being about what happens to us, but about the perfection of the new priesthood? 

Would part of what's new involve the mind, I mean, we know about the perfect sacrifice of Jesus now and the work of redemption in a way that they didn't understand. Or since babies with no mental understanding can be elect, would you have to say that the renewed mind isn't part of what's new in the NC? Its just about the new priest and new sacrifice?

Again, I really appreciate all the imput from everybody.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scott and I may differ on a few things. But We agree so much. Here is his study on the Spirit concerning the Covenant of Grace. 

http://www.semperreformanda.com/the...CMCTGGlMr0aV7rwYkfZ4hkQw8gVyZo4EQMktZIM5JK4n0


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lynnie said:


> If the new Covenant is about an inside change of heart, what's new? That was my question.
> 
> Now Rev BB takes Hebrews 8 in the bigger context of the new Priesthood. I have to tell you Rev that my husband loved your post, and he said he hasn't understood this since his Westminster prof mid 1970s expressed not really understanding it either, but he said your response makes sense in context.


Did I not do that above also. I am sorry. I didn't see Bruce's response. I was sharing what I learned from Rev. Winzer in the context of Hebrews over all. The fulfillment of Christ working, fulfilling, and being the Propitiation completed Adam, Abraham, Moses. and the Law and Prophets.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lynnie said:


> Would part of what's new involve the mind, I mean, we know about the perfect sacrifice of Jesus now and the work of redemption in a way that they didn't understand.



I guess I have to address this in a daily situation. I am not sure that many in our Churches understand this. As I have noted there are some who want to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works also. I have said that for many years. It is the corrupting of the word that Paul speaks about in Corinthians when he says it is an administration of death. I posted on this years ago. 


In light of the passage mentioned in 2 Corinthians 3, which calls the Old an administration of Death, one must also read the prior passages to understand in what context St. Paul is referring to the Mosaic Covenant.

(2Co 2:14) Now thanks be unto God, which always causeth us to triumph in Christ, and maketh manifest the savour of his knowledge by us in every place.
(2Co 2:15) For we are unto God a sweet savour of Christ, in them that are saved, and in them that perish:
(2Co 2:16) To the one we are the savour of death unto death; and to the other the savour of life unto life. And who is sufficient for these things?
(2Co 2:17) For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God: but as of sincerity, but as of God, in the sight of God speak we in Christ.

Christ and the Gospel were Preached in Moses and the Old Testament. In fact Jesus said as much as did the author of Hebrews.

(Luk 24:27) And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.

(Joh 5:46) For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me.
(Joh 5:47) But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?

(Heb 4:2) For unto us was the gospel preached, as well as unto them: but the word preached did not profit them, not being mixed with faith in them that heard it.
(Heb 4:3) For we which have believed do enter into rest, as he said, As I have sworn in my wrath, if they shall enter into my rest: although the works were finished from the foundation of the world.

The Mosaic was an administration of death the same way the New Covenant is to those who seek to turn the New Covenant into a Covenant of Works. We are so inclined to stumble because we will not believe Moses or Christ. We naturally tend to corrupt the Word of God and the Covenant of Grace by wanting to add our works into our justification before God. In doing so we are refusing the Cornerstone and Saviour. We become like those that Paul is speaking about, “to one they [Paul and the Apostles] are a savour of death unto death.” And how is to be considered that Paul and the Church is a savour unto death? They are because the corrupters of the word of God do what St. Paul says he doesn’t do in the proceeding verse, “For we are not as those who corrupt the Word of God.” Those who corrupt the word are rejecting the Chief Cornerstone and depending upon their works or acts that contribute to their justification. The book of Galatians, Romans, and Hebrews have warnings and correctives for those who corrupt the word. But when they reject the truth they fall deeper into death. Even St. Paul acknowledged that the Law didn’t kill him. He was already dead and discovered it. That is one of the purposes of the Law. That purpose is to reveal sin and death. .As Paul noted earlier in the letter to the Romans death came upon all men by sin and Adam.

Rom 7:13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
Rom 7:14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Note James Durham here on the Mosaic Covenant and how God intended the reception to be in light of how it was turned into something God didn’t intend. https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/01/taken-frompract/

“3. [We would] distinguish between God’s intention in giving and the believers in Israel, their making use of this law; and the carnal multitude among that people, their way of receiving it, and corrupt abusing it contrary to the Lord’s mind. In the first sense, it was a covenant of grace. In the second it turned to be a covenant of works to them. And therefore it is that the Lord rejects (as we may see, Isa. 1:13; 66:2-3; Jer. 7:22) their sacrifices and services as not commanded, because rested on by them, to the prejudice of grace, and contrary to the strain and scope of this law complexly considered.”
James Durham Practical Exposition of the Ten Commandments p. 55

Most of this has been taken from this blog I wrote in Sept of 2012.
https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-mosaic-covenant-same-in-substance-as-the-new/

As far as the Deuteronomy 27:26 passage I leave you with these examples. The man in 1 Cor 5 who was delivered to Satan and the removal of the Candlestick in Revelation 2. There are various New Testament passages also that contain strong warnings such as in 1 Cor. 10, 11; Hebrews 2-4, 6, 10, 12; 2 Peter 2; Jude; and Revelation 2-3.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I hope I am not confusing Lynnie. We have been around a long time. If I am please help me know what I am not understanding. I am a bear of very little brain like Pooh sometimes.


----------



## Scott Bushey

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I am a bear of very little brain like Pooh sometimes.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Lynnie, we have also noted this many times on the PB for many years. Bruce use to tell me this when I was a Reformed Baptist. Scott says this in his blog i posted a link to above. 


Another important thing to keep in mind is that the word “new” as in “new covenant” does not mean brand-spanking new, but renewed. The Greek term “neos” means new in time, just arrived, like “I have a new job”. The Greek term “kai-nay” generally means something that has been renewed, as in “I’ve got a new attitude”.

2537 kainós – properly, new in quality (innovation), fresh in development or opportunity – because “not found exactly like this before.”

So when Jesus says, ‘This is the New Covenant in my blood”, He is not implying that this is a brand new thing you have never seen before, but it is renewed. It is the consummation of what was started in Genesis 3.

Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Scott Bushey said:


>


Yep, That is me. A short pudgy guy who loves life and is ignorant about many things but has a go lucky attitude. Just ask my neighbors. Especially after I have a few glasses of wine.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Lynnie, we have also noted this many times on the PB for many years. Bruce use to tell me this when I was a Reformed Baptist. Scott says this in his blog i posted a link to above.
> 
> 
> Another important thing to keep in mind is that the word “new” as in “new covenant” does not mean brand-spanking new, but renewed. The Greek term “neos” means new in time, just arrived, like “I have a new job”. The Greek term “kai-nay” generally means something that has been renewed, as in “I’ve got a new attitude”.
> 
> 2537 kainós – properly, new in quality (innovation), fresh in development or opportunity – because “not found exactly like this before.”
> 
> So when Jesus says, ‘This is the New Covenant in my blood”, He is not implying that this is a brand new thing you have never seen before, but it is renewed. It is the consummation of what was started in Genesis 3.
> 
> Galatians 3:8 And the Scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, preached the gospel to Abraham beforehand, saying, “In you all the nations shall be blessed.”


Helpful, thank you. If I sound confused, it isn't your fault : )


----------



## OPC'n

I agree with what Bruce said. I also see the NC as a time when the Gentiles from all nations (a promise to Abraham) were brought into God's covenant. Also, Pentecost (when the Holy Spirit was poured out) happened to establish the legitimacy and authority of the church as God's church. Remember that Jesus told John (when he was in prison and asked if Jesus was the One to come) of the miracles he was performing (Luke 7:18-23) which were a fulfillment of the prophecy of him being the Messiah (Isaiah 35:5-6 Isaiah 61). This was an outward sign of fulfilled prophecy about the Christ. Now that Christ was gone the Holy Spirit needed to come in order to fulfill prophecy (Joel 2:28-32) in order to establish the church as a legitimate church of Christ through the continuation of miracles, writing of Scripture, speaking in tongues etc. The Holy Spirit's work in salvation was the same in OT and NT times, but Pentecost saw a time of visual expression of God's power to establish his church.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lynnie said:


> Helpful, thank you. If I sound confused, it isn't your fault : )


It has been my fault for years. I am still trying to untangle things from my past. My kids are the recipients of those things. I am grateful they love me to this day.


----------



## lynnie

In Jeremiah 31:31 when God says he will make a New Covenant with the people of Israel and Judah, does the Hebrew also have words for brand new and renewed that are both translated into English as new? If so, is that Hebrew word there the one for renew? 

I'm not Dispensational, but I talk to them. Thanks.


----------



## Scott Bushey

2318. חָדַשׁ *châdash*, _khaw-dash´_; a prim. root; to _be new_; caus. to _rebuild_:—renew, repair.

2319. חָדָשׁ *châdâsh*, _khaw-dawsh´_; from 2318; _new_:—fresh, new thing.



James Strong, _A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and The Hebrew Bible_ (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2009), 37.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Henry:

"III. That God will _*renew*_ his covenant with them, so that all these blessings they shall have, not by providence only, but by promise, and thereby they shall be both sweetened and secured. *But this covenant refers to gospel times*, the latter days that _shall come;_ for of gospel grace the apostle understands it (Heb. 8:8, 9, etc.), *where this whole passage is quoted as a summary of the covenant of grace made with believers in Jesus Christ*. Observe, 1. Who the persons are with whom this covenant is made—_with the house of Israel and Judah_, with the gospel church, _the Israel of God_ on which _peace shall be_ (Gal. 6:16), with the spiritual seed of believing Abraham and praying Jacob."

Matthew Henry, _Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Whole Bible: Complete and Unabridged in One Volume_ (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1994), 1291.
**my emphasis added

*

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000

If I may...The OC was administered in shadows - promises, prophecies, sacrifices etc., all which pointed to the Christ who was to come. Although the outward administration was efficacious for the elect, it fell short both of the fullness and spiritual efficacy found in the simplicity of the means of grace under the newer economy. 

We may add to this that under the NC, which like the OC also was _established_ only with the elect in Christ, that with (i) the priesthood of all believers, (ii) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, (iii) a closed canon, and (iv) the _incarnate_ Son sitting at the right hand of God interceding for his people, we can expect greater fidelity and knowledge of the Lord in the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

Dear hub started telling me this and I asked him to write it down. The main thing is that the word for new in Hebrews 8 is the Greek for renewed, as opposed to brand new. 

*************
"Hebrews 8:8 is not exactly a verbatim quotation of Jeremiah 31:31 from the Septuagint, but it is very close, and the Greek for “new covenant” is exactly the same. The Greek word for “new” is καινην, which your buddy on Puritan Board says means “renewed” as opposed to absolutely new. As to the meaning of καινην, we have this from the Theological Dictionary of the New Testament.

*kainós.*

_1. Linguistic Data._ As distinct from _néos_, “new in time,” _kainós_ means “new in nature” (with an implication of “better”). Both words suggest “unfamiliar,” “unexpected,” “wonderful,” and the distinction fades with time. The NT has _kainós_ for “not yet used” in Mt. 9:17, “unusual” in Acts 17:21, and “new in kind” in Mt. 13:52; Eph. 2:15; 2 Jn. 5; Heb. 8:13 (though an aspect of time is also present in 2 Cor. 5:17; Heb. 8:13,etc.).

The Hebrew word for “new” in Jeremiah 31:31 is חדש, which according to the various lexical aids I have, can mean new but can also mean fresh."


----------



## Ben Zartman

I don't want to foster a tempest here, but I see that Lynne is at least attending a baptist church. So without disagreeing with many of the wonderful things posted, I will add that in Baptist thought, another difference between old and new covenants is that while in the old covenant one could be in covenant with God without being converted, because inclusion was by natural birth, in the new covenant inclusion is only by regeneration--New Birth--thus the "all shall know me"
It is also an unbreakable covenant "Not like the one I made with your fathers, which covenant they brake," because it is all a work of God. I cannot (as a Baptist) break God's covenant by failing to baptize my children, though an OT Jew who didn't circumcise broke the covenant thereby.
Again, not to deny many of the posts with which I'm in complete agreement, and really not wishing to begin another acrimonious debate, I just throw this out here so the OP can see another historic confessional view, esp given the church she attends.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> I don't want to foster a tempest here, but I see that Lynne is at least attending a baptist church. So without disagreeing with many of the wonderful things posted, I will add that in Baptist thought, another difference between old and new covenants is that while in the old covenant one could be in covenant with God without being converted, because inclusion was by natural birth, in the new covenant inclusion is only by regeneration--New Birth--thus the "all shall know me"
> It is also an unbreakable covenant "Not like the one I made with your fathers, which covenant they brake," because it is all a work of God. I cannot (as a Baptist) break God's covenant by failing to baptize my children, though an OT Jew who didn't circumcise broke the covenant thereby.
> Again, not to deny many of the posts with which I'm in complete agreement, and really not wishing to begin another acrimonious debate, I just throw this out here so the OP can see another historic confessional view, esp given the church she attends.


The OC was indeed conditional, as in the Mosaic Covenant relationship with God, and not all who were under that One actually were really part of the spiritual people of Faith, but now under the NC, all under it are indeed saved. We really do have all spiritual blessings now in Christ, something only foretold and prophesied yet to come with Messiah under the OC.
So maybe its the fullness of the promised CoG might be a preferred way to look at this issue,


----------



## User20004000

Dachaser said:


> The OC was indeed conditional, as in the Mosaic Covenant relationship with God, and not all who were under that One actually were really part of the spiritual people of Faith, but now under the NC, all under it are indeed saved. We really do have all spiritual blessings now in Christ, something only foretold and prophesied yet to come with Messiah under the OC.
> So maybe its the fullness of the promised CoG might be a preferred way to look at this issue,



God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was _not_ conditional under the OC (and as you rightly note, neither is it conditional under the NC.) 

The seed to whom the promise was made was always the Second Adam (the incarnate Christ) and by extension it was made with the elect in Christ from all ages, even under Moses. “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”

The apostle Paul makes this exact same point when reminding his hearers in Romans nine that the covenant _promise_ was never intended for every single person to whom the outward administration of the covenant applied. It was a promise made to the “children of promise” and, therefore, it was not conditional (any more than the NC is conditional). In fact, the apostle explicitly tells us that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans 9:8). Nothing had changed in this regard. 

Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ _alone_ (Galatians 3:16). (No conditionality there.) 

Lastly, any conditionality of the Mosaic economy cannot possibly undermine the unconditional promise that was active under the OC, which the apostle Paul also labors in Galatians 3: “The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the *promise*. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise, but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.” 

So, both testaments operate under a unconditional covenant of promise per Genesis 17, Romans 9 and Galatians 3.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

RWD said:


> God's promise to save Abraham and his "seed" was _not_ conditional under the OC (and as you rightly note, neither is it conditional under the NC.)
> 
> The seed to whom the promise was made was always the Second Adam (the incarnate Christ) and by extension it was made with the elect in Christ from all ages, even under Moses. “The promises were spoken to Abraham and to his seed. Scripture does not say ‘and to seeds,’ meaning many people, but ‘and to your seed,’ meaning one person, who is Christ.”
> 
> The apostle Paul makes this exact same point when reminding his hearers in Romans nine that the covenant _promise_ was never intended for every single person to whom the outward administration of the covenant applied. It was a promise made to the “children of promise” and, therefore, it was not conditional (any more than the NC is conditional). In fact, the apostle explicitly tells us that the children of the "promise" are counted as Abraham's seed, and not the children of the flesh (Romans 9:8). Nothing had changed in this regard.
> 
> Most importantly, the "seed" to whom the promise was made was actually Christ _alone_ (Galatians 3:16). (No conditionality there.)
> 
> Lastly, any conditionality of the Mosaic economy cannot possibly undermine the unconditional promise that was active under the OC, which the apostle Paul also labors in Galatians 3: “The law, introduced 430 years later, does not set aside the covenant previously established by God and thus do away with the *promise*. For if the inheritance depends on the law, then it no longer depends on the promise, but God in his grace gave it to Abraham through a promise.”
> 
> So, both testaments operate under a unconditional covenant of promise per Genesis 17, Romans 9 and Galatians 3.


This is where the Reformed Baptists and Presbytarians will continue to agree to disagree on this issue, as we do see from Hebrews that there was a new Covenant relationship mediated fopr us through the Cross of Christ, as we now do have directg access to God, and have empowering of the Holy Spirit for all under the NC, not just some as under the OC.
https://reformedreasons.com/adult-c...hristian-theology/credobaptist-covenantalism/


----------



## User20004000

Dachaser said:


> This is where the Reformed Baptists and Presbytarians will continue to agree to disagree on this issue, as we do see from Hebrews that there was a new Covenant relationship mediated fopr us through the Cross of Christ, as we now do have directg access to God, and have empowering of the Holy Spirit for all under the NC, not just some as under the OC.
> https://reformedreasons.com/adult-c...hristian-theology/credobaptist-covenantalism/



I’m merely addressing _your_ dual contention that the OC was conditional and the NC is not. So, it’s probably best not to point to a perceived disagreement between Baptists and Paedos.

I just wanted to know how one defends that sort of dual contention given that covenant with Abraham was established solely with the singular offspring, Christ, and those who are elect in Him. The unconditional promise to Abraham (Genesis 17) that the law didn’t nullify (Galatians 3) was for the OT and NT elect (Romans 9).

Here's the problem that many paedobaptists run into when dealing with Baptists, especially so-called "Reformed" Baptists. "Reformed" Baptists argue that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and reprobates in professing households since many who were to receive the sign of the covenant fell away. (They argue for a conditional covenant.) Then they rightly show that the New Covenant is indeed unconditional, established only with the elect. Accordingly, Baptists reason: if the covenant has changed from including non-believers to including only true believers, then baptism should be reserved only for professing believers in order to ensure (as best as possible) that the visible church resemble the true regenerate church of the New Testament. I’ll tease out the fallacy, but first I’ll show how Paedos get tripped up by the the faulty criterion.

The paedobaptist gets tripped up by that argument when he tries to argue that both the New and the Old Covenants are established with both the elect and non-elect within professing households, which Randy Booth tries to do in his book "Children of the Promise." Such paedobaptists are certainly correct with respect to the continuity from Old to New but they cannot argue effectively that the New Covenant is established with certain unbelievers because Scripture doesn't support it. Consequently, the Baptist argument often goes like this:

“Hey Mr. Paedobaptist, you and I agree that the Old Covenant was made with the visible people of God, which includes believers and unbelievers (since many Israelites fell away from the true religion); therefore, we can agree that circumcision was to be administered to all males, elect or not, within a professing household. However, since the New Covenant is clearly made only with the elect in Christ who will persevere in the faith (unlike unfaithful Israel), then it is reasonable to maintain that the covenant has changed with respect to inclusiveness. It became unconditional. Therefore, the sign of the covenant should be reserved for those the elders are persuaded are actually believers."

In other words, the Baptist argues that since the people of God fell away under the older economy, then the Old Covenant promise must have been made with at least some reprobates; yet the elect of God will not fall away in the New Covenant, therefore, the New Covenant promise must be made with the elect alone. Hence conditional OC vs unconditional NC.

There is a flaw in reasoning that must be considered. The Baptist is contrasting the Old Testament visible church with the New Testament invisible church! By using a faulty comparison, the Baptist is trying to prove with whom the Old Covenant was established by pointing to who were to receive the sign (elect and reprobate); then he argues for the proper recipients for New Testament baptism on the basis of God establishing his NT covenant with the elect alone!

By changing their criteria in this way, they arrive at logically unsubstantiated conclusion. In other words, our Baptist brethren establish with whom the covenant was established under the older economy by looking at who was to receive the sign; then they try to establish who is to receive the sign under the new economy by looking at with whom the New Covenant was made! That's simply fallacious.

The one, single covenant of promise was established with the incarnate Christ and all who were elected in Him; yet this covenant, although established with the elect in Christ, was to be administered even to the reprobate who qualifies, by precept, even by birth.

Cheers.

Reactions: Like 5 | Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser

RWD said:


> I’m merely addressing _your_ dual contention that the OC was conditional and the NC is not. So, it’s probably best not to point to a perceived disagreement between Baptists and Paedos.
> 
> I just wanted to know how one defends that sort of dual contention given that covenant with Abraham was established solely with the singular offspring, Christ, and those who are elect in Him. The unconditional promise to Abraham (Genesis 17) that the law didn’t nullify (Galatians 3) was for the OT and NT elect (Romans 9).
> 
> Here's the problem that many paedobaptists run into when dealing with Baptists, especially so-called "Reformed" Baptists. "Reformed" Baptists argue that the Old Covenant was established with the elect and reprobates in professing households since many who were to receive the sign of the covenant fell away. (They argue for a conditional covenant.) Then they rightly show that the New Covenant is indeed unconditional, established only with the elect. Accordingly, Baptists reason: if the covenant has changed from including non-believers to including only true believers, then baptism should be reserved only for professing believers in order to ensure (as best as possible) that the visible church resemble the true regenerate church of the New Testament. I’ll tease out the fallacy, but first I’ll show how Paedos get tripped up by the the faulty criterion.
> 
> The paedobaptist gets tripped up by that argument when he tries to argue that both the New and the Old Covenants are established with both the elect and non-elect within professing households, which Randy Booth tries to do in his book "Children of the Promise." Such paedobaptists are certainly correct with respect to the continuity from Old to New but they cannot argue effectively that the New Covenant is established with certain unbelievers because Scripture doesn't support it. Consequently, the Baptist argument often goes like this:
> 
> “Hey Mr. Paedobaptist, you and I agree that the Old Covenant was made with the visible people of God, which includes believers and unbelievers (since many Israelites fell away from the true religion); therefore, we can agree that circumcision was to be administered to all males, elect or not, within a professing household. However, since the New Covenant is clearly made only with the elect in Christ who will persevere in the faith (unlike unfaithful Israel), then it is reasonable to maintain that the covenant has changed with respect to inclusiveness. It became unconditional. Therefore, the sign of the covenant should be reserved for those the elders are persuaded are actually believers."
> 
> In other words, the Baptist argues that since the people of God fell away under the older economy, then the Old Covenant promise must have been made with at least some reprobates; yet the elect of God will not fall away in the New Covenant, therefore, the New Covenant promise must be made with the elect alone. Hence conditional OC vs unconditional NC.
> 
> There is a flaw in reasoning that must be considered. The Baptist is contrasting the Old Testament visible church with the New Testament invisible church! By using a faulty comparison, the Baptist is trying to prove with whom the Old Covenant was established by pointing to who were to receive the sign (elect and reprobate); then he argues for the proper recipients for New Testament baptism on the basis of God establishing his NT covenant with the elect alone!
> 
> By changing their criteria in this way, they arrive at logically unsubstantiated conclusion. In other words, our Baptist brethren establish with whom the covenant was established under the older economy by looking at who was to receive the sign; then they try to establish who is to receive the sign under the new economy by looking at with whom the New Covenant was made! That's simply fallacious.
> 
> The one, single covenant of promise was established with the incarnate Christ and all who were elected in Him; yet this covenant, although established with the elect in Christ, was to be administered even to the reprobate who qualifies, by precept, even by birth.
> 
> Cheers.


The Church officially became here on the Day of Pentacost, as that was when the Holy Spirit came in His way to indwel and seal all believers in Jesus Christ, as Isreal under the OC was indeed called out assembly, but not quite the same conotation as now in Acts forward.The part that I see as conditional would had been the Mosaic Covenant God made with Isreal under OT times.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> In simple terms--and I realize that one can quite easily get a whole lot more in-depth and all that--but just as a matter of _context,_ note that Heb.8 is deeply embedded in a much longer passage not *about* new hearts and Holy Spirit ministry; but *about* the new, superior High Priesthood of Jesus Christ.
> 
> The _passage _that the writer appeals to, Jer.31, in support of his larger argument, mentions both new hearts and the Spirit within. But that passage is drawn upon for _support _of the Hebrews author's purpose in the passage. The New Covenant is better *because *it gives in Christ everything that the Old Covenant (Moses/Aaron) only hinted at, only offered in reference to what was yet to come.
> 
> What's *new* about the New Covenant (as Jer. says) is in comparison with the Old Covenant, or in other words (as the writer amplifies his own point) "the one I made with the people when they came out of Egypt." That was a covenant with an _inferior _priesthood. It was inferior on account of the natural weakness of men, a weakness illustrated in the fact that nothing outward (and the Mosaic Covenant had massive outward typological exhibits) can repair the inward damage of the heart.
> 
> There is nothing in Jer. or in Heb. that says OT saints were not affected inwardly by the ministry of the Holy Spirit and given the heart to believe the promises of God. It is speaking of the quality of the ministry that the people had in virtue of the actual covenant arrangement under which they operated.
> 
> The saints under Moses and the Old Covenant (together with all OT saints) were being saved by the virtue of the Covenant of Grace, operative since Gen.3 and the protoevangelium, inaugurated formally in history with Abraham. They were regenerated by the Holy Spirit--the only possible Agent of such change.
> 
> It is the case that the New Covenant is marked by a massive and "popular" _outpouring_ of the Holy Spirit, which largess was previously restricted to Messianic types--prophets, priests, and kings--all whom pointed to the One on whom the Spirit was poured out "without measure." So also, this general dispensation of the Spirit is something "new" for this penultimate age (before the consummate, eternal age). But that is somewhat of an effect of what makes this time truly New.
> 
> Again, the newness has everything to do with flowering of the covenant of grace, and the setting aside of the Old Mosaic Covenant types. We have the reality in Christ as High Priest, and no longer are reliant on sub-perfect mediators ministering under an externals-heavy, shadowy portrayal of a coming kingdom and a once-for-all final sacrifice.
> 
> There is still a not-yet aspect to be observed in the New Covenant, relative to the promise found in Jer. There is still a need for teachers and witnessing: "Know the Lord!"; but there will not be in the eschaton, when there will be no one present who is not a full-fledged member of the Kingdom. In the age to come, there will be no sin or other obstacle to knowing God. In principle this is a reality; but in terms of the time-between the Advents, it is something we have yet to encounter.


Well noted. If one reads Hebrews carefully then our fathers in the wilderness are still used as a paradigm for shrinking back in disbelief. They are hardly an example if the Covenant under which they heard the Gospel was completely unlike our own.

Christ is seen as superior to everything that foreshadowed Him. Even the tabernacle is a type of our true heavenly worship where we enter in by the veil of His flesh.
Everything that is "New" has to do with the fulfillment of every element and sacrament that shadowed our worship enabled by our perfect Mediator (Prophet, Priest, and King). The author teaches his readers that it is inconceivable to go back to the types and shadows once the fulness of grace has dawned in Christ. Shrinking back now is worse than what our forefathers in the wilderness did.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## User20004000

Dachaser said:


> The Church officially became here on the Day of Pentacost, as that was when the Holy Spirit came in His way to indwel and seal all believers in Jesus Christ, as Isreal under the OC was indeed called out assembly, but not quite the same conotation as now in Acts forward.The part that I see as *conditional* would had been the Mosaic Covenant God made with Isreal under OT times.


 *emphasis* mine

That I’ve addressed. If the conditionality under Moses, whatever it is, cannot nullify the 430 year old _unconditional covenantal promise of salvation _given to Abraham, then at least that argument against the Paedo position fails. In other words, if there was an _unconditional_ salvific aspect of the promise to the elect that could not be nullified, then the covenantal unconditional-promise of salvation was not only established with the elect under Abraham but also _maintained_ throughout the OT under Moses.

Again:

“Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”

So, the _promise_, being made to Christ and the elect children of the promise (Romans 9), was indeed _unconditional_. But, was it nullified? That’s the question.
What saith the Word? Was the promise nullified under the law or not? You must think it was, for obviously you won’t deny the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant. So, what saith the Word regarding the covenant with Abraham during the time of Moses until Christ?

“And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, *cannot* *disannul*, that it should make the *promise* of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: *but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”*

If by unconditional and perpetual promise, then it’s absolutely false that the OT under Moses differs in this regard.


----------



## Ben Zartman

RWD said:


> *emphasis* mine
> 
> That I’ve addressed. If the conditionality under Moses, whatever it is, cannot nullify the 430 year old _unconditional covenantal promise of salvation _given to Abraham, then at least that argument against the Paedo position fails. In other words, if there was an _unconditional_ salvific aspect of the promise to the elect that could not be nullified, then the covenantal unconditional-promise of salvation was not only established with the elect under Abraham but also _maintained_ throughout the OT under Moses.
> 
> Again:
> 
> “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
> 
> So, the _promise_, being made to Christ and the elect children of the promise (Romans 9), was indeed _unconditional_. But, was it nullified? That’s the question.
> What saith the Word? Was the promise nullified under the law or not? You must think it was, for obviously you won’t deny the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant. So, what saith the Word regarding the covenant with Abraham during the time of Moses until Christ?
> 
> “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, *cannot* *disannul*, that it should make the *promise* of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: *but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”*
> 
> If by unconditional and perpetual promise, then it’s absolutely false that the OT under Moses differs in this regard.


Thanks for you thoughtful addressing of this issue. I for one, though holding an opposite view on baptism, agree with most of your statements. Election in Christ is unconditional in all ages. I'd like to ask, though, what you take it to mean when God charged the fathers with breaking the covenant. Which covenant did they break? Obviously not the promise of righteousness imputed by faith.
I suppose it to be the outward administration of types and shadows, which shadows began with Abel's sacrifices and continued being added to during the entire OT period where they reached an apex with the Mosaic law and the Israelite kings. But I wait eagerly your reply.


----------



## User20004000

Ben Zartman said:


> Thanks for you thoughtful addressing of this issue. I for one, though holding an opposite view on baptism, agree with most of your statements. Election in Christ is unconditional in all ages. I'd like to ask, though, what you take it to mean when God charged the fathers with breaking the covenant. Which covenant did they break? Obviously not the promise of righteousness imputed by faith.
> I suppose it to be the outward administration of types and shadows, which shadows began with Abel's sacrifices and continued being added to during the entire OT period where they reached an apex with the Mosaic law and the Israelite kings. But I wait eagerly your reply.



My Brother,

These questions deal with a matter of considerable nuance so please bear with me as I try to flesh out distinctions so that I might do minimal justice to the question I think you’re asking.

1. We already saw that the OC was _established_ with the elect, yet it was to have been administered to _professing_ believers and their households. So, the outward administration would have included (a) infants who hadn’t yet professed the true religion; (b) professing believers who weren’t true believers (i.e. hypocrites) and (c) true believers.

2. In Jeremiah 31 God declares there’ll be a new covenant, one that’s not broken like the OC.

We must ask, is the glory of the NC merely that it’s _established_ only with _believers_ who cannot utterly apostatize? Is that what Jeremiah 31 points us too, greater _visible_ covenant faithfulness that’s to be achieved by the means of a more stringent membership? Let’s interrogate that position.

First off, the _visible_ NC communion under either practice would still include (b) from above, professing believers who aren’t true believers. The main troublemakers would still gain outward membership. Accordingly, the visible church would appear just as faithless or faithful under a Baptist scenario since infants, whether elect or not, don’t typically introduce heresies or bring reproach upon the covenant people of God. Therefore, the outward faithfulness or faithlessness would be purely a function of the ratio of (b) to (c), hypocrites to true believers, which we wouldn’t expect outward administration to influence in any relevant way. Neither communion has a greater or lesser claim on hypocrisy among its communing members. Both have non elect children that eventually make false professions and, very sadly, eat to themselves damnation.

3. So, once the Baptist is willing to grant that the greater faithfulness under the NC relative to the OC cannot be a matter of the visible church at all but by their assessment must rather be a matter of inward conversion, then here’s where that leaves us. Both communions would look the same on the outside. Both communions would have their adult hypocrites as well as be outwardly represented by true believers who are yet carnal to some degree. The _only_ difference in covenant faithfulness would not pertain to the differences in how we might define the visible church, but rather would have to be indexed to how we define the _true_ covenant people of God! Faithfulness would be indexed merely to the _theological_ exclusion of the elect who weren’t yet converted. That’s a pretty small sample of very likely young children. So, is that what Jeremiah 31 means by greater fidelity? Is the glory of the NC the exclusion of elect infants who aren’t yet converted? (If so, then aside from other theological difficulties - effectual calling, regeneration and saving faith would not be a blessing of the NC! Rather, they’d be evangelical graces that place one into covenant. Yet that’s an outright denial of Ezekiel 36, which attributes the conversion of the NC to _covenant_ blessing, not _pre_-covenant blessing. (It was never the latter, yet always the former.)

4. As I pray you might see, Jeremiah 31 loses its punch for the Baptist when one begins to recognize that the OC was established only with the elect, just like the NC. For the Baptist to get the upper hand, he needs to convince the Paedo (and I think himself) that the OC was established both with the elect and non-elect. Yet Genesis 17; Romans 9 and Galatians 3 would seem to disprove that premise while affirming the unconditional nature of the one CoG.

5. Our Baptist brethren should acknowledge that the converted under Moses broke covenant, but as soon as they acknowledge that OC saints could or did break covenant, then it becomes quite difficult to attribute the impossibility of breaking the NC (whatever is meant by that) to restricting the covenant people of God only to the converted. Rather, the impossibility of breaking covenant should be attributed to something that’s not strictly Baptistic, such as a greater NC empowerment by the Spirit or some other interpretation of such texts that’s not peculiar to Baptist thought. Now of course they can try to attribute the impossibility of breaking covenant to the theological elimination of the unconverted elect infants, in which case I refer back to what I’ve already stated.

Indeed, the OC saints did break covenant and as a result did not inherit the promised land. Yet Ezekiel 36 promises kingdom consummation, the summing up of all things in Christ. Apostasy cannot obstruct the final frontier. In _that_ sense, we cannot break covenant.

Reactions: Like 1 | Informative 2


----------



## Ben Zartman

RWD said:


> My Brother,
> 
> These questions deal with a matter of considerable nuance so please bear with me as I try to flesh out distinctions so that I might do minimal justice to the question I think you’re asking.
> 
> 1. We already saw that the OC was _established_ with the elect, yet it was to have been administered to _professing_ believers and their households. So, the outward administration would have included (a) infants who hadn’t yet professed the true religion; (b) professing believers who weren’t true believers (i.e. hypocrites) and (c) true believers.
> 
> 2. In Jeremiah 31 God declares there’ll be a new covenant, one that’s not broken like the OC.
> 
> We must ask, is the glory of the NC merely that it’s _established_ only with _believers_ who cannot utterly apostatize? Is that what Jeremiah 31 points us too, greater _visible_ covenant faithfulness that’s to be achieved by the means of a more stringent membership? Let’s interrogate that position.
> 
> First off, the _visible_ NC communion under either practice would still include (b) from above, professing believers who aren’t true believers. The main troublemakers would still gain outward membership. Accordingly, the visible church would appear just as faithless or faithful under a Baptist scenario since infants, whether elect or not, don’t typically introduce heresies or bring reproach upon the covenant people of God. Therefore, the outward faithfulness or faithlessness would be purely a function of the ratio of (b) to (c), hypocrites to true believers, which we wouldn’t expect outward administration to influence in any relevant way. Neither communion has a greater or lesser claim on hypocrisy among its communing members. Both have non elect children that eventually make false professions and, very sadly, eat to themselves damnation.
> 
> 3. So, once the Baptist is willing to grant that the greater faithfulness under the NC relative to the OC cannot be a matter of the visible church at all but by their assessment must rather be a matter of inward conversion, then here’s where that leaves us. Both communions would look the same on the outside. Both communions would have their adult hypocrites as well as be outwardly represented by true believers who are yet carnal to some degree. The _only_ difference in covenant faithfulness would not pertain to the differences in how we might define the visible church, but rather would have to be indexed to how we define the _true_ covenant people of God! Faithfulness would be indexed merely to the _theological_ exclusion of the elect who weren’t yet converted. That’s a pretty small sample of very likely young children. So, is that what Jeremiah 31 means by greater fidelity? Is the glory of the NC the exclusion of elect infants who aren’t yet converted? (If so, then aside from other theological difficulties - effectual calling, regeneration and saving faith would not be a blessing of the NC! Rather, they’d be evangelical graces that place one into covenant. Yet that’s an outright denial of Ezekiel 36, which attributes the conversion of the NC to _covenant_ blessing, not _pre_-covenant blessing. (It was never the latter, yet always the former.)
> 
> 4. As I pray you might see, Jeremiah 31 looses its punch for the Baptist when one begins to recognize that the OC was established only with the elect, just like the NC. For the Baptist to get the upper hand, he needs to convince the Paedo (and I think himself) that the OC was established both with the elect and non-elect. Yet Genesis 17; Romans 9 and Galatians 3 would seem to disprove that premise while affirming the unconditional nature of the one CoG.
> 
> 5. Our Baptist brethren should acknowledge that the converted under Moses broke covenant, but as soon as they acknowledge that OC saints could or did break covenant, then it becomes quite difficult to attribute the impossibility of breaking the NC (whatever is meant by that) to restricting the covenant people of God only to the converted. Rather, the impossibility of breaking covenant should be attributed to something that’s not strictly Baptistic, such as a greater NC empowerment by the Spirit or some other interpretation of such texts that’s not peculiar to Baptist thought. Now of course they can try to attribute the impossibility of breaking covenant to the theological elimination of the unconverted elect infants, in which case I refer back to what I’ve already stated.
> 
> Indeed, the OC saints did break covenant and as a result did not inherit the promised land. Yet Ezekiel 36 promises kingdom consummation, the summing up of all things in Christ. Apostasy cannot obstruct the final frontier. In _that_ sense, we cannot break covenant.


Thank you. Very nuanced indeed--I'll have to read it several more times before I can hope to understand, but I am grateful for the time you took, and will probably ask more questions when I can responsibly say I get it.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Dachaser

RWD said:


> *emphasis* mine
> 
> That I’ve addressed. If the conditionality under Moses, whatever it is, cannot nullify the 430 year old _unconditional covenantal promise of salvation _given to Abraham, then at least that argument against the Paedo position fails. In other words, if there was an _unconditional_ salvific aspect of the promise to the elect that could not be nullified, then the covenantal unconditional-promise of salvation was not only established with the elect under Abraham but also _maintained_ throughout the OT under Moses.
> 
> Again:
> 
> “Now to Abraham and his seed were the promises made. He saith not, And to seeds, as of many; but as of one, And to thy seed, which is Christ.”
> 
> So, the _promise_, being made to Christ and the elect children of the promise (Romans 9), was indeed _unconditional_. But, was it nullified? That’s the question.
> What saith the Word? Was the promise nullified under the law or not? You must think it was, for obviously you won’t deny the unconditional nature of the Abrahamic covenant. So, what saith the Word regarding the covenant with Abraham during the time of Moses until Christ?
> 
> “And this I say, that the covenant, that was confirmed before of God in Christ, the law, which was four hundred and thirty years after, *cannot* *disannul*, that it should make the *promise* of none effect. For if the inheritance be of the law, it is no more of promise: *but God gave it to Abraham by promise.”*
> 
> If by unconditional and perpetual promise, then it’s absolutely false that the OT under Moses differs in this regard.


The CoG would be the NC itself, but that was not in force until the promised Messiah actually came and died and rose again, as then the also promised Holy Spirit would come to Earth and baptized all of those who had received Jesus through faith into Body, and now under the NC. Jesus stayed at last supper now by his shed blood will have NC established, do was put into effect at that time. This fulfilling Jeremiah 31.


----------



## User20004000

Dachaser said:


> The CoG would be the NC itself, but that was not in force until the promised Messiah actually came and died and rose again, as then the also promised Holy Spirit would come to Earth and baptized all of those who had received Jesus through faith into Body, and now under the NC. Jesus stayed at last supper now by his shed blood will have NC established, do was put into effect at that time. This fulfilling Jeremiah 31.



I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. The CoG is not the NC. And, yes, the NC wasn’t enforce until the time of Christ. Notwithstanding, no matter how many promises there were, they all find their yes and amen in Christ. (2 Corinthians 1:20) Moreover, all the post fall covenants converge on one single promise, which is fulfilled in Christ. As Ephesians 2:12 teaches, when the gentiles were alienated from Christ, they were strangers to the covenants (plural) of promise (singular).

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RWD said:


> I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. The CoG is not the NC. And, yes, the NC wasn’t enforce until the time of Christ.



This will be confusing to some as some Reformed use the terms interchangeably. See Scott's post. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/so-what-exactly-is-new-in-the-new-covenant.99455/#post-1215962

I also would like to ask a question concerning Ephesians 2:12. It does say Covenants. What is the fact that renders that word to be plural? 

I actually prefer to use the terminology Administrations of the Covenant of Grace. 

I am only asking questions in both cases.


----------



## User20004000

I’m not sure what you mean regarding “the fact that renders [it] to be plural.”

As Hodge puts it, “The word ‘covenants’ is in the plural, because God entered repeatedly into covenant with his people.” Similarly, as Peter T. O’Brien writes, “...plural _covenants _suggests a series of covenants...”

But because that would seem so obvious, I’m not sure that I’m addressing your query. Are you asking whether in fact the word should be translated in the plural? That’s not controversial (either). Maybe this will help. All the post fall covenants are essentially one. In other words, they are each a different aspect of the one CoG. They don’t supplant each other but rather complement each other. So, for instance, God promises Adam and Eve that the _seed_ of the woman would crush the serpent’s head. Obviously that’s fulfilled in the resurrection. God covenants with Noah to preserve the world in order that he might redeem the world. That’s fulfilled in Christ who upholds the world by the word of his power (from the throne in heaven that’s encircled by a rainbow). The promise that Abraham’s _seed_ would be as numerous as the stars in the Heavens is fulfilled in the singular seed, the incarnate Christ, and by extension in all those who would be baptized into him. The demands of the Mosaic law is satisfied in Christ’s active and passive obedience. And the promise of second Samuel 7 is fulfilled in the ascension of our Lord to God’s right hand. Many covenants, one promise, find their yes and amen in Christ. All of which are swallowed up in the New and Everlasting covenant in Christ’s blood.

“And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.” Luke 24:27

Can you imagine that sermon?! Glory!!!

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This will be confusing to some as some Reformed use the terms interchangeably. See Scott's post. https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/so-what-exactly-is-new-in-the-new-covenant.99455/#post-1215962
> 
> I also would like to ask a question concerning Ephesians 2:12. It does say Covenants. What is the fact that renders that word to be plural?
> 
> I actually prefer to use the terminology Administrations of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> I am only asking questions in both cases.


Was the CoG here in full before Messiah, or did it usher in with His work and ministry?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

RWD said:


> Are you asking whether in fact the word should be translated in the plural?


That was my question. What makes διαθήκη (diathēkē) plural or singular? I do not know Greek. 

I actually see the Covenants to be progressive in revelation and fulfilment. I find fulfillment of the Abrahamic Covenant in the Mosaic. What I am trying to say is that there is continuity between all of the Administrations of the Covenant of Grace (or Everlasting Covenant). Some would say that there is Renewal by way of fulfilment and transformation such as how the Priestly offices were instituted and changed. Does that make sense?


----------



## Scott Bushey

Dachaser said:


> Was the CoG here in full before Messiah, or did it usher in with His work and ministry?



*When* was 'grace' ushered into God's people?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Scott Bushey said:


> *When* was 'grace' ushered into God's people?



Genesis 3.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Was the CoG here in full before Messiah, or did it usher in with His work and ministry?



David, I would say they are the same in substance with all the Covenants being administrations of the Covenant of Grace. Each found fulfilment in the prior and was a renewal and ratification of the previous Covenants. Christ was always the focal point of the Everlasting Covenant. There are progressive changes to how the Kingdom is transformed and as there are changes in the Priesthood. The Salvation and Forgiveness of sin is always present as is the Saviour. The Law is always present as a reminder of God's will and our need for obedience and reconciliation. Sacrifice is always presented as the focal point of the Saviour reconciling man to God. As I stated above the renewal of each Covenant has some fulfilment and transformation. Fulfilment finds completion in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and in His Priestly office. The transformation of each Covenant into the next is important. We even see that when we start to understand Christ's atonement and His Dominion as Messiah the Prince. 


(Exo 6:2) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I _am_ the LORD:
(Exo 6:3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by _the name of_ God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
(Exo 6:4) And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.
(Exo 6:5) And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.
(Exo 6:6) Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I _am_ the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:
(Exo 6:7) And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I _am_ the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
(Exo 6:8) And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I _am_ the LORD.

I hope you see that progression and how the Abrahamic Covenant is the Covenant the Israelites also affirm.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> What makes διαθήκη (diathēkē) plural or singular? I do not know Greek.


Not inserting myself into this further discussion, but to offer Gk support--

τῶν διαθηκῶν is the Gk expression, a plural noun in the genitive case with the definite article, thus, "strangers _*from *_(trans. related to sense of the gen.) the covenant*s*."


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Not inserting myself into this further discussion, but to offer Gk support--
> 
> τῶν διαθηκῶν is the Gk expression, a plural noun in the genitive case with the definite article, thus, "strangers _*from *_(trans. related to sense of the gen.) the covenant*s*."


Thanks Bruce. I really appreciate it. I also noticed all of the translations I have access to translated it Covenants. I didn't know if it was because of context or for the reason you stated.


----------



## User20004000

“What makes διαθήκη (diathēkē) plural”

Brother,

First off, the noun in Ephesians 2:12 is diathekon (διαθηκῶν). That’s plural. The “covenant” I referred to earlier with respect to Abrahamic covenant that couldn’t be set aside by the law of 430 years later is a different word, diathēkēn, singular.

To more specific questions, Bruce is definitely your man(!), but what makes a noun plural will depend on its gender (and _case_ for its suffix). But, is that really of interest with respect to this discussion, whether covenants is plural in Ephesians 2:12? I’m missing something perhaps.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> David, I would say they are the same in substance with all the Covenants being administrations of the Covenant of Grace. Each found fulfilment in the prior and was a renewal and ratification of the previous Covenants. Christ was always the focal point of the Everlasting Covenant. There are progressive changes to how the Kingdom is transformed and as there are changes in the Priesthood. The Salvation and Forgiveness of sin is always present as is the Saviour. The Law is always present as a reminder of God's will and our need for obedience and reconciliation. Sacrifice is always presented as the focal point of the Saviour reconciling man to God. As I stated above the renewal of each Covenant has some fulfilment and transformation. Fulfilment finds completion in the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and in His Priestly office. The transformation of each Covenant into the next is important. We even see that when we start to understand Christ's atonement and His Dominion as Messiah the Prince.
> 
> 
> (Exo 6:2) And God spake unto Moses, and said unto him, I _am_ the LORD:
> (Exo 6:3) And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by _the name of_ God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.
> (Exo 6:4) And I have also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land of their pilgrimage, wherein they were strangers.
> (Exo 6:5) And I have also heard the groaning of the children of Israel, whom the Egyptians keep in bondage; and I have remembered my covenant.
> (Exo 6:6) Wherefore say unto the children of Israel, I _am_ the LORD, and I will bring you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians, and I will rid you out of their bondage, and I will redeem you with a stretched out arm, and with great judgments:
> (Exo 6:7) And I will take you to me for a people, and I will be to you a God: and ye shall know that I _am_ the LORD your God, which bringeth you out from under the burdens of the Egyptians.
> (Exo 6:8) And I will bring you in unto the land, concerning the which I did swear to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob; and I will give it you for an heritage: I _am_ the LORD.
> 
> I hope you see that progression and how the Abrahamic Covenant is the Covenant the Israelites also affirm.


The saved under tHE OC were saved by the basis of the Cross of Christ still yet to come, but the NC itself could not be put into place and ratified by God until promised Messiah came,correct?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Scott Bushey said:


> *When* was 'grace' ushered into God's people?


God always saved by His grace, but the actual NC could not come until Messiah did to fulfill it's conditions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> The saved under tHE OC were saved by the basis of the Cross of Christ still yet to come, but the NC itself could not be put into place and ratified by God until promised Messiah came,correct?



I have no problem with what you are saying David. Especially if you understand what I am saying about how the Covenant of Grace has always been effectual in all of its administrations. Note how God always remembers his Covenant and keeps Renewing and Transforming it in the future Covenants. The Law, the Priesthood, and the Kingdom are all transformed incrementally and culminate in the New Covenant. Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King. Christ is the Messiah slain from the foundation of the World.

There is still Promise to be fulfilled. And we still have warnings as a New Covenant Church to heed. Remember we need to be careful that our Candlestick is not removed. I say this to help us remember there are so many similarities in all of the Covenants and that they are of the same substance. I believe too many people try to pull the Covenants apart. The Justified are always just before God. But we need to be cautious concerning our personal sanctification for generations to come as they will benefit from our obedience. That was true in all of the previous Covenants as it is now. 



Exo 19:3 And Moses went up unto God, and the LORD called unto him out of the mountain, saying, Thus shalt thou say to the house of Jacob, and tell the children of Israel;
Exo 19:4 Ye have seen what I did unto the Egyptians, and how I bare you on eagles' wings, and brought you unto myself.
Exo 19:5 Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth is mine:
Exo 19:6 And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation. These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.


Lev_26:45 But I will for their sakes remember the covenant of their ancestors, whom I brought forth out of the land of Egypt in the sight of the heathen, that I might be their God: I am the LORD.

Deu_4:31 For the LORD thy God is a merciful God; he will not forsake thee, neither destroy thee, nor forget the covenant of thy fathers which he sware unto them.

Deu_7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these judgments, and keep, and do them, that the LORD thy God shall keep unto thee the covenant and the mercy which he sware unto thy fathers:

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> God always saved by His grace, but the actual NC could not come until Messiah did to fulfill it's conditions.



The question is, how is this NC related to the covenants previously mentioned in the Bible? I think you would do well to investigate that. Just even thinking about how we use the english word new, there are several meanings. For example, I can say "I bought a new car", and that can legitimately mean a car that had never been owned, or was previously owned.

https://thirdmill.org/answers/answer.asp/file/40555

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

In a previous thread on a similar topic John Owen was mentioned. I put together a blog on the subject. It is kind of long and I have to read and reread it to gain understanding. It is built on the shoulders of a few guys who have posted here. Having previously been a Reformed Baptist for 30 years and someone who was taught that Owen differed from the Westminster on this topic, the topic seemed to be clearer for me. In the spirit of trying to understand this topic I will post the following link. 

https://rpcnacovenanter.wordpress.c...-the-old-testament-and-the-covenant-of-grace/


----------



## lynnie

How did we get into paedo vs credo? I only wanted to understand what Jeremiah meant with that Hebrews 8 quote about a new heart and new spirit. Gotta love the PB : )

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## De Jager

lynnie said:


> How did we get into paedo vs credo? I only wanted to understand what Jeremiah meant with that Hebrews 8 quote about a new heart and new spirit. Gotta love the PB : )



In his debate with R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur states that for him, Jeremiah 31 is the key passage in the entire debate. I would tend to agree that the nature of the NC is at the heart of the Paedo and Credo debates. Therefore, it is not super surprising to me that the discussion leads to that.

And, this is PB, of course. If we didn't have a baptism debate, we wouldn't be doing our jobs. It's a tough job, but someone on the internet's gotta do it.

Reactions: Like 3 | Funny 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lynnie said:


> How did we get into paedo vs credo? I only wanted to understand what Jeremiah meant with that Hebrews 8 quote about a new heart and new spirit. Gotta love the PB : )


Lynnie,
For me it is a Covenant Theology discussion. In order to understand what Jeremiah and Paul were saying the whole context plays into the discussion. To be honest, it wasn't so much of a priority for me to find out who should be baptized as much as it was to find out the Who, What, When, and Why. It was a discussion that made me want to know what you want to know maybe. I wanted to know how do the Covenants define Law, Gospel, and our responsibility. In 2011 I came to a conclusion. I had to follow what William Symington says in the quote in my signature. I had a lot to learn. I still do.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## lynnie

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Lynnie,
> For me it is a Covenant Theology discussion. In order to understand what Jeremiah and Paul were saying the whole context plays into the discussion. To be honest, it wasn't so much of a priority for me to find out who should be baptized as much as it was to find out the Who, What, When, and Why. It was a discussion that made me want to know what you want to know maybe. I wanted to know how do the Covenants define Law, Gospel, and our responsibility. In 2011 I came to a conclusion. I had to follow what William Symington says in the quote in my signature. I had a lot to learn. I still do.



Are you saying Paul is the author of Hebrews? Trying to start a war are you? 

Lol, thanks.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lynnie said:


> Are you saying Paul is the author of Hebrews? Trying to start a war are you?
> 
> Lol, thanks.


I think he is. Yes, that is a major controversy. Maybe I should have said, "The Author of Hebrews". lol

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Ben Zartman

RWD said:


> My Brother,
> 
> These questions deal with a matter of considerable nuance so please bear with me as I try to flesh out distinctions so that I might do minimal justice to the question I think you’re asking.
> 
> 1. We already saw that the OC was _established_ with the elect, yet it was to have been administered to _professing_ believers and their households. So, the outward administration would have included (a) infants who hadn’t yet professed the true religion; (b) professing believers who weren’t true believers (i.e. hypocrites) and (c) true believers.
> 
> 2. In Jeremiah 31 God declares there’ll be a new covenant, one that’s not broken like the OC.
> 
> We must ask, is the glory of the NC merely that it’s _established_ only with _believers_ who cannot utterly apostatize? Is that what Jeremiah 31 points us too, greater _visible_ covenant faithfulness that’s to be achieved by the means of a more stringent membership? Let’s interrogate that position.
> 
> First off, the _visible_ NC communion under either practice would still include (b) from above, professing believers who aren’t true believers. The main troublemakers would still gain outward membership. Accordingly, the visible church would appear just as faithless or faithful under a Baptist scenario since infants, whether elect or not, don’t typically introduce heresies or bring reproach upon the covenant people of God. Therefore, the outward faithfulness or faithlessness would be purely a function of the ratio of (b) to (c), hypocrites to true believers, which we wouldn’t expect outward administration to influence in any relevant way. Neither communion has a greater or lesser claim on hypocrisy among its communing members. Both have non elect children that eventually make false professions and, very sadly, eat to themselves damnation.
> 
> 3. So, once the Baptist is willing to grant that the greater faithfulness under the NC relative to the OC cannot be a matter of the visible church at all but by their assessment must rather be a matter of inward conversion, then here’s where that leaves us. Both communions would look the same on the outside. Both communions would have their adult hypocrites as well as be outwardly represented by true believers who are yet carnal to some degree. The _only_ difference in covenant faithfulness would not pertain to the differences in how we might define the visible church, but rather would have to be indexed to how we define the _true_ covenant people of God! Faithfulness would be indexed merely to the _theological_ exclusion of the elect who weren’t yet converted. That’s a pretty small sample of very likely young children. So, is that what Jeremiah 31 means by greater fidelity? Is the glory of the NC the exclusion of elect infants who aren’t yet converted? (If so, then aside from other theological difficulties - effectual calling, regeneration and saving faith would not be a blessing of the NC! Rather, they’d be evangelical graces that place one into covenant. Yet that’s an outright denial of Ezekiel 36, which attributes the conversion of the NC to _covenant_ blessing, not _pre_-covenant blessing. (It was never the latter, yet always the former.)
> 
> 4. As I pray you might see, Jeremiah 31 loses its punch for the Baptist when one begins to recognize that the OC was established only with the elect, just like the NC. For the Baptist to get the upper hand, he needs to convince the Paedo (and I think himself) that the OC was established both with the elect and non-elect. Yet Genesis 17; Romans 9 and Galatians 3 would seem to disprove that premise while affirming the unconditional nature of the one CoG.
> 
> 5. Our Baptist brethren should acknowledge that the converted under Moses broke covenant, but as soon as they acknowledge that OC saints could or did break covenant, then it becomes quite difficult to attribute the impossibility of breaking the NC (whatever is meant by that) to restricting the covenant people of God only to the converted. Rather, the impossibility of breaking covenant should be attributed to something that’s not strictly Baptistic, such as a greater NC empowerment by the Spirit or some other interpretation of such texts that’s not peculiar to Baptist thought. Now of course they can try to attribute the impossibility of breaking covenant to the theological elimination of the unconverted elect infants, in which case I refer back to what I’ve already stated.
> 
> Indeed, the OC saints did break covenant and as a result did not inherit the promised land. Yet Ezekiel 36 promises kingdom consummation, the summing up of all things in Christ. Apostasy cannot obstruct the final frontier. In _that_ sense, we cannot break covenant.


Back to this then, allow me to ask--credo-paedo debate aside--what _is _new about the New Covenant? What do you take to be the "better promises"?


----------



## User20004000

Post 29

If I may...The OC was administered in shadows - promises, prophecies, sacrifices etc., all which pointed to the Christ who was to come. Although the outward administration was efficacious for the elect, it fell short both of the fullness and spiritual efficacy found in the simplicity of the means of grace under the newer economy. 

We may add to this that under the NC, which like the OC also was _established_ only with the elect in Christ, that with (i) the priesthood of all believers, (ii) the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, (iii) a closed canon, and (iv) the _incarnate_ Son sitting at the right hand of God interceding for his people, we can expect greater fidelity and knowledge of the Lord in the church.

Reactions: Like 2 | Informative 1 | Amen 1


----------



## lynnie

Ben Zartman said:


> Back to this then, allow me to ask--credo-paedo debate aside--what _is _new about the New Covenant? What do you take to be the "better promises"?


This is exactly what I was asking. It is exactly what hubs prof at WTS said was one of the hardest questions in theology.

I don't see any real good answer after all these replies except for what Rev BB said about the HS intention as He spoke being the focus on a new priest, new sacrifice, etc. It can't be about what happens inside us. The promises can never fail because of the perfection of this renewed covenant. That is the only way I am making sense of the question.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

lynnie said:


> I don't see any real good answer after all these replies except for what Rev BB said about the HS intention as He spoke being the focus on a new priest, new sacrifice, etc. It can't be about what happens inside us.


And that is what I learned from Reverend Winzer if you read my post after his. Bruce does say things much better than I do. But there are so many other things that are referenced as I tried to note afterwards. I hope I helped there too. But if not.... It won't be the last time. I am still trying to learn and communicate. I think we both have been trying to do that for years. You and your knowledge from your husband have been beneficial to me these many years. Thanks Lynnie

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

AS an after thought.... We have glorification to come. In light of that I posted the following quote in a previous post. We have a New World to look forward to. Some believe it to be totally revamped and some think it will be all redone, burned away, and fixed. Now we are getting into eschatology. Either way we won't have sin to deal with. I can deal with that. I want to be clear. I want what is good to prevail. I want God. He is going to make it so in glorification. I believe that as I believe I am justified and a sinner can be a saint by the Everlasting Covenant or Covenant of Grace.

"There is still Promise to be fulfilled. And we still have warnings as a New Covenant Church to heed. Remember we need to be careful that our Candlestick is not removed. I say this to help us remember there are so many similarities in all of the Covenants and that they are of the same substance. I believe too many people try to pull the Covenants apart. The Justified are always just before God. But we need to be cautious concerning our personal sanctification for generations to come as they will benefit from our obedience. That was true in all of the previous Covenants as it is now."

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Lynnie, I think Rev Buchanan hit the nail on the head for what you’re asking. In the new covenant we have a superior high priest who has passed into the heavens. This is the verse that got me several years ago: “But in those sacrifices [under the old administration] there is a remembrance made of sins every year.” I realized that under the old covenant there was no once and for all atonement; year in and year out the sins of the people must be dealt with over and over through sacrifice. Just this morning I was so filled with wonder that all my sins have been atoned for by our great high priest’s once and for all sacrifice- no remembrance of them is brought year after year before our eyes or God’s! They’ve been dealt with, with finality.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Jeri Tanner said:


> Lynnie, I think Rev Buchanan hit the nail on the head for what you’re asking. In the new covenant we have a superior high priest who has passed into the heavens. This is the verse that got me several years ago: “But in those sacrifices [under the old administration] there is a remembrance made of sins every year.” I realized that under the old covenant there was no once and for all atonement; year in and year out the sins of the people must be dealt with over and over through sacrifice. Just this morning I was so filled with wonder that all my sins have been atoned for by our great high priest’s once and for all sacrifice- no remembrance of them is brought year after year before our eyes or God’s! They’ve been dealt with, with finality.


I am so grateful for that since every thought and every action will be judged. I want to hear like King David did that God put away our sin as he did by Nathan the Prophet and as Kind David wrote about in Psalm 51. As far as the East is from the West. That is Eternal or everlasting, right?

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## De Jager

I know Dr. David Murray has some lectures on sermon audio about what's "new" in the new covenant. They might be worth a listen.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

A 2016 Puritanboard thread helped me a lot, particularly with the information on the Greek word diatheke translated variously “covenant” and “Testament.” (I think I’ve got that right.) The KJV retains that distinction while other modern translations may not. It’s pretty important it seems in thinking things through. Here are some quotes from the thread concerning that.

MW: “The confusion might be avoided by speaking of the covenant of grace as consisting of the old and new "testaments." The older translations were correct to discern a conceptual difference in the way "diatheke" is used, and the Christian tradition in general has astutely recognised the differences as being testamental rather than covenantal.

WCF 7.4. ‘This covenant of grace is frequently set forth in scripture by the name of a testament, in reference to the death of Jesus Christ the Testator, and to the everlasting inheritance, with all things belonging to it, therein bequeathed.’"


Keith W: A resource in support of what Rev. Winzer said:

Calvin, John. Commentaries On The Epistle Of Paul The Apostle To The Hebrews.
Verse 16. "Hebrews Chapter 9:13-17."
Translated And Edited By The Rev. John Owen.
Christian Classics Ethereal Library. Nov 19, 2011.
<http://www.ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom44.xv.iii.html>

Additional resources on the Greek word _diatheke _and its meaning as used in the Bible.

Barnes, Albert. "Commentary on Hebrews 9". Barnes' Notes on the New Testament.
Verse 15. Verse 16.
StudyLight.Org. August 1, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/bnn/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=009> 

Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Matthew 26". The Adam Clarke Commentary. 1832.
Verse 27. Verse 28.
StudyLight.Org. August 5, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=mt&chapter=026>

Clarke, Adam. "Commentary on Hebrews 9". The Adam Clarke Commentary. 1832.
Verse 15. Verse 16. Verse 18.
StudyLight.Org. August 5, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/com/acc/view.cgi?book=heb&chapter=009> 

Estes, David Foster. "COVENANT, IN THE NEW TESTAMENT", The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia.
StudyLight.Org. August 2, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/enc/isb/> 

Gardiner, Frederic. "On diatheke in Heb. ix. 16, 17". Journal of the Society of Biblical Literature and Exegesis Vol. 5, No. 1/2 (Jun. - Dec., 1885), pp. 8-19.
JSTOR. July 26, 2011.
<http://www.jstor.org/stable/3268624> 

Rendall, Frederic. Theology of the Hebrew Christians. 1886. pp.159,160.
Google Books. August 5, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=Ot4OAAAAIAAJ> 

Rendall, Frederic. The Epistle to the Hebrews. 1883. pp.82-84
Google Books. August 2, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=tDMNAAAAYAAJ> 

Vincent, Marvin R. "Hebrews Chapter 9". Vincent's Word Studies. 1887.
Hebrews 9:16. Hebrews 9:17. Hebrews 9:18.
Internet Sacred Text Archive. Accessed August 2, 2011.
<http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/cmt/vws/heb009.htm> 

Vine, W. E. "Testament". Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words.
"Covenant". "Testator".
Tim Greenwood Ministries. August 1, 2011.
<http://www.tgm.org/bible.htm> 

Williams, A. Lukyn. The Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Galatians.
Galatians III. 15.
Cambridge University Press, 1914, pp.51,52.
Google Books. March 28, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=uwA9AAAAIAAJ> 
Also available at <http://www.archive.org/details/epistleofpaulapo00willuoft> 

Young, Robert. "Book of Hebrews, Chapter 9". Young's Literal Translation. 1862.
StudyLight.Org. August 2, 2011.
<http://www.studylight.org/desk/?l=en&query=heb+9§ion=0&translation=ylt&oq=&sr=1> 

Young, Robert. Twofold concordance to the New Testament. Concordance to the Greek New Testament. Together with a concordance and dictionary of Bible words and synonyms. 1884.
"Testator".
Google Books. August 2, 2011.
<http://books.google.com/books?id=f60GAAAAQAAJ>



Matthew McMahon: “When I was a Baptist, I confused this exceedingly. I had the Mosaic administration squarely set against the "new" covenant that started in Matthew 1:1, in my mind at the time. My confusing testament with covenant was a huge issue. There was a lot of unwinding that needed to be done.”

If anyone wants to read the whole thread: https://www.puritanboard.com/threads/in-what-way-is-the-new-covenant-new.89988/#post-1107410

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Following on from Jeri's point about the distinction between covenant and testament, the below post from the Westminster divine, William Gouge may also be of help with respect to the question raised in the OP:

The Testament given to the Christian Church is a better Testament. It is made by the Son of God, Immanuel, God with us, and ratified by his death, wherein an eternal inheritance is bequeathed unto us. Was there ever such a testament before? ...

For the remainder of the extract, see William Gouge: The superiority of the new testament in Christ’s blood to both the covenant of works and the old covenant.

See also Zacharias Ursinus on the covenant and testament of God.

Reactions: Edifying 1


----------



## lynnie

Thanks for the links. Will get to them hopefully soon. I don't even know the difference between testament and covenant, I thought they were used as synonyms.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I miss Reverend Matthew Winzer. So Much.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Jeri Tanner

lynnie said:


> Thanks for the links. Will get to them hopefully soon. I don't even know the difference between testament and covenant, I thought they were used as synonyms.


So did I at the time. The quotes Daniel provided are short and pithy and helpful on it.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I miss Reverend Matthew Winzer. So Much.


 Sadly, I joined after he stopped posting. Although, I have read through countless threads he participated. His posts were always sober-minded and to the point. Sorry to derail the thread but I have often wondered where he went and if he is okay.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Back to this then, allow me to ask--credo-paedo debate aside--what _is _new about the New Covenant? What do you take to be the "better promises"?


We now have all spiritual blessings in Christ that we're not fully available to those under the OC.


----------



## Mark Hettler

I have been following this thread with interest (mainly because my wife started it). The answers to the question, what's new about the new covenant, have been helpful and compelling. But the fact remains that when Jeremiah, and the author of Hebrews, speak of God writing the law upon His people's hearts, this is in the context of His establishing a new covenant. So there is a sense in which the newness of the new covenant is associated at least in part and in some way with writing the law upon the heart. In other words, while it cannot be said that the statement that God will write the law upon His people's hearts is absolutely false under the old covenant, there is a sense in which it is true under the new covenant that was not the case under the old covenant. Or at least that seems clear to me when I read the passage.

So my follow-up question would be: when Jeremiah and the author of Hebrews speak of God writing the law upon His people's hearts in the context of God establishing a new covenant, what does that mean? The answers so far has been clear as to what it does NOT mean, but I am not hearing a clear explanation as to what it DOES mean.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## Scott Bushey

Mark Hettler said:


> the author of Hebrews, speak of God writing the law upon His people's hearts, this is in the context of His establishing a new covenant.



Yea, this is mentioned in various places in the OT. A new heart and this new covenant is efficacious dating back to Adam.



Mark Hettler said:


> that was not the case under the old covenant.



U mean, under the Mosaic? Or all of the Covenant of Grace? Can a man be Christ's and not have a new heart?



Mark Hettler said:


> what does that mean?



It is referring to the C of G, which is in my opinion, the NC. The consummation of the NC, enters its ratification when Christ rose from the dead and ascended to the Father. 'It is finished'.


----------



## Stephen L Smith

Reformed Bookworm said:


> I have often wondered where he went and if he is okay.


As far as I know he is still faithfully pastoring a church in Melbourne, Australia.

Reactions: Like 1 | Rejoicing 1


----------



## De Jager

Everyone who has ever been saved has received a new heart. Christ himself says, except a man be born again, he cannot see the Kingdom of heaven. He said that to Nicodemus, before He had been crucified and raised.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> We now have all spiritual blessings in Christ that we're not fully available to those under the OC.


What blessings do you take those to be? Can you list the ones we have now that OT saints didn't have then?
Please don't list "We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" as one of them, since we know from the Psalms at least that the Holy Spirit dwelt within OT saints.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## User20004000

Ben Zartman said:


> What blessings do you take those to be? Can you list the ones we have now that OT saints didn't have then?
> Please don't list "We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" as one of them, since we know from the Psalms at least that the Holy Spirit dwelt within OT saints.



Here’s just 4 benefits. Cleansed conscience. Power over temptation. Outpouring of the Spirit in conjunction with union with Christ. Full revelation, resulting in greater understanding, leading to greater godliness. 

1. No priests had ever gone into the heavenly tabernacle. Yet Christ entered not just into a created heavenly tabernacle but presented himself before God himself, _by his own blood_, thereby cleansing the consciences of his people having _accomplished_ eternal redemption once and for all. Hebrews 9

2. Although Christ’s sacrifice was patterned after the levitical sacrifices, the levitical sacrifices were first patterned after the necessity of the heavenly sacrifice of Christ, which became a realization only 2000 years ago. Moreover, God cannot be tempted, yet we desperately needed a high priest and mediator who could be tempted yet without sin. Accordingly, in the NC God, only through the incarnation, is able to help us in our temptation in ways not possible before, uniquely through the risen and ascended Christ, the God-man. Hebrews 2

3. As well, there’s the outpouring of the Spirit, which doesn’t just empower the saints but rather does so in their existential union with Christ, which the OT saints never experienced, having not yet been baptized to Christ. Mathew 3; Acts 2; *Romans 6*; Titus 3

4. There’s also the final revelation, the closed canon, received by the church, which furnishes the NT saints for every good work in ways not possible before. 1 Corinthians 13:12; 2 Timothy 3:16

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> What blessings do you take those to be? Can you list the ones we have now that OT saints didn't have then?
> Please don't list "We have the indwelling of the Holy Spirit" as one of them, since we know from the Psalms at least that the Holy Spirit dwelt within OT saints.


He came upon certain ones, at certain tasks and times, t hey had to go through the priests to access God, did not have the full scriptures, and did not have that spiritual Sabbath rest as we now have in Christ.Thry had the desire to serve God, but not the same power as we have now to go that.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

The Law within the heart is not necessarily a new idea. I also believe it is connected with having a new spirit and new heart which is mentioned many times in the Old Testament.

Psa 37:27 Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore.
Psa 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
Psa 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.
Psa 37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
Psa 37:31 *The law of his God is in his heart*; none of his steps shall slide.
Psa 37:32 The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
Psa 37:33 The LORD will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.

Psa 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.

Psa 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
Psa 119:10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.

Pro 2:10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;
Pro 2:11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:

Isa 51:7 Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.

Reactions: Like 2 | Amen 1


----------



## Goodcheer68

Dachaser said:


> He came upon certain ones, at certain tasks and times, t hey had to go through the priests to access God, did not have the full scriptures, and did not have that spiritual Sabbath rest as we now have in Christ.Thry had the desire to serve God, but not the same power as we have now to go that.


 David, could you please clarify something. Are you denying that OT believers had the Spirit indwelling them? If so that is pure dispensational thinking.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

PuritanCovenanter said:


> The Law within the heart is not necessarily a new idea. I also believe it is connected with having a new spirit and new heart which is mentioned many times in the Old Testament.
> 
> Psa 37:27 Depart from evil, and do good; and dwell for evermore.
> Psa 37:28 For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.
> Psa 37:29 The righteous shall inherit the land, and dwell therein for ever.
> Psa 37:30 The mouth of the righteous speaketh wisdom, and his tongue talketh of judgment.
> Psa 37:31 *The law of his God is in his heart*; none of his steps shall slide.
> Psa 37:32 The wicked watcheth the righteous, and seeketh to slay him.
> Psa 37:33 The LORD will not leave him in his hand, nor condemn him when he is judged.
> 
> Psa 40:8 I delight to do thy will, O my God: yea, thy law is within my heart.
> 
> Psa 119:9 Wherewithal shall a young man cleanse his way? by taking heed thereto according to thy word.
> Psa 119:10 With my whole heart have I sought thee: O let me not wander from thy commandments.
> Psa 119:11 Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
> 
> Pro 2:10 When wisdom entereth into thine heart, and knowledge is pleasant unto thy soul;
> Pro 2:11 Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee:
> 
> Isa 51:7 Hearken unto me, ye that know righteousness, the people in whose heart is my law; fear ye not the reproach of men, neither be ye afraid of their revilings.



Thanks for these verses. Growing up in a dispensational, baptist setting means I still have some confusion on this issue. I guess the question on my mind, is that if OT saints were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, what exactly happened on Pentecost?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## B.L.

Yesterday I started a new book by Samuel Waldron and Richard Barcellos titled _"A Reformed Baptist Manifesto" _with the subtitle "_The New Covenant Constitution of the Church"_, which I believe would be a great read for all, but especially for my Baptist brothers and sisters. It addresses much of the ground covered already in this thread. 

Here is the table of contents to give a glimpse:

_Preface.......1
Introduction .......3
1. The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Dispensationalism ....... 9
2. The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Antinomianism ....... 31
3. The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Arminianism .......49
4. The New Covenant Constitution of the Church and Paedobaptism .......65
Conclusion: A Reformed Baptist Manifesto .......81
Appendix 1: A Brief Response to Richard Pratt's "Infant Baptism in the New Covenant" ...83
Appendix 2: Book review of New Covenant
Theology.......93
Bibliography .......103
Scripture Index.......107
General Index .......111 _


----------



## Dachaser

Goodcheer68 said:


> David, could you please clarify something. Are you denying that OT believers had the Spirit indwelling them? If so that is pure dispensational thinking.


I believe that all of them were regenerated by Him, but He seems to come upon just certain ones for powering them to do their roles. There is something new that came into the world at Pentacost, but disagreement seems to be around just how new.


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Thanks for these verses. Growing up in a dispensational, baptist setting means I still have some confusion on this issue. I guess the question on my mind, is that if OT saints were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, what exactly happened on Pentecost?


Jeremiah 31 happened at that time and event.


----------



## Goodcheer68

Dachaser said:


> I believe that all of them were regenerated by Him, but He seems to come upon just certain ones for powering them to do their roles. There is something new that came into the world at Pentacost, but disagreement seems to be around just how new.


 Are you saying that all OT believers had the Spirit indwelling them? In other words, do you see that the Spirit indwells all those that are regenerated even in the OT?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

B.L. McDonald said:


> Yesterday I started a new book by Samuel Waldron and Richard Barcellos titled _"A Reformed Baptist Manifesto" _with the subtitle "_The New Covenant Constitution of the Church"_


Read it years ago. I know Rich. Also you might enjoy the Nehemiah Coxe book. Rich is a good guy and he taught me a lot through the years. 
Their books can be found here. https://www.rbap.net/


----------



## Dachaser

Goodcheer68 said:


> Are you saying that all OT believers had the Spirit indwelling them? In other words, do you see that the Spirit indwells all those that are regenerated even in the OT?


Not in same fashion as under the NC, as The Spirit does not come upon us and then leave us. There was something brand new in addition to what the OT saints had, as the Spirit came in His full way now at Pentacost. They were saved same way we are, but did not have all that we have now under the NC.


----------



## Goodcheer68

Dachaser said:


> Not in same fashion as under the NC, as The Spirit does not come upon us and then leave us. There was something brand new in addition to what the OT saints had, as the Spirit came in His full way now at Pentacost. They were saved same way we are, but did not have all that we have now under the NC.


 If what it sounds like you are saying is in fact what you believe, you have a dispensational Theology and not confessional understanding. All OT saints were indwelt by the Spirit continually from the moment they were regenerated. The coming on and off of the Spirit dealt with administrative(kingly/judge/etc) tasks that God chose specific people to do. It has nothing to do with Salvation.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Goodcheer68 said:


> If what it sounds like you are saying you have a dispensational Theology and not confessional. All OT saints were indwelt by the Spirit continually from the moment they were regenerated. The coming on and off of the Spirit dealt with administrative(kingly/judge/etc) tasks that God chose specific people to do. It has nothing to do with Salvation.


1689 Federalist RB see it in same fashion I described though, as not all reformed see this in same fashion.


----------



## Ben Zartman

Dachaser said:


> 1689 Federalist RB see it in same fashion I described though, as not all reformed see this in same fashion.


Are you sure the federalists see it this way? Seems to stretch credulity, even for them. I think what happened at Pentecost is that the HS _expanded _His ministry, empowering the church to go into all the world. Before, converts had to go to Israel to live within the covenant community, and to Jerusalem to visit the Temple. After Pentecost, the Gospel went out to all nations, so that they say, as in Isa. 2 "let us go up to the mountain of the Lord," but they're not going to a physical mountain--they're going to the real Jerusalem: the city of God, though His Mediator. But what happens _inside _a person who is regenerated is still the same thing as it has always been.


----------



## Dachaser

Ben Zartman said:


> Are you sure the federalists see it this way? Seems to stretch credulity, even for them. I think what happened at Pentecost is that the HS _expanded _His ministry, empowering the church to go into all the world. Before, converts had to go to Israel to live within the covenant community, and to Jerusalem to visit the Temple. After Pentecost, the Gospel went out to all nations, so that they say, as in Isa. 2 "let us go up to the mountain of the Lord," but they're not going to a physical mountain--they're going to the real Jerusalem: the city of God, though His Mediator. But what happens _inside _a person who is regenerated is still the same thing as it has always been.


They see the Spirit regenerating the OT saints, but not indelling them as under the NC.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

I do not believe that David (Dachaser) is sufficiently versed on 1689 Federalism to speak to it well in these types of discussions.

Brother, I am sorry, but I really feel that you should do a lot more listening and learning and a lot less speaking and teaching. I'm trying to be gentle, but it's true.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## De Jager

Goodcheer68 said:


> If what it sounds like you are saying is in fact what you believe, you have a dispensational Theology and not confessional understanding. *All OT saints were indwelt by the Spirit continually from the moment they were regenerated.* The coming on and off of the Spirit dealt with administrative(kingly/judge/etc) tasks that God chose specific people to do. It has nothing to do with Salvation.



Brother,

In the circles I grew up in, the bolded would not have been understood. Can you provide me some scriptures / resources to study that concept, for my own benefit and for the benefit of those I know?

Thank you.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

De Jager said:


> I guess the question on my mind, is that if OT saints were indwelt with the Holy Spirit, what exactly happened on Pentecost?


Maybe I can help you out here. In the Old Testament the Church was under a Schoolmaster as it was placed under Civil and Ceremonial Laws. The gifts of the Spirit were more related to specific positions of authority in those very regulated statutes and laws. If you remember, I noted before how there was a progression and transformation of each Covenant concerning how the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King were effected and made better. They all find a culmination in Christ. The very repetitive, burdening, Schoolmaster has been put aside along with the form of regulation it was placed in for Christ the King. The Civil Law, and having a singular Nation rule under this schoolmaster such as Israel, has been abrogated for a an inclusion of all Nations that are separate. The King of Kings has been given all Authority and can rule all these Nations. The law they are to rule by is only the Moral Law of God with general Equity. Accordingly since the Priesthood has changed the Church's gifts were increased for the good functioning of the Church in every nation. Pastor, Elders, Deacons and the whole body is to function together by their spiritual gifts. Just read about the gifts given in the book of Corinthians and Ephesians and you will see the broadening functions as they should operate. Even government (administrations) is a gift. There are many things that are NEW and better. Christ and His Gospel and Kingdom are superior. Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King. So the gifts have broadened and been transformed as the Administrations of the Covenant of Grace have. 


1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.

1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.

Does that help?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## De Jager

PuritanCovenanter said:


> Maybe I can help you out here. In the Old Testament the Church was under a Schoolmaster as it was placed under Civil and Ceremonial Laws. The gifts of the Spirit were more related to specific positions of authority in those very regulated statutes and laws. If you remember, I noted before how there was a progression and transformation of each Covenant concerning how the offices of Prophet, Priest, and King were effected and made better. They all find a culmination in Christ. The very repetitive, burdening, Schoolmaster has been put aside along with the form of regulation it was placed in for Christ the King. The Civil Law, and having a singular Nation rule under this schoolmaster such as Israel has been abrogated for a an inclusion of all Nations that are separate. The King of Kings has been given all Authority and can rule all these Nations The law they are to rule by is only the Moral Law of God with general Equity. Accordingly since the Priesthood has changed the Church's gifts were increased for the good functioning of the Church in every nation. Pastor, Elders, Deacons and the whole body is to function together by their spiritual gifts. Just read about the gifts given in the book of Corinthians and Ephesians and you will see the broadening functions as they should operate. Even government (administrations) is a gift. There are many things that are NEW and better. Christ and His Gospel and Kingdom are superior. Christ is Prophet, Priest, and King. So the gifts have broadened and been transformed as the Administrations of the Covenant of Grace have.
> 
> 
> 1Co 12:4 Now there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit.
> 1Co 12:5 And there are differences of administrations, but the same Lord.
> 1Co 12:6 And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which worketh all in all.
> 1Co 12:7 But the manifestation of the Spirit is given to every man to profit withal.
> 
> 1Co 12:28 And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.
> 
> Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
> Eph 4:5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
> Eph 4:6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.
> Eph 4:7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ.
> Eph 4:8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men.
> Eph 4:9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth?
> Eph 4:10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)
> Eph 4:11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;
> Eph 4:12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:
> Eph 4:13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ:
> Eph 4:14 That we henceforth be no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive;
> Eph 4:15 But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into him in all things, which is the head, even Christ:
> Eph 4:16 From whom the whole body fitly joined together and compacted by that which every joint supplieth, according to the effectual working in the measure of every part, maketh increase of the body unto the edifying of itself in love.
> 
> Does that help?



This is helpful in the sense that it helps me understand that the ministry of the Holy Spirit broadened after Penetecost.

But what I am really looking for is an apologetic argument for the position that believers were "indwelt" with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost. If you were to say that to many people I know, they would flat out reject that notion. I need some scriptures to point to, if we are to assert that it wasn't just certain people who were indwelt, but that all OT believers were indwelt by the Spirit.


----------



## Branson

Dachaser said:


> They see the Spirit regenerating the OT saints, but not indelling them as under the NC.



How could any believer be sanctified or persevere in a state of grace in the OT without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> I do not believe that David (Dachaser) is sufficiently versed on 1689 Federalism to speak to it well in these types of discussions.
> 
> Brother, I am sorry, but I really feel that you should do a lot more listening and learning and a lot less speaking and teaching. I'm trying to be gentle, but it's true.


I have been spending my time reading some of their sources, and the belief that the Spirit regenerated but not indwelt as He does now seems to be in there. The theology does seem to me to support more of a discontinuity between the Covenants then normally seen in Reformed understanding.


----------



## Dachaser

Branson said:


> How could any believer be sanctified or persevere in a state of grace in the OT without the indwelling of the Holy Spirit?


They had the desire to obey God, but not the empowering of the Spirit as we do now to obey God.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

As I see it, one issue is the linguistic choices being made. That, and a lack of agreed-upon definitions; plus some (at least a little!) disregard for the benefits associated with transition to the new/Christ covenant era.

Here's one very obvious distinction: that between a flood and a sprinkling, between an "outpouring" and drips or dew, between "filling" and tasting.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Regi Addictissimus

Dachaser said:


> I have been spending my time reading some of their sources, and the belief that the Spirit regenerated but not indwelt as He does now seems to be in there. The theology does seem to me to support more of a discontinuity between the Covenants then normally seen in Reformed understanding.



Did you come from Dispensationalism?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

De Jager said:


> But what I am really looking for is an apologetic argument for the position that believers were "indwelt" with the Holy Spirit before Pentecost.



I have lost my study on the topic. I will have to do a new one. Just off the top of mind let me point you to this quickly. Yes, I know it is the New Testament. Regeneration is not only a New Testament teaching. Jesus chided Nicodemus for not realizing this. 


Joh 3:1 There was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews:
Joh 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
Joh 3:3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:4 Nicodemus saith unto him, How can a man be born when he is old? can he enter the second time into his mother's womb, and be born?
Joh 3:5 Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.
Joh 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit.
Joh 3:7 Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again.
Joh 3:8 The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.
Joh 3:9 Nicodemus answered and said unto him, How can these things be?
Joh 3:10 Jesus answered and said unto him, *Art thou a master of Israel, and knowest not these things? *


Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. *Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. *

Gal 4:28 Now we, brethren, as Isaac was, are the children of promise.
Gal 4:29 But as then he that was born after the flesh *persecuted him that was born after the Spirit,* even so it is now.


1Co 2:11 For what man knoweth the things of a man, save the spirit of man which is in him? even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the Spirit of God.
1Co 2:12 Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the spirit which is of God; that we might know the things that are freely given to us of God.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
1Co 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Man is the same in the Old Testament as is in the New. He has to be in Christ and have the Spirit to know, love, and obey God. I will do more work on this for you. It has been a long time since I have had to deal with this issue and I did my study long before a computer. I had it on a typed paper. I have lost the thing. I don't know where it is. 



Scott has a paper I referenced in an earlier post but it might not suffice for you. 
http://www.semperreformanda.com/the...CMCTGGlMr0aV7rwYkfZ4hkQw8gVyZo4EQMktZIM5JK4n0


----------



## Dachaser

Reformed Bookworm said:


> Did you come from Dispensationalism?


Yes, and Pentacostalism.


----------



## Branson

Dachaser said:


> They had the desire to obey God, but not the empowering of the Spirit as we do now to obey God.



Does your own Christian experience, post-Pentecost, not cause you to question this statement?


----------



## Dachaser

Branson said:


> Does your own Christian experience, post-Pentecost, not cause you to question this statement?


I have still sinned against my Lord, but thankful for the times He gave me victory over desiring to sin.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Dachaser said:


> I have been spending my time reading some of their sources, and the belief that the Spirit regenerated but not indwelt as He does now seems to be in there. The theology does seem to me to support more of a discontinuity between the Covenants then normally seen in Reformed understanding.



Can you give me two or three quotes from authors of 1689 Federalism works that assert that believers before the Cross were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit?

If this is really a facet being taught as 1689 Federalism, I'd really like to be able to see the sources in context.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## De Jager

Contra_Mundum said:


> As I see it, one issue is the linguistic choices being made. That, and a lack of agreed-upon definitions; plus some (at least a little!) disregard for the benefits associated with transition to the new/Christ covenant era.
> 
> *Here's one very obvious distinction: that between a flood and a sprinkling, between an "outpouring" and drips or dew, between "filling" and tasting.*



This is a really important point. Thank you for this.


----------



## Dachaser

SeanPatrickCornell said:


> Can you give me two or three quotes from authors of 1689 Federalism works that assert that believers before the Cross were not indwelt by the Holy Spirit?
> 
> If this is really a facet being taught as 1689 Federalism, I'd really like to be able to see the sources in context.


I think I am still learning the distinctions, as It would indeed seem they do teach OT saints indwelt, but still also see the distinction between the NC as. New One, not just a continuation of before forward.


----------



## SeanPatrickCornell

Dachaser said:


> _*I think I am still learning the distinctions*_, as It would indeed seem they do teach OT saints indwelt, but still also see the distinction between the NC as. New One, not just a continuation of before forward.



This is why I think it is better for you to step back a little and not try to teach others yet.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## lynnie

The only thing I can think of that is truly new, brand new, not just renewed or broadened in scope, is speaking in tongues and casting out demons. Every other NC experience with the Holy Spirit happened at least to some degree in the OC, right? Can you think of anything else brand new and unique in the life of the elect either individually or corporately?


----------



## Goodcheer68

The NC has a surety a Testator. That is part of its newness. The OC had mediators, priest, and sacrifices-insufficient but nonetheless they had them- but they did not have a Testator.


----------



## Dachaser

lynnie said:


> The only thing I can think of that is truly new, brand new, not just renewed or broadened in scope, is speaking in tongues and casting out demons. Every other NC experience with the Holy Spirit happened at least to some degree in the OC, right? Can you think of anything else brand new and unique in the life of the elect either individually or corporately?


Direct access to God, and all have Him to teach us the scriptures now.


----------



## lynnie

Goodcheer68 said:


> The NC has a surety a Testator. That is part of its newness. The OC had mediators, priest, and sacrifices-insufficient but nonetheless they had them- but they did not have a Testator.


I really like this post. Makes total sense. Hub has been reading Owen on this and sending me quotes and it seems so confusing. The Greek word can be translated both testament and covenant and Owen says in certain passages it should be one or the other. I understand the difference between the two but it still seemed perplexing. But yes, in this era we have a testator who died, but under the OT they did not. 

But they still got the inheritance, by faith looking forward.

Anyway, thanks, that makes a lot of sense about what is new. We have a testator.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Goodcheer68

lynnie said:


> Anyway, thanks, that makes a lot of sense about what is new. We have a testator.


 You are welcome. Got to give credit where credit is due. Awhile back I was studying diatheke and came across a post where Winzer talked about the Testator being what is new.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Jeri Tanner

Goodcheer68 said:


> You are welcome. Got to give credit where credit is due. Awhile back I was studying diatheke and came across a post where Winzer talked about the Testator being what is new.


https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...in-the-new-covenant.99455/page-3#post-1216218

Matthew McMahon: “When I was a Baptist, I confused this exceedingly. I had the Mosaic administration squarely set against the "new" covenant that started in Matthew 1:1, in my mind at the time. My confusing testament with covenant was a huge issue. There was a lot of unwinding that needed to be done.”

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Here's one very obvious distinction: that between a flood and a sprinkling, between an "outpouring" and drips or dew, between "filling" and tasting.



I understand what you are trying to say Bruce but there have been historical times where we see that happening in both the New and and Old Covenant. Even in historical Revivals.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Dachaser said:


> Direct access to God, and all have Him to teach us the scriptures now.


David. Please slow down. You are not defining yourself well enough. I do agree the Canon of Scripture is closed. We should test the spirits but we do need the gifts of the Church to help us grow in the faith. I posted scripture on how the offices of the Church have gifts to bring us into maturity and the Unity of the faith. Please listen to what others are trying to tell you. Sit, listen, and learn what we are trying to tell you. You don't have to answer or know every answer to every question asked of you. I have been trying to do this for almost 40 years and I definitely don't have all the answers. I have exhibited the fact that I am even willing to help you understand the Reformed Baptist Conviction. By your statement there is no need for a Confessional understanding. You seem to think you can gain all you need to know without others, history, linguistics, or creedal information. That simply is not true.

The sentences in color are also links to the points made. Click on them. They come from both Reformed and Reformed Baptist.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I understand what you are trying to say Bruce but there have been historical times where we see that happening in both the New and and Old Covenant. Even in historical Revivals.


Do you understand? The pouring out of the Spirit was an event that had not happened when Joel promised it, it was associated with the arrival of the Messianic age, and then it happened on Pentecost. There wasn't anything remotely like it in the previous Old Covenant age, or earlier.

Admitting that doesn't imply that there were no OT showers of blessing, or dew of heaven in those days (Dt.32:2; 33:28). The rains God sent the people in wet-form were emblems of his spiritual blessing. They were often regular but limited, and as distinct from the overwhelming, world-changing Pentecostal flood as the Flood of Gen.7 was to to rain at other times.

It doesn't mean there was no regenerating work of the Spirit of grace in the hearts of OT saints, or a modicum of his abiding presence with every believer; along with the substantial filling of or overpowering presence of the Spirit upon OT mediatorial types. Those rarer blessings made common was a distinct promise belonging to the age of fulfillment.

We need to honor both sides of the data that is presented. On the one hand the necessary identity between the Spirit's saving work in the OT and NT, and the need for his help for any good work to be acceptable since the Fall. On the other, the wonderful, powerful effusion that took place upon the Ascension of the Son--nothing like it ever, and a clear sign of the Son of God in heaven.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Do you understand? The pouring out of the Spirit was an event that had not happened when Joel promised it, it was associated with the arrival of the Messianic age, and then it happened on Pentecost. There wasn't anything remotely like it in the previous Old Covenant age, or earlier.
> 
> Admitting that doesn't imply that there were no OT showers of blessing, or dew of heaven in those days (Dt.32:2; 33:28). The rains God sent the people in wet-form were emblems of his spiritual blessing. They were often regular but limited, and as distinct from the overwhelming, world-changing Pentecostal flood as the Flood of Gen.7 was to to rain at other times.
> 
> It doesn't mean there was no regenerating work of the Spirit of grace in the hearts of OT saints, or a modicum of his abiding presence with every believer; along with the substantial filling of or overpowering presence of the Spirit upon OT mediatorial types. Those rarer blessings made common was a distinct promise belonging to the age of fulfillment.
> 
> We need to honor both sides of the data that is presented. On the one hand the necessary identity between the Spirit's saving work in the OT and NT, and the need for his help for any good work to be acceptable since the Fall. On the other, the wonderful, powerful effusion that took place upon the Ascension of the Son--nothing like it ever, and a clear sign of the Son of God in heaven.


I thank you Bruce for understanding some of what I am trying to note. As you noted above in the Old Testament they were often regular but limited, _"The rains God sent the people in wet-form were emblems of his spiritual blessing. They were often regular but limited, and as distinct from the overwhelming, world-changing Pentecostal flood as the Flood of Gen.7 was to to rain at other times."_

I have some problems with this. What are we speaking about? We are speaking about Spiritual manifestations and witnessing to Christ as Superior or Spiritual indwelling and enabling of the Spirit of God upon all individuals in Christ. Was it also not limited in the Early Church as these Old Testament Revivals?. The Rain fell harder maybe but there appears to be some distinction that I we are having problems talking about. We are in the New Covenant today. What do you see is heavier in the normal Christian who has been regenerate than you do in an Old Testament person working without a full Canon of Scripture? I actually believe maybe the Spirit worked harder to keep those in Himself and Christ without a full revelation of the Word.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have some problems with this. What are we speaking about? Spiritual manifestations and witnessing to Christ as Superior or Spiritual indwelling and enabling of the Spirit of God upon all individuals in Christ.


I'm referring to the Spirit's _powerfully_ dwelling, versus his dwelling (ordinarily in the OT) quite mildly and with little notice in the main population. He would come, like the hydrological rains, periodically and here and there, bringing inward blessings. But certainly the desert had never bloomed, and the spiritual harvest had its ups and downs among the people.




PuritanCovenanter said:


> Was it also not limited in the Early Church as these Old Testament Revivals. The Rain fell harder maybe but there appears to be some distinction that I we are having problems talking about.


I don't think you are crediting Pentecost properly. If you think that flood has settled down by now, after nearly 20 centuries, I think you are greatly mistaken. The Spirit is still mightily sloshing about in this world, like a 50gal drum of water just lately poured out into a huge bath. What waves and spray we feel presently or note in history are just aftereffects of Pentecost, not a fresh pouring. The Spirit has been given. While there have been drier seasons in the life of the church since that long ago morning, that has not been an effect of the Spirit drained away, and then recycled. The Lord sends a tide here or there at his will.




PuritanCovenanter said:


> We are in the New Covenant today. What do you see is heavier in the normal Christian who has been regenerate than you do in an Old Testament person working without a full Canon of Scripture? I actually believe maybe the Spirit worked harder to keep those in Himself and Christ without a full revelation of the Word.


There can be no doubt that the OT messianic types had _noticeably _more gift of the Spirit than the average saint. There were not simply more adept at using the same gift that every believer had. We have, today as believers, the fullness of presence of the Spirit that only the prophets, priests, and kings had until Christ. This has been the condition in the church ever since Pentecost.

We're so used to it, and we don't have a memory to compare it to, except as we turn to the record of the past in the Scriptures. They had the Spirit measured to the average person by an eyedropper, we get him in huge draughts. Those droplets were _mighty in divine power, _they converted stony hearts into flesh. They did all that was needed to keep Israel in the faith, though accompanied by a less complete revelation.

I've been to the desert, stayed there a while. I know about rationing water, and the work it takes to stay hydrated and functional using less than optimal resources. It can be done. At the same time, I rather like the nearly boundless supply of water I normally enjoy, and how its plenitude gives me energy and freedom for many other activities--things that would not be available if rationing water, or if putting my energy toward just getting enough water to sustain me.

In this age of the Spirit, the fact that at times the church has lived _as if it lacked the water of the Spirit _that, at the furthest was standing in deep pools only an arm's length away, is not a commentary on whether he was sufficiently poured out. It is to condemn those who should have known, and who might have ministered the abundant resource to the people; or prayed that a surge in the tide would sweep over this shoal once more and directly enliven the helpless and ignorant children.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> In this age of the Spirit, the fact that at times the church has lived _as if it lacked the water of the Spirit _that, at the furthest was standing in deep pools only an arm's length away, is not a commentary on whether he was sufficiently poured out. It is to condemn those who should have known, and who might have ministered the abundant resource to the people; or prayed that a surge in the tide would sweep over this shoal once more and directly enliven the helpless and ignorant children.


This is your own private interpretation Bruce. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about in my estimation.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have posted my thoughts here.
https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...in-the-new-covenant.99455/page-4#post-1216472

and here as it relates to us.

https://www.puritanboard.com/thread...in-the-new-covenant.99455/page-4#post-1216482

I personally wouldn't want to be given the responsibility that King David had. I would prefer to be Jesse his Dad as a regenerate dad, raising a son. I am like that even in the New Covenant in this day. You have told me nothing by scripture that implies I have more than an Old Covenant person had to obey God or transfer my Covenant Blessing to my Children than an Old Covenant person has based upon your discussion. Yes, That is important to the whole community. But I can demonstrate that the Church has a responsibility and an effectual working to perform that has been consistent. And I dare say it is worldwide because of the New Covenant.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> This is your own private interpretation Bruce. It has nothing to do with what we are talking about in my estimation.


You asked questions, I answered them.

I first weighed in the thread because people were using the same terms, but there were at least two definitions for each of them. So people were/are talking past one another, and not communicating effectively.

If we wish to avoid criticism that we _completely _flatten out the distinction between the OT ages and the NT age, we should explain what is and is not the same.

There is zero NT material on additional or further pouring out of the Spirit we may expect, than has been done since the beginning of the NT age. That it became popular to speak in that way since (I suppose) the Great Awakening, is no reason we should not decide to test, and then doubt the notion that "revivals" are evidence of *new* effusions of the Spirit, rather than fresh effects of the original.

In fact, I suggest this proposal that grew out of defenses of revivalism in the 18th century are the direct precursors of later Pentecostalism, through Charismatics, down to the NAR. Every one of these movements is predicated on the notion that God keeps on doing new outpourings (which then produce the same or similar effects to those seen in the 1C).

Saying he does not goes right to the question of whether Pentecost was unique, and new, and unrepeatable, and qualified a distinction between the experience of God's people before then after the death and resurrection of Christ.

But if so, then what sort of Spirit-experience did the OT saints have? My replies have aimed right at explaining them, both special endowments and common.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> If we wish to avoid criticism that we _completely _flatten out the distinction between the OT ages and the NT age, we should explain what is and is not the same.


I tried to do that. You haven't read closely enough which I find is something you haven't done in this rare instance.

BTW, as an Edit. I used Scripture.


----------



## Mark Hettler

Goodcheer68 said:


> The NC has a surety a Testator. That is part of its newness. The OC had mediators, priest, and sacrifices-insufficient but nonetheless they had them- but they did not have a Testator.



An old teacher of mine was fond of saying, "There is no such thing as a stupid question." Bearing that in mind:

What's the significance of having a Testator? How does it make my experience different from that of an Old Testament believer? Or is the difference not in any way experiential?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Mark Hettler said:


> What's the significance of having a Testator? How does it make my experience different from that of an Old Testament believer? Or is the difference not in any way experiential?


By referencing Christ as Testator (understanding diatheke in the sense, or when the sense is possibly best understood as testament, i.e. last-will-and-testament), the one making this testament, then when the one whose testament it was has _died _(Heb.9:16-17), the _inheritance _goes to his heirs.

The heirs of Christ as Testator are his people. His blessings go to them upon his death, and so by means of his death (v15) "they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."

The death of Aaronic priests brought no relief, "for transgressions under the first testament," referring to the Old/Siniatic covenant. The only thing they could bequeath to their sons (and no others) was the right of officiating at the altar, as long as it stood.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Mark Hettler

Contra_Mundum said:


> By referencing Christ as Testator (understanding diatheke in the sense, or when the sense is possibly best understood as testament, i.e. last-will-and-testament), the one making this testament, then when the one whose testament it was has _died _(Heb.9:16-17), the _inheritance _goes to his heirs.
> 
> The heirs of Christ as Testator are his people. His blessings go to them upon his death, and so by means of his death (v15) "they which are called might receive the promise of eternal inheritance."
> 
> The death of Aaronic priests brought no relief, "for transgressions under the first testament," referring to the Old/Siniatic covenant. The only thing they could bequeath to their sons (and no others) was the right of officiating at the altar, as long as it stood.


So were those in Old Testament times not "his people," and did they not receive the inheritance that we receive? Or if they did, how are things different for us under the new covenant?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Mark Hettler said:


> So were those in Old Testament times not "his people," and did they not receive the inheritance that we receive? Or if they did, how are things different for us under the new covenant?


They certainly were his people _proleptically._ *prolepsis*: "the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time" [A.H.D., p.1094). To speak thus of him in _historical_ terms is to speak either proleptically or eternally. But it is definitely to speak of him out of time.

I believe Abraham died, and went immediately into the presence of God and the enjoyment of his Mediator--One who, according to the flesh would not arrive _in history _for some 18 centuries or so. I can't offer an explanation of how it be so, but it has to do with history's subservience to God, that he isn't shackled to successive units of time to make sense of his own existence or experience. He lives in the eternal Now.

But in history, Abraham died without receiving the promise _couched in earthly, typological terms._ He did not receive in his body, though his near-term descendants eventually did--albeit in earthly, historic terms, and still not in terms of true fulfillment. So they also remained, while they were alive in the body, in anticipation of an inheritance that was theirs, through their father, through their Messiah coming in history. That they did not receive it is explicitly stated twice, Heb.11:13, 39.

They too could, by faith, attain to that heavenly state through death of the body; but on the historic timeline, they would only see it if they were alive at the time of his coming, or afterward in his time of his historic reign, which is the present age until he comes again. It is at the moment of the Second Coming that the eternal age and the present age merge. What all that means for the saints experiencing time as we know it is yet to be revealed.

We, living in the new/Christ covenant era, are of the time seen as already-and-not-yet. We are living under the Messiah's current, worldwide reign. That's not something anyone in the OT experienced; and when it was manifested in miniature, it was by types. Was the LORD God reigning over all in the OT? Of course he was, and Israel sang about that fact (and in anticipation of greater realization of it) in places like Ps.96. But that reign was not turned over to the Son, until in history it happened.

The OT people of God are singing about their hope throughout the Psalms. Ps.2, they await the Son's coronation. They place all their hopes in it, because it hasn't happened yet, because in a real sense (in spite of all the intermediate fulfillments) they are still in Egypt, still in their sins, and their deliverance from captivity will not take place until their Deliverer comes for them. Who hopes for what he already has, Rom.8:24?

We sing those same Pss., but in light of the deliverance that has come for all God's people, united to the true Vine, the one true Israelite, the Seed of Promise. He is on the throne, we aren't waiting for it to happen. He's been given his father's, and his Father's, reign. It's a different era, but it's the same people; a new administration, but the same rule; only better, because of the Son.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> They certainly were his people _proleptically._ *prolepsis*: "the anachronistic representation of something as existing before its proper or historical time" [A.H.D., p.1094). To speak thus of him in _historical_ terms is to speak either proleptically or eternally. But it is definitely to speak of him out of time.
> 
> I believe Abraham died, and went immediately into the presence of God and the enjoyment of his Mediator--One who, according to the flesh would not arrive _in history _for some 18 centuries or so. I can't offer an explanation of how it be so, but it has to do with history's subservience to God, that he isn't shackled to successive units of time to make sense of his own existence or experience. He lives in the eternal Now.
> 
> But in history, Abraham died without receiving the promise _couched in earthly, typological terms._ He did not receive in his body, though his near-term descendants eventually did--albeit in earthly, historic terms, and still not in terms of true fulfillment. So they also remained, while they were alive in the body, in anticipation of an inheritance that was theirs, through their father, through their Messiah coming in history. That they did not receive it is explicitly stated twice, Heb.11:13, 39.
> 
> They too could, by faith, attain to that heavenly state through death of the body; but on the historic timeline, they would only see it if they were alive at the time of his coming, or afterward in his time of his historic reign, which is the present age until he comes again. It is at the moment of the Second Coming that the eternal age and the present age merge. What all that means for the saints experiencing time as we know it is yet to be revealed.
> 
> We, living in the new/Christ covenant era, are of the time seen as already-and-not-yet. We are living under the Messiah's current, worldwide reign. That's not something anyone in the OT experienced; and when it was manifested in miniature, it was by types. Was the LORD God reigning over all in the OT? Of course he was, and Israel sang about that fact (and in anticipation of greater realization of it) in places like Ps.96. But that reign was not turned over to the Son, until in history it happened.
> 
> The OT people of God are singing about their hope throughout the Psalms. Ps.2, they await the Son's coronation. They place all their hopes in it, because it hasn't happened yet, because in a real sense (in spite of all the intermediate fulfillments) they are still in Egypt, still in their sins, and their deliverance from captivity will not take place until their Deliverer comes for them. Who hopes for what he already has, Rom.8:24?
> 
> We sing those same Pss., but in light of the deliverance that has come for all God's people, united to the true Vine, the one true Israelite, the Seed of Promise. He is on the throne, we aren't waiting for it to happen. He's been given his father's, and his Father's, reign. It's a different era, but it's the same people; a new administration, but the same rule; only better, because of the Son.


Were though any allowed to go directly into Heaven before the ascension of Christ?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> Were though any allowed to go directly into Heaven before the ascension of Christ?


I think so, 

although some people have a curiously elaborate view of the afterlife, and different notions of before and after Christ destinations for saints, and a whole lot more when it comes to the future, and... wow.

Seems pretty simple to me. Die and go to heaven or hell.


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> I think so,
> 
> although some people have a curiously elaborate view of the afterlife, and different notions of before and after Christ destinations for saints, and a whole lot more when it comes to the future, and... wow.
> 
> Seems pretty simple to me. Die and go to heaven or hell.


Now that is true, but would not dead saved go to Hades before Jesus had come?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> Now that is true, but would not dead saved go to Hades before Jesus had come?


What do you mean by that question? My sense is that your thinking in this area is largely conditioned by teachings of a tradition which would see what I wrote as basically *not true*. But you just affirmed it as true...

What do the Psalmists mean by expressions like, "I will praise thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart: and I will glorify thy name for evermore." Ps.86:12. Did they mean _evermore, sure but after eons spent in Hades?_ "But we will bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the Lord." Ps.115:18. Were the saints in the OT _closer to God before they died in the body, _than after? "Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto thy name: the upright shall dwell in thy presence," Ps.140:13, _but only in this life? _"For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance," Ps.21:6. Is it only sort-of blessed forever, the face of God shining upon him (Num.6:24-26) at first in this life; but then dimmed by removal into death and Hades? Is there an extended hiatus before forever starts up again?

What did David mean when he looked into the moment of his death, and wrote: "Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." Ps.16:11. Let's hear some thoughts from the Reformed tradition, Matthew Poole, _loc cit_
_The path of life_, i.e. the way that leadeth to life; not to a temporal and mortal life here, for he is supposed to be dead and buried, Psalm 16:10; but to *an endless, and immortal, and blessed life after death in the presence of God*, ...
_In thy presence_, Heb. with or before thy face, i.e. in that heavenly paradise, where thou art graciously and gloriously present, where thou dost clearly and fully discover thy face, and the light of thy countenance; whereas in this life thou hidest thy face, and shewest us only thy back parts, and we are in a state of absence from thee, and see thee only through a glass darkly, and enjoy thee but in part.
_Fulness of joy_, i.e. full and perfect joy and satisfaction, which it is in vain to expect in this life, and is only to be found in the sight of thee. See Exodus 33:14; Psalm 17:5; Matthew 5:8; 1John 3:2.​It's true the full realization of this promise occurs at the resurrection, at the end of time. But unless one imagines David looks forward to soul-sleep, or a penalizing demotion further from God once he breathes his last, he must imagine a clearer/closer sight of the presence of God is to be his even in death. Where is there any hint that his spirit will languish in shadow even until Messiah's triumph?

I would say that 16:9 actually speaks more exactly to the intermediate state: "Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope," especially in view of the exposition of the final vv. Surely this heart-gladness will be expanded and his glorifying tongue magnified while his flesh rests in hope. The hope is not abstractedly attached to his flesh, it is an existential reality in his soul which continues in gladness and rejoicing all time.

Jesus declared that those who had passed from this life were alive unto God, Lk.20:38. The fact that they are alive is a successful argument in favor of the resurrection, which will fulfill the optimal conditions of their life by restoring their bodies. Moses and Elijah came from the glory to appear on the Mt. of Transfiguration--they were not drawn out of a pit.


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> What do you mean by that question? My sense is that your thinking in this area is largely conditioned by teachings of a tradition which would see what I wrote as basically *not true*. But you just affirmed it as true...
> 
> What do the Psalmists mean by expressions like, "I will praise thee, O Lord my God, with all my heart: and I will glorify thy name for evermore." Ps.86:12. Did they mean _evermore, sure but after eons spent in Hades?_ "But we will bless the Lord from this time forth and for evermore. Praise the Lord." Ps.115:18. Were the saints in the OT _closer to God before they died in the body, _than after? "Surely the righteous shall give thanks unto thy name: the upright shall dwell in thy presence," Ps.140:13, _but only in this life? _"For thou hast made him most blessed for ever: thou hast made him exceeding glad with thy countenance," Ps.21:6. Is it only sort-of blessed forever, the face of God shining upon him (Num.6:24-26) at first in this life; but then dimmed by removal into death and Hades? Is there an extended hiatus before forever starts up again?
> 
> What did David mean when he looked into the moment of his death, and wrote: "Thou wilt shew me the path of life: in thy presence is fulness of joy; at thy right hand there are pleasures for evermore." Ps.16:11. Let's hear some thoughts from the Reformed tradition, Matthew Poole, _loc cit_
> _The path of life_, i.e. the way that leadeth to life; not to a temporal and mortal life here, for he is supposed to be dead and buried, Psalm 16:10; but to *an endless, and immortal, and blessed life after death in the presence of God*, ...
> _In thy presence_, Heb. with or before thy face, i.e. in that heavenly paradise, where thou art graciously and gloriously present, where thou dost clearly and fully discover thy face, and the light of thy countenance; whereas in this life thou hidest thy face, and shewest us only thy back parts, and we are in a state of absence from thee, and see thee only through a glass darkly, and enjoy thee but in part.
> _Fulness of joy_, i.e. full and perfect joy and satisfaction, which it is in vain to expect in this life, and is only to be found in the sight of thee. See Exodus 33:14; Psalm 17:5; Matthew 5:8; 1John 3:2.​It's true the full realization of this promise occurs at the resurrection, at the end of time. But unless one imagines David looks forward to soul-sleep, or a penalizing demotion further from God once he breathes his last, he must imagine a clearer/closer sight of the presence of God is to be his even in death. Where is there any hint that his spirit will languish in shadow even until Messiah's triumph?
> 
> I would say that 16:9 actually speaks more exactly to the intermediate state: "Therefore my heart is glad, and my glory rejoiceth: my flesh also shall rest in hope," especially in view of the exposition of the final vv. Surely this heart-gladness will be expanded and his glorifying tongue magnified while his flesh rests in hope. The hope is not abstractedly attached to his flesh, it is an existential reality in his soul which continues in gladness and rejoicing all time.
> 
> Jesus declared that those who had passed from this life were alive unto God, Lk.20:38. The fact that they are alive is a successful argument in favor of the resurrection, which will fulfill the optimal conditions of their life by restoring their bodies.


I was thinking of Abraham bosom passage.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> I was thinking of Abraham bosom passage.


I could have guessed that, and actually did guess that. I avoided any mention of that passage in my reply. It is a NT passage, so it doesn't really address any OT texts that refer to OT attitude of faith with regard to the afterlife.

What is "Abraham's bosom?" Abraham is the father of the faithful, he's in heaven and has been since he left this world. And all those who share his faith and are regarded as his children have been resorting to him and joining him in a chorus of praise to God for thousands of years.

The idea that _Abraham's bosom_ is some kind of pre-Christian purgatory is not an idea I endorse.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I think Bruce has done a great job of expressing some of the ideas that I might express to underline how much more excellent the NC is for Saints in history. We can sometimes overemphasize the CoG and forget that the full Revelation in Christ is better than the types and shadows which prefigured His coming.

If you've ever been outside all night when it is cold then there's a time at which the sun begins to rise and it's still cold but you can feel it's warmth on your face. It's still very dark and cold but the early light of the sun provides some warmth and comfort given the miserable conditions outside. That's one way a person could think about what the OT Saints enjoyed compared to the sun at noonday shedding light and warmth and bringing life to the world.

The creation was cursed in Genesis 3. Romans 8 teaches us that it was cursed in the hope of the revealing of the Sons of God. Imagine you're an OT Saint and all you have are promises in types and shadows. You have the Promise to Abraham but you have types and shadows and a mediator who has to atone for his own sins before he enters a sanctuary to which you have no access. You have prophecy historically revealed by prophets who, themselves, long to peer more deeply into things that will be more fully revealed. You have to wait and trust as a child does fulfilling very demanding duties that point in the direction of a future prophet, priest, and king but they are shadowy. It's still very cold, the world is still in darkness and bondage but at least you can turn your face to a dawning sun and receive some warmth on your face. You trust as the Spirti gives ability, but you have differing ideas from Rabbis and Scribes about the import of these things.

But then, BAM, Christ appears on the scene. Things are so confused because you've had ethnic markers, confusion from the teachers, some saints who trusted and even you, a person who trusts, still lack enough light to understand the true import of what Christ will provide.

Some Greeks come searching for Him and this Christ says that when He is lifted up He will draw all men unto Himself. You don't understand because it hasn't happened, the Sacrifice hasn't occurred yet, the Spirit hasn't been outpoured and so you run and hide when He's taken to a Cross and becomes a Curse. You think the darkness has overcome.

But then this Christ has put to death the power of the Curse to enslave all of humanity under its thralldom. This same Christ breaks the power of sin and death and rises on the third day. The Spirit is outpoured and suddenly all the teaching of millennia comes into full view by this Christ. The God-Man is Ascended and has sent His Spirit in power. He has entered into the heavenly sanctuary and, by His flesh, we now have full access to God's very presence. The curtain is rent. The separation between God and man is fully satisfied by all who are in Christ. Even the Gentiles, yes the Gentiles! Yes, even they are brought into union with this same Christ by faith. How amazing it is. How much different we might have expected if we were still without Christ coming and the Spirit being outpoured.

This is sort of a summary of why the author the Hebrews is so irate at the idea of any OT Saint going back to types and shadows: dreams and visions, priests and kings who die and fail, sacrifices that never fully remove guilt or cleanse the conscience but look forward. How can anyone go back to a cold dawn looking at a rising sun and pretend like the sun is not blazing and providing light and warmth all around? Such a person would have to be blind to what Christ has done or be forgetful of what He has brought. There is no going back. The Gospel existed back there in type but now it exists finally and fully in Christ.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Semper Fidelis said:


> I think Bruce has done a great job of expressing some of the ideas that I might express to underline how much more excellent the NC is for Saints in history. We can sometimes overemphasize the CoG and forget that the full Revelation in Christ is better than the types and shadows which prefigured His coming.


I think I agree here Rich about some of this. Our discussion is going to go on behind the scenes if you don't mind. I have a lot to learn and I believe we both have something to learn. My Concern was with the flood illustration versus the sprinkling for the common life and historical perspective. I do not believe the Noahic Covenant is a good illustration via flood or via sprinkling.

I am not flattening out the Covenants as he seemed to say. I would prefer to discuss this with Bruce as I have a lot to learn also. I am not a Monocovenantalist as some accused me of in the past. I am also not in agreement with Scott Bushey about the New Covenant being equally the same as the Covenant of Grace as I understand him. Maybe I am misunderstanding him. I have to let him define his understanding. This is a discussion about the New Covenant. I wish Bruce would have discussed what terms he thought were being discussed that were misunderstood or being used in a way that neither side was benefitting from. He didn't do that. He just made an accusation. Sorry if I am muddying up the waters. 

I am communicating with Bruce. I do not believe he has read me nor understood me. Maybe we do. Maybe we don't. I want to make sure.


----------



## Steve Curtis

Semper Fidelis said:


> How can anyone go back to a cold dawn


This is actually precisely the hermeneutical case among those embracing Dispensational eschatology, which anticipates the millennial kingdom devolving to the point of the "second humiliation of Christ" (Godfrey) - or, to use your analogy, a sunset before yet another rising of the Son.
As you rightly express, this is why a proper interpretation of Hebrews (as well as much else) serves as a corrective to such aberrant theology.


----------



## Dachaser

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I think I agree here Rich about some of this. Our discussion is going to go on behind the scenes if you don't mind. I have a lot to learn and I believe we both have something to learn. My Concern was with the flood illustration versus the sprinkling for the common life and historical perspective. I do not believe the Noahic Covenant is a good illustration via flood or via sprinkling.
> 
> I am not flattening out the Covenants as he seemed to say. I would prefer to discuss this with Bruce as I have a lot to learn also. I am not a Monocovenantalist as some accused me of in the past. I am also not in agreement with Scott Bushey about the New Covenant being equally the same as the Covenant of Grace as I understand him. Maybe I am misunderstanding him. I have to let him define his understanding. This is a discussion about the New Covenant. I wish Bruce would have discussed what terms he thought were being discussed that were misunderstood or being used in a way that neither side was benefitting from. He didn't do that. He just made an accusation. Sorry if I am muddying up the waters.
> 
> I am communicating with Bruce. I do not believe he has read me nor understood me. Maybe we do. Maybe we don't. I want to make sure.


This discussion just proved to me that there is still some major differences between just how RB and Reformed view the distinction between the Old and New Covenants , as it all comes down to just exactly how new was the New one. One can hold to more of a discontinuity view and still maintain Covenant Theology seems to be Crux of discussion.


----------



## lynnie

Rev Bruce.....

Why do you say this? "We have, today as believers, the fullness of presence of the Spirit that only the prophets, priests, and kings had until Christ. "

Is that a classical Reformed position? I mean, what about the 7,000 who did not bow the knee to Baal? Or the psalm writers who were sons of Korah? Mary, Elizabeth, Anna. Weren't there many believers in the OC who had just as much fullness of the HS as prophets, priests and kings? 

Also, I still don't think anybody has adequately addressed what it means in Hebrews 8 that God will put his laws in our minds and write them on our hearts, referring back to Jer 31. Would you describe the newness of the NC in this verse, referring to the law written on our our minds and hearts, as being that now we understand the work of Jesus and God's plan of salvation mentally, in a way they did not under the OC, even though they were given the same new creation heart and spirit that we are given? Is the only difference our intellectual grasp of the work of Jesus Christ? I get that the context of Hebrews 8 is about our great high priest, not about us, but what does it mean that now we have the law written on our hearts and minds in some way that they didn't in the OC, if salvation is essentially the same in both? 

Thanks.


----------



## Dachaser

lynnie said:


> Rev Bruce.....
> 
> Why do you say this? "We have, today as believers, the fullness of presence of the Spirit that only the prophets, priests, and kings had until Christ. "
> 
> Is that a classical Reformed position? I mean, what about the 7,000 who did not bow the knee to Baal? Or the psalm writers who were sons of Korah? Mary, Elizabeth, Anna. Weren't there many believers in the OC who had just as much fullness of the HS as prophets, priests and kings?
> 
> Also, I still don't think anybody has adequately addressed what it means in Hebrews 8 that God will put his laws in our minds and write them on our hearts, referring back to Jer 31. Would you describe the newness of the NC in this verse, referring to the law written on our our minds and hearts, as being that now we understand the work of Jesus and God's plan of salvation mentally, in a way they did not under the OC, even though they were given the same new creation heart and spirit that we are given? Is the only difference our intellectual grasp of the work of Jesus Christ? I get that the context of Hebrews 8 is about our great high priest, not about us, but what does it mean that now we have the law written on our hearts and minds in some way that they didn't in the OC, if salvation is essentially the same in both?
> 
> Thanks.


The main point of Hebrews was to express to us that the OC was but a shadow and type pointing towards the NC yet to come and be established by the Promised Messiah, as the NC is the Jeremiah prophecy now being fully relized in the person and work of Jesus Christ. He Himself stated plainly that this NC would be established by his death and resurrection, and brought about a brand new relationship between us and God now.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm really not trying to step in between Bruce and any conversations he might be having but providing my own perspective on this question. Bruce has a very articulate and full manner of expressing these same ideas so I'm just trying to go at it from my own perspective.

I think the point that Bruce is making about Kings and Prophets and the indwelling of the Spirit has to do with the fulness that they received from the point of view of what they were given. Even Saul received a temporary outpouring of the Spirit.

As I was reflecting upon this, I realized that the reason many doubt that the CoG could have been in place prior to Christ's coming has a sort of a definitive quality of faith that we associate with knowing something or not knowing something because the Spirit sort of gives people an ability to see through things in a way that others do not and rest on some sort of mental or factual information.

It's sort of that believe on Jesus and you'll be saved (and then be immersed) and it's assumed that the Spirit has given some sort of mental capacity to people that saves them.

It's hard for us to see the operation of the Spirit in a former time as very nascent. What exactly, for instance, did Abraham have to go by other than a promise that God would be God to him and that his descendants would be numerous as the stars in the heavens. He had very little to go by in terms of "data". We know, however, that Christ saw the faith that Abraham had as "seeing His day" and rejoicing. Because we understand that all men are born dead in sin the only way we can understand that Abraham was capable of believing was because he was brought from death to life by the operation of the Spirit but that operation was not the outpouring at Pentecost.

Thus we can understand that God would have among his people an elect who were being given spiritual life and were able to trust the Promise through the signs and seals that were present in the OC. When you survey the names in Hebrews 11 it's pretty obvious that a lot of them operated on some pretty bad internal mental states. You couldn't line them all up and come up with a single understanding of what the Promise was going to be.

I think this is why Paul's analogy of that period being a time of under the Law as a schoolmaster is useful. The Spirit was giving spiritual life so that the elect could believe but the Law itself was an external religious, civic, and legal set of strict requirements that the people were bound to as if children. Christ had not yet come so it's not as if the Prophets could write to them as Paul does in Romans 8:f1-15. 

The "law on our hearts" operates as Paul teaches us in Romans 6-8 and in other places. There's no possibility for an OT elect saint to operate under a principle that Christ has now procured because it hasn't happened historically. The Law is sufficient to hem them in as a legal requirement. The Spirit helps them to trust in a Promise coming. The OT sacrifices help them to look forward to a day when their sins will be fully atoned and their consciences cleansed. They had circumcised hearts but did not have a sense of union with Christ that we have where we have a High Priest in the inner sanctuary to Whome we can appeal and draw strength.

In other words "Law written on our hearts" is not a mental state. It's not a capacity that we end up receiving as some sort of mental capacity that they would have lacked. The concept entails Christ's full Mediation as He has come, died, risen, and ascended and sent the Spirit in fullness.

I think if I could boil it all down if one doesn't place Christ at the center of the question and thinks of this issue in the abstract then everything gets muddied because we want to think of the NC as if it can be discussed without Christ's work at the center of it. If you think of the NC benefits as flowing from Christ's benefits to His saints through the ongoing work of the Spirit that was sent at Pentecost then it makes sense that, prior to His coming, the Saints under the COG would be operating under a salvific principle that had not yet fully dawned, was in types and shadows, and was necessarily confined until the Incarnation and Ascension.

Reactions: Like 1 | Amen 1


----------



## Dachaser

Semper Fidelis said:


> I'm really not trying to step in between Bruce and any conversations he might be having but providing my own perspective on this question. Bruce has a very articulate and full manner of expressing these same ideas so I'm just trying to go at it from my own perspective.
> 
> I think the point that Bruce is making about Kings and Prophets and the indwelling of the Spirit has to do with the fulness that they received from the point of view of what they were given. Even Saul received a temporary outpouring of the Spirit.
> 
> As I was reflecting upon this, I realized that the reason many doubt that the CoG could have been in place prior to Christ's coming has a sort of a definitive quality of faith that we associate with knowing something or not knowing something because the Spirit sort of gives people an ability to see through things in a way that others do not and rest on some sort of mental or factual information.
> 
> It's sort of that believe on Jesus and you'll be saved (and then be immersed) and it's assumed that the Spirit has given some sort of mental capacity to people that saves them.
> 
> It's hard for us to see the operation of the Spirit in a former time as very nascent. What exactly, for instance, did Abraham have to go by other than a promise that God would be God to him and that his descendants would be numerous as the stars in the heavens. He had very little to go by in terms of "data". We know, however, that Christ saw the faith that Abraham had as "seeing His day" and rejoicing. Because we understand that all men are born dead in sin the only way we can understand that Abraham was capable of believing was because he was brought from death to life by the operation of the Spirit but that operation was not the outpouring at Pentecost.
> 
> Thus we can understand that God would have among his people an elect who were being given spiritual life and were able to trust the Promise through the signs and seals that were present in the OC. When you survey the names in Hebrews 11 it's pretty obvious that a lot of them operated on some pretty bad internal mental states. You couldn't line them all up and come up with a single understanding of what the Promise was going to be.
> 
> I think this is why Paul's analogy of that period being a time of under the Law as a schoolmaster is useful. The Spirit was giving spiritual life so that the elect could believe but the Law itself was an external religious, civic, and legal set of strict requirements that the people were bound to as if children. Christ had not yet come so it's not as if the Prophets could write to them as Paul does in Romans 8:f1-15.
> 
> The "law on our hearts" operates as Paul teaches us in Romans 6-8 and in other places. There's no possibility for an OT elect saint to operate under a principle that Christ has now procured because it hasn't happened historically. The Law is sufficient to hem them in as a legal requirement. The Spirit helps them to trust in a Promise coming. The OT sacrifices help them to look forward to a day when their sins will be fully atoned and their consciences cleansed. They had circumcised hearts but did not have a sense of union with Christ that we have where we have a High Priest in the inner sanctuary to Whome we can appeal and draw strength.
> 
> In other words "Law written on our hearts" is not a mental state. It's not a capacity that we end up receiving as some sort of mental capacity that they would have lacked. The concept entails Christ's full Mediation as He has come, died, risen, and ascended and sent the Spirit in fullness.
> 
> I think if I could boil it all down if one doesn't place Christ at the center of the question and thinks of this issue in the abstract then everything gets muddied because we want to think of the NC as if it can be discussed without Christ's work at the center of it. If you think of the NC benefits as flowing from Christ's benefits to His saints through the ongoing work of the Spirit that was sent at Pentecost then it makes sense that, prior to His coming, the Saints under the COG would be operating under a salvific principle that had not yet fully dawned, was in types and shadows, and was necessarily confined until the Incarnation and Ascension.


Your last paragraph highlights perfectly just why RB and other reformed disagree on this very issue, as both sides to quote and use the scriptures, but just disagree on just how to understand what they really mean to and foe us now.


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> Rev Bruce.....
> 
> Why do you say this? "We have, today as believers, the fullness of presence of the Spirit that only the prophets, priests, and kings had until Christ. "
> 
> Is that a classical Reformed position? I mean, what about the 7,000 who did not bow the knee to Baal? Or the psalm writers who were sons of Korah? Mary, Elizabeth, Anna. Weren't there many believers in the OC who had just as much fullness of the HS as prophets, priests and kings?
> 
> Also, I still don't think anybody has adequately addressed what it means in Hebrews 8 that God will put his laws in our minds and write them on our hearts, referring back to Jer 31. Would you describe the newness of the NC in this verse, referring to the law written on our our minds and hearts, as being that now we understand the work of Jesus and God's plan of salvation mentally, in a way they did not under the OC, even though they were given the same new creation heart and spirit that we are given? Is the only difference our intellectual grasp of the work of Jesus Christ? I get that the context of Hebrews 8 is about our great high priest, not about us, but what does it mean that now we have the law written on our hearts and minds in some way that they didn't in the OC, if salvation is essentially the same in both?
> 
> Thanks.


Again, think Mosaic. Try to think like a Jew if asked where did God write his law? You would likely say on the "stone tablets". However under the NC, the author points to a new thing (remember new does not necessarily mean brand new). "Writing the Law in Minds and Hearts" I think this helps us know as God's people, that with the other changes mentioned in Hebrews that we should not be looking for some new "stone tablet" laws with the change, but rather can trust more FULLY/CLEARLY/SIMPLY that the Lord, by his spirit will give us a "new" as in refreshed/fuller, zeal for his everlasting-eternal Law (moral). Remember their was indeed a "change" or abrogation in the ceremonial and civil law. So I think from this we naturally ask, "well Lord what Law do we have now since there were changes in the Priesthood/Kingship/Prophet?". Hebrews 7:12 (NKJV): _*12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law.*_

We now just have the Law that was written on Adam's heart in a state of innocence. Further, surely David loved God's Law and had it in mind and heart. Hebrews 8:10 tells us to no longer look for new external things, but follow the moral law, which returns us to a simpler understanding, points us back to the garden, points us forward to reconciliation, and further solidifies worshipping in "spirit & truth". A NEW era being ushered in brings in a NEW (refreshed/clearer) era of understanding & loving the NEW (refreshed/clearer) Law of God (the moral Law).

See Barnes:


> I will put my laws into their mind - that is, in that subsequent period, called in Scripture "the after times," "the last days," "the ages to come," meaning the last dispensation of the world. Thus interpreted, the sense is, that this would be done in the times of the Messiah. "I will put my laws into their mind." Margin, "Give." The word "give" in Hebrew is often used in the sense of "put." The meaning here is, that they would not be mere external observances, but would affect the conscience and the heart. The laws of the Hebrews pertained mainly to external rites and ceremonies; the laws of the new dispensation would relate particularly to the inner man, and be designed to control the heart. *The grand uniqueness of the Christian system is, that it regulates the conscience and the principles of the soul rather than external matters. It prescribes few external rites, and those are exceedingly simple, and are merely the proper expressions of the pious feelings supposed to be in the heart; and all attempts either to increase the number of these rites, or to make them imposing by their gorgeousness, have done just so much to mar the simplicity of the gospel, and to corrupt religion*.
> 
> And write them in their hearts - Margin, "Upon." Not on tablets of stone or brass, but on the soul itself. That is, the obedience rendered will not be external. The law of the new system will have living power, and bind the faculties of the soul to obedience. The commandment there will be written in more lasting characters than if engraved on tablets of stone.



See Matthew Henry:


> Here,(1.) God articles with his people that he will put his laws into their minds and write them in their hearts, v. 10. He once wrote his laws to them, now he will write his laws in them; that is, he will give them understanding to know and to believe his law; he will give them memories to retain them; he will give them hearts to love them and consciences to recognize them; he will give them courage to profess them and power to put them in practice; the whole habit and frame of their souls shall be a table and transcript of the law of God. This is the foundation of the covenant; and, when this is laid, duty will be done wisely, sincerely, readily, easily, resolutely, constantly, and comfortably.(2.) He articles with them to take them into a near and very honourable relation to himself. [1.] He will be to them a God; that is, he will be all that to them, and do all that for them, that God can be and do. Nothing more can be said in a thousand volumes than is comprehended in these few words: I will be a God to them. [2.] They shall be to him a people, to love, honour, observe, and obey him in all things; complying with his cautions, conforming to his commands, comporting with his providences, copying out his example, taking complacency in his favour. This those must do and will do who have God for their God; this they are bound to do as their part of the contract; this they shall do, for God will enable them to do it, as an evidence that he is their God and that they are his people; for it is God himself who first founds the relation, and then fills it up with grace suitable and sufficient, and helps them in their measure to fill it up with love and duty; so that God engages both for himself and them.



See John Gill:


> *I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts*;
> by the laws of God are meant not the precepts of the ceremonial law, which were now abrogated, but either the moral law, and its commands; which is a transcript of the divine nature, was inscribed on Adam's heart in innocence, and some remains of it are even in the Gentiles, but greatly obliterated through the sin of man; and there is in men naturally a contrary disposition to it; in regeneration it is reinscribed by the Spirit of God; and great respect is had to it by regenerate persons, in which lies one part of their conformity to Christ: or else, since the word "law" signifies sometimes no other than a doctrine, an instruction, the doctrines of grace, of repentance towards God, of faith in Christ, and love to him, and every other doctrine may be intended; and the tables where, according to the tenor of this covenant, these are put and written, are two tables, as before, the "mind" and "heart"; but not two tables of stone, on which the law of Moses was written, partly that it might not be lost, through defect of memory, and partly to denote the firmness and stability of it, as also to point at the hardness of man's heart; but the fleshly tables of the heart; not that part of our flesh that is called the heart; but the souls of men, such hearts as are regenerated and sanctified by the Spirit of God, and such minds as are renewed by him: and the "putting" of them into the mind, designs the knowledge of them, which God gives; as of the moral law, of its spirituality and perfection, showing that there is no life and righteousness by it, that it is fulfilled by Christ, and is a rule of conversation to the saints; and of all other laws, ordinances, and doctrines of Christ: and the "writing" them in, or on the heart, intends a filling the soul with love and affection to them, so that it regards them singly and heartily; and a powerful inclination of the heart to be subject to them, through the efficacious grace of God; and which is done not with the ink of nature's power, but with the Spirit of the living God, ( 2 Corinthians 3:3 ) .


Hope this helps answer your question more pointedly.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jeri Tanner

A couple more quotes I think are helpful (I’m working on getting this more clear in my mind as well):

“The Greek word, "diatheke," conveys different meanings in different contexts. It can mean covenant or testament. What is new is the testament, or will, or dispensation. Under the old testament the blessings of the covenant were conveyed through men who typically and temporarily served as mediators until the fulness of the time...”

On God writing his law upon the heart:

“The idea of an internalised covenant is irrelevant to the point of a change of priesthood. If internalisation does away with priesthood it also does away with all ministry, including the teaching ministry. That can't be the use that is made of Jeremiah in Heb. 8-10, which is seeking to establish that the Aaronic priesthood has been superseded by Christ. Heb 5 had also acknowledged the place of "teachers" under the new covenant. The point about the law being written in the heart is in opposition to the tablets of stone on which "the law as a covenant" was given to the people. That law-covenant was established in sacrificial blood which required the function of a mediating priest. See Ps. 40:6-8, quoted in Hebrews 10, for the reality of the law written in the heart as preferable to sacrifices and offerings. What was preferred under the old covenant has become an exclusive arrangement under the new.”


----------



## Semper Fidelis

@Jeri Tanner - this discussion by Beeke and Jones might help regarding the idea of Testament in Puritan theology:

The Nature of a Covenant

Peter Bulkeley (1583–1659) begins his defense of the conditionality of the covenant of grace with a simple argument: the promises of God’s covenant do not belong to unbelieving and unrepentant sinners. Rather, those who repent, believe, and walk in obedience are heirs of the promises. Some distinction needs to be made between Christians and non-Christians, and denying conditions necessarily removes the distinction between those who believe and those who do not. Some promises exist that seem to be absolute (unconditional) and do not mention faith as a condition (e.g., Isa. 43:25; Ezek. 36:22), but their existence does not mean the promises do not require faith. God forgives based upon the merits of Christ only (Heb. 9:22), even though Christ is not always explicitly mentioned in every promise of forgiveness. Likewise, God forgives based upon faith only, even though the condition of faith is not always mentioned explicitly.7 The promises offered by God occur in the context of the covenant, and the nature of the covenant is necessarily twosided, according to Bulkeley.
A covenant is an agreement between two or more parties, requiring mutual conditions from each. A promise may be unilateral (“one-sided”), but a covenant binds parties together. Francis Roberts (1609–1675) argued that it is “absurd, and contrary to the Nature of a Covenant” to make it one-sided: “Covenants imply reciprocal obligations between Federates.”8 Bulkeley recognizes that “covenant” may be used on a special occasion to denote a promise without conditions (Gen. 9:9), but says he knows of only one such instance: the Noahic covenant. Otherwise, a covenant, by its very nature, requires “mutual stipulation or condition on both parties.… Take away the condition, you must also take away the Covenant commanded; and if there be a Covenant commanded, there must of necessity be a condition” (Josh. 7:11).9 The relationship of covenant and testament also received much attention because the new covenant described in Hebrews 7–9 is not only a covenant but also a testament. This additional concept did not exclude conditions but did establish the absolute or inviolable nature of the new covenant.
Instead of the classical Greek word suntheke (“mutual agreement”), both the Septuagint Greek version of the Old Testament and the Greek New Testament prefer to use diatheke (“arrangement” or “testament” in the sense of last will and testament, i.e., a document “arranging” the disposing of one’s estate after death) as the equivalent of the Hebrew word berith (“covenant”). Berith therefore seems to denote something more than a mere mutual agreement (suntheke). For this reason, some Reformed theologians stressed the unconditional nature of the new covenant. For example, John Owen (1616–1683) argued that berith could refer to a single promise without a condition, as in the Noahic covenant (Gen. 6:18; 9:9). According to Owen, this idea is no doubt present in the New Testament when the writer to the Hebrews calls the covenant a “testament,” and in a “testamentary dispensation there is not in the nature of it any mutual stipulation required, but only a mere single favor and grant or concession.”10 Thus, where God’s covenant is mentioned in Scripture, a uniform meaning should not be imposed upon the word. Owen adds, “And they do not but deceive themselves who, from the name of a covenant between God and man, do conclude always unto the nature and conditions of it; for the word is used in great variety, and what is intended by it must be learned from the subject matter treated of, seeing there is no precept or promise of God but may be so called.”11 Owen certainly did not deny conditions in the new covenant, but, like Bulkeley, he emphasizes its absolute nature as a testament to show its unchangeableness. Nevertheless, Bulkeley shows that the language of Hebrews 9:15 (“they which are called”) indicates that conditions are still involved:

These words … do plainly and fully imply the condition required in the Covenant of life, our calling being finished in the working of faith, which is the condition of the Covenant; no man is effectually called so as to have part in that eternal inheritance until he believe, so that the Legacies of the Testament being to those that are called, that is, to those that do believe, it is most manifest that the intent of the Apostle in calling the Covenant by name of a Testament, was not to exclude the condition, but only (as was said) to show the stability and immutability of the Covenant.12

This shows that to speak of the covenant as one-sided or two-sided, conditional or absolute, depends on the context of each covenant. The new covenant, like most covenants, is two-sided. Certainly, Richard Muller is correct to argue, “The language of monopleuron and dipleuron describes the same covenant from different points of view.”13


Beeke, J. R., & Jones, M. (2012). A Puritan Theology: Doctrine for Life (pp. 306–307). Grand Rapids, MI: Reformation Heritage Books.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I much appreciate Rich's talented expression, and hope you can learn as much from what he wrote (I also learning) as anything you obtain below from me.

I myself must discover the "place" certain questions or opinions/attitudes are coming from, because my background is more organic to a way of thought that others (including Rich) have been grafted into. That journey can provide a person with an angle or perspective I could never have. My own development gives me different advantages.

I had it proposed to me that things I've written here seem _dispensational_, which just strikes me as *bizarre*. In trying to figure out _why _such an idea would occur, Rich's reply offers me some insight. There's a way of thinking of or toward Reformed theology that is binary, either/or. It's often the reason why some who switch to a paedobaptism come to think paedocommunion is the most consistent position to adopt. Flipping the switch/script is actually not what's going on.



lynnie said:


> Rev Bruce.....
> 
> Why do you say this? "We have, today as believers, the fullness of presence of the Spirit that only the prophets, priests, and kings had until Christ. "
> 
> Is that a classical Reformed position? I mean, what about the 7,000 who did not bow the knee to Baal? Or the psalm writers who were sons of Korah? Mary, Elizabeth, Anna. Weren't there many believers in the OC who had just as much fullness of the HS as prophets, priests and kings?


Let me answer, first, with another question. What does it mean of Christ that "God giveth *not* the Spirit *by* *measure* _unto him_?" The Spirit is not measured-out in any way to the Son, Jn.3:34.

We do not want to interpret this expression either 1) by claiming there's no _giving _for God to do, since the Son is divine already; or 2) that this is simply a reflection of his infinite divine nature capable of an infinite fullness of the Spirit. In the first, there's no comparison at all to be drawn with a _measure _or portion of the Spirit that another may be given. In the second, there is nothing but an absolute comparison between what Jesus is capable of, and what every other finite receiver is capable of.

But the language of _measurement _invites us to consider the distinction of _different _measures given. This sends us back to the OT, and the various manifestations of the Spirit's work in those days, and various statements made by prophets or recorded by them on the subject of the divine Spirit. It doesn't take more than a simple concordance search to find evidence of the Spirit's manifestation among men.

An early example is Bezaleel the son of Uri, Ex.31:3. Num.11:17 plainly states that Moses had the Spirit, and "I will take of the spirit which _is_ upon thee, and will put _it_ upon them," who were a convention of seventy senior elders of the nation, a new high court of the people. Notice the sense of what will be distributed to them is *OF* the spirit that Moses has. That which has been Moses exclusive _measure _will provide a divided measure for seventy others. Not one of them will have the _measure _that Moses has, or will still have when they have received theirs.

Then later in Num.11:29, we read this, "And Moses said unto him, Enviest thou for my sake? would God that all the Lord’s people were *prophets*, _and_ that the Lord would put his *spirit* upon them!" We know Moses was a prophet, the supreme prophet and old covenant mediator for the nation Israel. Manifestation of the prophetic gift was a sign of the Spirit (Neh.9:30; 1Pet.1:11). Later, it is said that Balaam (!) prophesied by the Spirit, Num.24:2. Even Saul (!) prophesied by the Spirit, 1Sam.10:6-11.

Joshua is said to have the Spirit, Num.27:18. David has the Spirit, Ps.51:11. Together with Moses and the elders and Saul, it seems clear that judges of Israel were men who, at the very least ought to, have the Spirit for the exercise of their office. We see starting with Othniel in the book of Judges 3:9-11, the next concentration of evidence that Israel's eventual monarchy should have noticeable manifestation of the Spirit.

I do not find it explicitly stated in the OT that the priests, or especially the high priest should be Spirit-endowed; however it is abundantly clear that theirs was a spiritual office, and the very nature of their *holiness *required some constant presence of sanctification. It could be enough to point to named priests who are identified as having the Spirit, one Zechariah in 2Chr.24:20, and Aaron (by implication) in Ps.99. True holiness is an effect of the Spirit's presence. A NT text gives perhaps the most direct evidence, 1Pet.2:5 "ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ." Rom.8:9 teaches that no work is acceptable if the Spirit does not motivate it. Rom.12:1 again describes the whole life of the spiritual man as a "living sacrifice." Denying the Spirit's aid in the OT for effectual sacrifice reduces Israel's religion to the same level as idol temples.

All this points toward the three key OT typological mediatorial offices as points of concentration for the Spirit's ministry in the old covenant era. And yet none of this admission would imply that the Spirit was 1) not present in anyone else' life among the saints of old, like the 7000, 1Ki.19:18; or that 2) perhaps he was always necessary for regeneration, but then left the work of sanctification to the individual and the (external) law.

What we should take from this OT survey is that the Spirit was present and active in Israel of old, and yet that there was a great diversity of both the benefit and endowments of the Spirit. We should ask, "WHY would the concentration of the Spirit's presence be a special gift of the prophets, priests, and kings? Why would they have a greater _measure _of the Spirit than ordinary believing Israelites?"

The reason is because by their increased measure, they pointed to Someone coming who would not only take up all three offices of Mediator; he would have the Spirit _without any measure._ Compared to everyone else in all time, Jesus' possession of the Spirit is incomparable. He and the Spirit are One, just as he and the Father are One. He had an historic bodily endowment of the Spirit at his baptism _for his ministry_. But we should not imagine that Jesus, the man, did not already possess the benefit of the Spirit's work with him (though not, of course, for his regeneration since he needed none such). He had that gift from the time the Spirit overshadowed Mary with his conception.

He shared a measure of his Spirit with his disciples, after the example of Moses. And then, at his ascension he poured out his Spirit on his whole church--a massive endowment unlike anything previously known in Israel. Your males your females, your old, your youth, even "upon the servants and upon the handmaids in those days will I pour out my Spirit." In this manner, all God's people now have a _better measure _than the average OT saint claimed.

The old covenant believer had to content himself with admiring the special figures in his society who represented to him the Coming One and had a _better measure_ than his. He had a _measure, _of that we can be sure, because he was a child of God. But it was a _limited measure_, paltry compared to the mediatorial types endowed for their service. It was a measure suited for the time "under age," the age of the church's childhood.

Since this is already a long post, I will end it here. I welcome further questions.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

That was excellent, Bruce. It was a detailed Biblical theology where mine was more of a summary of an idea. I love how you tied up the point that Christ fulfills all three offices in His Mediatorial work for us - and without measure!

You see, even if OT saints had the spirit's operation so that they could believe - even if they had mediatorial types in their prophets, priests, and kings - they were not united by faith to any of these types. They were not united to Christ Who reigns on high and has the Spirit without measure and gives freely to His Bride.

If one reads Hebrews then notice the structure of the text. It doesn't jump into Hebrews 8-10 in the abstract and talk about how much better the NC is for the elect. It builds a case about Christ throughout. He is God. He is the fullness of Revelation. He's greater than Moses, greater than Abraham, greater than Levi, prophesied by David. There's nobody like Him. There's no person who even comes close to comparing to him. *This* is what Hebrews is teaching us. How can we neglect such a great salvation in Christ? It's not an abstract theological discussion about election and the NC and trying to compare OT Saints to NT Saints without taking Christ into consideration. It's impossible to make the comparison if you leave Him out of the discussion. I think that's often where a theology of election or the Covenant falls down in that it fails to place Christ at the center of contemplation.


----------



## Smeagol

Semper Fidelis said:


> They were *not* united to Christ Who reigns on high and has the Spirit without measure and gives freely to His Bride.



Can you explain this further or was the "*not*" a typo?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Grant Jones said:


> Can you explain this further or was the "*not*" a typo?


In an historic sense, they had a _mediated union, _not a direct communion of union with the Coming One. It was one distinct advantage of the mediatorial types (the believing ones) that they had some higher _concept _of spiritual union and communion with God. But their ability to appreciate it and make use of it _in history _was, even for those with the better Spirit endowment, not convenient, not like we (NT) have it.

How could they know what this Person was truly going to be like, until he came? How could they comprehend his pre-existence? The prophets even searched the Scriptures (their own productions!) for deeper knowledge, 1Pet.1:11. How could they wrap their heads around a forever Prophet, Priest, and King; whose life would be both poured out for them, and cause them to live forever with him by virtue of his life _in resurrection power?_

These are ideas that we, living as we do in the light of the NT, take as too commonplace notions. They struggled for more understanding and clarity _as they *waited*_. They would have that perfectly when they died and entered eternity, but not before.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> In an historic sense, they had a _mediated union, _not a direct communion of union with the Coming One. It was one distinct advantage of the mediatorial types (the believing ones) that they had some higher _concept _of spiritual union and communion with God. But their ability to appreciate it and make use of it _in history _was, even for those with the better Spirit endowment, not convenient, not like we (NT) have it.
> 
> How could they know what this Person was truly going to be like, until he came? How could they comprehend his pre-existence? The prophets even searched the Scriptures (their own productions!) for deeper knowledge, 1Pet.1:11. How could they wrap their heads around a forever Prophet, Priest, and King; whose life would be both poured out for them, and cause them to live forever with him by virtue of his life _in resurrection power?_
> 
> These are ideas that we, living as we do in the light of the NT, take as too commonplace notions. They struggled for more understanding and clarity _as they *waited*_. They would have that perfectly when they died and entered eternity, but not before.


Could the Spirit even do same as He does today in the NC, since the Messiah had not yet come, so He was still limited to how He operated during that time?


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> Could the Spirit even do same as He does today in the NC, since the Messiah had not yet come, so He was still limited to how He operated during that time?


Brother,
God can do what he wants, when he wants. His people always operate at the level of what he's revealed, and what he's promised.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> Brother,
> God can do what he wants, when he wants. His people always operate at the level of what he's revealed, and what he's promised.


The Lord Jesus had to die in order to have saved granted direct access to God now and after life, and had to ascend back in order to have the Spirit return to dwell with us, and not just on us.


----------



## Goodcheer68

Dachaser said:


> The Lord Jesus had to die in order to have saved granted direct access to God now and after life, and had to ascend back in order to have the Spirit return to dwell with us, and not just on us


 David, what you keep saying is completely dispensational and not Reformed. You should probably take a step back and read the nuances that Rich and Bruce have put forth before you try and teach.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> The Lord Jesus had to die in order to have saved granted direct access to God now and after life, and had to ascend back in order to have the Spirit return to dwell with us, and not just on us.


Seems like you are obliging God in heaven and those with him to operate within the confines of temporal succession--i.e. history.

Is Jesus "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8)? If so, then in heaven's eternal reckoning God can receive Noah, David, Deborah, Isaiah, and any other OT believer on that basis as soon as they die. It doesn't mean that while they were alive--in history--they could fully appreciate what the afterlife had in store for them, Is.64:4. *We* don't even have a full appreciation of what the afterlife has in store for us, 1Cor.2:9.

As for that "in-vs.-on" distinction you seem to be resting your last comment upon, I don't see a Heb. preposition as a strong doctrinal foundation. Upon examination, it appears to me as a distinction without much difference. I don't think it aids an understanding of OT/NT soteriology, pneumatology, or anything. It's inadequate exegesis.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

I deeply appreciate all the responses and linked quotes. Too bad we can only click "like" or "edifying" or "informative"
when sometimes all three could be clicked.

I found Grant's comments about Adam intriguing: "We now just have the Law that was written on Adam's heart in a state of innocence." 

It makes sense that when Jeremiah prophesied and Hebrews refers to this, it is about Adam and the second Adam. In regeneration we are restored to Adam, not the first Adam who was able to sin, but the second Adam who resisted all sin and because of whom we can now eat from the tree of life. To have God's law written on our hearts being a reference to Adam seems to me to so far be the best way to interpret this subject of the law written on our minds. 

There are a few things here that don't sound like what I had thought was the classical Reformed position. It might be semantics. I understand various measures and depths of experiencing the HS in the New Testament age, so certainly old too, but in terms of the actual regeneration or salvation, the Reformed position ( I thought) is that what they had is what we have. There is only one state of being born again. One salvation. Maybe trying to understand it mentally and in experience is just hard to define, but for example I don't know that any of them had less communion with God than we do. I know hub's WTS prof said OT salvation and NT salvation had no difference experientially. Maybe the Reformed don't see eye to eye exactly. 

Been out all day and have to go, but again, this whole discussion has gotten me thinking intensely about the Lord and what it is to be saved, and I am very grateful for all the many things posted. My husband and I have talked of nothing else theological since it started LOL, trying to hammer out the finer points of Hebrews.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

lynnie said:


> in terms of the actual regeneration or salvation, the Reformed position ( I thought) is that what they had is what we have.


This is most certainly true. Ergo, the NT-conditioned _indwelling of the Spirit _has to be something distinct from regeneration, and from that very modest (on average) persistent Spirit presence and power affecting the believer under OT conditions.


----------



## Dachaser

Goodcheer68 said:


> David, what you keep saying is completely dispensational and not Reformed. You should probably take a step back and read the nuances that Rich and Bruce have put forth before you try and teach.


I have been continuing to read more materials, and still seems to ne that there are indeed differing ways to view this interesting discussion, as not all Reformed hold to exact same understanding of just how the Spirit functioned in the OT times, and how much of a difference, if any, there was between the 2 Covenants.


----------



## Dachaser

Contra_Mundum said:


> Seems like you are obliging God in heaven and those with him to operate within the confines of temporal succession--i.e. history.
> 
> Is Jesus "the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" (Rev.13:8)? If so, then in heaven's eternal reckoning God can receive Noah, David, Deborah, Isaiah, and any other OT believer on that basis as soon as they die. It doesn't mean that while they were alive--in history--they could fully appreciate what the afterlife had in store for them, Is.64:4. *We* don't even have a full appreciation of what the afterlife has in store for us, 1Cor.2:9.
> 
> As for that "in-vs.-on" distinction you seem to be resting your last comment upon, I don't see a Heb. preposition as a strong doctrinal foundation. Upon examination, it appears to me as a distinction without much difference. I don't think it aids an understanding of OT/NT soteriology, pneumatology, or anything. It's inadequate exegesis.


I was just trying to understanding what the temple curtain tearing meant for us now, as before Jesus died, wasn't direct access to God shut up from even his saints?


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> I was just trying to understanding what the temple curtain tearing meant for us now, as before Jesus died, wasn't direct access to God shut up from even his saints?


Moses and David both communed with God.

They did in through the Mediator.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

De Jager said:


> Moses and David both communed with God.
> 
> They did in through the Mediator.


Jesus was not functioning though as their High Priest before the NC, was He?


----------



## De Jager

Dachaser said:


> Jesus was not functioning though as their High Priest before the NC, was He?



How did they, as sinners, commune with God without a mediator?

The Lord spoke to Moses as he did to a friend. Was this due to Moses' righteouseness? On what possible basis could that occur, other than through the Mediation of Christ, who was yet to come?

I think we need to heed brother Bruce's words here. God is simply not constrained by time like we are. What does it mean that Jesus is "the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world?" What does it mean that to the Lord a day is like a 1000 years and a 1000 years like a day? God is simply not time-bound like we are.

To understand this, consider a train. There is a train engine, and united to that train engine are 100 cars in front and 100 cars behind. You are standing at one point on the tracks. The train approaches, and you see the 100 front cars, but you don't see the engine. As far as you are concerned, the engine has not yet come...yet the cars are moving because they are connected to the engine. Then eventually, you see the engine, and you begin to see all 100 cars being dragged behind the engine. All the cars get to the destination because they are united to the engine. Some arrive before the engine is revealed, some do after.

And that is my feeble attempt to explain the matter.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Dachaser said:


> I was just trying to understanding what the temple curtain tearing meant for us now, as before Jesus died, wasn't direct access to God shut up from even his saints?





De Jager said:


> Moses and David both communed with God.
> They did in through the Mediator.





Dachaser said:


> Jesus was not functioning though as their High Priest before the NC, was He?





De Jager said:


> How did they, as sinners, commune with God without a mediator?
> 
> The Lord spoke to Moses as he did to a friend. Was this due to Moses' righteouseness? On what possible basis could that occur, other than through the Mediation of Christ, who was yet to come?
> 
> I think we need to heed brother Bruce's words here. God is simply not constrained by time like we are. What does it mean that Jesus is "the lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world?" What does it mean that to the Lord a day is like a 1000 years and a 1000 years like a day? God is simply not time-bound like we are.
> 
> To understand this, consider a train. There is a train engine, and united to that train engine are 100 cars in front and 100 cars behind. You are standing at one point on the tracks. The train approaches, and you see the 100 front cars, but you don't see the engine. As far as you are concerned, the engine has not yet come...yet the cars are moving because they are connected to the engine. Then eventually, you see the engine, and you begin to see all 100 cars being dragged behind the engine. All the cars get to the destination because they are united to the engine. Some arrive before the engine is revealed, some do after.
> 
> And that is my feeble attempt to explain the matter.



I appreciate Izaak's effort; let me try to add to it. First, a text and exposition:

Ex.6:3 "and I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by _the name of_ God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them."​
Taken at face value, this declaration makes little sense. We know from the record in Genesis that the patriarchs had possession of the divine name. But something was about to happen in the life of the Israelites that was going to reveal their God to them by name, his covenant-name, that no previous experience had. A new union with their God was on the horizon by means of this name and his covenant, brought about by an imminent salvation soon to be revealed.

We have to be precise, and clear in the specifics of what we claim. We need categories that fit certain situations and realities, about which statements may vary. To address concepts that divide everything up (like dispensationalism for example) the answer is not to assert perfect unity everywhere. When we do such, we lose the ability to respond to those who actually do tend toward varieties of Christian monism.

When we talk about the communion OT saints like Moses and David had with God, we have to distinguish between what they could know and experience as historic persons, and what they benefited from as eternal verity. In historic terms, there was no such person as the God-man, Christ Jesus, when in time they lived. Therefore, speaking historically about what was possible for them to experience in this life, they could not have union-with-Christ _because they were waiting for him so they could have union with him.
_
Were they saved by virtue of union with the one and only Mediator? Yes, because everyone is justified by faith, and that faith unites them to the Mediator as they believe what God would do or has (now) done to save them. But an OT saint's _existential union _with Christ had a historic constraint--in history the Christ was not yet. They had faith in a God--and thereby in his Mediator--which is beyond history.

The OT saint could not _experience _his saving union in history, but would _experience _that union through death of the body, his soul still seeking and immediately finding the God he sought in life, the God who first sought him in election and made it possible for that saint to commune with him in history. How? By types and shadows that mediated to him a faint but true communion with God, representing to him the future-historic work of the Mediator. Ours is a faith that transcends time.

There was no way for the believer prior to the Incarnation to historically enter into union with a God-man who had not as yet an historic presence. To affirm this does not prevent also affirming that there was real and abiding and spiritually beneficial communion with God; or that the pre-incarnate Son was the eternal source and agent for it. Israel in Egypt could not know the God _they knew_ in the particular saving way they would know him, until he saved them.

In the proper sense, we grant that the OT saint communed with God via the Reality/Antitype behind and signified by the types. We grant it, provided it be acknowledged: the distinction between history and eternity. When Jesus arrives and does his saving work, it is "a new and living way," Heb.10:20.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lynnie

Rev BB, I am no expert or trying to disagree with you, but the WTS position and some Reformed commentaries is that the OT believers had exactly what we have in experience. We commune with the second person of the trinity by way of the Holy Spirit and they also communed with the eternal word, second person, by way of the Holy Spirit. They did have union with Him, fully. 

I think some of them would say you sound Dispensational. I am not saying you are because I just don't know and am in the process of thinking about all this, and in your favor is that you ascribe something to the NT era that is so much greater than the OT and would seem to fit with Hebrews. But in experience, in what happens inside us including full communion with God, there are many who would not agree with you and would say OT saints had full saving union...in many cases experientially perhaps far deeper and more glorious than us (I am thinking of those who wrote scripture). The second person of the trinity was always there even if He hadn't incarnated yet. 

Maybe this is one of these subjects like polity or eschatology where the Reformed have different opinions and are not as unified in their view of OT salvation as I originally thought?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Lynnie,
What is meant by "in experience?" I know what it cannot mean: that the OT believer had unmediated connection with the Mediator. You and I have that, because we live in the moment of salvation actually done historically in Christ. The types and shadows standing between Him and us are gone. But at one time, in history, they weren't; and believers had to negotiate them in this life.

The experience of Israelites in Egypt who lived and died before the Exodus and Sinai covenant was different in measurable ways from the experience of the Exodus generation, and all the others after it. Yet, the earlier believers were still living by faith, and were even saved we may say out of Egypt by the one event that had not happened yet in their lifetimes.

Now, if you said to me: "Hold it, pastor, how can you say that Israelite men and women crushed to an early grave by Egyptian cruelty, and baby boys thrown in the river to drown--they were saved out of Egypt in the Exodus? That's nuts!" Well, I actually want to draw an _experiential _distinction between the earlier and later generations of Israelites.

I want that, AND I want to affirm that by a covenantal solidarity those who suffered and died _waiting _were yet released from Egypt by the power of God in the one and only Exodus. A man who died in faith was at the instant of death experientially realizing God had kept his promise to him and the whole people. While he lived, he both groaned and triumphed (already) through faith.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

lynnie said:


> But in experience, in what happens inside us including full communion with God, there are many who would not agree with you and would say OT saints had full saving union...in many cases experientially perhaps far deeper and more glorious than us (I am thinking of those who wrote scripture). The second person of the trinity was always there even if He hadn't incarnated yet.


Address this separate. I don't think you've read what I've written closely enough. You are combining ideas that I have separated and distinguished. For example, I affirm that the Son/2nd Person is God in the OT too, not just the NT. I affirm a thoroughgoing and orthodox whole-Bible Trinitarianism. I wrote above that the Son is the true eternal source and agent of OT saints' communion with God.

It's one thing that a _fact is, _another to have what might be accurately described as experience of the fact. There are I know not how many hugely_ meaningful facts_ that are physically affecting my present existence and conditions--like the sun's gravity. But there are intermediate facts so much closer to me, proximate causes affecting me, that its hard to justify calling my relationship to the distant-but-most-meaningful fact out there "union." I'm not _experiencing _it appreciably.

If in a moment, it is suddenly made wonderfully clear and necessary to my happiness: my dependence on the sun's gravity--until now, the largest fact in my experience was the earth; the sun being a small ball of light and heat that disappeared half the time, swallowed up in the immensity of the earth--NOW the mediation of the earth is removed, and I conceive the solar system in a radically different way, in an unmediated way.

Geocentricity has given way to heliocentricity. Has my relationship to the sun changed at all, from a _factual _standpoint? No, but I have a far more intimate relation for understanding my life in dependency on it.

You seem to read what I've said, put it through some of your own filters, and translated it into me saying the OT saints lacked communion with God, or lacked "full" communion--perhaps, as if they had only a partial salvation. I've only said that they lacked (in fact, they _couldn't have_ in both a historical sense and an unveiled manner) full appreciation and engagement with an historic fact that hadn't happened yet. And, consequently their experience of what IS theirs through the Covenant of Redemption is experientially _muted_ during their sojourn in history.

Let me say it again: There cannot be the God-man, Christ Jesus, in history prior to @ B.C.<>A.D. The "Coming One" _came. _And he had to come, and take on flesh, in order to be sacrificed--the event--and die, and rise, and everything else associated with his identity as our Savior. In eternity, he's the Lamb forever, which is why OT saints dying entered glory and beheld their Hope.

But it you think this: some OT saints had experience of union "far deeper and more glorious than us," I wonder what you make of texts like Lk.7:28,
" For I say unto you, Among those that are born of women there is *no*t a *greater prophet* than John the Baptist: but he that is* least in the kingdom of God is greater* than he."​Or Rom.16:25-26
Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel, and the preaching of Jesus Christ, according to the revelation of the mystery, which was *kept secret since the world began, But now is made manifest*, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith.​
I don't think that John the Baptist is taking a lower place in glory than any who will stand in the first rank of saints in the light, going back to Abel. Jesus is nevertheless bold to declare how, in terms of history and manifestation, the children of his Kingdom and its humblest dweller, living in its fullness, are possessed of an almost inconceivably excellent situation _even compared to John the Baptist who was so near in time to the unveiling of it._ He was the last OT prophet.

Would you trade your present estate, if you could go back in time and be queen of the Britons (instead of Boudica)? No painless dentistry, no freeways, no internet--but... you would be queen. I think lots of people would say upon consideration, "No thanks;" and most of those who think they'd say "Yes," would actually want out after a very short time.

The reason can be summed up less by the word "comfort," as much as by the word "progress." Comfort is what you're used to, or what you can imagine you could get used to. A man can be comfortable sitting on a log, but if he loves his easy-chair... he'll get up from the log, go inside his air-conditioned house, and fall asleep in his lounger. He'll pop a couple aspirin, and his headache will be gone and forgotten. A ten-mile trip will take him 15min, not three steady hours of walking. People of very modest means can do all this thanks to modern society.

As an adult, I laugh and cry over many things; which were also my expressions as a baby. Is it possible there were moments of euphoria as a child that rival and surpass my present enjoyments? I probably thrilled to see my mother's face. I still delight to see her face, though probably with more complacency. It's the same face, the same person. I, however, am no longer a child. My appreciation of her, though expressed in different ways--certainly with less swooning--is richer and more devoted, more _glorious _overall, than when I was so much younger.

The church in the OT was _childlike _(Gal.4:1-3; 3:25; Eph.4:14; cf. Gal.5:1). Not that men were less mature than men today. Men of immense spiritual talent were (in a manner of speaking) struggling to master _grammar _(invent it, really) as they were taught by God in the elementary school of Christ. These men were appointed the tutors of Israel, the child at his homework.

I remember the day I suddenly understood fractions. It's been decades; I still remember the feeling like my mind had opened up, after being jammed shut. Talk about euphoria, glory. Fractions. I took math courses up through college level calculus, and enjoyed most of it. That's quite an advance on fractions. I think derivatives and integrals are glorious things of beauty. But there was a time in human history when someone first figured out the glory of fractions, and Newton and Leibniz were afar off. Now, we hope our first grader will master fractions.

Reactions: Like 5


----------



## lynnie

Well now, I am geocentrist, and that never gave way to heliocentricity : )

But I digress. I don't think I misunderstand you, its just that some people think the OT union was indeed a true union and communion like ours, other than that obviously the mental grasp of the incarnation and work of redemption we have was absent.

To be saved is to have union with Christ, BC and AD.
Some people would disagree with this:_ "What is meant by "in experience?" I know what it cannot mean: that the OT believer had unmediated connection with the Mediator."_

David speaks of the Lord before him, at his right hand, filling him with fullness of joy. Job knew his redeemer lived and would stand upon the earth. Daniel saw in a vision one like the son of man together with the Ancient of days. He must have known it was the same person who came into the blazing furnace with his three friends. Enoch walked with God and was taken up without dying, and Elijah....I can't believe they didn't have some sense of the second person of the trinity. Other Reformed people would say that indeed they had full union with Christ and communion with Him, even if they didn't understand it and were mentally not where NT believers are. 

Re John.....here is a quote from Calvin via Matthew Poole:

"Notwithstanding he that is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. Mr. Calvin and many others think that by this phrase is to be understood, the least of those who shall preach the gospel after my resurrection will be greater than he, that is, as to their doctrine. John could only declare me to be come. They shall preach me, as having died for my people’s sins, and risen again for their justification, Romans 4:25. The death and the resurrection of Christ were indeed great points of the gospel, which John could only prophesy of, not preach of, and declare us things in his time accomplished."

Other commentaries refer to the "greater" being our mental understanding ( I was looking at bible hub). Of course we have a true and clear and greater understanding of the Lord now. Of course regarding the mind and doctrine the NT is superior.

But does that mean a lesser sort of union and communion BC vs AD? I don't know for sure, but I am just trying to point out that other Reformed scholars would say their experience and communion was no different than ours, at least for some of them. In AD the outpouring and sheer number of elect is broadened globally, and we understand Jesus Christ now in a way they didn't.....but their regeneration still was union with Christ and communion with Christ. To be born again is to be in Christ.....even if your mental grasp is veiled.

I don't feel entirely comfortable arguing with a moderator and don't want an infraction, so I think I'll drop out here. Again, I deeply appreciate all the dialogue, and I've come to see that there is not one unified Reformed position on salvation in the OT and NT. Since it isn't a salvation or Reformed essential to know what Isaiah was experiencing, I'll drop it. Thanks again for all the replies.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Well, I wish you had not dropped out on account of a perceived "power-disparity" between us. But I also understand how tiring long exchanges can be.

As for "arguing with a mod," dissent and debate isn't challenging authority around here. Copping an attitude after being asked to tone down rhetoric, or refusing to respect the enforced limits of acceptable discourse--that's argumentative grounds for infractions.


lynnie said:


> To be saved is to have union with Christ, BC and AD.


There are some points in the response that should get more ink than I can spare. We should be talking about union with God, the LORD, etc., with respect to the OT saints. They did not have NT clarity or vocabulary; even as we vigorously affirm that in fact it was by the Son/2P (in NT terms). Some respect should be had for Christ as an _historical _designation, even if in historically expectant settings. And there is not enough attention or care to the temporal/eternal divide. It matters. Finally, the tendency is still there to put everything in Dispensational-vs-covenant binary terms. As if one view was a perfect inversion of the other, a reverse mirror image.

When I read the quote comment, and see the support, my immediate thought is "Where in this equation are the BC mediators?" In other words, what account is there of them? I can affirm that statement with regard to the OT_, with an explanation of the person of the Levitical priest, Davidic king, and Mosaic prophet integral to it.
_
If your understanding is that the OC mediators are basically doing a _*pantomime;* _rather than actually performing a typological, mediatorial function, working as an intermediary between the people and God, even between a man and the Second Person of the Godhead--then we do mean different things by the statement.

My impression is that your claim is that the OT believer's union is as direct and immediate as the NT believer's. To my mind, that view cannot take into account that key thing that was among my original responses in this thread: that in Christ, the former mediator-types are taken out of the way. Only then is direct, unimpeded union possible.

Those OT saints--they _needed _so greatly those typological mediators! Without them, no union with the Mediator was allowed. There was no bypassing them. They exercised a _sacerdotal _function; one of Rome's stupendous errors is that they return the church under a _sacerdotal priesthood._ OT Israel had that, they had a legitimate one, the only legitimate one in history. And now, we have one High Priest, with no priestly aides, who abides forever under the offering of one final sacrifice.

When you place me at odds, in some fashion, with your learned and respected WTS theologians--which I assume are mostly Presbyterian and covenantal--my initial thought is that the issue is linguistic. You are used to conversation at close personal distance, and I'm just an internet guy. I find it hard to imagine I am that distinct a voice among your teachers.

I also remember that you are Baptist in your orientation. If so, and you are more covenantal (though a Baptist), then you occupy some middle ground between the Reformed and the Baptist territory. So, when you insist that you are really getting my drift, and seeing contradictions where I am surprised you locate them, I still think we aren't quite on the same wavelength.

**********************
Calvin is much closer to my exposition than the truncated, 2nd-hand ref. from Poole would indicate:
The Greek word _mikroteros,_ which I have rendered least, is in the comparative degree, and signifies less; but the meaning is more clearly brought out, that all the ministers of the Gospel are included. Many of them undoubtedly have received a small portion of faith, and are therefore greatly inferior to John; but this does not prevent their preaching from being superior to his, because it holds out Christ as having rendered complete and eternal satisfaction by his one sacrifice, as the conqueror of death and the Lord of life, and because it withdraws the veil, and elevates believers to the heavenly sanctuary.​Even if one reduces "least" to new covenant ministers alone (and does not see reference the members) Calvin advances them ahead of John for superiority in preaching. And note the reference to Christ's finished, priestly work. And the last expression, this new covenant preaching "elevates believers to the heavenly sanctuary." That's a direct move to heaven, unlike in Israel where the physical Sanctuary was the requisite stairstep to heaven.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Let me answer, first, with another question. What does it mean of Christ that "God giveth *not* the Spirit *by* *measure* _unto him_?" The Spirit is not measured-out in any way to the Son, Jn.3:34.


It means Christ is His equal. He is God in the Flesh.


----------



## lynnie

Ok, thanks for the clarification. 

Before I get to the main point, I respect people here as I do other people I've known and many authors mostly in heaven now. It isn't necessarily a factor in my thinking if I read it in a book or here or heard it from somebody. And I didn't go to WTS, hub did, it was his prof I referred to. 

So anyway, I do feel like I need to read more and I'm loathe to bat this around with you until I do. Having said that......

I think the way you write sounds like Federal Vision or Dispensational. You make it sound like the ground of salvation and union with Christ was something they did, ie, the OT law. "Heb 10:4 - It_ is_ not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins." You say they needed them. Yes, as types to point to Christ, but not as the basis for union with Christ. They could not take away sin.

You say: "Those OT saints--they _needed _so greatly those typological mediators! Without them, no union with the Mediator was allowed. There was no bypassing them."

I don't agree. We do need everything God ordains for us and in the NT we have baptism and communion and all sorts of commands to obey. But the grounds of salvation is Jesus Christ alone. There is no other ground of salvation or merit before God. Salvation is and was union with Christ, to be IN Christ, BC and AD. There is no other salvation but by grace through faith. Abel and Enoch and Noah did not have those mediators, but are listed as heroes of the faith. You make it sound like salvation was depending on the ceremonial law. That never saved them, it couldn't. 

No works of obedience and no infused righteousness from the gift of a new heart is any grounds of salvation. All the merit was in Christ. This is why Norman Shepherd eventually got kicked out of WTS. We have to obey, we are commanded to obey, yet the only ground of salvation is Jesus and not what we do. 

I know you'll say you think they were regenerated but without the union. All I can say is that when I read Psalms I know they had what I have. Other OT places too. 

I have to go but I really need to read more on this anyway. Good night.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum

PuritanCovenanter said:


> It means Christ is His equal. He is God in the Flesh.


I explained in the next paragraph why that reading doesn't do justice to the expression. If it's nothing but an absolute comparison, Jesus vs. anyone else or everyone else altogether, the sentence is rhetorically lively, but the meaning flat. The term "measure" is reduced to a synonym for "limit." The next few paragraphs are a study on _measure of the Holy Spirit in OT background_ for John's use. I'm glad someone found it useful.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

God did something a long time ago I have to rely upon. It comes from Job. 

Job 28:28 And unto man he said, Behold, the fear of the Lord, that is wisdom; and to depart from evil is understanding. 

Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. 

Job 19:25 For I know that my redeemer liveth, and that he shall stand at the latter day upon the earth: 
Job 19:26 And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: 
Job 19:27 Whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall behold, and not another; though my reins be consumed within me. 
Job 19:28 But ye should say, Why persecute we him, seeing the root of the matter is found in me? 
Job 19:29 Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of the sword, that ye may know there is a judgment. 


Seems this guy knew his destiny.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Lynnie,
I just deny that anything I've written has a whiff of dispensationalism, or worse. It's a bitter pill to have my words labeled with those associations. I'll just take it, and figure that you're left in a quandary trying to fit this stuff in your taxonomy.

I would like you, if possible, to identify any words in particular that sound to you like I'm grounding salvation and union with Christ in human activity. I am convinced you are reading _into _something I wrote, and not reading from the words.

I say the saints _needed_ the sanctuary and its rites, indeed. And, I can affirm Heb.10:4 and every ounce of its declaration of the _ultimate failure_ to take away sins. It says 9X in the text of Lev.4-6 in chs. dealing with the essential sacrifices of the altar, "it shall be forgiven them/him." So, now we have multiple texts, and two (on their face) directly contradictory expressions. We can't just say that Heb.10:4 just trumps the others, that it invalidates the earlier language. What does it mean over and over again, "it shall be forgiven him" in the context of the sacrifices, which Heb.10:4 says can't take sins away?

Some folks answer this way: the sacrifices were just pantomime, kabuki theater, a _bare sign. _The priests did their thing because Israel needed a big show, a ritual act that brought no spiritual effect, but was a big expensive message board to the nation: Sin Is a Big Deal! that flashed in pre-neon days for a thousand years; then after a short break for about 500yrs more.

The occasional argument goes: the sacrifices were still meaningless rituals; but God posited that he would grant pardons in timely conjunction with the ritualistic patterns of the priests. In this view, the sacrifices actually functioned as a form of distraction or misdirection. They had no actual connection to the pardon, and the induced belief that they did created a false belief, mainly for the reprobates.

Another wrong answer would be that for a time--perhaps no longer than the first abortive attempt to enter the Promised Land, or maybe when the people went into exile--the sacrifices did take sin away, but then (by the time the NT is written) they don't anymore. This is a confused and ad hoc response to the apparent OT/NT contradiction. The choice of moment to end sacrificial efficacy is simply arbitrary.

It is just as wrong to make the sacrifices _intrinsically_ pardoning at all, at any point, when Heb.10:4 (appealing to the nature of the things) says that they cannot, and could never have done the lifting, if the weight was left to them. And it isn't just Israel's problem, but the patriarchs' as well, and then the rest of humanity going back to the earliest sacrifices east of Eden.

So what, does this leave us with a contradiction? God gave Israel detailed instructions and promised to pardon sins in accord with the sacrifices. Going back to the beginning, it was substitution made in animal blood; only idolaters sought equivalence by human sacrifices. What was God doing? He was tying his promised performance of a supreme sacrifice to the typological sacrifices. He bid his covenanted people put their trust in the substitutionary sacrifices he provided, which he would regard for the sake of the Sacrifice that was united to them.

In this way, you have both a true and unfeigned promise of God to forgive on account of the animal sacrifice brought, Lev.4:20 etc.; and at the same time the certainty that these things, if left to themselves, do nothing, can not possibly be efficacious on account of their humble nature. But because these _sacraments _are united to the heavenly reality by divine promise, and because God has prepared a human body of super-equivalence, Heb.10:5, Ps.40:6, being united to the divine nature of the Second Person, those offerings accomplished things that by nature they would not be able to.

Apart from the supreme Sacrifice, they were worthless. This is why Hebrews recipients are being so strongly urged not to go back again to the altar in the Temple. There no longer remains a sacrifice for sins there, Heb.10:26. This is another text that read on its face tells us that once upon a time there did remain a sacrifice for sin on Israel's altar; but v18: "Now where there is forgiveness of these things, there is no longer _any_ offering for sin."

This is not dispensationalist thinking, not classic dispensationalism with its once upon a time efficacious (on their own) sacrifices. Dispensationalism has no sacramental altar.

Furthermore, you admit we need what God says we need. Then you read into what I said about need (yes strongly, intentionally I said it) that the need equates to a _grounding, _as if somehow replacing Christ. But this is false. You have determined in advance that every believer in either OT or NT age possessed historical/temporal union with the Mediator in exactly the same way. You have functionally eliminated the purpose of the Aaronic priesthood in history, bypassing them as _*real *_if typological mediators.

It took union with Christ to redeem an OT saint. But before the Coming One came, that union required union with additional intermediaries for the historical duration of a saint's life. Die, and he enters eternity and no longer makes any use of such temporal delays.

You raise the matter of the patriarchs (by implication), and names of saints from even earlier: Abel, Enoch, Noah. Correct, these all lived before the Mosaic covenant and that era, and did not possess Israel's altar. That does not mean that there was no priest of family, city, or realm. In God's economy, "no man takes this honor unto himself but he that is called of God, as _was_ Aaron," Heb.5:4

A legitimate priest was in an office God instituted for men after the fall. Were there legitimate priests before Aaron? Gen.14, Melchizedek, is the locus classicus, priest of the city of Salem. Moses marries the daughter of the priest of Midian, Ex.3:1. Job (seems to be a patriarchal figure) performs the task of priest for his family. Priests were mediators, and if they did what God willed for them, in the days before he confined his knowledge to one nation under heaven, then their mediation and altar must also have been united to the Ultimate Sacrifice and the Cross-shaped Altar of Calvary. That is the only way sacrifice would work.

Saving faith must come before every ritual. Ritual is empty without it. Man is justified by faith alone. Believers are united to Christ in their efffectual calling. We in the NT know so much about Christ, and more than anything we know he died on the cross for the sins of the world. It is faith in Him, in the Sacrifice, that saves. But there was a long age, ages, in time when that Sacrifice waited.

The way to union with God and his promised Redeemer (how is he going to save us?) passed through the institution of sacrifice, eventually elaborately and finely decorated and ritualized in Israel's Sanctuary. No more local priests, no more local altars. One altar for the whole people. One priest to replace the priest of the home, or the city, or of any other realm.

There is no way in OT terms to bypass this altar, and come to God on your own recognizance. This altar is not just a symbol of a God who seems strict but actually is approachable on much looser, freer terms. It was THE WAY to have peace with God. Until Jesus said, "I AM THE WAY," and took the altar into himself.

This is not Shepherdism. You cannot put any of this together with his assertions, or the FV, or any group that ties works and justification. I wish you would read some classic works on Covenant Theology. Read John Owen on Hebrews, all seven volumes.

Lynnie,
I said I would not object to your engagement, when you worried you had or would say something against board policy. All I'm doing here is asking you to check the associations you have leveled at me. I do not endorse those ideas; they are not tied to my treatment of cov. theology or Israel's theocracy. You are making hasty connections disconnected from fact.


----------



## lynnie

Hi again, and thank you for the long reply. I am pressed for time and have to go out so I can not interact with any depth now. But I should say I never thought you ARE Dispensational or FV, I thought your wording was bad. 

"You have determined in advance that every believer in either OT or NT age possessed historical/temporal union with the Mediator in exactly the same way." 

Well yes, I essentially do and that is why I said everybody is saved the same way. By grace through faith only on the grounds of Jesus Christ. AD, BC. Obviously we know things they didn't know before the incarnation, but salvation ( which I am pretty much using synonymously as "union with Christ") has always been the same. So you do understand me. Up until recently I thought this was pretty much the Reformed understanding. 

I will refer to one book I thought of today that had an impact in my past- Jesus on Every Page by David Murray. The mediatorial work of Jesus did not start with the incarnation. He was present all over in the OT as the angel of the Lord. He talked to Adam in the Garden. I don't have time to squash an entire book into a paragraph, but I do believe the second person/eternal word was very much present in the OT. And those men communed with him. Murray likens it as an eyedropper BC, and like a power hose after Pentecost , but it is always still water for those given to experience it. 


Lastly, re interpretation, you say "So, now we have multiple texts, and two (on their face) directly contradictory expressions. We can't just say that Heb.10:4 just trumps the others, that it invalidates the earlier language. " 

I say the NT always interprets the old, and where the NT defines or explains the old it always trumps it. Not to invalidate but to clarify what was meant. And yes God gave them the ceremonial system and they needed to obey it, and God saw the blood and forgave sin, but, their union and communion was more than that...it was by faith in the Holy Spirit. But maybe we are beating a dead horse by now on this. 

Anyway, I have to go, no time to write more and I haven't had time to even read anything else, so maybe I best drop the subject for now. I can only tell you again that at least one WTS prof said that whatever is new in the new Cov about salvation, it wasn't their experience.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

lynnie said:


> Hi again, and thank you for the long reply. I am pressed for time and have to go out so I can not interact with any depth now. But I should say I never thought you ARE Dispensational or FV, I thought your wording was bad.
> 
> "You have determined in advance that every believer in either OT or NT age possessed historical/temporal union with the Mediator in exactly the same way."
> 
> Well yes, I essentially do and that is why I said everybody is saved the same way. By grace through faith only on the grounds of Jesus Christ. AD, BC. Obviously we know things they didn't know before the incarnation, but salvation ( which I am pretty much using synonymously as "union with Christ") has always been the same. So you do understand me. Up until recently I thought this was pretty much the Reformed understanding.
> 
> I will refer to one book I thought of today that had an impact in my past- Jesus on Every Page by David Murray. The mediatorial work of Jesus did not start with the incarnation. He was present all over in the OT as the angel of the Lord. He talked to Adam in the Garden. I don't have time to squash an entire book into a paragraph, but I do believe the second person/eternal word was very much present in the OT. And those men communed with him. Murray likens it as an eyedropper BC, and like a power hose after Pentecost , but it is always still water for those given to experience it.
> 
> 
> Lastly, re interpretation, you say "So, now we have multiple texts, and two (on their face) directly contradictory expressions. We can't just say that Heb.10:4 just trumps the others, that it invalidates the earlier language. "
> 
> I say the NT always interprets the old, and where the NT defines or explains the old it always trumps it. Not to invalidate but to clarify what was meant. And yes God gave them the ceremonial system and they needed to obey it, and God saw the blood and forgave sin, but, their union and communion was more than that...it was by faith in the Holy Spirit. But maybe we are beating a dead horse by now on this.
> 
> Anyway, I have to go, no time to write more and I haven't had time to even read anything else, so maybe I best drop the subject for now. I can only tell you again that at least one WTS prof said that whatever is new in the new Cov about salvation, it wasn't their experience.


God the Son was not though our great High Priest until the NC was established, as that took the God Man Christ Jesus to do that, as He had to come as Messiah in order to shed His blood for the NC.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I thought that what I noted would be uncontroversial and well understood by those who read Scripture and Reformed exegetical and theological commentaries.

These three statements are all completely true:

1. The only way that any man or woman has been saved after the Fall is by the Covenant of Grace.
2. The one and only Mediator of the Covenant of Grace is the Lord Jesus Christ.

So far we have two statements that are *not* dispensational and anyone who has a passing familiarity with theology will recognize these as summaries of what the Westminster Confession of Faith and every Reformed Confession teaches.

Let me add a third true statement:

3. Jesus Christ is fully God an fully Man.

Let me unpack this a bit. The Son of God is fully God and is God from all eternity. The Son of God took on human flesh not from all eternity but about 2022ish years ago. He had a mother who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and He was born in a manger in Bethlehem.

Prior to that historical event, Jesus Christ as man did not exist. The infinite and eternal took on real human flesh and lived in history. The One Person (the Son of God) took on a human nature so that the Son of God was now both God and Man. The Man was called Jesus Christ.

I'm saying this in a very basic way because this is basic Christian orthodoxy. As much as people are warning Bruce about dispensationalism (and don't seem to understand the terms they are using) there is a real danger in a denial of the basic orthodoxy of Jesus Christ as meaning a man in time. Our Confession states that Jesus Christ, the God-man is the one mediator between God and man.

It is not inconsequential to salvation-history that the Incarnation occurred. For all our acknowledgment that the OT Saints were saved by the same God under the CoG (and not different Covenants) it is still true that AT SOME POINT Christ had to come into the world to be the Mediator by which the CoG would have its Mediator.

There IS NO MEDIATOR OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE IF Christ DID NOT BECOME MAN. This statement, in part, is more Christian than it is Reformed. The reason why the Council at Chalcedon called any division, mixture, or confusion of Christ's natures a heresy was the insistence that the One Person had to be both God and Man. That which was not assumed was not healed. Christ couldn't be a God who appeared to be a man. Christ couldn't have just had a divine mind with a human body. The Son of God and Christ weren't two different people. Christ wasn't a hybrid semi-God semi-man.

It really did matter that Christ obeyed all righteousness. It mattered that He fulfilled prophecy. It mattered that He was baptized and was driven into the desert. It mattered that He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. These things mattered historically and redemptively. They hadn't occurred "theoretically" or "really" for the OT Saints who anticipated them. They were awaiting them.

Oh, and let's not forget, IT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY matters that Christ ascended on high and sits at the Right Hand of God as a glorified man. That's right, Jesus the Man sits as our Mediator - Prophet, Priest, and King. We're comforted that this Jesus intercedes for us, He defeats our enemies, He sends His Spirit, we're united to Him.

As much as Enoch, Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah and every other OT Saint that came before us had they DID NOT HAVE an already ascended Mediator on the throne. This they awaited.

I challenge anyone to call what I just wrote dispensational. It's different words but is essentially the point that Bruce has been patiently trying to make.

I also challenge anyone to produce any Reformed confession or writer who essentially writes anything different than the above. it doesn't exist. These ideas aren't matters of perspective or debatable. They're very basic to the progression of the Covenant of Grace.

Please read through the Westminster Confession of Faith about the Covenant and the Mediator and you'll see these basic truths.

Don't forget - nobody is saying that Jesus Christ is not the Mediator and Savior of everyone who ever existed. The issue is that there was a time when Jesus Christ had yet to be born and so the OT Saints had to await a Promise and God provided a means by which they could look forward in faith to a coming Savior and that included Sacraments of the Old Covenant (sacrifices, circumcision, etc) that sealed promises to them in a manner similar to the way they do for us. But our position is so much better not because we're better but because Jesus actually came, died, rose, and is ASCENDED!!!

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 2


----------



## Dachaser

Semper Fidelis said:


> I thought that what I noted would be uncontroversial and well understood by those who read Scripture and Reformed exegetical and theological commentaries.
> 
> These three statements are all completely true:
> 
> 1. The only way that any man or woman has been saved after the Fall is by the Covenant of Grace.
> 2. The one and only Mediator of the Covenant of Grace is the Lord Jesus Christ.
> 
> So far we have two statements that are *not* dispensational and anyone who has a passing familiarity with theology will recognize these as summaries of what the Westminster Confession of Faith and every Reformed Confession teaches.
> 
> Let me add a third true statement:
> 
> 3. Jesus Chris is fully God an fully Man.
> 
> Let me unpack this a bit. The Son of God is fully God and is God from all eternity. The Son of God took on human flesh not from all eternity but about 2022ish years ago. He had a mother who was overshadowed by the Holy Spirit and He was born in a manger in Bethlehem.
> 
> Prior to that historical event, Jesus Christ as man did not exist. The infinite and eternal took on real human flesh and lived in history. The One Person (the Son of God) took on a human nature so that the Son of God was now both God and Man. The Man was called Jesus Christ.
> 
> I'm saying this in a very basic way because this is basic Christian orthodoxy. As much as people are warning Bruce about dispensationalism (and don't seem to understand the terms they are using) there is a real danger in a denial of the basic orthodoxy of Jesus Christ as mean a man in time. Our Confession states that Jesus Christ, the God-man is the one mediator between God and man.
> 
> It is not inconsequential to salvation-history that the Incarnation occurred. For all our acknowledgment that the OT Saints were saved by the same God under the CoG (and not different Covenants) it is still true that AT SOME POINT Christ had to come into the world to be the Mediator by which the CoG would have its Mediator.
> 
> There IS NO MEDIATOR OF THE COVENANT OF GRACE IF Christ DID NOT BECOME MAN. This statement, in part, is more Christian than it is Reformed. The reason why the Council at Chalcedon called any division, mixture, or confusion of Christ's natures a heresy was the insistence that the One Person had to be both God and Man. That which was not assumed was not healed. Christ couldn't be a God who appeared to be a man. Christ couldn't have just had a divine mind with a human body. The Son of God and Christ weren't two different people. Christ wasn't a hybrid semi-God semi-man.
> 
> It really did matter that Christ obeyed all righteousness. It mattered that He fulfilled prophecy. It mattered that He was baptized and was driven into the desert. It mattered that He was crucified, died, was buried, and rose again on the third day. These things mattered historically and redemptively. They hadn't occurred "theoretically" or "really" for the OT Saints who anticipated them. They were awaiting them.
> 
> Oh, and let's not forget, IT REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY, REALLY matters that Christ ascended on high and sits at the Right Hand of God as a glorified man. That's right, Jesus the Man sits as our Mediator - Prophet, Priest, and King. We're comforted that this Jesus intercedes for us, He defeats our enemies, H sends His Spirit, we're united to Him.
> 
> As much as Enoch, Abraham, Moses, David, Elijah and every other OT Saint that came before us had they DID NOT HAVE an already ascended Mediator on the throne. This they awaited.
> 
> I challenge anyone to call what I just wrote dispensational. It's different words but is essentially the point that Bruce has been patiently trying to make.
> 
> I also challenge anyone to produce any Reformed confession or writer who essentially writes anything different than the above. it doesn't exist. These ideas aren't matters of perspective or debatable. They're very basic to the progression of the Covenant of Grace.
> 
> Please read through the Westminster Confession of Faith about the Covenant and the Mediator and you'll see these basic truths.
> 
> Don't forget - nobody is saying that Jesus Christ is not the Mediator and Savior of everyone who ever existed. The issue is that there was a time when Jesus Christ had yet to be born and so the OT Saints had to await a Promise and God provided a means by which they could look forward in faith to a coming Savior and that included Sacraments of the Old Covenant (sacrifices, circumcision, etc) that sealed promises to them in a manner similar to the way they do for us. But our position is so much better not because we're better but because Jesus actually came, died, rose, and is ASCENDED!!!


If Jesus had not yet came in the flesh as the promised Messiah, we would still all be under the inferior OC relationship with God.


----------



## a mere housewife

Wasn't going to tangle myself up in this one but Lynnie and I have been writing a bit about it. This sort of clarified the different perspectives for me in a helpful way, and she encouraged me to post (if I say something inadequately, feel free to paste it back at me fixed!):

I think what Lynnie and some others are emphasising helps to understand how OT believers who had waited and prayed for Jesus (like Anna and Simeon, and John the Baptist) were able to recognize Jesus when He came. Many people in that time believed because of their testimony, and because of Jesus’ words and signs. And that belief in Jesus was just a continuation of the faith with which they’d always embraced God in their temple worship, waiting for their salvation. In the experience of the union with God which they had by faith, they *recognised* Jesus when He came, as the One for whom they'd waited. I completely agree about all of this.

But they did not recognise what Jesus had come to do, or what He was doing when He did it. Even though all the sacrifices and prophecies pointed towards His atoning death -- and even though Jesus told the disciples He was going to die -- they kept expecting some other kind of victory, and were baffled and scattered by His death. He had to rise again and show them from the Scriptures how it had been foretold before they really understood. John the Baptist could say, ‘Behold, the lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!’ -- but even John the Baptist got confused and started doubting that Jesus was really the One to come, when events happened differently than he expected. I think this *lack of recognition* in their faith, and our clarity now, is what Pastor Buchanan, Rich, and others are expanding on and explaining more about. It's not that our faith is stronger, or that their faith did not unite them to the same Mediator. But the events themselves, and Jesus actually coming, made everything so much more full and clear.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## lynnie

Rich- that was well put together. 

I was reading sources that say they ( OT) had a relationship by the Holy Spirit and by faith with the eternal word, as we do, before He incarnated. Even as Heidi points out, they had faith and worship and union with something that when it came in the flesh they immediately recognized, because all along they had been in praying to it, aware of it, worshipping it. Not mentally understood like we do, veiled, obscured, but still there. One salvation, old and new. One mediator. I thought Bruce was kind of fuzzy about the OT mediators...but that's just my take, and I can get real fuzzy myself. 

Having had time all day to think about it even if I couldn't read anything, I keep going back to what Grant posted a while ago. The original question and original main point was what does it mean to have the law written on our hearts and minds. Why does Hebrews say that. What is new, if their salvation in the OT was also by grace through faith.

Grant pointed out that Adam in the garden in his state of sinless innocence had the law written on his heart. Nobody else after the fall ever had that same sort of heart and mind on which God wrote His laws and nothing else was needed. And now we have a second Adam.

I think after all this discussion, for me, this is the best and only answer to what is really new, if they could be saved and have union and worship of the second person before the incarnation. Obviously the work of Christ as a man is all new, and the types and shadows ended. But it is only when he did what Adam failed to do and became the second Adam, that we could go back to Adam. 

The OT saints could never be the second Adam until the work of the second Adam happened. That is why Hebrews talks about the law written on our hearts as coming to us now, being new, because it is a reference to Adam and the second Adam. Anyway, that's my thinking after all this discussion. 

Thanks to all. Wonderful things to mediate on in all these posts.


----------



## Dachaser

lynnie said:


> Rich- that was well put together.
> 
> I was reading sources that say they ( OT) had a relationship by the Holy Spirit and by faith with the eternal word, as we do, before He incarnated. Even as Heidi points out, they had faith and worship and union with something that when it came in the flesh they immediately recognized, because all along they had been in praying to it, aware of it, worshipping it. Not mentally understood like we do, veiled, obscured, but still there. One salvation, old and new. One mediator. I thought Bruce was kind of fuzzy about the OT mediators...but that's just my take, and I can get real fuzzy myself.
> 
> Having had time all day to think about it even if I couldn't read anything, I keep going back to what Grant posted a while ago. The original question and original main point was what does it mean to have the law written on our hearts and minds. Why does Hebrews say that. What is new, if their salvation in the OT was also by grace through faith.
> 
> Grant pointed out that Adam in the garden in his state of sinless innocence had the law written on his heart. Nobody else after the fall ever had that same sort of heart and mind on which God wrote His laws and nothing else was needed. And now we have a second Adam.
> 
> I think after all this discussion, for me, this is the best and only answer to what is really new, if they could be saved and have union and worship of the second person before the incarnation. Obviously the work of Christ as a man is all new, and the types and shadows ended. But it is only when he did what Adam failed to do and became the second Adam, that we could go back to Adam.
> 
> The OT saints could never be the second Adam until the work of the second Adam happened. That is why Hebrews talks about the law written on our hearts as coming to us now, being new, because it is a reference to Adam and the second Adam. Anyway, that's my thinking after all this discussion.
> 
> Thanks to all. Wonderful things to mediate on in all these posts.


Jeremiah 31was future to those under the OC, as awaited the coming Messiah to be set up.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I'm not sure I think Bruce was fuzzy. I rather appreciate the clarity with which he writes and often wish I had that capacity.

I take one of his main points to underline the fact that the Mediation of Christ was something fruture. Hebrews makes the point that the blood of bulls and goats could not really deal with sins and with the consciences of the worshippers. One could point out that as far back as Adam and Eve the only reason why they did not immediately receive the full wrath of God is that the Curse upon all of God's elect was held back in its fury until Christ received it. It certainly wasn't satisfied with animal sacrifices.

That said, the point of those mediatoral "stand-ins" for Christ was not mere pantomime. When Moses interceded for the people, when the High Priest made the sacrifice, God was not just asking them to go through the motions. They were imperfect types for Christ and so their mediation was effective insofar as God accepted their mediatorial prayers, sacrifices, etc which ultimately found their full satisfaction in Christ. That's the point he was making. 

Hebrews says much more about the excellency of Christ than simply that the law is written on our hearts. It really underlines this theme of a notion of partial revelation, imperfect mediators in the forms of kings and priests and then asks how they can be compared to Him Who they signify and find their fulfillment. The reason why the Law is now written on our hearts is due to the Spirit's work Who is sent by the Father and the Son.

I do want to say that I appreciate to a great degree the desire to make sure that we preserve the notion that OT Saints participated in the CoG. Much is made (especially by Baptists) that the Old Covenant is not under the CoG. It actually does demand a pantomime of sorts that everything that God instituted doesn't relate to the Mediation of Christ and creates a disjuncture between shadow and fulfillment because the offices and sacraments of the OT are somehow seen as being something other the the CoG. The better way to understand it is to recognize the real but imperfect types that preceded Christ but nevertheless anticipated Christ in the way that God saved His people and signified the promise of salvation to His people.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Scott Bushey

lynnie said:


> The OT saints could never be the second Adam until the work of the second Adam happened. That is why Hebrews talks about the law written on our hearts as coming to us now, being new, because it is a reference to Adam and the second Adam.



I'm confused to what u write, Lynnie. Was the gospel different before Christ actually lived? Was the law not written on the heart of Adam?


----------



## lynnie

As I understand Grant's interpretation of Hebrews 8, quoting Jer 31, yes, it was written on Adam's heart in his sinless innocence, and now we go back to the Garden by being in the second Adam. If that isn't new, then I don't understand what is new about the experience of salvation, which was by grace through faith and imputed because of the one mediator in both OT and NT. But the victorious second Adam who can eat of the tree of life is brand new, not renewed or replacing a type. Why, do you think Grant is wrong? Makes sense to me, but open to your thoughts.


----------



## Smeagol

lynnie said:


> Rich- that was well put together.
> 
> I was reading sources that say they ( OT) had a relationship by the Holy Spirit and by faith with the eternal word, as we do, before He incarnated. Even as Heidi points out, they had faith and worship and union with something that when it came in the flesh they immediately recognized, because all along they had been in praying to it, aware of it, worshipping it. Not mentally understood like we do, veiled, obscured, but still there. One salvation, old and new. One mediator. I thought Bruce was kind of fuzzy about the OT mediators...but that's just my take, and I can get real fuzzy myself.
> 
> Having had time all day to think about it even if I couldn't read anything, I keep going back to what Grant posted a while ago. The original question and original main point was what does it mean to have the law written on our hearts and minds. Why does Hebrews say that. What is new, if their salvation in the OT was also by grace through faith.
> 
> Grant pointed out that Adam in the garden in his state of sinless innocence had the law written on his heart. Nobody else after the fall ever had that same sort of heart and mind on which God wrote His laws and nothing else was needed. And now we have a second Adam.
> 
> I think after all this discussion, for me, this is the best and only answer to what is really new, if they could be saved and have union and worship of the second person before the incarnation. Obviously the work of Christ as a man is all new, and the types and shadows ended. But it is only when he did what Adam failed to do and became the second Adam, that we could go back to Adam.
> 
> The OT saints could never be the second Adam until the work of the second Adam happened. That is why Hebrews talks about the law written on our hearts as coming to us now, being new, because it is a reference to Adam and the second Adam. Anyway, that's my thinking after all this discussion.
> 
> Thanks to all. Wonderful things to mediate on in all these posts.





lynnie said:


> As I understand Grant's interpretation of Hebrews 8, quoting Jer 31, yes, it was written on Adam's heart in his sinless innocence, and now we go back to the Garden by being in the second Adam. If that isn't new, then I don't understand what is new about the experience of salvation, which was by grace through faith and imputed because of the one mediator in both OT and NT. But the victorious second Adam who can eat of the tree of life is brand new, not renewed or replacing a type. Why, do you think Grant is wrong? Makes sense to me, but open to your thoughts.


I am not sure I would Word it the same exact way; however, I do stick to my original wording. Again I think Gill says it best:

*Taken from John Gill’s Hebrews 8 Commentary:
“*I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts;
by the laws of God are meant not the precepts of the ceremonial law, which were now abrogated, but either the moral law, and its commands; which is a transcript of the divine nature, was inscribed on Adam's heart in innocence, and some remains of it are even in the Gentiles, but greatly obliterated through the sin of man; and there is in men naturally a contrary disposition to it; in regeneration it is reinscribed by the Spirit of God; and great respect is had to it by regenerate persons, in which lies one part of their conformity to Christ: or else, since the word "law" signifies sometimes no other than a doctrine, an instruction, the doctrines of grace, of repentance towards God, of faith in Christ, and love to him, and every other doctrine may be intended; and the tables where, according to the tenor of this covenant, these are put and written, are two tables, as before, the "mind" and "heart"; but not two tables of stone, on which the law of Moses was written, partly that it might not be lost, through defect of memory, and partly to denote the firmness and stability of it, as also to point at the hardness of man's heart; but the fleshly tables of the heart; not that part of our flesh that is called the heart; but the souls of men, such hearts as are regenerated and sanctified by the Spirit of God, and such minds as are renewed by him: and the "putting" of them into the mind, designs the knowledge of them, which God gives; as of the moral law, of its spirituality and perfection, showing that there is no life and righteousness by it, that it is fulfilled by Christ, and is a rule of conversation to the saints; and of all other laws, ordinances, and doctrines of Christ: and the "writing" them in, or on the heart, intends a filling the soul with love and affection to them, so that it regards them singly and heartily; and a powerful inclination of the heart to be subject to them, through the efficacious grace of God; and which is done not with the ink of nature's power, but with the Spirit of the living God, ( 2 Corinthians 3:3 ) .”

P.S. Me thinks it’s time to let this thread die

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Grant Jones said:


> I am not sure I would Word it the same exact way; however, I do stick to my original wording. Again I think Gill says it best:
> 
> *Taken from John Gill’s Hebrews 8 Commentary:
> “*I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts;
> by the laws of God are meant not the precepts of the ceremonial law, which were now abrogated, but either the moral law, and its commands; which is a transcript of the divine nature, was inscribed on Adam's heart in innocence, and some remains of it are even in the Gentiles, but greatly obliterated through the sin of man; and there is in men naturally a contrary disposition to it; in regeneration it is reinscribed by the Spirit of God; and great respect is had to it by regenerate persons, in which lies one part of their conformity to Christ: or else, since the word "law" signifies sometimes no other than a doctrine, an instruction, the doctrines of grace, of repentance towards God, of faith in Christ, and love to him, and every other doctrine may be intended; and the tables where, according to the tenor of this covenant, these are put and written, are two tables, as before, the "mind" and "heart"; but not two tables of stone, on which the law of Moses was written, partly that it might not be lost, through defect of memory, and partly to denote the firmness and stability of it, as also to point at the hardness of man's heart; but the fleshly tables of the heart; not that part of our flesh that is called the heart; but the souls of men, such hearts as are regenerated and sanctified by the Spirit of God, and such minds as are renewed by him: and the "putting" of them into the mind, designs the knowledge of them, which God gives; as of the moral law, of its spirituality and perfection, showing that there is no life and righteousness by it, that it is fulfilled by Christ, and is a rule of conversation to the saints; and of all other laws, ordinances, and doctrines of Christ: and the "writing" them in, or on the heart, intends a filling the soul with love and affection to them, so that it regards them singly and heartily; and a powerful inclination of the heart to be subject to them, through the efficacious grace of God; and which is done not with the ink of nature's power, but with the Spirit of the living God, ( 2 Corinthians 3:3 ) .”
> 
> P.S. Me thinks it’s time to let this thread die


This seems to be the real dividing line between RB and Other Reformed, just how new Is the NC?


----------



## Smeagol

Dachaser said:


> This seems to be the real dividing line between RB and Other Reformed, just how new Is the NC?






P.S. The portion I quote from Gill should not be a dividing line between anyone trying to hold the label “reformed” whether Baptist or Presbyterian. I think the OP has been well addressed at this point. Let’s give @lynnie a breather from rabbit trails unless you want to specifically answer her OP regarding writing on hearts.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Dachaser

Grant Jones said:


> View attachment 6324
> 
> P.S. The portion I quote from Gill should not be a dividing line between anyone trying to hold the label “reformed” whether Baptist or Presbyterian. I think the OP has been well addressed at this point. Let’s give @lynnie a breather from rabbit trails unless you want to specifically answer her OP regarding writing on hearts.


Gill seems to be saying that through Jesus keeping the Law for us, now God is able to place that into us by the new nature in Christ, correct?


----------



## Scott Bushey

lynnie said:


> ...and now we go back to the Garden by being in the second Adam. If that isn't new, then I don't understand what is new about the experience of salvation, which was by grace through faith and imputed because of the one mediator in both OT and NT. But the victorious second Adam who can eat of the tree of life is brand new, not renewed or replacing a type. Why, do you think Grant is wrong? Makes sense to me, but open to your thoughts.



Got it. Agreed!

Reactions: Like 1


----------

